I-10 East Corridor Study El Paso, Texas

Project Description | Study Area Map | Previous East Side Studies | Project Schedule | Strategy Refinement Process | Study Participants | Working Group Meetings | I-10 East Corridor Bottleneck Study | Public Involvement | Public Meetings | Truck Survey |  Let Us Know What You Think | HOV Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) | Newsletters

Public Meetings

TxDOT hosted an open house to inform the public about the I-10 East Corridor Study. These meetings were held from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on October 3rd and 4th, 2000, at the Ysleta Cultural Arts Center and the Del Valley High School, respectively. TxDOT kicked off this first round of public meetings by presenting the study process and soliciting public comments. These meetings were successful, with a total of approximately 75 attendees.

The goal of these meetings was to inform local citizens of the study process, and solicit comments on corridor problems, needs, constraints, and possible solutions.

Displays were provided that discussed the study process, current corridor problems, study goals and objectives, initial strategies, and methods to provide feedback. Some of the initial strategies included increased transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, ramp adjustments, and major interchange improvements. A popular aerial photograph display solicited comments on particular problem areas in the study area.

Comments included:

• Concern with traffic back-ups and high percentage of trucks at Horizon Blvd.
• Request to consider direct connections at Lee Trevino Road
• Need for additional transit circulation in the Town of Clint
• Congestion concerns in the area of George Dieter Drive, Zaragoza Road, and I-10
• Consider truck-only access to/from distribution centers between Loop 375 and Zaragoza Road
• Problems with southbound US 54 connection to eastbound I-10
• Look at turning lanes – radii too tight for trucks

Final Public Meetings - Fall 2002 - Summary

TxDOT hosted an open house on October 15th and 17th, 2002, to inform the public about the I-10 East Corridor Study. These meetings were held from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Del Valle High School and the Ysleta Cultural Arts Center, respectively. Numerous activities preceded the public meetings to inform the public of the meetings and encourage attendance. These activities included:

• Meeting advertisements in both the Times and El Diario newspapers in the Sunday editions dated September 29, 2002, and October 13, 2002;
• Mailed note card invitation to 2,022 people comprising the I-10 East Corridor Study general mailing list, east-side zip code addresses from the El Paso metropolitan planning organization (MPO) newsletter mailing list, and Working Group list;
• Tabloid-sized flyers announcing the meetings in both English and Spanish placed on east-side Sun Metro buses, at various public locations, and at various commercial retail centers;
• TxDOT general news release, one result of which was a brief reminder of the public meetings in the Times in the ‘Borderlands’ section on October 14, 2002; and
• Channel 14 and Channel 17 local news stories on October 15, 2002.

TxDOT presented the study analysis results and solicited public comments. These meetings were well-attended, with a total of approximately 80 persons at the two meetings.

The goal of these meetings was to inform local citizens of the study process, and solicit comments on the six strategies considered to address the corridor problems and needs, as well as the analysis results comparing the strategies.

A handout was provided to Public Meeting attendees that presented the study purpose and process, goals and objectives, descriptions of the six strategies under consideration, and evaluation summary. TxDOT contact information was also provided and a comment form was attached to the handout soliciting written comments. Additional comment sheets were provided at comment tables situated near the study results display.

An overview video approximately 10 minutes in length was played continuously for meeting attendees. The video presented information about the study process up to and through development of the six strategies. Conceptual layouts of the six I-10 strategies were on display at 200’:1” scale, for a combined distance of 310 feet around the perimeter of the room. Conceptual layouts of the TSM and Build options for FM 76, SH 20, and FM 1110 were also on display. The conceptual layouts serve as the basis for developing planning-level cost estimates, quantifying potential environmental effects, and analyzing changes in congestion and traffic operations. In a side display, project team members demonstrated traffic micro-simulation model runs used to evaluate major interchange options at Lee Trevino and Zaragoza.

Approximately 30 display boards in the center of the meeting area presented the mobility, community and environmental, multimodal travel, design, and cost analysis results from the study. The results for the other routes—SH 20 (Alameda Avenue), FM 76 (North Loop Road), and FM 1110--were included. TxDOT and consultant project team members were available at the strategy layout and results areas to answer questions and record oral comments made by attendees.

• Any improvement to the highway or main streets in El Paso will be positive, concerned with congestion and time delay // No Build is "not an option"
• The TSM Strategy "will not provide enough relief"
• The Access Management Strategy has some good components // repeated as an intermediate solution // suggested as an intermediate solution before building Express Lanes
• The General Purpose Strategy "offers good improvements and will meet the needs of the future" // 2^nd choice after Express Lanes, does not like HOV // widen the mainlanes at Copia from 3 to 6 lanes, same for Yarbrough and McRae, then start an overhead on top of I-10
• The Express Lanes Strategy would withstand time and provide safety // appears to accomplish the most for city traffic as well as through traffic // overhead Express might be the best, following the example of I-35 in Austin // prefers Express with direct connects at Lee Trevino, Pendale, and Zaragoza // great for through traffic but costs too much for the benefit and the elevation is not a good thing for the environment // I-10 traffic better served by a lane for through traffic (or a separate bypass) // except for the environmental impact, Express Lanes seems "most logical and cost effective", if implemented with an additional HOV lane even better // "1^st choice" (notes expense), then General Purpose Lanes, does not like HOV // after widening existing mainlanes to help for the next 10 years, start on an overhead on top of I-10 // suggested as a long-term solution keeping trucks, through traffic out of routine traffic flow, and encouraging transit, Access Management in the interim "however expensive" this combination
• The HOV Lanes Strategy would encourage people to share rides and the HOV lanes would exclude trucks // another comment was strongly against HOV // a good theory—will El Paso drivers use it // HOV isn’t enough, but maybe if it is implemented in addition to Express Lanes // does not like HOV
• No single strategy appears to meet the need // ditto // suggestion of combined General Purpose Lanes, Express Lanes, and HOV, but avoidance of elevated structures wherever possible and minimizing ROW takes

