Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 the Glendale city council met in workshop. The first agenda item of five items was that of light rail. Staff presented by recapping what had been discussed to date and asked for further council direction.
There was a robust discussion by council for well over an hour and a half. I will recap each councilmember’s position in the order of workshop seating. Councilmember Ray Malnar related that the original Glendale proposition ballot had 9 items, one of which was light rail. He believes that voter support for the proposition was based on support for 8 of the 9 ballot items and that voters approved the measure and tolerated light rail on the ballot because of the other items that would bring local transportation improvements. He indicated that he could not support light rail and asked for consensus on that position.
Councilmember Bart Turner is a strong and avid advocate for light rail. He attempted to refute any councilmember comments that offered reasons not to move forward with light rail. He feels that the financial figures presented showing a GO Program deficit and the use of General Fund dollars would not be accurate in the future and that the economic development created by light rail would offset those deficits. When it came time to create consensus he clearly wanted to move forward with light rail.
Vice Mayor Ian Hugh has never made a secret of his position on light rail. He has been opposed consistently. He asked questions of Valley Metro’s CEO, Scott Smith, about pollution and congestion. The answers provided by Mr. Smith were vague as he could not really speak to the issue of pollution and answered the congestion question by stating that in Mesa light rail has caused vehicular traffic to find alternate routes and therefore he has not seen an increase in vehicular congestion. When consensus was called for, the Vice Mayor joined Councilmember Malnar to request that the light rail issue be discontinued in Glendale.
Mayor Weiers Indicated that at one time he had supported light rail as he believed that local connections in the form of trolleys, etc., would be able to connect with the end of the light rail line. However, having reviewed the financial forecast of dollar needs for light rail, he was reluctant to commit future dollars to light rail. He feels that Glendale is finally in a healthy financial position and does not want to jeopardize that success by committing future dollars that the city may not be in a position to afford.
Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff was clearly torn and on the fence. At one time she had indicated that her support of light rail would hinge on its ability to cross over Grand Avenue. Clearly, the dollars needed to accomplish that were astronomical and frankly unaffordable for Glendale. She did not want to dismiss light rail completely and asked that a decision by council be made after an upcoming council workshop on transportation in Glendale. There was no support for delaying a decision on the issue. When the call for consensus on ceasing pursuit of light rail in Glendale I, quite honestly, did not see her indicate her position in support for or in opposition to light rail.
Councilmember Jamie Aldama, shared the same position as Councilmember Turner and was a strong advocate for light rail. He believes that light rail will spur downtown economic development. As the Mayor noted, Councimember Aldama was comfortable with his position on the issue as it did not impact LaMar Avenue, located one block south of Glendale Avenue and at one time was considered as a possible location for the light rail line. When it came time for consensus, Councilmember Aldama joined Councilmember Turner in continued support of light rail.
As last in line, I said that I was not ready to sacrifice Go Programming dollars and General Fund resources to pay for light rail. We have immediate needs that can be satisfied by releasing light rail dollars to other transportation needs. When it came time for consensus I joined Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh, and Councilmember Malnar in giving direction that council would no longer pursue light rail in Glendale.
On a 4 to 2 consensus with 1 unclear, city council has finally made a decision. Light rail will not come to Glendale…at least not anytime in the next 10 years. Light rail is dead.
© Joyce Clark, 2017
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I was on the City Center Master Plan committee the first time this rolled through. No pun intended.
After listening to staffs presentation it was clear to me they were in support. I pushed for an answer why. They were looking at federal matching funds that’s why.
I wrote Elaine,who was a friend at the time, asking her …if we were working (as the City Center Master plan committee) to develop ideas to add vibrancy to downtown Glendale as well as greater economic diversity aimed at pulling the area up to other Glendale district levels ..why we would solidify in place forever with light rail, the very demographic we were working to raise.
She answered that I had solved her conundrum as in all the discussion council had with staff the federal matching funds had not be mentioned.
Unbelievable this was still a topic for current council discussion.
Sounds like a good decision was made for Glendale
Wow the council has used good common sense to not spend monies they don’t have and put the city in debt again.
Thank you for a smart decision. Now lets finish the parks for our children and adults to enjoy.
Michael Excellent decision to many variables with the budget.
From Randy.
He couldn’t get through to comment so I am posting for him.
I keep getting blocked by the site Joyce so here is my two cents.
“We need more definitive projections of cost before a final decision is made”….Hmm, is this the same person that spent over $100,000 for iPads and a voting system that never worked correctly even after being warned of the costs by none other than myself? BTW, all of those additional costs came true, a full time IT person required during council meetings, a second member of the city clerks office to work the system, and Pens and Paper for all the times the system failed. This is the person who thinks we should look in depth before spending funds on (IMHO) the worthless boondoggle that is light rail. I would be MUCH happier to see turnouts for buses in Glendale.
Light rail going down a back road is not going to help downtown Glendale a bit. It would be less expensive to buy smart cars for each rider than to subsidize light rail. I understand that city services are not meant to be profit centers, but the numbers quoted at the last planning meeting were amazingly bad. I am not far off on stating free cars would cost less. We have a lot going on at Westgate and Arrowhead yet we are putting light rail into Downtown Glendale where, face it, other than the festivals in the Winter there is nothing to draw traffic to the area. Glendale has a few nice eateries and antique shops downtown, but nothing that is going to be enhanced by light rail.
Glenn Ave is not exactly parking friendly either. What happens to the local stores when all the parking around Murphy park is filled with the vehicles from those who want to ride the rail? It only takes a few to fill up that tiny parking area.
An article by FOX News just a few years back states that Phoenix is in need of raising 17.5 BILLION dollars to subsidize light rail. One reason is that the light rail is on the honor system. NOBODY CHECKS YOUR TICKET. Many riders just hop on and off for free, on the rare occasion that someone checks, usually your let off with a warning. So yeah, lets have another VERY EXPENSIVE program that loses over half the funds raised. Of course Valley Metro wants it, they don’t lose money, the City of Glendale will.
We don’t need further cost projections that will cost further dollars, we need to send light rail packing and fix what is already working. Bus Turnouts, GUS, and Self Driving Uber Cars (that last was humor).
Light Rail is an extremely expensive mode of transportation. I was always baffled by the question of who would fill up the light rail trains coming into and out of downtown Glendale. Are there buses filled up now? Is there a transportation problem other than traffic issues? I don’t see Light Rail solving any of our traffic issues. It actually makes it worse. Enormous waste of time and money and regardless of what others think, it would be detrimental to our downtown while in construction and for years to come after completion. Light rail does work in cities where the population is not as spread out as Phoenix and the surrounding areas. Here the cost to build and ability to use the system are prohibitive. I strongly feel our light rail was built for the convenience of ASU and the cities of Tempe and downtown Phoenix. Unfortunately the crime rate on the system has now increased and Valley Metro Light Rail now has to come up with increased security and a new $475,000 program to keep ridership safe. Sad. Glendale needs no part of any of this and I totally agree with Council’s decision to shelve this idea for good. There are many other places for the City to spend that kind of money…..if they even had it!