26 replies to this topic

[colin]

Mass transit options have state leaders abuzz

I'm getting goosebumps already.
Any thoughts?

[traal]

Another possibility on the table appears to be a toll road, despite Governor Napolitano's dislike of toll roads.

I wonder why they don't establish bus routes first to help gauge demand for rail?

[MJLO]

Is there enough Tucson to Phoenix traffic for that ?

[convulso]

definitely enough traffic between the cities, but, as the article points out, rail transit between car towns has a tendency to strand one once one steps off the train. in-town transit has to be there for someone without a car in a place like phoenix.

[Manolos]

Im sure there are a lot. People I knew at U of A went up to Phoenix area a lot, especially those from the phoenix area that go to school there.

[colin]

Yeah, I think a more more public bus or shuttle might be a good start. The Denver area has this already for the outlying areas.
Another issue is that, to my knowledge, there is not a rail line that goes directly from Phoenix to Tucson. I think putting it through the East Valley before going into Downtown would help ridership. I mean, how cool would it be to step on the train in Downtown Tucson and step off in Downtown Tempe?

[convulso]

colin, on Jan 17 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I mean, how cool would it be to step on the train in Downtown Tucson and step off in Downtown Tempe?

very cool. it would give the interaction between the two cities a whole different vibe for those who availed themselves of the service. tusconans might begin to feel a bit more of an ownership stake in phoenix (and vice-versa), since the rail line would make visits more destination-oriented and less open-ended. just a good way to supplement and strengthen the current interstate highway ties, which merely connect everywhere with everywhere, instead of connecting two specific places with mutual appeal.

not sure how much sense that made there, but i knew what it meant when i typed it....

[colin]

Makes sense: strengthen the bonds. They're such different places though, that I don't know if it would work. And I also don't know that anyone in Tucson wants any sense of stakeholder-ship in the Phoenix area. I see it as a lost cause.

This whole train thing is just one of those pipe (or rail) dreams. I think every state has their little "high speed rail study" at some point. It happened several years ago in Texas and there's still a big push to incorporate it, but, at least there, it was pretty infeasible. And, here, I can't see a 200 mph train barrelling through Eloy. I just thought it was especially interesting that they were actually looking at the RailRunner in New Mexico for ideas. That's going to be the real litmus test for inter-urban heavy rail in the Southwest.

[traal]

Looks like Governor Napolitano has set a timetable: commuter rail between Tucson and Phoenix by February 14, 2012 (Arizona's Centennial Day). (via swrail)

If it goes through (and stops at) Queen Creek, it would also help fix their commuting problems.

[colin]

Wow, that was fast! Way to go Janet!
UP (the other UP) pointed out something important: "Unlike other Western states, there is much less redundant track here." The Tucson to Casa Grande line is one of the busier in the state, as evidenced by the ever-present freight train at one of Tucson's many at-grade crossings, and traffic is only supposed to increase. There was talk about a year ago of a railroad bypass, but like all transportation bypasses of Tucson (including the current I-10 bypass study), the big question is where to put it that won't create too much of a negative environmental impact. I don't believe it will ever happen. They'll probably just end up adding tracks and building more underpasses for the crossings.
But it's good to see Steve Farley in the news. I campaigned on his ultimately unsuccessful city council bid in 2004 (Nina Trasoff beat him in the primaries), so I was happy to see him get elected to something this past cycle. He was also the main proponent in the unsuccessful light rail bond in 2002, and a major force in the 2005 Regional Transportation Authority bond, which has added the "modern streetcar" (when can we start calling it light rail?) to Tucson's eventual transportation plans.

So, is it happening? As stated, the inevitable widening of I-10 to 3 lanes all the way between the two metros will not solve the issue: we need an alternative. One thing that would certainly help this is if there was a direct connection to Sky Harbor, which would be possible when Phoenix's East Valley light rail segment is completed. Wasn't that supposed to be around 2010?

[traal]

colin, on Jan 20 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

One thing that would certainly help this is if there was a direct connection to Sky Harbor, which would be possible when Phoenix's East Valley light rail segment is completed. Wasn't that supposed to be around 2010?

I think airport officials are still concerned about the price. The most recent cost estimate is $1 billion. But the lack of a people mover appears to be the limiting factor in the amount of traffic Sky Harbor can handle, so it needs to be built soon.

[MJLO]

that just solidifies the short sightedness of leadership in years previous around here.  Sky Harbor should have had a people mover long ago.  It's behind the rest of the country.

