Here and Now - Transportation Issues

Not enough traffic lights are set up to help move traffic more effectively to lower emissions from vehicles sitting with engines running. I experience the most frustrating locations at the on and off ramps for freeways. I will sit at a red light, the only car there for several minutes. As soon as another car comes from the other direction my light turns green and, in turn, makes the other car sit with the engine running. Efficient traffic signal management takes more than "synchronization". Why are not ALL traffic lights set up to electronically monitor on-coming traffic? At a minimum they should have electric eyes in the off hours. This concept has been practiced in smaller towns for more than 30 years.

I think the HOV lanes should be restricted to buses and car pool vehicles during the morning and afternoon rush hours. How can people be encouraged to take a bus when the HOV lanes are just as congested as the regular lanes during rush hours?

One of the things that slows traffic on "surface streets" are vehicles in the right lane trying to turn right stopped waiting for pedestrians to cross. By the time most people cross the street the light is about to turn red leaving those in the right lane, turning or otherwise stuck for another cycle. In Australia there is an added cycle where all vehicle traffic stops and all of the pedestrian crossing signs signal "walk". Walkers can cross directly across the street or through the middle of the intersection to the opposite corner. When it is time for traffic to go all pedestrians must wait and vehicles flow smoothly and steadily. I also believe that a few reminders about traffic flow for the general public would help things greatly. First, when you are in the left turn lane get out into the intersection so that at least you and the vehicle behind you can turn left as oncoming traffic diminishes in that cycle. I've consulted the police and this is legal. Second, do NOT slow down to merge. This has to be one of the most destructive aspects of highway flow. Third, if you are being passed on both sides you are in the wrong lane. Move to the right and allow people going faster to use the middle and left lanes.
I also believe there should be a significant tax on the purchase of SUVs as well as a significant ongoing annual registration levy. If the general size of vehicles decreased people wouldn't feel the need to "protect themselves" from other large vehicles sharing the road. This would also decrease our use of gas and curb exhaust emissions.

Surface streets: Buses usually stop in the right-hand lane to pick-up and drop-off passengers. Cities should create bus stops that allow buses to pull out of the right-hand lane.

Interstate Hwys: In California, I think that trucks must drive in the right-most lanes and also have slower posted speed limits than autos. The way we mix them up in Arizona seems absolutely dangerous.

New Towns: Dont developers of new towns like Anthem and Verrado have to improve our transportation corridors for the impacts they create???

I think the HOV lanes are already crowded enough, allowing people to pay to use them will not help matters in my opinion.

If we want to do something realistic we should remove vehicle license fees and increase gas taxes. Snowbirds don't pay for roads they use by registering their cars in cheaper states, and more expensive gas would make people look for alternative options.

Many eastern states restrict large trucks to the right most two lanes on major freeways where there are a minimum of three lanes. They also provide for tickets/penalties for any driver just cruising in the far left lane. If drivers would employ the common courtesy of staying to the right, except to pass, a lot of our problems would be solved. If drivers won't do this out of courtesy, then legislation and ticketing is the next logical step.

I am an environmental air quality tester and I spend much of my time on the road, so this topic is especially important to me.

I would like to point the conversation toward the cause of congestion rather than congestion itself. We've seen such a boom of residential growth in the outlying areas (Buckeye, Queen Creek, Anthem, Maricopa). The problem is, the jobs that people have moved to the valley for are nowhere near the places people have actually moved to!

Commute distance is a huge factor in the congestion problem, and in my opinion this is the root cause of congestion itself. I'd like to see the money that would be going to expanding lanes on the freeways instead put into incentive programs for encouraging job growth in these outlying areas. If you bring high-paying job providers closer to where the residential growth is, you will find far fewer cars driving all the way in to central phoenix.

Areas such as Scottsdale are great examples of mixing residential and high-paying job providers within short, even walkable, distances. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and in the case of freeway congestion, a job provider near the house is worth a dozen cars on the freeway!

I am from Maricopa and I use the Ahwatukee park-n-ride on Pecos and 40th street. This facility and the shuttle busses that service them are a great option for many of us who have a long commute and are hurt by the 'time tax' of morning / afternoon congestion.

I would like to bring up that this particular park-n-ride has been at capacity for years. There's such high demand, especially now that so many more homes have been built in the south valley. It would benefit everyone if the park-n-ride network was expanded to meet demand. It takes so many people off the freeway it can only be a good thing for our congestion problem.

