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.
No more tax supported rail systems. If a business wants to invest into such a project, do it. Leave me out of it. Nothing will drive up local costs like a rail system, making me more poor. Yes, you will find me in support of a commuter rail but never did i say the tax payers should pay for it.
Instead, tax payers will pay for more roads, which is a more expensive long term taxpayer burden...
Infrastructure is a government and taxpayer subsidized system throughout the country and world. The best thing to do is find the cheapest way to allow mobility's, commerce's, and infrastructure's highest rate of utility. Mass transit is and has always been the cheapest method to obtain that end.
why do we need to be so spread out anyway? Why does the common folk need to "drive" or "commute" anywhere?
I guess I should move somewhere else because everyone in this city thinks we should pay for everything and businesses shouldn't have to do anything.
No matter where you move, unless it isn't a large or medium metro area, you'll have to pay for infrastructure cost through taxes. Why must people commute? In order to work, go to school, etc...
I'm not sure who the "common folk" are in your reference, but I must pay to take rail to work and to run errands, etc...I'm not sure why you think we have to "pay for everything" but as a user of the system, we are responsible for paying our way unless we live in a true nationally social nation in which the government truly does "pay for everything" but I'm not so sure how much we'd like that.
As for businesses paying; they do in impact fees, through taxation, through transportation tax subsidies and purchases. Many business and employers pay for commuting expenses for employees.
No matter where you move, unless it isn't a large or medium metro area, you'll have to pay for infrastructure cost through taxes. Why must people commute? In order to work, go to school, etc...
I'm not sure who the "common folk" are in your reference, but I must pay to take rail to work and to run errands, etc...I'm not sure why you think we have to "pay for everything" but as a user of the system, we are responsible for paying our way unless we live in a true nationally social nation in which the government truly does "pay for everything" but I'm not so sure how much we'd like that.
Wouldn't it be better move to build around a giant company and smaller businesses build around that instead of being scattered everywhere? Eliminating the need for a commute?
Quote:
As for businesses paying; they do in impact fees, through taxation, through transportation tax subsidies and purchases. Many business and employers pay for commuting expenses for employees.
Giant tax breaks to these companies so they can give our money back to us? That doesn't make sense. I am refering to the giant tax breaks our government officials admit to to try to entice whatever corp. into whatever city. I've watched city of Tucson do it multiple times. But then I think of what you said. They pay for this and that... but we gave them money in a sense at the beginning so wouldn't that be giving back our own money?
As far as businesses and employers paying for commuting expenses...
This must be in a higher corporate environment because i have never herd of that. My father works for a medium sized national cell phone company and never has his commuting expenses paid for. Nor did my wife when she worked for a school that was a 30 minute, without traffic, commute.
Wouldn't it be better move to build around a giant company and smaller businesses build around that instead of being scattered everywhere? Eliminating the need for a commute?
YES!!!! That would be ideal, it's called good city planning but it's been completely been thrown out the window since the advent of the automobile because the developer's attitude is that we can drive everywhere.
Instead we have all these big construction corporations pumping out cookie cutter subdivisions in suburbs contributing to sprawl. They don't make fast money by planning, they make fast money by pumping out cheaply built McMansions in suburbs.
Footnote - if you are interested in reading about how we got to where we are with city planning, read some James Howard Kunstler. It is witty, entertaining, and enlightening. I've only read "The Geography of Nowhere" and it was a great and fast read.
From the cover:
"A wonderfully entertaining, useful and provocative account of the ravaging of the American environment by the auto, suburban developers, purblind zoning and corporate pirates." - Boston Globe
YES!!!! That would be ideal, it's called good city planning but it's been completely been thrown out the window since the advent of the automobile because the developer's attitude is that we can drive everywhere.
True, and the fact that we couldn't possibly plan for EVERYONE to live near their place of work, school, hospital and have efficient planning for stores, services, etc. That is a lot of demand for planning very perfect communities which is impossible. The best possible situation is to build dense communities where transit is effective in order to move people about. We must offer different possibilities for moving commerce (people capital) around without having them pay for cars, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. This would involve ending sprawl in every American city...
