Tucson Development Thread

[somethingfast]

Good assessment, Don. I agree completely. I have long had a love/hate relationship with Tucson. I disagree that people view Phoenix as a backwater city to Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, et al. Phoenix is truly emerging as a burgeoning first-tier city, or at least second-tier if you consider NY, Chicago, Washington, LA and San Fran as the only true first-tiers.

You're dead-on that building a cross-town freeway in Tucson will not put us on the verge of Phoenix-to-be. Like you said, the economics and demographics here will never precipiate another Phoenix. Tucson will always play second fiddle to Phoenix and most people are very happy about that.

[somethingfast]

Soleri, you're right and you're wrong. You can't paint these types of urban issues with such broad strokes. If what you're saying is true, then LA would never see any density DT. Truth is, LA is on the verge of a huge renaissance DT. It's all cyclic. Cities spread out and then contract in at some point. Rust belt cities such Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago all saw immense sprawl in their growth heydays. Phoenix will be no different. It will reach a critical mass and then contract. It will do this, incidentally, all by itself. But I agree, we shouldn't leave it to its own devices; we should promote and guide healthy growth.

As for your statistics comparing Phoenix to these other cities...I dunno. I've been to all those places you listed and none of them "appear" to have as many hi-rises as Phoenix overall. Remember, Phoenix's uban core is essentially five miles of Central avenue running nroth and south. Add up all those buildings and I'm sure they eclipse those other cities. But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. Also, I think metro Portland is around 2.5 million so it's nowhere near 1/3 Phoenix's size.

[soleri]

Here's the page you can compare cities in terms of their high rises. You can link to Phoenix and see each high rise listed individually, including the ones on Central Avenue.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?countryID=2


True, metro Portland is not nearly as small in relation to metro Phoenix (2005 stat: 2.1 million). Still, the city proper is much smaller, more compact, denser, and well-planned. There's no way Tucson or Phoenix will ever sprawl their way to a kind of density Portland has. Los Angeles is very nearly sprawled out, so there's understandable excitement about their resurgent core. In maybe 30 years, Phoenix will be sprawled out. Should we simply bide our time?

I find it rather ironic that people love skyscrapers AND car-based transportation systems. They really don't co-exist very well at all, and even when you find lots of cars and high rises together, the results are not very pretty (think Houston, Atlanta or Las Vegas).

I do paint with a broad brush on cities because it's nearly a religious conviction on my part that, without strict controls, cars destroy cities. Los Angeles would be a much nicer place with fewer of them. The density LA hopes to achieve downtown (maybe 40,000 people in another 20 years) will be minuscule by comparison to the overall population of the city. While LA's overall density is high, there are only a few neighborhoods which could be considered walkable (the gold standard among urbanists). Portland, by contrast, is not only pedestrian friendly, but bicyclist friendly and bus rider friendly too.

I acknowledge that the chances of Tucson ever adopting truly "green" and urbanist principles are slim to none. The economic logic of sprawl and car-based transportation is overwhelming. But by refusing to even consider politically the alternatives, a city like Tucson condemns itself to the lowest-common-denominator kind of growth. Citizens are trained to be passive bystanders in their communities by a system which suggests the right to drive is more important than democracy itself. It's no accident that one of Tucson's leading political players, Jim Click, is a car dealer. Or that another, Don Diamond, is a leading land speculator.

Final note: every city I've ever been excited about is dense, vertical and vibrant. It's not really that important to me whether a city has bragging rights to a great skyline or the world's tallest building. I'd take Washington DC any day over a place like Dallas. What matters is that a city works to bring people together, to offer chance encounters, to magnify the variety and quality of experiences, and to make it all easily accessible. A great skyline, like Chicago's, is often the result of city doing all those things so well that lots of prosperous people want to live there. Downtown Phoenix, or Tucson's, don't do that at all, and the result is an unmistakeable lack of urban energy in their cores. You love tall buildings? Well, then be aware that suburbanizing Tucson means never having a skyline of any merit. The Phoenix skyline may eventually rival Buffalo's or if we're lucky, Oklahoma City's. But we'll always be a second tier city because we dissipated our core energy to the periphery. That's what cars ultimately do.

[Epicurean]

Where would a cross-town freeway go, though? While I suppose that the most useful corridor would be somewhere between Grant and 22nd, it's so built-up that a new freeway would be a nightmare to plan and construct.

Cliche a response as it is, light rail down Broadway seems to me to be the most logical next step to solving Tucson's traffic problems. Granted, it won't happen, but I have trouble imagining that a freeway cutting the city up would be much more popular.

[soleri]

^It's hard to imagine Tucson ever voting for a crosstown freeway. They tend to be ornery NIMBYs. Still, given enough pain, they might eventually decide to. That's what happened in Phoenix 20 years ago. As I posted above, the only way to approach this thing is holistically. Decide you're going to limit growth on the edges, zone for TOD, adequately fund the transit, and live with it. Light rail makes sense in this context. But it's only one component.

