Commuter Rail may be closer than we think (Phoenix, Sierra Vista: appointed, condo)

[KatrynS]

Generally, I'm pro-mass transit. I do have one concern: adding lines to move folks quickly from the far flung suburbs may help traffic, but it also increases urban sprawl since the outlying areas are suddenly "closer". Does PHX really need more sprawl? Does it need to grow more, given the limited water, etc? Just more to consider.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by KatrynS

Generally, I'm pro-mass transit. I do have one concern: adding lines to move folks quickly from the far flung suburbs may help traffic, but it also increases urban sprawl since the outlying areas are suddenly "closer". Does PHX really need more sprawl? Does it need to grow more, given the limited water, etc? Just more to consider.

The idea of rail transit as a sprawl enabler has some validity. Certain portions of what is now Central Phoenix were once "streetcar suburbs." Likewise, the low density of major Australian cities like Melbourne and Sidney is associated with the extensive rail and tram networks put in place during those cities' earliest phases of development. Nevertheless, I think the risk is low in Phoenix. Here, rail transit lags so far behind growth that we'll always be playing catch up with rail lines coming in after sprawl has occured. If anything, rail transit has the potential to redirect development so that it clusters in walkable neighborhoods around stations. The key is zoning. What we've seen so far with development around the existing light rail line is that the most success stories are found along Apache Boulevard in Tempe. That's largely because Tempe went ahead with special zoning around the rail corridor that de-emphasizes auto-centric development such as drive-thrus and car wahes and emphasizes structures that address the street. If commuter rail goes forward, I hope that the outer suburbs it reaches apply some of the lessons learned from Tempe's experience with light rial.

[Ritchie_az]

It's foolish to be against growth. A city that is not growing is dying. Or, if the city is growing population-wise, but not growing landmass-wise, the cost of living will go through the roof. Either way is bad, IMHO. And I don't understand this idea that suburban living is bad. You may not like it, but many more like it than don't, and your opinion of it does not make it "wrong".

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

It's foolish to be against growth. A city that is not growing is dying. Or, if the city is growing population-wise, but not growing landmass-wise, the cost of living will go through the roof. Either way is bad, IMHO. And I don't understand this idea that suburban living is bad. You may not like it, but many more like it than don't, and your opinion of it does not make it "wrong".

Suburban living is not intrinsically wrong. I live in a suburban neighborhood and woudn't want anything different at this point in my life. Still, there's good suburbia and bad suburbia. Good suburbia is about villages in which walkable cores are surrounded by low-density housing. Residents enjoy their backyards and other suburban benefits but can still walk to basic amenities and commute via rail to Downtown and other hubs of activity and employment. Bad suburbia is unfocused low density development completely dependent on the automobile and not focused around any sort of core. Even worse than residential sprawl is job sprawl, in which the majority of the population commutes from one suburb to another in patterns that are hard to serve via either roads or transit. Rail transit helps cultivate good suburbia and reduce bad suburbia.

[nickw252]

Newer suburban subdivisions enable isolation and reject any sense of community and pride. Older "streetcar suburbs" were more about the community because of their layout and because they weren't dedicated to accommodating cars above people.

It's foolish to be against growth.

Correction, "it's foolish to be against smart growth"

There is a difference between good growth and bad growth. Look at what happened in Detroit (the area where I'm originally from) - they focused on one sector (auto manufacturing) and then let it all fall apart and collapse. Do we want Phoenix's economy to be heavily dependent upon the construction industry with continued suburban growth as far as the eye can see? Does anyone on here want Phoenix to be the next Detroit? There doesn't NEED to be growth, and if there is, it needs to be balanced growth (economically and geographically) instead of endless subdivisions and strip malls. Believe it or not, strip malls, big-box stores, and auto-dependent subdivisions with cookie cutter modular homes is not a desirable place to live, and will not lead to a high quality of life. If you want sustainable economic growth, it needs to be smart growth (such as transit oriented development).

Why do you think places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Denver and Portland have no problems recruiting the most highly educated workforce? Maybe it's because the quality of life is so high.

