Light rail expansion into South Phoenix??? (Scottsdale, Parks: construction, live, professionals)

[Ritchie_az]

Originally Posted by nickw252

You're just repeating the same tired argument that every NIMBY says, and I'll repeat the same tried argument in reply. Roads don't pay for themselves and gas taxes don't cover the costs. Transportation has always cost more than it brings in.

I'll 100% agree with you once every road is a toll road and is also self sustaining.

And I'll repeat the same thing I've said over and over: roads are paid for entirely by road users and/or those who purchase commodities that traversed the roads, while the light-rail is paid for mostly by people who have never and may never ride the thing.

I've said before, the light-rail users are getting a pretty large subsidy by those who don't use it. Is that fair? I'm sure the regular users believe so. My opinion, if the light-rail users like riding the light-rail, they should have no problem with increased rates to pay for it. Why do you need mostly people who don't ride it to supplement so much of your ticket?
Ticket sales only cover about 25% of the annual operating costs and none of the one-and-a-half billion to build.
That's a heck-of-a-lot of money paid by non-users.
If you want the light-rail expanded, I don't see why the users shouldn't have to pony up a little more to pay for it.
That's what happens with roads in the way of gas taxes, vehicle taxes, rental car taxes, etc. The road users pay a little more to get that new road. Why should light-rail users be exempt? Why do light-rail users need to have 75% of their ticket paid for by non-light-rail users?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by nickw252

You're just repeating the same tired argument that every NIMBY says, and I'll repeat the same tried argument in reply. Roads don't pay for themselves and gas taxes don't cover the costs. Transportation has always cost more than it brings in.

I'll 100% agree with you once every road is a toll road and is also self sustaining.

and I will say what I always say: A society can not exist without trade routes - roads. Everything you consume and is necessary to sustain your life traveled at one time on a road. Everyone depends upon and benefits from roads. Close the roads and there would be anarchy, starvation, chaos, you name it. Close the light rail and 99% of the people in Phoenix metro would not even know about it.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

and I will say what I always say: A society can not exist without trade routes - roads. Everything you consume and is necessary to sustain your life traveled at one time on a road. Everyone depends upon and benefits from roads.

I don't disagree, no one is suggesting that we tear down roads. Instead, just make every road a toll road or raise gas taxes so that they are completely self sustaining (that's what you want, isn't it?). Everything we consume would still make it, they would just have to pay to use the roads so that the government isn't subsidizing them.

Anyway, this argument is never going to resolve itself so back to the topic:


My question is, if this expansion were to occur, would it then divide the current line into two lines, one the north/south part with the extension that goes south? And then the existing east/west part as another line?

Moderator cut: copyright violation

Also, NPR just did a big piece on how light-rail is transforming cities and guiding development and they specifically talked about Phoenix:

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/27/132283...ng-development

[miamiman]

No extension. The light rail shouldn't have been put in at all. This is a huge boondoggle and is costing Valley taxpayers too much. The majority of people on the light rail seem to be mentally disturbed transients. I have tried this system and was reminded of public transit in New York, with all the smelly, foul mouthed people on board.

I still believe that funding should have been put into establishing a more comprehensive bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Light rail serves too few people in a metro area as spread out as metro Phoenix to be economically viable. BRT is much cheaper and more flexible. Put that in south Phoenix and stop wasting taxpayers' money.

[HX_Guy]

More flexible = developers/companies less likel to commit to a location because of the uncertainty that it will always be served by that mode of transportation. Look at freeways and how many developments pop up along their corridors.

I HIGHLY doubt the MAJORITY of light ail users are mentally disturbed transients. Daily ridership is around 35,000 people...I'd be surprised if even 1,000 of those fit that category.

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by miamiman

No extension. The light rail shouldn't have been put in at all. This is a huge boondoggle and is costing Valley taxpayers too much. The majority of people on the light rail seem to be mentally disturbed transients. I have tried this system and was reminded of public transit in New York, with all the smelly, foul mouthed people on board.

