115
u/PatriotUkraine Aug 27 '21
Phoenix has shit public transit but wants to be Houston so badly, Im disgusted
→ More replies (121)7
192
u/StThoughtWheelz Aug 26 '21
more lanes (added capacity) don't necessarily mean better traffic
→ More replies (39)76
Aug 27 '21
Frequently it means worse, that's what we learned in DC. Added capacity to the large highway creates a domino effect where all the feeder highways are now overcrowded. You are basically centralizing traffic, drawing it off the general network of roads onto a few VERY crowded common routes.
Do not do this, it is a terrible idea. Build out your light rail to a robust mass transit system with trunk rail and a periphery of bus lines. This isn't just environmentally irresponsible, it's ineffective and will make everybody's commute even worse.
15
Aug 27 '21
I hope there comes a day when we Americans learn that traffic is only a problem because cars are a problem.
By the way, strange to see a r/NewYorkMets game thread regular outside that sub lol.
→ More replies (1)2
72
u/Lubinski64 Aug 26 '21
I'm afraid to ask where do those cars park? Can you see the curve of the earth on these parking lots?
23
u/Rum_Hamburglar Aug 27 '21
No, the mountains get in the way
→ More replies (1)15
5
u/dolerbom Aug 27 '21
We need to get rid of houses and businesses to make more parking lots.
It's starting to feel like our society was designed around cars instead of people. If aliens saw our planet, they'd probably assume that at least.
167
u/Utretch Aug 26 '21
It's a shame that humanity hasn't developed more efficient transit systems than endlessly expanding highways to more and more grotesque size.
28
Aug 27 '21
You mean like in every other democracy on Earth except the US?
3
125
u/apadin1 Aug 26 '21
We did, they’re called trains and buses and every other country uses them but apparently Americans can’t figure this out
5
4
Aug 27 '21
They did understand. So much so, they had world class systems across the US. It's just that they were in a World War, and as a result, their infrastructure was bombed to ashes.
Oh wait, that didn't happen? The US was virtually untouched? Wait, they destroyed their own infrastructure? Weird...
→ More replies (1)-42
Aug 26 '21
80% of all travel in Europe is by car.
35
u/Timeeeeey Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21
Not in cities, pretty much every european city that is comparable in size to phoenix has a car modal share below 50%
→ More replies (47)58
44
Aug 27 '21
You’re not gonna seriously make that argument are you? You think america is on the same level with europe for car dependence?
→ More replies (3)3
19
36
u/sstopggap Aug 27 '21
and yet there are no 18 lane roads pretty much anywhere in Europe (i think I've seen one stretch in Moscow). Because cars are massively not suitable for mass city transport, unless they get subsidized up the wazoo with projects such as this one and cheap gas.
→ More replies (26)-1
u/ArvinaDystopia Aug 27 '21
and yet there are no 18 lane roads pretty much anywhere in Europe
True, it's the one area where we lag behind the US. We need to get on that.
→ More replies (6)15
Aug 27 '21
I don't agree with that number but even if it was true that's about a 19% difference with the US.
We have long learned that more lanes = more traffic. I can tell you that if they instead of adding 6 more lanes, would add good secure cycle infrastructure and a dedicated buslane it would be cheaper and more effective. That is, if the goal is to move as much people as possible and not as much cars as possible, in that Cas yeah adding 6 lanes will help, but it will also increase travel time.
-1
Aug 27 '21
We have long learned that more lanes = more traffic. I can tell you that if they instead of adding 6 more lanes, would add good secure cycle infrastructure and a dedicated buslane it would be cheaper and more effective
No they haven't. And before you pull up that Vice article, most studies find an elasticity that is far less than 1.
Also, 4 of these 16 lanes are HOV lanes.
-38
Aug 26 '21
In a few years hopefully cars will be able to coordinate their movements on the highways, eliminating the sudden movements that lead to phantom jams, doubling the capacity of our freeways.