[Epicurean]

^Oh, absolutely. But people like to have a "silver bullet" that will solve everything. I just hope that it turns out to be something other than another concrete mess....

[somethingfast]

I think everyone makes excellent points. I don't think we're actually disagreeing. I think we all WANT the same thing. I don't think it's practical. We don't deal in Soviet economics here. Social engineering fails every time. The reality is that most American cities are car-dependent. Newer, Sun Belt cities even more so. I would love to see all cities go vertical. Ain't going to happen. That said, we need to find solutions that work for all.

There is certainly no easy solution in Tucson for it's traffic problems. Doesn't mean we should ignore any more. I'm absolutely livid that the numbskulls that run this city are starting to mumble about taking parts of I-10 that run through DT and "submerging" it at astronomical cost. Absurd. Absolutely no reason for it. Take the money and build a reasonable (ie. 3 lanes, unimpeded, depressed, sound-proofed) freeway down Grant or Speedway. Yes, it will be painful. Yes, business will be relocated. Yes, people will bitch and moan. But in the end, it will be worth. It's a start. If not a major street, then the Rillito River. Something. Light rail won't work here because there too few "people centers". No real CBD. No large employment centers along Broadway. It would require too many stops. My guess is that nobody would use it either.

I think 30 years from now cars will actually be less of an issue than they are now. I think the oil issues will (finally) force government to explore alternative sources of energy that will require lighter materials. Cars will become lighter and cleaner. Probably smaller too. People will like cars again someday. That's my theory. But who knows.

In the end, I agree with everything above. But I also don't think it's 100% realistic. But ideas are good. There are more good ideas in this forum than in just about any municipal office in any city.

[Epicurean]

All I can say is that I deeply pity whoever is in charge of Tucson's planning division (Tucson does have a planning division, doesn't it?)

On a brighter note, when I was in town over the holiday, I noticed that the portion of downtown around the Fox is looking improved. Let's hope that it spreads!

[combusean]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

I think everyone makes excellent points. I don't think we're actually disagreeing. I think we all WANT the same thing. I don't think it's practical. We don't deal in Soviet economics here. Social engineering fails every time. The reality is that most American cities are car-dependent. Newer, Sun Belt cities even more so. I would love to see all cities go vertical. Ain't going to happen. That said, we need to find solutions that work for all.

A good start would be streamlining zoning codes as Tempe has done to encourage mixed use, pedestrian friendly development with limited setbacks. Tucson may never go vertical as skyscraper enthusiasts use the word, but there is plenty of room in that city for 2 - 4 story condo and apartment blocks, that with decent urban design, could encourage more people to take transit.

It's a matter of taking existing demand for multifamily housing with just as many provisions for the sidewalk than the driveway. That's not to say you can't do both--the perfect urban developments perfectly accomodates both.

There is certainly no easy solution in Tucson for it's traffic problems. Doesn't mean we should ignore any more. I'm absolutely livid that the numbskulls that run this city are starting to mumble about taking parts of I-10 that run through DT and "submerging" it at astronomical cost. Absurd. Absolutely no reason for it. Take the money and build a reasonable (ie. 3 lanes, unimpeded, depressed, sound-proofed) freeway down Grant or Speedway.

The dollars for Rio Nuevo come out of a tax district created by the state for that purpose. Highway projects go through considerably different financing and approval processes, so there's no provision that the money would be transferred--the electorate makes that decision. You do have to be exceedingly mindful of that--voters get tired of seeing twice the tax for one concept really quick.

Yes, it will be painful. Yes, business will be relocated. Yes, people will bitch and moan. But in the end, it will be worth. It's a start. If not a major street, then the Rillito River. Something. Light rail won't work here because there too few "people centers". No real CBD. No large employment centers along Broadway. It would require too many stops. My guess is that nobody would use it either.

The Rillito would work well as a limited access parkway sort of like Phoenix's Grand Ave or Aviation Pkwy, if they realigned River Rd. I don't particularly like the idea of building out there as I see the pattern of development more along I-19. A crosstown freeway would make more sense if they connected it back up with the 10, but Tucson is a long ways away from needing such a highway.

Light rail could work in Tucson under the basic premise that instead of building a freeway that's only needed during rush hour, you could feasibly have 24 hour transit service instead that does more or less the same job at alleviating congestion during that time frame. Sooner or later, it simply becomes more cost effective.

If they can redo their bus system around it, OD on TOD, and intelligently place park and ride lots, ilight rail in combination with expanded streetscars would be worth it in the long run.

I think 30 years from now cars will actually be less of an issue than they are now. I think the oil issues will (finally) force government to explore alternative sources of energy that will require lighter materials. Cars will become lighter and cleaner. Probably smaller too. People will like cars again someday. That's my theory. But who knows.