Portland in particular has strict building codes requiring walkable neighborhoods, no snouthouses, and transit oriented development.

[Ritchie_az]

"Good suburbia is about villages in which walkable cores are surrounded by low-density housing. Residents enjoy their backyards and other suburban benefits but can still walk to basic amenities and commute via rail to Downtown and other hubs of activity and employment. Bad suburbia is unfocused low density development completely dependent on the automobile and not focused around any sort of core."

And who made you the Suburban God? Who are you to say what type of suburb is "good" and what type is "bad"? The suburb that you say is "bad" is exactly the suburb I completely enjoy living in, and look forward to raising my family in. My "bad" suburb has been voted the best master-planned suburb four years running, and was part of an All-American and Most Livable award for 2008. Really, you'd be very hard pressed finding a better suburb anywhere. Frankly, my "bad suburbia" is great, and I would probably not wish to live in any "good suburbia".

"Even worse than residential sprawl is job sprawl"

I think the problem is two fold:
1) The urban model (IMHO) is fundamentally flawed
2) Business growth has not kept up with residential growth in up-and-coming areas
If resident-to-job ratios were more balanced across the Valley, you'd have fewer people commuting towards the same destination (downtown and other large job centers) every morning and away from them every afternoon. If more businesses allowed Alternative Work Schedules and/or Telecommuting, that would help, as well.

[Ritchie_az]

"Correction, 'it's foolish to be against smart growth'"

Don't try to put words in my mouth, nick. I said, "It's foolish to be against growth" and I stand by that. If YOU want to say "it's foolish to be against smart growth" go ahead and say it. But I did not say it nor do I agree with it.

"There is a difference between good growth and bad growth."

I ask you the same question I asked silverbear: who are you to say what growth is "good" and what growth is "bad"? Are you the Growth God? You'll find that there are plenty who will disagree with your assertions.
Since you like listing example cities, take a look at San Francisco. The city can't grow, and they're cost of living and taxes are enormously high because of it (and the city has a really high crime rate, which I think is closely related). That's what you are proposing turning Phoenix into with your supposed "smart growth". (BTW, all of your example cities have high cost of livings and high tax rates. Hmmmm.)

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

If resident-to-job ratios were more balanced across the Valley, you'd have fewer people commuting towards the same destination (downtown and other large job centers) every morning and away from them every afternoon. If more businesses allowed Alternative Work Schedules and/or Telecommuting, that would help, as well.

Your argument is flawed because you are assuming that all people would live around their workplace if they were more spread out. So if I had a job in Mesa, I would only live in Mesa, and when I got transferred to the Glendale branch, I would instinctively move to Glendale.

That doesn't work because moving (especially selling a home) is a huge deal. That's why some people have extremely long commutes. It's easier to put up with that than changing the kids school, selling the house, buying a new one, hiring movers...

That is precisely why having a centralized workforce with good public transit in and out of there makes much more sense.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

(BTW, all of your example cities have high cost of livings and high tax rates. Hmmmm.)

And all of those cities have smart, educated people knocking on the doors for a job. And those jobs pay higher than in say Phoenix or Tucson, and the people living in the urban area don't have to pay for things such as a car, car insurance, gas, camera light tickets... It all balances out, and I submit that those cities have a much higher quality of life. You may be satisfied with living in the farout 'burbs and driving to walmart for everything, but that's just you, many people are frustrated and tired of that lifestyle. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong for everyone, I'm just saying that there needs to be balanced growth, funding for things other than highways, and less tax incentives for these developers (and homeowners) to just plop down another suburb ruining the mountain vistas and eating up more land, causing traffic and pollution problems which leads to the need for more superhighways.

[Ritchie_az]

"Your argument is flawed because you are assuming that all people would live around their workplace if they were more spread out."

When did I ever say that ALL people would live around their workplace? I never even said MOST would have to. I think you are trying to oversimplify what I've proposed, which is actually quite complex (and something I've gone into more details with in a different thread).