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.
Light rail is necessary for a city to become a real city. A lot of companies look for characteristics like good public transportation, developing downtown, and general things that would appeal to young workers. A grid locked city that emphasizes driving to suburbs and exurbs is not appealing.
Completely agree on these points, but look where a lot of the major companies in the Phoenix area are located. GoDaddy, Paypal, USAA, Republic Services, and Petsmart (just to name a few) are housed in suburban office parks instead of highrises in the central city where they should be. If that isn't enough, Chase has recently sold the Chase Tower and is eventually moving most of their offices out of downtown Phoenix! So unfortunately, a good share of large companies in the Phoenix area are apparently not looking for these kinds of characteristics. If they did, you'd see more corporate office towers in downtown & midtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjseliga
Running lines along/in the middle of highways and interstates is a double edged sword, yes there are less lights and stop and go movement, but it also means you need more park and ride garages/lots.
Looking back, should they have maybe elevated the starter line over most of the intersections, then came back to ground level in between for the stations, maybe, but it would have added to the cost and made it like a roller coaster!
I would have personally preferred monorail/elevated trains instead of light rail. At the very least, they could have built underpasses at the some of the light rail street crossings (5th & Ash in Tempe to name one of those intersections). As for rail running in the middle of freeways: it has been done in places like the L.A. area, but it really should be on major streets and confined more to a centralized area. Much of west I10 has a wide dirt median which is eventually supposed to have light rail, but it should really be used for more vehicle lanes to move the traffic along more efficiently. I10 can be a parking lot during rush hour.
I mostly agree here. Expanding light rail should take place in the areas where demand is highest, which would be mainly in the centralized areas, and perhaps south Phoenix (despite the recent protests from NIMBYs there). A line to the Capitol, and more lines on major streets like 7th Street, 7th Avenue, McDowell, Thomas, Indian School, and east Camelback would probably work. I can't see the reasoning behind putting more lines in suburban areas where the demand isn't sufficient enough. Also, installing a light rail line in the median on I10 in the west Valley makes little sense ... even though something similar already is in existence in the L.A. area. That I10 median desperately needs upgrades, but I would much prefer more traffic lanes, specifically bus or HOT lanes instead of rail.
There is no evidence at all that light rail has spurred development. The revitalization in downtown Phoenix would have occurred anyway, thanks largely to more demand for inward & upward development. I wouldn't have admitted this a decade ago, but ASU Downtown has been one of the projects which has created a lot of this demand. Light rail has definitely helped in this regard, but it wasn't the main reason for why central Phoenix has finally come to life compared to 20+ years ago.
I can't believe you included midtown in your example. Aside from light rail on Central Avenue, midtown hasn't changed much at all in over 25 years. The office towers bring in the business people on weekdays, but the whole area still goes dead after 7 PM. Abandoned buildings & vacant lots still can be found in the midtown area. West Camelback Road & 19th Avenue where the light rail line has existed for over a decade still looks the same with very little in the way of new development or activity. Same goes for the Washington/Jefferson corridor: still a very industrial & sketchy area for the most part. And have you been on Apache Blvd. in Mesa where the light rail line is? No change at all ... still plenty of vacant lots!
I've ridden many a light rail system in the West and that's what I look for at the rail stops, development, the possibilities of creating mini-cities along the way. I saw a lot of that in Portland, and even riding DART in Dallas. L.A., well, it's all coming along even due to L.A.'s archaic zoning of 72% of L.A. being zoned for single family homes. It's shocking that you can still see single family homes at some of these stops, particularly in Watts and Compton and along stops on the Gold Line.
I love light rail and I like trying out new light rail systems I haven't been to and I did Phoenix last year, so nice to fly into Sky Harbor and take the train to the light rail stop and I rode it both east and west. I was more than impressed, particularly coming from Las Vegas where they haven't even got one light rail line under construction.
