PHOENIX -- Arizona needs an alternative to Interstate 10 around
|
|
study by the state Department of Transportation.
But spending the $6 billion or more to build it won't suddenly
make the morning commute to work a lot easier, the report
concludes. Instead, the major beneficiaries will be those whose
travels do not require them to go into the Phoenix or Tucson
areas.
It also finds there is currently no way to pay for te 250 miles
of new freeway proposed -- and that financing it entirely with
tolls is not a realistic option.
The study, to be presented Friday to the state Transportation
Board, said all the freeways which now exist -- and all those set
to be built -- in the Phoenix area will be at full capacity by
2030. It concludes a bypass could siphon off about 53,000 cars
and trucks that don't need to travel into or through the Valley,
essentially the equivalent of creating create another lane on
I-10.
Even with that, though, the report says whatever through traffic
is diverted around the area will quickly be replaced by other
motorists. So travel times won't decrease significantly.
A bypass around the north edge of Tucson, the study concludes,
would have even less of an effect, perhaps reducing traffic by
14,500 vehicles a day by 2030, between 7 and 10 percent. The
result, it says, would be that constructing a new road to the
north or south of Tucson would result in only a "modest''
decrease in congestion through the city.
An alternate route around the south and west of Tucson -- one
opposed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors -- would take
more vehicles off I-10. The report said that would offer "some
relief'' to traffic through Tucson at some hours, though it
predicts that rush-hour congestion would still remain.
And none of this addresses the price tag for an entirely new
250-mile highway which is estimated at somewhere between $6
billion and $8 billion. Just the eastern segment -- the Tucson
bypass with its only moderate decrease in congestion -- has a
price tag of between $2 billion and $3 billion.
According to the report for the state by URS Corp., tolls could
help defray the costs. But it says it is unrealistic to assume
the entire 250-mile freeway could be built through user fees.
Why? Simple economics: Few people would pay that high a fee.
The report says the cost of a new highway could be covered by a
toll of 25 cents per mile. But at that price, the study
concludes, a certain percentage of traffic that would otherwise
use the bypass would decide to instead keep using the free
alternative -- and keep tying up I-10.
A more saleable figure, it suggests, might be 10 cents a mile.
But even that would cost a vehicle $25 for the entire length of
the bypass, something that might still convince some casual
drivers and truckers to deal instead with the traffic jams on
I-10.
The other option explored by the study was funding it entirely
through gasoline taxes. But the study concludes it would take a
10-cent-a-gallon hike in Arizona's 18-cent gasoline tax and a
similar increase in the federal gasoline tax -- assuming all of
that were dedicated to the bypass -- to come up with the money
over an 11 year pay-as-you-go basis.
There actually is a third option, one not explored by the study:
hiking the state's 5.6 percent sales taxes. That possibility is
being explored by various business interests who hope to put some
sort of comprehensive transportation plan -- and a funding
mechanism -- before voters either this year or next.
Even if funding can be found, that still leaves the question of
where this new road -- or roads -- should go.
The report envisions a new road starting on I-10 somewhere to the
west of Buckeye and running south of the Gila River Indian
Community. But there is no clear consensus of what happens from
there to get through Pinal County.
According to the report, large blocks of land in the rapidly
growing county already have been approved for development. That,
the study said, means the need for quick action to reserve the
necessary right of way.
More problematic is getting around Tucson.
One alternative building the road north of the Santa Rita
Mountains through the San Pedro Valley. But this has drawn fire
amid various environmental concerns about possible pollution and
the Cochise County Board of Supervisors has specifically objected
to the route.
Moving the road further north takes it through Aravaipa Valley
which raises its own environmental issues.
The other main alternative would instead bypass Tucson around the
south and going up through Avra Valley. The study suggests that
route actually would divert more traffic off of the segment of
I-10 through the city.
But that route, too, has raised environmental concerns and is
opposed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
-30-
Optional box: The state Transportation Board will review the
report at a meeting Friday in the chambers of the Tucson City
Council.
Comments