U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What scenario?
A 6 35.29%
B 9 52.94%
C 2 11.76%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:09 AM
 
Location: USA
3,966 posts, read 9,837,310 times
Reputation: 2216

Advertisements

What Moves You Arizona | let's talk. let's listen. let's decide. (http://www.azdot.gov/whatmovesyouarizona/participate.asp - broken link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by //www.city-data.com/forum/azdot.gov/whatmovesyouarizona"
azdot.gov/whatmovesyouarizona]With Arizona's population expected to at least double over the next forty years, transportation planning is an opportunity for Arizonans to come together where personal choices and future lifestyles intersect. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) takes an important step in examining those transportation and community planning choices with the launch of the Arizona Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

We call it, "What Moves You Arizona?"
Here is what you should read from the PDF. There are also 4 tabs at the top "your lifestyle, your choice, your part,your future." Each are different questionares about the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.azdot.gov/whatmovesyouarizona/PDF/050509_ParticipationPlan.pdf
Three Future Transportation Scenarios Reviewed
During Statewide Framework

Scenario A - Personal Vehicle Mobility
This scenario assumes a continuation of the existing
approach of focusing on transportation solutions (primarily
roadways) that assume people will continue to choose
to drive their cars as their primary mode of transportation.
However, the scenario assumes that automobile
technology will continue to advance and that more highfuel-
efficiency vehicles such as hybrids, etc. will be more
prominent than today. This scenario also includes
significantly more transit than is currently available today.
Scenario B - Transit Mobility
This scenario shifts the focus from personal vehicles to
a heavier emphasis on public transit, walking, and
bicycling for regular daily trips in response to increased
cost of owning and operating personal vehicles (fuel,
insurance, and vehicle maintenance costs) and
socioeconomic trends such as an aging population,
environmental considerations, and a desire for a wider
range of transportation choices.
Scenario C – Focused Growth
This scenario envisions a change in community
development patterns toward more compact instead of
spread-out development. It shifts the focus from personal
vehicles only to transportation improvements emphasize
local travel using transit, bicycling, and walking. This
scenario responds to a growing trend toward a nonauto-
dependent lifestyle that encourages a mix of land
uses close to one another.
There is a form that you can fill out on the website to give your opinion on the three scenarios. I've also made a poll to see how the C-D Phoenix population feels about this.

Last edited by shiphead; 04-15-2010 at 01:34 AM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2010, 09:44 AM
 
2,942 posts, read 5,912,950 times
Reputation: 1207
I wonder how much ADOT is spending on this?

First, this applies to Phoenix metro, Tucson... maybe Prescott and Casa Grande. Most of the state consists of small-to-mid-sized towns spread out. So most of the state (land-mass-wise) receives no benefit from this survey and whatever "plans" may come of it.
Second, I'm not understanding, if option "C" is chosen, how ADOT can do a thing about it. Is ADOT's plan to get into the city planning business?

Personally, I don't fully like any of the three choices (although there are portions of A and C that I do like). All of them require lots of taxes and government involvement.

When I have more time (maybe later today), I'll post my opinion of what the best option would be.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Historic Central Phoenix
652 posts, read 2,511,277 times
Reputation: 377
I like both B and C, I saw a good youtube video related to this topic this morning:

YouTube - Built To Last (http://tinyurl.com/y5854tr - broken link)
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:01 AM
 
2,942 posts, read 5,912,950 times
Reputation: 1207
OK, I have a little time, I'll see how far I get....

First, I hope ADOT is keeping track of where the survey answers are coming from. Phoenix will generate the most votes... you'd hate for the "will" of Phoenix to be forced on Tucson, Casa Grande, Prescott, etc.
For this discussion we'll assume that they are indeed trying to understand what people want in their individual areas (although, in reality, I doubt they are). So I'm discussing Phoenix, and not other cities in Arizona.

What's the biggest transportation issue in Phoenix right now? Morning and evening traffic to and from downtown (respectively). Any other time of the day, the roads and freeways move pretty good and it's not often one runs into traffic outside of the morning and evening M-F rush. So to address this issue, one must address the reason those cars are on the roads at those times and going to those places.
To put this simply: there are too many jobs and not enough residents who work at those jobs in downtown. It's not balanced. Folks go to downtown in the morning and leave downtown in the evening.
I think most people want to work near their homes... but most people don't think their place of work is in a desirable area. While there are some that love the urban living of downtown Phoenix, most people do not. Many think it is unsafe (whether it is or isn't... that's not a part of this discussion). Housing options may be limited. Whatever the reasons.
The first part of the solution is to reduce the amount of employment in (and around) downtown Phoenix and increase the amount of residences. We don't want to lose those businesses altogether--we want them to stay in the Phoenix area (we'll get to that a little later), but just need some of them to go away from downtown. As far as getting folks to move downtown, you need: new homes, old homes, apartments, condos, parks, and, most of all, the impression that the area is just as safe and kid/family-friendly as the suburbs. This would take time, plenty of private-sector investments, and tax credits.

