el paso thoroughfare plan - Spikowski Planning Associates

Transcription

EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN
2013 UPDATE
DRAFT December 13, 2012
The El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update was created by
the Plan El Paso planning team:
Mayor John Cook
City Council
Ann Morgan Lilly, District 1
Susie Byrd, District 2
Emma Acosta, District 3
Carl L. Robinson, District 4
Dr. Michiel Noe, District 5
Rachel Quintana, District 5 (former)
Eddie Holguin Jr., District 6
Steve Ortega, District 7
Cortney Niland, District 8
Beto O’Rourke, District 8 (former)
City Manager & Deputies
Joyce A. Wilson, City Manager
David R. Almonte, Health & Safety
Deborah G. Hamlyn, Community Services
Jane K. Shang, Mobility Services
William F. Studer Jr., Finance & Management
Support Services
City Plan Commission
Jose M. Landeros
Kristi K. Borden
Larry Nance
Melissa Brandrup
Elma Carreto
Richard Vorba
Luis De La Cruz
Geoffrey Wright
Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee
Jay Banasiak
Jennifer Barr
Kristi Borden
Roland Correa
Deborah Hamlyn
Marty Howell
Mary F. Keisling
Michael Kelly
Michael Medina
Robert Moreno
Larry Nance
John Neal
Juan Olvera
Bradley Roe
Linda Troncoso
Brooks Vandivort
Ruben Vogt
Charlie Wakeem
Geoffrey Wright
Planning and Economic Development
Mathew McElroy, City Development Director
Carlos Gallinar, Deputy Director,
City Development Department
Fred Lopez, Comprehensive Plan Manager
Shamori Rose Whitt, Smart Growth Planner
Dover, Kohl & Partners
Town Planning
Victor Dover
Joseph Kohl
Jason King
Pamela Stacy
James Dougherty
Megan McLaughlin
Chris Podstawski
Andrew Georgiadis
Kenneth Garcia
Jennifer Garcia
Justin Falango
Elma Felix
Amy Groves
Andrew Zitofsky
Danay Morales
Sofia Villanueva
Eduardo Castillo
CEA Group
Infrastructure & Capital Improvements,
Local Expertise
Jorge L. Azcarate
Jorge Grajeda
IPS Group
Urban Planning
Natalie Ruiz
Institute for Policy and Economic
Development
REMI Projections Updates
Spikowski Planning Associates
Urban Planning
Bill Spikowski
Chael, Cooper & Associates
Architecture
Marice Chael
City of Fayetteville
Implementation Advisor
Karen Minkel
Sottile & Sottile
Architecture
Christian Sottile
Charlier Associates, Inc.
Transportation Planning
Jacob Riger
Jennifer Valentine
UrbanAdvantage
Computer Visualizations
Steve Price
Hall Planning & Engineering
Pedestrian Transportation Planning
Rick Hall
Tracy Hegler
The Street Plans Collaborative
Mulitmodal Transportation & Coding,
Web Outreach
Anthony Garcia
Mike Lydon
Urban Advisors
Economic Analysis
Ed Starkie
Glenn Kellogg
Zimmerman/Volk Associates
Housing Market Analysis
Todd Zimmerman
Laurie Volk
w-ZHA
Downtown Market Analysis
Sarah Woodworth
Berger Singerman
Land Use Law
Sam Poole
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta
Land Use Law
Cindy Crosby
December 4, 2012
El Paso Thoroughfare Plan
2013 UPDATE
DRAFT December 13, 2013
PREFACE
2
Introduction .......................................................
Purpose of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan .................. 2
Updating the Thoroughfare Plan ............................ 2
Organization of this Report ................................... 2
Thoroughfare Plan History & Use...........................
History of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan ....................
Thoroughfare Plan Terminology ...........................
Application of Thoroughfare Plan .......................
Dedication & Construction Requirements ...........
3
3
4
4
4
5
Thoroughfare Area Types ......................................
“Compact Urban” and “Drivable Suburban” Area Types .. 5
“Rural” and “Open Space” Area Types ........................ 6
Composite Map of New Area Types ....................... 6
7
Thoroughfare Classifications ..............................
Conventional Functional Classification ...................... 7
Improving Functional Classification ....................... 7
Matrix Summarizing Updated Functional Classification 9
10
Updated Thoroughfare Plan Map ........................... 11
Thoroughfare Cross-sections ........................... 12
Thoroughfare Mapping Criteria ...........................
