Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ The EIS that preceded the 202's potential construction was a crock of self-serving crap.

Self-serving crap? How so? Just because the EIS displayed an overwhelming justification for this freeway, it is crap? The freeway makes a lot of sense when you actually remove your blinders and take the time to look at a map. A number of people who are just trying to pass through Phoenix, say on a drive from Houston to Los Angeles will not long have to clog up the 10 during rush hour. This will help them get through the metro area faster and it will help people who have to commute on the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue not have to deal with as much stop and go traffic from through town travelers and trucks using the same route.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Delaying when homes will be destroyed, when air pollution will be created and when BILLIONS of tax dollars will be wasted is always a good thing.

Taxpayers here have approved their tax dollars for this freeway. Twice. So instead of pretending like you're just trying to be some responsible steward of people's tax dollars, why don't you just admit that you would rather this money be spent on some light rail line that chugs along at 35 MPH? Why are you concerned about some cheap, stucco, tile roof homes that were thrown up in the past twenty years? There's an abundance of them all over the Valley. The destruction of several hundred homes that should have never been building in the first place is not sufficient reasoning to stop the freeway. The freeway was planned prior to any of those communities being constructed and it was planned prior to any of those residents moving in. Seems like you're digging for any reason you can possibly think of to try to stop this freeway.

The EIS states that air pollution will be improved because of the traffic volume that will be removed from the congested part of the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue. Any regular commuter will tell you that segment is the most consistently congestion section of freeway in Arizona. Any freeway that would relieve some of the congestion would help our air quality.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Unless the potential cost of it rises so much and its need becomes increasingly unclear, then the project dies and it's much less expensive.

So then, we'll just have to pay for more costly improvements when the Valley continues to grow by about 1 million people per decade and they're all forced to funnel down the 10? Makes sense. I know urbanists are somehow thinking that by shutting down this freeway project that somehow transit is going to become more of a regional priority. False. There was a proposal to widen the 10 to 24 lanes around the Broadway Curve before the South Mountain EIS revealed that those improvements would not be necessary with the construction of the SMF. I guess you're advocating for that proposal to be thrown back on the table if this project doesn't get built?

Originally Posted by HooverDam

You've routinely shown throughout your posting on this forum that you don't have the slightest comprehension of what a successful, fiscally solvent city looks like. So I think we should take your sprawl and freeway loving nonsense opinions with more than just a grain of salt.

I focus more on our reality instead these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas about transforming Phoenix into a desert version of Portland or some European city. The fact that you think that canceling a freeway project will limit sprawl in what is already the least dense major metropolitan area in the country is a joke. Canceling the SMF will not make this place any more dense, it will not cause MAG and Valley Metro to consider running a light rail line or some commuter rail line in its place. None of that. It will just cause people who live in Avondale and work in Gilbert to continue clogging up an already congested freeway, making our air quality even worse as about a hundred thousand people move to the region every year.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Yes the I-10 gets a bit busy for about 4 hours a day, that does not mean the only solution is a huge new multi billion dollar sprawl generating freeway. Do you exhibit such dull, un-creative thinking in all areas of life or only in respect to outmoded 20th century infrastructure 'solutions'?

I'm pretty sure you don't take the 10 if you believe that it's only congested for 4 hours a day. Traffic starts as early 5 AM and doesn't die down until 8:30 or closer to 9 in the morning, especially during the wintertime. Traffic in the afternoon can start as early as 2:30-3 PM and doesn't die down until 6:30 or 7. On the Fridays before holiday weekends, afternoon jams can start as early as 12:30-1 PM. Also, the freeway is not "a bit busy." When it takes 20+ minutes to get from the 10/51/202 to the 10/17, that is not "a bit busy." It's jammed.