[colin]

MJLO, on Jan 23 2007, 12:44 AM, said:

It's behind the rest of the country.

Isn't that the norm in the state though?

Yeah, the reliance on buses for inter-terminal transit is probably not too attractive to airlines. $1 billion sounds high when you think about what it is and all of the ROW already belongs to the airport. But 4.7 miles??
Found this online. Matt, you didn't tell me that the rental car center was on the other side of the 10!

[dtown]

^ Hope they build one of those. Its really handy. Theres one at DTW Airport in Detroit, but its only a mile long, and is indoors(goes from one end of the terminal to the other), but its pretty much the same thing. Underground sounds cool,  but man, tats expensive!

[colin]

Yeah, I'll have to reiterate my point about mass transit in the Southwest: underground does not work because people like being outdoors.
Why the flip are they building this thing in a tunnel anyway?? I realize that there's not a great amount of room on the boulevard, but surely it would be more cost-effective to build above ground.

[MJLO]

colin, on Jan 23 2007, 03:07 PM, said:

Matt, you didn't tell me that the rental car center was on the other side of the 10

lol Colin, you are omniscient when it comes to things in this state.  Forgive me for taking it for granted that you didn't know, the size, number of companies, and ecological impact the new rental facitlity would have on the state.  

I know what you're saying about  the underground thing.  But I think over all underground is the best bet.  The amount of above ground work it would take, not to mention the width of area it would need on the blvd would be to much.  Underground gets it from the rental facility, the the remote garages on the other side.  making stops at all terminals.  It's simply more efficient, It'll cost a hell of alot, but the airport pays for itself anyway, and it'll benefit the entire state in the long run.

[traal]

Commuter rail between Phoenix, Tucson gaining support

An organization called the "Commuter Rail Stakeholders Group" held a meeting this week to discuss commuter rail between Tucson and Phoenix. They feel that the light rail currently being built in Phoenix will test the public's acceptance of rail. The first goal of this group is to have an implementation strategy developed by January.

Here's an interesting quote:

Quote

And commuter rail could be more economical than building a new freeway because commuter rail generates revenue after it is built.

I think it might be more useful to know the net cost per rider of running and maintaining the commuter rail line (I assume it will be subsidized) compared with the cost of maintaining enough additional freeway lanes to move the same number of people.

Amtrak trains still run through Tucson, don't they? If so, this commuter rail would link Phoenix back to the rest of the nation by rail.

[colin]

Yes, Tucson still has Amtrak. You can get to hotspots like El Paso and Yuma. And in only twice the time and the same cost of driving!!
I actually took it back from Houston a Christmas or so ago, and it was long (like 24 hours), but I very much enjoyed it, although I had the seat to myself. The last Amtrak I took, from Chicago to Cleveland, was full, and it kinda sucked. But it still beats the crap out of flying.
That line also goes to LA eventually, and it's only like $40. I've thought about doing that a couple of times, especially since LA has a reasonable rail network of its own now.
Amtrak actually also stops in Maricopa, which is about 30 miles south of Phoenix. For whatever reason, there's not even a bus that goes there from Phoenix right now. Theoretically, you could just link a new line to the station in Maricopa and *POOF* inter-urban rail. But I don't think this would work because people wouldn't want to transfer, and it's at least $20 one-way to go to Maricopa from Tucson on Amtrak.
These "committees" and "friends" things always pop up with these rail ideas. When Texas was looking into a massive inter-urban high-speed rail network in the late 90's, one of these popped up that I'm pretty sure still exists today, even though most of the politicos there will now pretend that they've never heard of it.. Can't remember the name though.

[convulso]

colin, on Jun 29 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

But it still beats the crap out of flying.

does it? how so? i have an irrational aversion to sitting at 10,000 feet in a moving object larger than most buildings, and the only alternatives in these parts are cars / busses, and perhaps trains. i've never had occasion to take amtrak, but would be happy to if i felt that it provided a relatively pleasant (if sluggish) trip.

[traal]

I would really like to take a train between cities. But when it takes 12 hours on the train between San Francisco and L.A. and you can drive it in half the time or fly for the same price as the train (about $130 roundtrip), it just isn't worth it.

It doesn't make sense that the train averages 30 mph between those two cities. Caltrain's Baby Bullet can go as fast as 79 mph. Extend that service south all the way into Los Angeles, and I think a lot more people would use it, provided that it's cost-competitive with flying or provides more amenities. Or build that high speed rail line, and I would take it even if it's more expensive than flying.

But Amtrak just isn't worth it, unless your time is worth nothing.