With Iran building their oil bourse, the end of the petrodollar is approaching us sooner than peak oil and has far more disastrous implications. This is something you need to plan and build for now. But doomsday economic theories aside, people need sustainable alternatives--look at what happened when Katrina hit.

In the end, I agree with everything above. But I also don't think it's 100% realistic. But ideas are good. There are more good ideas in this forum than in just about any municipal office in any city.

Well said.

[soleri]

I lived in Tucson back in the heyday of controlled or slow growth. At one time, slow-growthers had a majority on the city council and the board of supervisors. The feeling at the time was that Tucson was about to lose the very qualities which made it special, particularly the Sonoran Desert. Unfortunately, their thinking wasn't strategically sophisticated. Instead of opting for county-wide growth limits, they focused instead on keeping Tucson from annexing areas on the periphery. What this did was essentially let developers decide the fate of Tucson from outside its walls. The sprawl easily leapfrogged Tucson's city limits, new towns were incorporated, and the influx of suburbanites made Pima County more conservative.

Today, there's a power fragmentation between the city and county. The environmentalists, liberals, and urbanists all favor light rail as the best means to respond to transportation woes. The homebuilders, their paid political allies, and suburbanites favor freeways. This stand-off appears to worsen with each passing year.

The example of Phoenix is always looming over every discussion. Even the rightwingers prefer Tucson avoid this fate. Yet the siren song of freeways somehow suggests you can build freeways JUST ENOUGH, or NOT TOO MUCH, or JUST WHAT WE NEED. Phoenix proves otherwise. The more you build, the more you need. That's the logic of car-based growth. You cannot build a freeway to solve a transportation problem without also compounding that problem. Moreover, air quality in Phoenix is worsening along with traffic congestion. This is the Faustian bargain Los Angeles struck 50 years ago, and Phoenix 20 years ago. There is simply no escape from this hell.

Given the examples of LA and Phoenix, now expensively retrofitting themselves for mass transit, wouldn't Tucson be better advised to forgo the hell part and move directly to the solution part? Just a thought....

[kaneui]

As expected, City Mgr. Mike Hein is shaking up both the direction and pace of Rio Nuevo, with the private sector anticipated to take on a larger role in both the planning and construction of future downtown projects:


Bigger developer role in Rio Nuevo
City announces project retooling

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
1.13.2006

City officials announced a massive retooling Thursday of Rio Nuevo — including turning chunks of the Downtown redevelopment project over to private developers for "master planning." Tucson made mistakes in "over-promising and under-delivering" on Rio Nuevo, City Manager Mike Hein said, explaining the motive behind the changes. Hein said more realistic expectations will measure progress for the project in "decades, not years." "We're looking at the potential of doing a master plan for parts of Downtown," Hein said, adding that developers will be at the forefront of that effort.

Criticism that Rio Nuevo has been long on planning in the six years since it was approved by voters, while delivering little, prompted a shake-up that led to Assistant City Manager Karen Thoreson's taking a job elsewhere and Rio Nuevo Development Director Randy Emerson's job being eliminated.

In a memo to the City Council Thursday, Hein said the shake-up will continue. His plans include:
● Stripping Rio Nuevo of its status as independent branch of the city.
● Closing the project's Downtown office, moving the operation into Planning Department offices at the McArthur Building, next to the Ronstadt Transit Center and putting them under Planning Director Albert Elias.
● Tapping Tucson Convention Center Director Rich Singer to secure a Downtown arena, evaluate the University of Arizona Science Center and plan the Civic Plaza. Elias will lead art, cultural and heritage projects, including rebuilding the San Agust�n Mission and other buildings from Tucson's birthplace.
● Hein himself taking a bigger leadership role, especially on putting Interstate 10 underground through Downtown.
● Enlisting the private sector to an even greater extent.

In addition, in order to soothe the expectations of the public — which has become frustrated with its direction — the city must make it clear to the community what a "reasonable pace" is for the development and why it will take longer, Hein said in the memo.

Details on how the role of private developers will increase, and what the changes mean for existing Rio Nuevo plans, remain sketchy. "We must challenge the private sector to provide ideas in appropriate ways," he said in the memo.

Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko, who will keep his job and will be given the task of enlisting more private sector participation, said the city needs to put it's property in the hands of developers to let them "do what they do." "We need to stop the analysis and planning and get our real estate on the market," he said.

Shelko cited two areas the city could sell to developers: 12 acres on the west bank of the Santa Cruz River south of Congress Street, and the various parking lots of the Tucson Convention Center that he said total 15 to 20 acres. Two other sites that the city will focus on in the next year are the Congress Street corridor and the Warehouse District on Toole Avenue, Shelko said.

