1. Purpose To develop and evaluate a range of transit and transportation alternatives throughout the MPO area, considering: u Regional Goals and Objectives u Mobility Needs u Transportation Network Deficiencies u Environmental and Land Use Issues u Cost and Financing u Short -Term and Long-Term Improvements u Regional and International Trips

2. Definition The Transit Corridor Feasibility Study Will: u Evaluate high capacity transit options for the El Paso MPO Area u Explore a variety of travel modes and congestion management measures u Develop a multimodal recommendation which meets short and long term travel needs

3. Corridors

4. Goals & Objectives Meet Mobility Needs Develop a Multimodal Transportation System Improve and Optimize Current Transportation System Improve International Access Encourage Transit Supportive Land Use

5. Needs Transit Roadway and General Mobility

6. 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

7. Needs Roadway and General Mobility –Additional capacity along roadways –Additional capacity at I-10 interchanges

8. 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

9. Needs Key Characteristics –Transit Riders: young, older, lower income –Transit Trip Purpose: Work and Education –Spatial: Linear Corridors; Limited Capacity

10. Needs Peer Comparisons –Cities with High Capacity Transit –Cities Planning High Capacity Transit

13. Evaluation –Preliminary Screening –Detailed Evaluation

14. Evaluation Qualitative Criteria –Transportation Needs and Mobility –Ridership Potential –Environmental Issues –Regional Goals/Objectives and Land Use –Neighborhood Compatibility

15. Evaluation Quantitative Criteria –Travel Time –Ridership –Capital and Operating Cost –Financing –Right-of-Way and Physical Constraints

16. Technologies Bus Bus/HOV lanes Busway/BRT Light Rail Transit Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Automated Guideway Transit Monorail

17. Bus

18. Bus/HOV Lanes

19. Busway/BRT

20. Light Rail Transit

21. Commuter Rail

22. Heavy Rail

23. Automated Guideway Transit

24. Monorail

25. Technologies Recommended - Bus - Bus/HOV - Busway/BRT - Light Rail - Commuter Rail Not Recommended - Heavy Rail - Monorail Special Case - Automated Guideway

26. Mesa Corridor Applicable Technologies - Bus - Busway/BRT - Light Rail - Commuter Rail

27. Mesa Bus Alignments

28. Mesa Busway/BRT Alignment

29. Mesa Light Rail Alignment

30. Mesa Commuter Rail Alignment

31. Dyer/US 54 Corridor Applicable Technologies - Bus - Bus/HOV - Busway/BRT - Light Rail - Commuter Rail

32. Dyer/US 54 Bus Alignments

33. Dyer/US 54 Bus/HOV Alignment

34. Dyer/US 54 LRT Alignment

35. Dyer/US 54 Commuter Rail Alignment

36. Applicable Technologies - Bus - Busway/BRT - Light Rail Montana Corridor

37. Montana Bus Alignments

38. Montana Busway/BRT Alignment

39. Montana Light Rail Alignment

40. Alameda Corridor Applicable Technologies - Bus - Bus/HOV - Busway/BRT - Light Rail - Commuter Rail

41. Alameda Bus Alignments

42. Alameda Bus/HOV Alignments

43. Alameda Busway/BRT Alignments

44. Alameda Light Rail Alignment

45. Alameda Commuter Rail Alignments

46. Juarez - Downtown Connection Transit Improvements

47. Juarez - Ysleta Connection

48. ‘Next Steps  Refine Technologies and Alignments  Preliminary Evaluation and Recommendations for Advancement  Develop Preliminary Costs and Ridership  Identify Potential Impacts  Evalution and Recommendations