| SUBSCRIBE | | Why we charge |
|
|
|
|
 E-mail Story Print Friendly
Most Requested
Who's Blogging?
Opinion |
Front Page
Opinion
opinion
Tunnel Leaves Hole
In Anti-Paseo Logic
Groups opposed to extending Paseo del Norte 1,200 feet over Albuquerque's western escarpment managed to sink a citywide street bond issue last year.
They argued that the $12 million project took too much money from needs in other parts of the city (though defeating the bond issue took more). They argued that the project was for the benefit of developers.
Twelve months later, they're back with the same arguments, although state funding has reduced the city cost to $8.7 million. They also argue that finally building the West Side's first full east-west arterial between N.M. 528 on Bernalillo County's northern edge and Interstate 40 won't ease traffic problems. If this theory that building or widening roads doesn't affect traffic had been known in the ¹50s, the city could have avoided paving anything east of San Mateo or north of Candelaria and saved a bundle.
This week, groups willing to sink another citywide bond issue in order to delay Paseo unveiled a new tactic, proposing a tunnel instead of a road and chiding the city for not considering alternatives. But the city did explore the tunnel concept, a decade ago, and the cost estimates were equivalent to $70 million in today's dollars, according to Mayor Martin Chávez. That's far more than this entire citywide bond issue of $52.5 million.
The tunnel notion would crater the city's capital budget. Proposing it vaporizes opponents' other arguments: The tunnel would siphon off a lot more money from other parts of the city than the current proposal; if Paseo benefits developers, so would a tunnel; and if Paseo doesn't move traffic, why would a tunnel do any better?
The only good thing about the tunnel proposal: It goes beneath the surface of opponents' arguments to expose the objective -- delay West Side infrastructure at any cost, by any means.
...go to bookmarks