I thought my 2010 post on the proposed South Mountain Freeway was all that needed to be said, not that it would stop this abomination. But the great thing about Phoenix is how it continues to inspire new material.
Thus, the newly released "environmental impact statement" on the $2 billion project claims that if it isn't built Phoenix's air will grow worse. I am not making this up. Here's the "logic" behind the claim: “In some instances, impacts under the No-Action Alternative would be greater than those that would occur under the action alternatives. As a specific example, energy use — in terms of annual fuel consumption — would be greater.” The Arizona Republic's Sean Holstege writes, "It is a key finding, because many freeway opponents have argued that building nothing, the only available planning alternative, would be better for the environment. All the environmental consequences are typical of freeway projects and can be mitigated, the report found."
First, a little background. Building new freeways is essential to perpetuating the sprawl hustle of the Real Estate Industrial Complex. Without them, empty land on the fringes would be worth much less and be more valuable for agriculture or even as empty desert. It's an old racket, with the added benefit being that the cost, through sales taxes, falls most heavily on the working poor.
Here's what the report doesn't model: What if the money were instead put into commuter rail serving the suburbs southwest and southeast of Phoenix? Such an endeavor would take thousands of cars off existing freeways, helping ease congestion and improve air quality. It's not as if suburbanites don't want it. When I participated in a Buckeye futurist event in the mid-2000s, a survey of residents there found their No. 1 desire to be a commuter rail link to downtown. The rails and right-of-way are already in place.
Nor did it take account one huge positive effect of doing nothing: Encouraging more density and reinvestment in Phoenix's existing urban footprint. If the commute was hellish and getting worse, "consumers" would be less prone to buy houses on the fringes. Central Phoenix has plenty of empty and underutilized land that could become high-quality dense residential neighborhoods. Add more convenient and frequent transit and the air gets better.
Meanwhile, going all the way back to Robert Moses, we know that new roads and freeways are congestion generators. So it defies experience to believe that another eight-lane freeway will make anything better. For example, by creating more sprawl in areas the new route touches outside of the Gila River Indian Reservation, the South Mountain Freeway will draw more traffic, offsetting any dream that it will be a reliever of the Papago Freeway. Without commuter rail or transit, people living in these areas have no practical choice but to make single-occupancy car trips. When gasoline gets prohibitively expensive, as it will, the air and congestion problems will be solved, after a fashion, but $2 billion will have been pissed away on infrastructure suited to the 1970s. Even Los Angeles has abandoned freeway building in favor of an extensive network of light rail and commuter trains.
Finally, the supposed environmental impact statement makes no mention of the externalities, the hidden costs. These run a gamut from lost desert and farmland to further decentralization of employment, increasing the reach of the heat island and pumping more Phoenix smog into the Gila River basin while actually doing nothing to improve the horribly unhealthy air in the Salt River Valley proper. Only passing reference is made to the desecration of the South Mountains. I could find no mention of the project in connection with climate change's dangerous future in central Arizona. Add in the externalities and the cost is far greater than $2 billion.
Phoenix needs more freeways about as much as it needs another real-estate boom (with championship golf! — which fewer and fewer people are playing, by the way).
If the South Mountain Freeway make so little sense, why build it? Partly, custom and habit. Phoenix is like a drunk desperately searching his apartment for another hidden bottle. But mostly the preponderance of power in the metropolitan area will reap short-term profits by moving ahead with a project that will wring the region's neck for decades. House building, road construction moguls, "rock products," office "park" developers — the usual suspects will benefit from the last great extraction industry. Individual players, many well connected, will make a tidy sum to sock away while they live in the San Juans or San Diego and who gives a rat's ass about Phoenix. It is a feedback loop that is killing Phoenix's future.
Tell me again, who hates Arizona?
On a related note, I heard from a reliable source yesterday that two more acres of asphalt parking are about to be added just south of Roosevelt Row.
