Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by N830MH

Check out this article from azcentral: Details of Phoenix's $31.7B transit plan

http://azc.cc/1GphXv7

As much as I love rail transit I would have preferred to see more discussion of remaking streets. I just sense you could get more benefit from this whether it's in the downtown area or on a street like N 32nd.

I also would have preferred incorporating BRT style buses for a couple of redesigned streets. They're essentially the same as LRT cars except for being on rubber instead of steel wheels. If used on designated lanes for just that street (or specific route) they'd have virtually the same function as LRT. No reason why they should be less well liked IMO.

Denver hopes to install BRT style buses for the East Colfax corridor. Originally the plan was for Modern Streetcars. But after a comprehensive study streetcars are only marginally less expensive than light rail. The savings with BRT are significant. They will have designated lanes BUT ONLY during rush hours. While some aren't happy, it's complicated. Bottom line there is precious little money left in the piggy bank. It is either BRT now or wait 20/30 years.

My guess is that if the city were to do a thorough cost - benefit analysis they would choose to combine some rail transit with street enhancement and some BRT style buses/lanes.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I also would have preferred incorporating BRT style buses for a couple of redesigned streets. They're essentially the same as LRT cars except for being on rubber instead of steel wheels. If used on designated lanes for just that street (or specific route) they'd have virtually the same function as LRT. No reason why they should be less well liked IMO.

Denver hopes to install BRT style buses for the East Colfax corridor. Originally the plan was for Modern Streetcars. But after a comprehensive study streetcars are only marginally less expensive than light rail. The savings with BRT are significant. They will have designated lanes BUT ONLY during rush hours. While some aren't happy, it's complicated. Bottom line there is precious little money left in the piggy bank. It is either BRT now or wait 20/30 years.

My guess is that if the city were to do a thorough cost - benefit analysis they would choose to combine some rail transit with street enhancement and some BRT style buses/lanes.

BRT is not the same as rail. Even with all the added features of dedicated lanes and pre-boarding tickets sales, buses still don't offer the same comfort as trains. More importantly, they don't draw discretionary passengers and catalyze development nearly as effectively as trains. I'm okay with using BRT on an interim basis as a precursor to rail and in situations where rail is not practical, but we're kidding ourselves if we think BRT can be an across-the-board substitute for rail. That said, the Phoenix transportation plan does provide for generous bus enhancements, including some BRT. It's a balanced plan worthy of approval.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

It's a balanced plan worthy of approval.

It's also the only plan we're getting, so best not to pick nits. Changes can be made to the details down the line, but if anyone is even mildly pro public transit they need to be a 'yes' vote.

[Jjs5056]

exit essentially proved BRT's shortcomings, but it's also important to remember quite a few key points when talking about BRT:

1. The BRT that most people envision - the type that would emulate rail and claims to provide an equal level of service and comfort - has never been implemented in a U.S. city. Every instance of BRT in the U.S. lacks 1 or more of the features that BRT proponents use to try and sell it. In all likelihood, a Phoenix BRT system would likely consist of a dedicated bus lane with frequent stops and high levels of service and POSSIBLY off-car ticketing and full-vehicle boarding. But, the BRT vision of dedicated ROWs with raised center boarding stations, traffic light priority, etc. etc. has never been implemented and Phoenix is certainly not going to be a trailblazer when it comes to this. Therefore, you're more or less left with an upgraded express bus system - which is great in combination with other heavier modes of transit, but as exit mentioned, has never been proven to spur the same kind of ridership and investment that rail has. And, though it shouldn't be the priority of a transit plan, there's no doubt that economic development is high on the list of the City's wish list when it comes to picking transit modes and routes.
2. The more features added to try and simulate a rail experience drives the cost up to the point where it no longer becomes cost-effective, when you add in the fact that BRT requires much greater maintenance costs than LRT. Buses require gas, new tires, their roads require paving, extra buses neeeded to meet demand require new drivers to pay, and so on.
3. The flexibility of BRT that so many proponents use as a selling point is actually a major reason why it should be avoided - it's completely unstable and at the mercy of the political regime of the time. Bus routes can be easily modified or cut, whereas rail lines are rarely dismantled.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

BRT is not the same as rail. Even with all the added features of dedicated lanes and pre-boarding tickets sales, buses still don't offer the same comfort as trains. More importantly, they don't draw discretionary passengers and catalyze development nearly as effectively as trains. I'm okay with using BRT on an interim basis as a precursor to rail and in situations where rail is not practical, but we're kidding ourselves if we think BRT can be an across-the-board substitute for rail. That said, the Phoenix transportation plan does provide for generous bus enhancements, including some BRT. It's a balanced plan worthy of approval.