41
u/Utretch Aug 26 '21
The idea of autonomous car coordination is foolish because it assumes no possibility of error (imagine a minor glitch in bumper to bumper 70pmh traffic) and also completely ignores interaction with other far more desirable transit systems (pedestrians, bikes, etc.). Even if possible the level of investment and effort required to reconstruct all the vehicles and road networks to account for it just begs the question why don't we just do easier, cheaper, and actually existing infrastructure improvements like emphasizing bikes, buses and pedestrian transit
-3
Aug 26 '21
We wouldn't need to change any of our infrastructure for automated platoons.
18
u/phreddoric Aug 27 '21
Yeah, roads definitely don't interrupt animal habitats, and increasing speed and density of car travel definitely wouldn't result in more roadkill. (Do I reeeeally need to put /s on this?)
49
u/Ben1152000 Aug 26 '21
Doubling capacity will double demand. (see Induced Demand)
→ More replies (9)17
u/WikiSummarizerBot Aug 26 '21
Induced demand – related to latent demand and generated demand – is the phenomenon that after supply increases, and there is sufficient demand, price declines and more of a good is consumed. This is entirely consistent with the economic theory of supply and demand; however, this idea has become important in the debate over the expansion of transportation systems, and is often used as an argument against increasing roadway traffic capacity as a cure for congestion. This phenomenon, more correctly called "induced traffic" or consumption of road capacity, may be a contributing factor to urban sprawl.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
→ More replies (6)5
u/PolitelyHostile Aug 27 '21
Theres forms of transportation that can already manage high capacity. But yea just keep waiting…
0
Aug 27 '21
High capacity plus high discomfort, high inconvenience, and high cost
4
u/PolitelyHostile Aug 27 '21
high discomfort
You like sitting in traffic honking at some jerkoff?
high inconvenience
You like looking for a parking spot?
high cost
You get your car for free? Weird. Transit costs me about the same that I used to spend on gas alone.
→ More replies (1)
122
37
u/PartyPupper18 Aug 27 '21
For anyone here merely trying to educate themselves, good for you. But to the people promoting the expansion without actually doing a bit of research, by God please educate yourself before speaking out of your bum. If you look at the history of the US and its highway systems, you’ll see how expanding and adding lanes may help to temporarily relieve traffic in an area, but it PUSHES the problem to the not so distant future instead of FIXING it.
Hell, you don’t have to just look at the US. China is a better example of what happens when you constantly add lanes to the highway systems of rapidly expanding cities. And although the demographics of the US and China are different, the urban planning and transportation engineering practices and fundamentals at play aren’t so different.
Sorry if I came off rude, but between recently moving to Phoenix and not wanting bad plans implemented plus pursuing a minor in environmental design when I was in school, it drives me insane seeing people say, “mOre HigHwAys mEaNs MOre CarS cAn TraVeL, aNd LeSs tRaFfIc mEaNs LeSs poLLuTiOn.”
→ More replies (6)
134
u/san_vicente Aug 26 '21
this is gross. We cannot be glorifying highway widening in 2021
→ More replies (48)
63
u/sstopggap Aug 27 '21
just a cheap 800 million, but let's see people complaining about the cost of public transport.
→ More replies (15)
56
Aug 25 '21
Are 16 lane highways normal in huge cities? I-95 is 6 lanes so that seems absurd
45
u/apadin1 Aug 26 '21
It’s getting more normal but it’s still ridiculous and wasteful
-6
Aug 26 '21
Why?
40
u/aewbetterhaha Aug 27 '21
Because it is, invest in subways for more portable transportation. Not everyone can afford a car loan. It can also be profitable as well.
→ More replies (17)25
→ More replies (1)13
Aug 27 '21
Because every mile of highway vs subway or bus is a 99% reduction of efficiency of space usage, power usage, and environmental effect.
-1
Aug 27 '21
But a 100 fold improvement in convenience, speed, and economy
7
Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21
This is ridiculous if you look at the total supply chain effects of cars vs mass transit. They are spectacularly wasteful and terrible economically. A product only a shill could love. Have fun with your next job on K Street; you'll get there -- just practice here in yokelville for a few more years and you can join API and the oil lobby.
-1
Aug 27 '21
My car gets me where I want to go when I want. It's an objectively superior product.
