Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I clicked the link and read the article.

Are Phoenix roads in bad shape? Last time I was there, I thought they were all in incredible shape, no pot holes and smooth enough to go 45 mph. Heck, the roads are so wide and in great shape that the city has to spend extra funds to install speed humps in neighborhoods to slow the speeding cars on the great roads.

Take a trip to California and you'll see roads that are desperate for repair. There are pot holes that will not only pop your tire, but break your axle. I've been watching a pot hole on my street for about 4 years continue to grow and the city has done nothing about it.

I've never noticed Phoenix streets being in particularly bad repair in comparison to other cities. They're not perfect, but I've seen far worse elsewhere around the country. I think what's motivating these complaints is a set of expectations shaped by buying homes in recently developed areas in north Phoenix. People move in when a neighborhood is pristine and expect it to stay that way forever. From their perspective, a single pothole is a sign of chaos and decay, even if they'd find far worse if they traveled more. I'd also add some perspective from Chuck Marohn's (of Strong Towns) recent talk in Phoenix. One of his major points is that with previous models of incremental block-by-block development, the aging of infrastructure was staggered over many years. With newer master planned communities that are built all at once or in large phases, a much larger array of infrastructure reaches a critcal age for maintenance all at once, making it much harder to keep up. In other words, while I think the alarmism about the condition of Phoenix streets is greatly exaggerated, the legitimate concerns that do exist are at least partially a byproduct of aggressive annexation and rapid growth in prior decades.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Ironically, the Capitol / I-10 West line is among the few extensions not directly threatened by recent actions of the city council (although there is an indirect threat to all transit projects because changes in plans can make Phoenix seem an unreliable local partner in the eyes of the Federal Transit Administration).



Yes, that project seems to be going forward despite FTA delays.

I applaud you for going to support the South Central extension of LRT. It is one of the few proposed spurs that I thought and think is smart and essential. Why is it that Phoenix gives such a minority - the business owners within a given area - such leverage over projects that have an impact on every resident? I still don't understand why the Roosevelt Row cronies had any more weight than a First Friday attendee-- 'luckily,' development has been largely without retail making parallel parking less of a necessity, but regardless, best practices and majority opinion should win in the end.

Yet, did ANYONE support the 1st Street plans? Why was RR and now SC LRT hacked away at the insistence of a few, while a total waste of money that was fiercely fought against was barely modified. Business owners guided that project, too, though, as they quickly spoke loudly enough to nix the linear park concept from consideration. It doesn't take much imagination to envision what 1st Street might look like today with a linear park given that Portland 3rd-Central is probably the most desirable chunk of DT.

As with all of Phoenix's 'big box' megaplans - ASU DT, the PBC, Jackson Street, Central Station, Cityscape to a degree - this just shows how masterplanning the heck out of a city just doesn't work. What was designed in 2005 is no longer relevant, and because everything is so micromanaged, any changes come across as unreliable like you said. I would be absolutely in support of a total reassessment of the LRT corridors. There is more research available on the benefits of different transit modes, different 'hoods have urbanized since, etc.

I won't ever be in support of an LRT line that will essentially be a jitney-on-rails for government workers. The Capitol line will have close to 0% ridership after 5pm and on weekends and there is no realistic future for a denser, tourist-driven, or mixed-use area. I think lines for Garfield, Grand, McDowell, and Biltmore are much more needed.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I won't ever be in support of an LRT line that will essentially be a jitney-on-rails for government workers. The Capitol line will have close to 0% ridership after 5pm and on weekends and there is no realistic future for a denser, tourist-driven, or mixed-use area. I think lines for Garfield, Grand, McDowell, and Biltmore are much more needed.

I think the line to the Capitol is less essential then the rest of the line headed west. I wish it was proposed for Thomas or McDowell rather than the I-10. But the Maryvale Village through which it would run is the poorest and densest part of Phoenix. I suspect it would get good ridership.

[azsunsurfer]

I read the other day that Light Rail only serves 1% of the Phoenix population? That's incredible if it's true. I wonder what those figures are for bus ridership.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

I read the other day that Light Rail only serves 1% of the Phoenix population? That's incredible if it's true. I wonder what those figures are for bus ridership.

