FAQs

 

What is a transfer station?

A transfer station is a facility where waste is collected and processed from trash trucks, businesses and residents.  A transfer station is a simple building that increases recycling, brings revenue to the community and cuts down on vehicles going to and from landfills minimizing fuel/green house gas emissions.

what-is-transfer-station

 

Answers to Unanswered Questions from the North Valley Coalition

The following are questions from the North Valley Coalition’s February 19, 2015 meeting that were not answered due to time constraints.  These questions were submitted for answers on March 10, 2015.

 

Q1: Why Us?

A: The City commissioned a feasibility analysis for a proposed transfer station from J.R. Miller & Associates in 2011, and that analysis was updated with an addendum in 2014.  While several sites were considered, the Edith Boulevard site was chosen as the best alternative because it had adequate room for the transfer station and because it was located within 1.5 miles of the I-25 and I-40 interchange in an area that is predominately zoned as Industrial, Wholesale or Manufacturing. Also, since the City already owns the land, the entire site can be improved to make it more aesthetic, functional, and energy efficient, with improved operations for better drainage and stormwater management. 

II. Business and Economic Impact

Q1: Heavy trucks damage roads. Was the cost of road maintenance included in the City’s cost analysis?

A: Overall, the project is expected to save two million miles annually, causing much less wear and tear on the City’s roads. Comanche Road in the vicinity of the project (Edith Boulevard to Interstate 25) is designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area, with a pavement section of 4 to 5 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of base course and 6 inches of sub-base.  Edith Boulevard in the vicinity of the project (Candelaria Road to Comanche Road) is designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area (design based on 11.34% heavy commercial truck traffic) with a pavement section of 5.5 inches of asphalt over 7 inches of base course. Also, all roadways are evaluated and maintained as part of the City’s normal road maintenance program and budget.

III. Quality of Life and Environmental Impact

Q1: How will the City monitor air quality?

A: The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department is responsible for monitoring air quality in the region, and the Solid Waste Management Department is held to and meets all tailpipe emissions standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates vehicles emissions by setting vehicle emission standards and lowering the sulfur content of gasoline to reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks and some heavy-duty vehicles. Because vehicle emissions and fuels are federally regulated by the EPA, vehicle emissions monitoring is not site specific.

Air Quality monitoring is conducted throughout the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area to ensure compliance with the national health-based standards set by the EPA.  The Environmental Protection Agency sets health-based standards for seven pollutants that are monitored at six permanent air monitoring sites throughout Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.  Monitoring is conducted 24/7 – 365 days a year.  Data collected is used to accurately show pollutant concentrations, issue health alerts, provide the public with the Air Quality Index and demonstrate attainment with the national health based standards.

Air pollutant required monitoring includes:

  • carbon monoxide,
  • ozone,
  • oxides of nitrogen,
  • lead,
  • sulfur dioxide,
  • particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (Dust),
  • particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller (Smoke).

The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Area has been in attainment with all of the national health based standards since 1995.  Below is a list of locations of the air quality monitoring network. To view a map of the locations click here.

Site                                                                                 Location

2ZF Foothills, Double Eagle Elem. School                 8901 Lowell NE
2ZM Del Norte High School                                        4700a San Mateo NE
2ZN SE Heights                                                             6000 Anderson Avenue SE
2ZS Jefferson                                                                 3700 Singer NE
2ZV South Valley                                                           201 Prosperity SW 
2ZW Westside                                                               11850 Sunset Gardens SW

Q2: How will the City monitor water quality?

A: The City will protect and monitor the quality of water associated with the Edith Transfer Station in different ways depending on the source or use of the water. 

  • Rain that falls on the transfer station will be managed as required by the Clean Water Act under a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The permit, when issued, will require that the City prepare and follow a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), conduct monitoring, and submit reports. The SWPPP will describe in detail what measures and practices will be implemented to protect storm water quality.
  • Wastewater from the bathrooms, sinks, and water fountains will be plumbed into the City’s sanitary sewer system and will be treated at the Southside Water Reclamation Facility.
  • Water used for cleaning the transfer station floors and equipment and trucks at the transfer station will also be treated at the Southside Water Reclamation Facility via the City sanitary sewer system. This water most likely will be routed through an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.

Q3: How will the City ensure that odors will be controlled?

A: Effective odor control will be part of the permitting process in the New Mexico Environment Department Action Plan for the site.  All delivered waste materials will be unloaded and reloaded the same day. In addition, the transfer station floor area will be swept once a day by a dry sweeper. The tip floor and loadout level enclosure floor will be washed down periodically. A detergent masking agent will be used every two weeks as part of this process. The building will be fully enclosed and large doors will be equipped with an overhead air curtain. The loadout level truck drive-through will be fully enclosed. Gaps between the bottom of the floor deck and the top of the transfer truck trailer will be “gasketed” with a flexible rubber curtain. The transfer station building’s air system will be designed to maintain a negative air flow. Fresh air will be drawn in the perimeter of the structure and pulled upward to ceiling air intakes connected to fan units at the building’s perimeter. In addition, the Solid Waste Department will implement an Odor Management Plan.

Q4: How will the City ensure that noise will be controlled?

A: Noise has not been an issue at our other Solid Waste Facilities as we do not have a single noise complaint over the past 3 years.  At this site noise will be controlled because the transfer station will be totally enclosed and through equipping collection trucks entering the transfer station with RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Tags) so that they can get in and out more efficiently. High-speed doors will be used where operationally feasible to contain interior noise. Site perimeter walls, building wall extensions and roof canopies will be used to deflect noise. Building walls will utilize high STC (Sound Transmission Classification) ratings based on mass (i.e., concrete and/or component assemblies including absorptive insulation and building façade materials that absorb sound via perforated panels). Also, landscaping that screens some noise will be installed in selected perimeter areas of the site.

Q5: Where is the waste water going to go?

A: See Question 2.

Q6: Specifically, how will the waste transfer station be designed and operated to ensure that it is a genuinely closed facility?

A: The building will be fully enclosed and large doors will be equipped with an overhead air curtain. Doors will only be located as needed to maintain a viable operation and limited wherever feasible. The building envelope will be designed to mitigate fugitive odor and dust with a negative air flow mechanical ventilation system. The loadout level truck drive-through will be fully enclosed. Gaps between the bottom of the floor deck and the top of the transfer truck trailer will be “gasketed” with a flexible rubber curtain. Also, high-speed doors will be used where operationally feasible.

Q7: Will the facility accept medical waste?

A: No.

Q8: How will the City ensure the safety of children in the area? Located nearby, for example, are La Luz Elementary, Mountain Mahogany Community School, YDI, North Valley Little League fields, the Juvenile Detention Center, and St. Therese Catholic School.

A: The proposed site at Comanche and Edith does not create additional conflicts in the area because it is not adjacent to any of the schools mentioned above, the little league fields, or YDDC (the juvenile detention Center).

Q9: The City has publicly acknowledged that, in the operation of the current Solid Waste facility, it has not been a good neighbor. What specific steps will the City take now, with respect to the current operation, to remedy that failure and build trust with the community?

A: The City is committed to being a good neighbor. We have put an action plan in place to control trash and debris and patrol the site twice a day to assure it is clean. As part of the proposed transfer station project, we will improve drainage and enclose operations to improve our ability to maintain the site. All of these changes will be included as part of the permitting process with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

IV. Traffic and Transportation

Q1: Why was convenience center traffic not included in the June 2014 Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis? The analysis mentions recycling drop-off and hazardous waste traffic, but not convenience center traffic.

A: Convenience Center traffic was included in the June 2014 analysis. It was labeled as recycling drop-off center trip traffic. The trips for the proposed convenience center were based on a proposed diversion of trips from the existing facilities and assumed to be 25% of the total customers using these facilities. See page 12, Section 4.0, b. Site Motorized Vehicle Traffic, Recycling Drop-Off Center Trip Activity.  We estimated an average of 150 trips to the convenience center per day, with approximately 1/3 of that traffic using the convenience center during the peak hours (12 in/12 out during the AM peak, 20 in/20 out during the Mid-Day peak, and 16 in/16 out during the PM peak). We will be refining these estimates and assumptions as the design process continues.

Q2: Did the June 2014 Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis take into account the increased traffic from high density housing infill projects being planned throughout the area, including the apartments near 5th Street and San Clemente NW?

A: The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Edith Transfer Station did consider overall projected growth of the region. The historical growth rate of the area is 1%, and we also reviewed the peak periods with a 3% historic growth rate. Individual developments, such as the proposed high density infill project, would likely have to perform a traffic impact analysis for their individual site and take into account any additional traffic for any improvements their development might require.

Q3: Are you planning additional traffic lights in the area, for example, for left turns from Comanche into the site?

A: Currently, we are not considering a traffic signal for left turns from Comanche into the site. This access point is already in operation and functions well. Should other intersections be considered, we would perform further analysis to determine if a traffic signal is warranted per the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) requirements and other engineering criteria.

Q4: Are you planning to widen existing roads in the area, such as Griegos?

A: No.

Q5: Why didn’t the June 2014 Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis consider the impact of increased vehicular traffic on the on-ramp to I-25 South and the underpass of I-25 headed west from Comanche?

A: The Traffic Impact Analysis did address the two signalized intersections (I-25 southbound frontage road at Comanche and I-25 northbound frontage road at Comanche) which include both of these sections of roadway, as well as Griegos Road/4th Street, Griegos Road/2nd Street, and Comanche/Edith. See page 1, Section 1.0 b. Site Location and Study Area. Results indicate that the analyzed intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS D (Level of Service D) or better during the AM and the Mid-Day peak periods under both the No-Build and With-Project conditions. During the PM peak period, the intersection of Griegos Road/4th Street is forecasted to continue to operate with poor LOS (Level of Service) under both the No-Build and With-Project conditions. All other intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D (Level of Service D) or better during the PM peak.

Q6: Are you planning any improvements to the I-25 and Griegos [Comanche] freeway access ramps? To any other freeway access ramps?

A: We will work with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), which has jurisdiction for the on and off ramps at the Comanche/I-25 interchange, but do not anticipate any proposed improvements in the near future. The NMDOT does have a proposed Interchange Modification for the interchange at I-25 and Comanche Road (Mid-term: 2015-2025), however this project has not been programmed and is currently not in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), so there is no available funding.

Q7: Will any of the garbage trucks collecting garbage on the west side of the river bring their loads to the Edith/Griegos transfer station? If so, please provide specific details on how this will impact fuel and other costs associated with traveling back and forth across the river. And, if so, what roads will the trucks use to get back and forth? Will they use Alameda?

A: The purpose of the centralized transfer station is to collect all loads in the City of Albuquerque because the distance to the transfer station is shorter than the distance to the Cerro Colorado landfill. Collection trucks currently use and will continue to use main roadways from neighborhoods to reach I-25 or I-40. They will continue to utilize Comanche from the Interstate to access the proposed transfer station.

Q8: Using a map of Albuquerque, please indicate which garbage trucks are going to use the freeways to access the waste transfer center and which garbage trucks are going to use surface streets? (We are particularly concerned about those areas of the City that are not located close to a freeway.) Please identify which surface streets will be used.

A: Collection trucks use the interstates (I-40 and I-25); arterial, collector, local and residential roadways to collect trash in every neighborhood every week. To view the proposed trash collection travel routes please click here.   

Q9: Why didn’t the June 2014 Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis consider the impact of increased vehicular traffic on other forms of transportation, such as bicycling and walking? Specifically, how is the City going to address the difficulty that garbage truck and 18-wheeler drivers have in seeing bicyclists and pedestrians?

A: Infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists is in place on Comanche and Edith in the form of bicycle lanes (Comanche), a bicycle route (Edith) and sidewalks. As the design process continues, we will be reviewing the need for additional signing, striping and other potential improvements. Our drivers will continue to go through extensive safety training, and we have committed to consider implementing side guards to the collection trucks and the transfer trucks.

Comments and Answers to Questions

The following are comments and answers to questions received for the Proposed Edith Transfer Station on or before March 10, 2015 (the end of the first comment period). All comments and questions received by March 10, 2015 will be included in the official report for the first public meeting and comment period, and taken into account during preparation of the initial schematic design concepts for the Project. Answers to questions received after March 10, 2015 will be posted when they are finalized. This comment log will be updated as new comments are received. Comments are listed from oldest to most recent.

Letter of comment from the North Valley Coalition on the project dated March 10, 2015. Click here to view.

Response from City of Albuquerque to North Valley Coalition letter dated  March 30, 2015. Click here to view.

Written comment to Mayor Richard J. Berry expressing concern about waste transfer station and requesting that a meeting be scheduled between the City and surrounding businesses to discuss the project and how its impacts can be mitigated.
Wes Bigney, Sysco Foods of New Mexico

Response:  Mr. Bigney was contacted and invited to attend the January 20, 2015 public meeting.  In addition, the design team met with him to discuss his business’ concerns.  To date, the project team has held 12 individual meetings with property owners.

I am a nearby property owner and would like to look at the proposed new construction plans for the Edith transfer station. Do you have them available in a pdf file that you can send me or can I come to your office and view them before the Jan. 20, 2015 meeting to be able to make knowledgeable comments. Let me know please.
Jeff Henry

Response:  Mr. Henry was informed that plans would not be available until the April 21, 2015 public meeting.  We will post the preliminary design plans to the project website as they are developed and refined.

I have several serious concerns along with some small ones concerning this transfer station. I own property abutting the city yards now. Over the years we have had to make several changes in our operation because of the city yard. One of the biggest ones is the diesel soot that came into my building when we use a swamp cooler. All are ceiling tiles have black lines all the way around them as air pushes out around them from the cooler. We changed to refrigerated air to correct the problem, but adding all that diesel soot by the unloading and the tractor-trailers loading up and leaving, will make this air very polluted and affect the health of our employees. The other problem will be with the garbage laying around. We will have an increase of pigeons. The pigeons have been so bad that we had to remove all our landscaping in front of our offices because the pigeons use it to roost and went to the bathroom all over the place causing a possible health problem. The other thing is the increased truck traffic on Comanche will make that exit very hard to use. There is a lot of truck traffic from businesses along Comanche including I-25.  Sometimes the line to get on I-25 backs up for 4 or 5 light changes. Business traffic and personal traffic from South of Menual use this access to get onto the interstate system for both I-25 and I-40.  Also the southbound ramp of I-25 to get to I-40 is a fairly steep grade which makes it very slow for tractor-trailers. They will reach the top of the grade and may be going 30 plus miles per hour and then the lighter traffic will try to cut around them which will create a dangerous situation on the 65 mile per hour road. This is already happening to some extent.  What makes this bad is when the Big I interchange was redone, a lot of exits were closed so there is not one for the Candelaria and Menaul area anymore. All that traffic has moved over to Comanche. I believe moving the transfer station somewhere else would be better for our health and keep a safe entrance to the interstate system.
Guy Conway

Response:
(1) The Solid Waste Management Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards. We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance. 

(2) We reviewed the concern about the pigeons and found that there are some pigeons currently in residence at the facility, and this is common throughout this type of industrial use area. The pigeons are mainly attracted to the types of shelter and the availability of water.  These issues can be addressed in the design phase, and we will be reviewing and including some thoughtful elements for pigeon-proofing. 

(3)  As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

My concerns: 

1. Additional traffic from return visits of garbage trucks during each day.

2. Additional traffic from citizens bringing their own trash – it doesn’t seem that our streets can handle the extra traffic.

3. For trash that falls out along the streets as citizens drop off their trash; how will that be managed so that we don’t have loose trash over the neighborhoods.

4. How will Griegos going on to I-25 handle this traffic? At 8:00 am there is already a huge line. I have to wait 3 or 4 lights to get onto I-25 now. What will happen when all the extra traffic is added?
Shirley Arrellano

Response:
1: As part of the design process, we are looking at additional truck traffic to the site. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. It is expected that the new truck traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

2: At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. This would not impact peak traffic times.

3: Loads that are brought to the convenience center are required to be tarped. Any load that is not tarped is subject to a fine. 

4: Please see response to your Concern 1. Comanche (which is the road that connects to I-25) is estimated to have sufficient capacity to handle truck traffic, and the majority of these trucks will be on the roadway either before or after the morning rush hour.

It think it’s great! It would save the City a lot of money.
Mike Contreras

Response:  Thank you for your comment.

Concerned about condition and maintenance of roads, traffic backup at interstate, increased fumes with traffic idling at on ramps, especially during ?? times.  Is savings from fuel and maintenance going toward purchasing natural gas trucks?  In budget decision, is road up-keep being considered? Concerned about air quality which is already compromised at asphalt plant and cement plant.
Susan Garriott

Response: Overall, the project is expected to save two million vehicle miles annually, causing much less wear and tear on our roads. Edith Boulevard in the vicinity of the project (Candelaria Road to Montaño Road) is designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area (design based on 11.34% heavy commercial truck traffic) with a pavement section of 5.5 inches of asphalt over 7 inches of base course. Comanche Road in the vicinity of the project (Edith Boulevard to Interstate 25) is also designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area, with a pavement section of 4 to 5 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of base course and 6 inches of sub-base. Also, all roadways are evaluated and maintained as part of the City’s normal road maintenance program and budget. In addition, the Solid Waste Management Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards. We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance.

How many of the other transfer stations are built in established residential neighborhoods such as this? How are you going to control the traffic going in and out of the transfer station? It can be pretty heavy as it is. How will the noise and odors be controlled?
Yolanda Gradi

Response: The proposed Edith Transfer Station site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning.  We recognize that there are some residential properties near the site. This is not unique, as other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. The Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services facility is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

Traffic going in and out of the transfer station will be controlled by including space for any lines to be contained without overflow into either Edith Boulevard or Comanche Road. Also, by placing Radio Frequency Identification Tags (RFID) on Solid Waste Management Department trucks, we can get them in and out more efficiently, lessening idle time.

Noise, dust and odors will be controlled by the use of negative air flow pressure, misters and other design features in the transfer station and the load out tunnel. In addition we will implement an Odor Management Plan. Tipping floors and load out area floors will be dry-swept and washed down daily. 

Anybody who don’t live within a 1 mile radius really don’t care about this issue!  As a resident of the area for 50 years, I have seen several changes to our neighborhood involving commercial business expanding not caring about the health and well-being of residents.  Within ½ mile area, asphalt plant, cement plan, odors, traffic, graffiti, property damage, etc.  Anybody who wants this in their neighborhood should ask the City to place stations in their area and live with noise, odor, traffic, rodents, etc.  Paseo del Norte completion won’t help ease traffic and noise issues. “Bad Idea” A Fight and or petition will be done to keep the City’s Solid Waste garbage away! Look out!
Dan Martinez

Response: Thank you for your comment.

I wonder about trucking routes for the transfer station trucks.
Karen McSorley

Response: The route that the transfer station trucks will take will be via Comanche to I-25 and I-40 out to the Cerro Colorado landfill via I-25.