I've ridden many a light rail system in the West and that's what I look for at the rail stops, development, the possibilities of creating mini-cities along the way. I saw a lot of that in Portland, and even riding DART in Dallas. L.A., well, it's all coming along even due to L.A.'s archaic zoning of 72% of L.A. being zoned for single family homes. It's shocking that you can still see single family homes at some of these stops, particularly in Watts and Compton and along stops on the Gold Line.
As far as single family homes, Phoenix is the much the same way along the light rail line, especially 19th Avenue. I don't foresee "mini cities" developing because that would have already started to happen by now, based on how the initial line has been in operation for over 10 years. Most of west Camelback, 19th Avenue, Washington/Jefferson corridor, and even Apache/Main in Mesa looks exactly the same as a decade ago. Even Central Avenue in midtown hasn't seen much new development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
I love light rail and I like trying out new light rail systems I haven't been to and I did Phoenix last year, so nice to fly into Sky Harbor and take the train to the light rail stop and I rode it both east and west. I was more than impressed, particularly coming from Las Vegas where they haven't even got one light rail line under construction.
Light rail has been a nice addition to the Phoenix mass transit system, and the SkyTrain connection at 44th Street has been good for both ridership & commuting to Sky Harbor. Vegas doesn't have light rail, but they do have monorail, which was paid for by private money instead of tax dollars, and mostly benefits the hotels & casinos.
As for rail running in the middle of freeways: it has been done in places like the L.A. area, but it really should be on major streets and confined more to a centralized area. Much of west I10 has a wide dirt median which is eventually supposed to have light rail, but it should really be used for more vehicle lanes to move the traffic along more efficiently. I10 can be a parking lot during rush hour.
Looks like the new 202/South Mountain Freeway tie-in has taken up a good chunk of that dirt median on I-10. If they do decide to put the light rail extension there it seems it will go from the stack (I-10/I-17) to only a few miles west before it has to jump over the westbound lanes and go along the northside of I-10.
The article correctly states that public transit ridership often goes down during good economic times and when gas prices are lower. I think there could be another reason behind it: the increased popularity of ride share services (Uber & Lyft) has taken away some of the demand. In any case, it's the first report I've seen where ridership has gone down since the light rail started operations. If there continues to be less of a demand, would adding more lines throughout the metro area be necessary as currently planned?
I guess it depends on how you define "necessary." Personally, I think it's crucial to not only improve public transit but ALSO to discourage private car driving.
Looks like the new 202/South Mountain Freeway tie-in has taken up a good chunk of that dirt median on I-10. If they do decide to put the light rail extension there it seems it will go from the stack (I-10/I-17) to only a few miles west before it has to jump over the westbound lanes and go along the northside of I-10.
Too bad they couldn't have constructed that Phase II/I-10 section light rail extension over the last couple years, while they were constructing the 202/I-10 tie-in. I would guess using the highway ROW (middle and edge), they wouldn't have to relocate too many utilities, which seems to slow down light rail construction along surface streets.
Completely agree on these points, but look where a lot of the major companies in the Phoenix area are located. GoDaddy, Paypal, USAA, Republic Services, and Petsmart (just to name a few) are housed in suburban office parks instead of highrises in the central city where they should be. If that isn't enough, Chase has recently sold the Chase Tower and is eventually moving most of their offices out of downtown Phoenix! So unfortunately, a good share of large companies in the Phoenix area are apparently not looking for these kinds of characteristics. If they did, you'd see more corporate office towers in downtown & midtown.
I would have personally preferred monorail/elevated trains instead of light rail. At the very least, they could have built underpasses at the some of the light rail street crossings (5th & Ash in Tempe to name one of those intersections). As for rail running in the middle of freeways: it has been done in places like the L.A. area, but it really should be on major streets and confined more to a centralized area. Much of west I10 has a wide dirt median which is eventually supposed to have light rail, but it should really be used for more vehicle lanes to move the traffic along more efficiently. I10 can be a parking lot during rush hour.
