The True Cost of Light Rail

I had to go to the Secretary of State's office today, so I left ASU for the Capitol at 3:08.  I arrived at 3:48--about the same amount of time it would have taken by bike.  I've often wondered why the westbound 202 is a parking lot by 2:00PM.  After all, it's not rush hour and traffic is going opposite of the traditional afternoon rush hour direction.

When the 202 backed up, I made the mistake of exiting so I could take Washington.  That's when I discovered the real problem.  Light rail doesn't travel along Washington; light rail replaces Washington.  Washington used to be a six lane, one-way street that moved an incredible amount of traffic.  Since it was bounded on the south by the airport and the river, there was very little cross traffic.  Due to construction, Washington is now down to one lane and it looks like it's going to be down to two lanes even after construction is done. 

The argument for light rail was that even if it didn't have much ridership, every little bit would help.  Did the advocates ever disclose that the trains would permanently replace one of the most efficient east/west arteries?

How much more pollution do the cars packed onto the 202 emit when they idle from ASU to the Capitol, or from the Capitol to Mesa?

Light rail was supposed to reduce the commute and pollution.  It appears that it will make both worse. 

Comments

[Curious George]

That's short-term thinking, Greg. The problem is that the vehicle traffic in the corridor where the light rail runs isn't likely to get lighter. People are still moving here in droves and that is expected to continue for years, if not decades. Much of the Valley's transportation problem stems from the fact that people didn't want to believe the newcomers would keep coming. Well, they did, and will. Traffic is going to get so frickin' bad in the next 20 years in Phoenix, light rail is going to look like a godsend. The only way to avoid total gridlock in Phoenix in 20 years is for the economy to take a dump.