1. Why here?  Economics aside. 

2. What are you going to do about trash being brought in pickup trucks (with or without tarps)?

3. What about noise?

4. Traffic?

5. Take out convenience center.
Diana Rebelledo

Response:
1. The Edith Boulevard site was chosen because of its close proximity (1.5 miles) to the I-25/I-40 interchange, which was considered important due to the haul routes for current trips. The site is also currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. Currently the site operates as a Solid Waste Management maintenance and administration area. The age and the condition of the existing site is not adequate to service the community. The proposed project will provide new modern facilities with significant site landscaping and improve our solid waste operations.

2. Loads that are brought to the convenience center are required to be tarped. Any load that is not tarped is subject to a fine.

3. Noise has not been an issue at our other Solid Waste Facilities as we do not have a single noise complaint over the past 3 years. At this site noise will be controlled by the use of negative air flow pressure, misters and other design features in the transfer station and the load out tunnel. In addition, the City does not have any identified noise complaints at our other convenience center locations over the past 3 years.

4. As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

5. The convenience center is an important additional benefit to the community and critical in helping to prevent illegal dumping.

I attended the 20 Jan meeting at the NV Sr Citizen Cntr. Items the design team should take into account:

1. Consider peak loads for employee vehicles, garbage trucks, transfer trucks and convenience drop-off user vehicles.

2. Pollution in irrigation lateral.

3. Site lights for vehicle exiting the site for oncoming autos and bicycles.

4. Effective but low impact signage for facility.

5. Consider solid low fencing with open fencing above so that trash trapped against fence is not visible but site lines are not completely obscured.

6. Site exist[s] as far from traffic lights as possible.

7. Effective left turn control mechanisms or no left turns at all.

8. Effective traffic flows that separate different types of visitors, i.e., those going to the admin offices, recycle drop off, hazardous waste drop-off, public garage drop-off, garbage trucks, transfer trucks, employees, service traffic (fuel trucks, contractors, mechanics, other support and suppliers.

9. Solar and wind power generation.

10. Waste water usage for landscaping and other appropriate uses if possible.

11. Partnership with PNM for possible natural gas usage.
Leroy Romero

Response:
1. Peak loads for employee vehicles, garbage trucks, transfer trucks and convenience drop-off user vehicles will be considered as part of our permitting process.

2. As part of the project design, design elements will be implemented to preserve and protect the irrigation lateral as well as through our Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and coordination with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.

3. We will provide lighting at all street access driveways for optimal visibility dusk-to-dawn.

4. Effective, low impact signage will be considered as part of the project.

5. Effective fencing and landscaping that provide a buffer between the site and the neighborhood will be part of the project.

6. The various buildings that are part of the project will be located to be as efficient and functional as possible. Areas where vehicles access the site will be designed to provide sufficient space to prevent overflow onto streets.

7. Left turn movements will be taken into account as part of the design.

8. Effective traffic flows will be taken into account as part of the design.

9. Right now, solar and wind generation are not being considered as part of this project, but they could be considered sometime in the future.

10. Landscaping will be low-water use and appropriate for our climate and the site; however there is currently no mechanism to use wastewater for irrigation. We will coordinate with the Water Utility Authority to see if this site can be considered for future connection.

11. We will explore the possibility of possible natural gas usage with PNM.

The amount of truck traffic going onto and off I-25 at Comanche could make that busy intersection a real bottleneck and safety hazard for regular traffic.  I suggest that you include in your budget re-vamping of the I-25/Comanche intersection to avoid serious problems.
Doug Spence

Response: We will work with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) which has jurisdiction for the off- and on-ramps at the Comanche/I-25 Interchange, but do not anticipate any proposed improvements in the near future. The NMDOT does have a proposed Interchange Modification for the interchange at I-25 and Comanche Road (Mid-term: 2015-2025), however this project has not been programmed and is currently not in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), so there is no available funding.

I am a North Valley resident protesting the Project. I have a lot of concerns.
Richard Trujillo

Response: Please contact us to discuss any concerns you may have or join us at our upcoming Public Meeting on April 21st, 2015.  See abqets.com for more information.

Why not have multiple, smaller stations placed around the city rather than dump all the garbage in our middle-class part of town
Anonymous

Response: Based on the size of Albuquerque, our projected growth and the amount of refuse generated, the only way to make a transfer station economically viable is to build a single transfer station that is centrally located near the I-25 and I-40 interchange. 

Cement plant can go 24/7 with railroad – 3 blocks from possible transfer station.
Anonymous

Response: This project is not connected to the cement plant.

Owner – Royal Plumbing and Heating

1. What is going to happen at the back side of the property along Rankin Road. Is the chain linked fence going to stay up, or will a block or metal wall take its place?

2. Will there be enough room on the site to openly accommodate the Saturday and Sunday traffic, or will the traffic line spill out into the surrounding area (major streets) Candelaria and Edith?

3. What will happen with the rain water that flows towards Rankin Road?
Mark Hosington, owner, Royal Plumbing & Heating

Response:
1. Impacts to Rankin Road are being considered as part of the preliminary design process, so we do not have an answer on the fencing at this time.

2. As part of the design, the length within the site needed to accommodate the convenience center traffic on Saturday and Sunday will be determined so that the site is designed to accommodate this traffic.

3. As part of the design, the site grading and drainage will be designed as per the requirements by the City of Albuquerque.

ya’ know, I think that area stinks enough just with the garbage trucks being housed there empty.
Vincent Amendolagine 

Response: Thank you for your comment.

The town hall meeting Tue 1/20/15 was well done and an informative session. Explanations on current and future happenings was clearly presented and concise. I believe the message of ‘re-purposing the land’ could be reiterated louder. Lush trees, plants, and landscaping could make the transfer station attractive and almost difficult to identify or notice.
John Collins, Friedman Recycling

Response:  Thank you for your comment.

I have 3 comments:  I am fine with the transfer station if it is used only by the garbage trucks and they only use Griegos/Comanche entrance.  I am not fine for the general public’s use because that means loads of traffic into that area.  I also am concerned about environmental quality.  We already have the cement plant and recycling center close.
Beth Brownell

Response: An important part of the project is a fourth convenience center for the public to help prevent illegal dumping. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. A majority of these vehicles are expected from the surrounding neighborhoods in lieu of them driving to one of the other 3 convenience centers located in the other areas of our City. As part of our permitting process the transfer station, including the convenience center, will have to comply with environmental quality requirements of the New Mexico Environment Department.

Interested in project planning, permitting and public participation issues.
Jerry Kamieniecki

Response: We encourage you to check the website frequently for information on these issues as well as to attend our next two public meetings, scheduled at 5:30 p.m. at the North Valley Senior Center on April 21, 2015 and on June 23, 2015.

I am writing in regards to the proposed waste transfer station at 4600 Edith NE. I am a north valley resident and stakeholder. First and foremost it’s a terrible location and it doesn’t pass the age old ‘smell test’, figuratively or literally. But more importantly it will negatively affect traffic, transportation, quality of life, noise and air quality in the north valley. The following points will be expanded upon during the appropriate forums in the near future but it’s safe to say that city and your firm will face an uphill battle trying to sell this project without adequately addressing some very legitimate points as follows:

 • Traffic egress from the north valley to Interstate 40 – Currently there are two (2) optimal routes to get to I-40 from the intersection of Griegos and Rio Grande. One is to go south on Rio Grande or east on Griegos. Rio Grande will soon be inhibited by a single lane round-about which will decrease easy access, and by all previous engineering studies will be ineffective due to its single lane construction. A two lane round-about would work but is not possible due to the private properties on all four corners but the County Commission is moving ahead anyway. And now Griegos/Comanche is going to be backed up with refuse trucks and 18 wheeled trash haulers all day long. And Mr. Riordan at the city calls this his selling point? That the traffic will only be between Edith and the freeway ramp on Comanche? That’s our only way out of the valley! If this is a ‘transfer station’ for residents it will also be accepting residential trash and debris which will cause an uptick in residual neighborhood traffic, pollution, litter, and homemade trash trailers. That has not been addressed yet.

• We have an inversion problem in the valley during the winter months where smog gets trapped. The daily use of front end loaders, 18 wheeled semi-trucks hauling trash to the landfill, the private vehicles and the refuse trucks are going to add to the pollution problem.

• Pedestrian and Bicycle traffic – There is a bicycle lane each side of Comanche which is going to be seriously affected by the aforementioned activity. There have already been two deaths and another major accident on Comanche involving cyclists and vehicles; once including a refuse truck. As a community we need to enhance and improve our bicycle paths and safety, not propose development that will make it worse. This is just another example of this development being proposed in the wrong geographic area of our city.

• Developmentally, geographically and environmentally it’s just a bad idea. These sort of developments are typically situated in an area of dense industrial developments, not at the crossroads of residential neighborhoods and non-industrial sites. If your purpose is to change the neighborhood demographics to an industrial site, you should transparently state as much. There are historic properties adjacent to the site, there are flood control arroyos, some pedestrian pathways, bicycle lanes, and residential areas that require respect and preservation; not wanton disregard to quality of life issues to the area’s residents.
Chet Karnas

Response:
1. There will be an estimated 130 trips (65 in and 65 out) for the 18-wheelers, which will Comanche to access I-25 and I-40 to reach the landfill. There will be 250 trips (125 in and 125 out) by trash hauling trucks, which use either I-25 or I-40 to reach the proposed transfer station. We will time these trucks so that they avoid morning and afternoon commute times to the extent possible.

2. We will work to limit the time that trucks are in the area by placing Radio Frequency Identification Tags (RFID) on our trucks so that we can get them and out more efficiently.

3. Regarding bicycle and pedestrian traffic, we have made a presentation to the Greater Albuquerque Bicycling Committee and are working on a preliminary design that takes into account pedestrian and bicycle safety as part of the proposed project.

4. The existing site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same zoning. We recognize that residential properties and a historic property are located near the site.  We are aware of the irrigation lateral along the west side of the site as well as the drainage facility at the northeast corner of the railroad tracks and Griegos Road.  These facilities will be taken into account with the design of the site and we are coordinating with the agencies responsible for these facilities. 

1. There are already two large recycling plants close-by. Why do we need another one?

2. If private dumping will be allowed here, there will be a huge increase in traffic to our area. How will this reduce air pollution? Will public dumping be allowed on weekends? 

3. The current bike lane on Griegos is very dangerous for bicyclists. Several have been killed along that route, including one run over by a garbage truck. There is no question that there will be a huge increase in traffic to and from the transfer station by large trucks and private dumpers. What will be done to protect bicyclists on this route?

4. Comanche/Griegos is an important east/west route for residents living near and west of 4th St. During rush hour (am and pm) there is often traffic congestion/gridlock between the Fwy and 4th St. because of the train crossing and the slow school zone. How can additional traffic to the transfer station not make this worse? Thank you.
Jill Gatwood

Response:
1.The proposed project is a transfer station, which is different than a recycling center. A transfer station is a facility where waste is collected and processed from trash trucks, businesses and residents. Recycled materials will continue to be transported to the nearby Friedman facility.

2. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. This would not impact peak traffic times.

3. Infrastructure for bicyclists is in place on Comanche and Edith in the form of bicycle lanes (Comanche), and bicycle route (Edith). As the design process continues, we will be reviewing the need for additional signing, striping, and other potential improvements.  Our drivers will continue to go through extensive safety training, and we have committed to consider implementing side guards to the collection trucks and the transfer trucks.  We will also continue our coordination with the Greater Albuquerque Bicycling Advisory Committee.

4. A majority of the additional traffic from the site will access Comanche and Edith east of the at-grade train crossing and the school zone, and is expected to be generated by the project outside of the am and pm peak hours (rush hours).

Certainly the city has, or can acquire, the land for a transfer station southwest of the city. The corner of Edith and Griegos is NOT where it should go. Please put it where it has the least impact on residential neighborhoods. Thank you.
Kristina Anderson

Response: The Edith Boulevard site was chosen because of its close proximity (1.5 miles) to the I-25/I-40 interchange, which was considered important due to the haul routes for current trips. The site is also currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are residential properties near the site. This is not unique, other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. It is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

Hello, I attended last week’s meeting about the Waste Transfer Station project. I agree with those who are opposed to this project and also want answers to the questions that were raised. My own questions and concerns are as follows:

• One of the reasons given for using this plot of land is that the city already owns it. So what? It could be SOLD for a more suitable development project and the proceeds used to purchase a more appropriate site.

• Many people are concerned about the increase of traffic. Has the city forgotten they’ve already increased traffic in this neighborhood with the North Fourth Development projects? Enough is enough!

• I have heard no mention of the expense of wear and tear on the road itself. Griegos/Comanche is a main thoroughfare already. These huge trucks will impact the road surface negatively, resulting in more ongoing road maintenance. Is this included in cost estimates? Road maintenance routinely causes traffic jams.

• Saving city money at the expense of individual property owners is no real savings. Our property values will plummet with the realization of this project.
Carol Chamberland

Response:
1. The site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and because of the current zoning, even if the City sold the property it owns at Comanche and Edith the new owner of the property could use it for an industrial purpose.

2. As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

3. Overall, the project is expected to save two million vehicle miles annually, causing much less wear and tear on the City’s roads. Edith Boulevard in the vicinity of the project (Candelaria Road to Montaño Road) is designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area (design based on 11.34% heavy commercial truck traffic) with a pavement section of 5.5 inches of asphalt over 7 inches of base course. Comanche Road in the vicinity of the project (Edith Boulevard to Interstate 25) is also designed for the heavy truck traffic expected within an industrial area with a pavement section of 4 to 5 inches of asphalt over 8” of base course and 6 inches of subbase. Also, all roadways are evaluated and maintained as part of the City’s normal road maintenance program and budget.

4. There is no evidence that property values will decrease as a result of this project. In fact, other transfer stations have residential properties growing in around them such as the City of Phoenix’s North Gateway Transfer Station (see case studies section on abqets.com). Originally zoned for commercial, the parcels immediately adjacent to the facility were rezoned for residential (requested by the developer).

I live in the area and feel that this is something that should not be built in the city. I’m sure you could find an acceptable site in a non-residential area. The North Valley could use that site for so many more things. Parks, Pools, Health Center, Community Center, Head Start Centers. There is surely someplace else much less residential for garbage.
Mary Tuttle

Response: The site is already the main site of the City of Albuquerque’s Solid Waste Management Department and is zoned for that use. There are other sites in the North Valley that the City has worked on to develop other uses such as the North Valley Senior Center fitness area expansion and partnership with UNM for the new 4th Street Health Clinic.

I am opposed to the proposed transfer station at Edith and Griegos.

1. It will increase the already high pollution in the area with the added exhaust from truck, dump trucks and other vehicles.

2. It will increase traffic on an already congested road, Griegos by both City trucks and personal vehicles.

3. It will bring hazardous waste dumping to a fragile environment. There is already a site for hazardous waste drop off. Extend the times people can bring things there.

4 The head of waste management stated at the Jan. meeting that the green waste and recyclables will be separated at the site and that that already happens at the other sites such as Eagle Rock. I have witnessed more than six times that the waste that people bring in is all combined and put into trucks. A big front loader pushes it all together to the end of the building loading it all into trucks. It is not separated and I believe the same will hold true at the proposed site.

5. What is needed is to reduce the amount of all overall trash. A simple and economically feasible alternative it for the city to collect green waste in separate containers.

6. It was stated a number of times that the city wants to clean up the current site and having the transfer station there would cause that to happen. It needs to be cleaned up regardless of what does or does not happen. It needs to be cleaned up now. The City should have done this before and you have the opportunity to do it now.

7. It is an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers, what is desired can be achieved in easier, neighborhood friendly, and environmentally friendly ways.
Denise Wheeler

Response:
1. The current solid waste management truck fleet meets Tier IV tailpipe emission standards and the Solid Waste Management Department is continuing to update our fleet to remain in compliance.

2. The traffic analysis is being updated, but currently the additional truck traffic is expected to increase the average daily vehicle traffic of 16,500 vehicles by less than 3% according to the Mid-Rio Grande Council of Governments 2013 Traffic Flows map.

3. Household hazardous waste is collected and managed by a private contractor, ACT. We will discuss this request with them.    

4. It is policy to separate green waste at Eagle Rock and Don Reservoir convenience centers when possible. Unfortunately, the current centers were not designed with waste diversion in mind. Therefore, segregation of clean loads of green waste is intermittent, based on how busy the center is. Even so, last year over 1,200 tons of clean green waste was diverted from the centers and composted at the Cerro Colorado landfill. The proposed facility will have improved technologies and designs specifically for the separation of materials.

5. At this time, separating green waste in a separate container as part of a curbside recycling program is not feasible. With sufficient space designed into the proposed Edith Transfer Station, the consistent segregation of clean green loads can be accomplished. City residents have made significant strides in reducing waste and recycling more through the curbside recycling program. The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan calls for a subscription yard waste program to collect green waste from households that elect to have the service. That program is not yet implemented, however, the need to transfer the green waste collected would still exist.

6. The City has taken steps to clean up the current facility. We have put an action plan in place to control trash and debris and patrol the site twice a day to assure it is clean. As part of the proposed transfer station project, we will improve drainage and enclose operations to improve our ability to maintain the site. All of these changes will be included as part of the permitting process with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

7. Thank you for your comment.

1. As property values in the North Valley decline how will the City help reduce property taxes.  Don’t forget the North Valley pays the highest mill rate in NM.

2.  The Greater Gardner neighborhood already exceeds EPA particulate standards by 50%.  How will the additional particulate load be managed?

3.  At what times/location/day of week will particulates be measured and published.

4.  The Comanche bike lane has become unsafe.  A cyclist has already been squashed by a garbage truck.  What effects will more & larger garbage trucks have on cyclists?  The bike lane under I25 is gone.  What alternatives are going to be put in place for cyclists, our cleanest commuters?

5.  How will rodents, mosquitos, flies, & unwanted birds be addressed?

6.  Is there a plan to prevent toxic chemicals & medical waste from transport through our neighborhoods?

7.  What improvements, at what taxpayer cost, will be required at Comanche/I25?

8.  What additional cost will be incurred by taxpayers for damage to I25/I40 & Comanche with the heavy loads transported?
Name not available

Response:
1. Property taxes are established by the State and the County, not the City.

2. Based on information from the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Air Quality Division, the airshed which includes the Greater Gardner neighborhood measures well below the EPA PM 2.5 standard for fine particles. In fact, it measures approximately 50% below the allowable limit.

3. The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department is responsible for monitoring air quality in the region, and the Solid Waste Management Department is held to and meets all tailpipe emissions standards.

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates vehicles emissions by setting vehicle emission standards and lowering the sulfur content of gasoline to reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks and some heavy-duty vehicles  Because vehicle emissions and fuels are federally regulated by the EPA, vehicle emissions monitoring is not site specific. 