Posted by: Diane D'Angelo | May 06, 2013 at 02:57 PM
I've been following this for the past six years or so and even sat in on some of the citizen committees tasked with making an EIS recommendation. This freeway is a complete and utter waste of money. It is of benefit to no one but those who make money building freeways. At a minimum of $2 billion for 22 miles, its unfathomable to think the money couldn't be used in much better ways. Also, its amazing to me to hear ADOT claim the freeway will actually help air quality. During the citizens meetings they mentioned over and over again how it would help commuters in the west valley reach the east valley and vice versa. Talk about being an enabler!! This is like giving an alcoholic a bigger mug then claiming he is drinking less frequently.
Posted by: SD Mittelsteadt | May 06, 2013 at 03:13 PM
You guys are being awfully tough on drunks here.
Posted by: Petro | May 06, 2013 at 04:02 PM
Side-note: three new comments in the previous Open Thread: one debunking the Arizona Republic's latest agit-prop about public pensions; another about the new NRA president; and a third about investor activity in the metro Phoenix housing market (this one will have to be pulled out of the Bermuda Triangle of Spam by Mr. Talton before it can be read).
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2013 at 04:13 PM
A lot of the push for the freeway to go through the reservation comes from Phoenix councilman Sal DiCiccio. He claims his concern is for that of his constituents so that they and his district are spared the issues of construction.
coincidentally, Councilman DiCiccio has several land leases and business interests right smack in the path of the reservation route which he so passionately advocates.
Posted by: Leslie Chow | May 06, 2013 at 06:11 PM
I love Phoenix ....that being said, I'll have to agree with Jon...it's NOT another freeway we need ...it's more RAIL...N, S, E, W...I totally enjoy taking the rail from midtown Phoenix to Tempe..( why would I want to go to Mesa?).. The new "sky train " to sky harbor airport is now running to terminal 4 from 44th St and Washington..problem...it will not help those on "red eye" flights, for our rail is NOT a 24 hour line! WHY N O T???
Posted by: Skip | May 06, 2013 at 06:21 PM
"On a related note, I heard from a reliable source yesterday that two more acres of asphalt parking are about to be added just south of Roosevelt Row." -Diane
I have heard these same concerns from people in the Row. They believe that the SW corner of 1st Ave and Roosevelt was transformed for a parking lot. In reality, a multistory mixed-use project will be constructed there, starting later this year. Others believe that the land being bulldozed for the UofA Cancer Treatment Center will be another parking lot; of course, this is false as it is to be the lot upon which the new Cancer Treatment Center is to be built.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | May 06, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Skip, 24 hour rail transit lines are extremely rare...even in massively more dense cities. And if Phoenix were to do so, only Phoenix would be on the line to raise the taxes to pay for it.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | May 06, 2013 at 06:42 PM
Better things we could do with $2 billion: 1)complete an X shaped commuter rail system that, in 2009, was estimated to cost $1.5 for infrastructure upgrades, stations, and the trains.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/03/20091203commuterrail1203.html
2)Renovate Union Station in order to anticipate the connection of L.A., Phoenix, and Vegas with high-spreed rail lines and a commuter train to Tucson. And for Union Station to serve as the terminus for the metro areas commuter rail lines.
http://www.azrail.org/trains/commuter/
3)Move the timetable up for construction of Phoenix's W and NW light rail lines...and buying some new buses for the city that match the RAPID lines' buses.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | May 06, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Skip, Boston's "T" subway/trolley system is not a 24-hr line. I'm not defending Valley Metro's narrow operating hours, but I do think it's worth pointing out that other big cities -- even those in the mass-transit-reliant Northeast -- deal with this same issue. Just sayin'.
Posted by: ChrisInDenver | May 06, 2013 at 10:36 PM
That is interesting Chris...I looked up Boston's Red Line subway schedule and their latest trips are around 12:50-1am even on the weekends. http://www.mbta.com/riding_the_t/default.asp?id=26153
Phoenix light rail runs from 4:41 am (Tempe)/4:40am (Phoenix) until 12:49am Monday-Thursday.