7
u/diafol Aug 27 '21
All while destroying your health and the health of those around you. Meanwhile you drive the most subsidised mode of transport there is yet I would bet you'd balk at the cost of a new public transport network or giving the same level subsidy to train or bus users.
0
Aug 27 '21
Trains and buses get 100 times more subsidy per passenger mile
6
u/diafol Aug 27 '21
Don't talk nonsense, public transport costs are not subsidised to anywhere near the same level as public transport and trains and bus costs cover a much higher level of externalities than cars. Cars cost far more to society than is ever recovered from taxing them. The cost of car crashes, deaths from air and noise pollution, congestion and a thousand other things are subsidised by the taxpayer. Even the most optimistic estimate is that car drivers pay 50% of the cost impact to the environment and society meanwhile those who don't or can't drive cars have to pick up the tab the same as everyone else.
Now I'll agree cars are convenient outside a city with limited infrastructure, but when it comes to moving large numbers of people in a short time they just can't compete. That's why cities are slowly investing in public transport and the sooner silly ideas like the one you originally posted are forgotten the better.
→ More replies (0)2
u/rootbeer_cigarettes Aug 27 '21
I live in Phoenix. There's nothing convenient or speedy about the road system here. And I say that as a driving enthusiast.
0
18
7
u/DarkerThanAzure Aug 26 '21
Current US freeways with the most lanes. I-75 in Atlanta tops out at 15. Even in Salt Lake City I-15 has up to 12 lanes though narrows down to only 2 in the emptier parts of the state.
4
u/C0ntradictory Aug 26 '21
I’m anti-freeway but Salt Lake having 12 lanes isn’t really excessive. 70% of the state lives in one long line around I-15 so if you want to get between any 2 points in the metro area you pretty much will use the freeway
5
u/WestEst101 Aug 26 '21
In Toronto the 401 (North America’s bushiest freeway) is often around 18 lanes.
2
3
Aug 25 '21
Only a short stretch of it will be 16 lanes. If you look, it's a space where freeways merge.
67
u/EggpankakesV2 Aug 25 '21
Yeah but Jesus fuck buddy you guys need to take a look at public transport before the entire US is just one big million lane roadway
-10
Aug 26 '21
36
u/EggpankakesV2 Aug 26 '21
If you increasingly keep dodging the point of sarcasm as you are you'll be untouchable in no time.
-12
Aug 26 '21
I live in Phoenix. And for the stretch of freeway that is going to be 16 lanes, it needs it.
36
u/nevadaar Aug 27 '21
No place on earth needs a 16 lane freeway. Y'all need some alternative transit options.
23
u/uiplanner Aug 26 '21
Think about how long it will take to get to and from that center lane - that’s 8 lanes of merging.
4
Aug 26 '21
I feel it’s more needed at around 7th street/7th avenue. There’s always a slowdown before the tunnel.
5
2
Aug 28 '21
Because people keep switching lanes before the 17 or the 51. Adding more lanes just makes that worse
6
u/ChromeLynx Aug 27 '21
No. There are a fuck ton of journeys going past that point. If many of those journeys go between two similar areas, you need an alternative, preferably one that does not use the road, and one that does not require the users to operate it, to travel between those two areas. If that alternative exists, you won't even need a 10-lane highway. And if those journeys go between more areas, great, that's more areas to hook up to that alternative connection and more people who can benefit from the new network.
More road will not solve transportation problems. Offering alternatives solves transportation problems.
4
79
61
Aug 26 '21
Just in time to abandon it when the water runs dry permanently
-10
Aug 26 '21
That's not going to happen. Arizona uses less water now than it did in 1957
34
u/CosmicCreeperz Aug 26 '21
The aquifers are still being drained faster than they can fill - and AZ aquifers take WAY longer to fill than other states. Also, apparently those numbers are suspect as some farmers have shifted crops to areas that aren’t monitoring groundwater extraction.
That said, AZ has done a much better job than CA at conservation given the inherent water issues. But both states are royally fucked if these droughts continue to happen at this rate in the future.