I still believe that funding should have been put into establishing a more comprehensive bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Light rail serves too few people in a metro area as spread out as metro Phoenix to be economically viable. BRT is much cheaper and more flexible. Put that in south Phoenix and stop wasting taxpayers' money.

Hyperbole.

[Ritchie_az]

Originally Posted by nickw252

I don't disagree, no one is suggesting that we tear down roads. Instead, just make every road a toll road or raise gas taxes so that they are completely self sustaining (that's what you want, isn't it?). Everything we consume would still make it, they would just have to pay to use the roads so that the government isn't subsidizing them.

Roads are already paid for entirely by road users and those who purchase commodities that traversed the roads. If taxes were raised (as you suggest) then the roads would generate a surplus of funds (and at times and in certain places, they already have).
Roads are paid for by road users and not by non-road users. Fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, taxes on rental cars, etc, pay for the roads. Road users are already paying for the roads in which they use. Roads are paid for by folks who drive their cars and by folks who purchase goods that traversed the roads. Roads are paid for entirely by them. If you don't drive or purchase products that traversed the roads, you are not paying for the roads. The more you drive, the more you pay. Road users pay for the roads.

The light-rail, on the other hand, is paid for mostly by non-light-rail users. It's mostly people who have never and most likely will never ride the light-rail that are fronting most of the cost. Light-rail users are getting about 75% of their tickets subsidized by folks who are not light-rail users. Non-light-rail users fronted almost entirely the one-and-a-half billion to build the light rail.
Light-rail users should have increased ticket prices before they start demanding more trains (which will increase the cost to the non-light-rail users) and extensions (which will really soak the non-light-rail users). You want more trains? You want line extensions? Put you money where you mouth is instead of out palm-up to the taxpayers.
An easy solution is to purchase four tickets instead of one every time you ride, so at least you are covering your own operating costs. That's a start, anyway.

Originally Posted by nickw252

Also, NPR just did a big piece on how light-rail is transforming cities and guiding development and they specifically talked about Phoenix:

Light Rail Transforming Cities, Guiding Development : NPR

Light Rail is a Costly, Bad Idea | Goldwater Institute
Light-Rail Op Ed
Light Rail is a Bad Idea by Josh Feit - Pullout - Monorail Guide - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
Why Light Rail is a Bad Idea | I Love Los Angeles, But…

[slackjaw]

Originally Posted by miamiman

The majority of people on the light rail seem to be mentally disturbed transients. I have tried this system and was reminded of public transit in New York, with all the smelly, foul mouthed people on board.

Your first statement seemed untrue from my experiences riding it, then I saw your second statement which is even more far-fetched and decided you have issues with applying acceptable standards of exaggeration filtering.

[slackjaw]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Hyperbole.

Yeah, this is a much better and concise version of my above post.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

More flexible = developers/companies less likel to commit to a location because of the uncertainty that it will always be served by that mode of transportation. Look at freeways and how many developments pop up along their corridors.

I HIGHLY doubt the MAJORITY of light ail users are mentally disturbed transients. Daily ridership is around 35,000 people...I'd be surprised if even 1,000 of those fit that category.

I highly doubt that the primary motivation behind putting in transit should be development. If developers want transit, they should put it in themselves. A BRT station could be used to transport south Phoenicians to the transit center downtown, to Arizona Mills, and to the airport. Compare the cost of putting in BRT lines to satisfy that demand versus light rail. The savings would be shocking for pretty much the same quality of service.

The day I was on the system, it was clear that many people were mentally unstable. It was so uncomfortable, in fact, that I ended up getting off and walking back to my Hummer.

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Hyperbole.

Not hyperbole at all. I know mentally unstable when I see it. It was a harrowing experience.

Originally Posted by slackjaw

Your first statement seemed untrue from my experiences riding it, then I saw your second statement which is even more far-fetched and decided you have issues with applying acceptable standards of exaggeration filtering.

I don't exaggerate. I don't see things through rose colored glasses. I had a family member from out of town who was appalled at the words flying out of fellow straphangers mouths. We were relieved to get back in my Hummer and speed down Thomas to get back to Scottsdale.