Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 04-05-2015, 01:19 PM
 
170 posts, read 221,195 times
Reputation: 154

Advertisements

Im in Denver and traffic is constant.
DOT hasn't built any new roads through Denver in years. They have been widening some spots but it almost makes it worse. Anytime the interstate has a curve traffic slows down and a bottle neck grows. Ive been to PHX a few times and the infrastructure is newer and light years ahead of Denver. Yes Denver has light rail but its not helping much.

 
Old 04-05-2015, 01:39 PM
 
1,629 posts, read 2,612,593 times
Reputation: 3510
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
Actually, when LA's freeways were first planned, there was meant to be a lot more. Of course, people revolted and didn't want planners to tear up any more neighborhoods.

If you compare LA to NYC, you can easily see that NYC has a lot more freeways (partly of course from having twice the population density). The only problem is that all the routes into Manhattan or Brooklyn (where pretty much 80% of the jobs are) are all bottlenecked by the bridges and tunnels. Plus the brides and tunnels themselves are usually no more than 2 or 3 lanes in either direction. Lucky for NYC's extensive transit system that keeps the city from being completely immobilized. Freeways do work if planned and executed correctly.
Your post does not prove that freeways work better if planned "correctly."

First of all, you're comparing apples to oranges with New York and Los Angeles. New York does not have more freeways than LA. New York has several very old expressways that are all three lanes in each direction with maximum speed limits of 45-50 MPH. Some of these expressways funnel into tunnels or bridges that are only one or two lanes in each direction. The expressways get backed up just like any other limited access roads in any other city. Still, New York does not rank as high as LA when it comes to traffic congestion. Why? Even with New York's density, these expressways do not stay as backed up as LA's freeways. You can get on the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens Expressway), the West Side Highway, FDR, or the LIE at 1 AM on a Wednesday and not be in horrific traffic. Public transportation and the fact that New York is almost an entirely walkable city helps tremendously.

Just building more freeways will do nothing to alleviate traffic. New freeways get built, more homes, big box stores, and offices go up next to the freeway causing the new freeways to back up. People then say that ADOT should add lanes or build another freeway to alleviate congestion. ADOT adds lanes, which quickly fill up. ADOT then builds a new freeway and more homes and business are constructed right next to the new freeway, causing the process to start all over. Luckily for ADOT, development around the 303 has been slow because the economy is still a wreck. Prior to the recession, developers for the super-regional mall, Prasada, were licking their chops waiting for the 303 to be completed so they could throw up a Scottsdale Fashion Square-esqe mall in the West Valley. That would've caused new housing developments and offices buildings to spring up left and right of the freeway, jamming the 303 within months.
 
Old 04-05-2015, 04:24 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,023 posts, read 12,169,131 times
Reputation: 9793
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2colo View Post
Your post does not prove that freeways work better if planned "correctly."

First of all, you're comparing apples to oranges with New York and Los Angeles. New York does not have more freeways than LA. New York has several very old expressways that are all three lanes in each direction with maximum speed limits of 45-50 MPH. Some of these expressways funnel into tunnels or bridges that are only one or two lanes in each direction. The expressways get backed up just like any other limited access roads in any other city. Still, New York does not rank as high as LA when it comes to traffic congestion. Why? Even with New York's density, these expressways do not stay as backed up as LA's freeways. You can get on the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens Expressway), the West Side Highway, FDR, or the LIE at 1 AM on a Wednesday and not be in horrific traffic. Public transportation and the fact that New York is almost an entirely walkable city helps tremendously.
I have to agree with you 100% about L.A. freeways vs. New York expressways. The expressways in NYC are narrow, have low speed limits, and many of them are really more like divided city streets than the freeways we're used to. While New York is still congested, a large share of the population uses public transit. It's actually a liability to own a car in much of NYC ... thus, there isn't a great deal of vehicle traffic clogging up their arteries like there is in other car dependent metros like L.A., Houston, or even Phoenix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by new2colo View Post
Just building more freeways will do nothing to alleviate traffic. New freeways get built, more homes, big box stores, and offices go up next to the freeway causing the new freeways to back up. People then say that ADOT should add lanes or build another freeway to alleviate congestion. ADOT adds lanes, which quickly fill up. ADOT then builds a new freeway and more homes and business are constructed right next to the new freeway, causing the process to start all over. Luckily for ADOT, development around the 303 has been slow because the economy is still a wreck. Prior to the recession, developers for the super-regional mall, Prasada, were licking their chops waiting for the 303 to be completed so they could throw up a Scottsdale Fashion Square-esqe mall in the West Valley. That would've caused new housing developments and offices buildings to spring up left and right of the freeway, jamming the 303 within months.
Since Phoenix isn't like NYC as far as being condensed or public transit oriented, additional freeways are still in demand because more people than not depend on their own vehicles for commuting. Unfortunately, that's the way it is ... so ADOT could be doing a better job as far as keeping up with the demand & building the freeways which the voters approved 10+ years ago, as well as widening the existing ones that need it (such as I10 & the westbound 202).