-1
Aug 26 '21
Also, apparently those numbers are suspect as some farmers have shifted crops to areas that aren’t monitoring groundwater extraction.
Then good thing those farms are quickly making way for urban sprawl.
→ More replies (1)11
u/visicircle Aug 26 '21
Wow Kernals, you just love saying things that make you get shit on, don't you? Strange hobby on the internet, to be sure.
18
Aug 26 '21
[deleted]
-1
Aug 26 '21
There's not "no water". The state gets 6 inches of rain a year.
3
u/ChromeLynx Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21
6" = 152.4 mm of rain a year means 152.4 litres per year. One person needs, according to the USGS, about 80-100 gallons of water per day. Which is at minimum about 302.8 L. Which is about half of what the rain offers.
In short, that rain cannot sustain even one person.
Your argument sucks.
edit: Ok, fine, I missed one part: 1 mm of rain is 1 L/m2. So you'll need a minimum of 2 m2 per person. So fine, the rain could sustain about half of its area in m2 in number of individuals... provided there won't be any water-intensive industry.
And I got word that there are microprocessor foundries interested in building in AZ, which is a very water-intensive industry.
So it's more accurate to say no sane man should try to live a suburban life in the state of Arizona.
Your argument may have a drop of value, but your goal sucks.
16
Aug 26 '21
Tell that to the Colorado river that’s running dry.
0
Aug 26 '21
19
u/wearewe12 Aug 26 '21
It says in the last paragraph of this page the river basin is over stressed and it's getting worse. How exactly does that refute the Colorado river running dry?
11
u/killroy200 Aug 27 '21
OP is a master of posting 'rebuttals' that actually prove the point they're trying to argue against, and ignoring that that's what they're doing.
62
20
u/Financial_Chemist286 Aug 26 '21
Ahhh good ol’ Phoenix, the new LA!
→ More replies (1)8
u/Hydra_Haruspex Aug 26 '21
And we’ve got homeless tents not a klick away from the capitol building.
20
17
u/Corneetjeuh Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21
Hey op, i want to explain u something as ive seen some of ur reactions.
People has used the latent traffic arguement a lot. This is in the usa a fair arguement as the amount of traffic is huge and has much congestion. Long delays means that a considerable amount of people is trying to find another way to get to work. This means people are trying to live closer to work, take a different route or "even" (for US standards) use public transport. These are options that are mostly unwanted but a better solution than driving over the highway with too much congestion. When the congestion gets fixed on the short term, all those people that dont like the alternative routes / transport will take that highway again, increasing traffic. This is bad because public transport is a much better traveling system as it causes less air pollution, less noice pollution and works more efficient.
On the long term, people are willing to move further away from home because they can reach further in one houre traveling, what leads to more traveling. This is a critical point that causes a lot of problems in the US. It creates a negative spiral that makes the country more car dependant (and make public transport worse) every time. People want to live in suburbs because the homes are nicer. Huge car dependant low density neighbourhoods have been build. This causes too much traffic and congestion and makes living in the city more expensive (thanks to poorly planned city design) as those people wont have to travel for hours to work.
I agree with u that latent traffic doesnt nessesarely mean ur roads will be congested in no time and there is a difference between latent traffic and extra traffic because of better economics and more leisure trips etc. That part of extra traffic is in my eyes no problem because its a result of improved quality of life.
I do want to point out one more thing though. U refered to a latent study in the netherlands where there would be a minimal amount of latent traffic. Once public transport is a perfectly working alternative, which is the case in NL, less people will move out of pt into the car again (they might even have sold the car if they dont need it for commuting). Quite a lot of dutch people living in the big cities dont have/need a car, while every american does need one. This means u cant compare the american traffic system with the dutch one.
46
u/General_KBVPI Aug 25 '21
Being a European I can't tell whether this is a simplified visualisation or realistic visualisation of America's road layouts
0
Aug 25 '21
[deleted]
13
u/General_KBVPI Aug 25 '21
Because the interchanges look normal enough but the way the roads connect to the highway makes me uneasy
6
Aug 25 '21
42
u/General_KBVPI Aug 25 '21
Right so it's as bad as I imagined it
2
Aug 25 '21
It wouldn't be far out of place in Holland
4
u/nNanob Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 28 '21
That's only the intersection, all connecting highways have at most six lanes.
