Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Is the I-10 widening around the Broadway curve and Sky Harbor still occurring? That seems to be an on-again, off-again idea. I can't find it listed on ADOT's list of projects:

https://www.azdot.gov/projects/centr...trict-projects

Edit: I just found the project listed on a separate page:

https://www.azdot.gov/planning/trans...o-l202-(santan)

Apparently, the first page I looked at was for projects currently under construction. Mixed feelings about this project. Maybe it will help, or maybe it will induce more demand. I just wish the state government showed the same commitment to commuter rail as a transportation priority.

Absolutely they are currently demoing buildings on the North side of I-10 from 143-University

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

My fear, though, is that some people who previously would have avoided that commute by way of their housing and employment choices will now think it's not so bad and make different decisions. Then, we'll find ourselves back on the treadmill trying to catch up once again. I hope I'm wrong, but wariness about induced demand is of many reasons why I opposed the South Mountain Freeway during the planning process.

You smartly use the term 'induced demand' more generally; I've always thought the 'transit-streetblog theory' of induced demand was poppycock.

It's more of a chicken-egg thingy but usually there's plenty of chickens all over the place before lanes are even added. Does lane expansion 'induce' or invite new drivers to the freeways? Hope so; they don't build the lanes to sit there looking pretty. Do new lanes entice driver off of busy arterials? Likely some but that's not a bad thing either.

But the notion that people decide to learn how to drive because freeway lanes are added doesn't pass my smell test. Most new drivers result from becoming legally old enough to drive.

I think most people would rather live closer to where they work. But some may secure a (good) job despite the drive. Partly, they can't foresee how well it will go or how long they'll have a particular job. Some two-income family earners may go in opposite directions. Housing affordability would always be an issue but Mesa has lots of affordable areas.

I know a lot of H-1B workers from India like to live in Phoenix, especially along Tatum Blvd. While some work at American Express I assume many commute to Chandler.

What I would agree with...
is that you cain't "Build your way out of congestion."

[TakeFive]

It's my story so I'll tell it

Last summer, with all the Streetsblog noise, I started looking into ride-sharing. It wasn't long before I realized I should consider doing this. With a genetic-based growing loss of hearing, it's one thing I can easily do. Inside a car with one or two people it's less of an issue.

I started last week and picked up the pace this week. For those who are curious I'm making $15 an hour gross and gas is running about 17.5% but will be higher when it's hot. I learned before I even started how to work 'smart' but in time I should be able to make closer to $20 an hour. My goal is ~$100 a day which suits my stamina/desire just fine.

For me the advantage is I have a 5 1/2 year old CRV with (very) low mileage and fully depreciated. For others this is not an easy way to make a living although the money can be nice in the short-term or for part-timers. Pros can make say $60-70,000 and at a $10,000 for every 10,000 miles means they're driving 60-70,000 miles a year and either drive a vehicle that seats (at least) 6 passengers or a nice SUV that qualifies for Black Car upgraded rides. Think about putting that much mileage on a Lincoln Navigator?

My very first ride was 'Mike' who I took from Troon to the airport at 6:30 in the morning.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RichTempe

If anything, the south part (San Tan) needs the relief more the the north part (Red Mountain). The southeast valley has a lot more population and development than north Mesa where most of the Red Mountain part of the 202 is. I suppose it might pull some through traffic off the 60 (Superstition) since that freeway can be a nightmare.

Well I was thinking about the part where you can currently have 8 lanes all to yourself but I'm sure you make a solid point.

Just to build on my recent driving, Friday p.m. I picked up a rider from Sky Harbor and dropped him near the 101 and Chandler Blvd. Later on I picked up a rider near Paradise Valley SC and dropped him near 7th street and Roeser Rd. From there I picked up two guys from Sky Harbor going to Marriott Courtyard in Old Town Scottsdale.

Saturday I was having a desired easy pace of picking up a couple from Baltimore at the MIM and dropping at the Fairmont Princess. Then I literally turned around to pick up a couple from NJ wanting to go from the Princess up to the Walgreens at Grayhawk. Btw, I was impressed at how busy the MIM was.

Then I picked up a rider from just off Bell Rd east of the TPC and drove her all the way to Zinburger in downtown(?) Gilbert. Nice area but before I even finished the ride the Uber app tried to 'stack' me with 3 different rides which I declined. Then the app auto-asked if I wanted to go offline and I answered 'Yes.' After a couple of hours of driving I needed a pee break cuz I'm an old guy and I also enjoy taking 10 minutes to walk during my breaks. I did notice that the '60' is quite the freeway; it was about 6:00 p.m.