 Air Quality monitoring is conducted throughout the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area to ensure compliance with the national health-based standards set by the EPA.  The Environmental Protection Agency sets health-based standards for seven pollutants that are monitored at six permanent air monitoring sites throughout Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Monitoring is conducted 24/7 – 365 days a year. Data collected is used to accurately show pollutant concentrations, issue health alerts, provide the public with the Air Quality Index and demonstrate attainment with the national health based standards.

 Air pollutant required monitoring includes:

  • carbon monoxide,
  • ozone,
  • oxides of nitrogen,
  • lead,
  • sulfur dioxide,
  • particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (Dust),
  • particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller (Smoke).

4. The accident you reference was very unfortunate. Based on the accident report, the cyclist was trying to balance on their pedals at a traffic signal. Unfortunately, they slipped and fell under the truck in the general traffic lane. We are committed to developing enhancements for bicycle infrastructure that is in place on Comanche and Edith. As the design process continues, we will be reviewing the need for additional signing, striping and other potential improvements. We will work with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) which has jurisdiction for the Comanche/I-25 Interchange regarding the potential for including bicycle lanes within the interchange/intersection but do not anticipate improvements in the near future. We will also continue our coordination with the Greater Albuquerque Bicycling Advisory Committee to seek input and comments on additional potential improvements.

5. The transfer station will be totally contained within a building, and no trash will be stored in the transfer station overnight. This will serve to reduce the attraction for pests. A vector (pest) management plan will be developed and submitted to NMED as part of the permitting process. The approved plan will then be implemented as a part of routine operations. This plan has not yet been developed.

6. The convenience center and transfer station will only accept municipal solid waste. Neither the convenience center nor the transfer station will accept medical wastes or hazardous wastes.

7. As the project is being developed we are looking for input on additional improvements that can be made within the adjacent project area to further improve the area. The first step is the site design and that will be presented at the April 21, 2015 public meeting.  As part of that discussion we will be taking input on these additional potential improvements.  In addition the NMDOT does have a proposed Interchange Modification for the interchange (Mid-term: 2015-2025), however this project has not been programmed and is currently not in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), so there is not available funding.

8. The interchange is designed to handle the design vehicles associated with the transfer station.

I have lived in the Greater Gardner Addition for over 29 years, a mile away from the Edith Solid Waste Facility.  I have some strong objections to the proposed transfer station.  The main one being the impact on the roadways – Comanche between Edith and I25 and the Big I.  You could put a building to rival the Taj Mahal, but that will in no way compensate for the additional traffic and having semis on city streets.  I frequently travel these routes and am very troubled by the prospect of the future scenario.  Also, I believe the traffic situation will deter people from coming into our neighborhood negatively impacting the local businesses, among them valley treasures like Bookworks and the Flying Star on Rio Grande Blvd. I am also disturbed by the fact that trash will be transported from the west side across the river on I40 and then back across the bridge.  The corner of Edith and Comanche where the solid waste station is located has always been an eye-sore and an embarrassment to me when having visitors from other parts of the city or from out of town.  It has been an indication to me of how little regard the city has for this part of town.  This proposed plan is just another example. Are the costs of infrastructure improvements including in total cost?  I would really like to see the project be scaled down.  Thank you for hearing my voice.
Irene Walkiw

Response: As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

Please note that as part of this project we hope to make substantial improvements to the current Solid Waste Facility on Edith and Comanche to make it more attractive and visually appealing.  Also, the semi-trucks you refer to will use only Comanche to I-25 and then I-40 to reach the landfill. The current project is for design of the transfer station and improvements to the Edith facility only. Revenue bond funding for construction of the project would have to be approved by the Albuquerque City Council. Also, the design would need to be approved by the City of Albuquerque Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the transfer station would need to be permitted by the New Mexico Environment Department.

Concerning the proposed waste transfer station: It is clear that the project is likely to be a great aesthetic improvement over the current condition of the site, and that it is likely to be beneficial for the city as a whole. It seems much less certain that it would be beneficial for the neighborhood surrounding the project.  After watching the video of the first 90 minutes of the public meeting about 2 weeks ago, I have two questions.

1.  The presentations by city staff and the design team seem to assume that the project will be built. Are there any plausible conditions under which the project would not be built?  What are the most serious impediments to approval of the project?

2.  The man who owns a home and business on the east side of Edith adjacent to the site made a brief statement that he opposes the project. I have participated in meetings discussing potential objections to the project. He has showed photos of serious trash problems on his property, stated that the trash blew in from the current site, and stated that reporting this problem to site managers drew the response that they had no responsibility to clean up the trash and that cleanup was his problem. With this kind of attitude, what assurance does the neighborhood have that transfer station management would work with neighbors to resolve problems that may occur?
John Karon

Response:
1. In order for the project to be constructed, the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) will need to approve the project, the New Mexico Environment Department will need to issue a permit, and the City Council will need to approve revenue bond funding for construction.

2. The City of Albuquerque has cleaned up the site. The photos the gentleman showed are not recent. The City is committed to keeping site clean and would work with neighbors to resolve any problems that occur now or in the future. Many specific controls will be included in both our site Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the permit from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

Should not be done at this location but relocated to the SB frontage road along I25 This site is too busy and will be having conflicts with local traffic and bike use on a critical e-w bike connection.
Stephen Verchinski

Response: The City did evaluate all available parcels that met the criteria and selected the site at Edith and Comanche because it is 1.5 miles from the I-25 and I-40 interchange with immediate access to the interstate at the Comanche and I-25 interchange. We understand that this area has an East-West bike lane on Comanche as well as the bicycle route on Edith and are taking this into account during the preliminary design process.

I went to the Edith Transfer Station meeting thinking bicyclists really didn’t have much at stake in this one.  After a couple weeks talking to people and digesting/contemplating what I heard, I have a feeling that this is a much bigger deal for bicycle travel in inner North Valley and between NE and NE ABQ than I thought.

Before I get into my specific concerns I should say that I fully support some sort of transfer/recycling facility (perhaps multiple) and think we should have made something happen a long time ago.  That said, I am not so sure that this is the best location or that enough care was taken to assess ancillary impacts during the site selection process.  In that vein, I would like much more specific site selection information with regard to site selection goals and specific criteria used in researching and evaluating sites.  Ideally this would include the rationale for the two sites considered but not selected.  Further, because of the significant impact this project will have on surrounding neighborhoods and Griego/Comanche to wherever trucks will get back on to head to landfill (I-40?), I think it is very important that CABQ be completely transparent in why other logical sites were not considered.  Specifically, sites south of Big I on i-25 and 12th and i40 at either the Indian School or Prager Station/Ponderosa Products areas (seems logical as much easier and practical off/on Interstate, less street travel required and even more conveniently located central locations).  Also, 12th is not designated bicycle facility and Griegos is, with two ghost bikes including one from Garbage Truck.

To understand my major concerns (it’s a very big one because of the huge impact this project will have on area roads with increased heavy truck volume) you/someone will need to drag out 2000 on-street bike plan, MRCOG AMPA Long Range Bicycle Facility Map, Draft of Bike and Trails Plan Update (specifically maps, programmed and critical links project tables) currently being considered at LUPZ, and the 2014 Albuquerque Bicycle Map and the project list you submitted to GABAC last August.   All of these Plans treat bicycles facilities in this part of North Valley differently and often contradict.  That’s a real problem that needs to be remedied.  I had hoped that the Bike and Trails Plan would do that. Sadly,  it actually confuses me when I try to grasp community intent and balance it with opportunity and quality multi-modal infrastructure (both existing and proposed/planned)

If you go up to a 2500’ bird’s eye view of bicycling facilities in North Valley, I think this project will have immediate and significant negative impact on E-W bicycle travel and connectivity.  But I wonder if an even bigger issue is the N-S bicycle impact this project will have on Edith.  Right now, the Valley is served N-S by Bosque Trail, Rio Grande and North Diversion trail (gap between over 3 miles).  Most cyclists (probably 95%) consider riding 4th or 2nd for any distance at all prohibitively dangerous.  That’s the key—we will and do ride these streets, but only for very short distances so we can fit into traffic gaps.  4th Street has always been a problem with ROW/4 lane configuration and 2nd has always been a problem because of the very high posted roadway speeds and also average travel often 15mph over that.  It’s just not a roadway environment vulnerable users are ever going to feel comfortable using (unless speeds are literally cut in half).  Edith is a different story and has been a roadway that has been subject of significant discussion for bicycle facilities over last 20 years.  And it makes sense.  It’s lower speed and it would not take much to make a few minor modifications to make it a great N-S bicycle facility.  From downtown, I often use it when I have to get North and don’t have time to get up to NDC or over to Rio Grande.  It’s not great now, but I just rode it a few days before the meeting to get to Honeywell from Downtown and it was fine as long as I controlled MV traffic in my lane at intersections and RR Tracks.  I think the entrance for the Transfer Facility on Edith would ruin any future opportunity for the intermediate N-S distance connectivity we do need in inner North Valley.

Another significant concern is access to the Montano RR station.  Right now it’s just a big parking lot.  That’s a lost community opportunity because it could and needs to be much, much more.

At meeting I happened to mention N-S concern to Councilor Benton and he said that we were okay due to Alameda Drain Project.  After thinking about it and talking more to Bernalillo County, I’m not so sure I agree.  Yet. I think Alameda Drain Trail will be great for local bicycle and pedestrian connectivity (I see folks struggling in the area all the time) but I think the distance connectivity opportunities would be limited from Montano to the South due to expense of providing safe and efficient bike/ped/Equestrian crossings (and yeah, there are people that would want Equestrian access from far NV) at Montano, Candelabra and Manual.  Nolan thinks that he could get safe crossings at signals/crosswalks but the reality is we see very few communities doing that any more as the balance of risk and ROI just don’t pencil.  Also, whether we are ready or not, that ebike thing is going to hit within the next few years and that’s probably going to be game changer in places like the North and South Valleys (don’t ask me how but I heard a lot of smart people in other communities like ours worrying about ebike impacts this summer)

My last concern that I am just going to throw out there is I still get the sense that you, the Administration, high-level management and the Council see cyclists as a class that can be boxed and grouped.  I think the reality is much, much different as there are a few hundred flavors and almost as many needs.  I also think this distinction is very important as we plan our multi-modal network (and yes, I think constantly revising old decisions instead of a very hard reset and fresh analysis is a disaster for us as we know have plans with concepts and decisions that are rapidly going extinct, yet require significant investment).  For me, daily, I probably am six or seven types of cyclists with many diverse needs: connectivity; safety; transit; shopping, medical; commerce; health (exercise); professional/commuter; social; recreational/mountain biker; thirst quencher and dog exerciser.  Just as my needs and expectations are diverse and change throughout the day, the facilities need to and can be as well.  Want to take a run up to MSP, Seattle or Spokane?  I can show you and that’s an important point.  A lot of communities are already doing it and it is working very, very well.

I’ve had a hard time sitting down to write this as I know it’s opening another can of worms for cycling community/CABQ relationship and I am pretty worn down by that.  I was especially disappointed to see that there was no mention of this project and roadway impacts/needs in this area in any part of BTFP and most important, to me, the list you provided and discussed with GABAC this summer.  It just doesn’t feel right and seems yet another example of a fairly large disconnect within CABQ/BernCo/NMDOT concerning people traveling on bicycles.  As a community we want to talk the talk, but boy, it sure seems like when it comes to put rubber to the road, agencies and politicos are often pretty much tone deaf as to what the user communities think our needs are—quite often what should be very important community relationships feel gratuitous or simply dismissive.

Anyway, now I’ve put it out there.  Do with it what you will.  I do want to be a part of any Advisory Committee that serves this effort going forward as I think my knowledge of bicycling in NV and previous discussions and plans is important and bicycle/pedestrian interests deserve representation and consideration.

Thanks for your time and consideration.
Scott Hale

Response: In terms of site selection, based on the initial criteria (within 3 miles of the I-25 and I-40 interchange and minimum 9 acre site), there were only three available parcels. The City’s existing parcel at Edith and Comanche was chosen because it met the criteria and because the project could include upgrades to make the existing solid waste operations more functionally and energy efficient as well as improve the entire site to make it more aesthetically pleasing. 

 We are taking into account the existing bicycle lanes on Comanche as well as the intermittent north-south connections on Edith. We have met with the Greater Albuquerque Bicycle Advisory Council (GABAC) and we will continue to work with GABAC and other groups throughout the design process.

I believe that this would be a terrible thing to do to this area due to the noise from traffic, the added traffic congestion, more litter on the streets from loss of trash from vehicles going to and from the site and the smell from all the garbage. The existing operation there is already problematic from the previous issues I have cited.  Please do not expand this use. Thank you.
Douglas Coots

Response: We have put an action plan in place to control trash and debris and patrol the site twice a day to assure it is clean. As part of the proposed transfer station project, we will improve drainage and enclose operations to improve our ability to maintain the site. All of these changes will be included as part of the permitting process with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). Loads that are brought to the convenience center are required to be tarped. Any load that is not tarped is subject to a fine. Noise, dust and odors will be controlled by the use of negative air flow pressure, misters and other design features in the transfer station and the load out tunnel. 

I have lived in the Stronghurst neighborhood for 33 years. What was a very quiet neighborhood in 1982 has gotten noisier and noisier. (Too bad sound barriers were not put up during the I 25 freeway project.) So because the proposed transfer station would undoubtedly contribute more noise to this beautiful area, I am 100% against it. Please choose another site away from residential neighborhoods. Yes, I understand that the proposed site at Edith and Griegos would save the city a lot of money, MONEY should not always be the deciding factor. Any city, THIS city, is about people.
PK Kozel

Response: The Edith Boulevard site was chosen because of its close proximity (1.5 miles) to the I-25/I-40 interchange, which was considered important due to the haul routes for current trips. The site is also currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are residential properties near the site. This is not unique, other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. It is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

 Noise has not been an issue at our other Solid Waste Facilities as we do not have a single noise complaint over the past 3 years. At this site noise will be controlled because the transfer station will be totally enclosed and through equipping collection trucks entering the transfer station with RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Tags) so that they can get in and out more efficiently. High-speed doors will be used where operationally feasible to contain interior noise. Site perimeter walls, building wall extensions and roof canopies will be used to deflect noise. Building walls will utilize high STC (Sound Transmission Classification) ratings based on mass (i.e., concrete and/or component assemblies including absorptive insulation and building façade materials that absorb sound via perforated panels). Also, landscaping that screens some noise will be installed in selected perimeter areas of the site.

I am extremely concerned about the impact this transfer station will have on the North Valley community. The traffic increase alone will make travel to I-25 almost impossible for valley residents. It will be easy for the garbage transport vehicles to enter the interstate, but having to dodge a thousand extra vehicles a day, will be an insurmountable obstacle for residents. The literature and dialog indicate that air and noise pollution will be cut, but I see this as ludicrous with the increase in garbage and traffic. Property values are surely going to be affected by this facility and not in a good way which is a tremendous concern to all property owners in this area. I question the city’s motives in placing a facility such as this, in an area that is located within a residential community. Certainly the city owns property in a more isolated area that would facilitate this operation without affecting such a large population and without causing such traffic congestion.
Jane Foster

Response:
As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined. Overall, the project is expected to save two million vehicle miles annually, causing much less wear and tear on the City’s roads. 

 There is no evidence that property values will decrease as a result of this project. In addition, the proposed Edith Transfer Station site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that residential properties are near the site. This site was selected because of its close proximity to I-25 and I-40, which was a major criteria. A transfer station could not be economically built or operated in a more isolated area.

As I noted in a drawing on your poster board at the January 20th public meeting, the “3% increase” in traffic in the area due to several hundred garbage truck and trailer trips to and from the transfer station will have a serious impact on an already congested and poorly-designed freeway off-ramp and frontage road on the east side of Interstate 25. Traffic going north from Candelaria on University Blvd. already has to contend with a merge and lane loss from the east frontage road, and soon thereafter another lane loss and merge with vehicles using the Griegos/Comanche I-25 exit. This is followed by vehicles crossing several lanes in a short distance to get into lanes that will allow them to turn either east or west on Comanche. When you add several hundred garbage trucks daily proceeding off I-25 northbound to turn left to the transfer station, it makes the congestion and lane crossing all the more dangerous. I know that this situation is not part of the scope of the project, but I believe that DMD should make the redesign of University Blvd. from Candelaria to Comanche a major priority, in advance of the construction of the transfer station.
Joe Sabatini

Response: Thank you for your comment.

I am very concerned about the deteriorating impact heavy and loud garbage trucks converging from all over the city, five days a week and perhaps all day long, will have on this low income neighborhood. Although your materials say a mere 3% increase in traffic on the interstate is expected, when a driver is heading north after passing through the big I, there is a very short lead distance for merging or entering the freeway before coming to the Comanche/Griegos on and off ramps, and to be contending with big garbage trucks in that space will create a dangerous driving situation. Also, your figures indicate anywhere from 10 to 15 years before the investment in creating and renovating the facility will be paid off in savings on wear and tear on the trucks. I find that an unconvincing trade off; after 10 to 15 years, more expenditures will be needed to upgrade what will by then be a hard-used facility. Finally, I see no environmental impact studies in the materials you have made available. At this point, without more information, I would have to weigh in as opposed to the facility. Thank you.
Teresa Storch

Response: As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined. In fuel savings alone the citizens of Albuquerque will realize a $25 to $44 million savings over the next 10 years. In addition there will be savings on fleet, roadway maintenance, and landfill costs.  Regarding your environmental concern, the City is following the requirements of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in designing the project.

A transfer station of this kind does not belong in a city. No One would want this in their neighborhood!! Is there a correlation of a poorer community for this vs Tanoan area? Just wondering.
–Sondra Diepen

Response: A centralized Transfer Station is needed in the City of Albuquerque in order to reduce vehicle miles driven and emissions, improve efficiency of our operations to lower costs to citizens, and extend the life of our landfill. The Edith/Comanche site was chosen because of its proximity to I-25 and I-40, which are major transportation routes for solid waste management trucks hauling trash.

This will be a benefit rather than a problem for the neighborhood. I fully support this major improvement in this area.
–Brent Ricks

Response: Thank you for your comment.

