Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[TllrSkyline-01]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

I too hope they figure out how to make the trains faster because presently they are so slow that it's practically unusable if you're going anywhere far.

I think the latest installments will be the death knell for the program. 1, the south central connection is going to be a huge bust. I predict ridership will be nil. The NW connection to the dead mall has been an financial albatross. If the proposed development ever gets done, perhaps ridership will improve but I doubt it. Who wants to spend 30 mins on a train to downtown or 45 mins to Tempe? And the connection to 17th Ave west on Washington will connect exactly... what to downtown? None of these extensions will increase ridership dramatically.

I know I'm in the minority back here but I feel compelled to provide some balance to the discussion. I wish it worked better. I wish usage was growing. I wish I felt safe enough to bring my kids on it.

I am in the minority as well...but I see so much waste and mismanagement with LR and Valley Metro in general. I wish some of the lines would have been better planned...the South central and Metro center lines are a total waste IMHO. Also - I am seeing a significant increase in Valley Metro busses driving our freeways with 'Not In Use' signage turned on every day during rush hour!

[Obadno]

The point of the light rail is to induce development along the route.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The point of the light rail is to induce development along the route.

That might be one goal but it certainly is not the only goal. And for proponents, I wouldn't hang my hat on it. The $8.5b number they claimed in 2015 was a complete joke, with much of that money being government spending or heavily incentivized projects like State Farm and others. And the 1 mile buffer they gave themselves is a complete joke when the LR is well out of walking distance.

The midtown corridor is chock full of half empty buildings. Outside of Creighton (not taxable), it's been a real slog to get new growth there. Washington east of downtown has been a slog. Tempe has been growing just fine in areas near LR and not near LR.

Along 19th ave, we have some new restaurants... that have no dining rooms and are drive through only!

If you think south Central is going to become a hit for infil and development, I've got some ocean front property in AZ for ya.

And recall, VM explicitly admits they chose west on Washington because it's full of government owned properties that won't complain about LR going in, stead of taking it west along Van Buren, which has mostly private property.

I'm sure there are some properties you can point to and say "this wouldn't have happened but for light rail" but that's difficult to prove.

Best case scenario is it becomes a people mover that utilizes the I-10 to move people downtown quickly from the West side. But that seems far off.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by TllrSkyline-01

I am in the minority as well...but I see so much waste and mismanagement with LR and Valley Metro in general. I wish some of the lines would have been better planned...

I can't tell you how many times I see empty VM buses going up and down Power Road in East Valley, stopping/slowing traffic. Why not just provide Uber rides for "qualifying" riders and ditch the buses? They just incredibly archaic in most circumstances.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TllrSkyline-01

I am in the minority as well...but I see so much waste and mismanagement with LR and Valley Metro in general. I wish some of the lines would have been better planned...the South central and Metro center lines are a total waste IMHO. Also - I am seeing a significant increase in Valley Metro busses driving our freeways with 'Not In Use' signage turned on every day during rush hour!

Clearly, anti-transit voices are not a small minority in this forum, which is strangely anti-urban for a place named for skyscrapers. The discussions here used to demonstrate an understanding of tall buildings within the context of the cities they help define. The board has shifted, though, with many people here content to cheer for skyscrapers that everyone has to drive to, oblivious to the experience of city life at ground level.

Originally Posted by somethingfast

I can't tell you how many times I see empty VM buses going up and down Power Road in East Valley, stopping/slowing traffic. Why not just provide Uber rides for "qualifying" riders and ditch the buses? They just incredibly archaic in most circumstances.

I'm always amused when people appoint themselves transit census takers. I've been on consistently crowded buses and trains that outside observers claim are empty. There is usually a lot of confirmation bias involved. How would "qualifiying" riders be determined, especially for occasional bus passengers? That sounds like a recipe for more government monitoring and involvement, not less.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

How would "qualifiying" riders be determined, especially for occasional bus passengers? That sounds like a recipe for more government monitoring and involvement, not less.

I have no idea and that's not the point. No, I don't claim to have statistically-relevant sampling in place but I think the random informal sampling indicates that some routes are absolutely "red" routes and it begs the question - how far must mainstream society go to "help" the low-income population that uses buses? As far as needed? That doesn't seem right. These issues will become very thorny moving forward in current economic malaise (>$1 trillion added to debt every 3 months or so). Can we all agree that even 50% capacity on average for a bus line is under-utilization and therefore a poor use of public funds? I don't have the answers but the "just spend the problem away" approach will not and cannot continue.