• Liked the improvements for Zaragoza at I-10 // straighten Zaragoza // Pendale seems to help Lee Trevino and Zaragoza, but does the close proximity between the three create other issues // favors direct connects to I-10 at Pendale, but concerned that it will draw heavy traffic on Chito Samaniego (neighborhood and Ysleta Head Start Center), advises no north-to-south Pendale connection // "Pendale improvements look good" // Pendale overpass a good idea, suggests a major street connected to Pelicano off of Pendale to divert congestion at Pendale and George Dieter and give drivers an opportunity to go west or east on Pelicano from Pendale
• Still concerned about the overload of Horizon Boulevard from growth
• Suggestion to restrict truck traffic from traveling I-10 during peak periods // another to direct the trucks off I-10 at LP 375 and back on again at Anthony // suggestion to restrict trucks from using far right lane today // large through trucks should be limited to a lane next to the on- and off-lanes
• Remove redundant entrance/exit at Yarbrough to McRae // address eastbound Sumac and Yarbrough exits // address confusing left-turn signs at McRae, Yarbrough, and Lomaland // Paisano provides good access to various downtown destinations, be sure that new Trowbridge exits have good directions // longer on/off ramps at Yarbrough and eliminate one on/off ramp through that area
• Widen the bridges (suggests doing this when adding turnarounds)

• Enforce the minimum speed limit // until the minimum speed limit is enforced, there will be no traffic flow consistency, creating hazardous situations
• Start purchasing needed ROW now for the future
• Consider underground transit rail service to all points in the City and the outskirts // still wants public rail transit along I-10 // motor vehicle improvements needed, but a multi-modal mass transit plan is needed, as well, specifically an elevated light rail connecting downtown to Juarez, far east destinations, the northeast, and the west side
• Lack of accommodation for alternative modes (e.g. bicycles) "disappointing", points out "wonderful" bike lanes all along LP 375, except at intersections of Montwood and Zaragoza, does not support bike lanes on high-speed facilities like I-10 and US 54
• Need traffic calming techniques in neighborhoods near I-10 access points
• Concerned with replacing greenery and more concrete and asphalt
• Concerned about increased wait times along Rojas, Pelicano, and Vista del Sol // a different suggestion to promote through traffic along eastside roads such as Montwood, Trawood, etc.
• Glad to see Clint not forgotten
• Consider another loop outside LP 375
• Request to TxDOT and local decision-makers to move forward with the Lee Trevino connection to the Border Highway or abandon it, since the indecision affects proximate homeowners
• "What a great presentation!", interesting, informative, wealth of planning, thank you for the work // good job and well done // excellent presentation // very impressive // impressed with the simulation models, especially the HOV

• Add many lanes since El Paso is still growing
• Likes HOV because it encourages people to share rides and trucks aren’t allowed in the HOV lane // another comment received was that HOV does not work anywhere it has been implemented
• Likes Lee Trevino and Zaragoza ramps as they are now // Pendale improvements best of interchange improvements // definitely need Pendale improvement, at least crossover
• Should reverse all ramps // too many interchanges within study limits
• Suggestions to restrict truck traffic to certain mainlanes, under any of the strategies and possibly now // take trucks off I-10
• Present intersection signage is not consistent // present weave from ramp to through movement at Gateway intersections is difficult // lengthen weaves from ramps to intersections // present signal timing along frontage roads hinders driving all the way through
• Why weren’t turnarounds built originally along Gateway intersections
• US 54 and I-10 interchange could benefit from aesthetic treatments // the US 54 turnaround north of the interchange drops/adds lanes in too short a distance
• "Put up or shut up" on Lee Trevino // not showing Yarbrough extension on No Build // connect Eastlake south of I-10 // generally not enough north-south routes and too many stops
• Requested brochures including the strategy layouts
• People don’t drive correctly
• The meeting could have been better publicized
• Compliments on the presentation and hard work and to TxDOT for thinking this far ahead

• No Build Strategy, TSM Strategy, and Access Management Strategy are the only feasible options, however TSM and Access Management won’t be cost effective for 15 years
• One writer submits that the General Purpose Lanes Strategy and Express Lanes Strategy are "not feasible" because the total estimated costs are insufficient, Gateway property owner resistance has been underestimated, widening east of US 54 interchange would result in the freeway being less useable because of the "unalterable" three lane section under US 54, and taking additional property to provide a 50-foot future option median (General Purpose Lanes Strategy) "will be the hardest sell of all" // another favors "just go wider" over "razzle-dazzel" (sic) of an upper level bypass
• HOV not an option, as results indicate
• There is room at Piedras and Copia areas to widen the mainlanes to 4 or more lanes today
• Freeway purpose is to make travel safer and more convenient for city population before the rest of the population, eliminating access to the freeway is "not the American way"
• Suggests restricting cargo trucks from using one or two outside lanes today
• Meeting would have had better attendance if it had been better publicized, if Gateway property owners had been notified directly by mail, and the newspaper advertisement had made more clear the "dramatic" and expensive changes being considered
• Spending taxpayer money to contemplating the General Purpose Lanes, Express Lanes, and HOV Lanes Strategies any farther is "unwise and wasteful"

TxDOT welcomes additional public comments. Please Let Us Know What You Think.

 Top of Page