Metro Phoenix Transit/Transportation Developments

[combusean]

Ok, well, you can throw data at me as much as you want, but I took it, and for the couple routes where it makes sense, I would absolutely rather cruise along at 55 MPH rather than inch along like the current street running trains do. You are arguing with user experience at the end of the day.

And there is zero political will much less funding for regional rail, so you're offering a comparison or alternative that isn't even close to existing right now and will likely never exist. None of the cost benefits for regional rail are there at all, definitely not something that's going to get 20 minute or better frequency which your comparison entirely misses. Caltrain and its agencies have had to spend billions of dollars between electrification and grade separation and has been incredibly lucky that its service area significantly taxes itself to only get 30 minute frequencies off peak.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by combusean

Ok, well, you can throw data at me as much as you want, but I took it, and for the couple routes where it makes sense, I would absolutely rather cruise along at 55 MPH rather than inch along like the current street running trains do. You are arguing with user experience at the end of the day.

And there is zero political will much less funding for regional rail, so you're offering a comparison or alternative that isn't even close to existing right now and will likely never exist. None of the cost benefits for regional rail are there at all, definitely not something that's going to get 20 minute or better frequency which your comparison entirely misses. Caltrain and its agencies have had to spend billions of dollars between electrification and grade separation and has been incredibly lucky that its service area significantly taxes itself to only get 30 minute frequencies off peak.

I'm glad VTA worked well for you, but that experience doesn't outweigh the lack of utility an I-10 alignment would have had for Maryvale residents. That's the fundamental problem with freeway light rail. It places the needs of commuters, many of them park-and-ride users from the suburbs, over those of residents, many of them transit-dependent, of the neighborhoods bypassed by freeway-running trains.

Unfortunately, you're right that we don't have any near-term prospect of adding commuter or regional rail, but I don't see that as a reason to try to make light rail into something it is not. If we ever do build something on I-10, maybe it could be a sort of light commuter rail like what Denver has on some of its routes.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Until recently, there was no organized opposition, which was a shame because I-10 has always been a bad route for light rail. It would have involved noisy, smoggy stations within walking distance of few destinations and would have done little to catalyze development along its route. It would have most likely been used primarily by suburban park-and-ride commuters during weekday business hours, leaving it underutilized nights and weekends. Freeway alignments are fine for commuter rail and express buses, but they make little sense for light rail. Often the path of least resistance is that way because it's the least desirable path to take. Fast forward to today, and now there is organized opposition, albeit for all the wrong reasons. The opposition is coming from state legislators who are ideologically opposed to rail transit. They know that they have control of state property and highways, so making that land off limits to light rail is a way for them to stymie its expansion.

It's entertaining that you called me out for my sources when you're the one back here manufacturing opposition when apparently it's just you. I've not seen any meaningful opposition to the I-10 portion.

There's nothing light about the light rail and yah, putting it on I-10 makes it more of a commuter for that portion but I-10 is our biggest transit challenge in the state so giving commuters an option to get downtown would benefit the CoP primarily. On weekends it would get some traffic from those going out or going to events downtown.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

It's entertaining that you called me out for my sources when you're the one back here manufacturing opposition when apparently it's just you. I've not seen any meaningful opposition to the I-10 portion.

I've never manufactured opposition. On the contrary, I've been quite honest about feeling like the lone voice in the wilderness seeing the folly of an I-10 route and arguing against it for nearly two decades. Now, I'm even more frustrated that although there has begun to be some organized opposition within the state legislature, it is for all the wrong reasons.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by PyroD

https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/ph...dblocks-before-crucial-city-council-vote

Welp, city council voted to kill the capitol extension.

Wow! This is so embarrassing!! why they kill the capitol extension? Did they say no to light rail capitol extension. So what's going on?? So what is the plan for now? Indian School Rd? Any ideas for next future light rail extension. Where they can go next?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by N830MH

Wow! This is so embarrassing!! why they kill the capitol extension? Did they say no to light rail capitol extension. So what's going on?? So what is the plan for now? Indian School Rd? Any ideas for next future light rail extension. Where they can go next?

