Light rail ridership exceeds expectation (Phoenix, Scottsdale: apartments, lofts, credit)

[awf82]

The stimulus package provides huge amounts of money for rail transportation. Has anyone heard if any of this money may be used to expand the rail system in Phoenix?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by awf82

The stimulus package provides huge amounts of money for rail transportation. Has anyone heard if any of this money may be used to expand the rail system in Phoenix?

It's in the news today. Phil wants to throw another billion into it.

Here's a link:

http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1090336

[Jimrob1]

Originally Posted by awf82

The stimulus package provides huge amounts of money for rail transportation. Has anyone heard if any of this money may be used to expand the rail system in Phoenix?

I would think you would be, but at times it seems like so much goes to Portland. I know the news reported the transit here TRIMET is getting 45.5 million. I certainly hope funds are being sent to Phoenix also.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by roosevelt

The Phoenix area is more spread out than metropolitan; there is parking everywhere except maybe the old downtown. People are not going to give up driving for Light Rail. Projected traffic for Light Rail is only 10% of the cost of running it. This will be a tax drain forever.

In contrast to those freeways that magically pay for themselves in a few years and never require tax dollars for maintenance and expansion. All transportation is subsidized; the only relevant question is where those subsidies should most intelligently be applied. The ridership numbers suggest that light rail was a sound use of public funds, is spite of the endlessly repeated "too spread out" cliche.

"Giving up driving" is not really the point. A better way to think of it is reduced driving -- splitting a commute between a shorter drive to a park-and-ride and a train ride the rest of the way, two-car households becoming one-car households, etc. All those are becoming increasingly realistic possibilities due to the economic climate and emerging new transportation options like light rail.

[nickw252]

Good point, most rail detractors fail to realize that roads and highways are highly subsidized as well.

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if an efficient light rail system was less subsidized than a road or highway.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by nickw252

Good point, most rail detractors fail to realize that roads and highways are highly subsidized as well.

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if an efficient light rail system was less subsidized than a road or highway.

Roads and highways are crucial to our society, our commerce, and our very existence. Everything you need to survive travels on a road at some point on its way to you. NOTHING you need to survive rode on the light rail today (or ever will).

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Roads and highways are crucial to our society, our commerce, and our very existence. Everything you need to survive travels on a road at some point on its way to you. NOTHING you need to survive rode on the light rail today (or ever will).

You keep making that argument, and I might buy it when it comes to I-10 and I-17, maybe even the 101, but you're not going to convince me that the 303, the 801, or the 802 -- various freeways under construction or in the planning stages -- are crucial to "our very existence." These freeways only enable the latest ring of sprawl. We build roads farther out, then build homes farther out, and then need to widen existing roads and build new ones to keep up. Maybe it's time to step off the treadmill for a while.

Besides, to the best of my knowledge, most coal travels exclusively by rail. I'd consider coal one of the most fundamental commodities since it produces the bulk of our electricity. Not everything travels by truck, and more goods that are shipped by truck could be shifted to rail -- not light rail of course, but freight trains. Roads will always be necessary for delivering many items the last mile to their final destinations, but imagine how much more efficient those deliveries would be if trucks didn't have to compete with so much commuter traffic in single-occupant vehicles.

[homlish560]

Originally Posted by silverbear

You keep making that argument, and I might buy it when it comes to I-10 and I-17, maybe even the 101, but you're not going to convince me that the 303, the 801, or the 802 -- various freeways under construction or in the planning stages -- are crucial to "our very existence." These freeways only enable the latest ring of sprawl. We build roads farther out, then build homes farther out, and then need to widen existing roads and build new ones to keep up. Maybe it's time to step off the treadmill for a while.

Besides, to the best of my knowledge, most coal travels exclusively by rail. I'd consider coal one of the most fundamental commodities since it produces the bulk of our electricity. Not everything travels by truck, and more goods that are shipped by truck could be shifted to rail -- not light rail of course, but freight trains. Roads will always be necessary for delivering many items the last mile to their final destinations, but imagine how much more efficient those deliveries would be if trucks didn't have to compete with so much commuter traffic in single-occupant vehicles.

We need both roads and rail. Just 1 or the other will get us nowhere.

The people that don't like roads don't have to drive on them; and the people that don't like light rail don't have to ride the trains.

[zenkonami]

It's a question of diversity. More diverse systems are inherently more capable of weathering problems because there are alternatives. The notion that roads are the backbone of our entire society and light rail is nothing more than a toy is apples to oranges. Interstates transport goods and people. So does heavy rail and shipping. Heavy rail is a more apt comparison to highways than light rail is.

Regarding "NOTHING you need to survive rode on the light rail today (or ever will)", you could make a similar case for small aircraft. In fact, you could make almost the same case for cars. If we don't need light rail because it doesn't move bulk freight, than we don't need cars either, because they don't move bulk freight. Leave the roads to the trucks and the rails to the large diesels. Problem solved, right?

No, someone will say, because people have to be able to get around...particularly in cities that are not yet walkable. THAT is why we need light rail. All the goods in the world are useless if people can't get around to produce them, QC them, distribute them, transport them, sell them and BUY them. Light rail is just another option to move people around in urban and suburban environments. Like libraries, schools, parks and ROADs, public transportation is paid for by everyone because there is a public benefit at large. Even if light rail does not serve the same purpose as heavy shipping vehicles, it does a serve a purpose analogous to personal transportation, and should we take advantage of it, that can benefit all of us, directly or indirectly.

[GSXRScott]

I have a question for everyone. Has anyone noticed a change in the traffic congestion since the light rail began service? Obviously it's getting tons of ridership but will it help the environment and parking lot freeways?

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

One thing that many people may not be aware of is the private automobile (or truck/SUV) is losing its perch as a status symbol

Yeah right. Go drive around north Scottsdale. You'll see more gas guzzling, air polluting Hummers then ever before. Bear, I hope someday your statement will be true but I dont see that happening for a long long time.