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.
So first of all, this is a vote, nothing has changed, so lets get the facts straight.
1. The valley metro light rail system serves more riders per mile of track than DART in Dallas, SEPTA LRT in Philly, Denver RTD, Seattle Streetcar, DC Streetcar and ranks nearly the same as Portland, OR.
2. With 15million riders in 2018 it ranks as the 14th busiest LRT system in the country, Phoenix is the 13th largest metro area, this makes sense...
3. In 11 years Phoenix has gone from 0 miles of track to 35 around the valley:
- 26 miles of LRT, the original line was 20 and 6 miles have been added.
- 3 mile streetcar system is under construction in downtown Tempe now.
- 5 mile PHX skytrain connecting the LRT to Sky Harbor and the rental car facility.
4. In 2000, 2004, and 2015 Phoenix voted to fund and expand light rail and public transportation expansion.
5. Phoenix is not a right wing city, it's very much purple and has had democratic mayors for years.
6. Sheriff Joe is gone, he's been gone for 2 years now.
7. Light Rail Transit costs are being challenged in many cities across the country, the fact is it does cost a lot and technology is on pace to change how we move around cities in the future.
Here's what this really is, a group of people gathered enough signatures to force a vote on rail transit expansion in a city that has supported it for two decades long. This city has created a very successful initial system that has exceeded most expectations for ridership. Why don't we just see how the vote goes, since that's all this really is...
I'll admit I had no idea the Valley Metro Rail had such high ridership. However, to say it's more used than SEPTA's various light rails, Seattle's Streetcar, and DC's Streetcar is playing with facts. Valley Metro Rail is the only rail in Phoenix. SEPTA has more than just light rail/streetcars. It has a true subway (open 24/7 on weekends) plus PATCO serving CC into South NJ running 24/7/365. Seattle has more than a streetcar. DC has a true subway system.
It's valid to say that Phoenix's ranking at 14th for Annual Ridership is pretty solid considering it's the 13th largest metro area. But it's disingenuous to compare it to systems that actually are much much larger when taken as a whole.
Ultimately, what you posted is very impressive though. I had no idea ridership was even that high, or that there was still so much U/C or planned. I regularly hate on Phoenix for various reasons, but I'll give credit where credit is due. If Phoenix continues on this path, would this land it near a top spot for transit in the entire Sunbelt? Houston seems to be doing well and Atlanta has actual heavy rail. DART has mileage, but not good service. Would Phoenix be in competition with Houston and well above the rest of the Sunbelt? (Not including LA for Sunbelt purposes).
The link in the original post said nothing about race. Not sure why that was brought up as an issue. It seems too many times to come up as a default reason for some issue that's totally unrelated.
I know my post won't win any popularity contests in this thread, but when I read "Republican Wackos" or "Conservative ________ (insert disparaging label)", this already indicates a closed mind and inability to objectively consider any points not your own.
If one wants mass transit in their communities, they have that right. But those who bring up concerns also have the same right to have their concerns objectively and respectively listened to. Those concerns are very valid, just as you feel yours are valid.
Mass transit is extremely expensive and draining from a per dollar/per user standpoint. Nearly all metro areas/cities with extensive mass transit systems have some of the highest costs of living in the nation, which creates a new, more important issues (lack of affordable housing, overburdening tax payers further, increased homelessness, etc.). Since they're unsustainable, it take enormous tax dollars to prop these systems up, tax money that could be redirected elsewhere to help more residents and getting a much better bang for the buck. Just look at metros with the highest costs of living. Clearly, other high COL metric contribute as well, but extensive mass transit contributes at a more disproportional rate. Just run the numbers (initial cost/ongoing cost per user). This isn't "free money". Most people would never use personal spending in this manner, but when they don't physically see the $$$ coming out of their hands or wallets, we're more willing to spend like a drunken sailor. In the literal (not political) sense of the word, there's absolutely nothing "progressive" about the heavy toll high COL policies create in communities. It just makes us "feel" good.
