Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[TakeFive]

Transportation Addendum on how it relates to Phoenix.

In response to my lack of knowledge inquiry, EngiNerd indicated that the West Line (in this case) was a drainage infrastructure project masquerading as a transit line and that the costs would indeed be covered by the transit budget (in Denver).

With respect to drainage (or W&S etc.) the system capacity was likely planned and built a long, long time ago and never anticipated the growth that has occurred. Or they had to conform to budget limitations at the time of construction. This is what makes transit projects (for example) so expensive. Might as well assess what's underneath and do any upgrades at the same time.

Thinking of how Phoenix is laid out it seems like 7th Street might be a good candidate for a complete rebuild and for accommodating BRT style buses (or LRT). From downtown, even if the "street rebuild" started north of I-10. It could initially run up to Northern. Extensions to Bell Road or along Cave Creek/Cactus could be future options. In fact transit choices could be combined. LRT up to Northern and BRT from there for example.

If as much as a third of costs are for "other" infrastructure upgrades the value of the Feds kicking in 40% or more is magnified.

[TakeFive]

Taz Loomans articulates it much better than I can HERE (http://fireflyliving.com/2014/06/20/12-ways-to-slow-down-traffic-in-a-car-oriented-city/).
The arterial roads in Phoenix, for example, are on average about the size of highways in other parts of the country and the world. Sometimes an arterial in Phoenix is 7 lanes wide, with three lanes going either way and a middle turn lane. This ample room for cars ensures that cars move along the roads very fast.

Sounds good right? Well, not if you want your city to be people-oriented instead of car-oriented... A people-oriented city, on the other hand, is about creating spaces for people to walk, bike, stand, sit and gather in the public in ways that are safe and enjoyable.
I wasn't, admittedly familiar with Taz as I'm sure others are. But I caught up to her on her way out of town HERE (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-01-31/culture/unremarkable-phoenix-loses-another-creative-force/full/#livefyre).

[ljbuild]

The Feds. finally approved plans for the south mountain freeway

that has been on the drawing board for Decades, LONG BEFORE

AHAWATUCKEE. Early next year is when the bulldozers will be in action to

build this project. IT will open to traffic in 2020 or possibly earlier.

This will be a hell of a bypass going to the west side from Chandler, Queen

Creek, or more so vise versa. :cheers:

[mdpx]

The Feds. finally approved plans for the south mountain freeway

that has been on the drawing board for Decades, LONG BEFORE

AHAWATUCKEE. Early next year is when the bulldozers will be in action to

build this project. IT will open to traffic in 2020 or possibly earlier.

This will be a hell of a bypass going to the west side from Chandler, Queen

Creek, or more so vise versa. :cheers:

my eyes, my eyes!!!! :cool:

[Leo the Dog]

Taz Loomans articulates it much better than I can HERE (http://fireflyliving.com/2014/06/20/12-ways-to-slow-down-traffic-in-a-car-oriented-city/).

I wasn't, admittedly familiar with Taz as I'm sure others are. But I caught up to her on her way out of town HERE (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-01-31/culture/unremarkable-phoenix-loses-another-creative-force/full/#livefyre).

Regarding Phoenix's overly large arterial road network; I see great potential for road diets and city beautification projects, such as, tree lined boulevards for miles.

Some of these arterials no longer need the capacity anymore with the completion of the freeway network and could easily install dedicated BRT lanes in the median separated from traffic. IE: the 7s for N/S mobility.

[HooverDam]

Regarding Phoenix's overly large arterial road network; I see great potential for road diets and city beautification projects, such as, tree lined boulevards for miles.

Some of these arterials no longer need the capacity anymore with the completion of the freeway network and could easily install dedicated BRT lanes in the median separated from traffic. IE: the 7s for N/S mobility.

Agreed. Thats the way I see it too!

[Obadno]

(Some) people hesitate to locate in places on the edges because there is a limit to the commute that they will tolerate. If you make it easier to commute from those places you make them more attractive. Buckeye had about 50,000 people in the 2010 census. The Buckeye Chamber of Commerce says



So much for your 75% built notion. The South Mountain Freeway would enable that sort of craziness. If that isn't sprawl, I don't know what is.

Go look up the wildly speculative land that Buckeye gobbled up in the Hasseyampa valley. It is nearly the same land area of Phoenix (which is where they get the million residents number.

There is enough land for 1 million people but no way are a million people going to live there. Maybe in like 60 years it will become like riverside is to LA but I doubt it.

[pbenjamin]

Go look up the wildly speculative land that Buckeye gobbled up in the Hasseyampa valley. It is nearly the same land area of Phoenix (which is where they get the million residents number.

There is enough land for 1 million people but no way are a million people going to live there. Maybe in like 60 years it will become like riverside is to LA but I doubt it.

The point is not whether or not Buckeye's pipedream is feasible. There is plenty of land for a lot more sprawl, some of which will happen and building the SMF just creates more of it.

[TakeFive]

"Three groups vie for $1.9B Loop 202 South Mountain freeway project"
Mar 20, 2015 by Eric Jay Toll, Phoenix Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/03/20/three-groups-vie-for-1-9b-loop-202-south-mountain.html)
Three public-private partnership groups have been short-listed by Arizona Department of Transportation for the contract to design, build and maintain the 22-mile final leg of Loop 202.

A final request for proposals will be distributed to the three groups this spring, ADOT said, and the contract for the freeway will be issued by the end of the year. The project will take four years to complete.
This state's government continues to not only support sprawl but encourage it. They are currently considering bills that would preclude cities from doing certain things, some which would be deemed "urban friendly." Talk about over-controlling, condescending, manipulative "parents."

The City of Phoenix just needs to do what it can to promote an attractive urban environment.

[exit2lef]

[SIZE="3"]

This state's government continues to not only support sprawl but encourage it. They are currently considering bills that would preclude cities from doing certain things, some which would be deemed "urban friendly." Talk about over-controlling, condescending, manipulative "parents."

The City of Phoenix just needs to do what it can to promote an attractive urban environment.

That's part of a nationwide trend in red states called "pre-emption." Basically, the same state legislators who complain about federal interference then take away rights from municipal governments. The NY Times had a good story about it recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/govern-yourselves-state-lawmakers-tell-cities-but-not-too-much.html

[TakeFive]

That's part of a nationwide trend in red states called "pre-emption." Basically, the same state legislators who complain about federal interference then take away rights from municipal governments. The NY Times had a good story about it recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/govern-yourselves-state-lawmakers-tell-cities-but-not-too-much.html
Thanks. That's a good read.

I shouldn't be surprised; I'm not surprised; I just hadn't connected the dots. I haven't followed "that stuff" as much the last few years.

[Buckeye Native 001]

That's part of a nationwide trend in red states called "pre-emption." Basically, the same state legislators who complain about federal interference then take away rights from municipal governments. The NY Times had a good story about it recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/govern-yourselves-state-lawmakers-tell-cities-but-not-too-much.html

Case in point: Tempe and Flagstaff city councils are considering implementing plastic bag restrictions. Yesterday (I forget the bill number), but the state legislature presented a bill that would deny municipalities the ability to male such decisions.

[exit2lef]

Case in point: Tempe and Flagstaff city councils are considering implementing plastic bag restrictions. Yesterday (I forget the bill number), but the state legislature presented a bill that would deny municipalities the ability to male such decisions.

Exactly, bills are in play this session that would preempt efforts by cities to ban plastic bags, to require developers to replace some affordable housing removed by their projects, and to dictate appropriate vegetation and shade. It's all done in the name of "freedom" and "liberty," but it's often business interests that are really at work.

[pbenjamin]

Exactly, bills are in play this session that would preempt efforts by cities to ban plastic bags, to require developers to replace some affordable housing removed by their projects, and to dictate appropriate vegetation and shade. It's all done in the name of "freedom" and "liberty," but it's often business interests that are really at work.

These are the same morons who scream "overreach" whenever the feds tell THEM what to do.

[Buckeye Native 001]

As an aside, its insane how much the budget is balanced on the backs of counties (rural ones in particular, one of which I'm a resident and employee). We haven't received designated HURF funding (has anyone whose supposed to get it from the state seen a dime of it in the past six or seven years?) since the recession and both my city and county had to pass tax increases last year just to get our awful roads fixed and maintained.

One of these days, the DOJ is going to have to step in and start investigating the corruption and cronyism taking place in the state's legislative chambers and the Executive Tower. I thought we might have reached our breaking point last year before the gubernatorial election, but apparently nobody bothered to vote.

[TakeFive]

First Things First

Looking at me map; why not start with a "green streets" rebuild on Indian School from 19th Ave. to 16th St. that would include low floor BRT style buses along landscaped medians with curb parking along landscaped sidewalks. You'd only need a few buses.

The simple goal would be to get investment moving south of Camelback (towards downtown) spurred by an attractive street with transit access. If it works you could do the same with Thomas.

[TakeFive]

Tell me about it. A big problem with initiatives like complete streets is that it's so new that most people in the design field have very little experience to understand what works and what doesn't work in certain application. A complete street is not an exact science at all, and I think that when certain folks within a city's government see it done one way, they assume that THE way it needs to be done for their city without opening the door to other possibilities. That's how you end up with something like 1st St.

And the huge wrench that gets thrown into the complete streets cog on every single project is right-of-way cost, which is why you end up with situations like you mentioned earlier where businesses seemingly control the public right-of-way. Complete streets are awesome, and awfully expensive. For a city like Phoenix that did not plan to have the need for complete streets from the beginning and may or may not even justify the need currently or in the future, it's a difficult proposition to get the council to jump on board with spending boatloads of money on projects that may or may not be necessary in a developing field.
Reading your comment suggested that another comment posted earlier today on the Denver thread was relevant.
A Case Study in Flawed Street Design: The New Urbanist neighborhood of Stapleton, Colorado, suffers from compromised planning standards. (http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/04/a-case-study-in-flawed-street-design/389291/)
Originally Posted by CityLab
You might think Stapleton would be immune to stunts that call attention to car-first street design. It was, after all, envisioned as a New Urbanist neighborhood that emphasized compact development and alternative transportation. But the area undermined its planning ideals in the face of conventional traffic standards, says civil engineer Wesley Marshall of the University of Colorado at Denver, and the result has been an unfortunate case study in the hazards of design compromise.

