Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I totally agree with your views on this. It's about being business-friendly and trying to jump the shark with a new technology. And if you think about it 'hardware' has long been an AZ strength as apposed to software (although that's changing). Hardware meaning micro-processors, memory chips etc along with Aero-electronics etc.

High Speed Rail?
Not happening; no need. We have the best airport system coverage in the universe. It's possible that over time a handful of HSR-lite routes could be built but on the whole true HSR costs would be obscene.

Gov Ducey
is the nice result of the business community getting more involved at the primary level to relieve the awful mess created by social conservatives back in 2010. They proved to be a difference maker by supporting business practical, sane candidates.

Business Dem v Business Republican it's all the same to me... except for the obligatory sucking up to the grass roots crazies in either case. I had to lol at Ducey's Trumpian patriotic play with Nike. I think he got more national than local play with that. Didn't take him long to walk that back.

"Jump the shark" doesn't usually have a favorable meaning. It comes from Fonzie's ridiculous stunt, written into a Happy Days script in an attempt to keep the show interesting. It has since come to define the moment when something has attained its peak and will inevitably decline.

As for "airport system coverage," I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but there are many US airports (e.g. LaGuardia) that are an embarrassment by worldwide standards. Part of the reason is that we've overloaded airports by using them for medium-length trips that might be better handled by trains.

[combusean]

^ Bingo. And even the US's lone sorry excuse for HSR, the Acela, is still faster than flying in many circumstances.

[CrestedSaguaro]

And not too mention, not everyone likes to fly. There is a large market for people that refuse to travel by plane. This is where HSR comes into play. Also, I think many would prefer to take an HSR for shorter trips to LA, San Diego or Vegas over flying as it's less hassle to check in, fight with delays, etc.

[Obadno]

Hsr is completely redicoulous outside of the northeast and maybe the Bay Area

Even in parts of the rust belt where there are a number of cities relatively close together those cities themselves are so spread out in built form the effectiveness of centralized train transport is highly deminished.

Continuing to pound hsr is a total waste we are better off focusing on local transportation systems and then maybe in a few generations those local and regional systems can be connected via hsr express routs

[xymox]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

And not too mention, not everyone likes to fly. There is a large market for people that refuse to travel by plane. This is where HSR comes into play. Also, I think many would prefer to take an HSR for shorter trips to LA, San Diego or Vegas over flying as it's less hassle to check in, fight with delays, etc.

Its just about a wash time wise to just drive straight to Vegas and even southern CA from Phoenix. Certainly cheaper than most flights (outside the special $39 flights). Especially if you have a family going with.

But I do agree - I'd use HSR to Vegas and LA if it were available. But I also agree with the comment on getting local transportation fleshed out before we get HSR in place. If there isn't a decent transportation network on either end of the HSR then we aren't much better off than we were just flying/driving. As I said before, I'm all for commuter rail lines through the metro to help tie together light rail and bus lines. I feel its our missing piece.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

"Jump the shark" doesn't usually have a favorable meaning. It comes from Fonzie's ridiculous stunt, written into a Happy Days script in an attempt to keep the show interesting. It has since come to define the moment when something has attained its peak and will inevitably decline.

I couldn't begin to tell you why that phrase popped into my mind or even the last time I used it - if ever. It was obviously a poor choice if that's your takeaway but I did enjoy the retrospective.

Originally Posted by exit2lef

As for "airport system coverage," I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but there are many US airports (e.g. LaGuardia) that are an embarrassment by worldwide standards. Part of the reason is that we've overloaded airports by using them for medium-length trips that might be better handled by trains.

I'm glad you picked on LaGuardia for several reasons.

First of all it's the poster child of neglect for the over-taxed, infrastructure burdened Northeast. Ofc, comparing it to the shiny new toys especially in Asia is quite the contrast. Yes, our domestic airports have aged and indeed many have been or are being upgraded to include shiny new features and better function.

LaGuardia is in fact undergoing a total rebuild to the tune of $8 billion but I guess compared to the cost of building one new mile of subway it's perhaps a bargain for that part of the union-challenged country. Compared to Denver's $2.5 billion renovation for it's airport, LaGuardia's price tag doesn't sound unreasonable. The only expansion piece in Denver is adding 39 new gates across all three concourses by end of 2021 which are already over-subscribed. This speaks to the still rapidly growing airport traffic around the country.