I am concerned about traffic and the resulting air quality problems. The intersection at I-25 is very congested as it is now. I think it will require some major adjustment to accommodate at least 4 times more traffic from the trash trucks and transfer 18 wheelers throughout the day. Has that probability included in the cost saving formula. That intersection is mentioned in most traffic updates every weekday. In the past meetings there has been used as a selling point that with fewer landfill trips there will be a decrease in exhaust fumes in citywide air quality. I am concerned that those fumes are being moved just north to Comanche-Edith neighborhood. With the increase in trash trucks through that intersection by three to four times plus the 65 trips of the 18 transfer trucks, it seems that there will marked concentration pollution that cannot be glossed over. It would be especially problematic on temperature inversion days for people with compromised respiratory status. I can certainly see why this station meets many of the city goals, but I haven’t seen that probable revision of roadways and all health have been thoroughly examined. I have other concerns about traffic increase along the roads. The routes shown for Monday and Tuesday pick-ups were along Comanche. That road is only two lanes from west of San Pedro to Carlisle and goes by a park with bike and walking paths and a middle school in those blocks. I think there needs to be much more consideration with many aspects of the planning. Thank you for taking time to listen to my concerns. There are many problems that will definitely have a negative impact on this neighborhood.
– Susan Garriott

Response: As part of the design process, we are looking at the additional traffic to the site which will include truck and convenience center traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. It is expected that the new truck and convenience center traffic will not impact peak traffic times. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

Please link to the video taken of the North Valley Coalition meeting on February 19, 2015. The link contains the full video transcript of the 2/19 meeting in 2 parts. Also, will you commit to posting all past, current, and future contracts regarding this proposed Waste Transfer Station on the public contracts website, with a link to a PDF of each full contract. It would be helpful if all these contracts shared WTS as a keyword in their names so they could be easily found (Cognos is a terrible database).
– J. Zimmerman

Response: The video you reference was not taken at a City meeting, but rather at the North Valley Coalition meeting. If it is to be posted, it should be done on that website. The contract for design of the Edith Transfer Station will be posted on the Solid Waste Management Department portion of the City of Albuquerque website where the other transfer station documents, such as the feasibility studies are located:
(www. http://www.cabq.gov/solidwaste/our-department/transfer-station-project)

Why is the City’s budget more important than the health (increased air pollution by way of increased city and convenience center vehicles, insects and rodents, blowing trash, hazardous waste holding) of my community and neighborhood? Why should my health, my property value and my safety be the last in the decision to put this transfer station in my neighborhood? The citizens of Bernalillo county are already paying for this transfer station, so how is it saving money? Why do I have to be burdened with yet another industry in my neighborhood, that will layer upon the already high burdened area that is Edith and Comanche area
Antoinette Vigil

Response: The proposed Transfer Facility will have a net positive effect in our community for health, good stewardship, and financial stability. With 2 million fewer vehicle miles travelled it will have the net benefit of planting nearly 114,000 trees. In addition it will extend the life of our landfill and allow us to recycle more material. Because of this the citizens of Albuquerque will realize direct fuel cost savings between $25 and $44 million over the next 10 years plus a reduction on fleet and street maintenance. 

The transfer station will be totally contained within a building, and no trash will be stored in the transfer station overnight. This will serve to reduce the attraction for pests. A vector (pest) management plan will be developed and submitted to NMED as part of the permitting process. The approved plan will then be implemented as a part of routine operations. This plan has not yet been developed. Noise, dust and odors will be controlled by the use of negative air flow pressure, misters and other design features in the transfer station and the load out tunnel.  In addition we will implement an Odor Management Plan. Tipping floors and load out area floors will be dry-swept and washed down daily.

We are not aware of any funding from Bernalillo County for this project or any other proposed Transfer Facility. This project is intended to allow the Edith/Comanche site to be upgraded to be more functional and energy efficient and to include landscaping and other design features to be more aesthetically pleasing. 

Similar transfer stations given as examples, Phoenix and Washington, show transfer stations separated from homes by much larger distances. The Phoenix transfer station is very far north of the city and the closest neighborhood is new- meaning that people CHOSE to move there with a transfer station as a next door neighbor. This is not the case in the North Valley. I do not need more odors and pollution settling into the North Valley. There is a cement factory, asphalt business, a recycling business…etc. etc. There used to be a dairy and a historic building with peacocks. Now we get bugs, flies and rodents and I wonder how long the historic houses on Comanche will last with the number of large vehicles passing by up to three times more often, not even counting the number of “off peak” vehicles. Why does the City want to put this smack into the middle of the city? Is it because it is predominately populated by Hispanic citizens?
Antoinette Vigil

Response: One of the major reasons the Edith/Comanche site was selected was of its close proximity (within 1.5 miles) to the I-25 and I-45 interchange. The proposed Edith Transfer Station site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are some residential properties near the site. This is not unique, other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. The Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services facility is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

I am opposed to locating a new transfer station at Griegos and Edith.  This has not been an open and transparent process so far – adjacent neighborhoods first heard about this in the Albuquerque Journal.  There was no public input for the site selection.  The first public meeting was held in January of this year at the urging of the North Valley Coalition.  At that meeting and in the subsequent meeting in February, we (concerned neighbors) were told how fortunate we are to have been chosen to have this located in our neighborhood.  I don’t think many of the people in the nearby neighborhoods would agree with that.  I also don’t think many of the people who are going to be affected by the traffic increase are even aware of this plan.  The City has decided to build the station in the close-in north valley which is somewhat of a rural area, although the immediate vicinity is industrial, to accommodate all the trash produced by the east side (east of Carlisle) and the west side (west of Coors) which greatly outnumbers the amount of trash produced in the north valley.  It would make much more sense to put a site on the west side and one on the east side – all the new development is going up on the west side.  Why not sell this site and buy some land out there?

Traffic has not been assessed accurately.  It would be great to have one meeting on only traffic – traffic flow, calculations, routes, etc.  The city is being disingenuous to say there is a slight increase of 3% and therefore traffic is not an issue.  Everyone is fully aware that this is going to be the biggest issue.  While the city may be able to control garbage truck routes, it will not be able to control convenience center routes.  Griegos is a two lane road west of Edith and a two lane road east of Carlisle; it is also a bike lane, albeit not up to code.  When I try to take a right hand turn from a business on the east frontage road just south of Griegos and move over several lanes to make a left on Griegos, I can’t do it, there is that much steady traffic there now on a slow Saturday afternoon.  High density housing is being planned/built on San Clemente east of 4th Street – this creates more additional traffic trying to access the freeway.  There are no plans to address problems with traffic and road maintenance.

Air quality is also a big issue.  Several times recently I have driven in the area and smelled fumes, I assume from the asphalt plant.  There are already many trucks from the nearby businesses and fumes from the cement plant.  Any additional pollution should be considered  as compounding what is already a problem.  This is not an issue to be swept under a rug – it is a very valid concern and needs to be fully addressed.  I would hope that applying for an air quality permit would address these concerns and yet the city is avoiding doing that.  Why?  What issues might surface that people should know about?

These issues should be fully addressed before any forward movement in design occurs – this is owed to the nearby neighborhoods.  Hopefully, this will result in a transfer station(s) being relocated to more appropriate locations.
–Peggy Norton

Response: Prior to the citywide public involvement, the City presented to the North Valley Coalition (June 26, 2014) and other neighborhood meetings to discuss the project. The public meeting held on January 20, 2015 was led by an unprecedented amount of public notification including 14 straight days of advertising in the Albuquerque Journal. Since that meeting the City has also participated in the North Valley Coalition meeting on February 19, 2015. Two additional public meetings have been scheduled at 5:30 p.m. at the North Valley Senior Center on April 21 and June 23, 2015.

A major criterion for the site is its proximity (within 3 miles, actually located within 1.5 miles) of I-25 and I-40.  If the City sold the current site, which is zoned for industrial use (M-1), there is no guarantee that the new owner would not also use it for an industrial purpose. The current traffic assessment is being updated to include weekend hours when the convenience center would be open. At this time, we estimate that approximately 225 vehicles per day on a weekday and 350 vehicles per day on a weekend will utilize the convenience center. Based on the three existing convenience centers, most customers visit the convenience center during the mid-morning or early afternoon. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined. The City currently monitors the condition of Comanche Road, Edith and surrounding streets and will continue to do so as part of its ongoing road maintenance program. Truck traffic exists because the area is zoned for industrial use. The proposed transfer station design will be presented to the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) for approval as well as the New Mexico Environment Department for permitting.

Can you please explain how the public outreach to the Hispanic community was performed? Keep in mind, while Hispanics comprise 48 of Bernalillo County’s (including the City of Albuquerque) population, 70 of the population in the proposed Transfer Station area of the North Valley are Hispanic.

In addition could you please explain the justification on why you are bring more polluting industries to an undeserved community that is overburdened with industrial companies?

What is being done to ensure that the voices of minorities will be heard? Especially for minorities that do not have the money to purchase the newspaper, have access to the internet and particularly community members who only speak and read in Spanish.

What I want you to do is to go back to the community and properly complete the outreach to those that are Hispanic; because you the City of Albuquerque and the design team that were hired did a poor job the first time around.

To ensure that minorities and Spanish speaking community members are given an equal opportunity to have their voices heard and participate in the decisions of the types of industries that will affect their health, safety, environment and general welfare. You need to send a notice in the mail to all the residents in Spanish and English. Provide Spanish Translators and material in Spanish.

Do you feel the minorities and Hispanic community members have no rights to live in a safe and clean environment? The neighborhood needs to be protected from harmful exposures imposed on them against their will by corporate polluters and government agencies that are callous of the impacts affecting the health of the people living in the neighborhood.
–Esther Abeyta

Response: As part of the public input process, the City is now providing all written meeting notices in both English and Spanish. In addition, a Spanish speaking City employee will attend future public meetings on this project. 

According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), transfer stations are light industrial-type facilities. The Edith Boulevard site was chosen because of its close proximity (1.5 miles) to the I-25/I-40 interchange, which was considered important due to the haul routes for current trips.  The site is also currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are some residential properties are near the site. This is not unique, other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. It is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

Thank you for allowing comments on this project. While I understand the purposes for a project of this kind (save fuel, save wear and tear on the trash trucks), I am apposed to this location for the project. I am concerned about the amount of traffic in the area especially the I25 interchange. This is a difficult and overused interchange already. I think this number of additional trucks will make getting into the North Valley much more difficult. Number 2, I am concerned about the amount of air pollution these trucks will emit into this area. The California Air Quality Board proved that the particulate matter emitted from trucks in and out of The Ports area of Los Angeles directly contributed to lost school and job time as well as increased hospitalizations of children with respiratory illnesses. The solution there was to mandate all heavy trucks change fuel sources to something cleaner.  At the North Valley meeting I was told that no such plan is in the works for these trucks. Thirdly, I am concerned that this area of the city is not valued.  UNM found that the Near North Valley is populated by predominantly older adults. The proposed city homeless centers will decrease property values and potentially safety. This project will not increase the quality of life in these older neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
–Lorraine Olson

Response: The congestion at I-25 and Comanche tends to occur most often during peak morning and afternoon commute times. The estimated number of additional trucks is less than 3% of the average daily traffic in the area according to a 2013 traffic flow by the Mid-Rio Grande Council of Governments.  We will time this truck traffic to be on the road during non-peak morning and afternoon commute times to the extent possible. The Solid Waste Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards. We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance. 

The City values the North Valley neighborhoods in our community. The site is currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are some residential properties near the site and that is why we are listening to the neighborhoods to update this existing Solid Waste Facility into a more modern, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, landscaped site with enclosed operations.

We live somewhat removed from the immediate area near Griegos and Guadalupe Trail.  I am not in favor of this station at your proposed location.

My first concern is road safety:

1. I feel like the Griegos exit from the freeway and roads leading to and from the proposed station are narrow, curvy and unsafe for lots of trucks to be going in and out of.

2. I have watched trucks exit northbound I-25 and making the left onto Griegos is tricky, and I think unsafe.

3. Turning into the station from Griegos is dangerous because the road curves near there, making visibility a problem.

4. There is a railroad track with more curves nearby.

5. While I think that Edith and 2nd Street are decent roads for trucks to travel, many roads such as Griegos from I-25 to Rio Grande are not.

6. I think that more trucks in this area will not be a safe thing.

My second concern is neighborhood air quality.

1. There are several homes near the proposed facility. It seems unfair to these homeowners to have increased vehicle exhaust etc.

2.We have frequented the Eagle Rock facility innumerable times. The location is removed from residential areas and therefore seems more reasonable.
–Jen Parker

Response:
1. and 2. The Comanche/I-25 interchange and exit/entrance ramps and surrounding roadways are designed for truck traffic and have been used by this industrial area for decades. If the neighborhoods, adjacent businesses, or the project team identify effective improvements that can be made as part of this project we will implement them.

3. The left turn for westbound traffic into the existing Comanche driveway has good visibility and it west of the two curves in the roadway (Comanche). As part of this project we will look to identify any opportunities to enhance sight distances and accessibility to the facility.

4. We are aware of the railroad crossing located just west of the Edith and Comanche intersection. There is a slight curve in the roadway but the grade crossing is in good condition.

5. The roadways you mention are all considered arterial roadways and are designed for truck usage.

6. As part of the design process, we are looking at additional truck traffic. Current estimates are that the additional trucks will add less than 3% of volume to average weekday traffic during. More detailed information and an updated traffic study will be available as the project is refined.

7. The Solid Waste Management Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards. We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance.

8. The Eagle Rock site is not located within 3 miles of the I-25 and I-40 interchange (one of the major requirements for this transfer station) and is not large enough to accommodate a modern transfer station (it is less than 8 acres and construction of a transfer station site would need to be 9 acres at a minimum).

I own a home approximately one mile west of the proposed transfer station. I am a retired senior citizen.  Because I do not own a car, I walk to the local shops and also use public transportation on a daily basis. I am very concerned about deteriorating air quality from the increased air pollution from 140 garbage trucks traveling through the neighborhood as well as the pollution the 18 wheelers will generate.  In addition to increased pollution, I am very concerned for my personal safety as I have already had several close calls while trying to cross 4th and 2nd streets even at non rush hour times (always in the crosswalk with the walk sign) because of impatient drivers in already heavy traffic. There are two elementary schools about a mile from this proposed facility and many parents walk their kids to and from school. The increase in traffic would be not more cars,  but huge garbage trucks. I can’t even visualize trying to outrun a garbage truck if the driver doesn’t see me. Imagine this situation with a small child going home from an after school activity when there’s no crossing guard!!

Another concern is my property values decreasing. My home is my only insurance against a personal health catastrophe. I don’t regard a humongous garbage transfer station a mile from my home to be a positive selling point. If it was, more neighborhoods would be begging that you build this facility in theirs. I have already seen large rats running in and out of pipes in the drainage ditch on 2nd street and I can only imagine that vermin would increase. Although the city states that this will be an enclosed facility, garbage still spills and blows around. Garbage pickup on my street almost always leave bits of trash in its wake.

I was especially taken aback by the city’s admission that they have not done a very good job maintaining the current waste facility on Edith and Griegos. I don’t care how old and outdated that facility is, it is still not an excuse for it to be constantly littered with trash and broken glass. This situation only got better in the past month after it became an embarrassing issue. If there was no interest in keeping the existing property clean, why would I feel confident that the city is going to keep the new facility grounds clean as well as the surrounding properties?  

To recap, my concerns include: pedestrian safety, increased air pollution, environmental pollution, litter, and the potential health hazards generated by 140 garbage trucks traveling through my neighborhood in order to dump tons and tons and tons of filthy garbage one mile from my house. 

And, to add insult to injury, I get to help to help pay for it!

Thank you and I look forward to your response.
–Theresa Hanretta

Response:
Our collection trucks collect garbage in every neighborhood in the city every week. The collection trucks currently take several routes to pick up residential and commercial trash.  Please click here for additional route information. The transfer trucks will utilize Comanche (and possibly Edith) to access the interstates to drive out to the Cerro Colorado Landfill. Our drivers receive extensive safety training, including stopping at crosswalks and being on the lookout for pedestrians and bicyclists, and we will be looking at additional ways to improve safety as part of the design and permitting process for this project.  

The Solid Waste Management Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards.  We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance. Trash will be transported out of the transfer station every day – it will not be stored overnight. The City constantly works with truck drivers to make sure all trash in trash trucks is contained and will continue to do so.  As part of the revised site development we will be required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit that to the EPA.  Part of that permit will be required daily operations to keep the site clean.  Noise, dust and odors will be controlled by the use of negative air flow pressure, misters and other design features in the transfer station and the load out tunnel. In addition we will implement an Odor Management Plan. Tipping floors and load out area floors will be dry-swept and washed down daily.    

I would hope that if the Waste Transfer Station is built, that the City of Albuquerque take into consideration modification of the traffic routes and serious study of the real impacts of the traffic on the adjacent areas, including and far beyond the immediate neighborhood of the project.  ALSO…. I suggest the creation on the site of a small park and small building to accommodate a PUBLIC ART element that would include only and specifically RECYCLED MATERIALS IN ART/SCULPTURE. These would be changing works sponsored by a local or state funding source. We could also include classes for the community that include art work from recycled materials. I believe that the City Public Art Program would be amenable to maintaining the project.  This would be a significant PUBLIC ART project for this part of the City, with visibility from the Interstate as well. A park of this nature  would also be a useful good will gesture to the neighborhood. Other cities around the country have provided this at recycle facilities.
–Carolyn Robbins

Response: The site at Edith and Comanche is not quite large enough to contain a park, but we will review the possibility of having public art elements in addition to the existing recycled material art piece that is at the front of the existing administration building.

As a longtime Valley resident and 4th Street, NW business owner I favor the transfer station because of the projected efficiency improvement over the existing system.  My concerns are twofold:

1-The facility must be state of the art and address citizen’s concerns….

2-Once the facility is completed, meetings are held to address unanticipated issues…
–Dan Kutvirt

Response: The facility will be designed to use state-of-the-art technology such as interior air management systems and features. We are reaching out to the citizens of Albuquerque and the adjacent property owners to address their concerns. The two best opportunities for providing the project team with your concerns is by using the website to provide comments and/or questions that we will respond to (www.abqets.com) or if you do not have access to the internet you can call us directly at 505.348.4018; or attending the next two scheduled public meetings on April 21st and June 23rd. The City will continue to work with residents following construction to address unanticipated issues.

The City says the building will be contained. I went up to Eagle Rock and observed the process. The building is not contained at all. The doors were all opened. The odors and pollution was all going out into the community thru the open doors. The City neglected to mention that the trucks have to go in and out all day along with the noise – odors – dust!
–Perry Key

Response: The Eagle Rock Convenience Center is many years old and therefore was not designed to today’s design standards for this type of facility. The proposed transfer station building will be fully enclosed and large doors will be equipped with an overhead air curtain. Doors will only be located as needed to maintain a viable operation and limited wherever feasible. The building envelope will be designed to mitigate fugitive odor and dust with a negative air flow mechanical ventilation system. Gaps between the bottom of the floor deck and the top of the transfer truck trailer will be “gasketed” with a flexible rubber curtain. Also, high-speed doors will be used where operationally feasible. 

Was agreement with the city and property owners looked at from the 90’s?
–Guy Conway

Response: The project team met with Mr. Conway to discuss the verbal agreement further.