If you've got 10 hours to spare, you can watch the whole debacle:

https://www.youtube.com/live/THhpvD3tr8U?si=bY0LHoMBu9jtmF2A

If not, I think Wayne Schutsky of KJZZ has done the best job among local journalists in terms of reporting what happened:

https://www.kjzz.org/politics/2026-01-28...ternative-route-might-start-work-in-2031

[MiEncanto]

The future looks bleak because there's no federal funding for the Indian School line, which will take years to design. And the opposition to that line appears to be fierce.

My prediction is the opposition kills off the Indian School line. Plus, there's no attraction at the end of the line to anchor it. Unlike south central, which had many local leaders who wanted it, outside of Guardardo I'm not sure who wants it.

So after that, i'll bet the City tries to run LR from downtown to I-10 using a different path.

[halicem]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

[...]

So after that, i'll bet the City tries to run LR from downtown to I-10 using a different path.

I fear that's it for LR and there will be no more expansion. I get the sense they'll instead redirect T2050 funds for SR-30 so that West Phoenix "will finally get the relief from the I-10 they've been asking for for a long time"

The Prop 104 language (which funds T2050) is vague enough that they can do that:

Chapter 14 of the Phoenix City Code shall be amended where applicable to set the portion of the transaction privilege and use tax rate for transportation to seven-tenths of one penny per dollar for a period of 35 years beginning on January 1, 2016.

The funds will support a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation plan that provides Phoenix residents with more transportation choices, including light rail and buses, as well as builds and improves public streets and roadways. To advance transparency, public input, and government accountability, all expenditures under this plan shall be reviewed by a Citizens Transportation Committee.

The revenues raises may be spent for activities including the following:

Expanding light rail and high-capacity transit to serve more Phoenix neighborhoods and employment, education and entertainment centers;
Adding bus service to unserved major arterial streets and increasing bus service frequency on existing routes;
Extending bus and Dial-a-Ride service hours to coincide with light rail service throughout the transit environment;
Improving streets and roadways throughout the City by fixing potholes, resurfacing streets, increasing ADA accessibility, and adding new sidewalks, street lights, bike lanes and bus pullouts;
Building new roads and bridges and upgrading technology for more efficient traffic operations;
Increasing security measures throughout the City's public transit system, including transit vehicles, bus stops, light rail stations and park-and-rides; and
Providing additional transportation services, including shade at all bus stops, wireless internet technology on buses and light rail cars, reloadable transit fare cards, and real-time data for trip planning.

This measure also addresses City payment for utility relocation required by projects in this plan.

A lower tax rate shall be adopted for the sale or use of a single item of tangible personal property on the value in excess of $10,000.00.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by halicem

I fear that's it for LR and there will be no more expansion. I get the sense they'll instead redirect T2050 funds for SR-30 so that West Phoenix "will finally get the relief from the I-10 they've been asking for for a long time"

The Prop 104 language (which funds T2050) is vague enough that they can do that:

There's precedent for that. Several years ago, the Phoenix City Council deferred several light rail extensions so that it could redirect funds to street maintenance. The lines affected included the proposed northeast Phoenix to the former Paradise Valley Mall area and the proposed West Camelback line. The latter has since been resurrected and modified as the Indian School line now favored over I-10.

The problem is that the City Council has changed direction so many times on its plans for light rail to the west side of Phoenix that is has engendered a great deal of cynicism there. Combine the frustration of local business owners who feel like they've been misled with ideological opposition to rail transit in our state legislature and at the federal level, and it's going to be tough to expand light rail anywhere in the near term.

[azsunsurfer]

We need common sense light rail reform!

[phoenixwillrise]

IMO not going elevated Light Rail in Phoenix cut it's own throat so to speak.
It just isn't functional to sit on a train that takes forever to go anywhere. Seattle and some what San Diego got it right by going elevated it's just a lot more efficient and attractive to riders. Even if you had to initially build less miles of rail it seems it would have caught the publics attention for being more inviting and more funding would have been directed to expansion.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

IMO not going elevated Light Rail in Phoenix cut it's own throat so to speak.
It just isn't functional to sit on a train that takes forever to go anywhere. Seattle and some what San Diego got it right by going elevated it's just a lot more efficient and attractive to riders. Even if you had to initially build less miles of rail it seems it would have caught the publics attention for being more inviting and more funding would have been directed to expansion.