I appreciate that BRT is not the same as rail.

But just to pick a nit (I couldn't resist that HooverDam)... visualize Indian School, Thomas or name your own tune as a new street with raised landscaped medians for boarding low floor BRT buses with parking on each side of the street with wide, landscaped sidewalks. As Jjs5056 suggests that wouldn't come cheap but it would be awesome and totally worth it IMO. Subtract the BRT part and that is working well to upgrade South Broadway in Denver. So attractive, ped/bike friendly streets themselves attract investment.

Apples to oranges perhaps but Denver's first 3+ LRT lines haven't generated much development yet, although presumably more will come over time. Now downtown development is hotter than a firecracker with the $500 million multi-modal transit station being a significant piece to that but that's quite apart from the lines themselves.

[TakeFive]

Other than being — and light (commuter) rail certainly is that, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around the plans which I'm only vaguely familiar with admittedly.

The existing LRT has been wildly successful and I wouldn't doubt if ridership is higher than any of Denver's lines. Even if it's significantly a glorified streetcar, who cares? It works. In hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The extension down Central which I know is a priority does intrigue. An extension to GCU seems like a no-brainer. But beyond that I'm scratching my head.

I know that central Phoenix neighborhoods, historic neighborhoods have become more popular places to live. But until downtown Phoenix can double its employee base which will happen some day, I think the priority should be on attracting more residents. At least in Denver and I assume Tempe is similar the millennials pouring into downtown is helping to attract more employers. I guess the question is what is the best way to improve the appeal of downtown as well as other neighborhoods.

In spite of what has been done in other places, Phoenix doesn't have the density, either residential or employment (that I can think of) to make obvious connections with other than what has already been done. To spend $80 million (and up) per mile you better hope the results are very positive. I'd want to take a look at more cost effective alternatives in combination with rail transit.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Other than being — and light (commuter) rail certainly is that, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around the plans which I'm only vaguely familiar with admittedly.

The existing LRT has been wildly successful and I wouldn't doubt if ridership is higher than any of Denver's lines. Even if it's significantly a glorified streetcar, who cares? It works. In hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The extension down Central which I know is a priority does intrigue. An extension to GCU seems like a no-brainer. But beyond that I'm scratching my head.

I know that central Phoenix neighborhoods, historic neighborhoods have become more popular places to live. But until downtown Phoenix can double its employee base which will happen some day, I think the priority should be on attracting more residents. At least in Denver and I assume Tempe is similar the millennials pouring into downtown is helping to attract more employers. I guess the question is what is the best way to improve the appeal of downtown as well as other neighborhoods.

In spite of what has been done in other places, Phoenix doesn't have the density, either residential or employment (that I can think of) to make obvious connections with other than what has already been done. To spend $80 million (and up) per mile you better hope the results are very positive. I'd want to take a look at more cost effective alternatives in combination with rail transit.

Some proposed extensions make more sense than others, but nothing is written in stone. The proposed South Phoenix and GCU routes were not in the Proposition 400 plan from 2004, but this plan, if approved, would move them up in priority. If other proposed lines don't end up making sense, the extensive study and approval process required for federal funding will probably act as a filter. Any of these proposed rail routes could end up as BRT instead if the numbers lean in that direction. When the Brookings Institution recently assessed cities in terms of "job sprawl," Phoenix landed right in the middle on the metric of jobs within 3 to 10 miles of Downtown -- certainly not the role model for a Downtown as the crossroads of everything, but also not the poster child for far-flung polycentric employment that many critics stereotype the city as. When Midtown, Sky Harbor, and Tempe are added to the calculation, it becomes clear that a significant fraction of the region's employment is indeed near rail. People have used the low density argument against light rail in Phoenix for decades and they've been consistently proven wrong. I have little doubt that will continue to be the case.