Most of the greater Phoenix streets are laid out on a 1 mile grid. Imagine entering one of these major roads and travelling at a constant 40 MPH without ever stopping for a traffic light? Utopian? No. If all the streets are one way and the direction of traffic alternates every other street then all the lights, north-south and east-west, can be coordinated such that everyone will enjoy uninterrupted travel, no matter which street or direction is travelled. One way streets also do not require left turn lights because there is never opposing traffic at the intersections. The freeways will be less congested because the traffic will be distributed on the surface streets instead of concentrated into a few lanes. The distribution will balance itself. Wouldn't you rather drive a constant 40 MPH instead of suffering in a traffic jam every day?(Note to moderator: I can prove grid timing, just ask.)

Too many permanent "No turn on Red" signs (no right turn). Traffic sitting idle with engines running is hazardous any time of day so why no right turns on red from 6PM to 6AM? Making vehicles sit through red lights at midnight serves no purpose other than to add to the valley's pollution. If this is a necessary requirement during high traffic volume why not make this function electronic?

By my choice, I've been a ValletMetro bus rider for more than 12 years. For five years I used the Red Line to commute to work daily from 19th Ave and Glendale to Buckeye and 18th St. The Red Line will be partially replaced by the Light Rail. All of this to say that I have first-hand experience with public transit in Phoenix.

I have also done the daily commute from Chandler Blvd and Kyrene to downtown Phoenix both by car and express bus. In 1984 total travel time was 22 minutes. Times have changed.

Over the past 20 years, my transit observations have been confirmed. It will never be possible to build freeway infrastructure in the Valley that will have sufficient capacity.

Real estate developers will always be able to build houses along newly built freeways faster than the new freeways can be expanded to handle the increased demand. It is an unbreakable cycle.

Likewise, broad use of mass transit in the valley, including light rail, will never be successful simply because it will always be more convenient to drive. The one exception may be game day. It is likely that light rail will be an attractive option for baseball and basketball fans.

If the valley wants to get serious about the transit problem, the existing geographic boundaries need to be locked, developers need to be forced to build up, rather than out, and population densities need to increase. The goal is to make it impractical to use a car to get to work. Imagine Chicago, San Francisco, or New York.

Here is a short, unpublished op/ed that I wrote during the light rail debate: http://members.cox.net/us-22/PhoenixTransit.doc

What if there were state tax incentives for using mass transit and car pooling that were incorporated in paychecks and in employer state taxes? This would be in the form of lower state taxes for those who use alternate transportation, or as a 'pollution tax' for those who do not.

Here are a couple suggestions:

In downtown phoenix, employers gain a tax reduction if a certain percentage of their employees use alternate transportation to get to work. Why not expand this program to other parts of the valley?

Implement a 'pollution income tax' that can be waived if the employee uses alternate transportation, telecommutes, or lives less than 10 miles from the workplace.

In my opinion, taxing fuel prices does not act as a good deterrent, as the message is typically misunderstood by the buyer. Having the tax clearly labeled on one's paycheck would drive the message home more clearly and would be more apt to provoke change.

My wife and I carpool from Avondale to downtown Phoenix everyday saving $200/month in gas and a lot of grief. Both our employers allow us to work earlier shifts. We leave at 6:00am entering I-10 at 115th Avenue east. The HOV lane is benificial at best to 79th Avenue then moves close to the stop and go speed of the other lanes into the city. East from the city at 4:00pm opens up at 43rd avenue shows better benefits. We don't need additional cars.
I suppose if we built a true Phoenix bypass extending the 303 south to halfway to Casa Grande that home developers would find out.

I applaud the DOT Motocycle officers brave enough to park in the breakdown lane and catch HOV violaters
Cliff from Avondale

I would like to hear somebody talk about induced traffic. Building a larger road encourages increased traffic instead of relieving congestion. According to this idea, we can never build a road wide enough.

For example, I live in Queen Creek. If there was a super highway from my house to the mall I would go all the time. As it is, there are only narrow roads, so I don't go unless I absolutely have to.

Let's begin to be truthful about transportation in and out of the valley. The sheer magnitude of vehicles using the transportation system is already beyond what we can handle let alone adding an additional 25,000+ vehicles into this mess annually. Cities and developers have created a situation that is only going to get worse, no matter what types of public transportation is introduced. Cities need to stop sprawling.

