Light Rail is a Success Story (Phoenix, Tempe: neighborhoods, utilities, pros and cons)

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Why has a four-year-old thread been resurrected for a discussion about transit that should be occuring in the Las Vegas forum?

If it works it's a cheaper option for us. I realize we've already invested a lot into light rail. But going forward is the question. Do we want to spend that much when there could be a cheaper option?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

If it works it's a cheaper option for us. I realize we've already invested a lot into light rail. But going forward is the question. Do we want to spend that much when there could be a cheaper option?

Who are we? Phoenix or Las Vegas?

[john3232]

I've ridden the light rail several times. Starting in Mesa and getting off in downtown Phx.

If I were working in downtown Phx I would likely take the light rail every day. It might be simpler to drive from Mesa to Phx but than I would have to deal with rush hour traffic.

Not sure what's going to be done. Usually you've got to drive to and then park at the light rail parking area. And because the light rail runs along side the traffic the traffic lights slow the train down. Seems to take forever to get to downtown Phx. Expanding the light rail costs a lot of money and many people prefer to drive.

[Igor Blevin]

If by success, you mean that taxpayers subsidize 2/3rd of the cost while riders only pay 1/3rd of the cost. I am not saying light rail is bad. It is useful. Just that taxpayers foot the bill, the vast majority of whom will never ride light rail or ride it less than a couple of times in their lifetime. The mass of taxpayers is paying for the enrichment of a few others. It is patently as unfair as you can get. Such success.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Why has a four-year-old thread been resurrected for a discussion about transit that should be occuring in the Las Vegas forum?

In a way, I'm glad this thread was bumped. It highlights the fact that Las Vegas is light years ahead of us in this regard. They already have plans for a massive underground transit system to their new Allegiant Stadium, and we can't even get one lousy light rail connection to State Farm Stadium/Westgate. I'm sure one big reason is Westgate's location. Oh well, chalk up yet another reason to visit Vegas I suppose.
()

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

If by success, you mean that taxpayers subsidize 2/3rd of the cost while riders only pay 1/3rd of the cost. I am not saying light rail is bad. It is useful. Just that taxpayers foot the bill, the vast majority of whom will never ride light rail or ride it less than a couple of times in their lifetime. The mass of taxpayers is paying for the enrichment of a few others. It is patently as unfair as you can get. Such success.

You do realize that is pretty much every single mass transit system in the entire US, right?

Even the New York subway system doesn't generate enough money to cover it's operating costs each year, and they average 1.7 billion riders annually; it's not like the Phoenix Metroplex is any different from the hundreds of other metro areas around the US when it comes to subsidized mass transit.

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Who are we? Phoenix or Las Vegas?

Phoenix

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

In a way, I'm glad this thread was bumped. It highlights the fact that Las Vegas is light years ahead of us in this regard. They already have plans for a massive underground transit system to their new Allegiant Stadium, and we can't even get one lousy light rail connection to State Farm Stadium/Westgate. I'm sure one big reason is Westgate's location. Oh well, chalk up yet another reason to visit Vegas I suppose.
()

If this happens it would be nice for them.
https://www.lvloop.com/vegasloop


If we could perhaps start this where the current light rail ends and stretch it to different parts of the Valley at a lower cost, it's worth a look at the very least.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

If by success, you mean that taxpayers subsidize 2/3rd of the cost while riders only pay 1/3rd of the cost. I am not saying light rail is bad. It is useful. Just that taxpayers foot the bill, the vast majority of whom will never ride light rail or ride it less than a couple of times in their lifetime. The mass of taxpayers is paying for the enrichment of a few others. It is patently as unfair as you can get. Such success.

My taxes pay for the fire department but I don’t ever use the fire department. They are a nice service to have when I want/need to use them. I’m not against fire departments.

I have no kids, but my taxes help pay for the education system. I don’t go to school, but they are a nice service to have for when I want or need to use them in the future. I’m not against the education system.

My taxes go to many municipal parks like Tempe town lake, and other nearby county, state and federal parks like the Grand Canyon to help keep these parks clean and beautiful. I don’t go to the park everyday, in fact I rarely go to the park if at all. Some parks I’ve never gone to, but I’m not for defunding the parks I’ve never been to as I know they are still a benefit to others. They are a nice service to have when I want them. I’m not against the parks systems.

Many highway and general roads are subsidized by taxes and are underutilized for how much it costs to build and maintain them. I’m not anti-road and freeway altogether, but I do think they should have less lanes to reduce maintenance costs and have toll roads. They will still be subsidized, but not by such a high percentage and we can funnel that money towards schools or other services.

I bet you are against toll roads. Just admit your argument is not logically-based and you are inherently biased. Highways and roads are some of the most subsidized projects a government can provide.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

Phoenix

So I'm guessing your point (not clear to me when you resurrected this thread) is that whatever plan Las Vegas is pursuing is something that Phoenix should consider in place of light rail. For the past two decades, people have proposed all sorts of alternatives that are supposedly better and cheaper: aerial pods, rideshare, autonomous vehicles, and now this. None have worked out to be more efficient for transporting large numbers of people in dense corridors. Las Vegas already got snookered once with its monorail, so I don't consider that city a model of success and innovation in public transportation. Unless Las Vegas hits a home run this time, Phoenix should stick with proven modes and technologies.

Of course, the resurrection of this thread has opened the floodgates for the usual arguments people use against light rail. These arguments have been rejected by Phoenix voters in four elections, the most recent of which occurred just under a year ago. When Proposition 105, which would have curtailed light rail expansion in Phoenix, was on the ballot, it seemed important to debunk the anti-rail arguments. At this time, however, there's nothing at stake to make resurrecting the discussion worthwhile. Construction on the South Central extension, the focus of last year's controversy, is already underway. Maybe when that's done we'll have some data from Las Vegas to see if the Boring Company alternative is really better.