Purpose

To develop and evaluate a range of transit and transportation alternatives throughout the MPO area, considering:

Regional Goals and Objectives Mobility Needs Transportation Network Deficiencies Environmental and Land Use Issues Cost and Financing Short -Term and Long-Term Improvements Regional and International Trips

Definition

The Transit Corridor Feasibility Study Will:

Evaluate high capacity transit options for the El Paso MPO Area

Explore a variety of travel modes and congestion management measures

Develop a multimodal recommendation which meets short and long term travel needs

Corridors

Goals & Objectives

• Meet Mobility Needs

• Develop a Multimodal Transportation System

• Improve and Optimize Current Transportation System

• Improve International Access

• Encourage Transit Supportive Land Use

Needs

• Transit

• Roadway and General Mobility

Needs

• Transit– Access to healthcare, social services, and shopping

activities– Access to educational institutions– Access to employment– Transit access to areas of the county with limited or

no service– More express service – reduced transit travel time

Needs

• Roadway and General Mobility

– Additional capacity along roadways

– Additional capacity at I-10 interchanges

Needs

• Key Elements and Trends

– Population and Employment by 2020: +38% each– Roadway Capacity: 90% arterials congested in

2020– Transit Travel Time: increased due to congestion

Needs

• Key Characteristics

– Transit Riders: young, older, lower income

– Transit Trip Purpose: Work and Education

– Spatial: Linear Corridors; Limited Capacity

Needs• Peer Comparisons

– Cities with High Capacity Transit

– Cities Planning High Capacity Transit

Peer ComparisonWeekday Unlinked Bus Trips 1998

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

El Pas

o

Portla

nd

Salt L

ake

San D

iego

Charlo

tte

Indian

apoli

s

Norfo

lk

City

Bo

ard

ing

s

Peer ComparisonTrips per Vehicle Hour 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

El Pas

o

Portla

nd

Salt L

ake

San D

iego

Charlo

tte

Indian

apoli

s

Norfo

lk

City

Bo

ard

ing

s

Evaluation

– Preliminary Screening

– Detailed Evaluation

Evaluation

• Qualitative Criteria

– Transportation Needs and Mobility– Ridership Potential – Environmental Issues– Regional Goals/Objectives and Land Use– Neighborhood Compatibility

Evaluation

• Quantitative Criteria

– Travel Time– Ridership – Capital and Operating Cost– Financing– Right-of-Way and Physical Constraints

Technologies

• Bus• Bus/HOV lanes• Busway/BRT• Light Rail Transit• Commuter Rail• Heavy Rail• Automated Guideway Transit• Monorail

Bus

Bus/HOV Lanes

Busway/BRT

Light Rail Transit

Commuter Rail

Heavy Rail

Automated Guideway Transit

Monorail

Technologies

Recommended- Bus- Bus/HOV- Busway/BRT- Light Rail- Commuter Rail

Not Recommended- Heavy Rail- Monorail

Special Case - Automated Guideway

Mesa Corridor

Applicable Technologies- Bus- Busway/BRT- Light Rail- Commuter Rail

Mesa Bus Alignments

Mesa Busway/BRTAlignment

Mesa Light Rail Alignment

Mesa Commuter RailAlignment

Dyer/US 54 Corridor

Applicable Technologies- Bus- Bus/HOV- Busway/BRT- Light Rail- Commuter Rail

Dyer/US 54 BusAlignments

Dyer/US 54 Bus/HOV Alignment

Dyer/US 54 LRT Alignment

Dyer/US 54 CommuterRail Alignment

ApplicableTechnologies- Bus- Busway/BRT- Light Rail

Montana Corridor

Montana Bus Alignments

Montana Busway/BRT Alignment

Montana Light Rail Alignment

AlamedaCorridor

ApplicableTechnologies- Bus- Bus/HOV- Busway/BRT- Light Rail- Commuter Rail

Alameda Bus Alignments

Alameda Bus/HOV Alignments

Alameda Busway/BRT Alignments

Alameda Light Rail Alignment

Alameda Commuter Rail Alignments

Juarez - Downtown Connection

Transit Improvements

Transit Improvements

Juarez - Ysleta Connection

Next Steps Refine Technologies and Alignments Preliminary Evaluation and

Recommendations for Advancement Develop Preliminary Costs and Ridership Identify Potential Impacts Evalution and Recommendations