Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Due to my ignorance I'm unaware.

Interestingly, couple of days ago, I drove the area along Van Buren but closer to the airport. Fun stretch of grit, grime and some newer stuff and tons of potential. I kinda like the area between Van Buren and Washington streets.

Here's the project website. It looks like they should have started the design process by now. So it looks to still be ongoing.

https://www.phoenix.gov/van-buren-st...to-40th-street

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Here's the project website. It looks like they should have started the design process by now. So it looks to still be ongoing.

https://www.phoenix.gov/van-buren-st...to-40th-street

I like it; that's beautiful - or at least the right idea. I've seen similar but I didn't recall Van Buren street.

Funny that I found myself in the area and spent an hour or more driving along Van Buren between 24th st and 44th st and through the neighborhoods in between Van Buren and Washington St. I'm always impressed by those who may not have the nicest place but take pride in their home and its street presentation.

In any case there's no reason why in time more affordable market rate density shouldn't happen in this area. If downtown follows the trend elsewhere then it will become increasingly unaffordable. That's both good and bad but utilizing light rail corridors to increase density and housing options is certainly a good thing. Being more walkable/bikeable with landscape upgrades where possible helps to pull it all together.

[muertecaza]

In the vein of unsafe streets and pedestrian deaths, I missed the news until this afternoon that John Bouma, the prominent Snell & Wilmer attorney, was hit by a car and killed the other day. The investigation is still ongoing, and the initial reports indicate that he stepped into the street to retrieve a lost item or something. But I wish there would be reporting on this as at least partially down to unsafe streets for walking. It was on the 7500 block of North 7th Street, a six-lane mini highway with no buffer between car traffic and sidewalks, and minimal sidewalks at that.

Jon Talton characteristically can't help but lapse into over-the-top rhetoric about the "chilling" feeling of walking across Thomas or being "white-knuckle" while driving in Phoenix, but at least he discusses it for what it seems to be, a product at least in part of unsafe street design.

https://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue...n-streets.html

[combusean]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

HA! Maybe we could just remove all lane markers and sidewalks, and sell admission to the New Thunderdome. One-up the autobahn.

They've actually done this in European cities. They ripped out all the traffic control devices and even the street name signs.

People drove more cautiously, slower, and safer. Every intersection became a de-facto 4-way stop.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Jon Talton characteristically can't help but lapse into over-the-top rhetoric about the "chilling" feeling of walking across Thomas or being "white-knuckle" while driving in Phoenix, but at least he discusses it for what it seems to be, a product at least in part of unsafe street design.

https://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue...n-streets.html

Thanks for the link; srsly that was a good read. I had seen a news bit on this accident prior to any identifications.

It's been some time since I read anything from Talton; never cared much for his perspectives though I recognized his ability to write. This piece I rather enjoyed. I had an 'ah hah' moment when I read this:

These are more highways connecting real-estate ventures than real city streets. Seventh Street and Seventh Avenue, for example, are twice as wide as Fourth Avenue in Seattle, a major thoroughfare through downtown.

Having done a deep dive into Seattle I'm familiar with Fourth Ave. Jon's right; I recently drove 7th street north from the I-10 and kept thinking "what a waste"; so much potential but instead we settle for having 'suicide lanes'.

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by combusean

They've actually done this in European cities. They ripped out all the traffic control devices and even the street name signs.

People drove more cautiously, slower, and safer. Every intersection became a de-facto 4-way stop.

Where have they done this? I've seen many cities in the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and France recently that have done the opposite--pushing cars out, bikes in, and marking it up for pedestrians. Super safe.

Eastern Europe?

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Thanks for the link; srsly that was a good read. I had seen a news bit on this accident prior to any identifications.

It's been some time since I read anything from Talton; never cared much for his perspectives though I recognized his ability to write. This piece I rather enjoyed. I had an 'ah hah' moment when I read this:

Having done a deep dive into Seattle I'm familiar with Fourth Ave. Jon's right; I recently drove 7th street north from the I-10 and kept thinking "what a waste"; so much potential but instead we settle for having 'suicide lanes'.

Absolutely. Phoenix has always assumed that people have ridiculous commutes, and subsidizes the drive-through infrastructure. I personally hope that we keep expanding the options, and support the neighborhood efforts to diversify zoning. More jobs, shopping, and recreation opportunities locally will ease congestion, and make for a healthier community. It will help get people outdoors and talking to one another. Growing up in the West Valley wasn't terrible, but a lot of it is blighted because there is no sense of community when people just wash in and out with the real-estate tides. If we stop subsiding these mega-commutes, there will be less incentive for people to take root in remote, shiny places, and more incentive to take care of closer, older environs.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

Absolutely. Phoenix has always assumed that people have ridiculous commutes, and subsidizes the drive-through infrastructure. I personally hope that we keep expanding the options, and support the neighborhood efforts to diversify zoning. More jobs, shopping, and recreation opportunities locally will ease congestion, and make for a healthier community. It will help get people outdoors and talking to one another. Growing up in the West Valley wasn't terrible, but a lot of it is blighted because there is no sense of community when people just wash in and out with the real-estate tides. If we stop subsiding these mega-commutes, there will be less incentive for people to take root in remote, shiny places, and more incentive to take care of closer, older environs.

Five star comment.

[cygnusloop99]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

Where have they done this? I've seen many cities in the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and France recently that have done the opposite--pushing cars out, bikes in, and marking it up for pedestrians. Super safe.

Eastern Europe?

Its not a eastern eurpoean concept. Here is a video explaining the concept of what are called "Shared Space Intersections" with info on pros and cons. I think it is an interesting experiment but I don't think it is practical in Phoenix area.