[Jjs5056]

I don't think that anyone would argue against an upgraded express bus system along Thomas Road, for example. But, it's best to be reasonable about what that would entail, and not get blinded by the BRT lines in South America which have just been translated into the systems implemented in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Therefore, adding these upgrades to Thomas would most likely mean more frequent service and stops, perhaps a dedicated transit lane, and hopefully off-bus ticketing (but this is an expensive feature, so who knows?). This would be a great upgrade for a route that is currently one of the busiest in Phoenix, but it also will not bring the major shift in commuting modes and economic development that light rail does. Those benefits *might* occur with a full-fledged BRT implementation, but again, this hasn't been tried yet in the U.S., so it's impossible to predict.

Phoenix actually has an ideal setup for light rail transit, because it doesn't have one end of residential development and one end of commerce. Those types of cities end up with systems that have major peaks and dips in service. For Phoenix, light rail is in constant use whether it's to access the multiple employment centers (Tempe, Downtown, Midtown), entertainment (Tempe, Downtown), school (ASU), etc. with residential development spread across the line. Residential density does need to increase around many of the stations, but this is starting to happen, and many people forget that the line opened in the heart of the recession. Who knows what might have happened had it opened just a few years sooner?

As for future lines, I have been pretty critical of some of the choices - both the routes and the modes chosen. But, many do make sense, such as the South Phoenix and Gilbert Road extensions. For others, I hope that there is some additional planning done to determine that the right investments are made and prioritized. And, at that point, it hopefully becomes clear that additional modes like express bus/BRT, streetcar, and commuter rail are needed beyond endless light rail lines to complete the transit system in the metro.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Some proposed extensions make more sense than others, but nothing is written in stone. The proposed South Phoenix and GCU routes were not in the Proposition 400 plan from 2004, but this plan, if approved, would move them up in priority. If other proposed lines don't end up making sense, the extensive study and approval process required for federal funding will probably act as a filter. Any of these proposed rail routes could end up as BRT instead if the numbers lean in that direction. When the Brookings Institution recently assessed cities in terms of "job sprawl," Phoenix landed right in the middle on the metric of jobs within 3 to 10 miles of Downtown -- certainly not the role model for a Downtown as the crossroads of everything, but also not the poster child for far-flung polycentric employment that many critics stereotype the city as. When Midtown, Sky Harbor, and Tempe are added to the calculation, it becomes clear that a significant fraction of the region's employment is indeed near rail. People have used the low density argument against light rail in Phoenix for decades and they've been consistently proven wrong. I have little doubt that will continue to be the case.

Thank you for the clarification. Well stated.

One can tell that the Mayor's intent is to make Phoenix a more urban friendly place and I can certainly support that.

I couldn't tell from what I had read whether they would require Federal funding participation or whether they might wish for Federal funding but would "build it" regardless?

When Midtown, Sky Harbor, and Tempe are added to the calculation, it becomes clear that a significant fraction of the region's employment is indeed near rail.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But these areas are now served and the question is where else would light rail make good sense?

The idea of making Phoenix into a more urban friendly place is great. How best to allocate always precious resources is a different question. For example in Denver the ongoing revitalization of central neighborhoods actually has little to do with light rail lines coming in from far flung suburbs. It's the character of the neighborhoods. Some of the hotter gathering areas are on narrow streets.

I would acknowledge that the growing rail system makes Denver attractive to large investors in their downtown so there is some synergy there certainly.

I'm neither for or against light/commuter rail or BRT. I do like better urban streets most definitely. Certainly more transit is better than less.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

In the long run, more access points to a freeway necessarily mean more congestion. Thus, the L202 will help justify the SR35 "reliever" highway through southwest Phoenix/Tolleson/Avondale.



Highways don't reduce congestion, by in large, they cause it.

I think in Phoenix's case, sprawl is coming whether the freeways are built or not. I think Phoenix experimented with this idea in the 60s/70s of, let's not build any freeways for decades so we don't become another LA and as a result, Phoenix had to play catch up in freeway construction over the last 25 years as congestion reached a boiling point.

