PHX Sky Train (Phoenix, Tucson, Tempe: casino, live, cost of)

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by roosevelt

Why didn't Light Rail go to the airport in the first place? Was it the parking and taxi lobby that blocked it? If so, now it is going to cost a fortune.

That's a kooky conspiracy theory that shows up from time to time in AZ Central comments and discussion forums like this one, but I've never seen one shred of supporting evidence.

The real reason is that rail connections direct to airport terminals are tough to build when the airport is a stop along the line. The train has to cross over or under runways and taxiways not once but twice coming in and out of the airport. In addition, because Sky Harbor has three terminals, multiple stations would have been necessary. Any attempt to bring light rail directly to the terminals would have been a significant and expensive detour resulting in longer commutes between Phoenix and Tempe. In those cities in which light or heavy rail goes right to the airport terminal, it's usually possible because the airport is at the end of the line. Even in those cities with direct rail connections to the airport, like Atlanta for example, an intra-airport train is not uncommon.

[w1ngzer0]

wow... plans for an automated train is in the works in the Phoenix area? The only time i hear of computerized trains is for Tokyo. Commuter train? Is there going to be a commute train system around the phoenix area? I am not talking about the light rail.

[azriverfan.]

Furthermore, the parking at the airport is becoming more and more limited regardless of the expansion, parking garage and increased rates. The populaton growth is leading to increased demand for parking space. During busy times, it can be difficult to find parking at the "economy" parking lots. I would love to have light rail go directly to the airport so I don't have to park at the airport. Even the cheaper off-airport parking are really not that convenient because they aren't much cheaper and then you have to wait until they have enough people in their bus or van until they drop you off at the airport. And taxis from the airport are expensive because of the spread out quality of the city. You spend almost as much in cab fare as you do if you just parked at the airport. I think it goes without saying that light rail connections to the airport is going to be a necessity at some point particularly since we continue to add about 150K per year to the metro population. Even during these harsh economic times, there are still over 100K people moving here per year. I remember when you could fly out of Sky Harbor during non hollidays and it wouldn't be that bad. Now, the airport seems like it's always busy year round.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by w1ngzer0

wow... plans for an automated train is in the works in the Phoenix area? The only time i hear of computerized trains is for Tokyo. Commuter train? Is there going to be a commute train system around the phoenix area? I am not talking about the light rail.

Most intra-airport trains are fully automated. In the highly regulated environment of an airport, driverless trains can operate effectively -- unlike in city environments in which a human operator's judgment is often needed.

Don't read too much into the commuter train wording. The idea is that if commuter rail is ever approved, it will link to the SkyTrain. Nevertheless, there is no serious plan for commuter rail right now. Commuter rail would almost certainly require involvement by the state legislature, and unfortunately key legislative committee assignments in the legislature are held by people who generally oppose rail and favor freeways.

[mikec34]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

LOL...well said and this applies to all of us, yours truly. Seriously, what was I going to spend that extra coin on..some DVD's?? Tried to rep you but they wouldn't let me. It's the libertarian mentality of old Phoenix. It's a little bit of that cowboy in people in which people question spending and don't want their money just being spent on something they can't justify even if it's for infrastructure. I find that mentality endearing but also irritating at times since they question everything and don't look at the big picture or how infrastructure can lead to development and instead they just analyze the infrastructure for it's own utilty.

Yeah, luckily they're in the minority though. Otherwise we wouldn't have things done like expanding the US60 several years ago because some guy in Apache Junction only goes to the Bashas' on the corner and doesn't need 4-5 lanes of freeway in Mesa/Tempe. I'm all for public projects like this...parks, rail, education, etc, it's all good for the state as a whole.

[w1ngzer0]

Originally Posted by silverbear

Commuter rail would almost certainly require involvement by the state legislature, and unfortunately key legislative committee assignments in the legislature are held by people who generally oppose rail and favor freeways.

That's poo because it would be nice to live in mesa or somewhere in a affordable, safe community, and not worry too much about commute time.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by miamiman

Hopefully someone will put an end to this madness.

It's a little late for that. This project has been discussed for years and now has the approval of the Phoenix City Council. Since the Airport is a city agency, there is little that state legislators, the most likely opponents, can do.