Hein said some of the criticisms aimed at Rio Nuevo are "fair questions," including those questioning the pace of improvements and what the city has done with the $31.8 million it has spent Downtown. "We need to do a better job of communicating with the public," Hein said. "We announce that things will happen and then they don't happen by the expected date. These things don't happen quickly."

While the city is not hitting the brakes on Rio Nuevo, it isn't stomping its foot down on the accelerator either. Hein said this does not mean that the city is "shrinking Rio Nuevo" but wants to do more with a smaller staff. That's typical Hein, said Singer, who added the city manager is "walking the walk." He said the restructuring is a positive thing. The public tends to think "unless there is a major project with steel coming out of the ground, there's nothing happening," Singer said. The Convention Center director said he is excited about leading Tucson's drive for a new arena and a new UA Science Center.

While council members generally applauded the restructuring, Councilman Jose Ibarra said the city doesn't have the luxury of time, because it's been six years since the project was approved, and the city has lost credibility over that time. Still, he said, he approved of the shake-up, which he added some council members have been wanting for two years. He said he wants the new focus and the new team to get going quickly. "I'm proud to hear that he has admitted that mistakes have been made in the past," Ibarra said. "It is true. We needed to to tell that to the public."

Councilwoman Carol West said the fresh eyes that come with new leaders will yield new ideas for Rio Nuevo. West said she agreed with Hein that redevelopment takes time. "I'm like a broken record on that one," she said.

For Mayor Bob Walkup, it's the lack of commercial development with Rio Nuevo that has troubled him the most. "We've all been uncomfortable with the private sector involvement, especially in the commercial area," Walkup said. "Where are the commercial developers? Why do we have storefronts boarded up Downtown?"

The mayor said that by retooling Rio Nuevo and taking a more active role, Hein is doing "what we asked him to do." Both Walkup and Hein said the changes won't hurt their chances of getting the Rio Nuevo special tax district extended for 20 or 30 years, but rather will help it. The law is now expected to feed $124 million into Rio Nuevo by the time it expires in 2012. A 20-year extension would add $580 million that the city would have to match, while a 30-year extension would add $1.01 billion.

The city manager said the changes "should indicate to the Legislature and the public that we've heard their concerns." The mayor said the original 10 years didn't create enough capital to fully revitalize Downtown, and the extension would make Rio Nuevo "more beefy." He said the shake-up shows the Legislature the city is serious about its Downtown. "Without retooling it, we would have been vulnerable on the argument," Walkup said.


Rio Nuevo money
$124 million

Funds expected from the special taxing district over its current 10-year life
$31.8 million

Amount spent since voters approved the district in 1999
$381.5 million

PROJECTED PRIVATE INVESTMENT DOWNTOWN IN CONJUNCTION WITH RIO NUEVO IMPROVEMENTS

Possible impact/ What restructuring could mean for major Rio Nuevo projects:
Projects completed/No impact:
l Restoration of Fox Theatre.
l Tucson Convention Center ticket window expansion.
l Rialto Theatre.
l Pennington Street Garage.

Projects that have started or are in advanced planning:
l Mercado District housing — Development started.
l Re-creation of the San Agust�n mission and other historic structures from Tucson's birthplace — In advanced planning and a council priority.
l Presidio Historic Park — Ground broken this year.

Projects in early planning phases or unstarted that could be affected by a slowdown:
l Depot Plaza housing and commercial — In planning.
l Arizona State Museum — Feasibility study started.
l Civic/Cultural Plazas — In planning.
l Arizona Historical Society Museum — Feasibility study started.
l Arena — Feasibility study near completion.
l University of Arizona Science Center and Rainbow Bridge — In planning.
l Convention hotel — No action.
l Visitors and Trade Center — No action.
l Rancho Chuk-Son — No action.

[Portland/Phoenix Guy]

Sorry this is such a late response but I honestly agree with both somethingfast & soleri in how they view what Tucson should do. Having grown up in Portland I think its fair to offer my viewpoint since I see PDX is brought up so much in these recent posts.

Most of the freeways were built in Portland before the landmark UGB however with that said our highways aren't huge at all but rather 3 lanes each direction (max4 but only for like a 1/2 mile in selective spots) for a metro of 2.1-2.6ish million depending if you count Salem or not. With that said our area has grown alot but not our highways and main throughways per se. In our forums we countlessly talk about much needed highways b/c of the traffic. Since our city is more dense, the freeways fill up much faster but its a good thing since the traffic is almost induced to force ridership on MAX & our bus system. And though our highways are narrow our roads have enough green space in the middle to accomodate 5-6 lanes in each direction in most part if we really wanted to but we decided to plan for the future and use it for MetroAreaXpress our version of light rail.

