Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Construction (Phoenix, Mesa: live, shop, install)

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by new2colo

This has been Tucson's philosophy and look at the disaster they have down there. It is absolute horror trying to get from the freeway to the east side. Traffic lights every mile or less that take 2-3 cycles to clear, few turn lanes, few bus pullouts, people constantly turning in and out of businesses... No. Freeways become congested in the long run, but at least they relieve pressure from the city streets.

What Tucson has been reluctant to do, to their detriment, is to build an internal infrastructure of freeways. I agree that that is a mess, I used to work at Speedway and Wilmot and commute home to Phoenix on the weekends. About a third of my Friday afternoon commute was getting across town to I-10. But Phoenix already has that internal infrastructure. What I am against is more and more freeways around the edges, which just encourages more growth around the edges, suggests to people that it is reasonable to, for example, live in Maricopa and work in Buckeye or Surprise. That just ends up creating more congestion, more carbon emissions and, inevitably, demand for even more freeways.

[Bungle]

Freeways don't encourage expanding growth. Expanding growth warrants new freeways. Land on the edges is cheap...developers are doing to continue to develop whether the freeways are there or not.

[Cyborg13]

Originally Posted by Bungle

Freeways don't encourage expanding growth. Expanding growth warrants new freeways. Land on the edges is cheap...developers are doing to continue to develop whether the freeways are there or not.

Not to mention that the area where the 202 extension will be built is already populated pretty much to the extent that it can be. The Foothills are already developed, and the other side is the reservation, which will not be developed, regardless of the presence of the freeway. There is some open farmland south and north of Laveen that could see development after the freeway is built, but we're talking 59th Ave. That IS infill.

[new2colo]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

What Tucson has been reluctant to do, to their detriment, is to build an internal infrastructure of freeways. I agree that that is a mess, I used to work at Speedway and Wilmot and commute home to Phoenix on the weekends. About a third of my Friday afternoon commute was getting across town to I-10. But Phoenix already has that internal infrastructure. What I am against is more and more freeways around the edges, which just encourages more growth around the edges, suggests to people that it is reasonable to, for example, live in Maricopa and work in Buckeye or Surprise. That just ends up creating more congestion, more carbon emissions and, inevitably, demand for even more freeways.

I see. Many freeways here do encourage more growth. Part of the appeal to the cities along the new 303 corridor is all the new businesses they feel will be attracted to the area now that the freeway is completed between Bell Road and Interstate 10. As soon as the freeway plans were announced, car dealerships and several big box stores started popping up right in that general area. West Valley city leaders and residents are now foaming at the mouth to see the realization of the Prasada Mall now that the freeway is complete.

However, in a metropolitan area like Phoenix, outward growth is just the way we grow. People here have made it pretty evident that they do not want urban development in terms of standard urban densities and highrises. Regardless of whether freeways exist or not, people will still demand to live on the edge. There were houses in the area of the 303 freeway years before the freeway was even constructed. If we wait for development to come before we build all the necessary infrastructure to accomodate the development, we put ourselves at a disadvantage. I would much rather see a proactive approach by our planning agencies of planning freeways where growth is expected, rather than holding off until the area is full of houses and business and local streets are already clogged. Also, acquiring right of way necessary for new freeways is much cheaper when land is undeveloped than when you have to displace people and acquire businessses.

Our internal freeway system (Interstate 10, Interstate 17, the 51, and parts of the US 60, 101, and 202) required displacement of people. That's not an ideal way to provide a transportation network. If there is reasonable expectation that people are going to move to a particular area, I think it's best to provide the infrastructure ahead of time rather than wait. Refusing to build freeways does not inhibit growth. Look at Tucson. That city marched eastward despite the absence of freeway corridors on the east side.

Getting back to the topic at hand, there are already people who live along the SMF corridor in Laveen who work in Chandler and Gilbert and to much lesser extent, vise versa. This is one of the areas that is going to see an explosion in population regardless of the construction of the SMF. I would much rather have people commute on a new freeway corridor than to have people sitting in bumper to bumper traffic on clogged city streets or congested freeway corridors due to a lack of options.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

What I am against is more and more freeways around the edges, which just encourages more growth around the edges, suggests to people that it is reasonable to, for example, live in Maricopa and work in Buckeye or Surprise. That just ends up creating more congestion, more carbon emissions and, inevitably, demand for even more freeways.

I can see some of the downsides of more freeways in the exurban areas. In a way, I agree with you about it encouraging more sprawl & more traffic ... however, many years ago, the Phoenix area refused to build new freeways, but growth & development happened around the edges anyway. By the 1980s, Phoenix was already a pretty large metro area but there were a very limited number of freeways, and the traffic was becoming extremely congested as a result. We NEEDED freeways ... and if we're going to continue to grow, more freeways will be needed.

