1. Mesa & Cincinnati Presentation to City Council June 19, 2007

2. Existing Conditions

3. Staff 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.

4. Flasher Relocation & Median Improvements

5. 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

6. Flasher Relocation & Median Improvements 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

7. Flasher Relocation & Median Improvements ISSUES: Does not provide for a separation of pedestrians and vehicles Does not provide a landscaped median on south side of Cincinnati/Mesa intersection

8. Staff Recommendations 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.

9. Staff Recommendations 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

10. Actions to Date Immediate 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

11. Actions 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.

12. Long Term Projects Evaluated Tunnel & Pedestrian Plaza Vehicular Overpass (UTEP Senior class design proposal) Pedestrian Overpass

13. VEHICULAR TUNNEL ON MESA - LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION

14. Vehicular Tunnel on Mesa BENEFITS: 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

15. Vehicular Tunnel on Mesa ISSUES: 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

16. Vehicular Tunnel on Mesa ISSUES: 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

17. Acknowledgements Selected Alternative Cost Analysis of Proposed Bridge on Selected Alternative Mesa Street Overpass Bridge Presented By: Michelle Anguiano Mario Garcia Gustavo Sosa Advisor: Dr. Cesar Carrasco Spring 2007 Advisor: Dr. Cesar Carrasco Spring 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 St. State of Texas County Boundaries MEXICO EL PASO Cross-section of Mesa St. at Cincinnati Ave. Aerial view of study area with proposed bridge DescriptionCost 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 IntersectionLevel of Service (LOS) 2007Alternative 0Alternative 1Alternative 2 Mesa St. & Cincinnati Ave.F(SB) B/(NB) C Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr.D(SB) C/(NB) B Mesa St. & Robinson Ave.C(SB) A/(NB) A 2027Alternative 0Alternative 1Alternative 2 Mesa St. & Cincinnati Ave.F(SB) B/(NB) C Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr.F(SB) C/(NB) C(SB) C/(NB) B Mesa St. & Robinson Ave.F(SB) A/(NB) A 2037Alternative 0Alternative 1Alternative 2 Mesa St. & Cincinnati Ave.F(SB) B/(NB) C Mesa St. & Baltimore Dr.F(SB) D/(NB) C(SB) C/(NB) B Mesa St. & Robinson Ave.F(SB) A/(NB) A Project Results Dr. Cesar Carrasco City of El Paso, Traffic Engineering Division TxDOT 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.

18. Alternative 1 Cross-section

19. Alternative 2 Cross-Section

20. Vehicular Overpass on Mesa BENEFITS: 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

21. Vehicular Overpass on Mesa ISSUES 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

22. Vehicular Overpass on Mesa ISSUES 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

23. Pedestrian Overpass

24. 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

25. Pedestrian Overpass ISSUES: 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

26. Other 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.

27. Staff Recommendations No major structures or roadway alterations Pedestrian crossing flasher and reduced speed Traffic signal modifications & continuous monitoring Median modifications to include landscaping

28. Staff Recommendations 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

29. Questions