Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm undecided on the measure. Though I might support it, I am not convinced in the efficacy of such projects in actually solving traffic problems. Unless I see a thorough reason why I should vote for it, I think I'm apathetic enough to vote no. I rarely utilize that corridor and feel that if the project were approved and completed it'd just encourage MORE traffic in the future. But my vote is likely to change depending on what I read and see about it. If I feel like it'll benefit the whole than I'm for it, and I do think if it's approved it shouldn't be a city/county project but a regional/state project. As it has been stated, Sandoval County's residents make great use of that interchange and unless they are paying a share of it, than it's an absolute "no" from me. If they ARE paying a share of it, which I'm sure would be likely (since I think this would end up being a state project anyway, I'm actually confused because of all of this. Is this just a county/city thing or a state thing?), then I might vote yes.
Usually I would ask why, but if you have a car and drive through the area every single day, then voting NO isn't even a thought.
I'm not certain I'm aware of all the facts. I'm guessing this is just allowing the city permission to sell bonds to fund this project?
If this has been studied and will significantly reduce traffic (upon its completion), then I see no reason not to vote for it? I'm not sure that I'd agree that projects such as this 'encourage' more traffic. I think rather the city grows in size and 'grows' into the infrastructure; at which point a new project may be required in the future to handle the additional loads.
I'm not certain I'm aware of all the facts. I'm guessing this is just allowing the city permission to sell bonds to fund this project?
If this has been studied and will significantly reduce traffic (upon its completion), then I see no reason not to vote for it? I'm not sure that I'd agree that projects such as this 'encourage' more traffic. I think rather the city grows in size and 'grows' into the infrastructure; at which point a new project may be required in the future to handle the additional loads.
Well having NO stoplights and off ramps will reduce traffic in this particular corridor. That's Paseo's downfall, those damn lights.
Congested Crossings
By Journal Staff on Thu, Dec 29, 2011
Report: Heavy Traffic on 5 Main Routes Across River
It won’t be easy unclogging the roads that show up on a new “most-congested” list, elected officials say.
And they’re willing to consider just about everything when it comes to potential solutions — from new river crossings to different development patterns.
...
He said his goal is to take this to voters in 2013.
Sandoval County Commissioner Don Chapman said another north-south road on the West Side could help U.S. 550.
...
Chapman said a toll road would help lessen traffic that crosses the Rio Grande as well as create a revenue stream that would help build more roads that are needed in New Mexico. But state law does not allow toll roads, he said.
“A lot of 550 is people trying to get to I-25,” Chapman said. “If they had a way to get to a toll road that bypasses 550 that will get you to I-25 or I-40, that is exactly what I’m talking about.”
Don Chapman is still a Commissioner, I don't doubt his comments.
3. City Councilors can approve the $50 million bond if seven of the nine member council vote to approve the bond sale without an election.
Who can tell the future. You think seven out of the nine member council will vote to avoid a public vote by the citizens?
Well, this is Albuquerque. Our city council does not put the public's interest first. I call them the Nimby council.
But in all seriousness, this is a project that is about 5 years overdue.
I do not think they will be able to get a seventh councilor on board with this, it will be another damn 6-3 vote.
They could do it on the cheap and make it a cloverleaf interchange.
Why would you want to do that? So they would have to redo it in another 10 years. This should be a priority scale of the Big-I. This interchange brings in the west side and Rio Rancho commuters in and out of the city. Plus this makes us look like we can keep up with Dallas. Just a little
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