Principal Arterials ................................................ 13
Minor Arterials ................................................... 16
Collector Streets ................................................ 19
Local Streets ..................................................... 22
Potential Options ............................................... 25
31
Appendix A – Map Atlas ..................................... A.1
Appendix B – Comprehensive Plan Amendments ... B.1
Appendix C – Southern Connector ..................... C.1
Appendix D – Montana Transit Expressway ........ D.1
Land Development Regulations ........................
ABOUT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE
Plan El Paso, the City of El Paso’s Comprehensive Plan adopted
in 2012, provides the basis for El Paso’s regulations and policies that guide its physical and economic development.
Plan El Paso was created in El Paso, and the best ideas came
from El Pasoans. The plan vision was created through a series of hands-on public design charrettes which included over
eight weeks of intense community exercises and policy discussion. This process was followed by over a year of regular
meetings with a City Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) to
refine the draft plan. A project website received over 40,000
visitors and provided an online forum for plan discussions;
in addition, the process received bilingual coverage in local
and national media. Plan drafts were made available to the
public, and special presentations and meetings were held to
discuss the plan before the formal adoption process. Through
this extensive outreach and public involvement, the greater
El Paso community has become invested in the plan and its
implementation.
Throughout the Plan El Paso planning process, numerous comments and input on transportation-related topics were gathered. These were analyzed to develop the following major
community concerns and priorities:
• Expand Transportation Choices & Options
• Invest in Transit
• Expand Safe Walking & Bicycling Environments
• Create Safe & Complete Streets
• Revitalize Major Corridors, Especially Alameda
• Address Congestion & Traffic Flow
• Make Reinvestment & Smart Growth the Priority
• Invest in the Airport Area as a Major Gateway
• Recognize El Paso’s Auto Orientation
This Thoroughfare Plan Update implements several of the above
concepts, such as expanding choices and options, expanding
safe walking and bicycling environments, and creating safe and
complete streets. The report contains recommended street
cross-sections and maps them in their appropriate location in
the City and beyond. The information and recommendations
in this report should be used to update the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, to update various titles
of the City’s land development regulations (especially Title 19),
and to guide the planning and design of streets in the City and
its extraterritorial jurisdiction.
El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF EL PASO’S THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The City of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan is a vital component of
the Comprehensive Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan is primarily a
map of the existing and proposed network of streets and roads
that shows the approximate location, alignment, and functional
classification of collectors, arterials, and expressways throughout El Paso County. Local streets are not included.
The Thoroughfare Plan map shapes El Paso’s transportation
network and travel patterns, which in turn affects the patterns
of growth. Although comprehensive plans in Texas are mostly
advisory in legal status, the city’s Thoroughfare Plan (sometimes
referred to as the Major Thoroughfare Plan) is “regulatory” (legally enforceable) by being referenced in Title 19 of El Paso’s
land development regulations. The Thoroughfare Plan is the basis for requiring new development to connect to and help build
the future street network to offset the traffic impacts of new
development.
The Thoroughfare Plan provides public officials a strong tool to
preserve corridors for future streets and roads while overcoming significant barriers, including topographical and environmental conditions, existing development, and vested development
rights.
UPDATING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Objectives of this update to El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan (TP)
include:
• Broaden and refine the TP to include bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
• Refine the TP’s thoroughfare classification systems to reflect the concepts in the Transportation Element of Plan
El Paso.
• Update the previous TP network to reflect the land-use
policies in Plan El Paso and best practices for the design of
regional transportation networks.
• Update the cross-sections of proposed thoroughfares to
carry out the principles in the Transportation Element.
Each objective is explained below.
• Broaden and Refine TP to Include a Multimodal Network
To carry out Plan El Paso’s overall vision, the City needs to
broaden its TP to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
These travel modes can usually be accommodated within
the same rights-of-way used by private vehicles.
• Refine TP Functional Classification
The TP’s functional classification categories should be more
consistent with those used by the El Paso MPO and TxDOT.
This will help obtain state and federal funding while still
being consistent with the new “area types” and improved
functional classification described in this report. The objective is to maximize regional and state funding while serving the City’s objectives of integrating land use character,
Page 2
thoroughfare design, and expanded transit opportunities.
“Compact Urban” areas will be served by walkable complete streets, while “Drivable Suburban” and “Rural” areas
will be served by upgraded versions of conventional street
and road designs.