From 4:14am to 3:49am (Sat. am) on Friday's.
4:39am Tempe/5am Phoenix to 3:49 (Sun. am) on Saturdays.
Sundays are the shortest with hours between 4:39am (Tempe)/5am (Phoenix) to 12:49am. Those are pretty good hours for a light rail line.
http://routes.valleymetro.org/timetables/785/transit_route
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | May 06, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Here's an idea for our libertarian times: If this freeway wants building let the market do it. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pick winners and losers. Or subsidize the auto, road construction, or oil industry.
Let some billionaire finance this and charge tolls.
We need to get the government out of the way and let the market do its thing.
Posted by: koreyel | May 07, 2013 at 05:19 AM
I strongly support rail and other public transit projects due to the hard to measure externalities of the sprawl nation. Having said that, the proposition that peak oil prices are here to stay and not cyclical like other markets is suspect.
This time is different to explain various frothy markets has always been a false prophesy. Examples include housing, technology stocks and apparently gold.
Posted by: northern light | May 07, 2013 at 07:22 AM
Refurbish Union Station! You're just teasing RC aren't you?
You'd think with the way state, county, and city finances are, REIC Keynesian economics would not fly (unless of course some dirty Fed money floated our way -- Flake? Flake? McCain? McCain? Sinema is the sure bet to propose a barrel for that pig).
Why a freeway is good capitalist spending and light rail is bad socialist spending is beyond me. Rogue readers already know which way the smog blows.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 07, 2013 at 08:44 AM
e-dog:
Pithy bit of rhetoric, that.
In the context of austerity and the low-wage employment "recovery," who's fighting for the workers' dollars?
On the one hand, you have the vast industries of Krazy Kar Kulture, these include oil, auto & parts manufacture, auto insurance and associated maintenance and other auto-centric services. These covet the paychecks of working commuters, and are quite happy with encroaching on whatever "disposable" income these workers can accrue, and spend elsewhere.
Elsewhere? Without the costs associated with participation in the Krazy Kar Kulture - purchase, maintenance, insurance and the civil revenues generated by the statistically unavoidable traffic infractions - workers find they have more money to, well, shop. One could pause here and point out that a lot of big-box chain retail outlets might get in line for the public subsidizing of commuter transport - light rail, for example - but one could also retort that these mark-down chains - like Walmart - also benefit from a lower disposable income because - at least for consumer staples - shoppers are driven to their predatory discounting outlets.
Because it is the small businesses and local purveyors of goods who would benefit most from more disposable income, and because these businesses are considerably more atomized - politically speaking - than big oil, big auto and big retail, then one can see that the pressure for infrastructure decisions would be more favorable to freeways over rail.
So, one possible answer to e-dog's rhetoric is that we are seeing yet another "externality" from the shift of political influence away from actual people, and towards the organizational behemoths of corporations.
Posted by: Petro | May 07, 2013 at 09:58 AM
ah when SOLERI is missing the ever quotable PETRO rises to the occasion.
ADOT Approved freeway means 10 percent for SALT LAKE.
Posted by: cal Lash | May 07, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Impressive writing by Petro lately. That said, allow me to question a couple of points:
(1) A significant portion of the nation's economic growth right now is dependent on auto manufacturing and sales. A number of jobs there, too. Also, people tend to make more trips when they have a private auto. So, I'm not convinced that replacing the auto with mass transit would increase disposable income. (I'm not sure it wouldn't, either, but this is where doing the math might be helpful.)
(2) I'm not sure that small businesses would benefit most from more disposable income. Is there an argument behind this? Also, the usual definition of small business (less than 500 employees) is unsatisfactory. I wouldn't call that small.
(3) I think that the pressures for private autos over rail come more from individual preferences. Surely it is nicer to have your own car than to ride the bus?