It's really not that incredible when you consider we have a single line that we share with Tempe and Mesa. Rail opponents often cite that statistic in an attempt to show that light rail is insignificant and underutilized compared to travel by car. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, though, because it weighs one rail line against an entire region full of arterial streets and freeways. A more meaningful comparison would be to see how many people ride light rail vs. how many people commute via car within the specific corridor that light rail travels.

As for rail vs. bus, those numbers are available here:

https://www.valleymetro.org/ridership-reports

You'll see that bus generally carries about 3.5 times as many passengers as rail. Again, though, we're comparing a network of bus routes throughout the region with a single light rail line. On a basis of passengers per mile traveled, light rail is more efficient than either buses or private vehicles.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I think the line to the Capitol is less essential then the rest of the line headed west. I wish it was proposed for Thomas or McDowell rather than the I-10. But the Maryvale Village through which it would run is the poorest and densest part of Phoenix. I suspect it would get good ridership.

Exactly. A light rail line that serves state government buildings and park-and-rides along I-10 is likely to be heavily utilized only during weekday rush hours and during big downtown events. At other times, it won't see much traffic, making it essentially a use of light rail as commuter rail. Like you, I think it would make much more sense for it to serve Maryvale via McDowell or Thomas.

[azsunsurfer]

So how much would we have to spend and how long would it take for us to serve say 10% of the population at this rate? Just curious...

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

So how much would we have to spend and how long would it take for us to serve say 10% of the population at this rate? Just curious...

That's a good question that I don't have the time or expertise to answer in any sort of authoritative way, but I would guess that the relationship between investment and ridership is not linear. Instead, as rail transit matures from a single line to system of connected lines, you have network effects.

In other words, if you add a new line to an existing line, you don't just capture people riding from one point to another along the new route. You also capture people along the existing route who suddenly find that a quick transfer from one line to another enables a trip via rail that they would have previously made via another mode.

Of course, all this assumes best practices in terms of headways, hours of service, and route alignment. Valley Metro does a great job in terms of hours of service but has a way to go in terms of service frequency. As discussed above, some of the proposed / planned extensions make a lot more sense than others.

There are also many factors outside the control of the transit agency, including zoning for high-density development, the cost of parking, and, of course, the price of gasoline.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...on/1136127002/

I wouldn't support diverting any light rail funds to "street maintenance." But I'm not overly disappointed if City Council is souring on the Northeast extension (at least as presently proposed). I never really understood or particularly liked a line that would go up the 51, through Dreamy Draw, and end at PV Mall. IMO any NE extension that doesn't make it to 24th/Camelback isn't really worth it. If there isn't the will/support to make it to the Camelback corridor, I'd prefer prioritizing a West extension that did something like head up Grand to 35th Ave then jogged north to GCU.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I wouldn't support diverting any light rail funds to "street maintenance." But I'm not overly disappointed if City Council is souring on the Northeast extension (at least as presently proposed). I never really understood or particularly liked a line that would go up the 51, through Dreamy Draw, and end at PV Mall. IMO any NE extension that doesn't make it to 24th/Camelback isn't really worth it. If there isn't the will/support to make it to the Camelback corridor, I'd prefer prioritizing a West extension that did something like head up Grand to 35th Ave then jogged north to GCU.

Completely agree. Ideally, I'd like to see a Biltmore spur via light rail and then a connection to northeast Phoenix via BRT. Unfortunately, political considerations cut both ways here. Some residents of northeast Phoenix like rail and want it to come to them, even if it doesn't really make sense to run tracks through the Phoenix Mountain Preserve. Others don't want anything to do with rail and don't want to pay for it. Neither is a good outcome, but my main concern is with precedent. If we raid a poorly thought-out rail line for street maintenance funds, I fear some of those who are ideologically opposed to rail transit will feel empowered to raid well thought-out rail lines for the same purpose.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

I read the other day that Light Rail only serves 1% of the Phoenix population? That's incredible if it's true. I wonder what those figures are for bus ridership.

When one says "Phoenix" are they referring to the metro area or the City of? Makes a yuge difference and when it come to politics, semantical misperception is often the objective.

In any case I'd agree with exit2lef. You want to think in terms of corridors. Light rail currently has a weekday ridership of ~50,000. Convert that to single occupancy vehicles per day and consider the added traffic congestion. Actually the comparison is 25,000 more cars (assuming ofc) and even a 1,000 more cars during peak periods adds up to gridlock.