You're likely going to reply that there isn't enough money in the budget for these projects ... however, ADOT seems to have enough money for widening the Scottsdale portion of the 101, as well as replacing the decorative walls in that same section. Oh, and the HOV lane project on the 202 in north Mesa ... seems to be enough funding for that, but nothing available for improving the freeways that really need it, such as I10 west. Hmmmm.
 
Old 04-05-2015, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,647 posts, read 8,545,710 times
Reputation: 3775
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2colo View Post
Your post does not prove that freeways work better if planned "correctly."

First of all, you're comparing apples to oranges with New York and Los Angeles. New York does not have more freeways than LA. New York has several very old expressways that are all three lanes in each direction with maximum speed limits of 45-50 MPH. Some of these expressways funnel into tunnels or bridges that are only one or two lanes in each direction. The expressways get backed up just like any other limited access roads in any other city. Still, New York does not rank as high as LA when it comes to traffic congestion. Why? Even with New York's density, these expressways do not stay as backed up as LA's freeways. You can get on the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens Expressway), the West Side Highway, FDR, or the LIE at 1 AM on a Wednesday and not be in horrific traffic. Public transportation and the fact that New York is almost an entirely walkable city helps tremendously.
I guess I should have been explicit in that I was talking about the both respective metropolitan areas, not just the core cities.

There's about two dozen Interstate freeways the traverse through the New York MSA and quite a lot of other limited access routes. 57% of commuters use a car to get to work, which even though is pretty low for a city of its size, that still means there's millions of cars commuting through the city during rush hour.

By comparison, all of Southern California has only 12 Interstates within the area. Obviously without as extensive mass transit, that means there's a lot more cars on the road. Not having as many freeways means those cars don't move around as efficiently which means worse congestion.


Quote:

Just building more freeways will do nothing to alleviate traffic. New freeways get built, more homes, big box stores, and offices go up next to the freeway causing the new freeways to back up. People then say that ADOT should add lanes or build another freeway to alleviate congestion. ADOT adds lanes, which quickly fill up. ADOT then builds a new freeway and more homes and business are constructed right next to the new freeway, causing the process to start all over. Luckily for ADOT, development around the 303 has been slow because the economy is still a wreck. Prior to the recession, developers for the super-regional mall, Prasada, were licking their chops waiting for the 303 to be completed so they could throw up a Scottsdale Fashion Square-esqe mall in the West Valley. That would've caused new housing developments and offices buildings to spring up left and right of the freeway, jamming the 303 within months.
Correlation is not causation. Freeways do not cause sprawl and congestion so much as just to funnel it into a directed area. Freeways alleviate congestion that otherwise would have been on surface streets. Multiple freeways alleviate congestion on other freeways. Two freeways in parallel directions will both have less congestion than a singular freeway in the same direction, for example. There's plenty of examples of areas that exploded in growth without any freeway expansions and the traffic problems were still much worse.

To create an absolute reduction in car traffic (which is what people think congestion alleviation means), then there has to be alternatives to car travel which is where mass transit comes in. And just like freeways, mass transit funnels commuters into a directed area, but just not with the use of private cars. Either way, you'll still end up with homes, business, and malls built near transit stations, but they're less likely to be built with the expectation of people arriving by car and, in theory, take up less space. However, that doesn't mean it's going to stop a city from spreading outward into rural areas. Not by a long shot.
 
Old 04-12-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,023 posts, read 12,169,131 times
Reputation: 9793
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBilly View Post
Im in Denver and traffic is constant.
DOT hasn't built any new roads through Denver in years. They have been widening some spots but it almost makes it worse. Anytime the interstate has a curve traffic slows down and a bottle neck grows. Ive been to PHX a few times and the infrastructure is newer and light years ahead of Denver. Yes Denver has light rail but its not helping much.
You need to come to Phoenix more often than just a few times to see how traffic can really be like during the peak commute times. Traffic slows to a crawl every morning on I10 from the 51/202 interchange (mini stack) all the way to the west Valley, and again in the afternoons/evenings. During the afternoon, it can start as early as 2 PM sometimes. The adjoining freeways become bottlenecked as a result. For instance, the westbound 202 is jammed beginning at about 44th Street, and this is the result of all the mess on I10 west. The most maddening part is ADOT refuses to do anything about this stretch (claiming "lack of funds"), but they seem to have enough funding for other projects that are seemingly less of a necessity.

