Northeast Parkway Route Location Study El Paso, Texas

Project Description | Study Area Maps | Public Involvement | Newsletters | Schematic Design/Environmental Assessment

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Introduction/Project Overview

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), in cooperation with the New Mexico Department of Transportation, conducted a route location study for a limited access highway connecting Loop 375 in northeast El Paso near Railroad Drive to Interstate Highway 10 (IH 10) in Anthony, NM. The project examined the feasibility of establishing an alternative route to the congested IH 10 corridor through El Paso for through truck and other traffic. IH 10 congestion is a function of the unique political and mountainous physical geography of the El Paso area that effectively channels all interstate traffic through the center of El Paso on IH 10. An alternative cross-mountain route entails steep grades that preclude its use on a regular basis by truck and through traffic. As a result, there is frequent severe congestion on IH 10 with no possibility for alternative routing of through truck and auto traffic and hazardous cargoes.

The El Paso District of TxDOT contracted with Jacobs Civil Inc. of Dallas, TX to prepare studies and consult with affected federal, state and local agencies to determine an optimal alignment for a limited access, divided bypass facility. This facility would link IH 10 at the NM 404/IH10 interchange just north of the Texas/New Mexico border to Loop 375 near the Railroad Drive overpass. In this effort Jacobs was assisted by Moreno Cardenas, Inc. of El Paso and PBS&J of Austin.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine a feasible location for a limited access, divided roadway for commercial and other IH 10 through traffic, allowing this traffic to bypass the congested center of El Paso. The map shows the approximate limits of the study corridor.

NORTHEAST PARKWAY STUDY CORRIDOR MAP

The route location study began in February 2002 and concluded in August, 2003. Traffic studies justifying project need, information gathering for a project geographic information system, agency discussions, three work group coordination meetings and two public meetings were major work elements. Significant agency and public concerns were noted and reflected in the route location alternatives developed.

Initially, the route location study identified seven alternatives, including No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) options. TSM approaches to congestion mitigation improve traffic flow through better management of existing facilities without adding to roadway capacity. Typical TSM strategies include intersection and signalization improvements on arterial streets and bottleneck removal programs to alleviate traffic congestion on a freeway system. Following public and agency input and an analysis of environmental, cost and technical constraints and opportunities, the number of alternatives was narrowed to three. Finally, additional studies and public input yielded a preferred alternative . This preferred alternative constitutes the basis for more detailed design and environmental impact documentation in the next phase of project development.

The first step in the analysis was an assessment of the ability of the regional roadway system to accommodate projected 2025 traffic volumes without the Northeast Parkway in place. The traffic analysis prepared for this No-Build condition used the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 2025 traffic model and concluded that IH 10 and US 54, among other regional freeways, would experience severe traffic congestion (Level of Service F) in the 2025 design year. Additional analysis of relatively simple, cost-effective TSM improvements to reduce congestion yielded only minimal congestion relief. IH 10 and US 54 still operated at a failing (F) Level of Service. Therefore, study of additional roadway capacity on new rights-of-way was warranted.

The Preliminary Concept Report identified five route location alternatives, plus the No-Build and TSM options, for review and comment by agencies and the public. The five potential routes addressed the project’s purpose and need and reflected the results of agency discussions conducted to date. As shown on the following map, they were:

• Alternative A – Loop 375/Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Alternative B – Greenbelt
• Alternative C – Railroad Pipeline
• Alternative D – 2025 MTP
• Alternative E – Stan Roberts, Sr.

Alternatives A and E used, to the extent possible, existing public (i.e., roads) rights-of-way, whereas Alternatives B, C and D were on new alignments. Total right-of-way requirements varied from about 610 acres for Alternative A to slightly more than 1,000 acres for Alternative E.

MAP OF PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES

All alignment alternatives were located to minimize residential and commercial displacements, respect major utility facilities and distribution systems (e.g., El Paso Water Utilities, El Paso Natural Gas and El Paso Electric) and avoid sensitive natural environmental systems, such as the Bureau of Land Management’s Organ/Franklin Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Alternatives A and B, the Loop 375/Martin Luther King, Jr. and Greenbelt Alternatives, respectively, entailed potentially significant residential and commercial displacements, as their alignments were in close proximity to established neighborhoods. As a result, noise, neighborhood disruption and other quality of life impacts would occur with these alternatives. Alternative D, 2025 MTP, respected most corridor location constraints, but impacted Fort Bliss’s Long Range Fan, and Fort Bliss has indicated its opposition to these impacts. Alternatives C and E, Railroad/Pipeline and Stan Roberts, Sr., respectively, avoided this impact and did not appear to present any other associated significant issues.