If an entire system is elevated, it's not really light rail anymore. At that point, what you have is more in the realm of heavy rail or at least a light metro system like the Vancouver Skytrain. Seattle and San Diego both have some elevated stations, but also many at ground level. Maybe Phoenix can have more elevated stations like Metro Parkway in the future. The cancelled Capitol/1-10 extension was going to involve at least one. Nevertheless, speedy crosstown commutes shouldn't necessarily be the highest priority with light rail. Instead, it's designed more for short trips of a few miles within the central city. For longer trips to outlying suburbs, we need some sort of regional rail system.

[MiEncanto]

IMO the big mistake was cost and design, which limited mileage and service.

They could have gone with overhead electric power lines, separate lanes, but with fancy buses instead of rail. That would have provided the same speed and priority at a fraction of the cost because you don't have nearly the construction costs or utility relocation. They could have built it out faster, with less impact, more coverage, and higher frequency. But advocates wanted trains.

Our LR option was basically the most expensive option and slowest for construction.

It has several good features. It serves the airport connection to tempe and downtown Phx well. It relieves traffic for ball games downtown. It connects downtown to Rooosevelt and midtown well. Downtown Mesa seems to like it's service. Otherwise it has its challenges.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

IMO the big mistake was cost and design, which limited mileage and service.

They could have gone with overhead electric power lines, separate lanes, but with fancy buses instead of rail. That would have provided the same speed and priority at a fraction of the cost because you don't have nearly the construction costs or utility relocation. They could have built it out faster, with less impact, more coverage, and higher frequency. But advocates wanted trains.

Our LR option was basically the most expensive option and slowest for construction.

Advocates want trains for good reasons. While BRT usually has lower up-front capital costs for construction, those savings diminish over time because BRT often has higher operating costs. Buses have much shorter lifespans than rail cars and much lower capacity. That means you have to buy more of them and replace them more frequently. I also means higher labor costs because each bus needs a driver. Also, the harder you try to make buses like trains, the higher the capital costs go. As a result, many BRT projects get value-engineered into something not much better than regular bus service.

BRT does have a role to play in corridors where high-capacity transit is needed but rail is not feasible. Councilwoman Stark is right to call for BRT on Bell Road, for example. BRT makes sense there because Bell is not connected to existing light rail tracks and won't be at any time in the foreseeable future. I-10 might also be a good candidate for BRT as an upgrade to the existing RAPID bus route on that freeway because there isn't the potential there for the type of transit-oriented development that rail transit can encourage.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

If an entire system is elevated, it's not really light rail anymore. At that point, what you have is more in the realm of heavy rail or at least a light metro system like the Vancouver Skytrain. Seattle and San Diego both have some elevated stations, but also many at ground level. Maybe Phoenix can have more elevated stations like Metro Parkway in the future. The cancelled Capitol/1-10 extension was going to involve at least one. Nevertheless, speedy crosstown commutes shouldn't necessarily be the highest priority with light rail. Instead, it's designed more for short trips of a few miles within the central city. For longer trips to outlying suburbs, we need some sort of regional rail system.

Both of Seattle's LRT'S two new routes to Bellevue and Lynwood from DT are pretty much at least 60-70% raised and areas that aren't are pretty much not encumbered by auto traffic with bridges and San Diego's terrain allows for large part of routes not encumbered by auto traffic. It would be a great combo of LRT and subway had the vote been positive in the 70's in Phoenix for a MARTA type system like Atlanta.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

Both of Seattle's LRT'S two new routes to Bellevue and Lynwood from DT are pretty much at least 60-70% raised and areas that aren't are pretty much not encumbered by auto traffic with bridges and San Diego's terrain allows for large part of routes not encumbered by auto traffic. It would be a great combo of LRT and subway had the vote been positive in the 70's in Phoenix for a MARTA type system like Atlanta.

Seattle's system is impressive. With its four-car trains and many stations above or below ground, it's more like a light metro even though officially called light rail. A lot of that has to do with the region being full of water and hills that necessitate bridges and tunnels. It also helps that the trains can run in the bus tunnel that was built several decades ago under Downtown.

