mesa & cincinnati presentation to city council june 19, 2007

Mesa & CincinnatiMesa & Cincinnati

Presentation to City CouncilPresentation to City Council

June 19, 2007June 19, 2007

Existing ConditionsExisting Conditions

Staff RecommendationsStaff Recommendations

• No major structures or roadway alterations• Pedestrian crossing flasher with reduced speed

on Mesa• Traffic signal modifications to improve service to

local and pedestrian traffic during weekends and events at Mesa & Baltimore and Mesa & Cincinnati intersections.

• Modifications to median to provide refuge for pedestrian on north side of Cincinnati.

• Install landscaping to visually differentiate the nature and use of Mesa south of Baltimore.

Flasher Relocation & Median ImprovementsFlasher Relocation & Median Improvements


BENEFITS:

• Preliminary Estimated cost: $50,000

• Short construction period of approximately 6 months

• Minimum detours during construction

• Maintains traffic flow and access on Mesa

• Maintains emergency response and alternate routes during freeway closures


BENEFITS:

• Maintains access to special events both at the University and along the Mesa corridor

• Minimal impact to businesses during and after construction

• Maintains circulation to proposed Glory Road Terminal

• No utility relocation is required


ISSUES:

• Does not provide for a separation of pedestrians and vehicles

• Does not provide a landscaped median on south side of Cincinnati/Mesa intersection


• Encourage businesses to continue providing their patrons with Crossing Guard service.

• Maintain a high level of police presence and traffic law enforcement on Mesa using grants funds.


• Engineering Department is pursuing training on various traffic calming strategies to implement along Mesa and also city-wide

• Engineering Department is pursuing training on context sensitive design for implementation city-wide

Actions to DateActions to DateImmediate measures taken:

• Police Department increased their patrols of the area and added bike patrol.

• Business Owners added private security guards to assist patrons and customers crossing Mesa.

• Traffic Engineering Staff met with TXDOT to evaluate various traffic management strategies including:– Speed Zone with flashers– Closure of Mesa during Weekends– Speed Humps– Roundabouts / Traffic Circles

Actions to DateActions to Date• Paso del Norte Group interested in preparing a

development plan for the area (design charrette to be scheduled).

• Cincinnati Business Owners have expressed concerns with construction timeframe of proposed long-term solutions and the on-going costs of the crossing guards.

• UTEP Senior Class evaluated options to both improve mobility at Mesa between Robinson and Baltimore and improve safety in this segment of the roadway.

Long Term Projects EvaluatedLong Term Projects Evaluated

• Tunnel & Pedestrian Plaza

• Vehicular Overpass (UTEP Senior class design proposal)

• Pedestrian Overpass

VEHICULAR TUNNEL ON MESA - LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

Vehicular Tunnel on MesaVehicular Tunnel on MesaBENEFITS:

• Separates pedestrians and vehicles

• Creates a pedestrian plaza available for events

• Provides easy access by pedestrians to businesses

• Allows for landscaping (container gardening) and public art

Vehicular Tunnel on MesaVehicular Tunnel on MesaISSUES:• Preliminary estimated cost: $50 million

• Long construction period of approximately 2.5 years

• Closure of Mesa during construction detours all traffic to IH10 or Sun Bowl

• Encroachment of traffic into Stanton and other residential streets during construction

Vehicular Tunnel on MesaVehicular Tunnel on MesaISSUES:• Illumination, drainage, air quality inside the tunnel

are additional design/construction considerations & costs

• Utility relocation is extensive and expensive• Survival of businesses during and after construction

is of concern• Limits emergency response and alternate routes

during freeway closures• Limits access to special events both at the University

and along the Mesa corridor

Acknowledgements

Selected Alternative

Cost Analysis of Proposed Bridge on Selected Alternative

Mesa Street Overpass Bridge Presented By:Presented By:

Michelle Anguiano Mario Garcia Gustavo SosaMichelle Anguiano Mario Garcia Gustavo Sosa

Advisor: Dr. Cesar CarrascoAdvisor: Dr. Cesar Carrasco Spring 2007Spring 2007

Problem Statement• Traffic impacts and delays at Mesa St. have caused unsafe conditions for pedestrians and motorists.• According to police reports 66 accidents have occurred in past five years. Last two in the months of January and March 2007.• The daily traffic on Mesa St. is close to 34,100 vehicles per day and its projected to increase to 54,700 vehicles per day by 2037.

Objective• Improve the Level of Service at Mesa St. and intersections: Robinson Ave., Cincinnati Ave. and Baltimore Dr.• Reduce pedestrians and motorists accidents and increase their safety.

Scope Propose two alternatives of a four-lane bridge along Mesa St. starting at Boston Ave. and landing at Gregory Ave.• Alternative 1: Design of a four-lane, closed bridge, with a one-lane access road on each direction.• Alternative 2: Design of a four-lane, open bridge, starting with a one-lane access road, transitioning into a two-lane access road where minimum clearance of 16’-6” is met, and returning to a one-lane access road towards landing.

Location

Selected Alternative

Profile of Mesa St. and proposed bridge

Cross-section of Mesa St. at Baltimore Dr.

Mesa S

t.