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I can see our airport easily expanding considering it is the only commercial airport in the city whereas cities like Dallas and Houston have two airports. I don't see us getting a second airport so expansion of Sky Harbor seems likely

When I first moved to Phoenix 20 years ago, there was talk of scrapping Sky Harbor in favor of a new mega-airport somewhere near Coolidge. I'm glad that didn't happen. Sky Harbor's close-in location makes it an asset worth expanding and updating, even if Gateway functions as a reliever airport.

[5chevin5]

I can see this is a hot debate...so I will stay out of that.
I have not lived in Phoenix for quite some time, however still like to keep up on the city's progress

However, just looking at the drawings (which may not be entirely accurate) but I cant believe anything for public, where lines or waiting may occur, would be built in Phoenix without shade.

The bus "circle" or Aviation Transit Center....seems a bit out in the open desert to me with out shade or misters for people waiting to catch a bus. Just an observation....

5

[joninaz]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

One reason it isn't a hub is because our airport is not designed to be one. It's the chicken and the egg story all over again. By expanding our infrastructure, you provide Sky Harbor with the possibility of becoming a hub. I remember when DFW airport was first being built in Dallas and they had the same concerns because Dallas wasn't the commercial business giant it is today. In fact, back then, it resemebled modern Phoenix in that it was a large city that relied on the oil and gas industry but aspired to lure companies and diversify it's economy. The DFW airport has been key in helping Dallas achieved these goals. While the costs of such endeavors might seem astronomical, the price is small in the long run because it is just another component to the growth and development of this city. I'm in favor of this.

Phoenix will never be a hub like CHI/DAL/ATL due to our proximity to LAX. For any cross country flights, nobody wants to start on the West coast and land within an hour or so in Phoenix... or heading the other way, stop in AZ an hour out of the final destination. Traditionally, a cross country trip has been either direct or stopped in Chicago. The unstable weather (plus airline home bases) helped push more of those flights through Dallas and Atlanta, which are naturally suited for serving north/south flights as well. Travelers don't want to change planes and prefer direct flights, but are reluctantly willing to do so halfway across the country... not an hour into a flight or from the end.

The newer planes such as the 787 will be 20% more efficient, meaning less need for mid-country stops.

PHX does move a lot of passengers doing the short hop flights (SWA, many USAir flights, etc), most of whom stay on the same plane if going elsewhere. But if changing planes, the vast majority of those connections are within the same terminal.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd guess that in Phoenix, 80% of the people needing to change planes do so within Terminal 4 and the remainder have to cross into Terminal 3 (a 10 minute walk).

Terminal 2 has just 13 gates.

Terminal 1 - there isn't one. It dissolved.

Of the 113 gates at PHX, 80 are in terminal 4 and 20 in terminal 3. In short, 90 percent of passengers are within these two, which are 1,000 ft. apart.

Do we really need a 4.5 mile train costing $1.5 billion to circle an airport where 90% of the people stay in the same area?

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by joninaz

Phoenix will never be a hub like CHI/DAL/ATL due to our proximity to LAX. For any cross country flights, nobody wants to start on the West coast and land within an hour or so in Phoenix... or heading the other way, stop in AZ an hour out of the final destination. Traditionally, a cross country trip has been either direct or stopped in Chicago. The unstable weather (plus airline home bases) helped push more of those flights through Dallas and Atlanta, which are naturally suited for serving north/south flights as well. Travelers don't want to change planes and prefer direct flights, but are reluctantly willing to do so halfway across the country... not an hour into a flight or from the end.

The newer planes such as the 787 will be 20% more efficient, meaning less need for mid-country stops.

PHX does move a lot of passengers doing the short hop flights (SWA, many USAir flights, etc), most of whom stay on the same plane if going elsewhere. But if changing planes, the vast majority of those connections are within the same terminal.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd guess that in Phoenix, 80% of the people needing to change planes do so within Terminal 4 and the remainder have to cross into Terminal 3 (a 10 minute walk).

Terminal 2 has just 13 gates.

Terminal 1 - there isn't one. It dissolved.

Of the 113 gates at PHX, 80 are in terminal 4 and 20 in terminal 3. In short, 90 percent of passengers are within these two, which are 1,000 ft. apart.

Do we really need a 4.5 mile train costing $1.5 billion to circle an airport where 90% of the people stay in the same area?

I believe there are 121 gates now. Isn't Terminal 2 going to be demolished and rebuilt as a new 33-gate terminal?