I won't even respond to your urban planning buzzwords. Instead of choosing to spend my days reading Planetizen or some rag like that, I choose to live in reality. The reality here is that people drive and will continue to drive, even if you limit freeway building here. People are not going to move closer to work. People are not going to congregate downtown. This is a suburban city where transit and other alternatives modes of transit are just not viable on a large scale.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Self-serving crap? How so? Just because the EIS displayed an overwhelming justification for this freeway, it is crap? The freeway makes a lot of sense when you actually remove your blinders and take the time to look at a map. A number of people who are just trying to pass through Phoenix, say on a drive from Houston to Los Angeles will not long have to clog up the 10 during rush hour. This will help them get through the metro area faster and it will help people who have to commute on the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue not have to deal with as much stop and go traffic from through town travelers and trucks using the same route.



Taxpayers here have approved their tax dollars for this freeway. Twice. So instead of pretending like you're just trying to be some responsible steward of people's tax dollars, why don't you just admit that you would rather this money be spent on some light rail line that chugs along at 35 MPH? Why are you concerned about some cheap, stucco, tile roof homes that were thrown up in the past twenty years? There's an abundance of them all over the Valley. The destruction of several hundred homes that should have never been building in the first place is not sufficient reasoning to stop the freeway. The freeway was planned prior to any of those communities being constructed and it was planned prior to any of those residents moving in. Seems like you're digging for any reason you can possibly think of to try to stop this freeway.

The EIS states that air pollution will be improved because of the traffic volume that will be removed from the congested part of the 10 between the 202 Santan and 51st Avenue. Any regular commuter will tell you that segment is the most consistently congestion section of freeway in Arizona. Any freeway that would relieve some of the congestion would help our air quality.



So then, we'll just have to pay for more costly improvements when the Valley continues to grow by about 1 million people per decade and they're all forced to funnel down the 10? Makes sense. I know urbanists are somehow thinking that by shutting down this freeway project that somehow transit is going to become more of a regional priority. False. There was a proposal to widen the 10 to 24 lanes around the Broadway Curve before the South Mountain EIS revealed that those improvements would not be necessary with the construction of the SMF. I guess you're advocating for that proposal to be thrown back on the table if this project doesn't get built?



I focus more on our reality instead these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas about transforming Phoenix into a desert version of Portland or some European city. The fact that you think that canceling a freeway project will limit sprawl in what is already the least dense major metropolitan area in the country is a joke. Canceling the SMF will not make this place any more dense, it will not cause MAG and Valley Metro to consider running a light rail line or some commuter rail line in its place. None of that. It will just cause people who live in Avondale and work in Gilbert to continue clogging up an already congested freeway, making our air quality even worse as about a hundred thousand people move to the region every year.



I'm pretty sure you don't take the 10 if you believe that it's only congested for 4 hours a day. Traffic starts as early 5 AM and doesn't die down until 8:30 or closer to 9 in the morning, especially during the wintertime. Traffic in the afternoon can start as early as 2:30-3 PM and doesn't die down until 6:30 or 7. On the Fridays before holiday weekends, afternoon jams can start as early as 12:30-1 PM. Also, the freeway is not "a bit busy." When it takes 20+ minutes to get from the 10/51/202 to the 10/17, that is not "a bit busy." It's jammed.

I won't even respond to your urban planning buzzwords. Instead of choosing to spend my days reading Planetizen or some rag like that, I choose to live in reality. The reality here is that people drive and will continue to drive, even if you limit freeway building here. People are not going to move closer to work. People are not going to congregate downtown. This is a suburban city where transit and other alternatives modes of transit are just not viable on a large scale.

Totally agree with you Freeway. I get real tired of the let's ignore all the automobiles we have and spend every transportation dollar on Mass Transit Crowd. It's nice to get mass transit in the mix but in a city where it is 120% degree heat for several months in the year it is not reality that people will suddenly abandon their cars to stand in that heat.

[Leo the Dog]

I wonder if the EIS considers the changing technology of cars. With hybrids and all electric vehicles - Tesla, ruling the road and forecasted for continued growth, I would think that air pollution is almost a non-factor.

Many citites have seen tremendous growth with improving air quality. San Diego now only averages 9 violations down from 100/year (20 years ago) and it's all from one station located 30 miles east of the city in the foothills near Alpine.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I wonder if the EIS considers the changing technology of cars. With hybrids and all electric vehicles - Tesla, ruling the road and forecasted for continued growth, I would think that air pollution is almost a non-factor.

