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.
One of the improvements that I'd like to see, that was not specifically mentioned in 104, is get rid of a lot of the unnecessary traffic lights and replace them with round-abouts. If you've driven on busy roads, like E. Camelback or Bell Road, you'll often wonder why they have sooooo many of those lights on major roads that intersect with the smaller roads. Good examples are Peoria, around Metro Center, 17th Ave & Bell Road, 29th Ave & Bell Road, the stretch on Bell from 59th Ave to the 101, especially around Arrowhead Mall. I've seen traffic get backed up in both east/west directions on Bell Road, while waiting for the lights like the ones on 15th and 17th Avenues to turn green, and there wasn't any north/south traffic on either one! The lights turned red on Bell because of maybe 1 or 2 vehicles that were waiting to stop traffic on Bell. Drive further east to 7th St. and that's another perfect example of why those lights are causing traffic backup problems on Bell Road, and that's just one example, there are hundreds of them all over the metro area.
Why not replace those traffic lights with round-abouts at those intersections with strip malls or malls around them? Leave traffic lights at major streets, but don't have them at every major/minor street intersections.
Smart traffic lights that can programmed based on the volume of traffic and the time of the day are also another solution.
Such solutions are more effective in reducing congestion. Let's face it, the only people who will benefit from 104 are constructions companies, not motorists
One of the improvements that I'd like to see, that was not specifically mentioned in 104, is get rid of a lot of the unnecessary traffic lights and replace them with round-abouts. If you've driven on busy roads, like E. Camelback or Bell Road, you'll often wonder why they have sooooo many of those lights on major roads that intersect with the smaller roads. Good examples are Peoria, around Metro Center, 17th Ave & Bell Road, 29th Ave & Bell Road, the stretch on Bell from 59th Ave to the 101, especially around Arrowhead Mall. I've seen traffic get backed up in both east/west directions on Bell Road, while waiting for the lights like the ones on 15th and 17th Avenues to turn green, and there wasn't any north/south traffic on either one! The lights turned red on Bell because of maybe 1 or 2 vehicles that were waiting to stop traffic on Bell. Drive further east to 7th St. and that's another perfect example of why those lights are causing traffic backup problems on Bell Road, and that's just one example, there are hundreds of them all over the metro area.
Why not replace those traffic lights with round-abouts at those intersections with strip malls or malls around them? Leave traffic lights at major streets, but don't have them at every major/minor street intersections.
Smart traffic lights that can programmed based on the volume of traffic and the time of the day are also another solution.
Such solutions are more effective in reducing congestion. Let's face it, the only people who will benefit from 104 are constructions companies, not motorists
I could not disagree more when it comes to more roundabouts. Most people don't know how to use them correctly, and when you add a high volume of traffic that's three lanes in each direction like you have on Bell Road, all they do is cause fender-benders and back up traffic worse than the stop lights did.
And most important of all, I absolutely loathe them personally.
Wow, lengthy discussion - as well as it should be. My main concerns are: I am tired of overstated promises. Where's the 200+ miles of freeways we were promised. While only 20 percent is designated for light rail, what's to keep politicians from redirecting that money? While the City is, generally pretty good - the politicians at the State Capitol are notorious for using money that was supposed to go somewhere for something else. Finally, there is a legitimate discussion about cost versus subsidies. ALL transit riders only pay a small contribution to the actual cost of operation. Where do the subsidies come from and what happens when we no longer can afford those subsidies?
I could not disagree more when it comes to more roundabouts. Most people don't know how to use them correctly, and when you add a high volume of traffic that's three lanes in each direction like you have on Bell Road, all they do is cause fender-benders and back up traffic worse than the stop lights did.
And most important of all, I absolutely loathe them personally.
Well, there will be a learning curve with drivers who don't know how to use them, and the few fender benders, and of course we need to take pedestrians into consideration, but I really think round-abouts could move traffic faster on sections of roads where they have several traffic lights within a 1/2 mile stretch.
Going back to the major/minor street intersections like 15th and 17th Avenues, on Bell Road. Many times, I've seen the east and west-bound traffic on Bell get backed up because of one of those north/south Avenues, with hardly any traffic. Another example, 3rd Street & Thomas, I was on the east-bound lanes on Thomas recently and traffic was backed up because of the light at 3rd Street, with no north/south traffic. There's no reason for traffic lights like that to be red for a long time on the major street.
Round-abouts at those intersections would cause traffic to slow down, but at least they'll keep traffic moving. I'm not saying put them at major intersections, just get rid of the unnecessary lights at major/minor street intersections.