In any case I now know where places like Chandler, Gilbert and South Mountain are.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I just wish the state government showed the same commitment to commuter rail as a transportation priority.

Have to agree with this but Fat Chance for that in the near term.

Regardless of number of lanes congestion will quickly overcome them. The only advantage is added lanes do add to the overall capacity. But more lanes also makes things messier. I quickly realized I would need at least two miles to get from the HOV lane to catch the exit off the 101 to Chandler Blvd.

If Phoenix can get multi-modal and transit right that might show the way but even that's a Big If. Phoenix needs another $10 billion (minimum) for multi-modal improvements. Consider all that Portland has already accomplished and even they are putting together a $20 billion package for voters in 2020.

I dropped off a 'Russian' gal from Sunnyslope at 3rd street and Washington and took Van Buren out to the 44th street transit/Sky Train station where I park/rest waiting for Sky Harbor trips. Since RonnieFoos was nice enough to link me to the plans I just drool driving along that street. Be so easy for developers to assemble sites and build 4 to 6-story condo/apartments. If they do a nice enough street redo it could really catalyze the potential. Good bike/pedestrian-friendly streetscapes are that important.

In any case I still think it's much more about multimodal/BRT than light rail that is needed but light rail where it's obviously preferred is okay.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I dropped off a 'Russian' gal from Sunnyslope at 3rd street and Washington and took Van Buren out to the 44th street transit/Sky Train station where I park/rest waiting for Sky Harbor trips.

Are you a taxi / rideshare driver?

[DesertRay]

Induced demand isn't about creating new drivers from nothing. It's about the kinds of decisions people make about where to live. If there are 8-lane highways going across town, that figures into people locating farther (often MUCH farther) away from work. This choice alone creates all sorts of cascading effects. Cars are assumed as the primary mode of transit. Zoning accounts for this, and pushes retail and industry to particular places. All of these decisions (which starts with the highways) push more and more people on the road. Drivers who might have decided to spend more to live closer to work and/or retail had the subsidized choice to stay farther away. Once that decision is subsidized and made, it forces more demand of those roads. You can see the same with rail. The subsidy of the rail has led to more building of housing, retail, and even employer locations nearer to the rail. That creates a cycle of induced demand. Whatever you subsidize in transit eventually creates more demand for that. It's not a slam. It's just how it works.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Are you a taxi / rideshare driver?

Just started; having a blast. That's what my 2nd (and 3rd) comments speak to. While I'm both Uber and Lyft qualified I get all the rides I can handle with the Uber app so far; in fact I turn down rides to pace my day.

I've made my 'home base' North Scottsdale but end up all over the place. Friday I took a gal from a Senor living center off Princess Dr way out to Happy Valley Rd east of Alma School; on my way back I picked up couple of guys and dropped them at Scottsdale Marriott at McDowell Mountains; picked up a guy from Fairmont Princess wanting to play tennis at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge; then took Dr. Josh from the JW to Sky Harbor; picked up a couple at Sky Harbor and dropped them at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. Later on to finish my day I picked up a gal who took me to the Zinburger in Gilbert.

Today... thinking of just staying home but I may go for a few hours later on.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

Induced demand isn't about creating new drivers from nothing. It's about the kinds of decisions people make about where to live. If there are 8-lane highways going across town, that figures into people locating farther (often MUCH farther) away from work. This choice alone creates all sorts of cascading effects. Cars are assumed as the primary mode of transit. Zoning accounts for this, and pushes retail and industry to particular places. All of these decisions (which starts with the highways) push more and more people on the road. Drivers who might have decided to spend more to live closer to work and/or retail had the subsidized choice to stay farther away. Once that decision is subsidized and made, it forces more demand of those roads. You can see the same with rail. The subsidy of the rail has led to more building of housing, retail, and even employer locations nearer to the rail. That creates a cycle of induced demand. Whatever you subsidize in transit eventually creates more demand for that. It's not a slam. It's just how it works.

I like that. It's a much friendlier, neutral version of urban vs sprawl. The extended Streetsblog crowd makes 'subsidies' and 'induced demand' out to be a conspiratorial, sinister thing.

Compare Phoenix to Denver. They're very different places and what works best for one place wouldn't be best for the other.

Denver doesn't have the substantial manufacturing industry that Phoenix does - from hardware like microprocessors and memory chip(sets) to air conditioners, a lot of aerospace and other electronics stuff. Denver doesn't have the huge warehouse/distribution center-industry like Phoenix.