"You don't want to look at a case like Stapleton and say New Urbanism is a failure, because it isn't really quite New Urbanism," says Marshall, who not only studies Stapleton but lives there with his family. "In terms of the architecture and a lot of that stuff, it looks the part. But it doesn't function that way. And a lot of the reasons it doesn't function that way are specifically transportation related."
Article was by Eric Jaffe and dated April 1st.

[TakeFive]

It's time to change the rules.

By the end of 2020 ADOT will have completed the new South Mountain Freeway of 8 shiny new lances. This also completes the original (freeway) vision from 1985 when it all started IIRC.

Regional interests should ask the voters to redirect half of the 5/10ths percent sales tax to transit projects when the new freeway is completed. Alternatively, Phoenix, Glendale and Peoria could cooperatively take the proposal to their own voters. Specific proposed projects should be presented to voters of course even if changeable.

I'll assume that at a minimum Glendale and Peoria along with Phoenix would see the need and benefits. This would give Phoenix additional revenue for both projects that should be done on their own dime as well as mutual interest projects among cities.

[Prestige Worldwide]

It's time to change the rules.

By the end of 2020 ADOT will have completed the new South Mountain Freeway of 8 shiny new lances. This also completes the original (freeway) vision from 1985 when it all started IIRC.

Regional interests should ask the voters to redirect half of the 5/10ths percent sales tax to transit projects when the new freeway is completed. Alternatively, Phoenix, Glendale and Peoria could cooperatively take the proposal to their own voters. Specific proposed projects should be presented to voters of course even if changeable.

I'll assume that at a minimum Glendale and Peoria along with Phoenix would see the need and benefits. This would give Phoenix additional revenue for both projects that should be done on their own dime as well as mutual interest projects among cities.

You're on the right path here. It's definitely time for Phoenix/Glendale/Tempe to seize upon the current share of Prop 400 $$$ that goes to new freeway construction. We simply don't require the same scale of new freeway construction and the aforementioned three cities certainly don't need anymore - they need more transit. Voters probably won't go for all that money being plowed into transit, so it will need to be balanced out with street maintenance. The current tax expires in 2025 I believe. I would predict a county-wide renewal will be put on the ballot in 2020. I also think that the Legislature needs to allow the County to bring the question to the voters, which is going to be problematic (the Legislature was trying to meddle with the Prop 400 amount for Transit, but Gov. Napolitano exerted some influence to get the Legislature to allow the County to ask for the current percentage).

[TakeFive]

Riding the train
high on... traveling?

PHX Sky Train Ridership up 30 percent (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/04/14/phx-sky-train-ridership-up-30-percent.html)
Apr 14, 2015 by Mike Sunnucks, Phoenix Business Journal
Ridership on the PHX Sky Train link between Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Metro light rail is up 30 percent since the shuttle was extended to Terminal 3.

[TakeFive]

You're on the right path here. It's definitely time for Phoenix/Glendale/Tempe to seize upon the current share of Prop 400 $$$ that goes to new freeway construction. We simply don't require the same scale of new freeway construction and the aforementioned three cities certainly don't need anymore - they need more transit. Voters probably won't go for all that money being plowed into transit, so it will need to be balanced out with street maintenance. The current tax expires in 2025 I believe. I would predict a county-wide renewal will be put on the ballot in 2020. I also think that the Legislature needs to allow the County to bring the question to the voters, which is going to be problematic (the Legislature was trying to meddle with the Prop 400 amount for Transit, but Gov. Napolitano exerted some influence to get the Legislature to allow the County to ask for the current percentage).

Perhaps the attitudes have changed over the years towards transit? That would seem to be the case.

I know it's not (anything) the same but metro Denver passed a 4/10ths percent sales tax to build out their Fastracks program. That's on top of the 6/10ths percent sales tax for annual operation of RTD.

It makes a big difference if you can get more regional cooperation (obviously). Perhaps by 2020 the cost of gas will be back up near $5 a gallon? Perhaps the whole county would consider some amount for establishing better bus service Valley wide?

[TakeFive]

Even with all those features, BRT often offers a less comfortable ride than LRT. I remember a business trip I made to Boston a few years ago. Upon arrival at Logan, MBTA signs directed me to the Silver Line as the best way to travel to my hotel. I boarded Boston's BRT expecting a quick, smooth ride into Downtown. Instead, it was as noisy and bumpy as any bus ride I've ever experienced and we wasted time with a stop while the bus switched between diesel and electric power.

Thanks for the review of Boston's BRT. The supporters of it seem to make quite a good sales pitch.
I happen to catch up to this dialogue on the Tempe thread.
Admittedly I have no personal experience with BRT.

Not having been to Kansas City in a looong time, I flew over today (via the interwebs). Amazing the urban energy there also which led to this (repost):

Get em while they're hot

https://cincystreetcar.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/1939497_469955786437655_489858205_n.jpg
Courtesy of https://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/


Who was the fellow that came up with "Buy America?" ;)

Not unlike Hyundai-Rotem commuter train cars which are assembled in Philadelphia (for Denver) - CAF which is a Spanish company is assembling their Urbos 3 Streetcar (http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/urbos/datos_tecnicos.php) in Elmira NY. Both Cincinnati and Kansas City will be using these on their new streetcar lines, coming soon.


While Denver is building a network of suburb to city lines it has its advantages and disadvantages. The metro area voters wanted it and that is what they are getting.

With Phoenix so much is different. The success of Metro Rail isn't from suburban riders but rather from urban riders. With the wide streets within the city it just seems like a great opportunity to connect neighborhoods with rebuilt streetscapes and some form of transit, at least partly.

With that in mind streetcars might be preferred to LRT. Denver's own monitor, Cirrus, on his own blog (http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=4564) makes this comparison between streetcars and buses.
Even compared to buses of exactly the same length, streetcars can support a higher passenger capacity. Since gliding along rails is so much more smooth than rumbling along asphalt, and since there’s no need for huge wheel wells, it’s more practical for streetcars to have a lot of open space that maximizes standing capacity.

[N830MH]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/04/21/glendale-consider-light-rail-transit-options/26129521/

A light-rail line connecting downtown Glendale with the existing Valley Metro system is more than a decade away but city officials are gearing up to pick the best alignment for the $543 million project.

[N830MH]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/04/21/west-valley-needs-get-light-rail-track/26143277/

The debate in Phoenix over a proposed transportation sales tax to provide $30 billion for light rail extension over a 35-year period has me thinking about the future of light rail in the West Valley.

What does that future look like? In a nutshell, it looks to me to be more or less zero, zip, nada.

[TakeFive]

Canamex - a new playground for Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJS8j9YYB9w)

"Jerry Colangelo talks up Interstate 11 with Carlos Slim" (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/04/29/jerry-colangelo-talks-up-interstate-11with-carlos.html)
Apr 29, 2015 by Eric Jay Toll, Phoenix Business Journal
The two Phoenix businessmen talked with Slim — the world’s second-richest man, according to Forbes— about what I-11 means economically for Mexico and the U.S. “Carlos didn’t know about I-11,” Colangelo said... “We saw this as an opportunity to put this important transportation plan in front of him.”
Achieving Interstate status for this could be hard given the current funding environment is struggling even to maintain the current system. But the designation doesn't cost anything and they may be hoping to secure the designation before Senator Harry Reid retires at the end of 2016. I'm sure his seniority is an asset.

Personally I'd rather see the money go into a commuter rail route for Phoenix but then nobody has asked me for my opinion.

[N830MH]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/04/29/look-light-rail-delivered-already/26586387/

MovePHX is an all-of-the-above transportation strategy that, if approved by Phoenix voters on Aug. 25, will increase overall bus service by 70 percent, make sure every street in the city gets a fresh coat of asphalt, and add about 40 miles of new light rail to the existing 20-mile line.

For a thriving, modern Phoenix that attracts the jobs of the future and connects our residents directly to them, vote yes on MovePHX, Proposition 104, this August.


Don't forget to vote yes on MovePHX. Please say YES.

[TakeFive]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/04/29/look-light-rail-delivered-already/26586387/

One click led to another click where Robert Robb, The Republic | azcentral.com (http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2015/04/14/light-rail-does-not-create-economic-growth/25792047/) April 14, 2015 made the counter argument:

What's true of Banner is true generally. Light rail doesn't create new economic activity.
Robb's "Banner" argument is silly. He must be totally oblivious to what is happening in other metro areas.

At most, it changes where that activity takes place.
Well, yeah, duh

In the first place, Phoenix already has one of the highest sales tax rates in the Valley. Phoenix's current rate is higher than that of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale and Tempe.
This point is legitimate; that's a concern and a good talking point for the opposition.

I would say that I'm used to voting on things that are much more specific so that I have a clear vision of how my tax dollars will be spent. This proposal goes there to a degree. It's for something I think is needed but it does leave a lot to the imagination which could be good or not.

[TakeFive]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/04/29/look-light-rail-delivered-already/26586387/


Well dang... should have just read this and skipped the other though I'm always curious what the other side is claiming.

That piece by Victor Vidales is very well written and an easy-to-read, sound description of the need and advantages of the proposal.

[exit2lef]

Robb errs in two respects:

First, his argument that transit simply relocates economic activity ignores the way in which it can make a metro area more attractive to new business development and site selection. Banner's relocation within Phoenix city limits isn't necessarily a net increase in jobs or tax revenue, but the Banners of the future, either created here or opening new offices outside their home regions, may find Phoenix more attractive due to the city's investment in transit.

