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.
As for public transit being a necessity in a big city, I think buses have this covered well in the Phoenix metro. Personally, I think buses should be expanded if there's truly a need/demand for more public transportation before LRT is built/expanded, again, given the cost/benefit of it. Same end result, just a better way to spend funds based on the math I've seen. And Phoenix is not a NYC where there's blocks and blocks of everyone living on top of each other with high rise buildings and a very high population concentration in a small area. The Phoenix metro is more like a big sprawling suburb more than anything in my book with a spread out, almost suburban-like core. Different cities require different mass transit approaches, not just to go with what is "in" at the time. Following the herd/one size fits all approach just cause another city with different needs on another coast has one doesn't mean it's right for all cities.
Well, I will say that light rail has definitely been a success ever since the initial run in 2008. Ridership has consistently been higher than expected. So in that respect, given the figures we have to prove how it has been successful as far as ridership, I would be in favor of extending the system. My problem is the idea of adding an extra tax on top of the current tax which voters approved in 2004 to expand the system. We don't need double taxation to pay for a system that is already being funded in part by the Prop 400 sales tax extension.
I would likely vote YES on this upcoming city ballot proposition if we weren't already funding light rail through another source. And we all know that even this $30 billion won't be enough because the ones in charge of funding will not take things like inflation and economic downturns in consideration when planning the budget for this! We've seen that kind of evidence with ADOT/MAG and the freeways.
But what I'm not buying into is this talk about light rail sparking new development and revitalization. There is absolutely no evidence of this being true at all ... especially when traveling down streets like West Camelback or East Washington/Jefferson. They're still the same old somewhat run down sights since 2008 and prior. In fact, even north Central Avenue (Midtown area) has seen some businesses fold up ... and the lots where highrises were supposed to be built are still sitting vacant.
Well, I will say that light rail has definitely been a success ever since the initial run in 2008. Ridership has consistently been higher than expected. So in that respect, given the figures we have to prove how it has been successful as far as ridership, I would be in favor of extending the system. My problem is the idea of adding an extra tax on top of the current tax which voters approved in 2004 to expand the system. We don't need double taxation to pay for a system that is already being funded in part by the Prop 400 sales tax extension.
I would likely vote YES on this upcoming city ballot proposition if we weren't already funding light rail through another source. And we all know that even this $30 billion won't be enough because the ones in charge of funding will not take things like inflation and economic downturns in consideration when planning the budget for this! We've seen that kind of evidence with ADOT/MAG and the freeways.
I agree to be wary of the projection aspect of it all money wise.
What concerns me about light rail is how "inflexible" it is vs something like bus service. Given all the infrastructure that's needed to run the rails, the power, etc it all becomes basically a "fixed" system. Sure it can be torn down/moved, but that's expensive. So if an area changes over the decades to where use rate drops and another area has more demand/needs more capacity, LRT is not flexible to adjust to such population changes unless a large web of LRT track is built(= lots of $) to cover lots of ground. That's why I favor buses because bus routes can be changed quickly/cost effectively to adjust to passenger demand over periods of time as cities evolve, grow, and inevitably change, especially a growing newer city like Phoenix.
It's still in the public's interest to have something that's cost effective/useful to a large number of people for it's using public tax dollars(local and federal) to build. Just because it's a "public transit" doesn't mean it should be built if it's not cost effective(ie the cost per rider is out of whack with the cost of the entire project and the number of population served is small compared to cost). And your analogy of fire departments or city waterworks, trying to compare it to LRT, doesn't float. Waterworks and a fire department I would consider essential to any community. A LRT system is not an essential service for the health and safety of the public like a fire department or a city waterworks. And yes, roads are built with public funds also, but given we are a car culture, I think the cost/benefit ratio is high and is a good use of public funds for a large segment of the Phoenix metro population and beyond benefit/use them.
As for public transit being a necessity in a big city, I think buses have this covered well in the Phoenix metro. Personally, I think buses should be expanded if there's truly a need/demand for more public transportation before LRT is built/expanded, again, given the cost/benefit of it. Same end result, just a better way to spend funds based on the math I've seen. And Phoenix is not a NYC where there's blocks and blocks of everyone living on top of each other with high rise buildings and a very high population concentration in a small area. The Phoenix metro is more like a big sprawling suburb more than anything in my book with a spread out, almost suburban-like core. Different cities require different mass transit approaches, not just to go with what is "in" at the time. Following the herd/one size fits all approach just cause another city with different needs on another coast has one doesn't mean it's right for all cities.
Well at least we got you off the "it's a business " idea. Now if you go back and read the proposal you will see it includes the funding of more bus routes. It is a public transit tax not an LRT tax.
Now if you go back and read the proposal you will see it includes the funding of more bus routes. It is a public transit tax not an LRT tax.