I went to a 104 debate last night with Councilwoman Gallego and Randal O'Toole from the Cato Institute hosted by Braham Resnick from KPNX. I am now voting against the proposition. What's changed? I'm not generally an anti-tax person because I do realize that you get what you pay for. If you don't give anything, you won't get anything. However, it's not clear what Phoenix residents overall stand to benefit if the tax is approved. Gallego fumbled when asked a basic question whether passage of the tax would change the construction schedule of the light rail, bus and street improvements throughout the city. The next light rail extension is proposed to open in 2034. She gave no hint that the 2034 date would be fast tracked with the passage of this tax. Additionally, the city seems hellbent on trying to extend they light rail to Metrocenter as if it is some hub of activity. Metrocenter is an incredibly dumpy mall on its last legs, surrounded by a bunch of auto oriented businesses. Light rail is not going to change that. Sure, Metrocenter will get a new Walmart next year, but that doesn't mean that area is coming back. In fact, I would argue that shows how far Metrocenter has fallen. We don't need a light rail connecting passengers to a Walmart. For the cost, it's just silly.
There was little conversation on any of the other purposes of this tax increase. Obviously all $31 billion is not going to be dumped into light rail, so discussing some of the other improvements that would presumably be funded would have been nice too. Other autocentric cities around the country who have been asked to pass local or regional transportation tax increases did so knowing that the respective referendums were not transit only. There is a core group of people who are clearly extreme transit advocates and would like to see Phoenix take on a more Portland style or European style outlook to transit. With the way Phoenix is spread out, that type of transit system will not work here.
The city needs to stop placing so much emphasis on light rail and present a listing of projects that would be funded by this tax. The city also needs to have some serious conversations with other jurisdictions about a commuter rail system. Sure, commuter rail might not be a viable means of transport on 2015, but between planning studies, finding a way to fund such a system, and right of way acquisition, it would likely take a decade or two before any dirt started moving.
Mr. O'Toole advocates for enhanced bus operations and privatizing the bus system. He also introduced the idea that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are current or soon to be options available for people who do not have personal vehicles. While I don't agree with privatizing transportation nor that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are common sense alternatives, I do believe that bus is the best way to serve the most people here for a comparatively minimal cost. If we poured the money that we want to spend for light rail into this service, we could actually have a really strong system. Light rail is shiny and new, but it doesn't meet the needs of most in Phoenix.
In any case, this truly does sound like a poorly thought out, rushed plan. There are too many people who are trying to get Phoenix to play "catch up" with cities that were designed before the automobile really took over. They look at other cities like Austin, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland, and LA and claim that we have to be like them. I think we need to take a look at the city we have today and how to best move it forward in the future. Just randomly and carelessly trying things and hoping that they will stick (light rail) is just a terrible way to use taxpayer money. One more vote against 104.
I went to a 104 debate last night with Councilwoman Gallego and Randal O'Toole from the Cato Institute hosted by Braham Resnick from KPNX. I am now voting against the proposition. What's changed? I'm not generally an anti-tax person because I do realize that you get what you pay for. If you don't give anything, you won't get anything. However, it's not clear what Phoenix residents overall stand to benefit if the tax is approved. Gallego fumbled when asked a basic question whether passage of the tax would change the construction schedule of the light rail, bus and street improvements throughout the city. The next light rail extension is proposed to open in 2034. She gave no hint that the 2034 date would be fast tracked with the passage of this tax. Additionally, the city seems hellbent on trying to extend they light rail to Metrocenter as if it is some hub of activity. Metrocenter is an incredibly dumpy mall on its last legs, surrounded by a bunch of auto oriented businesses. Light rail is not going to change that. Sure, Metrocenter will get a new Walmart next year, but that doesn't mean that area is coming back. In fact, I would argue that shows how far Metrocenter has fallen. We don't need a light rail connecting passengers to a Walmart. For the cost, it's just silly.
There was little conversation on any of the other purposes of this tax increase. Obviously all $31 billion is not going to be dumped into light rail, so discussing some of the other improvements that would presumably be funded would have been nice too. Other autocentric cities around the country who have been asked to pass local or regional transportation tax increases did so knowing that the respective referendums were not transit only. There is a core group of people who are clearly extreme transit advocates and would like to see Phoenix take on a more Portland style or European style outlook to transit. With the way Phoenix is spread out, that type of transit system will not work here.
The city needs to stop placing so much emphasis on light rail and present a listing of projects that would be funded by this tax. The city also needs to have some serious conversations with other jurisdictions about a commuter rail system. Sure, commuter rail might not be a viable means of transport on 2015, but between planning studies, finding a way to fund such a system, and right of way acquisition, it would likely take a decade or two before any dirt started moving.