I'm not as familiar with San Diego, but from what I've seen, it's generally street-running in and around Downtown with some freeway alignments as it heads to outlying areas. I'm not crazy about that, but it does help that SDSU's campus is right along I-8, making it easy for freeway-running trains to serve that university. I'm eager to see what they've done with the newer line to UCSD.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Advocates want trains for good reasons. While BRT usually has lower up-front capital costs for construction, those savings diminish over time because BRT often has higher operating costs. Buses have much shorter lifespans than rail cars and much lower capacity. That means you have to buy more of them and replace them more frequently. I also means higher labor costs because each bus needs a driver. Also, the harder you try to make buses like trains, the higher the capital costs go. As a result, many BRT projects get value-engineered into something not much better than regular bus service.

BRT does have a role to play in corridors where high-capacity transit is needed but rail is not feasible. Councilwoman Stark is right to call for BRT on Bell Road, for example. BRT makes sense there because Bell is not connected to existing light rail tracks and won't be at any time in the foreseeable future. I-10 might also be a good candidate for BRT as an upgrade to the existing RAPID bus route on that freeway because there isn't the potential there for the type of transit-oriented development that rail transit can encourage.

By using "BRT," you're making a false comparison. BRT is not the option I was considering as an alternative. BRT in AZ has VERY few pickups and dropoffs and is designed for 8-5 commuters. It doesn't have its own dedicated lane, must fight traffic, and looks like any regular old bus.

The alternate at the time was a modified bus that looks like rail, has overhead electric lines to give it permanence, it's own dedicated lanes to give it priority and more speed.

Your arguments about costs don't track. Higher operating? Trains have far more expensive maintenance so even if they last longer, they require more upfront and ongoing costs. Studies show light rail is only cheaper on a per customer basis once the trains are operating at a full capacity and in comparison to lightly occupied buses. If we assume elongated buses that could hold nearly the same capacity as our lightly occupied LR, then it's no comparison.

Our LR is a classic example of value-engineered. It doesn't provide near enough coverage or service frequency.

You see to be pretty committed to defending the past decision makers. I get it. What's done is done. But I think we should be critical of how it has played out.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Seattle's system is impressive. With its four-car trains and many stations above or below ground, it's more like a light metro even though officially called light rail. A lot of that has to do with the region being full of water and hills that necessitate bridges and tunnels. It also helps that the trains can run in the bus tunnel that was built several decades ago under Downtown.

I'm not as familiar with San Diego, but from what I've seen, it's generally street-running in and around Downtown with some freeway alignments as it heads to outlying areas. I'm not crazy about that, but it does help that SDSU's campus is right along I-8, making it easy for freeway-running trains to serve that university. I'm eager to see what they've done with the newer line to UCSD.

It parallels the Coaster and Amtrak line from Old Town up to approaching UCSD where it then is elevated over I-5 then while still elevated goes east to Gennesee Blvd and south to there biggest mall University Towne Center then terminates so again it is not going with any traffic and is approximately 60% elevated.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

Our LR is a classic example of value-engineered. It doesn't provide near enough coverage or service frequency.

You see to be pretty committed to defending the past decision makers. I get it. What's done is done. But I think we should be critical of how it has played out.

If you think light rail doesn't provide enough coverage or offer enough frequency, that's an argument for its extension and improvement, as well as its supplementation with expanded bus service. Phoenix has done all of that. As for past decisions, it's important to realize that sometimes things are the way they are for valid or unavoidable reasons and a more fruitful discussion should focus on where we go from here. It's also about realizing that despite the political machinations affecting its expansion, light rail in Phoenix is hardly a failure, so post-mortems based on an assumption that it is unsuccessful aren't really productive. Even if it doesn't work for you, it works for many people and compares favorably in terms of ridership with systems in many other cities.

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

It parallels the Coaster and Amtrak line from Old Town up to approaching UCSD where it then is elevated over I-5 then while still elevated goes east to Gennesee Blvd and south to there biggest mall University Towne Center then terminates so again it is not going with any traffic and is approximately 60% elevated.

Sound nice. I'll have to take a ride next time I'm in San Diego.

[Dale]

Please tell me if I have this right and I'm sorry if I've missed pertinent information ...

The city passed a 35 years transit plan, in 2015, to include 75 miles of BRT.

And the initial BRT line will only be completed in 2030?