I completely agree with what you said about Downtown Phoenix. One concerning thing I have noticed about the development in downtown is that it is mostly housing and a little bit of retail. Where is the corporate office space? All of that is either in the far flung suburbs or outside of downtown. I'm also hearing that a lot of the apartments are being purchased by real estate investors and not actual people who plan on living in the Phoenix. They are trying to capitalize on what is still fairly cheap downtown real estate (compared to downtown areas of other prominent cities). I've seen the same real estate speculation scam except now it's being retrofitted with downtown revitalization schemes instead of the suburban sprawl nonsense that existed a few decades ago.
The thing is that even though downtown has been developing and has good light rail access, the city as a whole is still not desirable, particularly to young people from outside of Arizona. I've noticed young people from AZ are more interested in staying here in Phoenix because of how it's getting better, but there is still very little interest from people outside of the state to come here unless their jobs are being placed here.
Companies will not want to build their actual HQs in the city. They want to use the cheap suburban land to build sprawling office complexes instead of an expensive office tower in downtown where land is also somewhat limited. Look at the companies you mentioned (GoDaddy, PayPal, etc.), they would never invest in the valley (except maybe GoDaddy because it was founded here) if land were expensive and limited. They can build an cheap office building here in the Valley and slowly move some of their work force over here while still maintaining their HQs in the expensive area. See Wells Fargo, PayPal, and Intel. Chandler likes to brag about the investment that Intel makes in Chandler because they see that city as innovative and supportive. Umm, hello... They came to your city because you had an abundance of cheap desert land and you provided incentives. I'll start jumping on the Intel bandwagon when their CEOs and high level engineers are willing to move to the Valley along with their headquarters from the Bay Area. Yeah, I don't think that is happening.
Even if we aren't going to see companies and white-collar jobs in Downtown Phoenix anytime soon, light rail and the development around in needs to continue because it's still better than the alternative.
I completely agree with what you said about Downtown Phoenix. One concerning thing I have noticed about the development in downtown is that it is mostly housing and a little bit of retail. Where is the corporate office space? All of that is either in the far flung suburbs or outside of downtown. I'm also hearing that a lot of the apartments are being purchased by real estate investors and not actual people who plan on living in the Phoenix. They are trying to capitalize on what is still fairly cheap downtown real estate (compared to downtown areas of other prominent cities). I've seen the same real estate speculation scam except now it's being retrofitted with downtown revitalization schemes instead of the suburban sprawl nonsense that existed a few decades ago.
Exactly! I have attempted to get this point across to some of these downtown proponents who are doing their happy dances over a few multi story residential towers, but couldn't care less if the big corporations & sports venues move out of downtown. A successful central core can't just have retail & residents. It has to have a multitude of amenities, such as museums, concert venues, shopping, pro sports, and most of all: plentiful JOBS which are created by reputable firms. What kind of sense does it make to live in the central city, but having to drive to the suburbs for employment, shopping, etc.? Completely defeats the purpose of urban living!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomasaz
Companies will not want to build their actual HQs in the city. They want to use the cheap suburban land to build sprawling office complexes instead of an expensive office tower in downtown where land is also somewhat limited. Look at the companies you mentioned (GoDaddy, PayPal, etc.), they would never invest in the valley (except maybe GoDaddy because it was founded here) if land were expensive and limited. They can build an cheap office building here in the Valley and slowly move some of their work force over here while still maintaining their HQs in the expensive area. See Wells Fargo, PayPal, and Intel. Chandler likes to brag about the investment that Intel makes in Chandler because they see that city as innovative and supportive. Umm, hello... They came to your city because you had an abundance of cheap desert land and you provided incentives. I'll start jumping on the Intel bandwagon when their CEOs and high level engineers are willing to move to the Valley along with their headquarters from the Bay Area. Yeah, I don't think that is happening.
And this is precisely why the "incentives" need to be focused on the urban core more than the suburbs. We already pay enough taxes for freeways and new infrastructure for those who desire suburban locations. At the same time, infrastructure in the centralized areas is already well established and doesn't require as much in tax revenue ... so in some cases, it would actually be more economical to have a business in downtown Phoenix instead of somewhere like Chandler. It would certainly benefit employees of these companies to have a better choice of commuting besides driving and fighting the heavy traffic every day.
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.