What disappointed me about the original 1985 plan was how the Paradise Freeway & Grand Expressway were eventually scrapped ... partly because of NIMBYs, but also because of ADOT's mis management of funds. The Paradise would have been a good crosstown freeway, and would have cut back on all the stop & go traffic on surface streets. The Grand Expressway would have served as an alternate freeway to & from the NW Valley, but also would have been a faster route to & from Las Vegas. Who knows ... maybe if the Grand Expressway was built as originally planned, there wouldn't be such a demand for Interstate 11 like there is now.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I can see some of the downsides of more freeways in the exurban areas. In a way, I agree with you about it encouraging more sprawl & more traffic ... however, many years ago, the Phoenix area refused to build new freeways, but growth & development happened around the edges anyway. By the 1980s, Phoenix was already a pretty large metro area but there were a very limited number of freeways, and the traffic was becoming extremely congested as a result. We NEEDED freeways ... and if we're going to continue to grow, more freeways will be needed.

What disappointed me about the original 1985 plan was how the Paradise Freeway & Grand Expressway were eventually scrapped ... partly because of NIMBYs, but also because of ADOT's mis management of funds. The Paradise would have been a good crosstown freeway, and would have cut back on all the stop & go traffic on surface streets. The Grand Expressway would have served as an alternate freeway to & from the NW Valley, but also would have been a faster route to & from Las Vegas. Who knows ... maybe if the Grand Expressway was built as originally planned, there wouldn't be such a demand for Interstate 11 like there is now.

The Paradise Parkway was to run parallel to I-10 and only 3 miles north of it. I never understand what problem it was trying to solve. Yeah, daytime traffic on Camelback is nasty, but building a freeway there seemed like overkill.

[swbrotha100]

Originally Posted by new2colo

This has been Tucson's philosophy and look at the disaster they have down there. It is absolute horror trying to get from the freeway to the east side. Traffic lights every mile or less that take 2-3 cycles to clear, few turn lanes, few bus pullouts, people constantly turning in and out of businesses... No. Freeways become congested in the long run, but at least they relieve pressure from the city streets.

Tucson still grows in spite of NIMBY efforts to never improve anything.

[swbrotha100]

Originally Posted by new2colo

The purpose of the South Mountain may be to meet the mobility needs of people traveling from the West Valley to the SE Valley. However, to think that the freeway wouldn't be used by a considerable number of people passing through Phoenix is foolish. Most truckers and travelers who travel on the 10 now through Phoenix know exactly what a disaster that freeway can be, especially between the Broadway Curve and the Stack. When the 202 is constructed, it will make obvious sense to many of those people to use the freeway that goes through the sparsely populated area as opposed to the route that cuts right through the middle of the city. If this freeway was sold to the public as a bypass, public acceptance would be much, much lower. There is a reason that MAG discarded the Environmental Impact Statement to widen the 10 to 24 lanes around the Broadway Curve when it became clear the the South Mountain Freeway was likely to move forward...

My only issue with South Mountain is the incredible amount of additional traffic that it will place on the I-10 between its 55-59th Avenue alignment and the 101. I can already see the stretch becoming a nightmare. There are no plans to widen that section to accommodate the new traffic either. Unfortunately, ADOT could not link the 202 and the 101 because of the environmental justice concerns of plowing a freeway through the middle of Tolleson, which is a special case due to its high level of poverty.

I could see I-10 gaining at least one extra lane in each direction at the approaches to the 202 on the westside. Whether that would extend from the 101 to I-17 sooner rather than later remains to be seen.

[new2colo]

Originally Posted by swbrotha100

I could see I-10 gaining at least one extra lane in each direction at the approaches to the 202 on the westside. Whether that would extend from the 101 to I-17 sooner rather than later remains to be seen.

I talked to one of the project sponsors about this. There are no plans to widen the 10 between the SMF and the 101. A merge lane for the interchange is a given. However, there will be a need for additional lanes in this stretch to avoid it from become the cluster that the Stack is where is whittles down from 5 general purpose lanes to three in a matter of a mile or so.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by new2colo

I talked to one of the project sponsors about this. There are no plans to widen the 10 between the SMF and the 101. A merge lane for the interchange is a given. However, there will be a need for additional lanes in this stretch to avoid it from become the cluster that the Stack is where is whittles down from 5 general purpose lanes to three in a matter of a mile or so.

I believe the reason behind this is because the SMF is supposed to connect to the I-10 "reliever" freeway (AZ 30) which would head due West from the SMF to the I-10 / AZ 85 interchange.

Westbound through traffic (that wouldn't need to access Loop 101) would be better off using AZ 30 to I-10. There is also an AZ 30 / Loop 303 connection.