Comments on: Will They Ever Learn?

By: the highwayman

the highwayman — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:26:11 +0000

So use hi-rail buses.

By: Sandy Teal

Sandy Teal — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:26:01 +0000

The time to travel from somewhere in Phoenix to somewhere in Tucson is probably 90 to 150 minutes. Buses can travel into multiple locations, say from ASU to UofA directly, and beat any train by an hour.

Buses just have more options than a train as to where to start and where to end. If trains aren’t cheaper, and they never are even with huge subsidies, then what is the point?

By: metrosucks

metrosucks — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:20:33 +0000

Yeah you got my analogy Bennett. Probably not the best one, but it’s the one I thought of. I wasn’t referring to air quality at all, just to density.

Frank, Phoenix does have the usual slowdowns in downtown and the Superstition Freeway, but like Bennett said, 19 out of 20 isn’t bad at all.

By: bennett

bennett — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:51:03 +0000

Sure. I’m still waiting on my check for all of my brilliant comments. Once it comes in, you’re hired!

By: OFP2003

OFP2003 — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:36:26 +0000

Well, for starters you could offer me a job as a proof-reader!

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:16:05 +0000

"19th aint bad if you ask me." True. It beats Seattle, which was fourth in congestion during Q1 of 2012. But to say that it doesn't have a congestion problem is not accurate. As far as actually being able to breathe in Phoenix, well, at least we don't get these in the PNW.

By: bennett

bennett — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:15:04 +0000

“…you can actually breathe over there, versus the suffocating, built-up appearance of much of Seattle…”

Ha! I get what you’re saying but this is a bad analogy. There is no harder air to choke down than air in Phoenix in August. Despite the Tacoma aroma, I can’t think of more wonderful air than what cities in the Pacific NW have. Maybe it a bit of “the grass is greener” being down here in TX, but the air in Seattle is just fine to me.

By: bennett

bennett — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:08:24 +0000

I consider myself a “honest transportation planning consultants,” but never really concern my self with taxes. By the time I’m hired the tax thing is already figured out. Consultants are generally hared after the “we’re building rail,” decision has already been made and our fees are fixed. If the project runs over budget in the engineering, construction (capital), or even operation phase we don’t get any more money.

Having said this, I do usually advise against expensive rail projects, and as a result do not work on very many. However, I do not believe that “lowering taxes” is always in the best “public interest.”

Public transit does not pay for itself, and I’m okay with that as long as the goal is to serve the public interest. To me, fist and foremost, this meas service designed for people that can’t otherwise drive (teens under 16, the elderly who do not driver anymore, people with ambulatory disabilities, households without cars). If you can pick up “choice” riders along the way, bonus!

I drive to work almost every day. I live in a single family house. I’m not trying to take anybody’s car away or make anybody live in a highrise. I’m just trying to move as many people as efficiently as possible by focusing on the people that do not have the same choices and opportunities that I have.

By: bennett

bennett — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:48:53 +0000

19th aint bad if you ask me. Anybody who has had to drive in the top 5 would scoff at rush hour complaints in Phoenix.

Phoenix has a lot of forgiveness in it’s street system and does not have many of the geographic constraints you see in other highly congested cities. Flying into Phoenix you notice a street grid that seems to go into oblivion without any meandering. This is nice because if there is an obstruction on a given road/highway, there is an easily accessible alternative route to avoid the obstruction. This is not the case in S. CA, Atlanta, San Fran, Austin, to name a few.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:22:36 +0000

Good question. I could find no reliable source, but I did find this phrase, spammed on a dozen blogs back in February: "California wants to take out $115 billion in new debt".