Lets not widen our freeways!

You can comment online at the virtual meeting, or email your comments to Downtow[email protected]

To the TxDOT Planners and engineers,

El Paso does not need a wider freeway, we need better, safer transportation options. By widening the freeway, and turning Yandel, Missouri and Wyoming into high speed, high volume gateways – which are a one size fits all solution to a series of complex needs – you are putting the convenience of motorists before the safety and needs of the surrounding community, and of vulnerable road users such as myself who would prefer to walk, bike, or use transit, but your “viable alternatives” don’t give us those as viable options.

You scored alternative D, G & H high in the multimodal category, despite almost no consideration for transit, and the options (save the pedestrian bridge D) were potentially unsafe, and certainly not what I would consider comfortable to use. The enhanced crossings, wide sidewalks (usually between a high speed U-turn lane and another travel lane), and the shared use paths directly adjacent to the frontage road lanes (with their noise, and air pollution) may look good on paper to someone who does not walk or ride a bike regularly, but those of us who do recognize these as dangerous and uncomfortable. These options you have made for us, are not the kind of design choices we want or would make. First off, being between lanes of traffic is simply unpleasant – the noise, the vibration, the taste and smell of auto emissions, and unpleasant enough – but would you feel safe letting your children or parents walk here? If not, then why think we would want this either?

The shared use paths placed directly adjacent to the high speed frontage roads that your plans propose to turn Yandel, Wyoming and Missouri into are already places we try to avoid, as they are already busy enough – again, why would we want to expose ourselves willingly to that kind of an unpleasant environment? And, most of our travel in this corridor is either away from the kind of traffic you would subject us to when traveling east and west. Meanwhile, the majority of our travel within the corridor is actually north and south – and it is here that we need more, and safer travel options that minimize our risk.

East of Downtown, along the Central core of El Paso, we need safe crossings to get north and south – and right now there are basically none – and the plans you have proposed have essentially overlooked the needs of vulnerable road users along this stretch. Yes, there is that infamous shared use path, now with lots of curb cuts and points of conflict, but where are the “enhanced crossings”? They certainly aren’t here. Nor are the opportunities to travel north and south, except where there is already high speed, high volume traffic.

This is NOT worthy of the “High” score you have given these alternatives. Except that you include heavy trucks in this category, and we can that score is actually reflective of your accommodating these larger vehicles, and not our need for safe, convenient walkable, bikeable and transit friendly transportation options. Nor is this what we need for the future of El Paso.

Any design that prioritizes speed over our safety on our surface streets is unacceptable. I request that more consideration be given to either rebuilding, or the tunnel plane – which you have not allowed us to see or consider – as it might allow us to reconnect the urban grid of our community, and allow for safer, more pleasant transportation options for people who walk, ride bikes or use transit. Also alternatives D, G & H should be rejected for the further damage they will do to my community, and to my ability to travel safely throughout central and downtown El Paso.

In short I ask that:

• Alternative B, which is reconstruction and scored fourth, and Alternative F, the tunnel/trench extension, must be carried forward for further evaluation. 
• The direct connection along Prospect St as shown in Alternative D is maintained
• The street grid in Downtown and along Missouri be preserved for local traffic (vehicular and human powered), not to accommodate regional or national through traffic
• That Yandell, Missouri and Wyoming streets NOT be turned into high speed frontage roads, as the best way to create safe, walkable and bikeable places is to reduce traffic volumes and speeds.
• That vulnerable user safety and comfort be prioritized by the elimination of all U-turns in and around the Downtown area, and that safe routes for people be prioritized by the inclusion of safe, comfortable crossings at every intersection, the removal of all slip turns, and that comprehensive street management and vision zero principles be employed.
• The elevated frontage roads and braided ramps NOT be used as they encourage speed, not safety.
• The urban fabric be preserved, and additional right of way not be secured to add capacity to the roadways
• Freight be removed from the multimodal category as what benefits freight vehicles is often what makes streets and roads unsafe for vulnerable road users.
• The virtual meeting process be revamped to allow for direct interaction with staff and consultants, instead of this passive system that makes it difficult for the public to gain knowledge of the project, save for what TxDOT decides to share.

It’s time to put our safety first for a change (add your name)