Im sure Im preaching to the choir and you all know of this already but maybe what you dont realize is that virtually all of our major proposals for transportation are related only to improving road conditions and adding more MAX lines to serve the city. This I feel is a stark contrast to PHX and why TUC shouldn't emulate Phoenix in the slighest. Our city builds a street car system downtown, a MAX line to the airport, a North line and an extension to the extreme W metro in Hillsboro. Planning is also on the works for two S extensions of MAX PLUS a commuter rail line! In roughly the same timeline PHX builds the 202 sprawls out everywhere and contemplates the 303 (Aguafria NW Valley?) and 404/505(pinal?) though I will give them a + for the ASU/lightrail thing though if they built lightrail half as fast as thier freeways maybe they would have it a little better .

I am in no way sayin PDX is better than these places, we got our own problems and I love PHX & Tucson......and im sure its hard with the growth rates so unbelievably high but we have our own lil phoenix across the river in Vancouver which has grown considerably b/c of annexation and poor planning which brings up another point. I honestly see tucson being ok so long as it doesn't start annexing everything the eye can see on the horizon!

In all, the city is very time consuming to get anywhere in which I agree to the prior people that have expressed this concern. I too thought about Tucson with another highway in it but honestly instead of a crosstown freeway maybe all of that money should improve the countless potholes and/or start a commuter rail to PHX perhaps? After all this time of seeing PHX spread out why would you want to copy thier same fate in a highway? And if that is the case then you as a town are basically bending over and saying "stick it in." Sorry if you dont like it but TAKE A RISK and TRY to think of something different than just crosstown highways, I mean honestly whats the worst that can happen.......the project failing just like the freeways? Do I think spending millions of $ on a bridge is the best thing either? I dont know....honestly the city needs some sort of a landmark & the downtown is dead and I think it would be a great addition to the city but on the other hand I can sympathize why people would be pissed when money could be so many other things.

Hopefully Tucson wont try to copy Phoenix with its sprawl anymore than it has...

[Don B.]

Did you all see this video?

http://www.azstarnet.com/business/

On the right side, you will see:

An animated tour of the proposed science center bridge

Click on launch video.



--don

[somethingfast]

Thanks for the heads up on that one, Don. Looks slick. Not sure I like the concept on a functional level (will a long corridor feel work?) but I like it in terms of aesthetic and "landmark" potential. On that note, I would build something considerably taller (600ft like St. Louis Arch maybe?) and have some sort of observation platform up there. The project has lots of potential. It's just too progressive for Tucson to get behind, though, unless someone at a civic level really champions it.

[kaneui]

The local business community is encouraged by City Manager Mike Hein's efforts to re-energize and refocus Rio Nuevo, bringing new hope for Tucson's downtown revitalization:


Developers, chamber say new Rio Nuevo is opportunity
Phillip S. Moore
Inside Tucson Business
Friday, Jan 20, 2006

Ground has been broken and site preparation work continues for the Mercado District at Menlo Park, the showcase “new urban” housing and commercial center, south of West Congress Street near Grande Avenue.

However, whether it will continue to set the tone for the rest of downtown Tucson’s redevelopment is now in doubt as the project’s sponsor, Rio Nuevo, undergoes a sweeping transformation under the direction of Tucson City Manager Mike Hein.

Announced in a memo to the city council late last week, Hein said he is dismantling the organization as it has existed since 1999. The office on Congress Street will be closing and the staff will be incorporated into existing city departments, which will assume responsibility for Rio Nuevo’s various redevelopment agendas.

Calling the move a way to foster better communications and enhance the city’s ability to meeting the expectations of the mayor, council and community, he reassigned responsibility for the proposed Flandrau Science Center, arena and civic plaza to Rich Singer, director of the Tucson Convention Center. Responsibility for the east and west side Tucson Origins Heritage Parks and other arts and cultural projects were given to Planning Director Albert Elias.

Hein, along with Greg Shelko, current director of Rio Nuevo, will be pursuing greater private sector involvement, especially in redeveloping the city’s inventory of vacant or underutilized property, most left over from the 35-year-old Tucson Urban Renewal project.

Among the real estate potentially available to developers are the 20 acres of vacant property, now used as Tucson Convention Center’s overflow parking lots, and 12 acres immediately adjacent to the Mercado District.

That might mean a bigger project for the district and its six builders, said Rio Development’s Managing Partner Jerry Dixon, “but that will depend on how things are going in the next six months.”

Dixon said, “Nobody likes change, and were happy with the people we were working with at Rio Nuevo, but we’ll have to see how the changes affect us.

What may change is how the city prioritizes Rio Nuevo, which would be a change for the better, he said. “I’d like to see an easier time getting permits and more concessions to builders as they put the land out to play. Incentives would make it easier for builders to commit to developing it.”

Making it easier to develop is at the top of Hein’s agenda, he said. “There are lot of parcels around downtown, not just the vacant land by I-10 but also places to the east and north. The private sector may have alternatives for this land we haven’t contemplated. Unless we allow the mayor and council to consider all the options, we won’t know if we’re foregoing opportunities.”