Many citites have seen tremendous growth with improving air quality. San Diego now only averages 9 violations down from 100/year (20 years ago) and it's all from one station located 30 miles east of the city in the foothills near Alpine.

I read the EIS from cover-to-cover. It contains very little consideration of changes in anything, whether vehicle technology or transportation preferences. It's mostly just an extrapolation of trends based on data from a decade ago with little accounting for more recent developments.

[HooverDam]

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I read the EIS from cover-to-cover. It contains very little consideration of changes in anything, whether vehicle technology or transportation preferences. It's mostly just an extrapolation of trends based on data from a decade ago with little accounting for more recent developments.

Ok, thanks for the information. I have never read anything of the type.

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Ok, thanks for the information. I have never read anything of the type.

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.

I would think that if you are sharing vehicles (I assume you mean like ZipCar, etc, not carpooling) just as many vehicles are needed to meet peak demand. In addition, I wouldn't the roads would not become less congested at non-peak times, as utilization of those fewer cars is much higher, as you'd have more like 90% of vehicles in use rather than 10% as you state above? Or are you talking about car pooling?

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

I would think that if you are sharing vehicles (I assume you mean like ZipCar, etc, not carpooling) just as many vehicles are needed to meet peak demand. In addition, I wouldn't the roads would not become less congested at non-peak times, as utilization of those fewer cars is much higher, as you'd have more like 90% of vehicles in use rather than 10% as you state above? Or are you talking about car pooling?

No. I'm talking about Uber, Lyft, the future Google car and Apple car services.

All of this will be automated by driverless vehicles. It'll happen sooner than we think. It will be much cheaper than today's current pricing because, it will be automated and gas free. It could, in theory match the price of a PT monthly pass.

If I could spend $100/month on ridesharing versus $75/month for a bus pass, guess what I'll choose?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

Not an expert - though I do sometimes pretend to be - but I do enjoy a substantive debate. Name calling, not so much.

All due respect but your comment/statement sounds like a liberal talking point. Refreshing perhaps only because as I can turn on any of 4 or 5 radio stations and get 24/7 conservative propaganda in this area.


Freeway... Phoenix has NOT been growing at the pace it once did. From 2010's census data to July 1st 2014 population estimates, the MSA has grown by a little less than 296,000 or lite over 69,500 per year. LINK

The City of Phoenix has grown by 90,000 over that same time period. LINK
Sometimes articles can be misleading as they reference people moving into the area without netting out those that move out of the area.

There is little doubt that the Phoenix area's meager growth is substantially attributable to the lack of "urban character" which has become so popular among Millennials and to the flow of investment capital.

Dallas as a hybrid since much of the growth is suburban, especially in north Dallas, specifically in Richardson which has attracted many Fortune 500 companies including the new Toyota HQ is at least of a higher density, mixed use development along a light rail line into downtown Dallas.

Not sure what it will take to get this metro are headed in a more urban direction as the most recent politics seems more urban unfriendly than ever. Still, there are some positive urban trends.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

Totally agree with you Freeway. I get real tired of the let's ignore all the automobiles we have and spend every transportation dollar on Mass Transit Crowd. It's nice to get mass transit in the mix but in a city where it is 120% degree heat for several months in the year it is not reality that people will suddenly abandon their cars to stand in that heat.

Thank you. I complete agree that mix of mass transit/freeway projects is ideal. This idea of shutting down this area's freeway expansion program in the hopes of limiting sprawl is silly. This areas already sprawls like crazy. Thinking that stopping freeway projects will somehow reduce or stop sprawl in Phoenix is pure delusion.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Freeway, you're a moron and blowhard with little understanding of how cities work. To paraphrase the great Lewis Mumford, expanding freeways to combat congestion is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. Read up on induced demand, and also note how most economically successful places are either tearing down expressways or planning to.