Out of time tonight.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 07, 2013 at 08:54 PM
Petro: when you comment about Wal*Mart as a "markdown chain and predatory discount outlet", you're laying on a little thick. Wally does most of its business at regular price and I'm hard pressed to understand them being cast as a predator. That would mean that their competition (Costco, Target and the Dollar stores) are also predators. What am I missing here?
Posted by: morecleanair | May 07, 2013 at 09:46 PM
There are a few differences between Costco and Target when compared to Walmart. The most important distinction is that both Costco and Target pay their employees better. Costco and Target are also nowhere near the size of Walmart; therefore, a larger segment of the workforce is impacted by Walmart's poor labor practices.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | May 08, 2013 at 12:24 AM
We should note that Target and Walmart are fairly similar in their pay scales for grunt labor: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/05/02/target-vs-walmart-which-one-is-a-better-place-to-work/
Walmart clearly swings the bigger bat here. In its race to the bottom, it pioneered the the idea that its employees health care and food stamps should be externalized onto taxpayers. The so-called free market is freest at the higher end where the Walmart heirs are among the very richest of Americans.
A single-payer health care system and higher minimum wage levels would end this reliance on taxpayer largesse. But the American right will oppose that precisely because they oppose a competitive free market. Crony capitalism not only underwrites Movement Conservatism, it also pays for the lobbyists and media specialists who make it their job to keep John Q Public ignorant and passive.
I live near the Chris-Town Walmart, so I notice how many shoppers who can't afford cars rely on taxis to get them there. Mass transit also pays a role but if you buy perishables, they might not make it back to home in time.
Walmart has revolutionized shopping and they may revolutionize health care. Low-cost, in-store clinics may be the wave of the future. If it seems dystopian, that's the cost of surviving in a globalized marketplace. The rent-seekers in the health-care industrial complex will squawk but I suspect it won't impede the retail behemoth. Nostalgia won't take us back to a strong middle class (it should be obvious to note) but political pressure might soften the worst of modernity's sharp edges.
Posted by: soleri | May 08, 2013 at 07:47 AM
thank u Soleri.
dont forget TALTON at URBAN BEAN now TERITOS the 15th at 6 pm
Posted by: cal Lash | May 08, 2013 at 08:38 AM
Thanks, Emil. I can't disagree with your concerns about my generalization.
I'll say right up front that it's your attention to detail, and the measured observations of others in these threads, that liberate (a critic might say "enable") me to make these broadly brushed characterizations.
I am more than content to be able to contribute to a whole that is much better than its parts, or the sum of its parts.
Posted by: Petro | May 08, 2013 at 10:10 AM
I really enjoyed (if that's the right word for it) this article:
Why Your 'Green Lifestyle' Choices Don't Really Matter
Posted by: Petro | May 08, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Having been involved in retail for many years, it now appears that the strip centers are one of the casualties of the boomburb sprawl. Many of them were ill-conceived and poorly located from the beginning. Since '08 they've taken a huge hit, with many vacancies showing up like a series of missing teeth. Phoenix still has more retail square footage per capita than any other major metro, thus the marginal retail productivity. It is possible that transit will pump more life into the little guys along the route.
Posted by: morecleanair | May 08, 2013 at 03:26 PM
Freeway to Hell: Don't be a hater.
What do you have against that working Mom from Maricopa who just wants an easier drive to her job in Surprise? After all, she had a longer job in California.
*****************************
Only in gub'mint would a small business be 500 employees. In the real world the cutoff would be around 50.
*****************************
Only in gub'mint would 60 be a majority in the Senate. In the real world, it would be 51.
******************************
I've boycotted Walmart for five years. I don't think they've noticed.
Posted by: Ruben A. Perez | May 08, 2013 at 05:53 PM
Off topic, the new Mapstone is, as always, great. Cal Lash, are you the "Cla" with the bit role toward the beginning of the book?
Posted by: CDT | May 09, 2013 at 06:06 AM
i am out of commission so have not read book
Posted by: cal Lash | May 09, 2013 at 03:32 PM