Second, he repeats the cliched claptrap that buses can do everything trains can do -- only cheaper. Most people who claim that have spent very little time riding either.

[TakeFive]

Robb errs in two respects:

First, his argument that transit simply relocates economic activity ignores the way in which it can make a metro area more attractive to new business development and site selection. Banner's relocation within Phoenix city limits isn't necessarily a net increase in jobs or tax revenue, but the Banners of the future, either created here or opening new offices outside their home regions, may find Phoenix more attractive due to the city's investment in transit.

Second, he repeats the cliched claptrap that buses can do everything trains can do -- only cheaper. Most people who claim that have spent very little time riding either.
Well stated.

I know that the stars have aligned well for downtown Denver but just zeroing in on the impact of transit...

The $450 million transit hub was built on reclaimed brownfield using TIF (tax increment financing) which would be dependent on the surrounding private development of a small area of land. Seemed a bit risky to me but they were able to secure $300 million in loans thanks to the ARRA.

The commuter trains won't start running until next year although there are LRT tracks at one end that are now in service. By the end of 2016 when three commuter lines should be in service the Union Station Neighborhood will be about 75% (or more) built out or under construction. It's over $4 billion in private investment and counting.

The first apartment to be completed, the 13 story LEED Gold Cadence Apartments (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-01-12_Cadence-03.jpg) sold for a "discount" to an all-cash foreign buyer who agreed to close when it was only about 50% leased up. The latest project to break ground was by Portman Holdings out of Atlanta. While it's extremely modest compared to Shanghai Centre or Embarcadero Center, it speaks to their interest in the neighborhood. Same is true of Shorenstein Properties of San Francisco who hasn't recently built anything in Denver.

Holland Partners which is completing the 21-story The Platform (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-03_Platform-05.jpg) has recently broken ground on seventeenW (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11-07_17W_Rendering.jpg.jpg) which will have a Whole Foods flagship store as a retail anchor.

Point being that this is a built from scratch neighborhood that is specifically transit focused. I've never seen anything like this in over three decades of Denver history. When your time comes... amazing things happen. Transit was huge to much of what is happening.

[exit2lef]

Looks like the Central Mesa light rail extension is now scheduled to start service on October 26. It's listed among a series of proposed transit service changes on that date:

http://www.valleymetro.org/servicechanges

Also, the return of several bus routes to their customary routes along 19th Avenue after years of detours is a sign that light rail construction is almost done there. Maybe we'll see rail service from Montebello to Dunlap start with the April 2016 transit changes.

[SunDevil]

Well stated.

I know that the stars have aligned well for downtown Denver but just zeroing in on the impact of transit...

The $450 million transit hub was built on reclaimed brownfield using TIF (tax increment financing) which would be dependent on the surrounding private development of a small area of land. Seemed a bit risky to me but they were able to secure $300 million in loans thanks to the ARRA.

The commuter trains won't start running until next year although there are LRT tracks at one end that are now in service. By the end of 2016 when three commuter lines should be in service the Union Station Neighborhood will be about 75% (or more) built out or under construction. It's over $4 billion in private investment and counting.

The first apartment to be completed, the 13 story LEED Gold Cadence Apartments (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-01-12_Cadence-03.jpg) sold for a "discount" to an all-cash foreign buyer who agreed to close when it was only about 50% leased up. The latest project to break ground was by Portman Holdings out of Atlanta. While it's extremely modest compared to Shanghai Centre or Embarcadero Center, it speaks to their interest in the neighborhood. Same is true of Shorenstein Properties of San Francisco who hasn't recently built anything in Denver.

Holland Partners which is completing the 21-story The Platform (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-03_Platform-05.jpg) has recently broken ground on seventeenW (http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11-07_17W_Rendering.jpg.jpg) which will have a Whole Foods flagship store as a retail anchor.

Point being that this is a built from scratch neighborhood that is specifically transit focused. I've never seen anything like this in over three decades of Denver history. When your time comes... amazing things happen. Transit was huge to much of what is happening.

Hate to say it but for cities in the mountain west (of which there are few) Denver is absolutely "drinking" Phoenix's "milkshake". It's frustrating that a lot of that, if not most of it, is due to politics. :duh:duh:duh:duh:duh:duh:duh

[N830MH]

Looks like the Central Mesa light rail extension is now scheduled to start service on October 26. Its listed among a series of proposed transit service changes on that date:

http://www.valleymetro.org/servicechanges

Also, the return of several bus routes to their customary routes along 19th Avenue after years of detours is a sign that light rail construction is almost done there. Maybe, we'll see service from Montebello to Dunlap start with the April 2016 transit changes.

Wow! That's great news!! I can't wait to go on light rail again. I am so excited for this!!!

[PHXFlyer11]

Wow! That's great news!! I can't wait to go on light rail again. I am so excited for this!!!

I was in downtown Mesa this weekend. I must say, the way the tracks and stations are integrated into the street is just beautiful, and is unique from the existing stations and tracks. I noticed a lot of areas do not have curbs, which could be dangerous, but looks great! Well done Mesa!

[Leo the Dog]

Congrats to Mesa (and North Phoenix)! Never got the chance to explore the extensions when I was in town this spring.

[TakeFive]

Hate to say it but for cities in the mountain west (of which there are few) Denver is absolutely "drinking" Phoenix's "milkshake". It's frustrating that a lot of that, if not most of it, is due to politics. :duh:duh:duh:duh:duh:duh:duh

LOL, No doubt.

From a practical matter the enthusiasm for a sprawl model is the first culprit. I believe Arizona doesn't allow TIF or tax increment financing which in itself pushes new sprawl development at the expense of renewal and reinvestment. Even Phoenix, itself has sought to annex and grow its footprint presumably at the expense of the core city. Fortunately Mayor Phil reversed that and Stanton is also very supportive of downtown. GPLETS, I guess substitute for TIF's to some extent.

Arizona cities are at a big disadvantage because the State collects so much of the sales tax @ 5.2% whereas in Colorado, for example, the state only collects 2.9% while the rest goes mostly to cities (or counties). With cities collecting the majority of sales tax it's so much easier for them to budget for longer term needs when they aren't subject to the whims of state politicians.

[TakeFive]

"Self-Driving Cars Are Already Getting Into Accidents"
Gizmoda's Got the Goods (http://gizmodo.com/self-driving-cars-are-already-getting-into-accidents-1703574538)
5/11/15 by Kate Knibbs

[rocksteady]

"Self-Driving Cars Are Already Getting Into Accidents"
Gizmoda's Got the Goods (http://gizmodo.com/self-driving-cars-are-already-getting-into-accidents-1703574538)
5/11/15 by Kate Knibbs What's annoying about that article, and all the people and media outlets reporting on these accidents, is that they don't tell you that the accidents aren't the result of the self-driving cars themselves, but the result of humans operating the other cars involved. It's very misleading and frustrating that people hype this up so much to scare people. Thank god the media and internet weren't around when the Wright Brother's were testing the first airplanes....otherwise we would never be flying in the sky.

[PHXFlyer11]

Good to see record traffic after a couple of slow years since the recession. Looks like the extra gates that remodeled terminal 3 will bring will be needed in the future after all.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/2015/05/12/sky-harbor-sets-passenger-record-in-march/27200053/

[TakeFive]

What's annoying about that article, and all the people and media outlets reporting on these accidents, is that they don't tell...
I agree. I was just having fun with this mostly.

Good to see record traffic after a couple of slow years since the recession. Looks like the extra gates that remodeled terminal 3 will bring will be needed in the future after all.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/2015/05/12/sky-harbor-sets-passenger-record-in-march/27200053/
Stands to reason after the record setting spring baseball attendance this year.

I like what Phoenix is doing with Sky Harbor including the Sky Train and these ongoing improvements. Nationally, air passenger traffic has been trending higher. Soon enough I'd expect Sky Harbor to have some good out-sized growth and so now is a great time to get these projects done.

[TakeFive]

"Why is Amtrak such a mess?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/why-is-amtrak-such-a-mess/)
May 13 by By Tom Zoellner in WaPo

This is a nice review (not long) of the railroad's and passenger train's American history. Tom is the author of "Train: Riding the Rails that Created the Modern World, from the Trans-Siberian to the Southwest Chief." More importantly, I'll give props to anybody who links to an Arlo Guthrie song (more interesting live version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivrZlN_PbvU)).

[TakeFive]

"Opinion: Prop. 104 is critically important for the future of transportation in Phoenix"
May 11th, 2015 by Sean Sweat, Downtown Devil (http://downtowndevil.com/2015/05/11/71203/)
Prop. 104 is a 0.7 cent sales tax for transit and streets that will replace the current 0.4 cent sales tax. That increase is less than a penny on a $3 cup of coffee. And it will transform our city in all the right ways.

It will make it possible to build both the South and West extensions of light rail, build a rail connection to ASU’s West campus, and build a streetcar around downtown Phoenix. It will improve the frequencies and hours of our drastically underfunded bus network and create “Bus Rapid Transit” on some of our most heavily used bus routes. It will also add hundreds of miles of bike lanes and repave the city’s aging streets.
Blanca N Jose Infante disagrees. Oh well.

[nickw252]

Mesa is taking the lead to spur downtown development in advance of this summer’s light rail completion to Mesa Drive.

Mayor John Giles announced the city is offering a parcel on the southwest corner of Main and Center streets for a transit-oriented development.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2015/05/mesa-jumpstarting-downtown-development-in-advance.html

[N830MH]

PHOENIX -
The much-discussed, much-debated, much-maligned, much-praised proposed Loop 202 freeway along the southern border of Ahwatukee is now the target of a lawsuit filed in federal court.

