Downtown Glendale preferred Light Rail route selected, could be complete by 2026

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by :-D

Oh because of Maryvale, I see.

I like how the light rail would extend to Grand Canyon University. I think Camelback in that region will suit it well. However going to DT Glendale was when I was turned off to the idea. If people really wanted DT Glendale to be served I think having the light rail follow Grand Ave. would be best than the current proposition.

Or just going straight west on Camelback I think would work. Being close to GCU will help ridership with all of the students that attend there. Grand Canyon is one of the biggest universities in the United States for student population.

And I 100% agree on commuter rail being on the I-10. It's West Valley's one true freeway towards most of the valley besides the 101's northern reaches. That commuter rail could be extended towards East Valley as well and maybe even as far as Casa Grande.

PS: I think Grand could also be an option for commuter rail in West Valley. Some rail already exists on that corridor so I wonder, emphasis on wonder, if we could buy the ROW for one of the tracks there. It would save a lot if it was possible.

As an Avondale resident who drives on the dreaded I-10 and 202 to and from Tempe, I am totally supporting improvements on I-10 and the sooner the better.

Light rail is in the plans for the center strip but I think commuter trains would be the better way to go on I-10, and light rail would be better served on the regular streets where the need is higher for increased public transportation.

Additional freeways are needed to relieve I-10 of the traffic congestion, the 202 bypass around Ahwatukee is supposed to be finished in the next few years and SR 30 should be built too.

[GeneR]

Just know folks, based on the experiences of other U.S. cities, light rail is going to do NOTHING to alleviate traffic on any highways or streets. If efficient transportation is a goal buses are considerably better although you have to sit in a comfortable seat rather than cling to a strap while standing .

"The high costs of building and maintaining light rail, which usually serves middle-class neighborhoods, often force transit agencies to cut bus service to low-income neighborhoods, making light rail as bad for transit riders as it is for taxpayers. It’s also bad for drivers since it often runs in streets and usually causes more congestion than is relieved by the few cars it takes off the road.

The willingness of many transit advocates to support such wasteful and expensive lines reveals they really don’t care about transportation. Rail manufacturers and contractors just want to make money. Urban planners use rail as an excuse to redevelop neighborhoods to higher densities."*

*Light Rail is the Wrong Choice for Cities, Randal O'Toole, The Daily Caller

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by GeneR

Just know folks, based on the experiences of other U.S. cities, light rail is going to do NOTHING to alleviate traffic on any highways or streets. If efficient transportation is a goal buses are considerably better although you have to sit in a comfortable seat rather than cling to a strap while standing .

"The high costs of building and maintaining light rail, which usually serves middle-class neighborhoods, often force transit agencies to cut bus service to low-income neighborhoods, making light rail as bad for transit riders as it is for taxpayers. It’s also bad for drivers since it often runs in streets and usually causes more congestion than is relieved by the few cars it takes off the road.

The willingness of many transit advocates to support such wasteful and expensive lines reveals they really don’t care about transportation. Rail manufacturers and contractors just want to make money. Urban planners use rail as an excuse to redevelop neighborhoods to higher densities."*

*Light Rail is the Wrong Choice for Cities, Randal O'Toole, The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller is, by it's very nature, anti-transit. Quoting them adds nothing to a balanced discussion. I'm sure I could find the opposite opinion in Daily Kos, but what would be the point?

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

The Daily Caller is, by it's very nature, anti-transit. Quoting them adds nothing to a balanced discussion. I'm sure I could find the opposite opinion in Daily Kos, but what would be the point?

In economics there is a concept called externalities. The rail is important for development more than it is for mass transit. The development comes first, especially in a FIRE economy like Phoenix.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

As an Avondale resident who drives on the dreaded I-10 and 202 to and from Tempe, I am totally supporting improvements on I-10 and the sooner the better.

Light rail is in the plans for the center strip but I think commuter trains would be the better way to go on I-10, and light rail would be better served on the regular streets where the need is higher for increased public transportation.

Additional freeways are needed to relieve I-10 of the traffic congestion, the 202 bypass around Ahwatukee is supposed to be finished in the next few years and SR 30 should be built too.

Yeah a light rail will have too many stops within the I-10 and cost a lot more for additional infrastructure to allow pedestrian crossings over the freeway. We should focus on reducing that... Besides the whole point of a commuter rail is for commuters, who will most likely be working in Downtown. Stops should be minimized so time saved is maximized without slowing down for so many stops. There could be a Downtown stop, then one near Maryvale (59th Avenue area?), one near the 101 loop for Tolleson, one by Goodyear (Litchfield Road?), and then a stop for Buckeye. The commuter rail then could expand for an airport stop, then one for Tempe, and then an Ahwatukee stop. But I might even shorten the stops for West Valley, maybe taking out the one for Tolleson.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by sloguy1496

The idea of commuter rail is certainly an intriguing prospect.