With respect to "medium-length trips that might be better handled by trains" I wouldn't disagree - in a vacuum. If we were working with a blank canvass then including (even) higher-speed commuter trains would be ideal. Problem is trying to retrofit these into the existing fabric is virtually logistically and economically not feasible outside of maybe a couple areas where right-of-way may already exist.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Hsr is completely redicoulous outside of the northeast and maybe the Bay Area

Even in parts of the rust belt where there are a number of cities relatively close together those cities themselves are so spread out in built form the effectiveness of centralized train transport is highly deminished.

Continuing to pound hsr is a total waste we are better off focusing on local transportation systems and then maybe in a few generations those local and regional systems can be connected via hsr express routs

There's opinions, and then there's facts.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jat/2017/8426926/

"We set the distance threshold as 1,000 km since HSR is most competitive against air transport for routes less than 1,000 km [60]."

If you want to talk about total wastes and local transportation, the existing model of short haul flights across the US is a total waste of airport capacity and FAA dollars. PHX's subsidies can be as high as 80%.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/

If PHX and all LAX-area/LAS airports had to pay to expand the way their local transportation systems could be subsidized by the FTA (40%ish), we'd probably *already have HSR connecting everything*, much of which could involve private financing. The current model makes private involvement nearly unfeasible and non-competitive when people don't pay anywhere near the full cost of their airfare--imagine if your passenger facilities surcharge was 10 times higher. You would DEFINITELY not have $39 flights.

It's ridiculous to look at the broken status quo, especially from a conservative mindset, and think it's somehow the best of scenarios. Our airport system is a great example of government waste, especially when you look at how smaller airports and even their routes get outsized Federal subsidies for their use and effectiveness. I recall Chandler Regional got a 90%+ runway improvement subsidy some years ago and who do you know flies out of that?

[xymox]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to "medium-length trips that might be better handled by trains" I wouldn't disagree - in a vacuum. If we were working with a blank canvass then including (even) higher-speed commuter trains would be ideal. Problem is trying to retrofit these into the existing fabric is virtually logistically and economically not feasible outside of maybe a couple areas where right-of-way may already exist.

Why not take it underground? Clearly more expensive than above ground tracks - but still possible to put the lines in. There are also canals across the valley that could yield some sort of right away - if we built rail on top of them then that would seal them up and help reduce evaporation rates.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by xymox

Why not take it underground? Clearly more expensive than above ground tracks - but still possible to put the lines in. There are also canals across the valley that could yield some sort of right away - if we built rail on top of them then that would seal them up and help reduce evaporation rates.

It sounds like you're talking about subways within the Phoenix Metro Area rather than high-speed rail linking cities hundreds of miles apart. In any case, I'm sure SRP could tell you a thousand reasons why rail over canals, an idea I've heard suggested many times, is not practical. One reason I can think of is that the canals generally travel through residential areas and would not come close enough to major destinations.

Back to high speed rail and the original discussion of state transportation priorities, I don't say with any certainty that HSR is feasible here, but I think it should at least be studied as a possibility. In the meantime, the more immediate priorities should be restoration of Amtrak service to Union Station and the establishment of commuter rail in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Under the Trump Administration, the FTA continues to drag its feet on transit funding.

On a positive funding note:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news...budget/557607/

The legislation provides $13.5 billion in funding to public transit and billions more for infrastructure and railroad improvements... The projected budget is $6 billion more than the 2019 level, and $17.3 billion more than the president's 2020 budget request.

This came from the House and still needs to go through the Senate; regardless of final numbers this bill among a bevy of other ones will get packaged into one huge Omnibus bill that the President has no control over other than to sign or veto.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by xymox

Why not take it underground? Clearly more expensive than above ground tracks - but still possible to put the lines in. There are also canals across the valley that could yield some sort of right away - if we built rail on top of them then that would seal them up and help reduce evaporation rates.

I think you're on the right track in looking to commuter rail within the metro area.

With respect to tunneling, Seattle now has a lot of experience and like a lot of things - engineering wise - has become more efficient and less expensive to do. A couple of their more exotic applications though have been obscenely expensive but for more basic challenges it's can be a smart option.

Going forward the time will come when a more regional approach to transit will need to be considered. MAG is at least talking about it. My bet is that in hindsight the genius of building all these road mile lanes will end up providing the perfect ROW for commuter rail too.