Due to geography and topography metro Phoenix with its multi-nodal sprawl nicely spreads out various job and industry functions - and traffic.

Over time I see the urban triangle of downtown Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale becoming more and more urban; this area is its own ecosphere.

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I like that. It's a much friendlier, neutral version of urban vs sprawl. The extended Streetsblog crowd makes 'subsidies' and 'induced demand' out to be a conspiratorial, sinister thing.

Yah. These conversations can get that way, but the people who stay in this space can usually parse the truth from the conspiracy. There are folks from industries that depend on certain arrangements who can get testy on different sides, but these are mostly just choices. For a long time, Phoenix has depended upon subsidizing sprawl and the benefitting those particular industries. It's generally made Phoenix a place that many people want to move to. Now, we are getting other ideas, since there are folks who desire amenities that only density provides (walkable neighborhoods with everything within walking distance, a wide variety of activities within a short range, etc.). If we can have intelligent and reasonable conversations in-between the shouting, I think that we'll end up having a nice mix of urban cores and some really nice suburban stretches. We'll likely have to get smarter about how we build and landscape (energy efficiency and water), but I think that there are a number of really cool ideas being tested out.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

Induced demand isn't about creating new drivers from nothing. It's about the kinds of decisions people make about where to live. If there are 8-lane highways going across town, that figures into people locating farther (often MUCH farther) away from work. This choice alone creates all sorts of cascading effects. Cars are assumed as the primary mode of transit. Zoning accounts for this, and pushes retail and industry to particular places. All of these decisions (which starts with the highways) push more and more people on the road. Drivers who might have decided to spend more to live closer to work and/or retail had the subsidized choice to stay farther away. Once that decision is subsidized and made, it forces more demand of those roads. You can see the same with rail. The subsidy of the rail has led to more building of housing, retail, and even employer locations nearer to the rail. That creates a cycle of induced demand. Whatever you subsidize in transit eventually creates more demand for that. It's not a slam. It's just how it works.

That's why I continue to be less optimistic than others in this forum about the South Mountain Freeway. Sure, it will make commutes easier for those who already make the long trek between Buckeye and Chandler, for example. The problem I fear is it's also going to influence people who previously would have found such a commute unimaginable to change their minds and consider such a long haul feasible, despite all its negative impacts.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Just started; having a blast. That's what my 2nd (and 3rd) comments speak to. While I'm both Uber and Lyft qualified I get all the rides I can handle with the Uber app so far; in fact I turn down rides to pace my day.

I've made my 'home base' North Scottsdale but end up all over the place. Friday I took a gal from a Senor living center off Princess Dr way out to Happy Valley Rd east of Alma School; on my way back I picked up couple of guys and dropped them at Scottsdale Marriott at McDowell Mountains; picked up a guy from Fairmont Princess wanting to play tennis at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge; then took Dr. Josh from the JW to Sky Harbor; picked up a couple at Sky Harbor and dropped them at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. Later on to finish my day I picked up a gal who took me to the Zinburger in Gilbert.

Today... thinking of just staying home but I may go for a few hours later on.

Okay. I guess that helps explain your faith in these companies. I'm still skeptical about their viability in their current forms, but you should definitely enjoy the party while it lasts. I'll be interested in hearing your anecdotal observations based on conversations with customers. Are your passengers making trips they would have previously taken via a traditional taxi company, taken via their own cars, taken via public transit, or not taken at all -- and in what proportions and for what reasons?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Okay. I guess that helps explain your faith in these companies. I'm still skeptical about their viability in their current forms, but you should definitely enjoy the party while it lasts. I'll be interested in hearing your anecdotal observations based on conversations with customers. Are your passengers making trips they would have previously taken via a traditional taxi company, taken via their own cars, taken via public transit, or not taken at all -- and in what proportions and for what reasons?

Nah, I really conducted two different research 'projects' for different purposes. The fact that I can make it a temporary 'side hustle' was a question w/ almost no overlap. Getting an insider's look made me even more skeptical of these surveys of transit substitution although I'm sure there is a little of that.

Other than the gal I took downtown of all the trips I've already made, I don't recall where transit was even an option. With my Sunnyslope gal, she was dressed for work, lived fairly close to the 51 which we took to the Washington St exit into downtown. Guessing she's much more comfortable using Uber's service but in any case, she was one out of my first 50 trips.

