Does anyone approve of the light-rail? (Phoenix, Mesa: real estate, deed, subsidized)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Light rail and subway systems in lower density cities like Phoenix are a waste of money. They require a lot of specialized infrastructure and are expensive to maintain. Basically outside of New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Washington DC (and possibly Seattle), it is just pissing away vital funds.
The public transportation needs in lower density cities (Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, etc.) or in cities with higher density but have their major employment and recreation centers spread out (Los Angeles and Miami) , should be met with buses. They are cheaper than light trains, they are more flexible and their routes can easily change, and they use existing infrastructure. They are also better in that they mostly serve the poor and working class who use buses more than the middle class and rich who prefer and can afford cars. It makes more sense to use the money to upgrade the bus system for the people who actually use it than to blow millions or billions on a light rail system that is aimed at people who will not use it.
Did you bother to vote in the 2000 & 2004 elections when the light rail initiatives were on the ballots in Maricopa County? Or were you even here during those years?
As I stated earlier: whether it's a waste of money or not, light rail AND increased funding for transit were already approved by the voters twice. It's a waste of time to oppose it at this point since the groundwork has already been laid, and the trains are set to run in December of this year.
I work on Central Ave. It was welcome to my ears today to hear the light rail - the one little thing here than resembles where I came from. So I'll take it.
Light rail and subway systems in lower density cities like Phoenix are a waste of money. They require a lot of specialized infrastructure and are expensive to maintain. Basically outside of New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Washington DC (and possibly Seattle), it is just pissing away vital funds.
The public transportation needs in lower density cities (Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, etc.) or in cities with higher density but have their major employment and recreation centers spread out (Los Angeles and Miami) , should be met with buses. They are cheaper than light trains, they are more flexible and their routes can easily change, and they use existing infrastructure. They are also better in that they mostly serve the poor and working class who use buses more than the middle class and rich who prefer and can afford cars. It makes more sense to use the money to upgrade the bus system for the people who actually use it than to blow millions or billions on a light rail system that is aimed at people who will not use it.
Take a ride on the 720 bus down Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles during afternoon rush hour traffic. Sit/stand on a bus that's already at capacity after the first few blocks of the route and then sit in traffic that's moving so slow, it takes almost an hour to go about 3 miles. How in the world can you tell me that's better than a rail line that's runs in it's own right-of-way, completely separated from traffic, and with a much higher capacity than buses? Stops are much shorter with rail because the riders don't have to individually pay the bus driver, and the train doesn't have to merge back into [gridlocked] traffic.
Take a ride on the 720 bus down Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles during afternoon rush hour traffic. Sit/stand on a bus that's already at capacity after the first few blocks of the route and then sit in traffic that's moving so slow, it takes almost an hour to go about 3 miles. How in the world can you tell me that's better than a rail line that's runs in it's own right-of-way, completely separated from traffic, and with a much higher capacity than buses? Stops are much shorter with rail because the riders don't have to individually pay the bus driver, and the train doesn't have to merge back into [gridlocked] traffic.
Riding the buses in Phoenix isn't much better, especially along Central Avenue, or in areas where traffic is heavy & bus ridership is high. The scenario you described reminds me of that Weird Al parody from many years ago ("Another One Rides the Bus").
There's a suitcase poking me in the ribs
There's an elbow in my ear
There's a smelly old bum standing next to me
Hasn't showered in a year
I think I'm missing a contact lens
I think my wallet's gone
And I think this bus is stopping again
To let a couple more freaks get on
People keep mentioning that light rail is fixed and can't be altered like a bus route can.
THAT IS THE POINT.
Look at freeways around the valley and look at the developments that have sprouted around them. The Desert Ridge area...the North Scottsdale area...Westgate...etc etc. Dial is just buildings it's new enormous corporate center right at Scottsdale Rd and 101...you think it's a coincidence?
Have a fixed, major transportation route brings businesses close those those routes and creates the density.
People keep mentioning that light rail is fixed and can't be altered like a bus route can.
