South Mountain Freeway on Gila River tribal land effort dead (Phoenix: lease, houses)

[Kimballette]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

Problem is, the "no build" option on the previous referendum was illegal, since the plans have been set in stone ever since Proposition 300 was passed by voters many years ago. The GRIC tribal council is basically trying to enforce an option that was never legal to begin with, so thanks to them, the South Mountain Freeway will have to be built through Ahwatukee.

What part of Native American communities are sovereign nations do you not understand? They are not an HOA.

[Pink Jazz]

Originally Posted by Kimballette

What part of Native American communities are sovereign nations do you not understand? They are not an HOA.

Sure, but that doesn't make the "no build" option legal. The only LEGAL options are either to build it on Pecos Road or build it on tribal land, and THAT'S IT. "No build" is NOT and NEVER WAS a legal option. That is what this initiative would have clarified, since in the first referendum the "no build" option was added ILLEGALLY.

[azriverfan.]

If this is ever going to get built, it will have to done outside of tribal land. Just the politics of that whole thing makes the Coyotes sale seem downright straightforward.

[locolobo13]

I'm sure nobody will like this suggestion. But this is just an idea. Cut off a corner of South Mountain Park. It's not like we can't build freeways in mountains.

Realistically, just make a freeway out of 85. That doesn't solve the valley commuter's problem. But it will allow truck traffic to bypass Phoenix if desired.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by locolobo13

Realistically, just make a freeway out of 85. That doesn't solve the valley commuter's problem. But it will allow truck traffic to bypass Phoenix if desired.

That is the right approach. Building the South Mountain Freeway just creates more sprawl.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by locolobo13

I'm sure nobody will like this suggestion. But this is just an idea. Cut off a corner of South Mountain Park. It's not like we can't build freeways in mountains.

Realistically, just make a freeway out of 85. That doesn't solve the valley commuter's problem. But it will allow truck traffic to bypass Phoenix if desired.

That is a good suggestion. And it does help solve valley commuter issues because it will reduce rush hour traffic since much of that is trucks commuting to and from California. If the expand it to enough lanes and make a quality freeway out of it, many trucks will elect to take that instead of waiting it out through Phoenix traffic.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

That is the right approach. Building the South Mountain Freeway just creates more sprawl.

I don't see anything wrong with sprawl. Sprawl is good for our economy. It creates jobs and more opportunities. I would prefer to create a South Mountain Freeway but I don't see it as a realistic endeavor. The Native Americans won't let us build it on their land. And the homeowners in Ahwatukee will fight any effort to uproot their homes. Arguing what is the moral imperative blah blah is a fruitless and futile exercise. Let's talk reality, that freeway is not getting built because opponents to it can essentially put any effort through a maze of legal challenges that will never be overcome. A more realistic approach is making a multi-lane freeway out of 85 like he/she suggested.

[CodyW]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

Sure, but that doesn't make the "no build" option legal. The only LEGAL options are either to build it on Pecos Road or build it on tribal land, and THAT'S IT. "No build" is NOT and NEVER WAS a legal option. That is what this initiative would have clarified, since in the first referendum the "no build" option was added ILLEGALLY.

No build is ALWAYS a legal option, like it or not. It's a planning mechanism that exists SOLELY for a purpose like this. It is legal, regardless of whether or not it has been voted on and approved. It exists as a fail-safe mechanism in case of funding fall-through or lack of community support.

In this case, the 202 was approved to go ahead and enter the planning stages. Funding was approved and set ASIDE, but this does NOT mean that construction was ever set in stone. It merely guaranteed further planning, such as the draft EIS and technical reports we've gotten over the last few years. Nothing is guaranteed until the EIS and preliminary design plans are approved by all government agencies, which hasn't happened yet.

Unfortunately, in this case, community opposition is winning the battle. Which is perfectly legal and acceptable - the folks who LIVE there don't want it. If they CAN convince ADOT that no-build is the right option, they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

As far as GRIC - Sovereign territory or not, NO laws were broken.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I don't see anything wrong with sprawl. Sprawl is good for our economy. It creates jobs and more opportunities. I would prefer to create a South Mountain Freeway but I don't see it as a realistic endeavor. The Native Americans won't let us build it on their land. And the homeowners in Ahwatukee will fight any effort to uproot their homes. Arguing what is the moral imperative blah blah is a fruitless and futile exercise. Let's talk reality, that freeway is not getting built because opponents to it can essentially put any effort through a maze of legal challenges that will never be overcome. A more realistic approach is making a multi-lane freeway out of 85 like he/she suggested.

Sprawl is OK to a point, but not when businesses constantly move to the suburbs & leave the downtown or Central Corridor areas practically dead. Actually, a decent mix of sprawl and infill projects are the best for any economy. The bad thing about our type of sprawl is it's largely hit & miss, which tends to promote more exurban growth, but leave large areas in between with undeveloped land. This just makes things even more far reaching for many people. Me personally, I'd rather see every single vacant lot developed in the established areas before any further annexation or exurban sprawl takes place.

But since sprawl is going to happen regardless, that's when more freeways need to be built. As for the South Mountain extension of the Loop 202, I say ENOUGH STALLING! This thing has been on the books for nearly 30 years, voted on & approved by the public twice, so it needs to go through. All the NIMBYs, preservationists, and eco freaks should just back off and let it be built (even if it ends up cutting through part of South Mountain).

As for highway 85, ADOT is already making that into a divided highway and a partial freeway at some points between I10 & I8. Let that become a fully divided highway, and still build the South Mountain Freeway. In fact, I wouldn't even have a problem with that part of the 202 becoming a toll road. It would still serve as a Phoenix bypass route, except people would pay the extra fee to drive on it. Why not? Toll roads tend to be built at a faster rate than state or federally funded highways, so that alone would speed up the construction & reduce the costs to taxpayers.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

As for highway 85, ADOT is already making that into a divided highway and a partial freeway at some points between I10 & I8. Let that become a fully divided highway, and still build the South Mountain Freeway. In fact, I wouldn't even have a problem with that part of the 202 becoming a toll road. It would still serve as a Phoenix bypass route, except people would pay the extra fee to drive on it. Why not? Toll roads tend to be built at a faster rate than state or federally funded highways, so that alone would speed up the construction & reduce the costs to taxpayers.

I agree. The South Mountain Freeway toll road is an excellent idea.