Metro Boston has more freeway lane miles per capita than Phoenix. Metro Phoenix has actually one of the lowest freeway lane miles per capita out of the large metros.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

My fear is that the SMF will be a sprawl enabler for points far beyond either of those sections of Phoenix. Right now, some people would hesitate to work in Gilbert and live in Buckeye (or vice-versa). With a new freeway providing a quick (at least for a while until induced demand catches up) route between the far west and southeastern portions of the metro area, living far away from work and making a long commute might suddenly seem more tolerable.

Both of those places exist with or without a complete 202 so I don't see any harm in having better Valley wide transportation, honestly it will make moving between east and west easier I don't think that is such of a bad thing.

For the economy overall Its better that someone can work in Gilbert and Live in Buckeye effectively. Would I do that? No of course not but this highway really cannot create more sprawl because 75% of it cant be built up any more.

[TakeFive]

Looks like they're starting to get organized.

"MovePHX formed to promote transportation sales tax"
Mar 13, 2015 by Eric Jay Toll, Phoenix Business Journal

An advocacy committee has been formed... MovePHX is on a mission to help explain to voters what they'll be buying... the 0.7-cent transportation tax on the August ballot. The $18 billion in tax revenue over 30 years will help cover $33 billion in transportation improvements to the city.

Because I'm especially fond of street improvements, I found a nice article by Kaid Benfield on City Lab.

Kaid Benfield is the director of the Sustainable Communities and Smart Growth program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, co-founder of the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system, and co-founder of Smart Growth America

per citylab.com
Photo compliments of New York City Department of Transportation

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Both of those places exist with or without a complete 202 so I don't see any harm in having better Valley wide transportation, honestly it will make moving between east and west easier I don't think that is such of a bad thing.

For the economy overall Its better that someone can work in Gilbert and Live in Buckeye effectively. Would I do that? No of course not but this highway really cannot create more sprawl because 75% of it cant be built up any more.

(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

Everybody’s talking about Buckeye – the little town that was just a gas stop for California- and Mexico-bound travelers is now projecting major growth over the next 20 years. Having a 660-square-mile planning area, Buckeye one day could be home to more than 1,000,000 residents, which is 55 times more than the current population. More than 30 master-planned communities have been approved and developers are pitching more ideas daily. Through selective planning and burgeoning development interest, Buckeye soon will be the largest community in the Valley.

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.

[PHX31]

/\ will never happen.

Back in the last boom cycle places like Maricopa and Ajo claimed they were going to have millions of residents by building all of these master planned communities. There may be some demand to live in places like Buckeye, but there is a limit to that demand no matter how many master planned communities they plan.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

(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

Everybody’s talking about Buckeye – the little town that was just a gas stop for California- and Mexico-bound travelers is now projecting major growth over the next 20 years. Having a 660-square-mile planning area, Buckeye one day could be home to more than 1,000,000 residents, which is 55 times more than the current population. More than 30 master-planned communities have been approved and developers are pitching more ideas daily. Through selective planning and burgeoning development interest, Buckeye soon will be the largest community in the Valley.

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.

Pre-2008 statement. Buckeye will not have 1,000,000 people anytime this century. I would be surprised if Buckeye makes it to 200,000 by 2050. There were probably 30 master-planned communities approved pre-2008. How many are actually moving forward? Buckeye's growth rate is incredibly minuscule compared to what was forecast ten years ago. A freeway that ends at 59th Avenue is not going to cause Buckeye to explode in growth. With the exception of Verrado, Buckeye is basically a rural wasteland with a handful of foreclosure-ridden neighborhoods and empty fields.

[Uawilly]

I am not sure why there is so much negativity on the SMF. I think growth in Laveen would be a positive thing in Phoenix. 1) It is one of the closest suburbs to downtown Phoenix. 2) I live in Central Phoenix and work in the Tempe/Chandler area. A lot of the people I work with live in Queen Creek, San Tan Valley, Apache Junction, Far East Mesa, etc. Those people have commutes of at least 20 miles and some of them are more than 30 miles. Living in Laveen and traveling to South Tempe/Chandler via the SMF would be less than a lot of those commutes. 3) Lastly if Laveen ever filled up with decent middle class homes like there SW suburbs such as Avendale and Goodyear it could promote further growth east of Laveen which is in desperate need of new infusion.