The majority will go to LRT. It can cost upward of $70 million per mile of track. I've requested a break down of the proposal from city council to see where money is planned to be allocated.
It's not a good sign when too many don't even question the price tag. This council, over the past few years, has demonstrated it cannot handle a budget. Why would anyone want to trust them with billions more? As a symbolic gesture, I'd like to see their salaries cut before any new taxes are rolled out. Look forward to voting against this.
Well at least we got you off the "it's a business " idea. Now if you go back and read the proposal you will see it includes the funding of more bus routes. It is a public transit tax not an LRT tax.
My original point of potentially wasting/not questioning how dollars are spent on such a large project of any kind, private or public funds, is still "on".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondurant
The majority will go to LRT. It can cost upward of $70 million per mile of track. I've requested a break down of the proposal from city council to see where money is planned to be allocated.
It's not a good sign when too many don't even question the price tag.
Exactly.
Many people, and it seems Wally Sconce is one of them, thinks public money is monopoly money that falls from the sky and there's no need to question on how it's spent.
It's still in the public's interest to have something that's cost effective/useful to a large number of people for it's using public tax dollars(local and federal) to build. Just because it's a "public transit" doesn't mean it should be built if it's not cost effective(ie the cost per rider is out of whack with the cost of the entire project and the number of population served is small compared to cost). And your analogy of fire departments or city waterworks, trying to compare it to LRT, doesn't float. Waterworks and a fire department I would consider essential to any community. A LRT system is not an essential service for the health and safety of the public like a fire department or a city waterworks. And yes, roads are built with public funds also, but given we are a car culture, I think the cost/benefit ratio is high and is a good use of public funds for a large segment of the Phoenix metro population and beyond benefit/use them.
As for public transit being a necessity in a big city, I think buses have this covered well in the Phoenix metro. Personally, I think buses should be expanded if there's truly a need/demand for more public transportation before LRT is built/expanded, again, given the cost/benefit of it. Same end result, just a better way to spend funds based on the math I've seen. And Phoenix is not a NYC where there's blocks and blocks of everyone living on top of each other with high rise buildings and a very high population concentration in a small area. The Phoenix metro is more like a big sprawling suburb more than anything in my book with a spread out, almost suburban-like core. Different cities require different mass transit approaches, not just to go with what is "in" at the time. Following the herd/one size fits all approach just cause another city with different needs on another coast has one doesn't mean it's right for all cities.
Mass transit is essential to a big metropolitan area, especially a fast-growing one like this, and it can't just consist of more roads and busses.
A good solid mass transit system includes all forms of transportation including rail.
Light rail ridership has exceeded all original predictions meaning it has been profitable, and it's a viable option over driving, carpooling, or riding the bus.
Voting against this deal now might save money in the short term but better public transit will still be needed in the future, and by that time it will be even more expensive which will demand more taxes.
I don't live in Phoenix but I'm behind this all the way.
Light rail ridership has exceeded all original predictions meaning it has been profitable, and it's a viable option over driving, carpooling, or riding the bus.
Of course, because often the bar/parameters are set low on many such projects from A to Z to justify to one that they got their "money's worth". Marketing 101. And "profitable", even in the context on how you're using the term?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt
Voting against this deal now might save money in the short term but better public transit will still be needed in the future, and by that time it will be even more expensive which will demand more taxes.
Or technology advances where it all becomes cheaper and better/faster/etc as time goes on which is often the case when lots of technology is involved, more competition steps in, etc.
The "better do it now" angle sounds like a classic salesman technique....."hurry hurry because this deal won't last, and if you order in the next 10 minutes, you'll save....." Personally, taking the time/planning for such an expensive project is worth much more to me in the long run than rushing into anything just to "save" some money, assuming your statement of more expense in the future is true. Haste makes waste.
The Republic has a breakdown of how the funds would be used. Despite the title of this thread, it would not be $30 billion for light rail, but instead a balanced mix of rail, bus, and street improvements:
The Republic has a breakdown of how the funds would be used. Despite the title of this thread, it would not be $30 billion for light rail, but instead a balanced mix of rail, bus, and street improvements:
I would be all in favor of it IF we weren't already paying an extended half cent sales tax which is supposed to help fund light rail extensions. Also, you should know by now that what is often promised in these packages is quite a bit different than what is actually delivered. I will say that for the most part, the result from the initial transportation tax in 2000 has been positive. Light rail was completed as promised without too many delays ... although I'm still wondering what happened to all the bus pullouts that were supposed to be installed.
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.
And "profitable", even in the context on how you're using the term?
Personally, taking the time/planning for such an expensive project is worth much more to me in the long run than rushing into anything just to "save" some money, assuming your statement of more expense in the future is true. Haste makes waste.