Opponents want a judge to shut down the freeway project, they claim it will do damage to the environment and sacred Indian religious sites.

The project would extend the Loop 202 along Ahwatukee's Southern Border and out to the west side. It is supposed to take trucks off I-10.

Opponents also claim it would be a noisy hazard to their health.

Can't you believe this? They file lawsuit to AZ DOT over Loop 202 construction.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/29103841/2015/05/19/south-mountain-freeway-group-to-file-lawsuit-over-construction

[HooverDam]

Can't you believe this? They file lawsuit to AZ DOT over Loop 202 construction.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/29103841/2015/05/19/south-mountain-freeway-group-to-file-lawsuit-over-construction

Good. The longer that moronic freeway is tied up in legal battles, the better for everyone. Better for neighborhoods, better for our air quality and much better for our taxpayer dollars.

The Loop 202 is already slated to be one of the most expensive freeways in U.S. history. Think about that for a moment.

Is this alleged "need" that ADOT proposes really a need that justifies one of the most expensive highways ever built? What other solutions could we think of? For that price tag, what else could we build or do to eliminate traffic?

[Freeway]

Good. The longer that moronic freeway is tied up in legal battles, the better for everyone. Better for neighborhoods, better for our air quality and much better for our taxpayer dollars.

The Loop 202 is already slated to be one of the most expensive freeways in U.S. history. Think about that for a moment.

Is this alleged "need" that ADOT proposes really a need that justifies one of the most expensive highways ever built? What other solutions could we think of? For that price tag, what else could we build or do to eliminate traffic?

Nope. This freeway has been approved by voters twice. How is any potential delay of this freeway better for our neighborhoods? It only conveniences the NIMBYs of Ahwatukee who failed to do their due diligence prior to moving into their homes.

The freeway is expensive, but taxpayers have had extra sales tax collected from them for the past 30 years with the expectation that this freeway would be built. The longer this is held off, the more expensive it will be.

There is a need for this project. Pull out the Environmental Impact Statement or talk to those who have to drive from the West Valley to the Southeast Valley on a regular basis.

What is funny is that if the freeway opponents are successful in shutting down the freeway project, MAG will have a glut of money that it will use to just widen existing freeways. Of course that won't happen because this silly lawsuit won't go anywhere.

[Leo the Dog]

Good. The longer that moronic freeway is tied up in legal battles, the better for everyone. Better for neighborhoods, better for our air quality and much better for our taxpayer dollars.

The Loop 202 is already slated to be one of the most expensive freeways in U.S. history. Think about that for a moment.

Is this alleged "need" that ADOT proposes really a need that justifies one of the most expensive highways ever built? What other solutions could we think of? For that price tag, what else could we build or do to eliminate traffic?

I thought the Big Dig at $15 billion plus interest was the most expensive for about 3 miles. Also, current freeway costs cannOt be compared to previous freeway costs due to the ever present inflation.

Ultimately the 202 - South Mtn Freeway will benefit Metro Phoenix. The areas it will serve have always been suburban and will always be suburban. It'll add capacity to the inner 10 by diverting traffic out of Central Phoenix.

It will benefit all of Phoenix by creating jobs and increasing the population in Laveen.

[combusean]

^ The EIS that preceded the 202's potential construction was a crock of self-serving crap.

[TakeFive]

^ Thanks, I needed a good hearty chuckle.

[HooverDam]

Nope. This freeway has been approved by voters twice. How is any potential delay of this freeway better for our neighborhoods?

Delaying when homes will be destroyed, when air pollution will be created and when BILLIONS of tax dollars will be wasted is always a good thing.


The longer this is held off, the more expensive it will be.

Unless the potential cost of it rises so much and its need becomes increasingly unclear, then the project dies and it's much less expensive.



There is a need for this project. Pull out the Environmental Impact Statement or talk to those who have to drive from the West Valley to the Southeast Valley on a regular basis.

You've routinely shown throughout your posting on this forum that you don't have the slightest comprehension of what a successful, fiscally solvent city looks like. So I think we should take your sprawl and freeway loving nonsense opinions with more than just a grain of salt.

Yes the I-10 gets a bit busy for about 4 hours a day, that does not mean the only solution is a huge new multi billion dollar sprawl generating freeway. Do you exhibit such dull, un-creative thinking in all areas of life or only in respect to outmoded 20th century infrastructure 'solutions'?

[PHXFlyer11]

You've routinely shown throughout your posting on this forum that you don't have the slightest comprehension of what a successful, fiscally solvent city looks like. So I think we should take your sprawl and freeway loving nonsense opinions with more than just a grain of salt.

In fairness, this is not a city project. I believe it is MAG, which means its intent is to benefit the entire country. So you can argue for more light rail in Phoenix, but these funds have nothing to do with each other.

The only other alternative, which I'm not against BTW, is that the money be used for commuter rail. That is something that would benefit the entire county and those southeast of Phoenix, just as the freeway would.

I remember seeing the signs for over two decades saying that Pecos would be the future site of the 202. So I have no sympathy for those who chose to ignore them and buy houses there. Having said that, I would prefer rail over this freeway.

[downtownslcresident]

I remember seeing the signs for over two decades saying that Pecos would be the future site of the 202. So I have no sympathy for those who chose to ignore them and buy houses there. Having said that, I would prefer rail over this freeway.

Unfortunately, the problem with rail in place of this freeway is that rail doesn't accomplish the same goals as the freeway does. Beyond the obvious reasons, this freeway is designed to be a bypass of phoenix for those only travelling through. Rather than having truck traffic or people who are using I-10 to get to points west of Phoenix actually go THROUGH Phoenix, the 202 loop is meant to be an alternative way to bypass the traffic of the city, to minimize the amount of cars on I-10 and the south Phoenix segment of I-17, so that the only people who use those routes are the people who truly do business in and around that area.

Rail unfortunately doesn't address that problem, which is projected to be a big one with the current growth projections for the region. Additionally, as has been mentioned, it helps to displace some of the smog and pollution from the increase in traffic OUT of the city, so that it's not so heavily concentrated in one area and doesn't reach dangerous levels.

I understand people's concerns, and I hear them loud and clear. I really do. But I have to agree that I really don't have any sympathy for them. This has been in the works for years and years, and its been paid for over years and years by the people who voted for it. It's time that it finally happens. There are unavoidable consequences of living in a city. There is simply no escaping traffic, pollution, and as great as rail is (believe me, I want more than anything to see more light rail, as well as communter rail for the region) and as wonderful of benefits that it can bring, it simply isnt the answer 100% of the time.

[CrestedSaguaro]

In fairness, this is not a city project. I believe it is MAG, which means its intent is to benefit the entire country. So you can argue for more light rail in Phoenix, but these funds have nothing to do with each other.

The only other alternative, which I'm not against BTW, is that the money be used for commuter rail. That is something that would benefit the entire county and those southeast of Phoenix, just as the freeway would.

I remember seeing the signs for over two decades saying that Pecos would be the future site of the 202. So I have no sympathy for those who chose to ignore them and buy houses there. Having said that, I would prefer rail over this freeway.

When I first moved here 2 1/2 years ago, those future 202 signs were one of the first things noticed when driving around to check out the area...and I hadn't even read about the 202 extension yet! So, if I noticed those signs and learned about the 202 exension along Pecos within only a month of living here, I do not feel sorry for anyone that lives in that area when this was proposed around what...20 years ago? These homeowners had PLENTY of notice on this.

Hoover....I completely agree with you on why this highway is a nightmare and should never be built. But as I see it, it's a done deal and there's no stopping it at this point. The state, county and city are set on it. I myself, don't want to see it built, but I do agree more delays at this point will only siphon more $$$ that can go toward other projects, so it's best to get this done instead of dragging it on any longer. In my experience lawsuits against infrastructural projects such as this hardly ever get any where. :(

[TakeFive]

Unfortunately, the problem with rail in place of this freeway is that rail doesn't accomplish the same goals as the freeway does. Beyond the obvious reasons, this freeway is designed to be a bypass of phoenix for those only travelling through. Rather than having truck traffic or people who are using I-10 to get to points west of Phoenix actually go THROUGH Phoenix, the 202 loop is meant to be an alternative way to bypass the traffic of the city, to minimize the amount of cars on I-10 and the south Phoenix segment of I-17, so that the only people who use those routes are the people who truly do business in and around that area.

Nice comment. So which came first the chicken or the egg? Well the egg of course.

Metro Phoenix sprawls all over the dang map. The 202 logically addresses a need and should have the benefits you describe.

I've also suggested that by 2020 when the 202 is to be completed that the voters be given an opportunity to reallocate a portion of the half percent sales tax to transit, both light and commuter rail as well as better bus service. This way, going forward both transit and road needs can be expanded, enhanced at the same time. The city of Phoenix will necessarily have to fund some of their own preferences but the addition of a more regional approach would be awesome.

[exit2lef]

Hoover....I completely agree with you on why this highway is a nightmare and should never be built. But as I see it, it's a done deal and there's no stopping it at this point. The state, county and city are set on it. I myself, don't want to see it built, but I do agree more delays at this point will only siphon more $$$ that can go toward other projects, so it's best to get this done instead of dragging it on any longer. In my experience lawsuits against infrastructural projects such as this hardly ever get any where. :(

Lawsuits and community opposition seldom stop projects completely, but they can exert pressure to reach compromise solutions. Right now, ADOT is adamant that only the SMF as currently designed will work. ADOT is wrong, as evidenced by the outdated information and circular reasoning in the environmental impact statement, but the agency isn't going to give any ground unless it has to do so in order to avoid additional litigation and delays. Remember that I-10 was once proposed to be a monstrous elevated freeway towering over Central Phoenix. Opposition led to a sunken freeway covered by Hance Park. It's not an ideal situation, but it's better than what was originally proposed. Likewise, opposition to the SMF is helpful if it forces a re-examination of downgrading the road to a parkway or building on GRIC land, two options that are now off the table.