What a joke. You have no rebuttal, so you resort to name calling. You can quote all the urban "scholars" you want to. You clearly have no sense of Phoenix's reality. Put down the academic fluff and step outside. You don't even know what our rush hour traffic situation is like, but yet you proclaim to know more than transportation professionals who run all sort of travel demand models and have access to all sort of population models about the need for a new freeway. You clearly have no interest in facts, so why waste any time with anyone who won't be happy until this entire Valley is crisscrossed with BRT and light rail? Moving on....

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Freeway... Phoenix has NOT been growing at the pace it once did. From 2010's census data to July 1st 2014 population estimates, the MSA has grown by a little less than 296,000 or lite over 69,500 per year. LINK

The City of Phoenix has grown by 90,000 over that same time period. LINK
Sometimes articles can be misleading as they reference people moving into the area without netting out those that move out of the area.

There is little doubt that the Phoenix area's meager growth is substantially attributable to the lack of "urban character" which has become so popular among Millennials and to the flow of investment capital.

Dallas as a hybrid since much of the growth is suburban, especially in north Dallas, specifically in Richardson which has attracted many Fortune 500 companies including the new Toyota HQ is at least of a higher density, mixed use development along a light rail line into downtown Dallas.

Not sure what it will take to get this metro are headed in a more urban direction as the most recent politics seems more urban unfriendly than ever. Still, there are some positive urban trends.

I would hardly call the Valley's growth "meager." Meager compared to pre-recession levels, yes. In any case, Maricopa County, like you said, has added almost 270,000 people in four years, almost 185 new people per day. A growth rate of about 7 percent is still very healthy. Growth rates are picking up by the year. Even if we continue to grow at the same pace as we have since 2010, the county will still have added 670,000 people between 2010-2020. Putting all those people on the same freeway with the same capacity (number of lanes) is not a smart idea.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Another factor to consider is ride-sharing technology. Many people believe that personal ownership of cars will cease to exist in the near future. I've read stats that 90%+ of vehicles are parked and that automated ridesharing will reduce traffic congestion by as much as 70% in cities. The cost of ride sharing is expected to drop significantly once automation is approved.

Makes one question if huge expenses in PT are even necessary at this time.

Yes, it's very interesting but I did happen to live in Missouri for awhile (the Show-Me state). That said there was an interesting article by
Cathy Proctor, Denver Business Journal May 9 about its surge in popularity.

Denver's car sharing programs have grown so much that the city has carved out tiny half-space parking slots on some downtown streets and reserved them for Car2Go, the largest car share operator in the city. Car2Go currently has 450 vehicles in its Denver program and a 50-square-mile “home” area, where cars can be parked at any legal parking spot on public streets.

OTOH, the potential of driverless cars or fully automated driving argues against ride sharing as the efficiency will lessen congestion, at least to a degree.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I would hardly call the Valley's growth "meager." Meager compared to pre-recession levels, yes. In any case, Maricopa County, like you said, has added almost 270,000 people in four years, almost 185 new people per day. A growth rate of about 7 percent is still very healthy. Growth rates are picking up by the year. Even if we continue to grow at the same pace as we have since 2010, the county will still have added 670,000 people between 2010-2020. Putting all those people on the same freeway with the same capacity (number of lanes) is not a smart idea.

You say potato, I say tomato (I just happen to be eating a tomato and couldn't resist).

Fair enough but for clarification that 7% is a cumulative number, not an annual rate. Still, it adds up and I'd agree growth will likely accelerate. I don't oppose the SMF; it does seem to make good logistical sense. Don't care for the "which comes first" or "induced demand" debate either.

But it also appears that a majority of the growth comes from continued sprawl, mostly in the West and SE Valley. The continued/accelerating growth will create a number of environmental challenges. You can't add enough highway lane miles fast enough to not end up right back in traffic jams before long, given the one person-per-car mentality. Los Angeles tried it and failed. Speaking of LA, they just hired away Phil Washington, Denver's transit chief to help promote and build transit for their city.