THAT IS THE POINT.
Look at freeways around the valley and look at the developments that have sprouted around them. The Desert Ridge area...the North Scottsdale area...Westgate...etc etc. Dial is just buildings it's new enormous corporate center right at Scottsdale Rd and 101...you think it's a coincidence?
Have a fixed, major transportation route brings businesses close those those routes and creates the density.
Is the concept and goal for rail to reduce car use, counter sprawl and encourage development in the inner core of PHX? Or is to help continue urban sprawl?
Is the concept and goal for rail to reduce car use, counter sprawl and encourage development in the inner core of PHX? Or is to help continue urban sprawl?
I think it's obvious that the answer is the former, and HX_Guy's post supports that. Freeways looping the outer fringes of the metro area have created development corridors along their alignments. One goal for the light rail will be to create a similar corridor in a more central area of Phoenix, Tempe, and west Mesa.
Folks - The light rail system is essential in providing a viable transport solution and infrastructure for the city areas. Having relocated from Europe I have seen first hand the errors of cities NOT looking ahead in their planning. Here are some general points that we should all be mindful of:
1) Cost of fuel and Transport will increase in the long term
2) Affordable housing will decrease in the long term (Generally) as inflation outpaces earnings increases here in AZ;
3) People have less and less desire to spend more time on the road;
4) Population density will increase in downtown phoenix over time increasing services and attractions in and around the metro link.
5) Problems and issues with the use and or management of the service will be ironed out.
6) People are looking more aggressively to live and work in close proximity of each other.
7) People are loosing their financial ability to have a home and a car leading to cost cutting and use of public transport.
With all of these trends Phx has a great opportunity to get it right and learn from other cities and lay the foundations for the benefit of future generations.
I think it's obvious that the answer is the former, and HX_Guy's post supports that. Freeways looping the outer fringes of the metro area have created development corridors along their alignments. One goal for the light rail will be to create a similar corridor in a more central area of Phoenix, Tempe, and west Mesa.
But that’s where the implementation of the concept seems to gone awry. By building an elongated line that reaches into the burbs, it’s become a replication of the freeways, which have increasingly helped push housing, jobs, retail development, etc. outward. Why move to the inner core if you can live/work on the outer extensions? In a sense, it rewards those who’ll move or set up shop in NE PHX or S. Tempe, etc. Likewise, there’s no motivation to shoulder the harder burden of investing in the core areas that are most desirous of redevelopment.
If the central desire is to get people out of the car culture, you have to give them the opportunity to move in just about any direction. And if you want people to move from the burbs to the inner core, you need to give them something they can’t get in the burbs – 360 degree car free movement. All the Phoenix plan has done is replicate a freeway in 2 directions and give the burb owners a option in addition to the car (and no reason to give it up).
Instead of having one 20+ mile line, why not have a grid of several lines, with downtown being on the center square? Five or so lines at 5 miles each, serving the core? This would create a NYC-type of spider legs that would allow.
Or think of it this way. If you stand in the middle of downtown Phoenix, rail will serve you well if you live directly North (until Camelback). It is of no help is you live West. Or South. Or East, unless you live within a ¼ mile of Washington or Tempe/Mesa.
If someone has chosen to give up the outer burbs to be more central and live within the 20s, rail is of no help at 16th Street/Camelback. Or 16th St at Indian School, Thomas, or McDowell. Nor will it serve anyone at 16th Ave and Indian School, or anyplace south of there. And for anyone who’d driven enough in PHX, these are the areas most desirous of better mass transit. And they’ll not be served. But the person who buys in Mesa will be well served should they want to travel to PHX. There's something really illogical about that situation. That’s why some question the logic of the implementation, not that the citizens had good intent when voting for the concept.
On the flip side, if there was a great transit network serving most areas within a 5 mile radius, I think a lot of people would be looking to move within that envelop.