[Leo the Dog]

When I first moved here 2 1/2 years ago, those future 202 signs were one of the first things noticed when driving around to check out the area...and I hadn't even read about the 202 extension yet! So, if I noticed those signs and learned about the 202 exension along Pecos within only a month of living here, I do not feel sorry for anyone that lives in that area when this was proposed around what...20 years ago? These homeowners had PLENTY of notice on this.(

It was first approved and funded by Maricopa County voters in 1985.

Then it was realized that the projected funds didn't exist and the freeway was scrapped only to be re-funded in the 90s. I believe the 2004 transportation tax extension also included funding for the SM Freeway.

It has a VERY long history and has been public knowledge for 30 years. Anybody that bought a house along the Pecos alignment was well informed before they chose to purchase their home.

[Buckeye Native 001]

My parents live in Ahwatukee (40th Street and Chandler) and I went to high school with people (1998-2002) whose families had houses built along the proposed route of the SMF knowing full well their houses were going to be demolished eventually for the freeway. Some of those families specifically bought houses expecting hefty payouts from ADOT but this was before SCOTUS ruled on eminant domain in 2005 and obviously before the recession.

I guess my point is that I'm not sure how many of those families that moved into mcmansions along the proposed route with dollar signs in their eyes (assuming any of them still live there) still feel that way now under the current rules of eminant domain as well as having to deal with diminished values on their properties thanks to the economy tanking.

[Leo the Dog]

My parents live in Ahwatukee (40th Street and Chandler) and I went to high school with people (1998-2002) whose families had houses built along the proposed route of the SMF knowing full well their houses were going to be demolished eventually for the freeway. Some of those families specifically bought houses expecting hefty payouts from ADOT but this was before SCOTUS ruled on eminant domain in 2005 and obviously before the recession.

I guess my point is that I'm not sure how many of those families that moved into mcmansions along the proposed route with dollar signs in their eyes (assuming any of them still live there) still feel that way now under the current rules of eminant domain as well as having to deal with diminished values on their properties thanks to the economy tanking.

^Interesting and I have no idea when it comes to the court ruling/changes either.

Many homeowners got slightly cheaper houses because of the coming freeway. Not too many homes had to be purchased by ADOT bc the freeway has been on the books for so long.

My mom purchased a house in the early 1990s and the neighborhood aerial maps back then had the "future 202 freeway" drawn in the sales office. Her house is adjacent to the 202, one property/lot away from the noise abatement wall. Being just one house away from the freeway, I can tell you that noise is a non-factor especially with rubberized asphalt. I would think that homes along any of the arterial streets actually deal with much more noise.

[pbenjamin]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the people who have moved to the area over the last several years and are now upset that it is going to be built. I don't object to the route of the freeway. I object to its existence.

[TakeFive]

IIRC, it was an interesting coalition of enviro's and conservatives that resisted freeway construction way back when. Fast forward and at this point Metro Phoenix must have one of the nicest freeway systems in the country - although a couple of Denver bloggers were just discussing Minneapolis-St. Paul's very good system.

Colorado/Denver stands in sharp contrast. Every major project now involves a P3 (which is OK) that includes an HOV/express toll lane(s).
CDOT is preparing to start construction on what will be a (I-70) rebuild comparable to I-10 including a lid for a park. It will be 10 lanes with the interior 4 lanes providing two lanes each way of strictly tolled lanes. On the outside will be 3 FREE lanes each way. It's also a copy of what FDOT has already started with the I-4 in Orlando. Here's an Orlando/I-4 rendering. (http://wofl.images.worldnow.com/images/4709707_G.jpg) I had to laugh as when I went to retrieve that from Google images the 1st image I wanted was from one of my previous posts on the Denver transportation thread. I have no idea how such things happen.

After cobbling together some funds for rebuilding half of the U.S. 36 corridor from Denver to Boulder CDOT solicited a P3 for the other half. It will mostly be a 6 lane highway, 3 eaach way with the inside lane being an HOV/express toll lane. Starting in 2017 cars will need 3 occupants to use the HOV lane toll-free. There will be BRT or really upgraded express bus (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/images/uploads/us36/FlatironFlyer2.jpg) service. When completed end of this year "Plenary Roads" will maintain, repair and collect tolls under a 50 year contract. That's damn near 5 decades. :)

Big Texas has Big Needs. I read recently that in the Dallas metroplex alone they have a need for $25 billion in new road construction of which only a very small percentage has started. Most of their new roads also include HOV/express lanes if not tolled lanes.

For now at least Metro Phoenix is in great shape at least so far as freeways are concerned.

[Freeway]

^ The EIS that preceded the 202's potential construction was a crock of self-serving crap.

Self-serving crap? How so? Just because the EIS displayed an overwhelming justification for this freeway, it is crap? The freeway makes a lot of sense when you actually remove your blinders and take the time to look at a map. A number of people who are just trying to pass through Phoenix, say on a drive from Houston to Los Angeles will not long have to clog up the 10 during rush hour. This will help them get through the metro area faster and it will help people who have to commute on the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue not have to deal with as much stop and go traffic from through town travelers and trucks using the same route.

Delaying when homes will be destroyed, when air pollution will be created and when BILLIONS of tax dollars will be wasted is always a good thing.

Taxpayers here have approved their tax dollars for this freeway. Twice. So instead of pretending like you're just trying to be some responsible steward of people's tax dollars, why don't you just admit that you would rather this money be spent on some light rail line that chugs along at 35 MPH? Why are you concerned about some cheap, stucco, tile roof homes that were thrown up in the past twenty years? There's an abundance of them all over the Valley. The destruction of several hundred homes that should have never been building in the first place is not sufficient reasoning to stop the freeway. The freeway was planned prior to any of those communities being constructed and it was planned prior to any of those residents moving in. Seems like you're digging for any reason you can possibly think of to try to stop this freeway.

The EIS states that air pollution will be improved because of the traffic volume that will be removed from the congested part of the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue. Any regular commuter will tell you that segment is the most consistently congestion section of freeway in Arizona. Any freeway that would relieve some of the congestion would help our air quality.

Unless the potential cost of it rises so much and its need becomes increasingly unclear, then the project dies and it's much less expensive.

So then, we'll just have to pay for more costly improvements when the Valley continues to grow by about 1 million people per decade and they're all forced to funnel down the 10? Makes sense. I know urbanists are somehow thinking that by shutting down this freeway project that somehow transit is going to become more of a regional priority. False. There was a proposal to widen the 10 to 24 lanes around the Broadway Curve before the South Mountain EIS revealed that those improvements would not be necessary with the construction of the SMF. I guess you're advocating for that proposal to be thrown back on the table if this project doesn't get built?

You've routinely shown throughout your posting on this forum that you don't have the slightest comprehension of what a successful, fiscally solvent city looks like. So I think we should take your sprawl and freeway loving nonsense opinions with more than just a grain of salt.

I focus more on our reality instead these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas about transforming Phoenix into a desert version of Portland or some European city. The fact that you think that canceling a freeway project will limit sprawl in what is already the least dense major metropolitan area in the country is a joke. Canceling the SMF will not make this place any more dense, it will not cause MAG and Valley Metro to consider running a light rail line or some commuter rail line in its place. None of that. It will just cause people who live in Avondale and work in Gilbert to continue clogging up an already congested freeway, making our air quality even worse as about a hundred thousand people move to the region every year.

Yes the I-10 gets a bit busy for about 4 hours a day, that does not mean the only solution is a huge new multi billion dollar sprawl generating freeway. Do you exhibit such dull, un-creative thinking in all areas of life or only in respect to outmoded 20th century infrastructure 'solutions'?

I'm pretty sure you don't take the 10 if you believe that it's only congested for 4 hours a day. Traffic starts as early 5 AM and doesn't die down until 8:30 or closer to 9 in the morning, especially during the wintertime. Traffic in the afternoon can start as early as 2:30-3 PM and doesn't die down until 6:30 or 7. On the Fridays before holiday weekends, afternoon jams can start as early as 12:30-1 PM. Also, the freeway is not "a bit busy." When it takes 20+ minutes to get from the 10/51/202 to the 10/17, that is not "a bit busy." It's jammed.

I won't even respond to your urban planning buzzwords. Instead of choosing to spend my days reading Planetizen or some rag like that, I choose to live in reality. The reality here is that people drive and will continue to drive, even if you limit freeway building here. People are not going to move closer to work. People are not going to congregate downtown. This is a suburban city where transit and other alternatives modes of transit are just not viable on a large scale.

[phoenixwillrise]

Self-serving crap? How so? Just because the EIS displayed an overwhelming justification for this freeway, it is crap? The freeway makes a lot of sense when you actually remove your blinders and take the time to look at a map. A number of people who are just trying to pass through Phoenix, say on a drive from Houston to Los Angeles will not long have to clog up the 10 during rush hour. This will help them get through the metro area faster and it will help people who have to commute on the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue not have to deal with as much stop and go traffic from through town travelers and trucks using the same route.



Taxpayers here have approved their tax dollars for this freeway. Twice. So instead of pretending like you're just trying to be some responsible steward of people's tax dollars, why don't you just admit that you would rather this money be spent on some light rail line that chugs along at 35 MPH? Why are you concerned about some cheap, stucco, tile roof homes that were thrown up in the past twenty years? There's an abundance of them all over the Valley. The destruction of several hundred homes that should have never been building in the first place is not sufficient reasoning to stop the freeway. The freeway was planned prior to any of those communities being constructed and it was planned prior to any of those residents moving in. Seems like you're digging for any reason you can possibly think of to try to stop this freeway.

The EIS states that air pollution will be improved because of the traffic volume that will be removed from the congested part of the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue. Any regular commuter will tell you that segment is the most consistently congestion section of freeway in Arizona. Any freeway that would relieve some of the congestion would help our air quality.