The five route location alternatives, plus the No-Build and TSM options, were discussed with the public at a meeting on October 29, 2002. Approximately 75 people, including representatives of local, state and federal agencies and area elected officials, attended. The consensus of those present was that Alternatives A and B entailed potentially significant and unacceptable impacts. Continuing agency consultation, traffic analyses and technical studies have confirmed this conclusion with respect to the identified evaluation measures – cost, environmental/socioeconomic, traffic, and public acceptance. Three alternatives:

appeared to offer the most traffic benefit for the least environmental and dollar cost. Accordingly, TxDOT dropped Alternatives A and B from further analysis and directed the consultant to perform additional traffic, environmental and design studies only on Alternatives C, D and E.

The No-Build and TSM Alternatives were carried forward for comparison with the three route location alternatives.

In terms of traffic operations, Northeast Parkway will operate at an acceptable level of service under all alternatives. All alternatives, however, highlight the existing capacity constraints on Loop 375 between IH 10 and Northeast Parkway (south and east of the study area). Alternative E will have the least negative impact on the section of Loop 375 east of Northeast Parkway, because it attracts less traffic than Alternatives C and D. Alternatives C and D will have more negative impact on Loop 375, but offer more benefit to the total system by reducing vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on other regional arterials (including IH 10).

All revised preliminary concept alternatives minimized residential and commercial displacements, respected major utility facilities and distribution systems (e.g., El Paso Water Utilities, El Paso Natural Gas and El Paso Electric) and avoided sensitive natural environmental systems, such as the Bureau of Land Management’s Organ/Franklin Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern. All three route alternatives entailed similar environmental impacts. Alternative D, 2025 MTP, respected most corridor location constraints, but impacted Fort Bliss’s Long Range Fan to the extent that it would need to be relocated. Alternatives C and E, Railroad/Pipeline and Stan Roberts, Sr., respectively, avoided this impact, but Alternative E, because it entailed frontage road construction along Stan Roberts, Sr. Ave. and Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd., may disrupt adjoining land uses. There did not appear to be any other significant natural or human environmental issues. The studies supporting these conclusions were presented in the Revised Preliminary Concept Report (December 2002).

Subsequent cost, technical and environmental studies indicated that Alternative C – Railroad/Pipeline offered the most traffic benefit at the least dollar and environmental cost. This conclusion was detailed in the draft Final Concept Report (March, 2003), discussed with federal, state and local agency representatives at the 3rd Working Group Meeting in April, 2003 and presented to the public at a second meeting in June, 2003.

As no major opposition was expressed at any working group or public meeting, the Final Concept Report (August, 2003) confirmed the conclusion that Alternative C was the preferred alignment option. It was recognized, however, that detailed environmental and technical studies to be performed during the schematic/environmental phase of project development might alter alignments slightly or suggest the mixing and matching of segments of one alignment with those of another.

MAP OF REVISED ALTERNATIVES C, D AND E (FINAL CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES)

Order-of-magnitude costs for each of the preliminary concept alternatives, plus the TSM improvement option, are presented in Table S-1. Preliminary summary ratings for each of the alternatives on each of the evaluation criteria are presented in Table S-2.

SUBSEQUENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TASKS

The next step in TxDOT’s project development process is the preparation of the design schematic and environmental documentation. Some minor alignment changes may be made to reflect site specific circumstances or because the detailed design and environmental studies performed as part of the environmental impact documentation process suggest that a slightly different alignment may cause fewer environmental impacts. Alternatively, as noted above, detailed studies may suggest that alignment segments in Texas and New Mexico (e.g., Alt. E in NM and Alt. C in Tx) be switched to reflect better knowledge of the corridor.

TxDOT is pursuing alternative funding mechanisms for this project. A preliminary traffic and revenue study has been prepared concurrent with this report’s preparation to explore the feasibility of constructing the Northeast Parkway as a toll facility. Various tolling strategies have been evaluated and are contained in an April, 2003 Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study prepared by URS Corporation.