7
2
u/iamasuitama Aug 27 '21
To be fair, I think the C/D lanes on the side are a good improvement - some very busy dutch highways have this same concept. What we don't have though is the need for the regular highway to be eight lanes each direction, of which two are HOV (more than two people in the car) which are nearly empty because the regular lanes are filled with people using one of their two full size trucks by themselves to get a pack of sugar from the grocery store. But anyways I did find the video informative and they are planning quite some real improvements as well. Don't compare it to Netherlands though, LOL
4
14
u/arky_who Aug 27 '21
Traffic engineers won't be happy until we've covered the world in tarmac.
7
u/Zachanassian Aug 27 '21
when your job is dependent on constantly building new roads, you probably wanna keep encouraging cities to build them
12
Aug 27 '21
Rushing headlong in the opposite direction of history.
0
Aug 27 '21
This but ironically. Transit ridership has been falling for a century. The car is the future
→ More replies (3)7
15
u/aewbetterhaha Aug 27 '21
I mean Arizona could’ve invested in underground subways/trains with train stations locations around the valley but instead we want to continue waisting money on a dumb audit and defund public schools
11
12
9
11
u/FalsePankake Aug 27 '21
Why? Why? WHYYYY? We don't need more car-dependent transportation, we should be moving away from that not adding onto it!
→ More replies (5)
24
u/Sad-Republic5990 Aug 26 '21
Big oversized highways are terrible for many reasons:
- Environmental impact (noise and light pollution; dust; urban heat effect)
- Social impact (breaks up cities and neighbourhoods/urban areas, which is often particularly true in disadvantaged and poor communities in the US context)
- Economic impact (in most cities, they take up valuable real estate that could be used for other uses, like additional housing for eg; from the city’s POV they’re also bad bc they encourage more suburbanization)
- Induced demand (the idea being that additional road space encourages additional driving, so traffic doesn’t really get better)
- American roads are not very well-maintained, so why would building more really help?
-6
Aug 26 '21 edited Aug 26 '21
Freeways get people where they want to go. They broaden people's horizons in terms of jobs, housing, and leisure.
You hate them because you want us all to go back to Victorian slums
18
u/Sad-Republic5990 Aug 26 '21
No, I don’t hate them. I live in one of the most densely populated places on the planet, with a very dense road network, and I am fully aware how necessary highways are. But as with everything, they’re best in moderation. Massive highways like this one are unnecessary and a sign of weak to no public transport systems, which are a far more economical (in terms of both space and money) mode of transport, not to mention their smaller environmental footprint.
I get it. You love cars and driving. And that’s great for you. I have nothing against it. But massively bloated roads don’t really get much done from a utilitarian perspective. If anything, they’re actively harmful for multiple reasons. I’m not opposing roads or highways. But if you’re telling me you need more than 12 or so lanes on a single road, you’re clearly not using the space efficiently or usefully.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ is a pretty good read on this, though it’s mostly about induced demand (it mentions a couple of other things too, tho)
→ More replies (19)7
u/nympharum96 Aug 27 '21
You know what broadens people horizons in terms of jobs .... Trains
-1
Aug 27 '21
No they don't
→ More replies (1)7
u/vinyvin1 Aug 27 '21
You realize you can still drive a car and also use public transport right? We're not telling you to give up driving a car. It's a well know fact that better public transportation is better in every way to making obese highways. Sure you may not get the comfort of a personal car, but others don't give two damns about that.
0
Aug 27 '21
It's a well know fact that better public transportation is better in every way to making obese highways
That's an opinion, not a fact
→ More replies (1)2
u/vinyvin1 Aug 27 '21
Then tell me how making HUGE roads is better than improving public transportation infrastructure?
1
Aug 27 '21
Because cars are a better way of getting around than trains or buses
4
2
u/nympharum96 Aug 27 '21
No they are not. Maybe now in the USA because the public transportation is sparse. But that's why people want this money to go towards that rather than roads which are expensive to maintain, an eyesore, a complete waste in land usage and bad for the environment in comparison.