So then, we'll just have to pay for more costly improvements when the Valley continues to grow by about 1 million people per decade and they're all forced to funnel down the 10? Makes sense. I know urbanists are somehow thinking that by shutting down this freeway project that somehow transit is going to become more of a regional priority. False. There was a proposal to widen the 10 to 24 lanes around the Broadway Curve before the South Mountain EIS revealed that those improvements would not be necessary with the construction of the SMF. I guess you're advocating for that proposal to be thrown back on the table if this project doesn't get built?



I focus more on our reality instead these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas about transforming Phoenix into a desert version of Portland or some European city. The fact that you think that canceling a freeway project will limit sprawl in what is already the least dense major metropolitan area in the country is a joke. Canceling the SMF will not make this place any more dense, it will not cause MAG and Valley Metro to consider running a light rail line or some commuter rail line in its place. None of that. It will just cause people who live in Avondale and work in Gilbert to continue clogging up an already congested freeway, making our air quality even worse as about a hundred thousand people move to the region every year.



I'm pretty sure you don't take the 10 if you believe that it's only congested for 4 hours a day. Traffic starts as early 5 AM and doesn't die down until 8:30 or closer to 9 in the morning, especially during the wintertime. Traffic in the afternoon can start as early as 2:30-3 PM and doesn't die down until 6:30 or 7. On the Fridays before holiday weekends, afternoon jams can start as early as 12:30-1 PM. Also, the freeway is not "a bit busy." When it takes 20+ minutes to get from the 10/51/202 to the 10/17, that is not "a bit busy." It's jammed.

I won't even respond to your urban planning buzzwords. Instead of choosing to spend my days reading Planetizen or some rag like that, I choose to live in reality. The reality here is that people drive and will continue to drive, even if you limit freeway building here. People are not going to move closer to work. People are not going to congregate downtown. This is a suburban city where transit and other alternatives modes of transit are just not viable on a large scale.

Totally agree with you Freeway. I get real tired of the let's ignore all the automobiles we have and spend every transportation dollar on Mass Transit Crowd. It's nice to get mass transit in the mix but in a city where it is 120% degree heat for several months in the year it is not reality that people will suddenly abandon their cars to stand in that heat.

[Leo the Dog]

I wonder if the EIS considers the changing technology of cars. With hybrids and all electric vehicles - Tesla, ruling the road and forecasted for continued growth, I would think that air pollution is almost a non-factor.

Many citites have seen tremendous growth with improving air quality. San Diego now only averages 9 violations down from 100/year (20 years ago) and it's all from one station located 30 miles east of the city in the foothills near Alpine.

[exit2lef]

I wonder if the EIS considers the changing technology of cars. With hybrids and all electric vehicles - Tesla, ruling the road and forecasted for continued growth, I would think that air pollution is almost a non-factor.

Many citites have seen tremendous growth with improving air quality. San Diego now only averages 9 violations down from 100/year (20 years ago) and it's all from one station located 30 miles east of the city in the foothills near Alpine.

I read the EIS from cover-to-cover. It contains very little consideration of changes in anything, whether vehicle technology or transportation preferences. It's mostly just an extrapolation of trends based on data from a decade ago with little accounting for more recent developments.

[HooverDam]

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

[Leo the Dog]

I read the EIS from cover-to-cover. It contains very little consideration of changes in anything, whether vehicle technology or transportation preferences. It's mostly just an extrapolation of trends based on data from a decade ago with little accounting for more recent developments.

Ok, thanks for the information. I have never read anything of the type.

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.

[PHXFlyer11]

Ok, thanks for the information. I have never read anything of the type.

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.

I would think that if you are sharing vehicles (I assume you mean like ZipCar, etc, not carpooling) just as many vehicles are needed to meet peak demand. In addition, I wouldn't the roads would not become less congested at non-peak times, as utilization of those fewer cars is much higher, as you'd have more like 90% of vehicles in use rather than 10% as you state above? Or are you talking about car pooling?

[Leo the Dog]

I would think that if you are sharing vehicles (I assume you mean like ZipCar, etc, not carpooling) just as many vehicles are needed to meet peak demand. In addition, I wouldn't the roads would not become less congested at non-peak times, as utilization of those fewer cars is much higher, as you'd have more like 90% of vehicles in use rather than 10% as you state above? Or are you talking about car pooling?

No. I'm talking about Uber, Lyft, the future Google car and Apple car services.

All of this will be automated by driverless vehicles. It'll happen sooner than we think. It will be much cheaper than today's current pricing because, it will be automated and gas free. It could, in theory match the price of a PT monthly pass.

If I could spend $100/month on ridesharing versus $75/month for a bus pass, guess what I'll choose?

[TakeFive]

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

Not an expert - though I do sometimes pretend to be ;) - but I do enjoy a substantive debate. Name calling, not so much. :(

All due respect but your comment/statement sounds like a liberal talking point. Refreshing perhaps only because as I can turn on any of 4 or 5 radio stations and get 24/7 conservative propaganda in this area.


Freeway... Phoenix has NOT been growing at the pace it once did. From 2010's census data to July 1st 2014 population estimates, the MSA has grown by a little less than 296,000 or lite over 69,500 per year. LINK (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

The City of Phoenix has grown by 90,000 over that same time period. LINK (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)
Sometimes articles can be misleading as they reference people moving into the area without netting out those that move out of the area.

There is little doubt that the Phoenix area's meager growth is substantially attributable to the lack of "urban character" which has become so popular among Millennials and to the flow of investment capital.

Dallas as a hybrid since much of the growth is suburban, especially in north Dallas, specifically in Richardson which has attracted many Fortune 500 companies including the new Toyota HQ is at least of a higher density, mixed use development along a light rail line into downtown Dallas.

Not sure what it will take to get this metro are headed in a more urban direction as the most recent politics seems more urban unfriendly than ever. Still, there are some positive urban trends.

[Freeway]

Totally agree with you Freeway. I get real tired of the let's ignore all the automobiles we have and spend every transportation dollar on Mass Transit Crowd. It's nice to get mass transit in the mix but in a city where it is 120% degree heat for several months in the year it is not reality that people will suddenly abandon their cars to stand in that heat.

Thank you. I complete agree that mix of mass transit/freeway projects is ideal. This idea of shutting down this area's freeway expansion program in the hopes of limiting sprawl is silly. This areas already sprawls like crazy. Thinking that stopping freeway projects will somehow reduce or stop sprawl in Phoenix is pure delusion.

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

What a joke. You have no rebuttal, so you resort to name calling. You can quote all the urban "scholars" you want to. You clearly have no sense of Phoenix's reality. Put down the academic fluff and step outside. You don't even know what our rush hour traffic situation is like, but yet you proclaim to know more than transportation professionals who run all sort of travel demand models and have access to all sort of population models about the need for a new freeway. You clearly have no interest in facts, so why waste any time with anyone who won't be happy until this entire Valley is crisscrossed with BRT and light rail? Moving on....

Freeway... Phoenix has NOT been growing at the pace it once did. From 2010's census data to July 1st 2014 population estimates, the MSA has grown by a little less than 296,000 or lite over 69,500 per year. LINK (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

The City of Phoenix has grown by 90,000 over that same time period. LINK (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)
Sometimes articles can be misleading as they reference people moving into the area without netting out those that move out of the area.

There is little doubt that the Phoenix area's meager growth is substantially attributable to the lack of "urban character" which has become so popular among Millennials and to the flow of investment capital.

Dallas as a hybrid since much of the growth is suburban, especially in north Dallas, specifically in Richardson which has attracted many Fortune 500 companies including the new Toyota HQ is at least of a higher density, mixed use development along a light rail line into downtown Dallas.

Not sure what it will take to get this metro are headed in a more urban direction as the most recent politics seems more urban unfriendly than ever. Still, there are some positive urban trends.

I would hardly call the Valley's growth "meager." Meager compared to pre-recession levels, yes. In any case, Maricopa County, like you said, has added almost 270,000 people in four years, almost 185 new people per day. A growth rate of about 7 percent is still very healthy. Growth rates are picking up by the year. Even if we continue to grow at the same pace as we have since 2010, the county will still have added 670,000 people between 2010-2020. Putting all those people on the same freeway with the same capacity (number of lanes) is not a smart idea.

[TakeFive]

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.
Yes, it's very interesting but I did happen to live in Missouri for awhile (the Show-Me state). That said there was an interesting article by
Cathy Proctor, Denver Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/05/that-car-of-the-future-you-might-be-sharing-it.html) May 9 about its surge in popularity.
Denver's car sharing programs have grown so much that the city has carved out tiny half-space parking slots on some downtown streets and reserved them for Car2Go, the largest car share operator in the city. Car2Go currently has 450 vehicles in its Denver program and a 50-square-mile “home” area, where cars can be parked at any legal parking spot on public streets.
OTOH, the potential of driverless cars or fully automated driving argues against ride sharing as the efficiency will lessen congestion, at least to a degree.

[TakeFive]

I would hardly call the Valley's growth "meager." Meager compared to pre-recession levels, yes. In any case, Maricopa County, like you said, has added almost 270,000 people in four years, almost 185 new people per day. A growth rate of about 7 percent is still very healthy. Growth rates are picking up by the year. Even if we continue to grow at the same pace as we have since 2010, the county will still have added 670,000 people between 2010-2020. Putting all those people on the same freeway with the same capacity (number of lanes) is not a smart idea.
You say potato, I say tomato (I just happen to be eating a tomato and couldn't resist).

Fair enough but for clarification that 7% is a cumulative number, not an annual rate. Still, it adds up and I'd agree growth will likely accelerate. I don't oppose the SMF; it does seem to make good logistical sense. Don't care for the "which comes first" or "induced demand" debate either.

