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.
It's only a "challenge" to those that want a transit oriented city - most people in Phoenix metro do not. I quite like that my wife can have her nice salary IT job and not have to leave the suburbs. I'm also a car guy and prefer driving. Although I am pro light rail, I likely would never use outside of an occasional ball game. I like having the satellite employment centers rather than one strong urban core.
Exactly. I'm thankful I've never had to commute into an urban center for work. Having a suburban office location, I can live in a modern single-family home with a short and easy commute to work. With some of my jobs I've even been able to bicycle commute. That's a lot friendlier to the environment, friendlier to my mental health, and friendlier to the government's limited resources... than concentrating employment in a single area and then desperately searching for solutions to the quagmire that's created.
Exactly. I'm thankful I've never had to commute into an urban center for work. Having a suburban office location, I can live in a modern single-family home with a short and easy commute to work. With some of my jobs I've even been able to bicycle commute. That's a lot friendlier to the environment, friendlier to my mental health, and friendlier to the government's limited resources... than concentrating employment in a single area and then desperately searching for solutions to the quagmire that's created.
That model generally works for only those who can afford to live near their offices and who can find work in their fields near home. Decentralized employment sounds great in theory, but breaks down quickly in reality. Our labor markets are so specialized that even if one person in a household finds a good job in a suburban area near home, a spouse or domestic partner often ends up finding work all the way across town. In addition, suburban site selection decisions are often based on prestige and executive preferences. That's why so many offices are located in north Scottsdale, even if most workers can't afford to live there. The result is inefficient suburb-to-suburb commutes that are generally feasible only via single occupant cars. Just witness the bidirectional congestion on the 101 during any rush hour.
That's not to say that suburbs shouldn't exist. They are an attractive option for many. Nevertheless, when they do exist, they should be linked to a city center via transit. It's also a bit of a myth that Phoenix is incredibly decentralized in terms of employment. The Brooking Institution undertook a comprehensive study of "job sprawl" a few years ago and measured cities in terms of how concentrated their employment was. Phoenix ranked around the middle. It's certainly not a city in which everyone works downtown, but it's also not quite the poster child for polycentric employment that it's stereotyped as.
There is a proposed project for the NW corner of Thomas and Central on a lot that has been empty for decades that is a result of the light rail across the street.ore people from all socioeconomic levels as opposed to buses, which largely tend to be utilized more by the poor than any other group.
While it is encouraging that that parcel may soon be developed, as currently proposed it is a huge disappointment, a stick and stucco mess with too much parking, no community amenities and not enough density. It might be an appropriate plan for a suburban location but it has no business at a major intersection along the light rail line. The developer asked for a continuance at the Encanto Village Planning Committee earlier this month when it became apparent that the committee would vote to deny the application. Hopefully they will come back with something better.
I don't live in Phoenix, nor have I ever visited, but all I can say is learn from the mistakes of Seattle. Seattle had the opportunity to build a heavy rail subway system back in 1968 and 1970, and 2/3rds of it funded by the federal government, and accounting for inflation would've cost $7 billion, however it was voted down both times, and the funding instead went to Atlanta. Now 50 years later we are building a light rail system for $54 billion with about 13% being covered by federal funding that can hardly be built fast enough to keep up with our demographic growth.
I like having the satellite employment centers rather than one strong urban core.
Which is exactly what Dallas has, and why the light rail works there. There are major employer concentrations in Las Colinas, Richardson, North Plano, the Galleria, Downtown, Middle Greenville/Central area, etc. And most, if not all, are now served by light rail. That was the focus of the early rail planning in Dallas. DART started with rail on the heaviest traveled route, then worked future planning around that to connect the business areas. Phoenix metro only has a couple of business concentration areas, and those areas really aren't all that concentrated compared to other cities.
It's only a "challenge" to those that want a transit oriented city - most people in Phoenix metro do not. I quite like that my wife can have her nice salary IT job and not have to leave the suburbs. I'm also a car guy and prefer driving. Although I am pro light rail, I likely would never use outside of an occasional ball game. I like having the satellite employment centers rather than one strong urban core.
Same. And having a decentralized city allows our traffic to flow more freely than other centralized cities.
It's only a "challenge" to those that want a transit oriented city - most people in Phoenix metro do not. I quite like that my wife can have her nice salary IT job and not have to leave the suburbs. I'm also a car guy and prefer driving. Although I am pro light rail, I likely would never use outside of an occasional ball game. I like having the satellite employment centers rather than one strong urban core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hikernut
Exactly. I'm thankful I've never had to commute into an urban center for work. Having a suburban office location, I can live in a modern single-family home with a short and easy commute to work. With some of my jobs I've even been able to bicycle commute. That's a lot friendlier to the environment, friendlier to my mental health, and friendlier to the government's limited resources... than concentrating employment in a single area and then desperately searching for solutions to the quagmire that's created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sno0909
Same. And having a decentralized city allows our traffic to flow more freely than other centralized cities.