[combusean]

There's about a 50 - 65' rail right of way that already goes through established downtowns--the track is old as dirt and every bit of it needs to be replaced. Minimal grade separation like vehicle barriers gets you 125 MPH. Not sure why we'd be talking about canals when we have this and SRP is one of the most vision-free agencies in the state.

MAG and the state have done rail plans and are updating them, they come up to about $4 billion to provide varying levels of service, some amount of which would receive a subsidy.

There's no political will to do much of anything, even in Phoenix, which I find kind of weird. I thought we'd see "Prop 500" on the ballot in 2014, perhaps the powers at be are testing Phoenicians' appetite for rail with Prop 105 before proceeding further. I'm skeptical of the support--400 was only passed because MAG totally sold it as "Finish the Freeways!" despite including plenty of money for other modes.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by combusean

If PHX and all LAX-area/LAS airports had to pay to expand the way their local transportation systems could be subsidized by the FTA (40%ish), we'd probably *already have HSR connecting everything*, much of which could involve private financing.

It's ridiculous to look at the broken status quo, especially from a conservative mindset, and think it's somehow the best of scenarios. Our airport system is a great example of government waste, especially when you look at how smaller airports and even their routes get outsized Federal subsidies for their use and effectiveness. I recall Chandler Regional got a 90%+ runway improvement subsidy some years ago and who do you know flies out of that?

Discussions around subsidies are difficult; they too easily become a statistical black hole of circular arguments.

My generic response is that government expenditures or subsidies are the collective revenue from taxpayer - voters for the greater, common good. They merely reflect what taxpayers and constituents want.

Historically Federal Grant have supported all forms of transportation with roads and airports being obviously preferred and the biggest beneficiaries.

At the end of the day these allocations result from what bubbles up from the local level within an imperfect political system.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

My guess is that the residents of neighborhoods along 19th Avenue, even those who feel unfavorably about light rail, would support completion of the line to MetroCenter for that reason. Not only would a MetroCenter terminus shift some loitering away from 19th Ave / Dunlap, it would also end the line at a location that has more bus transfers available and more places to go such as the Cholla library, Cortez and Rose Mofford parks, and the mall itself. There would be more capacity there to absorb and scatter passengers disembarking at the end of the line. Unfortunately, when opponents of the South Central line joined forces with those who reflexively oppose all rail transit, they set in motion a chain of events that could prevent this from occurring, even though it makes sense regardless of one's overall opinion of light rail.

Worth piggy-backing on.

Should the August vote pass (I have no clue) then Phoenix City Council should immediately offer up a proposal for voter approval in 2020 for the light rail extension to MetroCenter that would (obviously) override the vote in August.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Discussions around subsidies are difficult; they too easily become a statistical black hole of circular arguments.

That's why I conjured a hypothesis, and wasn't stating any fact. But I don't understand how one can dispute that overly generous aviation subsidies are damaging to the rail market and dissuade public and private investment.

My generic response is that government expenditures or subsidies are the collective revenue from taxpayer - voters for the greater, common good. They merely reflect what taxpayers and constituents want.

This to me reads like a logical fallacy: we've always been doing it this way so there's no reason to change. It sounds like a given, when it's not. I despise I-5 traffic and flying. I would be in LA every month to hang out if I had reliable train service there.

I might be tempted to take a direct train to Phoenix if such a thing existed. Flying involves an hour to get to the airport, an hour waiting and getting through the hassle of a security, and a 2 - 3 hour flight depending on Southwest's inevitable delays and stops. 5 hours to go 755 miles isn't nearly faster than driving than it should be and I'd happily take an HSR train if it were 6 or 7 hours. Half the time I do the expensive business class on LUV to get the kind of flexibility that a train offers anyways.

The reason to change is obvious: California *cannot* expand its airports any more to handle projected air traffic, an outsized chunk of which handles Bay Area <-> LAX traffic.

As for Phoenix, the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan is to spend $5.7 billion to expand Sky Harbor over the next 20 years in 2019 dollars, some significant chunk of which is LAX and LAS traffic. I also wonder if this is the best use of that money.

I'm not opposed to airport subsidies per se--it's only misplaced Federal priorities *cough*defense*ahem* that creates an artificial culture of want and need rather than having nice things. I just think train service should have a reasonable capability to compete, private or publicly funded.