PS - I will absolutely go on the record that I believe applying the billions in $ we are sending Ukraine for a war that will either a) be lost, or b) end in MAD, is a waste of money - I'd much rather give it to poor people here in America to get them off the streets. STRINGS ATTTACHED (no drugs, no alcohol, no babies).

[MiEncanto]

I don't think it's fair to classify folks as anti-transit simply because they have strong critiques of the system. I'd like to think I've been pretty fair back here and try to caveat which ideas could have been done better, etc. We're in a democracy with lots of voices at the table so even if one doesn't like a concept, they should allow room for others and try to be helpful in implementation.

Plenty of public transit focused downtowns are helpful to those who would drive there. What surrounds Amsterdam? Park n rides with buses that swiftly get you to the downtown. I'm not anti anything here.

And I don't agree with somethingfast that empty buses is rationale for killing off a line. Buses are a often the only lifeline for some to get where they need to go. And they are also cheap relative to other projects so even a lightly used bus line may be a lifesaver for some. It's certainly cheaper than other things the government does. "Get rid of the bus and subsidize Uber" is an interesting idea but I don't think it's practical for a number of reasons.

Also, sometimes buses aren't used because there aren't enough lines and frequency. So, if the goal is to increase ridership, sometimes you need to suffer through a period where a line is underutilized but is demonstrating to the public that it is reliable.

For example, our most undervalued system is BRT. Phx metro is overwhelmingly suburban and we could alleviate traffic with BRT. But if there are only 2 options to get from work to home and vice versa, too many will conclude that they don't have enough flexibility. I would support efforts to increase BRT lines that take people from residential PnRs to major places of commerce and business. But you need at least a few options during the day to show the public that if they miss the 4:30 bus, there will be another option, etc.

What I really don't like are vanity projects which take money away from reliable transit options, which is what I think the current extensions of the LR are, save the I-10W.

[TllrSkyline-01]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Clearly, anti-transit voices are not a small minority in this forum, which is strangely anti-urban for a place named for skyscrapers. The discussions here used to demonstrate an understanding of tall buildings within the context of the cities they help define. The board has shifted, though, with many people here content to cheer for skyscrapers that everyone has to drive to, oblivious to the experience of city life at ground level.



I'm always amused when people appoint themselves transit census takers. I've been on consistently crowded buses and trains that outside observers claim are empty. There is usually a lot of confirmation bias involved. How would "qualifiying" riders be determined, especially for occasional bus passengers? That sounds like a recipe for more government monitoring and involvement, not less.

By no means am I an anti-transit voice. I am for mass transit, but with proper planning. I have simply maintained that IMHO the system in Phoenix has many areas that are poorly planned and managed...(metro center line and south central line). The majority of residents and businesses did not want those lines added, yet they were rammed through wasting $$$ millions.

DT PHX streets (Washington/Jefferson and Central region are still a despicable mess with poor paving and lane markings. If they can at least finish things properly - that would be a good start.

Unfortunately, politics do play a role here, I rather have no system than a poorly designed system and an endless barrel of money being thrown at it by our politicians. I am not an online troll that is anti-development, I do work along the East Washington area, and the big developments promised to us years ago are very few and far between. Quite disappointing to say the least.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

I don't think it's fair to classify folks as anti-transit simply because they have strong critiques of the system.

Originally Posted by TllrSkyline-01

By no means am I an anti-transit voice.

First rule of being anti-transit: Claim you are not anti-transit.

After that, just complain that everything is poorly designed because it doesn't take you nonstop door-to-door between every destination you desire, ignoring the years of planning and necessary compromises between competing interests involved in creating a system that works well for many people, even if it doesn't work for you. Set the bar so high that no transit is acceptable and undermine support for what we already have and efforts to expand and improve it.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

I have no idea and that's not the point. No, I don't claim to have statistically-relevant sampling in place but I think the random informal sampling indicates that some routes are absolutely "red" routes and it begs the question - how far must mainstream society go to "help" the low-income population that uses buses? As far as needed?