But it also appears that a majority of the growth comes from continued sprawl, mostly in the West and SE Valley. The continued/accelerating growth will create a number of environmental challenges. You can't add enough highway lane miles fast enough to not end up right back in traffic jams before long, given the one person-per-car mentality. Los Angeles tried it and failed. Speaking of LA, they just hired away Phil Washington (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/04/rtds-phil-washington-bound-for-big-l-a-job-talks.html), Denver's transit chief to help promote and build transit for their city.

You want to talk reality? That makes good sense. I accept the reality that my lonely vote won't change the urban-unfriendly politics. Doesn't mean I like it or prefer it or think it's wise. :)

[soleri]

You say potato, I say tomato (I just happen to be eating a tomato and couldn't resist).

Fair enough but for clarification that 7% is a cumulative number, not an annual rate. Still, it adds up and I'd agree growth will likely accelerate. I don't oppose the SMF; it does seem to make good logistical sense. Don't care for the "which comes first" or "induced demand" debate either.

But it also appears that a majority of the growth comes from continued sprawl, mostly in the West and SE Valley. The continued/accelerating growth will create a number of environmental challenges. You can't add enough highway lane miles fast enough to not end up right back in traffic jams before long, given the one person-per-car mentality. Los Angeles tried it and failed. Speaking of LA, they just hired away Phil Washington (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/04/rtds-phil-washington-bound-for-big-l-a-job-talks.html), Denver's transit chief to help promote and build transit for their city.

You want to talk reality? That makes good sense. I accept the reality that my lonely vote won't change the urban-unfriendly politics. Doesn't mean I like it or prefer it or think it's wise. :)

I largely agree with this comment, especially the last paragraph. Every bad choice we made in the past tailors current and future choices. Phoenix crossed the Rubicon decades ago. Mega-sprawl happened - and is happening - in ways that cannot be stopped. You're dealing with a monster - you either feed it or the creature implodes and takes you with it.

Still, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Every new freeway is a nail in downtown's coffin. It's also a vote against a more urban future. The talk should be less about freeways and more about commuter rail and even high-speed rail to LA. If Phoenix has a future worth caring about, that's where it will be. The billion-dollar bandages like SMF are triage for a bad bargain. You bought it and you have to pay for it. But it shouldn't mean you're blind to either its cost or your eventual bankruptcy.

[exit2lef]

Taking a break from the South Mountain Freeway debate, KTAR suggests that an official opening date for the Central Mesa light rail extension will be announced next week. I thought it would be in October to coincide with bus service changes proposed by Valley Metro, but it will be interesting to see what Mayor Giles has to say:

http://ktar.com/22/1836910/Mesa-lightrail-extension-almost-complete

[azliam]

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

[exit2lef]

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

Thoughtful questions. Phoenix is unfairly made into poster child for sprawl, even though by some measurements it's right in the middle in terms of overall metro area density. Your observations about core density vs. suburban density is apt. The NYC suburbs where I grew up were less dense than much of the Phoenix Metro Area, but critics of Phoenix tend to indulge in convenient apples-and-oranges comparisons between the central cores of older cities vs. the entire Phoenix metro area. In addition, there's one factor that is seldom mentioned but important in forming opinions: the view from the air. When someone flies into the Phoenix for the first time, the lack of clouds and heavy tree cover makes sprawl highly visible. When flying into many other cities, the sprawl is obscured by clouds and trees. No, I don't have any hard data on this, but I think it influences perceptions of those who stereotype Phoenix based on the view they have from the air when flying into Sky Harbor.

Outside critics aside, stereotypes held by locals also have a negative impact in terms of creating a sense that sprawl has always been and always should be part of our DNA. The "so spread out" cliche, along with the summer heat, is sometimes used as an excuse for not pursuing improvements in public transit, as well as bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure. At its worst, this creates a sort of misplaced Arizona exceptionalism that can keep us on a sprawl treadmill while we should instead be embracing nascent trends against sprawl. When ADOT and its consultants responded to my comments in opposition to their draft EIS on the South Mountain Freeway, their weak reply was phrased largely in terms of "all those trends you mention apply to other cities, but not Phoenix" -- even though the data on decreased vehicle miles traveled and increased public transit usage suggests Phoenix is not as different as they'd like to think.

As for freeways, I supported the original 1985 freeway program because I thought it was ridiculous for Phoenix to try to deal with its growth by relying solely on six-lane arterials. One thing I would have done differently is not to have allowed SR51 to continue beyond Northern Avenue because doing so set a terrible precedent that now undermines the integrity of South Mountain Park via the planned 202 segment that will cut into the preserve's southwestern corner. I would have also liked to see an equal emphasis on public transit starting at the same time, but that had to wait 15 years until voter approval of light rail and expanded bus service in 2000. Fast forward to 2015, and I now believe Phoenix has a robust freeway network that serves it well. Additional construction of outer loop freeways, however, is at this point more likely to enable more sprawl than it is to allow catch-up with existing development patterns.

[Leo the Dog]

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

Phoenix sprawled long before the freeways were in place. Congestion and mobility were probably worse in the 1980s. A trip from Mesa to Phoenix was a day trip to the city in the 50s.

LA has been falsely characterized by a city of freeways that created and enabled sprawl. If you look at a map, LA actually has very few freeways in the city. Phoenix and LA have some of the lowest freeway lane miles per capita. Dense metros like SF and Boston have more lane miles per capita.

Sprawl happens regardless of freeways. I think it has more to do with physical Geography and access to water. Metro Phoenix will always sprawl and central Phoenix will densify.

Take a look here, it would appear Phoenix lacks lane miles.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198942

[TakeFive]

exit2lef... I would tend to focus on other things.

So far as the overall higher density, that substantially resulted from the city being so new; it grew in an age of developers building subdivisions which were more efficiently organized. Additionally whether for retirement communities or for the more blue collar population that describes metro Phoenix, more efficiently planned new development was more natural.

The sprawl resulted from a few things. First, is that desert land is relatively cheap (comparatively) and easier to build on be it the placement of water and sewer lines or whatever. Second the metro area was designed on the different "nodes system" which I've heard others articulate. Then there's the geography of mountains and open space for drainage purposes.

Another big factor is the overall lack of regional cooperation resulting in natural intense competition among the various political government districts. Usually the core city is the financial and business hub for the region/state. Upscale Scottsdale grabbed a lot of the financial influence when north Scottsdale Road was developed. The west Valley managed to grab two of the major sports franchises. The city of Phoenix does remain the center of government services for the state at least.

More recently the emergence of Chandler as a tech haven and the west valley as a warehouse and distribution hub just encourages more sprawl.

Lastly, the state not allowing tax increment financing is like a free market slap in the face for older areas and a push to develop new areas. It may reflect free market thinking but it seriously impedes older cities from competing; it becomes an unequal playing field for them.

[N830MH]

Taking a break from the South Mountain Freeway debate, KTAR suggests that an official opening date for the Central Mesa light rail extension will be announced next week. I thought it would be in October to coincide with bus service changes proposed by Valley Metro, but it will be interesting to see what Mayor Giles has to say:

http://ktar.com/22/1836910/Mesa-lightrail-extension-almost-complete

I can't wait to get on the light rail to Central Mesa extension. We will looking forward to it. It will be so successful. I will try to take a picture of the light rail.

[TakeFive]

Take a look here, it would appear Phoenix lacks lane miles.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198942

Statistics can often be very misleading. That data is from 2007 which would reflect analysis done even earlier. 2nd, the accuracy is more to road miles as opposed to lane miles. Lastly it's hard to know how they defined Phoenix, what areas were included or excluded.

[Uawilly]

I think overall the completion of the 202 will be extremely positive for Phoenix. Obviously, it will serve as a bypass and help reduce the congestion on the I-10 and I-17 around downtown. Contrary to a lot of people's thoughts, I think it helps reduce the sprawl since it should help develop Laveen and some of the surrounding areas in South Phoenix. Both of these areas aren't too far from downtown and are significantly closer then any other area that is currently or will be developed. Even if this leads to a lot of these residents commuting to the Chandler/South Tempe job hub region its still a lot closer than the commutes people in San Tan Valley, Gilbert, Queen Creek, East Mesa, Apache Junction, etc are making to the same region. Trust me, I work in that area as an engineer and a majority of my work colleagues live in those far flung suburbs. Finally, the areas that it will go through will largely be in the city limits of Phoenix which means more tax dollars for Phoenix.

BTW I am a huge supporter of the light rail. I have already been bugging family and friends to vote yes on the proposition but not every other transportation option is a bad thing.

[TakeFive]

Uawilly... Great comment.

When ADOT and its consultants responded to my comments in opposition to their draft EIS on the South Mountain Freeway, their weak reply was phrased largely in terms of "all those trends you mention apply to other cities, but not Phoenix"

Sounds like ADOT knows where their (political) bread is buttered.

ADOT is a powerful and by necessity political entity with a nice big metro pot of money to keep them busy. What's the expression... anyway, inertia keeps them in a self-serving mode.

CDOT by comparison has been substantially neutered. It's relevant in the sense that they were also once a powerful, influential entity. They now are required to spend (I think) 10% on transit which is totally separate from the metro area's 1% sales tax for transit (.4% for Fastracks construction). They've assisted with Aspen and other ski areas setting up transit and will soon start a a regional bus service dubbed Bustang (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7000216&postcount=8350).

Looking towards the future it's very important that MAG and the various metro communities take a fresh look at transit options. It's also important to offer the voters an option for splitting the half percent sales tax on roads and transit.