Mr. O'Toole advocates for enhanced bus operations and privatizing the bus system. He also introduced the idea that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are current or soon to be options available for people who do not have personal vehicles. While I don't agree with privatizing transportation nor that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are common sense alternatives, I do believe that bus is the best way to serve the most people here for a comparatively minimal cost. If we poured the money that we want to spend for light rail into this service, we could actually have a really strong system. Light rail is shiny and new, but it doesn't meet the needs of most in Phoenix.
In any case, this truly does sound like a poorly thought out, rushed plan. There are too many people who are trying to get Phoenix to play "catch up" with cities that were designed before the automobile really took over. They look at other cities like Austin, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland, and LA and claim that we have to be like them. I think we need to take a look at the city we have today and how to best move it forward in the future. Just randomly and carelessly trying things and hoping that they will stick (light rail) is just a terrible way to use taxpayer money. One more vote against 104.
This is interesting, please do tell us more!
I'm definitely in the camp of extending our public transportation assets I like the Rapid Bus Idea, but feel that the Light Rail is the only mode of Public Transportation that gets people out of their cars by choice. As for the want to be like other cities, the reasoning is pretty simple, LA ignored their public transportation like we have for a long time, their congestion is a nationally known issue and only now (when it's arguable too expensive and late) did they decide to start building rails. We don't want to follow their example.
Well, there will be a learning curve with drivers who don't know how to use them, and the few fender benders, and of course we need to take pedestrians into consideration, but I really think round-abouts could move traffic faster on sections of roads where they have several traffic lights within a 1/2 mile stretch.
Going back to the major/minor street intersections like 15th and 17th Avenues, on Bell Road. Many times, I've seen the east and west-bound traffic on Bell get backed up because of one of those north/south Avenues, with hardly any traffic. Another example, 3rd Street & Thomas, I was on the east-bound lanes on Thomas recently and traffic was backed up because of the light at 3rd Street, with no north/south traffic. There's no reason for traffic lights like that to be red for a long time on the major street.
Round-abouts at those intersections would cause traffic to slow down, but at least they'll keep traffic moving. I'm not saying put them at major intersections, just get rid of the unnecessary lights at major/minor street intersections.
I hear you, but they won't really keep traffic moving. I've been stopped at roundabouts just as long as at red lights in other cities that have them on high-volume traffic thoroughfares. To use the 3rd and Thomas example, a roundabout would basically force every car to slow down (and trust me...they would be stopping during rush hour or when someone unfamiliar with the intersection tries to figure out how to handle a roundabout) when during most times of the day they can keep moving unimpeded now.
You're right about the traffic lights being red for too long. There are several intersections where they should adjust the timing of the red lights to be much shorter based on the volume of cars that travel on the smaller street.
I went to a 104 debate last night with Councilwoman Gallego and Randal O'Toole from the Cato Institute hosted by Braham Resnick from KPNX. I am now voting against the proposition. What's changed? I'm not generally an anti-tax person because I do realize that you get what you pay for. If you don't give anything, you won't get anything. However, it's not clear what Phoenix residents overall stand to benefit if the tax is approved. Gallego fumbled when asked a basic question whether passage of the tax would change the construction schedule of the light rail, bus and street improvements throughout the city. The next light rail extension is proposed to open in 2034. She gave no hint that the 2034 date would be fast tracked with the passage of this tax. Additionally, the city seems hellbent on trying to extend they light rail to Metrocenter as if it is some hub of activity. Metrocenter is an incredibly dumpy mall on its last legs, surrounded by a bunch of auto oriented businesses. Light rail is not going to change that. Sure, Metrocenter will get a new Walmart next year, but that doesn't mean that area is coming back. In fact, I would argue that shows how far Metrocenter has fallen. We don't need a light rail connecting passengers to a Walmart. For the cost, it's just silly.
There was little conversation on any of the other purposes of this tax increase. Obviously all $31 billion is not going to be dumped into light rail, so discussing some of the other improvements that would presumably be funded would have been nice too. Other autocentric cities around the country who have been asked to pass local or regional transportation tax increases did so knowing that the respective referendums were not transit only. There is a core group of people who are clearly extreme transit advocates and would like to see Phoenix take on a more Portland style or European style outlook to transit. With the way Phoenix is spread out, that type of transit system will not work here.
The city needs to stop placing so much emphasis on light rail and present a listing of projects that would be funded by this tax. The city also needs to have some serious conversations with other jurisdictions about a commuter rail system. Sure, commuter rail might not be a viable means of transport on 2015, but between planning studies, finding a way to fund such a system, and right of way acquisition, it would likely take a decade or two before any dirt started moving.