A bus route, even one perceived to have low ridership, is almost always cheaper than microtransit or subsidized taxi service. Kansas City has been a good example of failed experiments in that area:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...crotransit-pioneer-and-a-cautionary-tale

Also, there are many reasons other than serving a low-income population to have good transit service.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

A bus route, even one perceived to have low ridership, is almost always cheaper than microtransit or subsidized taxi service. Kansas City has been a good example of failed experiments in that area:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...crotransit-pioneer-and-a-cautionary-tale

Also, there are many reasons other than serving a low-income population to have good transit service.

We could debate this forever but I guess the bottom line for me is - is there a point you just admit that a certain style of city (Phoenix, LA, Dallas, Houston, etc.) is just too spread out to be an effective "bus metro"? At least outside of major concentrations of ridership. In other words, what obligation do the rest of us have to put marginal riders between Point A and Point B? It's a fair question and not an easy answer.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

We could debate this forever but I guess the bottom line for me is - is there a point you just admit that a certain style of city (Phoenix, LA, Dallas, Houston, etc.) is just too spread out to be an effective "bus metro"? At least outside of major concentrations of ridership. In other words, what obligation do the rest of us have to put marginal riders between Point A and Point B? It's a fair question and not an easy answer.

None of those cities would fit that description. All have concentrated city centers, dense corridors, and major destinations. All four have light rail, as well as heavy rail in Los Angeles. They're all among the top ten U.S. cities in terms of population, so they're far beyond being "bus metros." They're multidmodal metropolitan areas and should endeavor to become even more that way..

[YourBuddy]

It’s funny we subsidize roads that are almost purely scenic routes, or subsidize roads to low income rural communities that never pay for themselves, but it’s always the public transit that just doesn’t make sense. I’d much rather the billions in subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry every single year go to actual low income struggling Americans than the oil corporations making record profits, especially when they were raising prices anyway.

[BA744PHX]

Originally Posted by YourBuddy

It’s funny we subsidize roads that are almost purely scenic routes, or subsidize roads to low income rural communities that never pay for themselves, but it’s always the public transit that just doesn’t make sense. I’d much rather the billions in subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry every single year go to actual low income struggling Americans than the oil corporations making record profits, especially when they were raising prices anyway.

Well said.

[Forrester1998]

In some actual news, the agenda for the Tempe Transportation Commission meeting on December 10th contains some detailed information about next steps for adoption of the LPA (locally preferred alternative) for the Rio East-Dobson Extension for the Tempe street car (REDE) as well as what I assume is the final report for the REDE study: https://www.tempe.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/110767/638687487773330000

We already had a general idea of the LPA adoption timeline, but specifics appear to be Mesa adoption of LPA on December 9th, Tempe adoption of the LPA on December 19th, Valley Metro Rail Board approval in January, and finally MAG approval in January/February (I don't think any of these approval points are expected to be a barrier for adoption of the LPA). In general this would be the final "study" and in the future would be followed by a design and then construction phase.

Some interesting tidbits from the final report:

1) They promoted a survey about the station and tracker options and in general (given, this likely is not a representative sample of potential users) responders favored center running, designated lane rail as opposed to outside lane and/or shared lanes. I was sort of surprised that they were considering designated lanes for this, as very little of the current route is designated. I personally was split on this because the survey seemed to imply that running designated lanes on Dobson would essentially eliminate travel lanes but doing the same on Rio would result in widening the road (I voted for designated on Dobson but shared traffic on Rio because I don't really want them to widen Rio. Additionally, responders were generally in favor of stops at all the station locations listed in the survey usually with a ~85% in favor (this isn't surprising as most of the stop locations listed were pretty much no-brainers).

2) Looking long-term, the potential future extension to the streetcar after REDE looks to be officially dubbed the "Fiesta" extension (would extend further south on Dobson to Southern, then east on Southern to Country Club, then north on Country Club back to Main). The REDE and Fiesta extensions are the only streetcar extensions currently mentioned in the MAG 2050 transportation plan.