Quote:
Instead we have all these big construction corporations pumping out cookie cutter subdivisions in suburbs contributing to sprawl. They don't make fast money by planning, they make fast money by pumping out cheaply built McMansions in suburbs.
This is what the markets have demanded. Instead of people making choices (opportunity costs) that make sense in a dense environments, they move out to cookie cutter developments for less expensive housing and the ability to afford cars.
This is what the markets have demanded. Instead of people making choices (opportunity costs) that make sense in a dense environments, they move out to cookie cutter developments for less expensive housing and the ability to afford cars.
Well this is where I disagree a little. I'm not so sure the markets demanded the type of development that is out here in the suburbs. Its more of a "If you build it, they will come" type thing. People need to live somewhere, and the choices they have are only going to be what has been built. If they built a more old school type community with mass transit lines already reserved in the blueprint, then you might say the market demanded that.
I don't know of a single person that demanded a 3500 sqft home with a 10x10 backyard and 10 other 2 stories looming over. Nor do I know of anyone that asked to have 3 walmarts equidistant from their homes. The city presented its options, people had to choose from what was available and not everyone can live downtown.
In the burbs, the developers are engaged in some sort of retail hopscotch where they keep hopping over one another and cutting one another off to steal the closest neighborhood traffic. The result is I now have about 100 places to choose from that all sell the same exact thing. I bet none of them are doing fantastic. From grocery stores, to bank branches, to pharmacies, to big box superstores, its completely endless. It a sickening game that the city has allowed to run rampant because it gets a short term boost, but is not going to be good for the long haul.
Well this is where I disagree a little. I'm not so sure the markets demanded the type of development that is out here in the suburbs. Its more of a "If you build it, they will come" type thing. People need to live somewhere, and the choices they have are only going to be what has been built. If they built a more old school type community with mass transit lines already reserved in the blueprint, then you might say the market demanded that.
I don't know of a single person that demanded a 3500 sqft home with a 10x10 backyard and 10 other 2 stories looming over. Nor do I know of anyone that asked to have 3 walmarts equidistant from their homes. The city presented its options, people had to choose from what was available and not everyone can live downtown.
In the burbs, the developers are engaged in some sort of retail hopscotch where they keep hopping over one another and cutting one another off to steal the closest neighborhood traffic. The result is I now have about 100 places to choose from that all sell the same exact thing. I bet none of them are doing fantastic. From grocery stores, to bank branches, to pharmacies, to big box superstores, its completely endless. It a sickening game that the city has allowed to run rampant because it gets a short term boost, but is not going to be good for the long haul.
I completely understand your frustration, but from a business and economic standpoint, the market did demand such housing because it is what has been selling until recently; now we see demand (and rising prices) in communities closer to the core, even if in a suburb but in a more reasonably planned distance. There really was no reason for homes to be purchased in the far fringes with plenty of housing available much closer in town and to historic suburbs where new housing was still available. I think it just took this type of recession to "shock" the market and shift demand. This has happened in every major market in terms of suburban sprawl; from NYC to Seattle.
"Ok, try to make this simple, there are tracks that were dedicated to Amtrak service in the Phoenix area that are no longer used, you can see portions of this track throughout Phoenix and it is glaringly simple to see that the Union Station in downtown Phoenix. It is currently closed because there no longer is Amtrak service or commuter train service to Phoenix, freight traffic does not use this track..."
OK, I understand what you are talking about now. But you have to understand that this is a very small amount of track (compared to the miles and miles and miles of track that would be in the "system"). I have not gone and looked at the condition of the track, but it would likely need major repairs or be replaced completely.
Most of the track that the commuter trains would run on are currently used for freight traffic, and, with the exception of the line towards Buckeye, are fairly congested.
"There was commuter service offered through private companies in association with local transportation authorities and in concert with local trolley and street car services. The commuter train, Hassayampa Flyer, connected Wickenburg, Glendale, Pheonix, and Tempe via the #42 and #47 trains and ran until the late 1960's. From Buckeye, one could go between Buckeye, "Litchfield," and Mesa via the #42 and #47 commuter train, also until the 1960's when local transportation authorities and municipal transportation boards wanted to "modernize" the system."