State of Texas County Boundaries

ME

XIC

O

EL PASO

3880

3885

3890

3895

3900

3905

3910

3915

3920

3925

3930

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Distance, ft.

Ele

vation, ft.

Street Profile Bridge Top Profile Minimum Clearance Bottom Bridge Profile Retaining Wall South Retaining Wall North

Cross-section of Mesa St. at Cincinnati Ave.

Aerial view of study area with proposed bridge

Description Cost

Bridge

$ 5,172,502

Drainage

$ 511,238

Parkway Structures

$ 331,453

Demolition

$ 811,986

Traffic Control

$ 2,359,522

Roadway

$ 3,380,072

Lighting, signing,and traffic

signals

$ 2,364,960

Additional Row

$ 1,134,242

Total Cost

$ 16,065,975 Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

2007 Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mesa St. & Cincinnati Ave. F (SB) B/(NB) C (SB) B/(NB) C

Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr. D (SB) C/(NB) B (SB) C/(NB) B

Mesa St. & Robinson Ave. C (SB) A/(NB) A (SB) A/(NB) A



Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr. F (SB) C/(NB) C (SB) C/(NB) B

Mesa St. & Robinson Ave. F (SB) A/(NB) A (SB) A/(NB) A



Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr. F (SB) D/(NB) C (SB) C/(NB) B

Mesa St. & Robinson Ave. F (SB) A/(NB) A (SB) A/(NB) A

Project Results

Dr. Cesar CarrascoCity of El Paso, Traffic Engineering DivisionTxDOT

Alternative 2 is a better option for its better LOS and pedestrian safety on every intersection.

Conclusion

As a result of our study, we selected Alternative 2 as our better option. Alternative 2 accomplishes both our objectives. It improved and maintained LOS of C or better, having traffic flow smooth without much delays and using less than 50% of the total capacity its design can allocate.

Most important, pedestrians can walk across Mesa St. safer and away from much of the heavy traffic flows.

Alternative 1 Cross-sectionAlternative 1 Cross-section

Alternative 2 Cross-SectionAlternative 2 Cross-Section

Vehicular Overpass on MesaVehicular Overpass on MesaBENEFITS:

• Separates vehicles and pedestrians• Provides access to both sides of Mesa• Allows area under overpass to be used as

Pedestrian Plaza with shade or as additional parking

• Allows for more landscaping options than Vehicular Tunnel

• Constructed with columns to allow for pedestrian access to both sides of Mesa

Vehicular Overpass on MesaVehicular Overpass on MesaISSUES• Preliminary Estimated Construction Cost: from

$17.5 to $20 million depending on option• Long project development timeline complicated

by required Right of Way acquisition• Long construction period of approximately 2.5

years• Closure of Mesa during construction detours

traffic to IH10 or Sun Bowl

Vehicular Overpass on MesaVehicular Overpass on MesaISSUES• Encroachment of traffic onto Stanton and other

residential streets during construction• Greater reduction of parking spaces – depends

on design• Survival of Businesses during and after

construction• Limits emergency response• Limits access to special events both at the

University and along Mesa Corridor

Pedestrian OverpassPedestrian Overpass

Pedestrian OverpassPedestrian Overpass

BENEFITS:• Separates pedestrians and vehicles• Maintains current traffic flow on Mesa

– Minimizes impact to businesses and residential areas

• Easier to construct– Lower Cost– Shorter construction time period

• Minimal utility relocation is required• Cincinnati becomes pedestrian area; parking

spaces are lost along this street

Pedestrian OverpassPedestrian OverpassISSUES:• Preliminary Estimated Cost: $4.2 million• Pedestrian overpass must meet ADA requirements

– Requires the use of ramps, elevators or direct connectors from second story building on each side of Mesa

• To be effective, must force pedestrians to use overpass by blocking pedestrian and vehicle access to Mesa including closing driveways on Mesa from Baltimore to Robinson

• Pedestrian access ramps must be located on Cincinnati thus eliminating parking

• Using elevators to provide ADA access increases security and maintenance issues that would have to be addressed

Other Concepts EvaluatedOther Concepts Evaluated• Pedestrian Sky Bridge – Requires minimum of 2-

story buildings on either side of Mesa to provide connection

• Pedestrian Tunnel – Closing Cincinnati to vehicular traffic on both sides of Mesa– ADA design issues, forcing pedestrians to use tunnel, loss

of parking, access to businesses, security, vandalism and cleanliness

• Illumination – There is existing illumination on the corner and on the approaches to the intersection of Mesa & Cincinnati. The street lighting is adequate; further study to determine enhancements is necessary.


• No major structures or roadway alterations

• Pedestrian crossing flasher and reduced speed

• Traffic signal modifications & continuous monitoring

• Median modifications to include landscaping


• Continued Crossing Guard service provided by businesses

• Continued high level of police presence and traffic law enforcement

• Enhanced training on traffic calming and context sensitive designs that provide expedient and affordable options

Questions

mesa & cincinnati presentation to city council june 19, 2007

Documents

construction slide

mesa benefits

mesa baltimore

mesa issues

mesa limits

pedestrian traffic

mesa south of baltimore

mesa cincinnati presentation