Brad Winter Elected President of City Council

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by abqsunport

Planning for the future is not drastic or crazy, its smart. Albuquerque is not getting smaller, its getting much much larger. However, the Transportation system isn't. You either grow or you die, there is no staying place. Albuquerque must grow for it not to die, and in order to grow properly, planning must be done.

Red herring fallacy. You're equivocating a system of beltways and bypasses with planning for the future, and they are two very different things.

And I would go 5 miles out of my way if it was during rush hour.

20, not 5. There's no only-5 mile alternative currently under discussion merely because there is no place to put one.

[mortimer]

Zoidberg stated:

> You're equivocating a system of beltways and bypasses with
> planning for the future, ....

I know you don't like beltways and bypasses out yonder in the West Mesa and Rio Puerco valley, but what would you say is a good alternative?

As long as gasoline prices stay low - as they are - land to the West is going to be developed and people are going to move there and endure oppressive commutes.

It's easy to look at Denver and Phoenix and say that their beltways and bypasses didn't solve anything, but what would the streets be like without them? Queen Creek in the SE Phoenix comes to mind with mile after mile of what are essentially upgraded country roads.

[Zoidberg]

The answer is pretty simple; added capacity on the existing freeways, upgrades of major arterials to freeways, and upgraded mass transit where it makes sense.

By all means, the right-of-way for belts and bypasses should be reserved, but not developed until it's well time. Building freeway 2 to avoid freeway 1's traffic jams is an inferior idea to expanding freeway 1 to eliminate its traffic jams.

Putting the highway dollars where the traffic is makes sense; putting them where the traffic wouldn't be otherwise doesn't.

Example: that Paseo extension taking place versus Paseo & I-25. A few hundred commuters saving a couple of minutes by not having to take Paradise to get east, or the thousands of commuters each day who get caught in the snarls. Not saying the costs are equivalent, but the order in which upgrades take place should follow maximum traffic needs, not maximum developer interests.

[mortimer]

Zoidberg clarified:

> ... belts and bypasses ... not developed until it's well time.

Got it.

> Example: that Paseo extension taking place versus Paseo & I-25.
> A few hundred commuters saving a couple of minutes by not
> having to take Paradise to get east, ....

I posed a question a while back wondering how it effected the commute.

No answer.

It seems to me that until the I-25/Paseo intersection is upgraded, all the extension does is move the wait down the road. Same wait - different location.

For Paseo commuters going West in the evening, I assume that when the interchange is done, they will just get hung up farther down the road once Paseo becomes more efficient at moving people off I-25. I assume Coors is a nightmare, but I don't go there.

[abqsunport]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Zoidberg stated:

It's easy to look at Denver and Phoenix and say that their beltways and bypasses didn't solve anything, but what would the streets be like without them? Queen Creek in the SE Phoenix comes to mind with mile after mile of what are essentially upgraded country roads.

Excellent point mortimer, completely agree.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

The answer is pretty simple; added capacity on the existing freeways, upgrades of major arterials to freeways, and upgraded mass transit where it makes sense.

Putting the highway dollars where the traffic is makes sense; putting them where the traffic wouldn't be otherwise doesn't.

I agree, except that isn't the end all solution. Crossing the river is still a pain. If one lives on the west side, but works at Kirtland AFB, what is an easy and affective way to get there? Right now, there really isn't one.

Putting dollars where traffic will be makes just as much sense. That is planning, that is being proactive rather than reactive.

Originally Posted by mortimer

Zoidberg clarified:

For Paseo commuters going West in the evening, I assume that when the interchange is done, they will just get hung up farther down the road once Paseo becomes more efficient at moving people off I-25. I assume Coors is a nightmare, but I don't go there.

The way the exit off of Course is currently set up makes it a nightmare. Ironically, getting off at 2nd St. is always pleasant. However when I go to my house (East Paseo), its is almost impossible to get over 5 lanes into the turn lane. That leaves Alameda for me.



The fact of the matter is, Albuquerque has no new planned highways or roads, yet our city's traffic is growing exponentially. Perhaps Marty can share some of those red-light camera monies, and build us some easy transportation. If not build roads, build a public transportation system that is worth a damn.