You want to talk reality? That makes good sense. I accept the reality that my lonely vote won't change the urban-unfriendly politics. Doesn't mean I like it or prefer it or think it's wise.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You say potato, I say tomato (I just happen to be eating a tomato and couldn't resist).

Fair enough but for clarification that 7% is a cumulative number, not an annual rate. Still, it adds up and I'd agree growth will likely accelerate. I don't oppose the SMF; it does seem to make good logistical sense. Don't care for the "which comes first" or "induced demand" debate either.

But it also appears that a majority of the growth comes from continued sprawl, mostly in the West and SE Valley. The continued/accelerating growth will create a number of environmental challenges. You can't add enough highway lane miles fast enough to not end up right back in traffic jams before long, given the one person-per-car mentality. Los Angeles tried it and failed. Speaking of LA, they just hired away Phil Washington, Denver's transit chief to help promote and build transit for their city.

You want to talk reality? That makes good sense. I accept the reality that my lonely vote won't change the urban-unfriendly politics. Doesn't mean I like it or prefer it or think it's wise.

I largely agree with this comment, especially the last paragraph. Every bad choice we made in the past tailors current and future choices. Phoenix crossed the Rubicon decades ago. Mega-sprawl happened - and is happening - in ways that cannot be stopped. You're dealing with a monster - you either feed it or the creature implodes and takes you with it.

Still, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Every new freeway is a nail in downtown's coffin. It's also a vote against a more urban future. The talk should be less about freeways and more about commuter rail and even high-speed rail to LA. If Phoenix has a future worth caring about, that's where it will be. The billion-dollar bandages like SMF are triage for a bad bargain. You bought it and you have to pay for it. But it shouldn't mean you're blind to either its cost or your eventual bankruptcy.

[exit2lef]

Taking a break from the South Mountain Freeway debate, KTAR suggests that an official opening date for the Central Mesa light rail extension will be announced next week. I thought it would be in October to coincide with bus service changes proposed by Valley Metro, but it will be interesting to see what Mayor Giles has to say:

http://ktar.com/22/1836910/Mesa-ligh...lmost-complete

[azliam]

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azliam

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

Thoughtful questions. Phoenix is unfairly made into poster child for sprawl, even though by some measurements it's right in the middle in terms of overall metro area density. Your observations about core density vs. suburban density is apt. The NYC suburbs where I grew up were less dense than much of the Phoenix Metro Area, but critics of Phoenix tend to indulge in convenient apples-and-oranges comparisons between the central cores of older cities vs. the entire Phoenix metro area. In addition, there's one factor that is seldom mentioned but important in forming opinions: the view from the air. When someone flies into the Phoenix for the first time, the lack of clouds and heavy tree cover makes sprawl highly visible. When flying into many other cities, the sprawl is obscured by clouds and trees. No, I don't have any hard data on this, but I think it influences perceptions of those who stereotype Phoenix based on the view they have from the air when flying into Sky Harbor.

Outside critics aside, stereotypes held by locals also have a negative impact in terms of creating a sense that sprawl has always been and always should be part of our DNA. The "so spread out" cliche, along with the summer heat, is sometimes used as an excuse for not pursuing improvements in public transit, as well as bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure. At its worst, this creates a sort of misplaced Arizona exceptionalism that can keep us on a sprawl treadmill while we should instead be embracing nascent trends against sprawl. When ADOT and its consultants responded to my comments in opposition to their draft EIS on the South Mountain Freeway, their weak reply was phrased largely in terms of "all those trends you mention apply to other cities, but not Phoenix" -- even though the data on decreased vehicle miles traveled and increased public transit usage suggests Phoenix is not as different as they'd like to think.