The most dramatic change could be a move away from requests for proposal for specific lots. Instead, Hein said the city could choose the development of a coordinated master plan. “What are our options? This is a good way to find out.”

Those options could be dramatically changed if the plan for lowering and capping Interstate 10 go forward. Now being considered, the plan will lower the freeway below the adjacent land from St. Mary’s Road to 22nd Street. Approximately 800 feet of the freeway right of way south of Congress would be covered, “providing significantly more developable land and options for developing it,” he said.

“I think we’re going to see a variety of uses, for the convention center, arts and cultural venues and residential. What we’ll have to do next is sort out when they go, how they go and the like. I know there’s a desire to show short-term success, but we don’t want to choose that in a way that limits our choices for long-term success,” Hein said.

John Camper, president of the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said he’s ready to work with the city in any way possible. “The Chamber was a major force in getting the first tax increment funding bill approved, and we’re working to get an extension. So, the Chamber is happy to play whatever role is needed.”

Camper said he hopes housing is given a top priority by the new Rio Nuevo because no redevelopment plan can work without it. “If the housing is there, people will follow. Then, the specialty stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and other services will follow them, and that will give new life to downtown.”

The arena also makes sense, he said, because it will allow the convention center to handle conventions, and the combination of an arena and conference center will make a new hotel or expansion of an existing one more possible. “This is something that makes sense for Tucson, and Rich Singer is the man to do it.”

Mostly, Camper said, he sees the change at Rio Nuevo as a way to overcome the perception that the project has been dragging. “So the fact that Mike Hein is trying to get people together again to decide where we want to go is great. From that we can develop a strong public-private partnership with a vision, and from that will emerge something we can make happen.”

Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Executive Director Joe Snell said he applauds Hein’s decision because “success of a downtown is critically important to the broader scheme of economic development.”

It’s a focus for labor and for business development, and it’s a focus for entertainment and cultural activities. “Also, I think it helps a city with its identity. Just look at those cities with a strong downtown and you can see how that downtown helps give the city an identity and sense of place.”

Snell said, “I’m excited by what’s happening. We’re heading in the right direction by giving a greater role to the private sector because the private sector is where economic development happens. We’ll need a public sector, too, but the city seems to be looking to find the right balance, and that is critical.”

[kaneui]

Is momentum building to kill yet another transportation plan for the Tucson metro area?

The silver lining in this cloud is that if Tucsonans continue to disagree on how to deal with their worsening, sprawl-induced traffic gridlock, it will only push residents to live closer to the city's employment centers, encourage more infill development, and perhaps even generate some real urban transportation solutions.


2nd group will oppose 20-year RTA plan, tax
Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
1.24.2006

A second group has announced plans to oppose the Regional Transportation Authority's 20-year plan to improve Tucson-area transportation and proposed half-cent sales tax.

Tucson Needs a Real Transportation Plan will urge voters to defeat the RTA's proposed plan and tax on May 16, contending those proposals won't solve the area's transportation problems, said Ken O'Day, a founding member of the group. The RTA plan lacks vision, he said, because it's dependent on "the same old failed ideas" — mainly, widening existing roads and streets — which hurt residents and businesses that are forced to move.

O'Day said his group opposes the plan and tax "simply because we just don't think it's a good plan," unlike Enough, the first group formed to oppose the RTA plan, whose members include longtime anti-tax and limited-government activists.

At least one group has been formed to encourage voters to support the plan: Yes for Regional Transportation. Yes member Steve Farley said the RTA plan includes provisions to help residents and businesses that would be displaced by the projects. Before the work is done, members of the public would participate in corridor development plans, he said.

O'Day's group says the $87.7 million in RTA funds for a "modern streetcar," to be matched by a federal grant, is an example that shows the projects cost too much and benefit too few. The 3.9-mile streetcar system would run from the Arizona Health Sciences Center to the Rio Nuevo area west of Downtown. Instead, O'Day said, the plan should have included a system of express buses, which would cost about $30 million for the same route.

Farley said studies show the streetcar would attract riders and help boost Downtown redevelopment.


● To find out more about Tucson Needs a Real Transportation Plan, e-mail tucsonrealplan@gmail.com or go online to www.tucsonrealplan.com

● To find out more about the Regional Transportation Authority's plan, go online to www.rtamobility.com or call Steffannie Koeneman, the RTA's public-participation manager, at 770-9410.

[soleri]

It's a staple of rightwing theology that rail is too expensive and doesn't work. But the experience in virtually every city with light rail or trolleys is that it attracts new riders and TOD. Buses, by contrast, tend to get mired in traffic and simply lack the "cool" factor that attends rail. Tucson, so far, has opted for the Phoenix approach of dispersed, horizontal development with all the resulting traffic snarls. Freeways will literally set this template in concrete. This being Arizona, it's hard to imagine Tucson thinking creatively instead of reflexively. But I've got my fingers crossed....