Being in the suburbs is perfectly fine if that fits your lifestyle, but it doesn't work for everybody ... especially when their jobs have a suburban address. What kind of sense does it make for a person in the west Valley to commute all the way to Chandler or south Tempe for a decent paying job? Or what about somebody who prefers a more urban location to live (central Phoenix) but the best job offer is in the SE Valley, north Scottsdale, or Deer Valley? That person has to face the daily inconvenience of commuting by car when he/she could easily use light rail, bus, or even walk or bike to work on streets that are more pedestrian/bike friendly than most anything you'd find in the suburban areas.
Contrary to what was said above, having a decentralized city doesn't make for smoother traffic ... in fact, all it does is increase traffic congestion in the suburbs (areas that are supposed to be concentrated more on residential development, and have less traffic than a dense urban area). We're seeing more Valley freeways that used to be congested only in one direction are now backed up in both directions during rush hour: specifically 101 through Scottsdale and the SE Valley. Seriously, are longer commutes & heavier traffic friendlier to the environment and friendlier to a person's mental health?
I personally prefer driving my own car, but others don't, and they'd rather save money by not having the burden of vehicle expenses (insurance, gas, maintenance). Others in this category may not be able to afford a car of their own. I can definitely understand this because I was once in that same situation where I had to rely on the bus to get around, and this was over 30 years ago when Phoenix's mass transit system was pathetic compared to what it is now. Thankfully, most everything I needed at the time was accessible by bus because it was CENTRALIZED. If I had a job in the east or west Valley at the time, I would have had been screwed as far as commuting options.
This is precisely why the Phoenix area shouldn't be entirely decentralized. Having businesses and amenities in the suburbs is great for some, but not for all. This city & metro area have become too big in recent years to keep on sprawling outward. Major sports & entertainment especially should be in a more centralized location where there is existing & sufficient infrastructure already in place, instead of ridiculous locations like south Glendale or tribal land where commuting options are limited, and very inconvenient for many people. We've seen the failure of Westgate and how the city of Glendale is in the red because of that boondoggle.
I don't live in Phoenix, nor have I ever visited, but all I can say is learn from the mistakes of Seattle. Seattle had the opportunity to build a heavy rail subway system back in 1968 and 1970, and 2/3rds of it funded by the federal government, and accounting for inflation would've cost $7 billion, however it was voted down both times, and the funding instead went to Atlanta. Now 50 years later we are building a light rail system for $54 billion with about 13% being covered by federal funding that can hardly be built fast enough to keep up with our demographic growth.
Maybe for now Phoenix can deal with out rail transit, but will that be the case 50 years from now? It's best to be proactive rather then reactive.
Phoenix had unsuccessful transit votes in the '80s and '90s, including one in 1989 that would have built an ambitious elevated rail system throughout the metropolitan area. In 2000, the tide finally turned and Phoenix voters approved a combination of light rail construction and bus improvements that voters have since reaffirmed in 2004 and 2015. That's what makes the current last-minute opposition to light rail expansion even more frustrating. An unwise vote to curtail light rail expansion would undo years of planning, throw away approved federal and regional funding, and make it even more difficult and expensive to resume expansion in the future to accommodate growth.
Phoenix had unsuccessful transit votes in the '80s and '90s, including one in 1989 that would have built an ambitious elevated rail system throughout the metropolitan area. In 2000, the tide finally turned and Phoenix voters approved a combination of light rail construction and bus improvements that voters have since reaffirmed in 2004 and 2015. That's what makes the current last-minute opposition to light rail expansion even more frustrating. An unwise vote to curtail light rail expansion would undo years of planning, throw away approved federal and regional funding, and make it even more difficult and expensive to resume expansion in the future to accommodate growth.
Yes, and this is why I've reached a decision to vote NO on 105. I weighed the pros & cons, and I still believe street improvements should be a priority over rail expansion. But my final decision is based partly on what you said above, as well as my disgust at these NIMBYs for trying to undo what the majority of Phoenix voters approved several times. We've had enough ballot measures on this! It's time to send these NIMBYs back to their caves where they belong.
That model generally works for only those who can afford to live near their offices and who can find work in their fields near home. Decentralized employment sounds great in theory, but breaks down quickly in reality. Our labor markets are so specialized that even if one person in a household finds a good job in a suburban area near home, a spouse or domestic partner often ends up finding work all the way across town. In addition, suburban site selection decisions are often based on prestige and executive preferences. That's why so many offices are located in north Scottsdale, even if most workers can't afford to live there. The result is inefficient suburb-to-suburb commutes that are generally feasible only via single occupant cars. Just witness the bidirectional congestion on the 101 during any rush hour.
That's not to say that suburbs shouldn't exist. They are an attractive option for many. Nevertheless, when they do exist, they should be linked to a city center via transit. It's also a bit of a myth that Phoenix is incredibly decentralized in terms of employment. The Brooking Institution undertook a comprehensive study of "job sprawl" a few years ago and measured cities in terms of how concentrated their employment was. Phoenix ranked around the middle. It's certainly not a city in which everyone works downtown, but it's also not quite the poster child for polycentric employment that it's stereotyped as.
Your theory doesn't really hold water. Look at some of the most centralized cities (New York, San Fran, Chicago, etc). Most people can't afford to live anywhere near the core. They are forced out into the suburbs. Just look at the prices of Phoenix downtown realty!
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.