[PHXFlyer11]

I think overall the completion of the 202 will be extremely positive for Phoenix. Obviously, it will serve as a bypass and help reduce the congestion on the I-10 and I-17 around downtown. Contrary to a lot of people's thoughts, I think it helps reduce the sprawl since it should help develop Laveen and some of the surrounding areas in South Phoenix. Both of these areas aren't too far from downtown and are significantly closer then any other area that is currently or will be developed. Even if this leads to a lot of these residents commuting to the Chandler/South Tempe job hub region its still a lot closer than the commutes people in San Tan Valley, Gilbert, Queen Creek, East Mesa, Apache Junction, etc are making to the same region. Trust me, I work in that area as an engineer and a majority of my work colleagues live in those far flung suburbs. Finally, the areas that it will go through will largely be in the city limits of Phoenix which means more tax dollars for Phoenix.

BTW I am a huge supporter of the light rail. I have already been bugging family and friends to vote yes on the proposition but not every other transportation option is a bad thing.

I agree in the sense that the last to the South is reservation and mountains. I don't think this enables sprawl like the 303 and that crap. I think this could spur more infill actually. Long-term it's needed. But let's not make another loop around this loop and everything will be OK!

[Obadno]

I agree in the sense that the last to the South is reservation and mountains. I don't think this enables sprawl like the 303 and that crap. I think this could spur more infill actually. Long-term it's needed. But let's not make another loop around this loop and everything will be OK!

No loop 404? Gila Bend to Buckye to Wickenburg over to RioVerde/Fort McDowell then Down to Gold canyon then Coolidge, over to Maricopa and back to Gila Bend .:cheers: :cheers:

Its necessary for the Valley and the states transportation.

[TakeFive]

No loop 404? Gila Bend to Buckye to Wickenburg over to RioVerde/Fort McDowell then Down to Gold canyon then Coolidge, over to Maricopa and back to Gila Bend .:cheers: :cheers:

Its necessary for the Valley and the states transportation.

They're on it: "Construction underway on first segment of Interstate 11 (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/05/22/construction-underway-on-first-segment-of.html)"

[Buckeye Native 001]

Belt after belt after belt of freeways...

What is this, Houston!. ;)

[N830MH]

Belt after belt after belt of freeways...

What is this, Houston!. ;)

Uh, Houston, we had a problems.

[somethingfast]

Having lived in Houston, I will tell you that Houston doesn't have that many "belts". There is the inner loop (traditional non-toll unimpeded freeway) and an outer toll-way. For a greater metro of nearly six and a half million now, it's a woefully inadequate system compared to Phoenix. And Phoenix is adding significant public rail system so...you know...Phoenix is acting fairly progressive all things considered. Houston's traffic was a nightmare as of five years ago...

[nickw252]

http://m.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/06/02/construction-firms-engineers-betting-on-phoenix.html

[TakeFive]

http://m.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/06/02/construction-firms-engineers-betting-on-phoenix.html

Always good to see the "pay to play" crowd stepping up. $400,000 is not too shabby. Seriously, it's how things get done.


I continue (to try) to follow what Congress is doing with transportation. They recently extended MAP21 or transportation funding for two months to the end of July. I consider this a positive in that they still feel/hope they can get something done. I'm still hearing that the goal is for a 5/6 year bill which would be terrific.

Here's what is kinda interesting. "Red state" politicians have been wanting the states to take on more of the responsibility for their own needs. The Pew Charitable Trusts recently did an interesting federal-state-local analysis (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2015/02/24/funding-challenges-in-highway-and-transit-a-federal-state-local-analysis). Especially interesting were their maps which you can see HERE (http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Post-Launch-Images/2015/02/Fiscal-Federalism/RelativeSignificanceofFederalGrantsSurfaceTransportationVaries.jpg?la=en). It turns out that red states have easily been more dependent on Federal funds. Not sure how all this makes sense politically? :shrug:

It will also be important to see what they do with transit funding including the popular New Starts and TIGER grants, if anything different? Some would like to cut back or limit money for transit to focus more on roads.

[combusean]

I loved this line from the 104 supporters:

"For those opposed, I would only say, show me a world class city and I will show you a city with a great transportation system," Edwards said.

[N830MH]

Great news!!!

Central Mesa Extension is scheduled to open on August 22 ahead of schedule.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/06/03/mesa-light-rail-opening-ahead-schedule-august/28443277/

You can go on light rail to Central Mesa extension. Go for it!!! Well, have fun!!!

[Leo the Dog]

^amazing how the opening date is months ahead of schedule. Congrats to Mesa!

[TakeFive]

I loved this line from the 104 supporters:
"For those opposed, I would only say, show me a world class city and I will show you a city with a great transportation system," Edwards said.

I was reading (I like to do that), mostly checking in on cities west of the Mississippi like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Austin etc. Only a few have notable transit systems. Most have done at least one or two interesting projects.

I also did some additional reading about BRT. The biggest factor on why it worked so well in Columbia but (usually) not so well in the states is how it's addressed. Dan Malouff aka Cirrus has written extensively about BRT both on his own blog (http://beyonddc.com/log/?cat=37) and at Greater Greater Washington. (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/23554/the-potomac-yard-transitway-is-looking-good/) If BRT is treated with the same respect as light rail then it should do very well. But since it's less expensive often other corners are cut to make it even cheaper. You end up with just a cheap bus service even if slightly nicer or new. If the buses just get stuck in traffic then it is not serving its purpose. The number of semi-legitimate BRT systems is growing rapidly.

Austin is a developing case story. There BRT hybrid is called MetroRapid and looks like THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMICSr9jl7c) and THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbsEXK-1FNc). Austin has/is experiencing explosive growth and transportation is a mess understandably. There's no shortage of interest in light/commuter rail but everybody have a different idea, want this instead of that. With the recent voter defeat of transit proposal MetroRapid is the default affordable option. It is designed, some might suggest, for the gentrification crowd with WiFi etc. (like light rail maybe?) with fares that aren't dirt cheap but are reasonable.

[exit2lef]

Now that Glendale has decided to terminate its agreement with the Coyotes, I hope there will be some re-examination of the questionable idea of extending light rail to Westgate. The continuing saga of the Coyotes and now resurrected possibility of a team relocation show just how fragile sports sprawl is as a destination. Imagine if 100s of millions of dollars are spent to extend light rail to a vacant arena. The Cardinals are more likely to stay in Glendale, but they play only about a dozen home games each year. Combine those with a Super Bowl every 5-10 years, and there still isn't enough going on at Westgate to justify building tracks there.

Right now, there's some sensible discussion of building light rail to Downtown Glendale via the Alhambra section of Phoenix. That should proceed, but any discussion of extending the line farther west should be reconsidered. I continue to suggest that if Glendale wants to build rail beyond its Downtown, 59th Avenue would be a better route because it is home to trip generators such as schools and hospitals, which are more stable destinations than professional sports venues. I realize some of those destinations might also be reached via an ASU West line that continues from MetroCenter, but there could also be two northwest lines with a common terminus near Arrowhead.

[combusean]

Coyotes aren't the only thing in Westgate.

Westgate is, for better or worse, a dense urban node in a decidedly suburban city. Concerts go on there, there are relatively dense apartments and midrise offices, people actually do voluntarily go there and drink and shop outside of game days, and it's probably going to get denser over time as parking lots are replaced. There's also Camelback Ranch a couple miles west that isn't going anyway anytime soon. (its empty parking lots would be well served for park-and-ride commuters when it's not an event day, for example)

It makes sense to connect the various nodes across the Phoenix area together with light rail.

[TakeFive]

It makes sense to connect the various nodes across the Phoenix area together with light rail.

This is true which is why a regional revenue stream is needed. Glendale is of course free to decide what they wish to fund. :)


Aren't Phoenix LRT cars Japanese?
Toronto just opened its airport DMU line this week. Here's their trains. If you think they look Japanese, you're right.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7498/15372123403_35a2f2aaef_b.jpg
metrolinx on flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/metrolinx/15372123403/)
Cirrus poking fun at Denver's butt ugly EMU cars (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7510/15876978892_cae8cac7e1.jpg) made by Hyundai-Rotem. I rather like their classic look but I'm clearly in the minority. :(

Anyhow, if/when Phoenix were to do some commuter rail these are nice looking cars. :tup:

[exit2lef]

This is true which is why a regional revenue stream is needed. Glendale is of course free to decide what they wish to fund. :)


Aren't Phoenix LRT cars Japanese?



Yes, and Glendale can do so much better than sports sprawl as a terminus. 59th Avenue up to Bell Road and then west toward Arrowhead would serve a larger population and more durable destinations than anything at Westgate.

Yes, they are made by Kinkisharyo. Just call them "Kinki" for short. I have no problem with the new rail cars on the Union Pearson Express and look forward to riding the new line when I go to Toronto next year.

[N830MH]

Yes, and Glendale can do so much better than sports sprawl as a terminus. 59th Avenue up to Bell Road and then west toward Arrowhead would serve a larger population and more durable destinations than anything at Westgate.

Yes, they are made by Kinkisharyo. Just call them "Kinki" for short. I have no problem with the new rail cars on the Union Pearson Express and look forward to riding the new line when I go to Toronto next year.

I understand that they want to get a new rail cars from Japan. I just don't see a new light rail cars anytime soon. They still have old light rail cars for almost 7 years. It still there. I don't think they have enough a new light rail cars for a while. I think they have more than 60 light rail cars.

[exit2lef]

I understand that they want to get a new rail cars from Japan. I just don't see a new light rail cars anytime soon. They still have old light rail cars for almost 7 years. It still there. I don't think they have enough a new light rail cars for a while. I think they have more than 60 light rail cars.

There are currently 50 "Kinki" rail cars in the fleet. I don't foresee imminent replacement. Rail cars usually last for decades, which is one of many reasons why arguments that using buses or buying everyone a Prius would be cheaper than rail are flawed. Buses and cars have a much shorter lifespan than rail vehicles. In any case, if Valley Metro does buy more rail cars in the near future, it will probably be to keep up with system expansion rather than to replace existing stock.