Who’s going to clean up the wind driven trash that will cover the neighborhood – we haven’t solved this problem at the 2 recycling plans further north on Edith. Is there any plan to check incoming haulers for contaminants & radioactive debris? What are the expected hours of operation?
–Ken Andrews

Response: The Friedman Recycling Company along Edith is a private company It is a different type of facility and isn’t a completely enclosed building. The proposed transfer station will be fully enclosed.  The City will implement a load checking program approved by NMED. These programs are required at all solid waste facilities, and the City currently operates load checking programs at its 3 convenience centers and the Cerro Colorado Landfill. Specifically checking for radioactive debris is not an industry standard, but if it is found during load checking, it will be not be accepted, and the hauler will be reported to NMED.

The expected hours of operation for the convenience center are 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Sunday. The transfer station will receive and transfer waste based on the following schedule:

 Receive Waste:                      Monday through Friday 6 am -6 pm
                                               Saturday and Sunday: 8 am – 5 pm (Public)

Recycling Drop-off                 Monday through Sunday: 6 am -6 pm

Transfer Waste                      Monday through Saturday: 6 am – 6 pm
                                               Monday through Sunday: 8 am – 5 pm (Public)

1. By what route are the garbage trucks & 18 wheelers taking to transfer 1,443 tons of garbage a day? And what route to I-25?

2. How about safety of kids, parents, etc., who make up several school populations in areas affected by trucks, ex., woman on bike who months ago who was hit by garbage truck who lost a leg and would have died if not saved by passerby. Children are hard to see & don’t always make wise choices.

What the City refers to as Edith transfer station is in fact a daily garbage dump – garbage by any other name is still garbage. I think what the City refers to this garbage dump as convenient for the adjacent neighborhoods to use is a travesty. Are individuals’ trucks, vehicles containing dump material even able to drive up & use this site?
–Joan Verplank

Response:
1. The collection trucks currently take several routes to pick up residential and commercial trash. Please click here for additional route information.  The transfer trucks will utilize Comanche (and possibly Edith) to access the interstates to drive out to the Cerro Colorado Landfill.

2. Our drivers receive extensive safety training, and we will be looking at additional ways to improve safety as part of the design, permitting process, and operations for this project.

 Currently, the facility has recycle bins available for use by the citizens.  The proposed convenience center will be available for citizens to utilize and will also help to prevent illegal dumping.

Not only was there no public participation in the site location selection, but there appears to be no thought to whether the City should have one single transfer station or multiple smaller transfer stations located throughout the city. We should take a step back and consider a multiple location/smaller station option. Riordan says traffic will increase 3%. Soladay told me that today garbage trucks leave in the morning and return at the end of the day, that under this transfer station plan, trucks will leave in AM, return mid-day, go out again, and return end of the day. This means each truck goes from 2 entries per day to 4 per day – that is doubling that traffic PLUS the large loaded semi-trucks leaving many times per day for the landfill.
–Anonymous

Response:
Based on the size of Albuquerque, our projected growth and the amount of refuse generated, the only way to make a transfer station economically viable is to build a single transfer station that is centrally located near the I-25 and I-40 interchange. 

There will be an estimated 130 trips (65 in and 65 out) for the 18-wheelers, which will use Comanche to access I-25 and I-40 to reach the landfill. There will be an additional 250 trips (125 in and 125 out) by trash hauling trucks, which use either I-25 or I-40 to reach the Edith Boulevard facility. We will time these trucks so that they avoid morning and afternoon commute times to the extent possible.

Put it some place (undesignated mesa area). North Valley has already absorbed big recycle center, asphalt hot batch plant. What else do we get blessed with?
–Patrick Garrison

Response: The Edith Boulevard site was chosen because of its close proximity (1.5 miles) to the I-25/I-40 interchange, which was considered important due to the haul routes for current trips. The site is also currently zoned as an Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning category (M-1) and surrounded by numerous other properties with the same Industrial/Wholesale/Manufacturing zoning. We recognize that there are some residential properties near the site. This is not unique, other transfer stations such as the Huntington Beach Rainbow Environmental Services transfer station (see case studies section on www.abqets.com) have been built in established neighborhoods. It is located across the street from Oak View Elementary School and Oak View Center Park. The facility is also one block to the east of Oak View High School.

Why is the NMDOT STIP (State Transportation Improvement Project) list upgrading the Comanche/I25 Entrances and Exits as not to be addressed until 2025? This (ETS) plan is obviously (and documented by the 2014 Feasibility Study) adding tremendous numbers of entrances, exits, and sharp turns by high-profile vehicles onto an already short angle and busy freeway approach. NMDOT plans, designs, and funding must be addressed as part of this proposal and part of the EPC report before any going forward.
–Colwyn Gullick

Response: The NMDOT STIP is prioritized based on needs and available funding as well as projected growth rates in each area through 2025. The area around the proposed Edith Transfer Station is projected to experience only a historical growth rate of 1% to a more robust growth rate of 3%. The vehicles that would travel to and from the transfer station are only a small percentage of the expected growth and a majority will travel outside of the peak hours (time when traffic is at its highest). These types of vehicles (trucks, cars, etc.) are already traveling in the area.

I have personally nearly been run down by a garbage truck at that site already while riding my bicycle to work up Griegos at 0630 am. I wound up on the ground, with the driver driving away without even seeing me! I have had numerous close calls in that area with trucks turning. Adding semis into the mix will only make a bad traffic situation worse. The smell is also bad now. That can only get worse as well.
–Vincent Amendolaginer

Response: Semi-trucks currently use Edith and Comanche for other commercial enterprises since this area is zoned for commercial/industrial use. We are coordinating with GABAC (the Greater Albuquerque Bicycle Advisory Committee) on potential bicycle infrastructure improvements. We are adding side guards to our collection trucks to enhance safety for bicyclists and motorists. In addition, our truck drivers undergo extensive safety training. Effective odor control will be part of the permitting process in the New Mexico Environment Department Action Plan for the site. Material delivered to the transfer station will be unloaded and reloaded the same day. In addition, the transfer station floor area will be swept once a day by a dry sweeper. The tip floor and loadout level enclosure floor will be washed down periodically. A detergent masking agent will be used every two weeks as part of this process. The building will be fully enclosed and large doors will be equipped with an overhead air curtain. The loadout level truck drive-through will be fully enclosed. Gaps between the bottom of the floor deck and the top of the transfer truck trailer will be “gasketed” with a flexible rubber curtain. The transfer station building’s air system will be designed to maintain a negative air flow. Fresh air will be drawn in the perimeter of the structure and pulled upward to ceiling air intakes connected to fan units at the building’s perimeter. In addition, the Solid Waste Department will implement an Odor Management Plan.

Some people from the Solid Waste Management Department stopped by our office to inform us that there is discussion that Rankin Road might be used to route garbage trucks to and from the new Edith Waste Transfer Station. Apparently, this would be done to relieve some of the traffic on Comanche Road. First, I don’t see how this sort of routing would relieve traffic onto Comanche. More importantly, some of the businesses on Rankin Rd. have such short parking areas that if there is a substantial increase in large truck traffic, it would create a dangerous situation (pulling into traffic). Currently, there is parking along Rankin Rd and since Rankin Rd is only approximately 32 feet wide, there isn’t enough room for large truck traffic when there any vehicles parked on the street. Finally, it simply seems more appropriate for the larger streets to accommodate increases in traffic.
–Phil Chynoweth

Response: The route into the site via Rankin Lane and Rankin Road is being considered as well as the route via Comanche Road. Both Design Concept C and Design Concept D are being considered as we develop the final preferred design alternative.

1. What are the negative impacts at our other exits and entrances of Eagle Rock Facility?

2. Eagle Rock gets very busy and vehicles are stacked 15-20 deep on Eagle Rock St. What is the stacking capacity for this site?

3. Do you have elevations of any of your proposed site plans?
–Anonymous

Response:
1. At this time, we estimate approximately 30% of traffic from the existing three convenience centers, including Eagle Rock convenience center, would use a new convenience center at Edith and Comanche, but that is just an estimate. If this occurs, the entrance and exits at Eagle Rock could be less congested.
2. The design would allow for longer “queuing” (lining up) of convenience center traffic within the site in order to prevent overflow onto Edith or Comanche. Also, we anticipate having more bays open to accept convenience center traffic during busy periods.
3. We do not have elevations of the buildings within the proposed site plan concepts at this time. We will develop a three-dimensional model using computer aided graphics with selected views for presentation of the preferred alternative. Architectural building elevations will be included in the preferred design alternative presented to the Environmental Planning Commission.

I pass through the intersection of Edith and Comanche no less than 8 times a day. The traffic heading west on Comanche always bottle necks at Edith because it goes down to one lane over the railroad tracks and then widens again. I cannot support a project that is going to add a lot more traffic to this area until the road narrowing is addressed. I have owned property in the area since 1998 and am very concerned about reduced property values also.
–Colleen Grathwol

Response: Collection routes don’t utilize westbound Comanche west of Edith, where the lanes narrow from two to one. Please see the Route Maps at www.abqets.com. This would not change with the proposed Edith Transfer Station. In addition, transfer trucks would not utilize this area either. Any convenience center traffic that might be coming from the area west of Edith along Comanche, would likely already travel this route to visit the existing Eagle Rock Convenience Center. Therefore, additional traffic in this area would be minimal, and widening Griegos west of the railroad is not within the scope of this project.

Prefer [Rankin] Road Access
–Anonymous

Response: Your comment has been added to the record.

1. Alameda lateral needs to be enclosed so no runoff from storms and parking lots (trash from public etc.).

2. Keep recyclables away from lateral.

3. Have you considered the inversion in the North Valley? Too many particulates already invade this area.
–Anonymous

Response:
1&2: We are coordinating with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District on the irrigation lateral that runs through the site and will be required to protect it as part of the permitting process with the New Mexico Environment Department.
3. In terms of air quality, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County area has been in attainment with all of the national health based standards since 1995.

Please find an alternative site to transfer trash it will cause all sorts of problems including smell, litter, and traffic pollution around the North Valley area.
–Michael Chavez

Response: Thank you for your comments. They have been included in the record.

1. [Rankin] Road plan is costly. The right of way is not adequate and site distance of the hill crest if inadequate.

2. What guarantee is there that other existing convenience centers will remain open?

3. Please address resolution 270-1980 as to how this will benefit the neighborhood and community.

4. Site Plan A or Site Plan B are preferred by me.
–Franklin E. Wilson

Response:
1. The estimated cost of any needed modifications to Rankin Road will be considered as part of the design review process.
2. The City of Albuquerque has committed to keep all of the existing convenience centers open. This requirement will be part of our permit with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). Any modifications in the permit would need to be approved by the NMED.
3. This project will repurpose the existing solid waste facility with improved site aesthetics, including architectural and landscaping improvements, and improved drainage. We will address the criteria for Resolution 270-1980 as we prepare for the EPC submittal this summer.
4. Your preferences have been added to the record.

I am concerned that all questions, concerns and fears are being smoothed over by the architects with glib and unrealistic statements about how beneficial this will be for us here in the valley. If this project comes to fruition, where will they be 10 or more years down the road when their unrealistic projections about garbage, traffic, noise pollution, air quality etc. are proven wrong? They will have completed their project and we will be stuck with the mess of their slick campaign.
–Jane Foster

Response: The project is being designed on the basis of independent forecasts by experts, including local traffic engineers who have a proven record of projecting traffic and growth in the area. We have added your comments to the record.

As I read about the Transfer Station, I have concerns about the amount and type of traffic increases that will occur not only on Comanche and Edith, but on I-25 entrances and exits for Comanche and the frontage roads on either side. There is a significant amount of traffic existing on these roads already, as this is a dense neighborhood of commuters. Will there be a safety study done? I also have safety concerns for the amount and size of trucks in and out of the station traveling on this road, impeding the existing traffic. Thank you.
–Josi Ortiz

Response: A draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed last year and is available on the City of Albuquerque website at www.abqets.com. As the design is refined and a concept is selected, the TIA will be updated based on the proposed new traffic to and from the site. The proposed Edith Transfer Station project will utilize types of vehicles that already travel in the area. In terms of safety, all City of Albuquerque Solid Waste Management truck drivers continue to undergo extensive safety training and protocols. In addition, we are adding side guards to our collection trucks to enhance safety for bicyclists and motorists.

I would like to see this happen I think it is GREAT!!!
–Rita Raley

Response: Thank you for your comment. It has been included in the record.

I am against having a transfer station at Edith and Griegos, ABQ, NM. It will cause pollution in the north valley from all the dump trucks going to this location and it is near schools and the area has too much traffic already. You need to put the transfer station outside of the main part of ABQ. Why do you want to put it in the northwest valley of ABQ? It will not enhance our neighborhood at all and it will lower our property values. We have traffic problems already with Montano and 4th NW and 2 nd St NW. We do not need more traffic problems which this transfer station will cause us. Please move it somewhere else and put it on the outskirts of Albuquerque.
–Ann Marie Sekula

Response: While several sites were considered, the Edith Boulevard site was chosen as the best alternative because it had adequate room for the transfer station and because it was located within 1.5 miles of the 1-25 and 1-40 interchange in an area that is predominately zoned as Industrial, Wholesale or Manufacturing. Also, since the City already owns the land, the entire site can be improved to make it more aesthetic, functional, and energy efficient, with improved operations for better drainage and stormwater management. A transfer station cannot be placed on the outskirts of Albuquerque because the purpose of the station is to have a centrally located facility. Also, there is no evidence that the value of nearby properties will go down as a result of placing a transfer station at Edith and Comanche, and in fact other communities’ residential properties have developed around transfer stations, such as North Gateway Village in Phoenix, Arizona.

Are all the trucks which are currently picking up garbage near the land fill going to drive all the way to Edith and Comanche to dump the garbage so it will be re-carried to the landfill? That doesn’t make sense. Nor do all the trucks coming east over bridges from the west side, so garbage can be re-carried to the west side. Based on the experience of other transfer stations, what are the health effects and traffic consequences of putting a garbage transfer station servicing the entire city, in the middle of the city? What happens if something goes wrong? There is no alternate transfer station. When can I expect your answer? Thank you.
–Loren Kahn

Response: Currently, all collection trucks drive out to the Cerro Colorado landfill to deliver their loads. By consolidating loads in a central location near the I-25 and I-40 interchange (the proposed Edith Boulevard and Comanche Road site) and transporting them in larger trucks, the Project is expected to save two million miles annually. With the exception of a small area near the Don Reservoir Convenience Center and 98th Street south of I40, the distance to the proposed Edith Transfer Station is shorter than the distance to the landfill. We will review the collection truck routes in this area to provide the most efficient route.
Based on similar existing transfer stations, there is no evidence that placing a transfer station in the middle of a city has negative health impacts. This has been done in a number of other cities, as indicated in the Case Studies section on the project website – www.abqets.com. We will have contingency plans in place in the event that this transfer station cannot be operated, including having collection trucks transport waste directly to the landfill if needed.

I understand the City is ‘committed ‘to the Edith site. Though it may not be the ‘best‘site, I acknowledge the City’s direction in further developing the waste transfer station on the Edith site.  In that regard, the City and their design team have a responsibility to address the community’s concerns and to mitigate and minimize any and all deleterious effects of the new development on the surrounding neighborhoods. Such requirements can be more fully explored in the future Environmental Planning Commission review of the project, as well as the NM environment department review for licensing/regulatory compliance.

1.Based on neighborhood concerns, and environmental issues of health, life and safety it appears the Rankin Road option is most preferred while it meets the programmatic needs of the project.
2. All of the design options including the current Rankin road option have a commonality of keeping the fueling station in its current location. I believe starting the design process with the premise that the fueling station needs to remain is a bad idea. By having the option to relocate the fueling station elsewhere on the site creates a multitude of more desirable design features that can be incorporated into the site plan. The cost to relocate the fueling station appears to be negligible as compared to the size of the $30 million project. Furthermore, the design options gained by relocating the fueling station will exponentially increase the favorable acceptance of the project. In reviewing the Rankin Road option, by relocating the fueling station, the transfer building can be located further south, closer to Rankin Rd., and the vehicle maintenance facility could be located north of the transfer building thus creating a buffer between the publicly accessible drop off area and the large refuse vehicles. I believe it is imperative that there be a clear separation of circulation paths between all of the refuse trucks and the public/vehicles.
3. It was stated that this project is to be an example of “environmental stewardship”. If that is true, the project should be a LEED Silver or higher level rated project. In addition, in addressing many neighborhood concerns of air quality and air pollution, this project should have enhanced commissioning and enhanced environmental monitoring built into it on a yearly basis after the project is completed to show the neighborhoods that the city is serious about its “environmental stewardship”.
–Lee Gamelsky

Response:
1. Rankin Road is being considered as one of the design options. Stated neighborhood preferences are being taken into account.
2. Relocation of the fuel station was not included in the scope for the project because it is not a major encumbrance to the design layout options.
3. It has not been determined whether this project can be a LEED Silver or higher level rated project at this time, but it will be constructed to be energy efficient. Environmental monitoring will be performed as required by the Project’s permit from the New Mexico Environment Department. The City of Albuquerque is committed to good environmental stewardship in this project.

Response to Site Concept D – I would like to address Site Concept D which uses Rankin Rd for collection truck, transfer truck and employee vehicles entering and exiting the Edith Transfer Station. I do not support this option. Rankin Rd. is currently not suitable for high volume, collection truck traffic. As it is, when delivery trucks make their stops, dropping off pallets of goods, long lengths of pipe, packages, etc., it is not uncommon for these trucks to park in the street and unload their goods by forklift. This slows traffic considerably, making it difficult for traffic to pass and almost impossible for large trucks to get through. Those of us in the neighborhood understand this and it’s ok with us (at least there are no complaints about it). We purchased our properties in a rather quiet, “low-key” industrial neighborhood and we like it that way. The problem comes with the addition of numerous collection trucks, transfer trucks and employee vehicles clogging Rankin Rd. and Rankin Lane at various times of the day. It is my understanding, if Site Concert D is selected, Rankin Rd. would need to be widened approximately ten feet, land would need to be taken and there would be considerable expense added to the project. Then the impact to the landowners would include the taking of precious parking spaces, a substantial increase in traffic and for some, there would be barely enough space in front of their buildings for a sidewalk. These are small properties in the Rankin Rd. neighborhood, and I don’t know anyone in the neighborhood who thinks they have enough land to be taken for a wider road. The reconstruction and subsequent use of Rankin Rd. for such a substantial increase in traffic by collection trucks, transfer trucks and employee vehicles from a facility the size of the proposed Edith Transfer Station in my opinion is a bad idea and it presents an unwanted change for the neighborhood on Rankin Rd. It also begs this question. Why did the City widen Edith Blvd and then widen Comanche Rd., in recent years, only to build a facility like the Edith Transfer Station and not use these roadways to handle the increased traffic generated by this project? It does not make good sense. Response to Site Concept C – Site Concept C uses Rankin Rd. for employee vehicles entering and exiting the Edith Transfer Station. I do not support this option because of the increased traffic on a small roadway, Rankin Rd. several of the reasons above pertain. Response to Site Concept B – Site Concept B uses Rankin Rd. for employee vehicles entering and exiting the Edith Transfer Station. I do not support this option because of the increased traffic on a small roadway, Rankin Rd. several of the reasons above pertain.
–Phil Chynoweth

Response: Thank you for your comments. They have been added to the record for this project.