Supposedly there's tons of ride-sharing drivers but I literally get more 'pings' than I want. The app tries to 'stack' me with the next trip before I'm even done with my current ride.

Recently read about the phenomenal ride-sharing growth in Seattle which is also experiencing strong transit ridership. There's plenty of need and room for both. Worth noting is that in the Greater Seattle area that buses, SOV's and freight drivers make up 95% of the road traffic. TNC's are still a tiny share in comparison.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DesertRay

For a long time, Phoenix has depended upon subsidizing sprawl and the benefitting those particular industries. It's generally made Phoenix a place that many people want to move to.
.....
I think that we'll end up having a nice mix of urban cores and some really nice suburban stretches.

I'm sure you've heard the expression that "Retail follows rooftops."

It's also true that developers have 'owned' the politicians. Regardless, in my experience freeways are added long after they're needed.

Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa are now strong economic drivers and well-populated. The South Mountain freeway was needed to serve that area and as a bypass for I-10.

Still, in Phoenix like in most places demand for infill housing is high. I agree with you that there's still plenty of opportunity ahead for making smart decisions and that transit and walkable neighborhoods is what more and more people want.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Absolutely they are currently demoing buildings on the North side of I-10 from 143-University

https://www.constructionequipmentgui...-phoenix/43874

ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration invite the public to attend an open house meeting:

When: 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 26

Where: Rio Salado College Conference Center, 2323 W. 14th St., Tempe, AZ 85281

Who: Representatives from ADOT's I-10 Broadway Curve Study Team will be available to hear comments and answer questions. There will be a brief presentation at 6 p.m.

Construction could begin in early 2021.

[RichTempe]

Some recent articles about Uber's 2018 losses and slowing revenue:

Uber narrows losses to $1.8bn in 2018 but revenue growth slows ahead of IPO

http://www.cityam.com/273345/uber-na...e-growth-slows


Fare cutting puts the brakes on Uber’s revenue growth
Ride-hailing company’s costs surge ahead of planned public listing

https://www.ft.com/content/aa76c512-...4-e7016697f225

Sounds like the losses are narrowing, but still not a profit yet.

[soled]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

I think it will pull enough relief for Phoenix to get some other things done. One thing it is DEFINITELY going to do is give everyone a bypass while they upgrade/widen I-10. Hopefully, after I-10 is completed, that and the South Mountain loop will provide some long-term relief until we finally get some flying cars

I live in Ahwatukee and have to take the I10 into work. The South Mountain 202 will let me bypass central Phoenix a couple times a year driving to Vegas or the southern Cal area. It won't help me in any other capacity. I'm not convinced it's going to help as much as ADOT says it will.

My concern for many years has been centered around the actual truck traffic that travels along the I10 through Phoenix. The only truck traffic that would skip the Broadway curve to take the 202 would be trucks that aren't having to either stop in central Phoenix along the way, or those who have to travel up north through the I17. These truckers aren't going to take the 202 to then get on the I10 at 59th Ave and drive through a more congested and dangerous stretch of freeway on the west side, to come back east.

And for those that don't know, many of the truckers who are traveling to West Phx or Cal have already for years taken Riggs Rd/Beltline Rd to 51st Ave to the I10 to avoid central Phx. If you ever try to drive that stretch in morning rush hour you'll see miles of tractor trailers trudging along that route. I'm not sure there's that much more traffic relief by way of less truck traffic along the I10 out here.

I emailed ADOT officials years ago a few times and asked them if they ever did a detailed study breaking down how much of the truck traffic is going directly to west Phx/Cal, as opposed to those stopping in Central/North Phx, or heading up the I17. I never got a response.

[xymox]

Originally Posted by soled

I live in Ahwatukee and have to take the I10 into work. The South Mountain 202 will let me bypass central Phoenix a couple times a year driving to Vegas or the southern Cal area. It won't help me in any other capacity. I'm not convinced it's going to help as much as ADOT says it will.

My concern for many years has been centered around the actual truck traffic that travels along the I10 through Phoenix. The only truck traffic that would skip the Broadway curve to take the 202 would be trucks that aren't having to either stop in central Phoenix along the way, or those who have to travel up north through the I17. These truckers aren't going to take the 202 to then get on the I10 at 59th Ave and drive through a more congested and dangerous stretch of freeway on the west side, to come back east.