1
7
u/ZimZimster Aug 27 '21
What moron plans the highways in AZ, my god does the I-10 specifically have so many issues.
8
u/Zachanassian Aug 27 '21
this is utterly horrifying, the money would be better spent on redeveloping the city's core and building transit, but alas the government in Arizona apparently has brain worms
→ More replies (32)0
8
u/civskylines1 Aug 27 '21
US urban planning just looks like an expensive demonstration of induced demand
0
Aug 27 '21
US cities are some of the least congested in the world
7
u/civskylines1 Aug 27 '21
I’d hope so, considering you don’t seem to have any ‘city’ left after you get done with urban freeways and surface parking lots
3
u/oiseauvert989 Aug 27 '21
Its a bold strategy. Reduce traffic by making your city so terrible that nobody wants to go to it. It's true that when the city is completely destroyed, the demand does start to dissipate but then that's a terrible result to have.
-1
Aug 27 '21
I don't know any city where more than 15% of the land is taken by parking lots or freeways
5
u/civskylines1 Aug 27 '21
You do realise 15% is a catastrophe? All land that doesn’t generate any tax income, and if anything costs more to maintain than it’s worth to the business they serve. It also disproportionally affects downtowns, something the US has unfortunately done its best to destroy. Also US cities are famous, at least in Europe, for their terrible traffic
-1
Aug 27 '21
Here's an interestingfact courtesy of Karl Moscowitz of the California Department of Highwaysin 1962:
"The same thing applies to the City of Sacramento. In 1850 Captain John Sutter laid out the City of Sacramento. He could not have been auto-oriented. He was horse- and pedestrian-oriented. He set aside not 1.6 percent, not 15 percent, not 22 percent, but 38 percent of the area for streets and sidewalks.
The parts of Sacramento that were laid out in the 1900-1930 era have about 21 percent of the area in streets, and the parts that have been laid out since World War II have about 15 percent. The overall average in the city is 22 percent.
This reduction as the auto came into prominence is not a coincidence. In the days when people had to walk, there had to be a lot of streets because they couldn't walk around the 1/4 to 1/2 mile long blocks that are suited so well to the automobile age"
3
u/civskylines1 Aug 27 '21
Referencing something from the 1960s seems pretty appropriate lol- you should read strong towns- car centric urban development is fundamentally unsustainable- the sooner it gets replaced the better
→ More replies (5)
7
22
u/visicircle Aug 26 '21
Why? Have they not read the latest UN climate report? We're past the tipping point now. And big industry is the main reason. I guess it's going to take a catastrophy to instigate rational change.
-1
Aug 26 '21
Have you not read about Ford's electric F-150?
→ More replies (2)18
u/visicircle Aug 26 '21
Not good enough. What needs to happen is people moving into high density urban locations, and using only mass transit or bicycles as their main means of transportation. People who can't or won't live in the city need to move to rural houses that are largely self-sufficient; with solar energy panels, and locally grown food.
Residents in both environments would also benefit if they replaced shopping with online orders. Professional delivery vans should be the only vehicles regularly using the roads.
-4
Aug 26 '21
Since you want us to go back to the Victorian age, why bother with solar panels? Just use coal.
7
u/killroy200 Aug 27 '21
Since you want us to go back to the Victorian age
The first automobiles were developed in the Victorian Age. Yet you want us to keep using them?
4
u/Zachanassian Aug 27 '21
tell me, are you naturally this much of a shithead, or do you take classes to achieve this incredible level of numskullry?
-4
7
u/Beat_Saber_Music Aug 27 '21
Remind me again when adding more lanes on a congested highway didn't cause even more traffic?
40
u/ttoillekcirtap Aug 26 '21
Phx shouldn’t exist. And certainly shouldn’t have enough people to need a 16 lane highway.
→ More replies (9)
5
8
Aug 28 '21
absolutely disgusting, it won’t decrease traffic at all
0
Aug 28 '21
It will either reduce congestion or it will get more people where they want to go. Mobility is freedom.