I'm out of time for now, part 2 to come....
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:18 PM
 
2,942 posts, read 5,912,950 times
Reputation: 1207
To further clearify, the businesses you'd want to move out of downtown are not the ones who's workforce lives in downtown. You'd want to find the ones where, say, 60% of the employees live west of 59th Ave or where, say 55% of them live east of Priest or where, say 65% of them live north of Thunderbird, and move those businesses out of downtown and closer to where the majority of their employees live.

You do that (with the combination of more people living downtown), and traffic will not be as bad.

One huge problem Phoenix has had is that little or no planning went in as far as where those people will work. They built houses in the suburbs, and kind of thought, once we reach 50 thousand, or 60 thousand, or 80 thousand in population, then the businesses will come. The businesses should have come at the same time as the residents, because now those 50, 60 or 80 thosand people live in whatever suburb, but don't work there. But if the businesses had come at the same time the population was growing (or even just slightly prior), than the people who lived in the town would be much more likely to work in the town. In other words, the suburbs are not balanced (but in the opposite way that downtown is not balanced). Too many people, not enough places of work. So at the same time that we're balancing the worker-to-job ratios downtown, we're doing the same in the suburbs.

(A side note: some communities have thought about this. One of the New Urbanism principals is that workplaces be just a short distance from residential areas--preferably walking or biking distance--but Arizona's only New Urbanism community dropped the ball on this principal. Goodyear seems to be trying to do this, but they were a little late getting started.)

At this point the arguement comes up, "Well, when I purchased my home, I lived close to work, but now my job situation changed and I work across town. If they did what you propose, all sorts of people would be in the same situation." Of course, that's worst-case scenerio. Best-case scenerio is more people's work is closer to home. But let's say worst-case scenerio comes to pass and a whole bunch of people's workplaces moved further away from them in the process of balancing the worker-to-job ratios across the valley. What would happen? Traffic would not be as bad as it is today, because instead of people all trying to squeze downtown in the morning they'd be traveling from all directions to all directions. When you're stuck in traffic going to work in the morning, how's it flowing the other direction? The pavement one direction has too many cars, the pavement the other direction has too few. So if people were traveling from everywhere to everywhere, it would balance the use of pavement and traffic would not be nearly as congested.
But, like I said, that's worst-case scenerio.

At this point you would do away with HOV lanes and on-ramp metering lights, making the current freeway system more efficient.

All that is to say: the valley is unbalanced, and until that is fixed, there will always be traffic congestion, and no matter how much tax money ADOT plans to spend, the problem will never get fixed because it's nothing more than a band-aid.

Option A states: "This scenario assumes a continuation of the existing approach of focusing on transportation solutions (primarily roadways) that assume people will continue to choose to drive their cars as their primary mode of transportation." I like this option because it is the truth and not just some urbanism fairy tale. People like their cars. People like to drive. It's a fact of life. And no ultra-liberal wishful thinking will change that.
But, I disagree with this part of A: "the scenario assumes that automobile technology will continue to advance and that more highfuel-efficiency vehicles such as hybrids, etc. will be more prominent than today. This scenario also includes significantly more transit than is currently available today." And we'll all fly around on our rocket packs, right? Sure, cars can get more fuel effecient, but how much "better" is fuel economy now than it was 25 years ago? (Answer: not a lot). And people still prefer trucks, SUVs and minivans to compact cars. The only Hybrid to sell well was the Prius; however, more people purchased it because of the social statement that it made than anything else. Now that the trend is over (and with Toyota's recall issues) Prius sales are nearly as low as all the other Hybrid cars out there. So a plan that relys on large numbers of people purchasing Hybrid cars is a foolish plan. Also, I believe the "significant" expansion of public transit is unnecesary if the valley is balanced (as I explained above).

I don't care for Option B at all. It relys on a large number of people embracing the urban lifestyle, giving up their cars and either taking the bus or bicycling. Yeah, I really don't see that happening.

