Where Do We Go From Here & My Roundabout Naivety
If you aren’t already aware of the vote that denied funding for the planned roundabouts at 50th & 52nd & Farnam Streets, please check out these articles from local newspapers The Reader and The Omaha World Herald. While this post will discuss some things that happened in the past, it is not a rehash of the past several years or of the City Council meeting; it’s a post about what went wrong and how we move forward.
As a quick aside, while I am - as you will see below - disappointed and concerned with the way the Council voted, overall, I have had stellar experiences with most of the Council and appreciate their hard work and dedication. And if anyone feels they were misrepresented in this post, I am all for hearing their side or reading their comments!
A BIT ABOUT THE PAST
As a resident of the neighborhood that will be impacted by any changes to Farnam Street, we have spent years asking questions about traffic in this area. The Dundee-Memorial Park Neighborhood Association dedicated themselves for several years to try and alter Farnam to two-way all-day, and we were proponents of that change. The day we read, on 05 August 2021, that Farnam Street would be two-way all day was a celebratory day in our home. In looking back at this article tho, you’ll notice that the representative from Public Works said specifically that the traffic study was not yet complete and that the intersections would need safety improvements, such as possibly roundabouts. So roundabouts have been a possible part of the plan for years, and the public was made aware of this.
HOW SOS & VISION ZERO FIT IN
In my role with Safe Omaha Streets, I am a member of the Vision Zero Technical Advisory Committee, which is tasked with supporting the development of the Vision Zero Action Plan. Because roundabouts are a proven safety measure, they are also a popular Vision Zero strategy. In fact, many cities, like Lincoln, have some variation of a roundabout-first policy when it comes to designing intersections. Roundabouts are the most effective strategy to reduce intersection crashes and are documented to be safe for pedestrians
VISION ZERO & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Also in my role on the Vision Zero TAC, I am constantly belaboring the fact that we need improved transparency, communication, and public engagement between residents and the City. Because of this focus of mine, once I saw both the Neighborhood association’s open letter to Councilpersons Festersen and Begley, and the petition against the roundabouts, I reached out to association leaders and city representatives to find out more about the process.
From all my conversations and emails with the city and two leaders of the Neighborhood Association, I’d say they all believe they did a responsible job regarding this situation. Representatives from the city and the association explained there were multiple meetings held about Farnam Street. However, when a proven safety measure is voted down, then there is a gap somewhere, and we need to figure out how to address it before future Vision Zero strategies receive opposition.
CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Beyond my frustration that I believe the Neighborhood Association presented misinformation to the neighbors, my main concern is with Omaha City Council, as they were the ones who ultimately voted down a responsible, safe, and well-designed project. While more than one councilmember wanted to put the resolution on file and thus delay it until they received more information, Councilperson Begley did not agree to amend his vote and the other members respected that. Thus instead of being laid over, the decision to deny funding for the design and construction of the roundabouts was the final decision.
Most of the issues that opponents raised, such as access for emergency vehicles, access for snowplows, and access for disabled persons, were addressed at the meeting by city representatives. It was confirmed at the meeting that the roundabouts would allow safe access for emergency vehicles, snowplows, and residents with disabilities.
The main issue from the opponents was safety, specifically for children and other pedestrians. One thing that I don’t think was mentioned at the meeting was that school children still have safe and easy access across Farnam Street at 51st Street. That location also has an existing pedestrian signal crossing that would remain even with the addition of the roundabouts to the east and west. At this location, 51st is also on the route of a safe underpass under Dodge and a school route to Dundee Elementary.
Additionally, pedestrian safety can be built into roundabouts as the roundabout crosswalks are not IN the roundabout but are located on the approaching narrowed roads into/out-of the roundabout. This was an aspect of roundabout design that was clarified on the City’s roundabout drawings (see below) and something I clarified with a city council member as well.
Many other safety measures can be layered with roundabouts to ensure pedestrian safety, such as signage or lighting like flashing beacons. This was also something that I communicated to the City Council in our support letter, and something that could have continued to be addressed had the council laid it over.
WHY DIDN’T SOS ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING?
Why wasn’t SOS at the meeting? For many reasons, but the main reason is naivety. We thought the City Council had all the information they needed to make a sound and responsible decision.
We sent a letter supporting the roundabouts to the city council.
We also saw that Mode Shift Omaha, the longtime and successful multi-modal transportation advocacy group expressed their support of the roundabouts and asked their members to send in their support as well.