Adjacent Land Owners Opinion after review of the proposed Edith Transfer Station Site Plans as prepared for City of Albuquerque
My written statement is to support Site Plan Concept C which is the plan that utilizes both Comanche Road and Edith Boulevard to access the proposed facility. This site plan is well thought out and utilizes the existing infrastructure of the two existing four lane roadways. This site plan allows the quickest access to Comanche Road, which in turn connects the facility to Interstate 25. The use of existing, well developed infrastructure will save cost in implementing this plan. This plan shows the work of professional planners allowed to utilize available resources to make the best facility possible.

The Edith Boulevard right of way of approximately 100’,which is wide enough for two lanes in each direction, a center turn lane with adequate room for 6 foot sidewalks behind the curb, and still additional right of way for landscaping and site visibility.

The Comanche Road right away of approximately 100’ also affords the same space for two lanes in each direction, a center turn lane, and adequate sidewalks.  At the intersection of these two major roadways there are turn lanes to allow right turns from one street to the other without stopping vehicles in the travel lanes.

Of the two plans prepared and presented I believe this is the most favorable that utilizes existing resources with the minimum additional capital outlay.

Site plan Concept D which is the plan with Rankin Road access, appears to have been prepared as a reaction to neighborhood concerns about access onto the well-traveled and well-developed main roadways that border the site on the west and north.

Rankin Road is a poor choice because of the narrow right of way and the incomplete infrastructure along the right-of-way adjacent to the city owned property and the property east of the subject site. The Rankin Road right of way is 40 feet in some places and possibly 50 feet at the widest.

Additionally, the grade of Rankin Road East of Edith Boulevard is steep which will require the trucks to utilize more fuel and create more exhaust as they climb the hill. Rankin has poor visibility due to a steep grade that becomes flat.

This proposed Site Plan Concept D, with all employee and truck traffic on Rankin, will cause the trucks to remain in the area longer than if they took the direct route of access to Comanche Road and then to the Interstate.

This proposed site plan will require additional capital expenditure to create new paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks.  Adequate right of way must be acquired by using the condemnation process and paying compensation to the affected property owners. This process will take longer and be more expensive than the Site Plan Concept C.

Traffic was only one of many objections raised at the public meeting.  The issues of noise, air quality, blowing debris, and increase in rodent and bird population still remain.

In closing, if this location is indeed the best location for the facility, then Site Plan Concept C is the best site plan for the Edith Transfer Station.
–Franklin E. Wilson, Managing Member, Wilson Family LLC

Response: Thank you for your comments. They have been added into the record for this project.

I regret that I am unable to attend the meeting on the Edith Transfer Station, as I am out of town.  But I do want to express my firm opposition to Site Plan D. Although I am opposed to the very idea of the Waste Transfer Station being located in our neighborhood, it seems that the decision to impose it on us is a foregone conclusion.  However, the adoption of Site Plan D would be adding insult to injury. My family purchased our land on Rankin Road back in the 1970’s.  We chose it because it was a convenient, quiet side street with limited traffic.  It was a place where we could conduct our business, easily receive and unload shipments of material, and take care of our customers.  It has remained that way for these 40+ years that we have done business here.  It is how we like it, and how we expected it to remain.

We are responsible property owners who have paid our taxes and maintained our property.  We have all been good neighbors and watched out for each other during some trying times.  To radically change the very nature and concept of Rankin Road at this point – according to Site Plan D – would be an extreme and unfair imposition to everyone on Rankin Road.  It would be a blow to the hardworking businessmen and women trying to hang on in a difficult economy.  The traffic flow and volume it would impose on the landowners would severely damage our ability to continue to conduct business here.  This is unwarranted. This is unjust.

Think of how difficult it will be to rent or sell a building or property on Rankin Road once it becomes “Garbage Truck Lane”.  No one will want to have their business subjected to the constant flow of garbage trucks roaring down the street.  Customers will not want to compete with truck drivers racing to beat a deadline to dump their trash.  This added traffic – not to mention the probability of losing much of our land to the street expansion – would destroy Rankin Road as a good place to conduct business.  It will not only be inconvenient and detrimental to our businesses, it will be unsafe.  Rankin Road was not designed to carry this type of traffic, and no amount of redesign or realignment will make it work.

Although I am sure that the property owners along Comanche and Edith also do not want the trucks to use their street to enter the site, the expectations of someone purchasing property on Comanche or Edith was for a much greater volume of traffic than for those of us on Rankin Road.  We never imagined that something like this could happen to us.

My parents purchased our land and conducted business here on Rankin Road peacefully and happily for many years.  It is my desire to pass this property on to my sons so that they can have a place to carry on the tradition of being good, responsible members of the Albuquerque business community for generations to come.  Please do not destroy Rankin Road.  Please do not wreck our property values.  I ask you to reject Site Plan D and help us maintain the dignity and quiet nature of our neighborhood.

Thank you.
–Austin McFall

Response: Thank you for your comments. They have been added to the record for the consideration of Site Option C and Site Option D to develop a preferred design alternative.

There is talk of extending Rankin to the I-25 Access Road to provide a way for the trucks to access the Edith transfer station without using Comanche. Will this route still use Edith to enter the transfer station? Have you analyzed the impact to traffic exiting I-25 at Comanche?  It is my experience that the north bound exit gets backed up as it is. How do you know that there will not be bad odors exiting the facility? What happens if after it is built order is a problem?
–Eleanor Walther

Response: None of the site options propose to extend Rankin Road to the I-25 frontage road. Site Plan D proposes to use only Rankin Lane and Rankin Road to access the site. We have analyzed the potential effects to the intersections at Interstate 25 as well as several others and have found that they are at acceptable levels of service. A majority of the new trips will occur during the non-peak hour times. Effective odor control will be part of the permitting process in the New Mexico Environment Department Action Plan for the site. All delivered waste materials will be unloaded and reloaded the same day. In addition, the transfer station floor area will be swept once a day by a dry sweeper. The tip floor and loadout level enclosure floor will be washed down periodically. A detergent masking agent will be used every two weeks as part of this process. The building will be fully enclosed and large doors will be equipped with an overhead air curtain. The loadout level truck drive-through will be fully enclosed. Gaps between the bottom of the floor deck and the top of the transfer truck trailer will be “gasketed” with a flexible rubber curtain. The transfer station building’s air system will be designed to maintain a negative air flow. Fresh air will be drawn in the perimeter of the structure and pulled upward to ceiling air intakes connected to fan units at the building’s perimeter. In addition, the Solid Waste Department will implement an Odor Management Plan, which would be in effect after the site begins operating..

This use is so exceptional that the arbitrary restriction on traffic volumes needed to justify a signal should be suspended. Also, the Comanche curve down the slope of the hill creates additional traffic hazards.
–Joe Sabatini

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The vertical and horizontal alignments for Comanche were designed per requirements for a minor arterial roadway. The roadway has a design speed of approximately 35-40 mph, and posted speed limit of 35 mph (30 mph advisory speed for eastbound traffic).

My comments were sent via email to Patti Watson. I oppose Site Plan D – Rankin Road transfer truck access. I support Site Plan C – utilize existing Comanche/Edith. Tonight’s meeting was well conducted.
–Anonymous

Response: This comment will be added to the record. Thank you.

Thanks for your work on this project. I know it’s your job and all, but your willingness to interact with folks who don’t quite understand, or want to understand, traffic counts at, say, 2:30 p.m. v. 5:00 p.m., is appreciated. Here are my thoughts about the project, coming from one who is a 3-times-a-week commuting cyclist (South Valley to Girard/Lomas) and fledgling member of GABAC: Overall: I know it sounds bizarre in the context of what’s being considered, but I personally don’t see the advantage of Rankin Rd. UNLESS Rankin is extended to the frontage road (a massive regrade undertaking, as I understand it). Turning left at Comanche/Rankin doesn’t accomplish much for cyclists, UNLESS…Edith fully replaces 2nd Street in the City’s plan for N/S cycling. Regardless, I’d like to see better/more coordination between ABQ Traffic Engineering and ETS planning. The 2nd v. Edith cycling debate would be a meaningful part of such coordination. In retrospect, it’s too bad the off-ramps from I-40 were planned the way they were. Going up Broadway/Edith from I-40 really makes more sense than anything on the table now. But I digress. Protective side panels on all collection/transfer trucks to prevent folks falling into the path (I believe you mentioned this is already being planned). Assuming Plan C is implemented: Any/all beautification work including the silly “multi-use path” needs to go toward standardizing bike lane width throughout the adjacent Comanche/Griegos corridor; Painted bike lanes adjacent to the facility on Edith and Comanche to I-25: (why not? we have to start doing this somewhere) Much improved street sweeping of this neglected stretch of road; Consideration/implementation of “road diet” ideas that will slow down all traffic on that curve; and Something to ensure the safety of cyclists on Edith, particularly those going Northbound at the entrance to the facility. Assuming Plan D is implemented: All the Comanche mentions above (which further points out how Plan D doesn’t really help Comanche much); Reconsideration of a light/signal at Rankin/Comanche, based on the special use of that intersection, not simply the anticipated traffic counts; Make that light/signal a staggered light that allows peds/cyclists to go first at Rankin/Comanche and Edith/Comanche…something like this (photo from Copenhagen) (although the ones in Berlin are better than this one from Copenhagen). Miscellaneous: I think the public drop-off impact is being left out of the discussion and will be more substantial than many think. Training collection/transfer truck drivers is one thing; dealing with untrained drivers hauling often improperly secured loads to a location they’ve never used before is another. What happens to trash collection logistics during the construction phase of this project? As I asked you in person earlier, what happens if approval goes to Plan D but is stymied by costs/legal delays in right-of-way purchase, etc.?
–Scott Key

Response: Thank you for your comments. We will continue to work with the community on further potential enhancements for the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. We are adding side guards to our collection trucks to enhance safety for bicyclists and motorists. Trash collection would continue “as is” during construction, with trucks going directly to the landfill, until the transfer station is constructed and operational. Since Site Option C was ultimately selected as preferred design alternative, we will not address your question about Site Plan D.

I talked with you after the meeting last Wednesday and told you I preferred site plan D. After thinking, I was being selfish. I decided to look at it as to how it would affect this area. I looked at rankin road from Comanche Lane down to Edith. I have a truck which is the size of the garbage truck ( see attached ). I drove it over and stopped it on that section of road. There is no way that two of these size trucks are going to pass each other on that road without destroying the edges of the blacktop. Plus they would have to pass each other very slowly, which will not happen. The garbage trucks travel very fast on Comanche and tailgate vehicles constantly. My wife has alway said she felt that one day on her way to work in the afternoons she is going to be run over by a garbage truck. Also the road is not near wide enough for tractor trailers to make a turn unless they have very short trailers. Everyday last week after the meeting when I left my office on Comanche Lane I went south to Rankin Road up to Rankin Lane and then left to Comanche. I made that trip 5 or 6 times at different times during the day. The congestion at times is terrible. This is caused by unloading of trucks and customers going into the business by parking on the street. There is also lots of traffic in and out the driveways from the businesses. This makes Rankin Road essentially a single lane for big trucks. I could not predict when this is going to happen. To stop parking on the street would put theses businesses out of business as there is no other alternative. Therefore I will support site C as the best option if the transfer station is built. Thank you for listening to my concerns.
–Guy Conway

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

As a member of the cycling community, I make regular use of the bike lanes on Griegos & Comanche boulevards. Even though it is the least dangerous east-west corridor for ABQ cyclists, there are still four “ghost bikes” commemorating cyclists who died in collisions with motor vehicles over the past 10 years. Aside from all the other reasons I wouldn’t want a transfer station in my back yard, the resultant increase in heavy truck traffic would be contrary to ABQ’s intentions of becoming more bike commuter friendly. For cyclists, Comanche/Griegos is a valuable connector to bike paths that follow the diversion channels and the Rio Grande. If there is no other option to the WTS than the Edith location, then the city owes it to the cycling community to build a dedicated East-West bike lane that physically separates bikes from vehicular traffic.
–Tom Teegarden

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

We prefer Plan D, Rankin Rd.. It alleviates traffic on Comanche west of Rankin and also on Edith Blvd. providing a more direct route to I-25. We understand the reservations of the business owners on Rankin but feel that the Plan D will not be devastating, as they perceive, and that they can adjust. Furthermore, they will benefit from an improved and better maintained roadway on Rankin.
–Stuart and Julie McIntosh

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Option D shouldn’t even be considered for the following reasons (as a neighbor on 700 Rankin Rd. NE I feel very strongly about this): It would be a huge waste of taxpayer’s dollars due to redoing the road (most likely the subgrade as well as the asphalt) so it can handle this type of traffic. The construction alone would negatively impact businesses on Rankin tremendously. The city would also have to acquire land from businesses in an attempt to improve the areas semis can turn onto roads that are still inadequate for this use. The added traffic would increase almost 50% on Rankin and that is with much bigger vehicles than we are used to. If Comanche and Edith were used, it would only increase traffic 5% on roads that are adequate for this type of use. Comanche and Edith were both widened recently for the purpose of accommodating a heavier volume of traffic so it would make sense to use those roads. Saving the taxpayers needless spending should be considered. Site plan D is the plan that most directly affects people being that some of us have desks within 20-30 feet from the main route these collection trucks and transfer trucks would take. On Rankin there is bad visibility from the steep hill, people speeding, parking lots that are immediately next to the road, daily deliveries of semi’s that have to pull into businesses and have a very difficult time. I have waited up to 10 minutes on numerous occasions for semi’s blocking the entire street that have to make corrections until they successfully back into a property for deliveries. Our company has many trucks and trailers that back in and out of our yard every day. There are many city employees who walk on Rankin every day (for exercise) that have to walk in the street because the sidewalks are inadequate. I don’t think they would feel very safe with the added traffic and large trucks. Site plan D is bad for the business community which affects the entire community. I have already heard from more than four businesses on Rankin that would have to move because of this plan. This puts the people that own the buildings in a bad situation for finding future tenants and it hurts the businesses that would have to move due to the expenses involved. It has the potential to put people out of business and many of them have spent all they have for improvements to accommodate their needs. They never thought Rankin could become a thoroughfare for heavy traffic eliminating parking and property they can’t afford to lose. This also has a great chance of lowering property values. Please consider the significant problems with Site Plan D. I vote for Site Plan “C”. Thank you.
–Jeff Chynoweth

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I am opposed to the 22 acre trash station intended for the Griegos/Comanche dump center. I believe it will harm the already impoverished neighborhood and create another major problem for traffic flow in the area to the I-25 entry point.
–Cliff Sarrel

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I already sent an email but I was in a hurry to get on I-40. In order to get on I-40 I must travel up a 1 lane rd. (Griego) to get to I-25. Also, there is a bike lane going up Griego to the freeway. These bicyclists already face dangerous conditions. I also bike and will be in more danger with the slowdown that will occur on that 2 way rd. It will become worse than Montaño at rush hour, and you know how horrible that is. I see multiple problems with this plan and its disregard for the effects on the surrounding area and traffic flow. People already have difficulty merging onto I-40 from the Griegos entrance and also switching to I-25 right there. There will be an increase in highway accidents with all those slow moving trucks entering the freeway there at Griegos! If you have ever tried crisscrossing from the I-40 lanes to the I-25 lanes, now add the 364 trash trucks plus the environmental implications. There must be a better location. UNLESS THIS IS ALL ABOUT CONTRACTS AND MONEY AND NOT THE PUBLIC’S CONCERNS. VERY POOR PLANNING.
–Phil Chynoweth

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

As a small business owner and also a relatively new property owner on Rankin Road, I am very much opposed to Site Plan D as it would have a very negative impact on our business for a number of reasons: 1) We get deliveries with 53′ tractor trailers once or twice per week, and it is extremely difficult to back them into our property as it is. We have to have two or three guys spot the trailer and help back them in without causing damage to our property and also our neighbors’ properties. This takes anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes, and usually involves multiple attempts. Our deliveries usually take place around 10:00 am, but could actually happen anytime during normal business hours. I know, without a doubt, Site Plan D will cause such a major traffic jam with each and every delivery, both entering and exiting our property, that traffic will most likely have to be rerouted to both Edith & Comanche anyway, and will probably cause road rage incidents, etc. . .Site Plan C is the lesser of two evils. 2) The appearance of properties along Rankin Road has been gradually improving over the last few years, as more and more owners have begun to take pride in their properties, and started spending their hard-earned money to help improve them and make Rankin Road a nicer and safer place to do business. I don’t think that will continue with Site Plan D, as pride of ownership won’t mean anything when businesses begin to look for property elsewhere.
–Joe Silva

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Plan D. The use of Rankin for the collections and transfer tractor trailers would be a disaster. The road is much too small to handle that kind of additional traffic on top of the day-to-day use it already sees. As small as this road is any disruption, from say an accident or one of the businesses receiving a delivery, would cause a domino effect. It would adversely affect traffic in all directions and stop production at the transfer facility itself. I believe this plan is ill conceived and would be poorly executed.
–Chris Leonards

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

As they say, if everyone is thinking alike, than someone is not thinking !!! I don’t think that the public has any idea of what you are planning on doing. You are planning to raze the entire existing facility and build an entire new one. Where are you planning on moving the existing shops to??
–Raymond Cohen

Response: We are not planning to relocate the existing facility maintenance shop or administrative offices. As part of the construction plan, we will keep them open while we build the “new” facilities then close them once the new offices/shop are open and operational.

Just Sayin’. What ever happened to the quiet, green North Valley? Oh, that’s right–we now have Albuquerque’s Solid Waste Department on 22 acres of land at Edith and Griegos. We have adjusted (somewhat) to the dust and noise from all of the garbage trucks in the City of Albuquerque parking at the end of the day and then leaving in the morning from that site. Now we are informed that the city proposes to build a large indoor transfer station at this site. It would hold tons of trash dumped in the trailer of a big rig where it would wait to be hauled to existing landfills. Dust, noise and odors would not be problems because all activity would take place inside. A “possible lengthening of nearby Rankin Road to the I-25 Frontage Rd.” The entire project would save taxpayers over a predicted $4 million a year. It’s hard to argue with these figures! Soon the quiet, green North Valley will be a fading memory.
–Agnes H. Baxter

Response: The project does not propose to extend Rankin Road to the I-25 frontage road for any of the options. Thank you for your comments and we will add them to the record.