Originally Posted by exit2lef

A more meaningful comparison would be to see how many people ride light rail vs. how many people commute via car within the specific corridor that light rail travels.

As for rail vs. bus, those numbers are available here:

https://www.valleymetro.org/ridership-reports

You'll see that bus generally carries about 3.5 times as many passengers as rail. Again, though, we're comparing a network of bus routes throughout the region with a single light rail line. On a basis of passengers per mile traveled, light rail is more efficient than either buses or private vehicles.

If route miles were readily available for each mode the would be a good comparison.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

To make this more complicated, recent developments have put all light rail expansion within Phoenix city limits in jeopardy. Yesterday, the City Council voted to ask staff to study the option of reallocating Proposition 104 funds from potential future light rail extensions on the north side of Phoenix to more immediate use toward street maintenance.

Put this vote together with the 11th hour controversy over South Central, and we have a perfect storm.

According to the T2050 pie chart "street improvements" will only receive 14% of the $16.7 billion. But I assume that is over and above what is normally budgeted already for road maintenance?

With respect to the So Central Line
Could it make any sense to phase it starting with half the miles? I've gone from being an optimist to pessimist with respect to getting FTA grants, at least until after 2020. I was relying on the FAST Act support from Congress being the key. Sadly if Trump can screw urban areas he will since that's not where his support comes from. Normally Congressional rules of 'fair dealing' apply but not with a meddling, petty, control freak for a President.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to the So Central Line
Could it make any sense to phase it starting with half the miles? I've gone from being an optimist to pessimist with respect to getting FTA grants, at least until after 2020. I was relying on the FAST Act support from Congress being the key. Sadly if Trump can screw urban areas he will since that's not where his support comes from. Normally Congressional rules of 'fair dealing' apply but not with a meddling, petty, control freak for a President.

That's the big worry. This last-minute controversy over the South Central extension has arrived at exactly the same time as the Trump Administration is trying to avoid investing in public transit (despite all the campaign rhetoric about infrastructure). Put them together, and there's a possibility this could become a smaller project with only local funding. If that's the case, then maybe we'd could see a light rail or modern street car line down through the Warehouse District terminating at Buckeye Road. From an economic development standpoint, such a project may still be helpful, but it would be far less successful than the currently planned light rail extension in terms of moving people, which should always be the primary purpose of any transit project.

[TakeFive]

Angie's on top of it

Phoenix City Council Moves to Hijack Transit Money for Roads
Aug 31, 2018 by Angie Schmitt/Streetsblog USA

he Phoenix City Council is flirting with the idea of killing transit expansion projects, overturning the will of voters who three years ago elected to tax themselves to build transit.

On Wednesday, the City Council voted 5-3 to study diverting billions of dollars set aside for light rail and buses — and spending it on roads instead.

On a more happy-go-lucky note

Sun Link Streetcar Turns 4, Poised to Hit 4 Million Riders
JULY 27, 2018 by Brandon Mejia

Based on ridership numbers, the 4 millionth rider is expected to board the streetcar in early September, said Cindy Glysson, spokesperson for Sun Link.

Wait... how is this even possible?

Some of the challenges the streetcar has faced over the years include vehicles parked in the way of the streetcar's tracks...

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

If that's the case, then maybe we'd could see a light rail or modern street car line down through the Warehouse District terminating at Buckeye Road. From an economic development standpoint, such a project may still be helpful...

Better than nothing and likely a key psychological barrier by at least taking it past the 'freight' tracks into South Phoenix.

Speaking of streetcar lines, and because I am an equal-opportunity critic
I swear Seattle put a bunch of liberal geeks in charge of their transit asylum. If this wasn't bad enough - New Seattle streetcars may be too big for city's existing tracks - now their well-regarded Madison Street BRT somehow was designated to use buses that DO NOT EXIST or at least are not made in America; certainly New Flyer told them to buzz off. Peter Johnson/Seattle Transit Blog has the story but it's the first few comments which are quite enlightening.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Angie's on top of it

Phoenix City Council Moves to Hijack Transit Money for Roads
Aug 31, 2018 by Angie Schmitt/Streetsblog USA

While i appreciate Angie Schmitt publicizing the council's raid on rail, she manages to mangle most of the details. The six miles of rail built since the 2015 vote actually have nothing to do with the funds generated by that tax. Three miles were in Mesa, which is unaffected by Proposition 104, and three miles along 19th Avenue were already funded from different sources. The only rail project funded by Proposition 104 funds so far is the 50th Street infill station that is now under construction. All other Proposition 104 projects are still in the planning or study phases, which is why those farther in the future are easy targets for this potential raid. There's no sunk cost associated with a project that's just a few lines on a map at this point.