• Update TP Network to Reflect Latest Land-Use Policies and Network Design Principles
The current TP network was nominally for the year 2025
but would accommodate growth in a vastly larger area. The
updated network continues to identify corridors in other
municipalities and in unincorporated El Paso County even
where the City does not control growth patterns. The TP
network reflects the proposed location and character of
future growth with appropriate street spacing, character,
and regional connectivity. Preliminary best practices for
network design were provided under Goal 4.5 of the Transportation Element.
• Update Thoroughfare Cross-Sections
The City of El Paso currently has three sets of thoroughfare
design standards: Design Standards for Construction referenced in Title 19 of the city’s land development regulations;
Thoroughfare Assemblies in Title 21; and the ITE recommended practice, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares:
A Context Sensitive Approach. These standards need to be
organized according to the functional classification and area
types described in this report. Proposed cross-sections are
presented in this report to replace those currently in Title
19.
The updated Thoroughfare Plan maps will be incorporated into
Plan El Paso through a Comprehensive Plan amendment. At the
same time, pages 4.43–4.45 of the plan’s Transportation Element
will also be updated, as will Goals 4.4 and 4.5 and their related
policies. Amendments will then be made to El Paso’s land development regulations, primarily in Title 19.
Goal 4.4 of Plan El Paso had originally anticipated the expansion
of the Thoroughfare Plan into a broader Sustainable Mobility
Plan (SMP). Those broader objectives will instead become part
of a future Transportation Master Plan, as described under Goal
4.6 of Plan El Paso (see Appendix B).
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The main body of this report describes the Thoroughfare Plan
update in detail and presents the proposed cross-sections. Appendix A contains the proposed TP maps. Appendix B contains
the proposed replacement pages for Plan El Paso to incorporate
the TP update.
December 13, 2012
THOROUGHFARE PLAN HISTORY & USE
HISTORY OF EL PASO’S THOROUGHFARE PLAN
El Paso’s earliest formal thoroughfare plan was part of the 1925
City Plan of El Paso, often referred to as the Kessler Plan for its
primary author, renowned city planner George E. Kessler. This
thoroughfare plan was a single map that showed all streets that
had been platted up to that time. The map below is from the
1925 City Plan and has been enhanced with red bands indicating “existing adequate arterials” and dark blue bands indicating
“proposed major arterials.” Many of these “major arterials”
would today be considered minor arterials or collector streets.
1988 (east planning area only)
1925
The 1962 City Plan of El Paso updated the 1925 map and renamed it the “Major Thorofare Plan.” The 1962 map is reproduced below, with dark blue lines still indicating “proposed major arterials.”
The 1999 Plan for El Paso included a thoroughfare plan in its
Map Atlas, labeled as “Proposed Thoroughfare System.” That
map was modified 30 times since between 1999 and 2012
through comprehensive plan amendments. The current version
has been maintained as a computer-based map on the City’s
Geographic Information System (GIS). The then-current TP
map, as shown below, was readopted into Plan El Paso in March
2012 on an interim basis and is now being updated as described
in this report.
1962
In 1988, City officials adopted The Plan for El Paso. The 1988
plan contained thoroughfare maps for each planning area that
delineated existing and proposed arterials and freeways. Minor
arterials and collector streets were rarely shown on this map.
December 13, 2012
1999 Thoroughfare Plan, as amended through Ordinance 17599 in 2012
Page 3
Thoroughfare Plan History & Use
THOROUGHFARE PLAN TERMINOLOGY
The City of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan can easily be confused
with other transportation plans. This is unavoidable in part because the cities, MPOs, and state DOTs have interconnected
roles in transportation planning. However, some confusion
has been introduced by different plans sharing similar names
or abbreviations. The City’s Thoroughfare Plan has often been
referred to as its Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP), but the El
Paso MPO has a similarly abbreviated MTP, its Mission 2035
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is now being updated
to 2040. The El Paso MPO also publishes on its website its own
Major Thoroughfare Plan, a map that resembles the city’s thoroughfare plan in many respects.
Title 19 of El Paso’s land development regulations uses the simple term “Thoroughfare Plan,” which is also the standard term
across Texas for a map of this type. Therefore this plan update
will be referred to as El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan in an attempt
to minimize confusion with MPO plans and to indicate that the
City’s plan includes minor arterials and collector streets, not
just principal arterials and expressways.
APPLICATION OF THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The City of El Paso currently has several sets of adopted thoroughfare design standards:
• Design Standards for Construction (DSC), administrative standards that are referenced in Title 19 (the City’s subdivision regulations). The DSC manual contains conventional
suburban cross-sections and some walkable cross-sections.