As a property owner on Rankin Rd., I must strongly object to plan “D” which would use Rankin Rd for collection truck, transfer truck and employee vehicles entering and exiting the Edith Transfer Station. This plan would almost double the existing traffic load on an already congested two-lane residential grade street. This would make access to my property difficult for my employees, clients, freight deliveries and shipments. The sheer volume of garbage trucks would make entering Rankin Rd. hazardous. This industrial neighborhood is zoned M-1 which is expensive and scarce property in Albuquerque. Our only access is through Rankin Rd. The City, in contrast, has much better access to their property via Edith and Comanche. By limiting access to our properties their value is decreased. I will not be able to sell or lease my property for industrial use as it will no longer be functional for that purpose. I would like to point out that this affects all the property owners here directly. It takes away from our ability to earn our livings and provide for our employees and their families. Our suppliers and customers will be affected. The North Valley Coalition (the original proponents of plan “D”) and the North Valley in general, are literally unaffected by routing garbage trucks through our neighborhood. Their plan seems quite petty and punitive when there is an admittedly much better alternative open to the City. All this just to keep the City off of literally 3 blocks of street and Comanche will still be used. The irony here is that the businesses on Rankin Rd have been neighbors to the City Yard for years and have not objected to the conversion of their site to a transfer station. By commandeering Rankin Rd., the City will be unnecessarily adding an entire industrial neighborhood to the ranks of those who are opposing their project altogether. And sadly, the use of Rankin Rd. is not even in the best interest of the City. Using Rankin Rd will be funneling 4 lanes of traffic down to 2 narrow lanes, in effect creating a “gauntlet” which will be a burden and hazard for city truck drivers and industrial users alike. Designing the transfer station to utilize only Rankin Rd. ignores the reality that Rankin Rd. may prove more of a burden than planners are willing to acknowledge. Ultimately, its sheer impractically may force the City to use Edith and Comanche after all and then have to shoulder the burden of rebuilding their traffic flow through the transfer station. The City has a perfect solution to their site access through Edith and Comanche (Plan “C”) and the support of their industrial property neighbors. It’s a shame to see them tie themselves in knots to squander both of them.
–William Rombin

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I am opposed to Site Concept D. I am an Albuquerque native who started my own business in 1987 and worked arduously in order to purchase my 22,500 square foot manufacturing facility at 740 Rankin Rd., which currently employs 10 people. The proposed plan would have a hugely negative impact to all the business owners on Rankin Rd, and Rankin Ln. For me personally, I would never be able to recoup the purchase cost and improvements to my building because of the estimated 50% increase in traffic flow on Rankin Rd. and Rankin Ln. In short, the value of my property would free fall. In addition, the City estimates during peak times, every 7 minutes one of their vehicles will be traveling on Rankin Rd. and Rankin Ln., many of which will be the size of semi-trucks. Every day my company needs to load and offload its own semi-trucks. Because Rankin is only a two-lane road and narrow at that, when our semi-trucks are maneuvering to load and off-load cargo, they can block Rankin for 5-10 minutes for each truck. Imagine the back-up and the effect this would have on my business as well as the effect on traffic flow on Rankin. This only accounts for my own business. My other neighbors have similar semi-truck needs. In my estimation, Rankin Rd. and Ln. are not physically sound to handle the weight and amount of traffic proposed. The cost to tear up and re-build these roads would be at great expense to the taxpayer when those improvements have already been done to Edith and Comanche. Setting aside my own personal stakes in the proposed use of Rankin, I think the transfer facilities’ ability to grow and its overall effectiveness to serve the City are greatly diminished in the Site Concept D scenario. All of this effort and money to avoid using a small stretch of Edith and Comanche seems unreasonable and illogical. Thank you for your time.
–Kevin Mallory

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Re:Edith Transfer Station – Site Plan D: I am the owner of the property at 705 Rankin Road N.E. and would like to express my firm opposition to the proposed Site Plan D for traffic in and out of the Edith Transfer Station. My family purchased our land on Rankin Road back in the 1970’s. We chose it because it was a convenient, quiet side street with limited traffic. It was a place where we could conduct our business, easily receive and unload shipments of material, and take care of our customers. It has remained that way for these 40+ years that we have done business here. It is how we like it, and how we expected it to remain. We are responsible property owners who have paid our taxes and maintained our property. We have all been good neighbors and watched out for each other during some trying times. To radically change the very nature and concept of Rankin Road at this point – according to Site Plan D – would be an extreme and unfair imposition to all of us. It would be a blow to the hardworking businessmen and women trying to hang on in a difficult economy. The impact to business – in everything from customer access, loss of parking, and ability to receive deliveries – would be substantial. The traffic flow and volume it would impose on the landowners would severely damage our ability to continue to conduct business here. It has been stated that under Site Plan C the increase in traffic volume on Comanche and Edith would be approximately 5%, while the increase on Rankin Road with Site Plan D would be approximately 50%. This is unwarranted. This is unjust. Think of how difficult it will be to rent or sell a building or property on Rankin Road once it becomes “Garbage Truck! Lane.” No one will want to have their business subjected to the constant flow of garbage trucks roaring down the street. Customers will not want to compete with truck drivers racing to beat a deadline to dump their trash. Deliveries will be a nightmare. This added traffic would destroy Rankin Road as a good place to conduct business. It will not only be inconvenient and detrimental to our businesses, it will be unsafe. Rankin Road was not designed to carry this type of traffic, and no amount of redesign or realignment will make it work. Although I am sure that the property owners along Comanche and Edith also do not want the trucks to use their street to enter the site, the expectation of someone purchasing property on Comanche or Edith was for a much greater volume of traffic than for those of us on Rankin Road. We never imagined that something like this could happen to us. Using Site Plan D, the impact on Rankin Road property owners and businesses is far greater than to other surrounding neighborhoods if Site Plan C is implemented. Several years back all of the property owners in the area – including those of us on Rankin Road – were charged a special assessment for improvements to Comanche Road and the Edith/Comanche intersection. One of the stated purposes of this assessment was to increase the size of these major thoroughfares to handle more traffic. We all dutifully paid our portion of the assessment, and now the City is proposing to funnel this huge increase in new traffic onto our road. So not only did we have to bear the financial burden of the Comanche/Edith expansions, but now we’re expected to bear the burden of these garbage and transfer trucks clogging our road and impacting our ability to do business. This makes no sense and cannot be justified. My parents purchased our land and conducted business here on Rankin Road peacefully and happily for many years. It is my desire to pass this property on to my sons so that they can have a place to carry on the tradition of being good, responsible members of the Albuquerque business community for generations to come. Please do not destroy Rankin Road. Please do not wreck our property values. I ask you to reject Site Plan D and help us maintain the dignity and quiet nature of our neighborhood.
–Austin McFall

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

After visiting Rankin Road and Rankin Lane, I find myself in agreement with the business owners that those are unsatisfactory for handling the entire load of incoming/outgoing trash and transfer trucks. Rankin Road might be suitable for employees to arrive and depart from.
–Joe Sabatini

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

After reading the comments of the North Valley Neighborhood Association’s stance on ETS saying that they would NOT support any plan that included the use of Comanche or Edith as the entrance/exit methods of the ETS I was disgusted. That is essentially a statement of blackmail. They hold the City hostage by saying only one route is acceptable, Rankin. The infrastructure and capacity to support ETS is already in place for Comanche and Edith. It does not exist on Rankin nor is Rankin a City street. It is both County and City. The disruption to a minor street such as Rankin would be tremendous and harmful to the property owners of that route. Edith and Comanche are in place to handle such traffic. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE USE OF RANKIN AS THE MAIN POINT OF ENTRY AND EXIT FOR THE ETS.
–Jeff Henry

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Air quality, smell, safety and traffic are all concerns to me. I have contacted you before to tell you I am a bike commuter who had more than one near miss in front of the facility and Griegos leading to the freeway. As to the smell, just go by there. The truck exhaust is concerning as well. I understand the ecological reasoning, but not at the cost of my life and limb. What are alternatives to this? I have not been to the meetings so I do not know what mitigation to traffic have been proposed. I know the NVC is asking for the entry to be NOT on Griegos. Will there be a light/with NO RIGHT TURN ON RED on to Griegos?
–Vincent Amendolagine

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. A majority of the new trips will occur during the non-peak hours. Right turns out of the site will occur and our truck drivers undergo extensive safety training. The signalized intersection at Edith and Comanche currently has a yield condition for the right turn movements. In terms of truck exhaust, the Solid Waste Management Department currently complies with Tier IV Tailpipe emission standards. We continue to update our fleet to remain in compliance. The City did initially look at three potential sites, but the current Solid Waste Facility site was selected because of its proximity to I-25 and I-40, and because of its zoning, M-1 for industrial uses. Also, because the City owns the site, it can repurpose the existing solid waste facility with improved site aesthetics, including architectural and landscaping improvements along Comanche Road and Edith Boulevard NE. At this time, there are no plans for a right-turn-on red signal on Comanche.

I would like to express my support for the rehabilitation of the current SWMD site at Edith and Comanche. The addition of a transfer station will be a positive supplement to the current uses which I am sure will be consolidated and [re-plotted] to provide for more efficient use of the actual site. The traffic issue can certainly be resolved creatively.
–J Brent Ricks

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I manage a rental property near the site of the proposed transfer station (address is 4444 3rd St. NW). I’m really concerned that the city has decided to put yet another industrial installation in an area of the city that has been primarily residential or agricultural for one hundred and fifty years. The proposed Edith transfer station will bring even more heavy truck traffic to a corner that already accommodates cement trucks and asphalt trucks. It will also bring even more odiferous cargo to the neighborhood that already receives plumes of tar cooking from Holly Asphalt and dust from the cement plant whenever their filter system fails. Those industrial uses appeared here after the two nearest neighborhoods (the Gardner Addition! and the neighborhood bordering the Griegos Adobe which is literally a block and a half from Edith and Griegos) were built. The full court adobe on the corner of Edith and Griegos, now the Albuquerque Museum Foundation headquarters, dates back to the 1870s! It is thoughtless and self-serving of the city to put a clearly industrial and obtrusive garbage transfer station in the midst of residences and across the street from the last full court adobe remaining in the city, a beautifully restored historical landmark. Garbage transfer stations do not belong in residential neighborhoods, no matter how much money the city will save in gasoline, the ostensible reason for developing the Edith site. To save that gas money, you are imposing an unequal burden on a neighborhood that is historic, but lower middle class and therefore lacking the funds to fight back as effectively as, say, the folks one mile away on the edge of Los Ranchos.
–Sharon Karpinski

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I prefer Plan Design D. I do not want the project here at all but if I am forced to pick one design, it would be Plan Design D with collection and transfer traffic access on Rankin Rd. I think better planning on the bike lane needs to be addressed- contrary to popular City belief, there are a number of bicyclists and pedestrians utilizing the existing path and bike path heading east/west on Comanche from as far west as 4th St up past the proposed WTS site and further east of I-25. It needs to have defined separate path for biking and for those walking as they will both have enough danger crossing the entrances to the site without running into each other as well. Since I-25 onramps and off ramps are “not the city’s concern”, when does the City contact County or DOT or whoever is concerned with freeway traffic? There are daily near misses with large commercial vehicles exiting westbound on Comanche exit and making left turns to get onto the frontage road at the light.
–Antoinette Vigil

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. The City is concerned with safety at the I-25 on- and off-ramps, but does not have jurisdiction to make any changes to the ramps. The New Mexico Department of Transportation does have a proposed Interchange Modification for the interchange at I-25 and Comanche Road (Mid-term: 2015-2025), however this project has not been programmed and is currently not in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), so there is no available funding. You can report dangerous driving on the freeway system by calling the Albuquerque Police Department’s non-emergency number (242-COPS).

I oppose the location of a waste transfer station at this site. I support development of an alternative location not within the city.
–Susan Selbin

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I am opposed to the proposed Edith Transfer Station. I have lived in the north valley since 1991 and have seen incredible growth in population and traffic. This proposed transfer station will decrease the quality of life for the north valley and significantly increase the traffic, bringing with dangerous traffic situations, noise and pollution that is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of all living, working and being in the north valley. Traffic on Griegos/Comanche is already difficult especially near the freeway entrance, exit and Edith. I have watched the trash trucks take at least two lanes to turn left onto Edith with an increase in over 300 trash trucks at least twice a day and the larger transfer trucks traffic problems with be increased to the point of causing dangerous situations. Getting off the freeway will be impeded five days a week all day long. This will cause problems for everyone using the freeway around Comanche. This increase in traffic will bring with it an increase in noise that cannot be mitigated by parking lots. I live more than two miles from the freeway and hear it day and night. The exhaust from the over 620 truck trip each day of the workweek will further negatively impact the health of the more than 18,000 people living in the area, all those working in the area and those passing through the area. The exhaust will impose a health hazard to all those exposed to it and the natural surroundings.
–Denise Wheeler

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

The following comment has some percentage corrections to a previous email. I oppose Design Plan D. The businesses on Rankin Rd are among the properties and the people who will clearly be most impacted by implementing Design Plan B. Edith Blvd and Comanche Rd are far more suited for the added traffic that a transfer station would bring to the neighborhood. Traffic numbers were submitted by the design team and showed that traffic on Edith and Comanche would be increased by less than 5%. Traffic on Rankin would be increased by more than 130%, because it would include collection trucks, transfer trucks and employee vehicles.. Because the bulk of that increase would be collection trucks and transfer trucks, the increase is made dramatically worse because of the 25 ft-50 ft. property set-backs on Rankin Rd. The properties on Edith and Comanche have much bigger set-backs some greater than 100 ft. This, obviously, creates a buffer zone against traffic noise, safety entering and exiting the roadway, safety of pedestrians and a host of other irritants. On Rankin Rd some of the buildings are built within a few feet of the sidewalk. This provides no buffer zone for the items listed above. Repaving Rankin Rd and the taking of property for plural turn radiuses would add a cost to the project that I believe to be unnecessary, as a taxpayer. These “improvements” to Rankin Rd will not be improvements at all, for those of us on Rankin Rd., especially when you consider the dramatic increase in traffic and the taking of one of our more precious commodities, on-street parking. Leave Rankin Rd the way it is.
–Phil Chynoweth

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I live in a nearby neighborhood. I am concerned primarily about the health impact of substantially increased diesel traffic in an area close to schools and neighborhoods that are already overburdened. Driving on Griegos daily, I think the traffic assessment that was done fails to capture the real impact of the proposed project — the Griegos and Edith intersection area (extending to I-25) is already the most hectic part of my commute. The fast drivers and steep curves will not accommodate this traffic well. Secondarily, it seems that the Rankin Road proposal was never expected to be viable and I am disappointed that it was proposed as an “alternative”.
–Heather Brislan

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. In terms of Rankin Road, it was brought up as an option by the Design Advisory Task Force and was considered as one of the two final options for that reason.

The City Waste Transfer Station, contrary to Albuquerque Journal opinion, demonstrates little care for the environment or the neighborhoods and families that live in the area. The Albuquerque Journal editorial, “Transfer station debate isn’t simply trash talk” is an unqualified endorsement of the project that accepts the City perspective without question or independent research. For example, the Journal states, “The City has listened to the public and made adjustment to the plan”. In reality, the City made the decision to create a new all waste transfer station and decided where to put it long before the neighborhood ever heard about the project. The public input is all about the “design of the building,” the least consequential aspect of the project. This is, at best, shoddy governmental manipulation in order to gain credibility for on a deal already decided. Does the Solid Waste Department plan really help the environment as they claim? Yes, they cut miles driven by using bigger trucks and getting garbage to the landfill more efficiently. However, a City concerned about the environmental impacts of its solid waste stream would be putting more effort into diverting recyclable and compostable material away from the landfill and into productive uses. It wasn’t that long ago (2009) that Albuquerque announced a Zero Waste goal. More recently the Solid Waste Department website makes no mention of Zero Waste. Less waste means less garbage into the landfill and less danger of contamination of the aquifer. It also means less justification for the transfer station as there is less waste to bury. The Journal says “Money Matters” and that is the big reason for building a transfer station. However, we can’t lightly ignore the costs to the health, safety and property of the people who live and work nearby. Health professionals were contracted to conduct a Health Impact Analysis that demonstrates disparate impacts on the 18,000 closest neighbors in terms of air pollution, traffic, noise and loss of property values. Reading the HIA report, developed over a period of eight months with active participation of the affected community, I was left asking a big question. Does the City’s waste transfer station really save money or does it just shift the burden of costs to its closest neighbors? To sum up: the City has not listened to the community. A waste transfer station at that location was decided without public knowledge. The project does not respect the environment as a zero waste agenda would do much more to reuse and recycle the waste and reduce the amount being buried at the landfill. And, it is questionable whether it saves money given the uncompensated cost burden for the neighbors and the forgotten alternative of reducing waste rather than hauling it to the landfill. The transfer station is a questionable project that should not be built. Solid Waste could best use our tax dollars to help us all to produce less garbage and divert more waste to beneficial uses.
–Ken Balizer

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Despite GABAC members attending the various public meetings and the presentation given to GABAC last winter, it still seems pretty much impossible to select a preferred alternative and sort out the impacts on bicycling and multi-modal travel along two important bicycle corridors. Further exacerbating the problem is that current facility conditions are considered deficient by the local bicycle community and do not meet most national guidelines or even our own DPM. It seems like it would be logical to expect an analysis of impact on current bicycle facilities for all scenarios if CABQ has no plans for modification. Conversely, it seems appropriate that if there are upgrade ( or moving facility designation to other corridors…) opportunities, now is the time they should be discussed with and processed by impacted communities. If I recall correctly, GABAC was told that the traffic impact study would be updated with bicycle network impacts but the process as I understood it does not make sense in current scenario scheduled for EPC. At what point will further vulnerable roadways user impacts be presented and discussed with impacted (bicycle/pedestrian/Transit dependent) communities? And what will be the process/schedule? Just so we are all on same page, the schedule reference below is from communication sent to North Valley residents by the North Valley Coalition earlier this evening (taken from ETS project website): “The City said it plans to select a site plan by August 3 and submit the plan to the Environmental Planning Commission by August 27 for a zone change request. The hearing is currently scheduled October 8. The New Mexico Environmental Department is expected to begin the permitting process in February 2016.” GABAC and bicycle community in general do not know enough about planning and zoning processes or institutional machinations to know if we are being excluded until after important decisions are made or not. I would appreciate some guidance and insight into how and where our concerns can best be presented and processed by both design team and important decision makers. Thanks for your time and consideration.
–Scott Hale

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record. We will continue to work with the community on further potential enhancements to the infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians. GABAC and the bicycle community will continue to be part of the dialogue. There will be more opportunities to hear and work through your concerns including at the public hearing required for the zone change request.

