During the mid-part of the last decade, when the population growth rate was at its highest, the Phoenix area experienced rapid development and urban sprawl. The result has been an intensification of the Urban Heat Island effect. In this edition of Decades, author Sally Wittlinger discusses this uncomfortable consequence of urbanization.

In a desert city such as Phoenix, summertime heat is a way of life, but how much does the built environment contribute to the intensity of the heat on a summer night? In urbanized Phoenix, nights don’t cool down as much as in the surrounding rural areas and on more and more summer nights, the official Phoenix temperature fails to drop below 90 degrees. Climate plays a huge role in the comfort and quality of life of residents, with numerous implications for tourism, energy demand, water use, and the vulnerability of low-income families.

Both the effect of climate change on our future water supply and the size of the population that will need to share in that supply are uncertainties that water planners must consider when making decisions regarding our future. We have options, but we have to be sure that we use water efficiently to meet our urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. This Policy Points offers a clear, succinct overview of the status of Arizona’s water supply and what the current drought really means for water availability.

As Arizona’s population continues to grow, so does the need for electricity. Retail sales of electricity in Arizona have increased along with the population, although sales per person have declined since peaking in 2007, a sign of decreased use and increased efficiency. As we progress in the twenty-first century, action must be taken to increase the sustainability of our energy resources by continuing to conserve and by shifting to the greater use of energy from renewable sources. In addition, we must work to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

Despite several early attempts in the Arizona Legislature to modify the framework for where the newly-passed Proposition 200 money would go, the four accounts established in the original voter-approved Tobacco Tax and Health Care Act have been maintained as intended since 1995. However, large sums of Proposition 200 revenue – on average $90 million annually – have gone unallocated and unspent by the Legislature.