Option C is called "Focused Growth". While I disagree with the description, I do beleive growing suburban areas need to do whatever they can to attract businesses to their areas as they grow. The model of building houses and waiting for the population to reach a certain level to begin adding businesses is flawed. Businesses need to come as the population is growing, so that people who live in the community are more likely to work in the community, as well. This alone will help reduce traffic congestion.

But, as I said in my first post, I'm a little puzzled at what ADOTs role is in some of this and, considering the state budget crisis, I'm wondering if this is the best use of money right now.

Last edited by Ritchie_az; 04-15-2010 at 01:57 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,276 posts, read 28,795,264 times
Reputation: 21721
I prefer my car. Would love to ride a bike though, a Harley Davidson would be nice. As far as riding a bicycle, I am not sure I would want to do it when the temps are in the triple digits. Saying that I am only a part time visitor to the area and my vote shouldn't count.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,705 posts, read 13,610,508 times
Reputation: 10425
I don't live in Arizona but go up and down considering it as a retirement locale. I also voted because I have some insight into this subject.

I voted A on the poll for this reason. I believe in Transit most definitely. However I also believe a person has every right to own and use a vehicle, at least in moderation and not solely dependent on one. So for me its both or none. I would not of voted A if it only included more fwys be built and never any transit options.

With that said that is why I did not vote for B or C.

As far as insight into this subject I currently live in what C would be an exact example of. Compact living solely dependent on walking and transit. It is a living arrangement of Highrises and low rise bldgs called the Pearl District here in Portland. It is the neighborhood directly outside the downtown area, actually the whole area feels downtown to me. I have never felt so crammed in and to make it more unappealing. The population here is an odd mix of both extremely high income and the dirt poor including more and more homeless in public housing. Everyone all crammed in. Truthfully I can see it is well on its way to becoming a glorifed ghetto. It is streetcars and zipcars. Yuppies, hipsters, alternative lifestyles. High Income the broke and the homeless all living together in a very small neighborhood called the Pearl District. Some love it and some find it is not for them. I liked it at first but between the changes in the population for the worse, and the increasing amount of breakins. (I was broken into 2 weeks ago). I no longer care for this type of living arrangement at least Portlands style of it. Portland is very much in the business of making it as difficult and unappealing to want to own a vehicle. Serious lack of parking and parking rates enforced up until 9pm even on Sundays. You will be towed away the second the meter expires here. Predatory towing companies. Anyone familiar with this city would know about this. It is green this that and the other and you will ride public transit, walk or ride a bike here. Again I believe in transit but I don't want anyone telling me how I have to live as Portland does.

Plan an even mix of transit as well as vehicle ownership in Phoenix.

Im thinking Phoenix would not be as intolerant of its citizens. Forcing them to give up their vehicles and solely live in crammed in neighborhoods and strictly use transit.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 02:52 PM
 
723 posts, read 2,127,494 times
Reputation: 604
Plan B!!!!!!!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 08:19 PM
 
Location: USA
3,966 posts, read 9,837,310 times
Reputation: 2216
I think riding a motorcycle is the most fun I have had in a long time. Fixing up a car is also fun, driving a car is also great because you can go where ever you want at anytime. But all this comes with the "me" mentality. As populations grow and become more diverse in this world, there isn't enough room for "me" anymore.

I voted B. I like the idea they had the environment in mind. No, I am not a environmentalist, but I do like nature. Hiking, camping, in the middle of no where is refreshing and fun. Even if oil was removed from the American diet, the car is not a solution. Unless of course it flys and is automated. But until we can make flying cars like what you see in many sci fi movies, it doesn't work. I would like to think we would advance to flying cars, like what they show in star wars and the fifth element. We are stuck on a 100 year and older idea that isn't solving anything. Mass transit is a must.

Sure its fine, we can keep our existing highways and freeways. Make them toll. We need a complex system of rail. Or even mix road and rail. Get rid of the big rig and make a system of rails for transporting goods. There is a large amount of traffic removed from our highways already. I am referring to interstate travel of goods. Why do we have interstate big rigs? Its so chancy.

There are to many ides in my head. lol

a.)make rail for transport of good interstate and within the state only
b.)use A and mix in high speed rail for neighboring state capitols and long distance cities within AZ that have a certain amount of population. Spread light rail out from there and street cars for local transport.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 11:28 AM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 24,503,886 times
Reputation: 4542
Interesting planned and proposed light rail lines Map by the Transpolitic



More Light Rail Presents Itself as the Answer for a Growing Phoenix « The Transport Politic

I really hope that happen's it would be a great regional investment into the Future.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top