[xymox]

Originally Posted by combusean

There's about a 50 - 65' rail right of way that already goes through established downtowns--the track is old as dirt and every bit of it needs to be replaced. Minimal grade separation like vehicle barriers gets you 125 MPH. Not sure why we'd be talking about canals when we have this and SRP is one of the most vision-free agencies in the state.

MAG and the state have done rail plans and are updating them, they come up to about $4 billion to provide varying levels of service, some amount of which would receive a subsidy.

There's no political will to do much of anything, even in Phoenix, which I find kind of weird. I thought we'd see "Prop 500" on the ballot in 2014, perhaps the powers at be are testing Phoenicians' appetite for rail with Prop 105 before proceeding further. I'm skeptical of the support--400 was only passed because MAG totally sold it as "Finish the Freeways!" despite including plenty of money for other modes.

My take on light rail funding vs commuter rail funding for Phoenix metro area is that there would be a LOT more support for commuter rail. I think people here would see that as more practical and useful considering how far spread out we are. For right or wrong - a lot of people view the light rail as useless and in-efficient because the majority of the population doesn’t have access to it, nor will they have access to it (it will never reach up into New River, for example). Commuter rail with a decent plan and good nodal coverage would have deep support I would believe - because you could find a ROW alongside I-17 to reach deep into the furthest exurbs of the city. And people would use it.

As for putting the canals underground for ROW - this already has happened - for L303 in Peoria. A good chunk of the CAP goes through a tunnel under the L303 and the New River to pop out at the other side. If SRP would cooperate for that, they could cooperate to do something similar to bring commuter rail into the Scottsdale Airpark, for example. (Though TPC may not like that...)

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Worth piggy-backing on.

Should the August vote pass (I have no clue) then Phoenix City Council should immediately offer up a proposal for voter approval in 2020 for the light rail extension to MetroCenter that would (obviously) override the vote in August.

Yes, and maybe the I-10 / Capitol line as well. No matter which way the August vote goes, this fight isn't over. If voters say "yes" to Prop 105, I agree that the council may try a more limited approach on a future ballot. If voters reject 105, then I suspect the opponents of the South Central line will still try to block it via lawsuits.

I am slightly pleased to see that new council members Carlos Garcia and Betty Guardado have come out against 105. Their prior activism and campaign contributions have made me doubt their support of light rail, but so far they've sided with the council majority in urging voters to reject Building a Better Phoenix's initiative.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by combusean

As for Phoenix, the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan is to spend $5.7 billion to expand Sky Harbor over the next 20 years in 2019 dollars, some significant chunk of which is LAX and LAS traffic. I also wonder if this is the best use of that money.

I'm not opposed to airport subsidies per se--it's only misplaced Federal priorities *cough*defense*ahem* that creates an artificial culture of want and need rather than having nice things. I just think train service should have a reasonable capability to compete, private or publicly funded.

I admit to a habit of being overly pragmatic. Subsidies aside the biggest advantage with airports is that finding ROW in the skies is easy.

But if I put my conductor's hat on I'd love to see regional train routes. There's got to be routes that are doable and worthwhile.

Originally Posted by ASU Diablo

This may be a positive development...hopefully Phoenix takes advantage of this and moves past the Complete Streets Advisory Board mess

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ns/1690161001/

Even Forbes has been giving space to this issue. Smart Growth America has been getting a lot of play with their Dangerous by Design piece.

[TakeFive]

Phoenix one of the deadliest cities in the nation for bicyclists
Jul 16, 2019 By: Megan Thompson - ABC15

Across the nation, a new study has found more and more riders are being hit and killed.

The number is rising and Phoenix ranks in the top 10 of the list of most dangerous cities in the United States, according to Business Insider.

So what are ya gonna do about that, Phoenix?

The Street Transportation Department said there are things they are working on right now.

Not sure how exciting but the article does have some depth and I guess they just learned something new.

They have also been looking to other cities to see what is working there. Patton said they have found that buffered bike lanes and adding green paint has and can continue to make a difference.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Phoenix one of the deadliest cities in the nation for bicyclists
Jul 16, 2019 By: Megan Thompson - ABC15

So what are ya gonna do about that, Phoenix?

Not sure how exciting but the article does have some depth and I guess they just learned something new.

Phoenix is 8th in total bike fatalities, but dead last in that report among big cities in fatalities per million residents. By a large margin. Which has always surprised me, because the suburbs, especially the East Valley, generally have great bike infrastructure.