The trains you speak of were not "commuter trains". They were "long-haul" passenger trains. No passenger train originated in Wickenburg or Buckeye. These trains originated in Williams or Las Angeles and passed through places like Buckeye and Wickenburg. If one wanted to use these trains as a way to commute, I'm sure he or she could have and did (just like if one lived in Maricopa they could use Amtrak's Sunset Limited to commute to Tucson). It should also be noted that if one wanted to travel by train from Wickenburg to Mesa, they would have to get off the Sante Fe train in Phoenix and purchase a ticket for a Southern Pacific train from Phoenix to Mesa. These trains were operated by competing railroads and their "connections" were not coordinated.
"Ok, and all of our track exists...so same situation for our future commuter service."
You missed my point completely (which I made in the previous thread). L.A. has been a passenger rail hub for 100 years or more. There are four different Amtrak trains that pull into Union Station. Generations have traveled by rail. My grandma used to take the train from what (was then) the outskirts to school five days a week. Rail travel has been established for so long and is accepted culterally.
Phoenix, on the other hand, couldn't get enough riders on one Amtrak train to justify it's route through the area. Rail travel was rejected here a long time ago, and so it is not generally culterally accepted. In other words, if they make a commuter train system in Phoenix, there is going to be an uphill battle to get ridership.
"Well, unlike most commuters in the valley, you must continuously be graced with luck in order to only be bothered by traffic for not very long. However, millions are stuck in traffic much longer than you and would benefit from other transportation options besides driving alone in traffic or even in traffic with an HOV situation."
I don't think it is luck. It's just the way it is. Perhaps if I traveled more in the height of "rush hour" it would be worse.
If the city of Phoenix gave some kind of a tax incentive to businesses to use alternative work schedules and/or use telecommuting, that would cost much less than building a rail system and would have a better positive effect on traffic, because it deals with the fundamental reason the traffic is there in the first place.
There are 2 types of cities in America, those populated pre-auto based on manufacturing (originally), and those populated post-auto based on non-manufacturing.
Type 1 - These cities are dense urban environments first based on shipping in and out of a port where people and companies wanted direct access to the harbor / river / lake as it was essential for their business. New York, Philadelphia, San Fran, the rust belt, etc. After the train was invented these cities grew very quickly and were now joined by new towns based on a junction or station, Atlanta is a prime example. For 70 years towns huddled around these stations in just the same way as the cities huddled around the water. Business developed in a core and subways or trolleys were planned to deal with the in and out flow of people. Then the car became into fashion, and majically these places started to sprawl out like a virus. Long Island was all farm land until one developer decided to build house out there with the idea "build it and they will come" and they did. Luckily many of these areas were covered with rail lines for the past 80 years that followed the same commute path as the people. New York and Chicago are the best examples. The track was in place, all they needed were the engines, cars, and a company to run it. Another BIG key is that the most successful systems of commuter rail are combined with an existing urban subway system to allow people to move withing the city itself.
Type 2 - These are the "new cities" that boomed post car / WWII (GI Bill was a HUGE factor) American were being sold on the "American Dream" of buying a home (mind you this was a marketing campaign) and now for the first time and because of new construction methods could afford them. Business started to move away from manufacturing and shipping and became more office oriented. Now not dependant on access to water or train systems they developed wherever land was cheap. Given a car and new highways, Dad was able to access any part of the city he wanted and they spawl began. There were still small communities though that the developement was build around. These were small towns located near bigger cities and became what's refered to now as satellite cities. Then magically the areas between started to infill and eventually you are left with LA, PHX, DFW, etc. Once land became expensive developers went further and further out until you have place like Riverside, CA. Since it's car based the problem is that there wasn't a lot of track in place, so to add now is an enormous undertaking and cost. Plus the traffic patterns are so varied that it would be difficult to cover peoples needs. Unless you can "force" business to abandon the outlying areas and move downtown a train system won't be successful. This is why Phoenix went with a light rail system, it's cheaper!
Don't be fooled though, the light rail in Phoenix was not put in for commuters. It's main purpose was to link the two ASU campuses. They extended out a bit more to serve more people so they could sell it to the public. If it was intended to serve commuters do you think it would end in West Mesa? You would of thought it would have followed I-10 or the 101 South first. Once ASU was connected they simply went on the path of least resistance.
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.