But that’s where the implementation of the concept seems to gone awry. By building an elongated line that reaches into the burbs, it’s become a replication of the freeways, which have increasingly helped push housing, jobs, retail development, etc. outward. Why move to the inner core if you can live/work on the outer extensions? In a sense, it rewards those who’ll move or set up shop in NE PHX or S. Tempe, etc. Likewise, there’s no motivation to shoulder the harder burden of investing in the core areas that are most desirous of redevelopment.
If the central desire is to get people out of the car culture, you have to give them the opportunity to move in just about any direction. And if you want people to move from the burbs to the inner core, you need to give them something they can’t get in the burbs – 360 degree car free movement. All the Phoenix plan has done is replicate a freeway in 2 directions and give the burb owners a option in addition to the car (and no reason to give it up).
Instead of having one 20+ mile line, why not have a grid of several lines, with downtown being on the center square? Five or so lines at 5 miles each, serving the core? This would create a NYC-type of spider legs that would allow.
Or think of it this way. If you stand in the middle of downtown Phoenix, rail will serve you well if you live directly North (until Camelback). It is of no help is you live West. Or South. Or East, unless you live within a ¼ mile of Washington or Tempe/Mesa.
If someone has chosen to give up the outer burbs to be more central and live within the 20s, rail is of no help at 16th Street/Camelback. Or 16th St at Indian School, Thomas, or McDowell. Nor will it serve anyone at 16th Ave and Indian School, or anyplace south of there. And for anyone who’d driven enough in PHX, these are the areas most desirous of better mass transit. And they’ll not be served. But the person who buys in Mesa will be well served should they want to travel to PHX. There's something really illogical about that situation. That’s why some question the logic of the implementation, not that the citizens had good intent when voting for the concept.
On the flip side, if there was a great transit network serving most areas within a 5 mile radius, I think a lot of people would be looking to move within that envelop.
Woah, there...I think there is some misunderstanding going on here about how effective public transit works.
1) A spiderweb / grid of light rail now would not be able to support ridership to an urban core if there is no urban core. Consequently, that grid would only sustain the status quo. Low density. That's not even taking into account the enormous expense of a system that size as compared to the potential (or lack of) ridership.
2) By forming a core system down a dense urban corridor (or in the case of Phoenix, down a planned dense urban corridor), busses, which already exist and already have a certain level of service attributed to them, become feeder lines for that core system. There's your grid, and in the short term, in a low density city like Phoenix, they are cheaper and more effective. As the core develops, ridership will likely increase on the feeder lines. Other neighborhoods and cities may encourage (and hopefully plan) denser growth areas that would justify extending light rail or similar transit options into this areas to replace the busses.
3) Consequently, you are not pushing the density outward, but drawing it inward toward the core. Mesa, Tempe and even Metro Center already have "density" (at least by Phoenix standards), and are thus ideal to produce sufficient ridership results to kick start the process in downtown Phoenix. If Phoenix keeps taxes low and incentives high in the planned urban corridor, investment should fall right into line because of the potential for more customers / clients per day in a smaller space. Density is a huge boon to capitalism.
4) Highways build on the periphery encourage development along the highways, encouraging people to move out into those open desert spaces beyond the highways until they are so far out that they need another highway on their periphery. The light rail system is being constructed in already developed spaces and thus does not result in additional sprawl.
Simply put, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here, because the system (using a light rail STARTER line) does do exactly what you say it should do...but using the bus system that is already in place to feed the light rail. I don't why you think the whole pie gets used up by running the line from Mesa or Tempe...those two cities and Phoenix all benefit from a potential increase in density down the entire corridor. They all have different amenities to offer each other and thus enhance each other along the line without having to replicate certain offering unnecessarily. Phoenix has a ballpark and an arena...Tempe has ASU...both areas have residents. Light rail can connect them easily and quickly. If they can plug in the airport (properly...we suffer from a similar fate in Los Angeles at the moment) and extend the line up to Dunlap, I think it'll be a pretty strong system over the coming years and should aid city planners in improving development opportunities downtown and throughout the valley.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Light Rail