[N830MH]

If the plan is approved it would also eliminate $16 million per year, which is taken from the general fund to fund the Streets and Transportation Department. The committee and council is saying that $16 million would go toward hiring more police officers. Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he’s in favor of hiring more police, but that attaching that promise to this TAX increase is a bad idea.

“To the police here: You are being led down a path of false promises again,” he said during the March 3 policy session. “You’ve already seen how this council has treated you in the past year. Do you trust this council will do everything they can in the future to protect you? It’s a simple question to ask yourself. To the citizens of Phoenix, this city cannot even handle its current budget. What makes taxpayers think that giving $33 billion to a structurally unsound organization is a good idea?”

http://m.ahwatukee.com/mobile/news/article_04fa3b78-c74f-11e4-8a39-470740f5f9b1.html

[Uawilly]

Originally Posted by Uawilly

I am not sure why there is so much negativity on the SMF. I think growth in Laveen would be a positive thing in Phoenix. 1) It is one of the closest suburbs to downtown Phoenix. 2) I live in Central Phoenix and work in the Tempe/Chandler area. A lot of the people I work with live in Queen Creek, San Tan Valley, Apache Junction, Far East Mesa, etc. Those people have commutes of at least 20 miles and some of them are more than 30 miles. Living in Laveen and traveling to South Tempe/Chandler via the SMF would be less than a lot of those commutes. 3) Lastly if Laveen ever filled up with decent middle class homes like there SW suburbs such as Avendale and Goodyear it could promote further growth east of Laveen which is in desperate need of new infusion.

Correction Laveen is not a suburb just an area of phx but my point is the same. Its one of the few largely undeveloped area that is not crazy far out like san tan valley.

[Leo the Dog]

Guys, you can't stop sprawl by not building a portion of the freeway network. Sprawl is firmly in place. That's not to say that Central Phoenix can't urbanize along with sprawl. If the SMF isn't built and in theory, won't allow for a homeowner from Buckeye to commute to Chandler, one will just buy a house in Santan and commute to that Chandler job.

The sprawl will just shift in another direction and you're left with the same problem, but with less regional mobility.

[TakeFive]

The world has changed. It may be time for Phoenix to think outside the box.

Since 2009 Congress has continually kicked the proverbial can down the road with respect to transportation. Because of the ARRA it wasn't so important as the ARRA was like a multi-year omnibus bill that had extra dollars for roads and bridges AND was especially transit friendly.

This spring Congress will once again wrestle with the challenge of a transportation bill. It would be nice if they'd do the "used to be" typical 5-year bill so that states and municipalities could better plan for longer term needs. They may just choose to extend beyond the next election, say the spring of 2017. There's a movement afoot in the House to largely eliminate funding for transit.

Keith Laing at The Hill has had good coverage of the pending negotiations.

Several GOP lawmakers suggested during a hearing on U.S. infrastructure funding this week that eliminating the provision that requires 20 percent of all gas tax revenue that is collected to be set aside for transit projects would be a way to boost the nation's spending on roads and bridges.

The transit subsidy was established during the Reagan administration in 1983. The rule requires that 20 percent of all revenue that is collected from the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax be diverted to a mass transit account within the Department of Transportation's Highway Trust Fund.

The state of transportation funding has deteriorated over the last 15 years or so.

Lawmakers are struggling to come up with a way to pay for a new transportation bill this year. The gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and it has struggled to keep pace with increased construction costs as cars have been more fuel efficient.

It wasn't an issue during the last decade as during the Bush years $billion and $billions for road and bridge projects were passed as earmarks and just added to the General Fund ie. larger deficits. Earmarks have, of course, been since demonized and are a non-starter now.

The federal government normally spends about $50 billion per year on infrastructure projects, but the gas tax only brings in about $34 billion annually typically. Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget in recent years to close the gap.

Imagine if Phoenix had to carry the burden of funding transit without Federal participation. Didn't they receive about 45% Federal participation for the original line?

I have no clue what this Congress might do. On the positive side the backlog of needs is growing in red states just as much as in blue states.

For anyone that's interested Keith Laing has another good article on the importance of transportation HERE. C. Kenneth Orski has his own take at Planetizen HERE.

It may become necessary for Phoenix to think outside the box moving forward regardless of whether the proposed transportation tax passes or not.