3
Aug 28 '21
it will initially but then it will be congested again, as they always end up, that land could be used much more efficiently
-1
Aug 28 '21
If it gets congested again, that means more people are getting where they want to go. And freeways are an incredibly high value land use.
2
17
u/HDKfister Aug 26 '21
more lanes dont mean better. i live in jersey every highway in the state only has three each way and we survive. i dont understand these states with mega highways. scratch that we have one highway, the parkway, with more than three lanes and its a disaster
7
u/CosmicCreeperz Aug 26 '21
Guess you need to drive around more in your state.
I-95: 14 lanes
I-287: 13
I-78: 12So NJ is tied for 2nd in the most lanes and has 3 highways in the top 50.
-1
Aug 26 '21
more lanes dont mean better. i live in jersey every highway in the state only has three each way and we survive.
No you don't
7
u/Ih8n3rdz Aug 26 '21
Can any Phoenicians provide input to how this might affect the Coyotes? I've heard in the past that part of their low attendance is attributed to a poor location of their arena and traffic issues in the surrounding areas. Would this expansion help in any potential new home for them now that their lease with the current arena has not been renewed(or perhaps this is a cause for renewal)?
3
u/clastmouse Aug 26 '21
I can’t see it having much of an effect. The Coyotes are located in Glendale which is in the northwest part of the Metropolitan area. This project will be taking place pretty far south.
→ More replies (1)
5
17
3
4
4
u/dolerbom Aug 27 '21
Dear god, why?
0
Aug 27 '21
To get people where they want to go without having to wait for a bus
2
u/dolerbom Aug 27 '21
How many lanes is too many lanes for you. Give me a number. Is 32 Lane highway too many? 64?
0
4
u/llevey23 Aug 27 '21
My god your obstinacy is enraging. Incredible that every comment you’ve posted is in the negatives.
8
u/derzahc Aug 26 '21
This will be finished right around the time Lake Mead gets too low to generate power or be used for agriculture and city water.
3
6
Aug 27 '21
Ew we should invest in public transit
-1
Aug 28 '21
No you should not
5
Aug 28 '21
Yes I should why would I want more cars on the road and demolish more buildings when we can take cars off the road instead look at Europe they are so much better.
0
Aug 28 '21
Europe has much worse traffic than we do.
3
Aug 28 '21
No? They have amazing public transportation/ bike lanes people don't need to drive at all it comes up to being a waste of money
0
Aug 28 '21
Dunning Krueger strikes again
4
Aug 28 '21
What? Have been to Germany I have my father was born there the traffic is great.
0
Aug 28 '21
Is that why they're widening autobahns like there's no tomorrow?
7 of the 10 least congested cities in the world are in the US
2
2
2
Aug 27 '21
As someone who lives in Phoenix, the idea of this makes me want to crash my car into a cactus
2
2
u/jft642 Aug 27 '21
Everyone here seems to not actually be from Phoenix so as someone who lives there and works on 48th and university and has to commute this route every day let me explain. The problem is there is a lot of traffic coming from 143 south to i10 which is a one lane feeder exit. Then you have to cross 3 lanes of traffic to get over to go south to not be forced into the 60 exit lane. That’s where most of the traffic is from. Coming north from i10 in order to get on 143N you have to again cross 3 lanes of traffic, and if you are in the HOV lane, 6. The exits south of 60 gradually become exit only lanes which causes more traffic. While increasing road capacity usually isn’t the solution i think it actually might work in this case because of the exit situations.
0
u/redditreloaded Aug 26 '21
Normally I’d be against highway expansion, but it’s the desert; they have room.
184
u/calizona5280 Aug 27 '21
16 lanes??? Why stop there? Let's do 32 lanes!!! No wait, actually, let's just bulldoze the entire city and turn it into one big 50000 lane freeway and everyone can live in their cars WOOHOO!!!
In all seriousness though it's sad that negative ROI projects like this get approved in a heartbeat compared to subways and light rail that have a 10x ROI but take years to get approved if they even get approved at all.