She's also wrong about raiding bus service. The council's vote was only to investigate reallocating funds from future rail projects, not bus service. Angie Schmitt is one of those authors whom I'm often embarrassed to be on the same side of issues with. While I'm frequently in agreement with her point of view, factual accuracy matters. The real danger of the council's actions lies not in potentially killing the proposed northeast light rail extension, which doesn't make much sense anyway, but instead in setting a precedent that will be the "foot in the door" or the "camel's nose under the tent" for those who want to stop all light rail expansion and who would probably even shut down the current light rail line if they could do so.

If we allowed the current T2050 / Proposition 104 plan to go forward, I'm pretty sure that light rail through the Dreamy Draw, or even Cave Creek Road as an alternative, would be eliminated in the study phase. There wouldn't be enough density or potential to cultivate density to justify putting tracks through or near the Phoenix Mountain Preserve. Instead, the "locally preferred alternative," to use the FTA terminology, would probably be BRT, something that makes sense in this context despite my general skepticism towards that mode. At that point, any funds liberated by that decision could be used towards street maintenance without a precedent-setting raid on rail before studies are even complete.

[phoenixwillrise]

Hate to lament on the past but I regress. it's a crying shame the myopic voters in the early 70's turned down what would have been the start of a MARTA or Bart System in Phoenix. So instead of standing out in the baking sun waiting for a slow light rail one would be standing in the air conditioned underground waiting for a high speed Bart Type train that by now would have been expanded to Mesa, Glendale, North Phoenix, South Phoenix etc. But here we are today trying to get slow train construction going that will take decades to build and will have some positives but a mere shell of what could have been.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

Hate to lament on the past but I regress. it's a crying shame the myopic voters in the early 70's turned down what would have been the start of a MARTA or Bart System in Phoenix. So instead of standing out in the baking sun waiting for a slow light rail one would be standing in the air conditioned underground waiting for a high speed Bart Type train that by now would have been expanded to Mesa, Glendale, North Phoenix, South Phoenix etc. But here we are today trying to get slow train construction going that will take decades to build and will have some positives but a mere shell of what could have been.

Lets be fair, Phoenix metro in 1970 was hardly 1 million people and those cities had open farm land between them at the time.

Could you imagine Fresno or Tucson building a subway?

And Im sure it was outrageously expensive.

If we ever get a subway it will be in the future as the city gets denser and requires it, maybe Elon's Boaring company can do it.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

Hate to lament on the past but I regress. it's a crying shame the myopic voters in the early 70's turned down what would have been the start of a MARTA or Bart System in Phoenix. So instead of standing out in the baking sun waiting for a slow light rail one would be standing in the air conditioned underground waiting for a high speed Bart Type train that by now would have been expanded to Mesa, Glendale, North Phoenix, South Phoenix etc. But here we are today trying to get slow train construction going that will take decades to build and will have some positives but a mere shell of what could have been.

Was there a transit referendum in the '70s? The first one I'm aware was the 1989 Valtrans referendum. It is true that back in the '70s and '80s, the federal government was encouraging heavy rail systems like the ones you mention. It's often mentioned that MARTA exists because Seattle turned down federal funding for a subway, and the money went to Atlanta instead. Of course, Seattle, like Phoenix, decided eventually to pursue light rail, which is what the federal government is now willing to fund in cities of moderate density.

[CrestedSaguaro]

This is really disappointing to read all this and the action of the city council (been out of town the last week, so I'm just catching up). City council taking this route is pretty much giving the voters the middle finger. Does anyone think this will finally be the demise of the current anti-rail city council members? DiCiccio, Warring and Nowokowski seriously need to go. They don't know how to run Phoenix as major city and seem to still be in the belief Phoenix is some small town that doesn't need mass transit, density or more urban development. How long till the voters oust these clowns? They hold the city hostage with their actions.