• Video Link

[xymox]

Originally Posted by combusean

They've actually done this in European cities. They ripped out all the traffic control devices and even the street name signs.

People drove more cautiously, slower, and safer. Every intersection became a de-facto 4-way stop.

Erm - not in Paris... . Paris is traffic chaos.

Also - they did this in Buenos Aires - and it’s also utter chaos there.

The only ‘safe’ driving in Europe I’ve personally experienced has been Austria and Germany.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by cygnusloop99

Its not a eastern eurpoean concept. Here is a video explaining the concept of what are called "Shared Space Intersections" with info on pros and cons. I think it is an interesting experiment but I don't think it is practical in Phoenix area.

• Video Link

This should work better.

[exit2lef]

Valley Metro released its 2018 ridership data, and some media outlets are making a big deal about a 4.4% decline in light rail ridership from 2017 to 2018. KJZZ, which I normally consider among the most responsible media outlets, fumbled the story by falsely reporting that it was the first ever ridership decline. That's not true. Ridership declined slightly from 2014 to 2015, only to rebound in 2016 and 2017.

There's some speculation that the decline in 2018 was due to issues of safety. Maybe, and I'm glad Valley Metro has stepped up security in recent months. Nevertheless, there are other factors that may be at work:

-- Ridership has reached a plateau and may fluctuate up and down until new lines open
-- 2018 had fewer mass events downtown than 2017
-- Low gas prices
-- Competition from underpriced and unsustainable "rideshare" services

Of course, none of this will stop anti-rail forces from making nonsensical claims about trains being obsolete. The timing isn't good with all the current controversy over expansion, but I suppose it's that controversy that is causing this ridership report to make the news, while the 2015 decline was largely ignored.

One piece of good news: Overall transit ridership is up, undermining the flawed argument that rail succeeds only by taking people off the bus.

In any case, here's the data: https://www.valleymetro.org/ridership-reports

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

This should work better.

Good lord. We already have a high enough pedestrian fatality rate. This would never work here. Phoenix especially.

[soled]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Good lord. We already have a high enough pedestrian fatality rate. This would never work here. Phoenix especially.

I get the idea that this concept would make people more conscious of their surroundings, but with an ever increasing number of people idiotic enough to text and drive, I agree this would be a disaster here. Their lack of willpower in face of their addiction to phones will override everything, and only compound the problem.

[azsunsurfer]

-- Competition from underpriced and unsustainable "rideshare" services

What is an "unsustainable" rideshare service? How are those different than local governments with "unsustainable" level of operating debt and deficits?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

-- Competition from underpriced and unsustainable "rideshare" services

What is an "unsustainable" rideshare service? How are those different than local governments with "unsustainable" level of operating debt and deficits?

Uber and Lyft want to go public. When they do, they'll be held accountable for quarterly profits, and they'll have to raise their prices. Their services will then become more suitable for special situations than everyday transport.

Transit agencies, when properly managed, rely on steady streams of revenue from dedicated sources. They're not facing an inevitable shift in pricing strategy in order satisfy shareholders.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Good lord. We already have a high enough pedestrian fatality rate. This would never work here. Phoenix especially.

Actually I was saying that the corrected video link should work better than the link that didn't work.

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

-- Competition from underpriced and unsustainable "rideshare" services

What is an "unsustainable" rideshare service? How are those different than local governments with "unsustainable" level of operating debt and deficits?

That is a very good and fair question.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Uber and Lyft want to go public. When they do, they'll be held accountable for quarterly profits, and they'll have to raise their prices. Their services will then become more suitable for special situations than everyday transport.

Transit agencies, when properly managed, rely on steady streams of revenue from dedicated sources. They're not facing an inevitable shift in pricing strategy in order satisfy shareholders.

I do believe this is a mistaken assumption but it's a complicated.

Generally, their ride sharing business is gaining market share like crazy. Some of it comes from gobbling previous taxi business; some of it comes from people flying. Business people visiting the vallely have found ride sharing a feasible alternative to renting a car. Many people flying out of Phoenix find it preferable to use ride sharing ie people from North Scottsdale. As a result Uber/Lyft rely on 'surge' pricing much less which makes the option even more popular from more reasonable and predictable pricing.

Not unlike Amazon it's not their profitability that counts near as much as the trend in cash flow. Upfront investments confuse their potential but a positive trend in cash flow is a better indicator.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

There's some speculation that the decline in 2018 was due to issues of safety. Maybe, and I'm glad Valley Metro has stepped up security in recent months. Nevertheless, there are other factors that may be at work:

In any case, here's the data: https://www.valleymetro.org/ridership-reports

The timing may be unfortunate but IMO a lot of this goes to 'safety/security.' It's not those that are unbothered by riding light rail; rather it's all those who are bothered and women are much more sensitive, generally.

While many may go with the homeless flow, many find it off-putting. Admittedly Uber/Lyft offer an affordable option for many. Many see this as an reasonable cost to avoid all the riff-raff.

Most of the other factors mentioned are rationalizations, at least in the big scheme of things.

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

-- Competition from underpriced and unsustainable "rideshare" services

What is an "unsustainable" rideshare service? How are those different than local governments with "unsustainable" level of operating debt and deficits?

The differences is when "votes" are taken, and who gets to run. Investors decide when to stop losing money, and so do voters, but elections are scheduled and investment decisions are not (at least not as regularly, or as spread apart--buys and sells can happen whenever). The other main factor is who gets to "run" in the marketplace vs. elections. One is a duopoly. That's what makes Uber/Lyft underselling more perilous. Market capture isn't guaranteed, and someone will be left holding the bag. In government, who are you going to vote for? The other person? HA! (kidding..sorta)