Most people see enormous freedom in being able to drive their own cars. Go ANYWHERE you want, when you want, to any extent/duration you want, any direction you want, for any task/errand, you want. Transit can never match that level of flexibility and freedom. The key, to me, is variety. Have transit in given areas that can and want to support it. But not everyone wants it and its expense. It's very pretentious, self-righteous, and intolerant to label someone who doesn't want to spend their hard-earned money in this manner as "wacko", yet "demanding" (as one poster put it) it on the entire populous isn't "wacko". Just as you feel your take on this is valid, so do they. They have every right to fight for their tax dollars and real estate prices to not get to a point to where they're priced out of homeownership and have even less money to save, invest, or have more spending discretion about their own money. It's also self-righteous to price yourself out of a metro area with this poor fiscal decisions, leave for a more affordable area, "demand" that the new community adopt the area you fled's expensive policies, then when they reject the idea, you accuse them of "hating newcomers". And you call THEM "wackos"? LOL! If you want extensive transit, live in an area that already has it in place. Don't pretentiously and disrespectfully impose your will on areas and citizens who don't want it (or who don't want it to that extent) and its high price tag. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not going to get into a peeing contest and the drama that goes on for pages and pages on these threads. Just offering some food for thought and that there lies a good bit of hypocrisy when claiming to be open-minded, yet label others as nuts if they even dare offer a differing opinion.
You raise fair points. And as one who introduced the terms conservative wackos (I eschewed saying adjective "republican"), I am obligated to clarify. It is too long a discussion, and not on the point of this thread, to get into the finer points of our current divisive politics. Simply noted, though, there is what we've come to understand as traditional conservatism -- libertarian-ism, limited government/lower taxes, more emphasis on private growth, yadda, yadda, yadda, and this new strain of ... something, I don't even want to label it -- that is potentially far more dangerous. I don't label this new stuff -- which borders on the f-word (no, not the 4-letter one), as conservatism.
But interestingly there's a split among traditional conservatism regarding some forms of public transit. The real anti-transit strain is often in more rural areas away from cities, and this comes into play in places like Ohio where you have 3 big cities with transit -- Cleveland being the most robust -- that are being attacked and strangled by rural conservatives in state government who would rather pay for what has become the beacon for libertarians: freeways that allow you to come and go as you please and not be beholden on anyone else ... or so they think. But they don't account for the billions and billions that taxpayers pay for the absurd amount of upkeep that goes into maintaining those roads...
In some cities in even traditionally conservative regions, like Utah, where Salt Lake City has developed quite an amazing mass transit network of express buses, LRT and commuter rail in a medium-sized, light-density metro area. And the locals love it. In Texas, 3 large cities (Austin, Dallas and Houston) have developed rail -- Dallas, of course, being the largest and most efficient of these. But, then, unlike SLC in Utah, these 3 Texas cities are more akin to the Big 3 in Ohio -- conservative state surrounding 3 more liberal/progressive metropolitan cities... and so these cities are leaning on the Feds for capital expenses to build and expand these systems OR, as in Denver and Seattle, these cities are going to the voters to dramatically expand their rail systems (of course those to cities are in Blue states, but those states have a strong conservative presence, too).... Florida is kind of like "Texas Lite" in terms of conservative politics -- there are stronger liberal cores in the bigger cities, especially in the Dade/Broward/Palm Beach counties metroplex in the south land... No surprise that rail transit exists there, and is growing.
Nashville, which is diverse but probably not as progressive, esp in the suburbs as Denver or Seattle, rolled the dice big time for its proposed $8B "Let's Move" rail/BRT/expanded bus network... but unfortunately, it went down, roughly 4-to-1, to the voters, after the pro-transit mayor, who introduced Let's Move, resigned in scandal just prior to the vote and Koch Brother's anti-transit forces moved in and won the bully pulpit.
Bottom Line: even though conservatives have successfully shot down High Speed Rail in most states -- even more blue ones (keep an eye on Cali which is slowly moving forward on HSR, while Florida and Texas are moving forward with privately-financed higher and high speed rail programs, respectively, despite failing court challenges from conservative groups), even those conservatives in cities seem to be more open to the idea of rail rapid transit for their convenience in dealing with mounting traffic headaches on a day-to-day basis.
If one wants mass transit in their communities, they have that right. But those who bring up concerns also have the same right to have their concerns objectively and respectively listened to. Those concerns are very valid, just as you feel yours are valid.
Allocating funding is one thing as a conservative government is, by definition, going to be less likely to invest in massive public transit projects. However, I agree that NIMBY attitudes are hardly bound by party lines and liberals are just as guilty as conservatives when it comes to fighting urban development measures that would improve our cities for the greater good.
But that's still a problem, even with what you've stated above. In theory, that's how it should work. But there's the issue of "I've got mine" which, again, is a plague on both sides of the aisle. Good transit benefits everyone, but it provides the greatest benefit to those who have a harder time affording to own/operate/maintain a car or are unable to afford housing close to work. The people who can afford to drive and/or already do own homes close to the employment centers don't need transit (at least not as much). They also have greater means to ensure that they are on the winning side of the debate. The net positive impact of good public transit is hardly debatable anymore. But too often NIMBY opposition from a vocal minority can derail (pun intended) a project that would benefit the majority of people. That's a problem.