The issue I see with light rail extending that far out is that the aspects of light rail that make it so great for urban environments is it's downfall in suburban ones. Light Rail works very well in urban or centralized environments where stops are frequent and users can "hop on and hop off" wherever it is convenient to them. That idea is at the core of what makes light rail so effective. Light Rail becomes much less effective when you start to consider it as a means of commuting, considering Light Rail is an inherently urban form of mass transit. It is not as efficient when it has to cover the large distances we see between, say, Arrowhead and Downtown, particularly with the grid system we have in place. With vehicle traffic, stop frequency, and relatively low speed, I'd rather drive.

Contrary to this, passenger/commuter rail makes relatively few major stops at important points of interest, village centers, commercial centers, downtown, and the intl airport, etc. For this reason, it can be much faster and thus becomes more efficient over longer distances.

When you have these two transportation networks interconnect with each other, you begin to create a much better integrated transit system valley wide. It likely won't ever happen, but it sure is interesting to visualize and envision what the valley would look like with a hybrid commuter rail/light rail system like that in place. Here's another purely hypothetical idea: what if elevated light rail (similar to the San Diego Trolley - see below) was integrated into the light rail expansion plans, how would that change things? Cost aside, that would solve the space issue along Grand.

Grand would not work for an elevated light rail. On Grand's lower reaches it is a sunken road below other roads. For an example Grand at the 59th Avenue and Glendale intersection is sunk below it and thus an elevated light rail would not work here. Most of Grand COULD support an elevated light rail but given Grand's Phoenix/Glendale sections are sunken in prevents this from happening.

I agree it's less effective in suburban areas. This proposal is almost all in suburbia which is why I don't agree with it. West Valley just doesn't have the density to support a light rail.

[sloguy1496]

Originally Posted by :-D

Grand would not work for an elevated light rail. On Grand's lower reaches it is a sunken road below other roads. For an example Grand at the 59th Avenue and Glendale intersection is sunk below it and thus an elevated light rail would not work here. Most of Grand COULD support an elevated light rail but given Grand's Phoenix/Glendale sections are sunken in prevents this from happening.

I agree it's less effective in suburban areas. This proposal is almost all in suburbia which is why I don't agree with it. West Valley just doesn't have the density to support a light rail.

True. The solution at Glendale would have the line cross over and go through Downtown Glendale at street level like the current proposal. It could cross over at 57th Drive and transition into street level light rail. Then the line would turn left on Glenn (like the current proposal) and it would intersect with Grand again and transition into elevated rail.

[GeneR]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

The Daily Caller is, by it's very nature, anti-transit. Quoting them adds nothing to a balanced discussion. I'm sure I could find the opposite opinion in Daily Kos, but what would be the point?

Oh, okay. Since balance is the goal here let's look at the Washington Post reports on the feds trying to pump up light rail in the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...91417364079073

Or there's this examination of light rail ridership in various U.S. metro areas

Have U.S. Light Rail Systems Been Worth the Investment? - CityLab

And for those still enamored by a desire called streetcar, this might be of interest

http://www.honolulutraffic.com/Niles...ailTalk208.pdf

Of course, there are opposing views (keeping in mind the goal of a "balanced discussion" as referenced above) but most seem to come from those on the payroll of public transit systems.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by :-D

Yeah a light rail will have too many stops within the I-10 and cost a lot more for additional infrastructure to allow pedestrian crossings over the freeway. We should focus on reducing that... Besides the whole point of a commuter rail is for commuters, who will most likely be working in Downtown. Stops should be minimized so time saved is maximized without slowing down for so many stops. There could be a Downtown stop, then one near Maryvale (59th Avenue area?), one near the 101 loop for Tolleson, one by Goodyear (Litchfield Road?), and then a stop for Buckeye. The commuter rail then could expand for an airport stop, then one for Tempe, and then an Ahwatukee stop. But I might even shorten the stops for West Valley, maybe taking out the one for Tolleson.

That's what I said earlier, and I gave an example of a freeway in the L.A./Pasadena area that has exactly what you described: light rail in the median, and stations located at every few major exits. It seems like this could be more costly and time consuming than simply running a line along a major surface street. Commuter rail would be a better option for that ugly wide I10 median (or perhaps just adding extra lanes), but light rail is the long term plan as of now.