Mr. O'Toole advocates for enhanced bus operations and privatizing the bus system. He also introduced the idea that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are current or soon to be options available for people who do not have personal vehicles. While I don't agree with privatizing transportation nor that driverless cars and Uber/Lyft are common sense alternatives, I do believe that bus is the best way to serve the most people here for a comparatively minimal cost. If we poured the money that we want to spend for light rail into this service, we could actually have a really strong system. Light rail is shiny and new, but it doesn't meet the needs of most in Phoenix.
In any case, this truly does sound like a poorly thought out, rushed plan. There are too many people who are trying to get Phoenix to play "catch up" with cities that were designed before the automobile really took over. They look at other cities like Austin, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland, and LA and claim that we have to be like them. I think we need to take a look at the city we have today and how to best move it forward in the future. Just randomly and carelessly trying things and hoping that they will stick (light rail) is just a terrible way to use taxpayer money. One more vote against 104.
I'm not a fan of dumping money into the bus system and I don't think that's a good alternative to rail-based mass transit improvements. That said, while I'm still in favor of 104, you've got some great, thought-provoking detail in this post. Hard to argue with a lot of your points.
I'm definitely in the camp of extending our public transportation assets I like the Rapid Bus Idea, but feel that the Light Rail is the only mode of Public Transportation that gets people out of their cars by choice. As for the want to be like other cities, the reasoning is pretty simple, LA ignored their public transportation like we have for a long time, their congestion is a nationally known issue and only now (when it's arguable too expensive and late) did they decide to start building rails. We don't want to follow their example.
I think that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) does a pretty good job of getting people out of their cars. I personally think Phoenix could benefit from bus only lanes that would significantly reduce travel times on buses, especially during rush hours. I know that Las Vegas, where I am originally from has bus only lanes on many major arterials there and it seems to work pretty well. Right now, the light rail only seems to chug along at 30-35 MPH. I don't see why this can't be replace by articulated buses, you know, the ones with the accordion like feature that basically doubles the length of the bus in bus only lanes. Most of our arterials have speed limits ranging between 35-45 MPH. Implement a bus only lane and allow buses to travel at these speeds only impeded by turning vehicles and traffic lights. Turn the dirt median of the 10 that exists between the Mini Stack (51/202/10) into a bus only way from there to at least 79th Avenue. The problem is that most people don't want to sit on some slow, loud bus full of people who are from all walks of life (homeless, mentally ill, criminals, disrespectful school children, screaming babies, etc.). I think implementing a rapid bus system would really benefit commuters and students.
Light rail does get some people out of their cars, but it's cost is just so high for the percentage of people who benefit from it. Light rail has a place in connecting more of the denser activity center (ASU, Downtown and Midtown Phoenix, South Phoenix), but this idea of spreading LRT to Paradise Valley Mall, Westgate, and the 79th Avenue park and ride is just foolish. The auto will win out once you exceed a certain distance from downtown and the "hubs" of the Valley. Unless you live in Tempe or Downtown and are planning to get sloshed at Westgate, I don't see what benefit LRT provides. You can travel by auto and get to your destination much sooner. What makes sense for farther out locales is commuter rail. Commuter rail combined with bus rapid transit in Phoenix would work wonders. The things is that traffic on our freeways is going to get exponentially worse. Many complain about traffic now, but with 2-3 million more people traveling on the freeways we have with the same lanes, things are going to get a lot worse. People will increasingly be attracted to any mode of transportation that will get people to where they need to go the fastest.
I agree, we absolutely do NOT need to ignore our transit like LA. I can't imagine 15 or 20 years from now sitting in bumper to bumper traffic on the 202 at 2 AM on a Sunday. We need options to ensure that we avoid that.
If 104 truly introduced some context sensitive, real world solutions, I'd be for it. Spending a blank check to expand inefficient light rail over the next forty years, repave a street whenever the city deems it necessary, while ignoring more sensible solution is just asinine to me.
I'm not a fan of dumping money into the bus system and I don't think that's a good alternative to rail-based mass transit improvements. That said, while I'm still in favor of 104, you've got some great, thought-provoking detail in this post. Hard to argue with a lot of your points.
I absolutely see your point. Bus transit is not competitive with rail transit in every scenario. I think the city would better be served by commuter rail than by express bus. However, given the cost and the time of implementation, I wonder whether bus might be a good interim solution.
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.
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.
Drive further east to 7th St. and that's another perfect example of why those lights are causing traffic backup problems on Bell Road, and that's just one example, there are hundreds of them all over the metro area. 