There are always some valid concerns when it comes to opposing public transit expansion. Costs, environmental impact, temporary impact of construction, eminent domain (if applicable), etc. But often times the conversation shifts towards "CRIME!", "TRAINS BRING UNDESIRABLES!" etc. which are discriminatory, rarely grounded in anything evidence based, and are frankly, red herrings. Those "concerns" are not equally as valid as arguments for transit that center around improved access to job centers for everyone, potential economic development opportunities, etc.
For what it's worth, I love people watching on public transportation. All people. The people who think they're better than everyone, the people talking to themselves and swatting imaginary flies, the people jamming to their music, the woman who was CLEARLY cold and not wearing a bra last night (I thought I was going to lose an eye), and on and on.
If the "undesierables" means interesting characters I say bring 'em on.
For what it's worth, I love people watching on public transportation. All people. The people who think they're better than everyone, the people talking to themselves and swatting imaginary flies, the people jamming to their music, the woman who was CLEARLY cold and not wearing a bra last night (I thought I was going to lose an eye), and on and on.
If the "undesierables" means interesting characters I say bring 'em on.
It's called being human and interacting with the people and the world around you. You can't get that alone and behind the wheel of an automobile.
It's called being human and interacting with the people and the world around you. You can't get that alone and behind the wheel of an automobile.
Some people truly want that life, though. It's why I don't like most suburban American culture. It's all about living in your private home, driving your private vehicle to an office park where only the people you work with are around so it's a semi-private space. Then you drive your private car to a parking lot of a strip mall to eat dinner and only the people going to an establishment in that strip mall with be in that parking lot. I live for the random interactions I have on PATH/MTA. Some people are crazy, but that human connection just means so much to me and being around other people.
Also, with most other cities being about a private lifestyle, going out is different. I'm not saying you make best friends with strangers when you go out here, but I've had countless random interactions with strangers in bars in NYC and Philly. We become friends for the night or just for a bit and never see them again, but it was a good, fun, positive interaction with a stranger. This is far less common in LA and even more so in Louisville (other places I've lived). There, people look at you weird if you try striking up a conversation with a stranger at a bar. You never have the personal contact on public transit.
This crosses all political boundaries, though. Some of the most liberal people I know want no personal interaction others, and same with some of the most conservative people I know. They can't understand why I'd want to interact with strangers or sit next to someone idk on a subway or be in a tiny bar where I share a table with a group of strangers. It's more commonly conservatives that feel this way, the American obsession with private and secluded everything is not beholden to one political ideology. It's more commonly conservatism, but liberals can also be like this.
Some people truly want that life, though. It's why I don't like most suburban American culture. It's all about living in your private home, driving your private vehicle to an office park where only the people you work with are around so it's a semi-private space. Then you drive your private car to a parking lot of a strip mall to eat dinner and only the people going to an establishment in that strip mall with be in that parking lot. I live for the random interactions I have on PATH/MTA. Some people are crazy, but that human connection just means so much to me and being around other people.
Also, with most other cities being about a private lifestyle, going out is different. I'm not saying you make best friends with strangers when you go out here, but I've had countless random interactions with strangers in bars in NYC and Philly. We become friends for the night or just for a bit and never see them again, but it was a good, fun, positive interaction with a stranger. This is far less common in LA and even more so in Louisville (other places I've lived). There, people look at you weird if you try striking up a conversation with a stranger at a bar. You never have the personal contact on public transit.
This crosses all political boundaries, though. Some of the most liberal people I know want no personal interaction others, and same with some of the most conservative people I know. They can't understand why I'd want to interact with strangers or sit next to someone idk on a subway or be in a tiny bar where I share a table with a group of strangers. It's more commonly conservatives that feel this way, the American obsession with private and secluded everything is not beholden to one political ideology. It's more commonly conservatism, but liberals can also be like this.
Amen. I was forced into the suburban life for far too long (family). But even then, I took public transportation from my wealthy suburb into the city every day. You just experience people more when you take a train. Some people don't like that.
Now, when I go back to the suburbs I absolutely hate it. Having to drive everywhere, people waddling from cars to restaurants to eat, then waddle back...sitting in traffic instead of breathing air, strip mall hopping, etc. etc. I don't want to go back.
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.