(In 2011 the City Council directed that the DSC be revised
to include the ITE Practice standards for walkable areas, a
complex effort that will be facilitated by this Thoroughfare
Plan update.)
• Thoroughfare Assemblies (part of the SmartCode), which
are in Title 21 of the City’s land development regulations.
• Design Parameters for Walkable Urban Thoroughfares,
which are contained in the ITE Practice.
As described on the next page, Plan El Paso distinguishes between two types of urban areas, “Compact Urban” and “Drivable Suburban.”
In Compact Urban areas, the ITE Practice’s design parameters
for walkable urban thoroughfares are now being applied on an
interim basis. They provide for both automobile and pedestrian
efficiency, with narrower lane widths, lower target speeds, onstreet parking, and shorter curb radii.
In Drivable Suburban areas, the DSC manual will continue to be
applied as it is at present, but the manual will be expanded to
include cross-sections for Rural and Compact Urban areas as
well, as described later in this report.
The thoroughfare assemblies in Title 21 are used in developments that meet high standards of compact form and diversity
and which take advantage of the expedited approval procedures
in El Paso’s SmartCode.
DEDICATION & CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
The City’s subdivision regulations are found in Title 19. Proposed subdivisions and developments must be platted before
ground is broken. Phased developments begin with a “land
study” that proposes a conceptual thoroughfare network and
designates land that would remain undeveloped.
During the platting process, a prospective developer must demonstrate the adequacy of public facilities to serve the development and compliance with all regulations, including zoning, the
DSC manual, utility master plans, and the Thoroughfare Plan. A
developer may construct a collector or arterial street along
slightly different alignments than those shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, but if a developer wishes to avoid making a connection, an amendment must be sought to the Thoroughfare Plan.
Developers must donate the right-of-way and construct these
streets. Because this requirement could result in an individual
developer paying a disproportionate share of the cost, Title 19
contains several procedures to ensure fairness. These include
city participation in construction costs; credits against other
fees to compensate for excess contributions by a developer;
and relief from obligations that would constitute a disproportionate burden. Additional mitigating measures may be added
in the future.
When an arterial or collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan
runs along a subdivision boundary, the developer must donate
half the required right-of-way. Future developers will be required to donate the other half at the time their land is platted.
Page 4
December 13, 2012
THOROUGHFARE AREA TYPES
The physical layout of modern America is overwhelmingly influenced by its transportation system, yet when today’s thoroughfare design standards were being established, little thought was
given to the neighborhood patterns they would produce.
For instance, thoroughfares designated as “arterial streets”
change little as they approach intensely developed areas. In
transportation engineering terms, the surrounding context
changes, but thoroughfare designs change very little. Speeds
generally drop from 55 to 45/35 mph, but on-street parking
is rarely allowed in emerging areas and is often removed from
older areas. In recent decades, arterial streets are excluding
most intersections with side streets, leading to longer block sizes (600 to 1,000 feet and longer) and higher speeds, which both
cause difficulties for pedestrians. Without context-sensitive designs, streets can overwhelm the communities they should be
designed to serve.
The “arterial” term appeared in 1919 in the “American Highway
Engineers’ Handbook.” The arterial function described there
clearly anticipated that 60-foot-wide commercial streets would
be more successful than those 80 or 100 feet wide. The early
planners never intended arterial streets to have “access to adjoining land” limited by future design manuals. As recently as
1990, the diagram to the right showed traditional arterials that
were well-connected to the local street network.
“COMPACT URBAN” AND “DRIVABLE SUBURBAN” AREA TYPES
Plan El Paso establishes a distinction between two distinct types
of urban areas, described as “Compact Urban” and “Drivable
Suburban.” In Compact Urban areas, multimodal transportation design will become the norm; character and function will
be more important than capacity, and the street network will
provide smaller blocks with greater “people moving” capacity.
Most Drivable Suburban areas will maintain a predominately
automobile-dependent development pattern; thoroughfares will
still have sidewalks, and where travel speeds are higher, separate
bike lanes.
Three groups of neighborhoods have been assigned as Compact
Urban, based on designations from the Future Land Use Map:
• Existing Walkable Neighborhoods
The first group includes neighborhoods where the original development pattern was laid out in eras when walking
was commonplace or during the streetcar era when public
transit was more common than private automobiles. These
neighborhoods are designated as G-1 “Downtown” and
G-2 “Traditional Neighborhood” on the Future Land Use
Map. These areas are well-suited for continued evolution
with a mix of uses and transportation options.