I will say that Phoenix's traffic SEEMS better in comparison to other metro areas because we don't have the harsh weather conditions that other cities have (including Denver). Our streets & freeways seem newer because the of the lack of snow, ice, and flooding which can cause roads to age quickly. Outside of rush hour, traffic does flow pretty well for the most part, and people can drive faster & be reasonably safe because the roads/weather conditions allow for it. Of course, when there's construction, accidents, or any kind of police presence, traffic will slow to a crawl during any time of the day. People need to quit slowing down, rubbernecking & gawking at every little traffic incident!
 
Old 04-13-2015, 02:19 PM
 
837 posts, read 2,324,938 times
Reputation: 801
I tracked my commute last week.

26 miles to/from home/work
1 hour each way

I drive approximately 520 miles and spend 40hrs a month commuting.
40/hrs at my current salary, plus gas equals about $1760/mo in lost productivity and gasoline expense. So glad my lease in the west valley is up next month!!
 
Old 04-13-2015, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Leaving, California
480 posts, read 840,427 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by trudawg View Post
I drive approximately 520 miles and spend 40hrs a month commuting.
40/hrs at my current salary, plus gas equals about $1760/mo in lost productivity and gasoline expense. So glad my lease in the west valley is up next month!!

Attached a picture of traffic in Anaheim Hills (northeast Orange County) last week, about 2 PM. I know weather isn't climate, and traffic doesn't indicate a dysfunction, and correlation isn't causation, and so on... but 7 lanes of stop and go without an accident, freeway merge, or anything remotely like a real problem?

I've been driving in Phoenix traffic for 6 years now. This place is nothing like metros in California, and the only person who would make any sort of correlation between the two is someone who either only drives through the worst impacted areas of the Phoenix metro or really hasn't driven much in California. The loop freeways here are newer. The routes are more varied.

I sympathize with anyone who has to drive through traffic. It sucks, and I'm not minimizing their crisis at all. But comparing anything here in Phoenix to Hwy 5 north of San Diego? The bridge backups in the Bay Area? The jams in the LA basin? In the Phoenix metro, you can *always* use surface streets to route around accidents - try that on the San Mateo bridge approach some time.

In the Bay Area, I called the freeway system a time tax on people who can't afford to live in the desirable areas. If you can only afford a $500k house in the East Bay, you'll pay 2+ hours a day to get to Silicon Valley. If you take public transit, it could take even more time.

Given a conspiratorial mindset, I might even think that part of the reason for the antipathy toward freeways in some areas is driven by people trying to preserve home values. Because if your home is worth more because it's 10 minutes from a job center, if you make the freeways great so that much less expensive houses are within 15 minutes, well people might be willing to trade that off.
Attached Thumbnails
The truth about Phoenix traffic congestion.-octraffic.png  
 
Old 04-13-2015, 04:25 PM
 
9,478 posts, read 12,218,772 times
Reputation: 8764
There are always places with worse traffic than here, that isn't the point. Traffic here CAN and IS a real headache at times, even if it isn't as bad as someplace else. Why does it have to be a competition?
__________________
My posts as moderator will be in red.
 
Old 04-13-2015, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Leaving, California
480 posts, read 840,427 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElleTea View Post
There are always places with worse traffic than here, that isn't the point. Traffic here CAN and IS a real headache at times, even if it isn't as bad as someplace else. Why does it have to be a competition?
Of course it's not a competition, but I'd encourage you to consider the difference between competitive and comparative. The original point was comparative, placing Phoenix at #14 among metros rather than #43. I'd say either study could be accurate, depending on the methodology they used.

In my opinion, without belittling anyone for their gripes about Phoenix traffic, it's not that awful. When I hear someone in Phoenix complain about traffic, it's like listening to a high school kid complain about stress. Do high schoolers feel stress? Sure. Does Phoenix have traffic? Sure. However, what person who knows about stress would claim that High School stress is the worst stress anyone might ever perceive?

That's why comparisons are useful for perspective.
 
Old 04-13-2015, 05:11 PM
 
226 posts, read 226,206 times
Reputation: 278
Compared to Bismarck, North Dakota or Macon, Georgia - yes, Phoenix traffic is bad.
For a major metropolitan area, though, Phoenix traffic is a Sunday stroll down a country road, even on a Tuesday at 5pm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top