Have a lot of plates been issued for the pilot program? How many of the plates remain unissused?

What has ADOT done to solve the problems identified by the Audtor General in 2006 including excessive use of outside consultants, lack of internal engineering expertise, and lack of sufficient audit oversight, to ensure that the millions in taxpayer funds being spent on freeway design and construction are being spent wisely?

I have a cousin who works for General Motors who mentioned that Hummer is coming out with a hybrid in the next two years increasing it's MPG to a whopping 15 - 17 mpg. So a Hummer getting 15mpg get's privileged passage while my 40 mpg civic is deemed less enviromentally friendly? Would this "Hybrid" qualify for the HOV exception? It seems to me any alowence for "hybrids" or "pay to drive" just makes it eaiser for the more affluent to get through jams while the less wealthy will still be stuck in traffic.

The HOV lanes serves its purpose as it is. It is rarely congested which motivates us to use it and which I think was the plan. Adding toll roads only benefits the toll-road builders, may the state/county and the well-to-do drivers who can afford it. We already pay for our roads with taxes. I also believe that the hybrid, high-mpg vehicles should be qualified to use HOV.

The problems with getting me to use mass transit is that I live in an outer area where they barely put in a bus stop. However, the problem is that to get up 67th Ave from Lower Buckeye to Van Buren or McDowell to come east into downtown Phx would take me an 3 buses and 1.5 hrs. Its not worth it.

I hear all this talk about the East valley, and wonder why so little effective planning is going on re: I17 going to Sedona. You hear a lot of talk about the problem being Anthem residents, but in truth many people are heading north for many reasons. I know some plans are happening, but they will surely be antiquated before they are even completed. I believe the East valley has a serious problem, but it is over represented in the state legislature, whereas representation up here is relatively ineffective re: this problem. However, it is quickly becoming a problem for all people of Arizona wishing to head north of Phoenix. Why are changes not happening faster?
Thanx, Kat

I drive 25 plus miles one way to work. I live in Scottsdale (Raintree and 101) and work in Phoenix. I drive because my place of work is not in a centralized location. I do stop off to do errans before going home. Yes, there is bus service but, If I work late I do not want to wait for the bus in the location of 16th and Grant. I do not think the area is safe to wait for the bus alone. I do not like to drive in traffic. The freeways are crowded, the surface streets are under construction. As it stands now, Light Rail will not do me any good. Scottsdale has no current plans to hook up to it!

I live in North Phoenix (Desert Ridge) and work downtown. My husband and I have been carpooling 5 days a week for over two years now. How long before light rail is in place to and from the north valley to downtown? Also, will light rail ever run to/from Scottsdale?

Are any cities attempting to change zoning laws to allow New Urbanism? It seems one of the best ways to reduce traffic is to allow new pedestrian and transit oriented developments that are not bedroom communities.

Light Rail has something for everyone.
Environmentally-minded folks will like it because its been shown that where ever rail easements exist, "green zones" spontaneously appear. Financially-oriented folks will like it because its been shown that every place a rail station exists experiences a massive boon to the proximate economy.
I spent 1995-2001 in South Korea, and returned there for the Rail Expo 2003 in Busan. It was a time of unbelievable growth in Korea, and much of it was fueled by, and in turn helped to fuel, the light rail/subway systems.
In Busan I could walk out my door and grab a neighborhood shuttle for about 30 cents. It would take me to the main bus or the subway which I could then ride for about 60 cents. Now the prices are more like 50 cents and a dollar, but the fact remains that I did not have to waste money on a car, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. And the few times I did drive, I got there slower than if I had used the subway because traffic was so bad.

A person mentioned something earlier about zoning. Rail will not be able to spur spontaneous growth until the zoning ordinances unleash the creative economy.

While I am neither a supporter nor a non-supporter of light rail, I cannot let a coment made on your show and repeated in several KJZZ newscasts go uncorrected. As a recent Texas resident, the assertion that the light rail projects in Houston and Dallas are a success is completely incorrect. Ridership in both cities in substantially under the forecasted amounts and has actually declined in the last two years in Dallas. In Houston, the Metro's record of collisions with autos is terrible (and Phoenix has the same type of setup.). People are fighting over expansion in Houston, they are fighting to keep light rail out of their neighborhoods. It would have been a more balanced discussion to have had someone with an unbiased opinion on the show.