Please consider these my comments with respect to the City’s July 15, 2015 public meeting about the two site plans remaining under consideration for the proposed waste transfer station at Edith and Griegos/Comanche. Neither “Site Plan C” nor “Site Plan D” is acceptable. Neither plan routes traffic in a manner that best moves trucks and other vehicles quickly and safely from the interstate into the site. Both plans use ingress and egress points that lengthen rather than shorten the distance that trucks must travel. Site Plan C, by using the existing Edith entrance/exit, requires the large transfer trucks to travel the longest distance possible between the interstate and the site. Site Plan D, by using Rankin Road, also lengthens the travel distance as well as causing substantial disruption to the adjacent businesses. Both site plans, by using the existing entrance/exit on Comanche, bring traffic conflicts too close to the Comanche/Edith intersection, and do nothing to minimize or reduce conflicts with existing truck traffic from the businesses on the north side of Comanche. As a consequence, these site plans do not make economic sense. Neither site plan appears to use landscaping and building location to mitigate noise, trash, visual clutter, and other predictable impacts. Neither site plan demonstrates “planning outside of the box.” I urge the City’s design team to reconsider its approach. Thank you for your consideration. Marit Tully, Member, North Valley Coalition Board Member. Near North Valley and Executive Committee
–Marit Tully

Response: Thank you for your comments. The placement of the buildings was definitely influenced by the Comanche Road and Edith Boulevard intersection, including the placement of visitor and office-related functions in the north portion of the site. Facing the intersection in a northwest direction is the two-story Administration Building and the main public entry. Visitors and office staff would access the Administration Building via a roundabout that connects with a landscaped parking area. The Transfer Station building is positioned behind the Administration Building with the Convenience Center entry facing east and collection truck entry and exits facing south (away from Comanche and Edith). Additional consideration of Edith and Comanche includes tree landscaping and an 8-foot-high decorative masonry wall screening the facility from the streets.

I am a person who has been active in learning about the plans for the Edith Transfer Station and in understanding its effects on communities nearby by participating on the Health Impact Assessment Committee. I am a member of the North Valley Coalition Executive Committee, recently elected President. I have attended every city meeting and helped host a North Valley Coalition Meeting. The comments I express in this letter are my own personal views. After hearing the site plans discussed at the July 15, 2016 public meeting, I cannot at this time endorse either site plan; neither one alleviates the issues and concerns of residents and businesses. Too many questions were either unanswered or answered ambiguously, and problems which have been previously mentioned were not alleviated. Negative effects to businesses on Rankin Road, which were newly introduced in this public meeting, have not been considered. Did the city communicate with these businesses concerning the plans? It wasn’t apparent at the meeting that they had. Many of the previously mentioned problems concerning traffic at already congested intersections have not been addressed. Intersections near the proposed site already have a D rating. High density housing near Fourth Street and Griegos and unleased buildings and undeveloped land north of Comanche are going to create more traffic than the 1% increase being considered. Dense and unsafe traffic flow between the big I and the Comanche exit/entrance north and south is not being addressed and the city does not consider that their problem. Left turns and queuing created by left turns are a problem with either plan and no traffic signals or road adaptations are being considered. How many vehicles can queue on the site? No answer was given, but they are still idling vehicles providing air pollution. Vehicle numbers have been vague which makes it difficult to assess the impact on roads, and specifically Rankin Road. 312 vehicles on Rankin Road was presented but without a complete explanation. Information was provided that there are only two routes planned per truck per day (which is the current number) and no drivers will be laid off (confirmed by discussions with the union). The majority of the money saved in the feasibility study is from labor; how and when is that savings going to be accomplished? Bicyclists mentioned problems with the design for cyclists and it would seem that nobody involved in the project has talked with cyclists. So, the city has not communicated with bicyclists or local businesses, and are only communicating with nearby neighborhoods because someone read about this in the newspaper. At this point, no baseline noise data has been collected. Without that, how can you consider the effect of noise on businesses on Rankin? No air quality permit will be requested. Timing of traffic studies has been called into question. Concerns were expressed about water contamination and it was stated that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is in place now to prevent this problem. Generally, a SWPPP plan is for construction only so is there really a SWPPP plan in place? This is the same administration that attempted to circumvent EPA regulations regarding SWPPP’s when building the Bosque trail north of Central. As one person suggested, it would have been helpful to have a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency at the meeting to address concerns of water contamination if that is the organization that would address the issue and permit the plan. The question asked about the number of transfer stations in the state and the experience of NMED with permitting this type of facility was not correctly asked and the person answering (who was never introduced) took advantage of that. The question should have included transfer stations “similar to this”, which will be handling 28% of the state of New Mexico’s garbage and will include garbage, garbage trucks, 18-wheelers, private vehicles, recyclables, household hazardous waste, fueling station, maintenance facility, administration. Instead, the answer included all convenience centers in New Mexico. Is there any facility in New Mexico that provides all these planned functions? I’m sure the city knows that answer and could have been more informative and truthful. Many people spent many hours attending meetings and learning about this project — all unpaid hours. I think the city should be more respectful of that. The convenience center will operate 7 days a week. The additional traffic, air pollution from idling vehicles, and litter for this center is being downplayed and is the same for both site plans. There has been no guarantee offered to ensure that Eagle Rock will not be closed, a scenario included in the feasibility study calculations. If this occurs, there will only be more negative effects than are currently being considered. I came away from this meeting with many more questions than answers. Each site plan created problems and maybe the real problem is the site.
–Peggy Norton

Response: Thank you for your comments. They have been added to the record. Regarding the question that was asked at the July 15, 2015 meeting, Tom Parker of CDM Smith answered the question regarding the number of transfer stations in New Mexico. We could not have known if the person intended to ask a different question and are sorry if you feel our response was disrespectful. Regarding the question you are asking, probably the closest transfer station in New Mexico to the one being proposed is the Buckman Road Recycling and Transfer Station in Santa Fe. The 45,000 square-foot enclosed facility is designed to process and transfer up to 1,000 tons per day of municipal solid waste to the Caja del Rio landfill. The facility accepts waste from both large garbage trucks and self-haulers (pickup trucks). The facility includes a material recovery facility, a household hazardous waste facility, and drop-off areas for glass, recycling, and green waste. Currently, the Buckman Road Recycling and Transfer Station processes approximately 15,000 tons of waste per year, because most garbage trucks continue to haul waste directly to the landfill. As you may recall, however, team members from J.R. Miller & Associates have made the statement at previous public meetings that each transfer station is unique, and this is the case for the proposed Edith Transfer Station. Also, the City has said repeatedly that there are no plans to close the Eagle Rock Convenience Center. The City respects and appreciates the time, effort and interest of everyone who has attended the public meetings, studied the issue and offered comments, suggestions and ideas. We have, in fact, modified the design of the site and looked at different alternatives in response to input from the public. If you have specific questions you feel have not been answered, let us know and we will do our best to answer them.

Please accept my comments to be included in the record for the Edith Transfer Station. The transfer station is not in the best interests of residents living in the Greater Gardner Neighborhood. This transfer station will be an extreme burden bringing increased traffic and pollution. The increased traffic poses a danger to the general public with too many trucks in one location. The solution is to limit the amount of truck traffic to 75 loads per day. We strongly feel increasing the amount of traffic will result in unsafe road conditions. The Transfer Station will also result in similar companies locating in the area. We implore you not to build the waste transfer station in the Greater Gardner neighborhood and locate the facility in an area with less industry.
–Steven & Esther Abeyta

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

In 1986 I moved to Albuquerque and opened the Roto-Rooter franchise here with just 3 employees, 1 rented building, and a dream. Kris Hessinger and I also opened and slowly grew R&R Heating and Cooling at the same property in a separate building and shared lot parking. We now employ 55 Albuquerque residents in high paying jobs and excellent benefits (typical annual service pay between $40,000 and $95,000.) We moved, purchased and greatly renovated our land and buildings at 731 Rankin to accommodate this growth. Even with this much larger property space we are force to have our employees park their service vehicles at their own homes due to limited pacing, and to moderate preexisting ingress and egress issues at traffic peak periods in the area. WE ARE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED TO OPTION “D” and STRONGLY PREFER OPTION “C” for the following reasons: A) It is proposed that OPTION D benefits all city residents with cost savings and less city-wide traffic. MY COMPANY AND ALL OTHER BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE RANKIN ROAD BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD FACE HUGE UNDUE AND UNFAIRLY DISPROPORTIONATE FINANCIAL, BUSINESS, SAFETY AND MANY OTHER HUGE BURDENS AS A RESULT OF OPTION “D.” MANY BUSINESSES, INCLUDING MY OWN, WOULD BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN AND MOVE, THUS INCURRING GREAT BUSINESS, PROPERTY VALUE, AND FINANCIAL LOSSES. THESE LOSSES WOULD IMPACT US AT AN ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TIME AS WE STILL STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE AFTER THE WORST RECESSION IN RECENT HISTORY and the continued relative weakness of the Albuquerque economy. B. I purchased my property with the ability to have customers, vendors, delivery trucks, and infrequent service truck parking (for brief service meetings once every few months) park on the street directly in front of my property. Option D as proposed would get rid of all street parking and thus make it impossible for both of our Rankin Road businesses to perform their normal business activities in order to serve my customers at this location during my peak periods. C. Beyond the enormous loss of the street parking the city further proposes in option D to condemn the South East corner of my property – which given one main reason for my choosing this business property in the first place (to handle large volumes of vehicles and have efficient access to I-25 and I-40 for routing trucks all over the city, to use my lot besides parking for other work projects and storage and to infrequently be able to hold meetings where many or all of my technicians are at the office at the same time with their work vans) would render my property extremely difficult, and in certain key situations impossible to conduct my various business activities upon. With my own traffic peak periods as well as the proposed additional burden (City of Albuquerque estimated) 50% INCREASE in traffic down Rankin Road from 18 wheeler garbage transfer trucks as well as the traditional size garbage trucks as well as staff employees going up and down Rankin Road within feet of my front door during traffic peak periods, this location would no longer meet my business needs. I fear that I would never be completely compensated for the many financial and time losses of moving. I also fear that the investments and changes I have made to the building interior and property would not be reflected in simple loss of property value comparisons made by the city as part of condemnation proceedings. In summary I fear that the necessity of my business relocating if option D is approved in combination with my fear of inadequate compensation would definitely threaten the continued existence of my business. This is especially so as we are still recuperating from the recession which already placed enormous financial strain on our businesses. I have a very difficult time imagining anyone who would be interested in purchase of my property given the changes of the city proposes under option D. Numerous other property owners on Rankin has voiced the same “game ending” property and business concerns. The combination of the burden of truck traffic and condemnation of the corner of my property, loss of street parking, as well as loss of customer and employee safety due to proximity of large vehicles to my entrance etcetera will present an extreme and again undue burden to my ability to use and resell my property . The business benefits of this particular unique building and property and its location I sounds only after months of searching. The characteristics of this particular property’s location and ability to more easily and quickly access the freeway (despite already existing extreme traffic levels and confusing traffic patterns at the over congested I-25 Comanche intersection even without the additional traffic from either C or D options) is unusual to find in the City of Albuquerque. Based upon my previous searches it is extremely difficult to find property that meets my business needs and option D would likely windup forcing both businesses into an area which neither could afford and thus threaten the continued existence of both businesses. The best case scenario from imposition of option D would be extreme and disproportional additional business and financial challenges to both companies. In addition I believe that my property would basically be non- salable and fear the process of valuation with the city would fail to accurately compensate me for actual total losses incurred and ultimately result in a huge net loss for me and the two businesses on my Rankin Road property on a variety of levels. Virtually every business in the City of Albuquerque must get inventory deliveries for needed business supplies. On Rankin Road the addition of a 50 percent increase in heavy truck traffic will create huge potential problems with not only these deliveries but create a major traffic jam for the garbage vehicles and any other traffic trying to get down the street at that particular time. Large delivery trucks and 18 wheelers need to make several forward and back passes in order to position their trucks for backing up into many properties on Rankin Road for these deliveries. This would temporarily completely block traffic and create major bottlenecks as large delivery trucks and 18 wheelers occasionally block all traffic down Rankin Road in this process. This would make it impossible during peak traffic periods of time for garbage vehicles for certain periods of time to go down the road at all. And major traffic issues would likely become commonplace down this previously minor, quiet Industrial road. Re-Zoning is not a small political issue with minor implications for the many long term family owned businesses on this road. In many cases it is a business ending “game changer.” I and my long term professional colleagues and friends in the business community and especially at Rotary have come to appreciate Mayor Barry’s common sense, fiscally conservative, pro-business policies throughout his administration of the City of Albuquerque.
Even though option C will still negatively affect my property value and especially the ease of moving my many vans down Comanche Road, I still (with certain business related and property value related reservations) remain cognizant of the significant financial and time savings and efficiencies resulting from option C, and consider these consistent with the Mayor’s policies to this point. Option D is the polar opposite in my opinion. I believe it to be extremely less efficient and functional for the City’s needs, much more expensive (when compensation is offered for decline in property values, the entire road is rebuilt to handle the additional weight of the garbage truck traffic, etcetera, etcetera). Option C results in only a 5% projected increase in net traffic flow to Comanche. In contrast option D increases traffic by at least 50% and creates a myriad of additional often “game ending” consequences for many small family owned businesses up and down the street that have operated there for generations. In the process they have quietly added to the labor force, helped to sustain the local Albuquerque economy with quality jobs, and increased the tax base of our City. I believe this is precisely what aligns the businesses of Rankin Road with the Mayor’s values and makes our continued growth and indeed survival without additional unnecessary obstacles from government integral to Albuquerque’s future.
–Matt Hudson with Chris Hettinger

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

I work in the area and have carefully looked at traffic flow for sites C and D. I would recommend site C. As Rankin road, especially west of Comanche Lane is not wide enough for the trash trucks and tractor trailers to pass each other. I also believe that a loaded tractor trailer pulling out on Rankin Rd will be very slow going up that hill. This will impede traffic and cause maintenance headaches for the refuge department. The road west of Comanche Lane has no road base under it and will not support the weight of the trucks which will cause the road to come apart very fast. This is also an industrial area which does not make traffic flow freely at all times as there are trucks being unloaded and cars parked on the street. This causes it to be a single lane at times. Both Edith and Comanche are more equipped to handle more traffic and carry heavier loads.
–Carolyn Conway

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

To my knowledge the proposed site will be a refuse transfer station open to the public and for city use. I feel that this site will create a large amount of unforeseen issues in the area. I already have a couple concerns which are listed below:
1. A much higher amount of traffic
2. Cleanliness of the area
3. Debris all over the streets
4. Odor
5. Vermin
This is just to name a few!
I am already on the fence whether I should keep our warehouses in this area due to overall look, traffic, cleanliness, etc… I am very much now considering searching elsewhere for my warehousing needs. Our customers and their opinion are very important to us! I want in every aspect to have my customers feel that they made a great purchase with our company. To me, the above concerns will alter our customers opinions and overall experience. It is my opinion that this proposed site would just bring down the value, overall look, and integrity of the area. Not to mention hurt the local surrounding economy. I for one, will definitely be searching elsewhere if this site is built. I feel sorry for the surrounding area businesses that this will affect as well. This area is already FULL of vacant warehouses that have been on the market for quite some time. I find it hard to imagine that new prospects will be excited and motivated to purchase/lease if there is a “dump” nearby. I feel the domino effect of businesses moving out will continue. Although I feel the city has made great strides in the last couple years to improve all processes, I still think that the upkeep of a “dump” site will not be kept up, clean, and/or organized as it should. I can just see my parking lot a pit stop for all of the refuse users to put on their required tarp on, not the mention the trash that will be left behind due to negligence. I would feel a little better if this site was for city use only, but still feel that the surrounding area will not be kept as it should. I personally think you are shooting yourself in the foot by creating this site. I think this site will do nothing more but hurt our local economy!
Question: Do I get reimbursed for every tire that has a nail in it?
–Jake Schlessinger

Response: Thank you for your comments. The intent is to replace the aged existing facility with a state-of-the-art facility that will be a noticeable upgrade to the site. New buildings will be aesthetically attractive with contemporary architectural design and the overall site will have significant additions of landscaping and decorative masonry screen walls.

Both C and D designs will not work at this proposed site. C affects the local traffic, including the bicycling community, which is already overburdened with huge trucks coming from the commercial zones all over that place. Are you aware that there were 4 bike deaths along Comanche, the only east/west commute for the biking community? Design D is even worse. Rankin Road cannot possibly take any traffic; it is a tiny street not built for trucks and those poor people that live on the corner of Edith and Rankin will never survive traffic! Please find another place for this “proposed” transfer!
–Nancy Bourne

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

Maloy mobile storage is a business across the street from the city solid waste facility. we already have a bad traffic problem on Comanche due to the amount of traffic going in and out of the city yard. the curved road on Comanche does not allow the normal amount of traffic for a road this size, their are constant accidents on this stretch of road , which damages our property, the city property , our Neighbor’s property and the lives of the people getting in these accidents . we have had constant problems with trash all over our yard due to the trash blowing from the city yard and from the trucks that pass by our facility’s. we see trash blowing all around the entire neighborhood every time the wind blows. We also have constant odor proble! ms due to the smell of the garbage trucks and all the dumpsters, opening a transfer station would only greatly increase the problems in this area which will be a detriment to the neighborhood , employee’s, and the businesses in this area. I think the city needs to look at alternative sites that will not impact our community in such a negative way. this site is also way to small, as it exists right now it is extremely congested , utilizing very bit of space available with no room for expansion, that makes no sense. This is the way the city of Albuquerque has always operated why not look to the future 10 to 15 years instead of 10 years behind
–Pat Maloy

Response: Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the record.

abq edith transfer station who does space btw edith and alameda beling to and what is proposed utilization or is it to be landscapes other side space btw parking and street same question also plenty industrial property for recycling facility and collection area and trucks maintenance recycled materials used in any number of commercial products also hazardous waste handling facility needed should be separate locations
–M.W.

Response: While the City of Albuquerque owns the site of the proposed Edith Transfer Station, various private companies own the space on Edith north of that site to Alameda. Landscaping improvements are proposed for the transfer station site to buffer noise and make the site more attractive from the street as well as to separate parking areas. In terms of recycling and collection, there will be a drop-off recycling center at the site as well as a convenience center. Residents would be able to drop off household hazardous waste at the proposed transfer station. This waste would be processed away from the proposed site at the City’s household hazardous waste contractor. Currently ACT at 6133 Edith Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, has this contract.

I would like clarification of hazardous waste and handling. I understand that hazardous waste is not accepted but household hazardous waste is accepted. I also understand that the household hazardous waste could be stored on site for up to 90 days.
–Peggy Norton

Response: Household hazardous waste such as paint, batteries, etc. that is dropped off by residents at the proposed Edith Transfer Station would be safely stored at the site. You are correct that this waste could be stored on site for up to 90 days, although it is likely to be transported off-site in a shorter period of time by the City’s household hazardous waste contractor. Currently ACT has this contract. Commercially generated hazardous waste, such as medical waste, would not be accepted at the transfer station.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed