Talk:Arizona State Route 210

2008 comment
Page 8 of is interesting. --NE2 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag - History section
I'm not from Arizona, and I don't have any personal connection to this. However this section struck me as being far from neutral. Among the specific items that make it appear biased: 1. It fails to define the "thread the needle" option or the characteristics of various alignments. 2. It focuses more on a specific set of public meetings rather than the reasons for the disputes or the pros and cons of each option. 3. It relies on a dead link to an editorial piece and an anonymously written "independent media" story. 4. It does not provide any background as to why alignments were rejected. 5. It suggests that there was a conspiracy to create a particular alignment. Conspiracies are always possible, but this provides no evidence other than the idea that project opponents sought to voice concerns at a meeting that may well have been only about amenities. It does not say why only one alignment was in play at that point, only that some groups were upset. Overall, this section sounded unusually biased, as though it were written by someone who advocated a particular outcome over another and was disgruntled with a particular set of government meetings.

I'd suggest deleting this section (added in 2008) entirely but would rather see an objective discussion of the controversy.Bigfitz79 (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC) While I agree that the history section may seem biased, it is indeed a typically accurate representation of the controversial nature of urban highway construction. In response to objections 4 and 5, the reason that no explanation exists for the rejection of the other alignments, is that none was given, even upon informal requests. No public statement has been issued, so the reader must form their own opinion. If an uninvolved reader reaches a conclusion of conspiracy, it is up to the officials to offer an alternative explanation.

The tone and presentation stands. Only public documents were used. We will try to fix the dead link.

For a more up to date example, see the official Regional Transit Authority's link http://www.downtownlinks.info/ Please note that this official website does not include information on any other alignment proposal other than 3.d

In February of 2013, at the Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting, "Daniela Diamente made a motion to decline RTA VA Proposal P01-042 in lieu of accepting P01-013. The motion was seconded by Richard Mayers and passed unanimously with a voice vote 11-0." http://www.downtownlinks.info/Documents/FINALDLCACmeetingminutes2.11.13.pdf This vote is part of the ongoing creation of history. (as an aside, note that the part of the document explaining the vote is missing after item 6. Draw your own conclusions. ****again a dead link****

Overall, as it evolves, the history page will be changed, and, hopefully, the controversy will fade into a more complete history. I await your comments.

Adding a map?
Arizona State Route 210 is in a long term (2011-2026) process of realignment. The proposed Downtown Links project will include this proposed plan, currently being implemented: http://www.downtownlinks.info/Documents/DLmapoverview_sm_000.pdf

The new Downtown Links portion plans are reaching completion. More controversy. No matter how urban roads are planned, they are frequently controversial: http://downtownlinks.info/new-design-concepts-available/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpski (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Vpski (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 10
Is this highway considered to be related to I-10? Cause when I look at the map, it looks like it parallels the Interstate a bit and its lat 2 digits are also 10. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixing the Map
The Current map depicts 6th Street/St. Mary's Road as being part of the Maclovio Barraza Parkway when its not, is there a way to fix this so this ends at 6th Street? Salvador Martinez-Montoya (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)