Does anyone approve of the light-rail? (Phoenix, Tucson: mover, how much, hotels)

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by pac10devils

I still do not think it will convince enough people to abandon their car. Phoenix is just too spread out.

Car abandonment is not really the goal. I would never recommend total carlessness to anyone in Phoenix or any other Sunbelt city. A more realistic goal for transit in Phoenix is to reduce car usage and possibly enable some families to move from one-car-per-adult to one-car-per-household, something I'm thinking of doing down the line.

The "too spread out" cliche has been said about Salt Lake City, Dallas, Denver, and several other cities in which rail transit is now viewed as successful with additional lines under construction. There is no reason to believe that Phoenix is so different that light rail will not attract comparable numbers of riders here.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by pac10devils

To add on:

I was never against lightrail, I just do not think it's going to be the save all solution that most people are making it out to be because of:

1. Limited service area
2. Does not move any faster than a bus would

I guess it is a start though. I know for a fact on major routes during peak hours, busses are overflowing right now as it is - light rail will not help that situation. More busses and maybe looking into a hybrid bus option would be good.

#1 will be addressed in time. The 20-mile starter line is among the longest ever built, and 37 additional miles are planned right now. Keep in mind that even the well-regarded Washington DC Metro system was less than five miles in length when it opened in 1976. No rail transit system has ever been built all at once.

#2 is usually incorrect. Rail typically moves faster than buses for several reasons: 1) stops every half mile rather than every quarter mile 2) travels in dedicated right-of-way and therefore does not get caught in traffic waiting multiple cycles at lights 3) has priority at most intersections 4) can board wheelchair users and other special needs travelers much more quickly than buses because rail does not require a special lift; wheelchair users board like everyone else 5) rail cars have multiple entrances and can therefore board passenger more quickly than buses.

You are right about the buses being crowded. Fortunately, rail complements buses rather than competing with them. The Transit 2000 referendum actually allocated more than half of its funding to bus improvements, resulting in more routes and better service. Of course, we need even more frequency on key bus routes, especially those that intersect with rail stations.

[Chinolala]

Originally Posted by pac10devils

To add on:

I was never against lightrail, I just do not think it's going to be the save all solution that most people are making it out to be because of:

1. Limited service area
2. Does not move any faster than a bus would

I guess it is a start though. I know for a fact on major routes during peak hours, busses are overflowing right now as it is - light rail will not help that situation. More buses and maybe looking into a hybrid bus option would be good.

Assuming the light rail runs on an unobstructed route, it will be faster because it doesn't have to deal with traffic. An example of that would be my husband's commute. We live 13 miles from downtown Chicago. If he drove, it would take him 45 minutes in rush hour and more if there were accidents, rain, etc. On the train, it takes him 23 minutes and costs him $3.00 round trip. His train (above ground rail) makes about 14 stops from where he gets on to his final destination and it's still 23 minutes. On the other hand, it takes me 45-60 minutes to drive to work (14 miles) each way. I don't have a train option and am in outside sales and have to use my car. Sometimes, I miss working downtown and taking the train. It's so much more efficient and cheaper.

[AZM]

I think it's a waist of time until they get a high speed system that can be used in conjunction with this light snail. What amasses me are the loading stations that are in the center of the road, just wait until summer when the temperatures are in the 130* like on the tarmac and all the car emissions. I like the BART in San Fransisco and the subway in Washington DC because of the speed they travel at. If a high speed rail was developed here it would have more support. A rail system that travels above ground and loads/unloads below ground levels would be more realistic to our harsh environment and lease retail pads in the stations would help with funding and attract more users.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by AZM

I think it's a waist of time until they get a high speed system that can be used in conjunction with this light snail. What amasses me are the loading stations that are in the center of the road, just wait until summer when the temperatures are in the 130* like on the tarmac and all the car emissions. I like the BART in San Fransisco and the subway in Washington DC because of the speed the travel at. If a high speed rail was developed here it would have more support. A rail system that travels above ground and loads/unloads below ground levels would be more realistic to our harsh environment and lease retail pads in the stations would help with funding and attract more users.

BART and Washington Metro, both of which are heavy rail systems, operate at average speeds b/w 30 and 40 mph, so neither is truly high-speed. Phoenix's light rail, like most light rail systems around the nation, has a forecasted average speed between 20 and 25 mph. Part of that difference is attributable to light rail making some stops are intersections, but a large part of the speed advantage for BART and Washington Metro is that those systems have long segments running in tunnels under bodies of water. During those segments, distances between stations are long and the trains achieve a higher speed. In Phoenix, that's not the case except for a brief passage over Tempe Town Lake.

As for weather, I don't expect that to be much of a factor. Right now, commuters endure bitter cold and harsh wind while waiting for light rail trains in Salt Lake City, Denver, and Minneapolis. Likewise, they endure sweltering humidity and heat in places like Dallas and Houston. Phoenix's summer is just another challenge and one that can be dealt with. Keep in mind also that underground stations can be even more difficult to keep cool than surface stations. The NYC subway can be a pretty ugly place during a summer heatwave.

Above all else, though, heavy rail -- whether above or below ground -- is several times more expensive than light rail and is designed for higher population densities than exist in Sunbelt cities. Light rail falls into the Goldilocks zone between buses and heavy rail and is therefore a good fit for large but lower density cities like Phoenix. There are a few cases of elevated light rail, but generally only in more socialist-leaning economies (e.g. Vancouver BC) in which there is sometimes a money-is-no-object approach to public works.

[blisterpeanuts]

Yes, light rail is overall a good thing. Studies have been done that prove the economic value of light rail in other cities. For example, there is a light rail that was built in Florida that increased economic activity along its corridor by many times its original cost. Rest assured, this rail project will pay for itself eventually.

As one of America's major hubs, Phoenix has been conspicuously lacking this sort of project, and it will give out-of-state and international visitors a way to get from the airport to convention centers, hotels, and other downtown attractions, as can be done in most of the other large cities. This will increase Phoenix's attractiveness as a conference site and tourist hub. Money will follow the light rail.

It will also enable the city to beautify the central district without having to widen roads to accommodate more downtown traffic. Some cities have successfully converted historical districts into pedestrian-only walking malls with tremendous business growth. These areas become the place everyone wants to go on a Friday or Saturday evening instead of the place everyone flees from at 5pm. It will also attract young, affluent people into condos and houses in the central area, raising the local tax base and enriching the local businesses.

Setting the precedent of a successful light rail will help convince skeptical Arizonans to invest in rail expansion projects and eventually we will see a widespread and very useful car alternative. Sitting in traffic on the 101 versus sipping your coffee while reading the morning paper on the train? There's simply no comparison. Ultimately we will see a drop-off in commuter traffic as thousands of drivers switch to the metro (and we'll need to make sure the necessary bus lines exist to feed the rail system so people won't have to walk a mile from the station at either end). At first they will see it as a compromise--"I'm only doing this to lower global warming"--and after a month on the train they will start to see the car as the compromise--more dangerous, more frustrating, can't read the paper, etc.

Have I left anything out? Dangerous? No such thing. Sure, trains have accidents from time to time, but statistically it's far more dangerous to drive a car than take a train. Also, it provides employment for construction people and the operators of the system, not a trivial thing in these difficult times. I think overall, the money will follow the rail system and we will be a richer and more pleasant city for it.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by Cida

Does anyone actually approve of the upcoming light-rail project, and think it's a good idea? I mean, anyone unconnected with it, who isn't profitting from it. Every single person I've talked to thinks it's dumb, and one or two people think it's dangerous.

Who have you talked to? Because if you look at all the responses here, I would say it has overwhelming support.

I think it's a great idea even though I will almost never ride it, aside from the novelty. Having said that though, I think it's great to give people more options of mass transit. I think it's great the effect that it has on the areas directly around it and the potential of higher density development.

People complain that it's a fixed route as if it's a bad thing...I see it as a good thing. I mean look at freeways, they are fixed and you have all kinds of commercial and retail centers built around their exits...same will happen with the light rail stations.

As for speed, it will take a train 58 minutes to make the trip from end to end. A bus would take 1:32 to make the same trip (according to Valley Metro's website)...so how is the light rail not faster?

[LocoAZnative]

I love the idea of the light rail and will be riding it. I do think the one missed opportunity was bypassing the airport. I know they will have a terminal @ 44th/Washington, but still should of been done.

[AZgarden]

I think its a grand idea !!!!!! And one day, you'll see, it will be bigger and better than the "L" in Chicago !!!!!!!

[homlish560]

I'm hoping we get a mix of light and heavy rail. Commuter Rail can run on all the RR tracks that are hardly ever used - except for freight trains.

We should be able to pattern our system after the one in the Bay area - San Francisco-San Jose area. San Jose has light rail that connects to the BART commuter train. Why can't we have that here?

Light rail won't serve the entire public, but mixing it with commuter rail trains would serve a larger section of the metropolitan area!!!!!!!!!!!