And for those that don't know, many of the truckers who are traveling to West Phx or Cal have already for years taken Riggs Rd/Beltline Rd to 51st Ave to the I10 to avoid central Phx. If you ever try to drive that stretch in morning rush hour you'll see miles of tractor trailers trudging along that route. I'm not sure there's that much more traffic relief by way of less truck traffic along the I10 out here.

I emailed ADOT officials years ago a few times and asked them if they ever did a detailed study breaking down how much of the truck traffic is going directly to west Phx/Cal, as opposed to those stopping in Central/North Phx, or heading up the I17. I never got a response.

Yeah - I would agree with this assessment. Seems to me that the alignment of the L202 with I-10 @59th Ave is just a horrible idea in general. We just added a new interchange - each one of which causes backups due to all the merging needed - to a stretch of busy interstate. Aligning with L101 (building new) would have been the right way to go - they only stuck with 59th Ave for political reasons (i.e. the pathway and promises through Laveen to developers).

There was an idea to extend (somehow) US-60 west past its current I-10 terminus to SR-30 (which is supposed to be the I-10 reliever - but relieving what exactly since it doesn't go far enough east). That seems like it'd help with truck traffic more than L202...

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by xymox

Yeah - I would agree with this assessment. Seems to me that the alignment of the L202 with I-10 @59th Ave is just a horrible idea in general. We just added a new interchange - each one of which causes backups due to all the merging needed - to a stretch of busy interstate. Aligning with L101 (building new) would have been the right way to go - they only stuck with 59th Ave for political reasons (i.e. the pathway and promises through Laveen to developers).

This project is also adding additional lanes to I-10 between 27th Ave and 83rd Ave to accommodate the additional traffic flow and merging. Also, 59th was chosen as the other alternatives further out West would have needed to acquire additional properties which would have increased the costs substantially.

Originally Posted by xymox

There was an idea to extend (somehow) US-60 west past its current I-10 terminus to SR-30 (which is supposed to be the I-10 reliever - but relieving what exactly since it doesn't go far enough east). That seems like it'd help with truck traffic more than L202...

There is no plan to extend US-60. The I-10 reliever as proposed, will terminate at I-17 at the Durango curve.


Edit: Correction on the I-10 widening. It is from 35th Ave, not 27th.

[soled]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Also, 59th was chosen as the other alternatives further out West would have needed to acquire additional properties which would have increased the costs substantially.

Interestingly enough, if ADOT was truly looking to save money they could have saved hundreds of millions dollars by using an already inplace Riggs/Beltline/51st Av route for the 202 that wouldn't have involved buying homes and a church, nor blasting through a number of hills.

And just so there's no confusion where I stand-I was never against building this thing alongside Ahwatukee. It won't benefit me often at all, but it will benefit me. It'll save me a half an hour drive to Vegas or Cal on weekends, and even more on weekdays. And I live far enough away from the Desert Foothills interchange, that there are a few hills shielding me from any noise. This thing will be nice for me, personally.

I just didn't think an occasional benefit for those of us living here was actually worth 1.9 billion dollars when they could have accomplished the same thing for so much less. But it is what it is, so I'll look forward to it opening.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RichTempe

Some recent articles about Uber's 2018 losses and slowing revenue:

Uber narrows losses to $1.8bn in 2018 but revenue growth slows ahead of IPO

Fare cutting puts the brakes on Uber’s revenue growth
Ride-hailing company’s costs surge ahead of planned public listing

Sounds like the losses are narrowing, but still not a profit yet.

FT has a paywall but everybody repeating the release basically.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/uber...l-results.html

The figure excludes the company's sale of its Russia and Southeast Asia businesses. Including those two sales to Yandex and Grab, respectively, Uber actually saw GAAP losses of $370 million. GAAP losses in 2017 were $4.5 billion.

Interestingly I made a little money on Yandex few years ago but I didn't own enough shares to be a big deal.

So the sale significantly reduced the cash burn but it also impacted their 4th quarter revenue.

Uber is still chasing various rainbows which complicates analysis. The sense I get is that Lyft is growing market share; it's noticeable in Phoenix. The negative for drivers is that you can't make that much money if my $15 an hour is indicative since that is before accounting for vehicle expenses. On the plus side I don't sit around waiting for trips; demand is impressive.

If I were inclined I'd probably buy shares in Lyft; they are running a more lean, focused strategy.

Originally Posted by soled

I just didn't think an occasional benefit for those of us living here was actually worth 1.9 billion dollars when they could have accomplished the same thing for so much less. But it is what it is, so I'll look forward to it opening.

While a lot of money the cost per mile is actually impressive in today's world.