Albuquerque "The Plan" (Las Vegas: car rental, appointed, rental)

[N8!]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I'm kinda in agreement there, but the problem I see is that the East side of
Paseo ( which I would use ) has a jillion entry points. Some ( most ) of these
could be closed off and replaced with underpasses - forcing drivers who want
on Paseo to go to another street. This would be a big benefit once on the road
preventing a jillion unncecessary stops for lights that turn red without warning.

This is even better than the second choice - a dedicated road improvement gasoline tax.

The alternative "bond choice" makes people who either don't drive or drive very little
pay way more than their fair share of a project that doesn't benefit them at all.

A toll road would keep people who don't use the interchange from having to pay for it.

I like funding. Funding in advance keeps stuff like the Railrunner fiasco from happening.
Funding also gets stuff built.

Good points.

Something to ponder; how'z about keeping the eastside toll-free and making Paso a tollroad to the west? That's really where the major bulk of the traffic comes from anyway. Possibly toll $'s could be matched with some kind of a property tax levied on northwest side developers.

[Stanrice]

Originally Posted by ABQalex

My intial response about the stimulus to you was that I didn't see why you were bringing it up in the first place. You keep advising me to read posts before I respond, but I think it's you who needs to read posts more carefully before you respond and work on your comprehension, as well.

You (or maybe someone else) said that it didn't make sense to only put $25 million towards the reconstruction. I said that devoting even a small amount of money is the only way to show the state and federal governments that you are serious, which then leads to those governments providing money to get the project done which is the only way (a city of Albuquerque's size and ability CANNOT afford a project of this size without creating massive financial difficulties). I then provided a specific example of this (the previous "stimulus" spending). I NEVER said that I thought that a stimulus is the only way to get funding, or that I agreed with past or possible future measures of this kind. What is so hard to understand about that? To be precise, it is not I that needs to work on my reading ability nor my comprehension.

[Stanrice]

Originally Posted by N8!

Good points.

Something to ponder; how'z about keeping the eastside toll-free and making Paso a tollroad to the west? That's really where the major bulk of the traffic comes from anyway. Possibly toll $'s could be matched with some kind of a property tax levied on northwest side developers.

The people that you want to charge would then go back across that same area. Why not charge them twice? I think before anyone seriously considered a toll-road, we need to ask what that would do to the other non-tolled crossings.

[ABQalex]

Originally Posted by Stanrice

You (or maybe someone else) said that it didn't make sense to only put $25 million towards the reconstruction. I said that devoting even a small amount of money is the only way to show the state and federal governments that you are serious, which then leads to those governments providing money to get the project done...

And my whole counterpoint to this is that the state and federal governments have no money, so therefore the city allocating 25 million dollars to show them how "serious" we are about wanting money that they don't have is not going to speed things along at all. How hard is it for you to understand that??

[Stanrice]

Originally Posted by ABQalex

And my whole counterpoint to this is that the state and federal governments have no money, so therefore the city allocating 25 million dollars to show them how "serious" we are about wanting money that they don't have is not going to speed things along at all. How hard is it for you to understand that??

It is not hard at all for me to understand your point. Like I already mentioned, the federal government has been raising the debt limit for many years, and "[having] no money" hasn't stopped them for spending money on road projects during this entire time of not really having money. I understand your point perfectly, I am just pointing out that it is a fallacious argument. Once again, I understood your argument, but you didn't understand my counterpoint.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by N8!

... how'z about keeping the eastside toll-free
and making Paseo a tollroad to the west?

I thought we were talking about funding the new interchange. East-side
Paseo drivers, like me, would use the interchange also. In addition, removing
some of the interaction with cross-traffic would greatly improve driving that road.

All the unnecessary stops consumes a lot more fuel than is necessary.

Originally Posted by N8!

Possibly toll $'s could be matched with some kind of
a property tax levied on northwest side developers.

NorthWEST?

Any property tax to build the interchange makes people who don't get any benefit from it, pay for it. I'd be against that.

[N8!]

Originally Posted by Stanrice

The people that you want to charge would then go back across that same area. Why not charge them twice? I think before anyone seriously considered a toll-road, we need to ask what that would do to the other non-tolled crossings.

A few might, but most commuters won't, especially if it's a lot more convenient.

[N8!]

Originally Posted by mortimer

All the unnecessary stops consumes a lot more fuel than is necessary.
NorthWEST?

Any property tax to build the interchange makes people who don't get any benefit from it, pay for it. I'd be against that.

I guess I should have said, Westside (as in west side of the Rio Grande).. not northwest side. Good call, my bad.

[Stanrice]

Originally Posted by N8!

A few might, but most commuters won't, especially if it's a lot more convenient.

Most commuters won't? Won't what? Drive back across the river? Are we all going to stay west of the river abandoning the other side? No, people will drive across one side; when they do this, they will either pay the toll, or they will clog up the other crossings even more. Then these people will need to cross back over after work, school, etc. and should pay a toll again if this is the system we want.

[N8!]

Originally Posted by Stanrice

Most commuters won't? Won't what? Drive back across the river? Are we all going to stay west of the river abandoning the other side? No, people will drive across one side; when they do this, they will either pay the toll, or they will clog up the other crossings even more. Then these people will need to cross back over after work, school, etc. and should pay a toll again if this is the system we want.

Most will pay to use the toll road.

If not, then they sit in traffic, because they are the traffic.