In some unrelated transportation news, valley metro has released the new split line system map (for once the South-Central extension finishes). The east-west line (From downtown to Gilbert Road) has been dubbed the "A" line, the north-south line (Baseline to Metrocenter) is the "B" line, and the streetcar is the "S" line: https://vulcan-production.nyc3.cdn.digit...sion-downtown-hub/val_msys_rail-2025.pdf

[exit2lef]

^Thanks for sharing the latest on the streetcar. My number one fear here is that Mark Freeman, who is generally car-centric and anti-transit, has been elected Mayor of Mesa and will take office in January. I don't know how the votes will line up on the city council, but that seems like an unfavorable development in terms of Mesa's approval of this project.

[Forrester1998]

It's never great to elect somebody who is anti-transit but in general I'm still fairly optimistic about streetcar development continuing to move forward. I'm not as familiar with the Mesa council as I am with the Tempe council but I do know that Mesa, like every other city in the valley, has a "weak mayor" system where during actual council votes the mayor is essentially just a glorified city councilor, they don't have any sort of veto power, so he can't stop the streetcar alone. Mesa has also been one of the more amiable councils in recent years with a willingness to defer to the districts councilor on local projects, and the west/downtown Mesa members definitely favor the streetcar extensions. Also, when it comes down to it local government officials are often a lot more pliable when it comes to economic investment, I don't know a lot about the new mayor but it's possible he could come around on the streetcar (which, for whatever reason, opposition seems to be a lot less unsavory about than the light rail).

[AZSunHiker]

I'm always amused when people appoint themselves transit census takers. I've been on consistently crowded buses and trains that outside observers claim are empty.

Ok. But there is data on transit ridership. The Census Bureau tracks mode of transportation to work. The highest I've found for the metro is Tempe which is a meager 4% of residents. For City of Phoenix it's 2% and for Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area it's 1%.

See:
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0473000-tempe-az/
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US38060-phoenix-mesa-chandler-az-metro-area/
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US38060-phoenix-mesa-chandler-az-metro-area/

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Forrester1998

It's never great to elect somebody who is anti-transit but in general I'm still fairly optimistic about streetcar development continuing to move forward. I'm not as familiar with the Mesa council as I am with the Tempe council but I do know that Mesa, like every other city in the valley, has a "weak mayor" system where during actual council votes the mayor is essentially just a glorified city councilor, they don't have any sort of veto power, so he can't stop the streetcar alone. Mesa has also been one of the more amiable councils in recent years with a willingness to defer to the districts councilor on local projects, and the west/downtown Mesa members definitely favor the streetcar extensions. Also, when it comes down to it local government officials are often a lot more pliable when it comes to economic investment, I don't know a lot about the new mayor but it's possible he could come around on the streetcar (which, for whatever reason, opposition seems to be a lot less unsavory about than the light rail).

I agree, but I know there is also some NIMBY opposition to the streetcar in the neighborhoods near Dobson. I hope that doesn't sway the council in the wrong direction. I'm also concerned since Francisco Heredia, who represents that part of Mesa, has had some recent bad press over his firm's role in voter registration efforts in Pennsylvania. If he has to resign, his successor might not be as supportive. As for Mayor-elect Freeman, I have little hope. He has explicitly opposed the streetcar on Dobson and the proposed bike lanes on Center and generally advocates a roads-first approach to transportation.

Originally Posted by AZSunHiker

Ok. But there is data on transit ridership. The Census Bureau tracks mode of transportation to work. The highest I've found for the metro is Tempe which is a meager 4% of residents. For City of Phoenix it's 2% and for Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area it's 1%.

See:
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0473000-tempe-az/
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US38060-phoenix-mesa-chandler-az-metro-area/
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US38060-phoenix-mesa-chandler-az-metro-area/

I trust the Census Bureau far more than self-appointed transit monitors on message boards. Nevertheless, we're talking apples-and-oranges here. The comment I was responding to claimed that buses were running empty on a particular route and suggested that was a reason not to support transit. The Census data is about mode share for the daily commute. Even if a disappointingly low percent of people overall in a metropolitan area use transit to go to and from work, you can still have full buses and trains if they're running in the places where those people who do use transit are concentrated.

[N830MH]

Can you show me how I can find future plans for new bus routes and new express routes, as well as light rail routes. Can you post a link on the website. I think they add new bus routes from Tatum Blvd to Deer Valley Rd to Black Mountain Blvd. I heard they are going to build the new grocery store near Pinnacle High School. Construction will begin in 2026.