[kaneui]

Plaza Centro--a proposed eight-story, mixed-use development for the Greyhound bus depot site on the east end of downtown--is favored by nearby businesses, but could cancel the already-delayed 4th Ave. underpass replacement, which 4th Ave. merchants want:






The old Greyhound bus depot


Developer's plaza may kill 4th Ave. underpass
By Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.02.2006

The stalled Fourth Avenue underpass project could be canceled entirely if the city agrees to a developer's proposed eight-story commercial and condo project where the Greyhound Bus Depot now sits at the east end of Downtown.

Jim Campbell's proposal also would require closing parts of East Congress Street and North Fourth and Toole avenues. Vehicles coming into Downtown from the east would remain on East Broadway, which would become a two-way street, until they reach Fifth or Herbert avenues, then jog up to Congress. "The key is to get (through) traffic out of Downtown," he said, echoing a theme city officials voiced when they reduced the number of lanes on Congress and Broadway in June.

City officials declined to comment on Campbell's proposal, which was sent to City Manager Mike Hein on Jan. 17, other than to say they've just begun to study it. Two major players in Downtown redevelopment — Doug Biggers, executive director of the Rialto Theatre renovation project, and Hotel Congress owner Richard Oseran — said they like the idea. The Rialto sits next to the depot and the hotel is just across the street.

Scrapping plans for a new Fourth Avenue underpass got a chilly reception, however, from the Fourth Avenue Merchants Association, which fears that will delay completion of the Barraza-Aviation Parkway. Campbell proposes to develop a total of 2.5 acres in and around the Greyhound terminal, at 2 S. Fourth Ave., into a pedestrian-friendly complex he calls Plaza Centro.

His plans call for street-level commercial development on a portion of the depot property, extending out into the area where Congress and Fourth Avenue now run. That would be topped with several floors of parking and an unspecified number of residential units.

The city gave Campbell the first right to develop the Greyhound property in November as part of a land-swap deal to preserve a portion of historic Fort Lowell. "I'm intrigued by the idea, because I think it could contribute to creating a genuine sense of place on the east end at the gateway to Downtown," Biggers said.

Donovan Durband, executive director of the Tucson Downtown Alliance, says Campbell's proposal would accomplish a lot of goals that Downtown merchants and city officials have pursued. Those include reducing the amount of through traffic Downtown, increasing parking and converting streets to two-way traffic, he said. But, Durband said, "Whether it's feasible to eliminate the new Fourth Avenue underpass remains to be seen."

Fourth Avenue merchants, believe a new underpass is needed to replace the old structure, built in 1916, said John Sedwick, the association's executive director. Sedwick said that although members of the merchants association's board of directors have seen only the basic concept of Campbell's plan, "We are not in favor of anything that further delays construction of the underpass."

The underpass project has already been delayed several times, most recently in October when the only bid was $31 million — 50 percent above the city estimate. Campbell said his proposal doesn't absolutely require dropping the underpass project. But it would help his development and enable pedestrians to stroll from Plaza Centro to nearby attractions such as the Rialto Theatre, the Hotel Congress and the Historic Train Depot. He estimates the potential value of his project at between $25 million and $50 million.

"The (city's) plan hurts this part of town," Campbell said, because it creates pockets of land around the 0.8-acre bus station site that are separated by Congress and Toole. That makes sense to Oseran, whose Hotel Congress is at 311 E. Congress St. "I like the idea of having a better use for the land than just as a transit route, and fully developing it, instead of having a series of separated parcels," he said. His plan also would create additional parking, which Oseran said is badly needed in the area.

Campbell said the money the city would save on the underpass could be used for other parkway needs. That appeals to Biggers, despite his longtime support for the new underpass. "The price tag of the new underpass is huge," he said. Campbell said the old underpass would have to be modified to accommodate the streetcar the city has proposed to run from the UA area to Rio Nuevo Downtown, along with vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Campbell agreed that part of the proposal would require some difficult engineering — among other things, the tunnel would have to be made at least 4 feet deeper.

Jim Glock, director of the city's Transportation Department, said it's too early to comment on Campbell's plan. Department staffers have met with him once and will meet with him again on Monday, he said. Glock said Campbell told him he does not want his proposal to alter the city's schedule of moving forward on the Fourth Avenue project.

Greyhound's old station is scheduled to be demolished shortly after the company moves its operations into a temporary site at Congress and the westbound I-10 frontage road by the end of March. It will operate there until a new permanent station is built at North Sixth and North Toole avenues.

[kaneui]

With a study citing added costs of $285M and an additional six years to complete, Tucson has decided to scrap the idea of submerging 1.5 miles of I-10 as it is widened through the downtown area:


High cost sinks I-10 tunnel plan

By Rob O'Dell and Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.03.2006


The much-hyped Interstate 10 tunnel through Downtown Tucson hit the ground Thursday with a $374 million thud. That's what it would cost to depress the 1.5-mile stretch of freeway from West St. Mary's Road to 29th Street, including a 600- to 800-foot tunnel, according to a study done for the city by HDR Inc. Widening the same stretch of freeway above ground level, as the state now plans, would cost $89 million, a difference of $285 million.

