In 2011, Drachman Institute contracted with the Arizona Department of Housing to develop a public education project about sustainable communities and transit-oriented development along the Metro Light Rail in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa, Arizona. The resulting reports present neighborhood analyses and transit-oriented development issues for eight light rail stations selected by the Arizona Department of Housing and the Sustainable Communities Working Group, providing base information on the square half mile area surrounding these sites.

At a “micro” level, the study developed information and provided recommendations to assist each of the paratransit programs in the region to operate services in the most efficient and effective manner possible. At the “macro” level, the study considered alternative regional service designs and developed a regional service plan for the area that would improve mobility for people with disabilities and satisfy the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

With the agency integration of Valley Metro and Valley Metro Rail, the budgets for each agency are developed with a unified staffing plan but are maintained as two separate financial entities, with fund and project accounting to segregate revenues and expenses. Each Operating and Capital Budget has been prepared with the goal of delivering a fiscally prudent, balanced budget. FY 2006/2007 was the first full year of Proposition 400 Public Transportation Fund revenues; FY 2005/2006 reflected only five months of PTF revenues.

The historical advantages of Grand Avenue and the railroad that led to the development of the West Valley cities have become a detriment to the further development or redevelopment in the past few decades. There is general agreement that significant improvements are needed for the Grand Avenue Corridor. Identified transportation funds provide an opportunity to develop a more modern transportation corridor along Grand Avenue. This study addresses these concerns by developing, evaluating, and recommending transportation investment options.

The Committee selected the following environmental goal: A goal with the purpose of showing continued progress through 2018 by; 1) improving visibility to move days now in the poor/very poor categories up to the fair category, and 2) moving days classified as fair to the good/excellent categories. A progress
assessment will be conducted every 5 years through 2018. The members concluded that this option provides a clear, long term method to track visibility trends in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Additionally, the Committee reached general agreement that the index should not be used to affect short term actions because other programs, such as the High Pollution Advisory Program, are currently in place.

The Phoenix metropolitan area is new by national standards, having developed primarily since World War II and particularly since 1970. However, settlement patterns were established in the 1800s, in part due to topographic features such as water courses and mountains. The war effort during World War II stimulated the growth of the Valley. After the war, a combination of events led to much faster growth. These included the desire of ex-servicemen stationed in the area during the war to return; improvements in air conditioning; charter government in Phoenix, which allowed a small pro-growth business group to gain power; and
aerospace and electronics firms siting facilities, in part because of the federal government’s designation of Fort Huachuca as the principal proving ground for electronic defense equipment. The modern period began around 1970, when a maturing metro area coincided with the baby-boom generation reaching adulthood. The result was even more rapid growth that has continued to the current time. Rapid growth of the Phoenix metro area is expected to continue for at least the next 50 years. Land and water availability should not restrict growth until after the current population of nearly three million exceeds seven million in 2050.

The Phoenix metropolitan area’s “favored quarter” for employment in 1995 – the metro area’s highest employment densities outside the primary core – extended from Chaparral Road in Scottsdale to Baseline Road in Tempe. Downtown and South Scottsdale’s success can be traced to being adjacent to the favored residential quarter that extends from the area around the Phoenix Mountains through north Scottsdale. In the 1990s, the favored employment quarter has been extending north in Scottsdale through the favored residential quarter. The presence of Arizona State University, proximity to Sky Harbor Airport, and access to the region’s first two freeways contributed to the portion of Tempe north of Baseline Road becoming the largest employment center outside of the primary core in Phoenix. Employment also was above average south of Baseline Road, extending into the secondary favored residential quarter of South Tempe and Ahwatukee – Foothills. Considering residential and economic factors, the Phoenix metro area’s favored quarter stretches from north of Squaw Peak in northeast Phoenix through Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, and Tempe to south of South Mountain in southeast Phoenix.

The age of housing in the Phoenix metropolitan area reflects the mostly steady outward spread of development. Large differences exist across the area in other housing measures. Many of these differences are closely related to geographic variations in household income and in the type of housing. As in the rest of the country, housing affordability in the Phoenix metropolitan area fell substantially in the 1970s. During the 1980s, the change in affordability varied by situation. Affordability rose for the median-income household, especially for homeownership. For those at the low end of the income spectrum, affordability of rental units improved slightly, but affordability of owned units worsened. Data for the 1990s are limited; the affordability of owned units rose for the median-income household, which could afford the median-priced home in 1998. An inadequate supply of very low-cost housing existed in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1990. Even if low-income households were perfectly matched to low-income housing that they could afford, a little less than 3 percent of all households (about 23,000) could not have found affordable housing. The inadequacy expanded in the 1980s. The percentage of households reporting an unaffordable housing payment was much greater. Considering only low-income households who spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, about 21 percent of all households had a housing problem related to affordability.