As for freeways, I supported the original 1985 freeway program because I thought it was ridiculous for Phoenix to try to deal with its growth by relying solely on six-lane arterials. One thing I would have done differently is not to have allowed SR51 to continue beyond Northern Avenue because doing so set a terrible precedent that now undermines the integrity of South Mountain Park via the planned 202 segment that will cut into the preserve's southwestern corner. I would have also liked to see an equal emphasis on public transit starting at the same time, but that had to wait 15 years until voter approval of light rail and expanded bus service in 2000. Fast forward to 2015, and I now believe Phoenix has a robust freeway network that serves it well. Additional construction of outer loop freeways, however, is at this point more likely to enable more sprawl than it is to allow catch-up with existing development patterns.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by azliam

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the correlation between increased freeway miles and sprawl. Some tend to believe that Phoenix sprawls more than most metros. Yet, the metro leans more to the list of cities with the least amount of freeway miles per capita. Furthermore, although the city center is certainly not as dense as many other cities, the overall urban area's density is more spread out versus many other cities which results in in having a higher overall urban area density than other cities considered to sprawl less. Would many of your prefer a city center like Boston that has a much higher density at its core, but whose density significantly drops once leaving the center and results in a more sprawled metro than even Phoenix? What do you believe has truly been the contributor to sprawl in Phoenix both in the past and present, fewer freeways or increased freeways? In addition, for those who are against sprawl (good thing), how do you justify urban areas like Boston and others that sprawl to a lower density than Phoenix sprawls? I would imagine that one of the reasons people dislike sprawl is that it eats up resources, so why does it seem more acceptable for other cities and why does Phoenix always get a bad rap for it? Is it simply because the core of Phoenix isn't as dense?

I am not encouraging or defending sprawl, but just curious as to everyone's thoughts and where they stand on this subject.

Phoenix sprawled long before the freeways were in place. Congestion and mobility were probably worse in the 1980s. A trip from Mesa to Phoenix was a day trip to the city in the 50s.

LA has been falsely characterized by a city of freeways that created and enabled sprawl. If you look at a map, LA actually has very few freeways in the city. Phoenix and LA have some of the lowest freeway lane miles per capita. Dense metros like SF and Boston have more lane miles per capita.

Sprawl happens regardless of freeways. I think it has more to do with physical Geography and access to water. Metro Phoenix will always sprawl and central Phoenix will densify.

Take a look here, it would appear Phoenix lacks lane miles.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198942

[TakeFive]

exit2lef... I would tend to focus on other things.

So far as the overall higher density, that substantially resulted from the city being so new; it grew in an age of developers building subdivisions which were more efficiently organized. Additionally whether for retirement communities or for the more blue collar population that describes metro Phoenix, more efficiently planned new development was more natural.

The sprawl resulted from a few things. First, is that desert land is relatively cheap (comparatively) and easier to build on be it the placement of water and sewer lines or whatever. Second the metro area was designed on the different "nodes system" which I've heard others articulate. Then there's the geography of mountains and open space for drainage purposes.

Another big factor is the overall lack of regional cooperation resulting in natural intense competition among the various political government districts. Usually the core city is the financial and business hub for the region/state. Upscale Scottsdale grabbed a lot of the financial influence when north Scottsdale Road was developed. The west Valley managed to grab two of the major sports franchises. The city of Phoenix does remain the center of government services for the state at least.

More recently the emergence of Chandler as a tech haven and the west valley as a warehouse and distribution hub just encourages more sprawl.

Lastly, the state not allowing tax increment financing is like a free market slap in the face for older areas and a push to develop new areas. It may reflect free market thinking but it seriously impedes older cities from competing; it becomes an unequal playing field for them.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Taking a break from the South Mountain Freeway debate, KTAR suggests that an official opening date for the Central Mesa light rail extension will be announced next week. I thought it would be in October to coincide with bus service changes proposed by Valley Metro, but it will be interesting to see what Mayor Giles has to say:

http://ktar.com/22/1836910/Mesa-ligh...lmost-complete

I can't wait to get on the light rail to Central Mesa extension. We will looking forward to it. It will be so successful. I will try to take a picture of the light rail.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Take a look here, it would appear Phoenix lacks lane miles.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198942

Statistics can often be very misleading. That data is from 2007 which would reflect analysis done even earlier. 2nd, the accuracy is more to road miles as opposed to lane miles. Lastly it's hard to know how they defined Phoenix, what areas were included or excluded.