And that doesn't include the cost of buying two motels and a fast-food restaurant that would be needed for putting the road underground. City Manager Mike Hein said the city didn't calculate the cost of acquiring the right of way because the project cost too much already. "When you see $285 million plus the right of way, it gets expensive obviously," Hein said.

Additionally, the report says building just the Downtown section of roadway would take 5 1/2 years. Changes in the northern half of the project — from Prince Road to St. Mary's — required to make the connection with the Downtown segment, would add another 3 1/2 years, said Assistant City Manager Karen Masbruch, bringing the total time to get it built to nine years — three times as long as the state had planned to take.

The news was enough to prompt Mayor Bob Walkup, Councilman Jose Ibarra and county Supervisors Richard El�as and Sharon Bronson, who originally sought the study, to sign a letter describing the tunnel plan as "unreasonable," and saying the state should go ahead with its plan to widen the freeway above ground. Putting I-10 underground would have required buying out the businesses along the west side of the freeway in order to put in a temporary frontage road to carry traffic from the highway while it would be shut down as it was being lowered. The city would have had to condemn or buy parts of Carl's Jr., Days Inn and the Riverpark Inn.

While the council won't take a formal vote on the study until Tuesday, Hein said, "I don't see a great deal of hope in the project. "Clearly the cost is more than people find acceptable. It's clearly expensive and it clearly will take a lot of time."

No further studies are planned on depressing the highway, Masbruch said, noting that the HDR study cost the city $200,000. City and county officials who pushed the underground plan said they were disappointed to hear it won't happen, but were glad that they took a hard look at the possibility before the Arizona Department of Transportation started widening I-10 later this year.

"We tried really hard to make it work," said Ibarra, who represents the area. "Unfortunately, the time and the price was too high, and it was too much of an obstacle that we had to walk away from the project. "What we wanted to do is connect the East and West sides. We needed to show that we would take a last look and a final shot at the project."

El�as, chairman of Board of Supervisors, said the proposal cost too much and the added time for completion "would be a significant hardship on everybody."
Still, he said the tunnel proposal stirred debate about Rio Nuevo and the state freeway plan, which he said the city and county should try to modify to better meet the needs of the community. El�as said it is a travesty that ADOT's widening would actually raise the highway by eight feet.

Steve Leal, the Democratic councilman from Ward 5, said he was saddened by the news that depressing I-10 would cost an extra $285 million. He said connecting the East and West sides would have been "the most important thing that the city could have done for the community and the Downtown ever." "Frankly, I'm disappointed," said Walkup, adding that the city still needs to work strategically to improve Downtown. "And that's still going to happen, no matter what happens with I-10."

Lillian Lopez-Grant, a West Side community activist and a member of the Menlo Park Neighborhood Association, said she loved the idea of depressing I-10. She said she's very disappointed city officials didn't try to get ADOT to consider the proposal "until the last minute." "I am disappointed, but most of us kind of figured it would come out this way." Lopez-Grant said. "As usual, they're (city officials) a day late and dollar short."

West Side residents still could get more of a connection to Downtown. A proposal from the county would create or improve five "crossings" — tunnels — underneath I-10. In a memo to Hein, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry proposed the new connections. They include: a new tunnel at Simpson Street; enlarging the Clark Street tunnel; a new tunnel south of St. Mary's Road near Arroyo Chico for bicyclists and pedestrians; and enlarging underpasses at both St. Mary's and Congress Street to provide more room for future expansion and for pedestrians and bicyclists. Huckelberry estimated the cost of the five "openings" at $30 million to $40 million.

Si Schorr, a skeptic of the underground I-10, said he supports looking into the new openings and said widening I-10 should go out to bid as soon as possible. Schorr said the new openings could either be included in the project, or ADOT could bid the project in stages with the new openings added later. "I would hope that we could proceed with the project as soon as possible," he said. "I think people in the community, especially those who use I-10 to get to work, are expecting progress. And I think we've got to give them that progress."

Huckelberry said the reality is that depressing the freeway was not feasible and the city and county need to look at other options. "It ties up the interstate for five and a half more years and I think that's just unacceptable from most perspectives," he said. "It would be desirable to have a different outcome. . . . But from the beginning, I think everybody knew it was a long shot."

[somethingfast]

^ That was such an asinine plan to begin with. Unbelievable really. Bunch of dumbasses run this city. Sorry, I'm just sick of these "pie in the sky" transportation plans here in Tucson that not only are impractical as hell but would have zero chance of getting through a vote. The people here aren't nearly as stupid as the civic "leaders".