I knew of other neighbors who emailed the city council about their support.
One interesting thing to note is that while the Neighborhood Association’s letter in opposition to the project was listed on the City Council’s agenda for the roundabout item, there were no letters of support listed, even tho letters of support were sent. I reached out to the city council to ask why only letters in opposition are listed and not letters in support, and this was Councilperson Festersen’s helpful and new-information-to-me reply:
Myself, and others, naively believed that the city council had all the information they needed to make the responsible decision. It did not occur to me that the city council would place more weight on the want and opinions of the public than on the data and knowledge of the experts.
Again, had the proposal been laid over, I understand this would have given the city another chance to address the neighbors’ safety concerns. But instead, the other council members decided to respect Councilperson Begley’s desire to deny because he is, in fact the representative of the area where the roundabouts would have been built.
TO ATTEND OR NOT ATTEND
At the Vision Zero meeting that was held the day after the City Council denied the funding for the roundabouts, it was brought up by many folks that it’s the people in attendance, not the people who email, who can make all the difference. It is unfortunate that being in person carries more weight than a well-worded, evidence-based email or letter. And, who knows, this could just bust open another naïve blindspot for me because maybe testifying in person technically and legally holds more weight than just an email or letter. If this is the case, you know we will write a blog post about it!
One problem with expecting people to always show up at public meetings instead of sending a letter or email is that it’s just not possible for everyone. There are many people who cannot tell their employers or their kids that they are leaving early to go to a meeting that starts at 2 pm and may not get over until 7 pm. (As another aside, I do have mad respect for anyone in public office because I would not have their patience or their time to do what they do for the public.)
WHAT CAN WE DO GOING FORWARD?
Since my major concern was with City Council, I emailed them to ask their thoughts on what could have been handled differently to prevent safe projects like the Farnam roundabouts from being denied in the future. See the email below:
To clarify the email above, it is my understanding that council did meet with PW, as I was told later. It was only sent two days ago, and I have not received a reply, but if/when I receive a response, I will update this post accordingly.
When both sides think they’ve done all they can to either communicate or advocate, then how do we move forward?
And how do we ensure our elected officials have all the information they need? I can’t answer the latter until I receive a reply to my April 4th email.
Some suggestions (and, keep in mind, some of these strategies may have been implemented and I’m just not aware of them)
Once a project is known to be controversial, the city could provide clear and easy-to-understand counterpoints to the opponents, including clear visuals and similar success stories. One potential issue with this is that if this information is provided to leaders who don’t then distribute it to others, then it lessens the effectiveness of any communication or counterpoints.
Once a project is known to be controversial, the City Council could reach out to city staff for more information and/or lay over a decision until all their concerns are addressed.
Maybe the Vision Zero Coordinator or a Vision Zero advisory committee could write an open letter with counterpoints to whichever Neighborhood Association/Group opposes the project - including success stories from other areas in town or other cities.
Develop a “public engagement” or “public involvement” plan specific to any projects that incorporate Vision Zero measures specifically. The City already includes numerous safety measures in its designs, but maybe the Vision Zero plan can offer a structured public engagement plan specific to Vision Zero projects.
Consider a program like the Let’s Talk Streets program in Madison, Wisconsin.
Present information to the public in as easy-to-understand, sound-bite format as possible.
Increased in-person support and advocacy at City Council meetings by residents and advocacy groups
Request any letters of support or in opposition be included in the agenda materials (see Festersen email from earlier)
Get clever and if a lot of folks can’t support in person, put together a quick clip video of support from a variety of residents, advocates, or leaders.
Now that the Vision Zero Action Plan is closer to being finished, we absolutely need to figure out how to ensure safe and well-designed projects go forward in the future.
We need more education.
We need more in-person dialog.
We may even need more listening.
We need to combat misinformation.
We need to be assured our elected officials have all the best information they need to make sound decisions, and then critically assess what happened when the process goes awry.
What ideas do you have for increased communication between the city, elected officials, and residents?
What ideas do you have for improved outreach and education from the city, advocacy groups, etc?
Lastly, the most unfortunate outcome of this whole experience is that Farnam will now remain one-way twice-a-day for the foreseeable future. We are on the edge of our seats to see what happens next!
[I am not a trained journalist, yet I commit to being as objective and accurate as possible, but I’m human and do mess up at times, so if anything in here is found to be misleading or inaccurate, please let me know.]