December 13, 2012
Classic “Green Book” Illustration of Functional Classification Hierarchy
• Planned Walkable Communities
The City of El Paso owns large tracts of developable land
that are within the city limits and are being master-planned
for potential urban expansion using Smart Growth principles. One tract adjoins the El Paso International Airport
and two others are on land managed by the Public Service
Board on opposite sides of the Franklin Mountains. These
lands will be served with walkable streets to match the
planned character of the development. These tracts are
designated as O-7 “Urban Expansion” on the Future Land
Use Map.
• Future Redeveloped and Infill Neighborhoods
Plan El Paso has identified numerous other areas in El Paso
with strong potential for infill development and for redevelopment, including land near RTS stops and Sun Metro
transfer stations. Other elements of Plan El Paso provide
conceptual physical designs for many of these areas. They
are identified as overlays on the Future Land Use Map: “Local Transfer Centers,” “RTS Stops,” and “Future Compact
Neighborhoods.”
Page 5
Thoroughfare Area Types
“RURAL” AND “OPEN SPACE” AREA TYPES
Regional transportation planning distinguishes between two
“area types” where thoroughfares are expected to have fundamentally different characteristics: Urban and Rural.
Urban areas are defined in Federal-aid highway law to mean
urbanized areas as designated by the Census Bureau. Rural areas comprise everything outside the boundaries of urban areas.
The upper map on this page shows the latest urban/rural distinction, based on the 2010 U.S. Census. Federal guidelines allow considerable latitude to state and local officials in adjusting
this boundary for transportation purposes.
The Urban/Rural distinction is essential for designing thoroughfares, yet the Census designations are so broad that they encompasses vastly different types of land development – different
physical contexts that need to be respected when thoroughfares are designed or redesigned. Also, the Census Bureau’s
designations are based on condition during the previous decennial census, whereas Plan El Paso is based on desired conditions
for the future.
Urban/Rural distinction for El Paso County from 2010 U.S. Census
To improve on the conventional Urban/Rural distinction, the
new Thoroughfare Plan includes the following enhancements:
• The Rural area type is based on Plan El Paso’s Future Land
Use Map instead of the U.S. Census.
• A new Open Space area type is provided for lands that
won’t be developed.
• The Urban area type is subdivided as described earlier.
COMPOSITE MAP OF NEW AREA TYPES
These new “area type” designations will help implement the
land-use vision in Plan El Paso, which is presented spatially on
the Future Land Use Map in the Regional Land Use Patterns
Element. These four new area types are based on the following
assignments from the Future Land Use Map:
RURAL:
G-6 – Rural Settlement
O-3 – Agriculture
O-4 – Military Reserve
O-5 – Remote
O-6 – Potential Annexation
COMPACT URBAN:
G-1 – Downtown
Local Transfer Centers
G-2 – Traditional Neighborhood RTS Stops
O-7 – Urban Expansion
Future Compact Neighborhoods
DRIVABLE SUBURBAN:
G-3 – Post-War
G-4 – Suburban
G-5 – Independent City
G-7 – Industrial
G-8 – Fort Bliss Mixed Use
G-9 – Fort Bliss Military
OPEN SPACE
O-1 – Preserve
O-2 – Natural
Page 6
New area-type distinctions for El Paso County based on Plan El Paso
These new area types are shown on the map above and will be
displayed as an underlay on El Paso’s new Thoroughfare Plan
map. These area types will help city officials coordinate the
city’s land-use planning with thoroughfare designs that are appropriate to their context.
The Rural area shown here should also be used by the El Paso
MPO and TxDOT in their upcoming decennial adjustment of
the urban/rural delineation for state highways.
December 13, 2012
THOROUGHFARE CLASSIFICATIONS
CONVENTIONAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Conventional traffic engineering assigns all thoroughfares into
a “functional classification” hierarchy that defines a thoroughfare’s role in the overall network. This hierarchy is based on
the desired operation of the thoroughfare, which then governs
certain design criteria such as design speed, travel lane width,
and amount of access from adjoining land.
El Paso’s post-WW II transportation network is comprised
mostly of these three types, as defined in A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the “Green Book” by AASHTO, 2004):
• Arterials are intended to provide the highest level of service at suburban speeds for the longest uninterrupted distance with some degree of access control. Arterials, therefore, provide higher levels of vehicle mobility and lower
levels of land access.
• Collectors provide a less highly developed level of service
at a lower speed for shorter distances than arterials, by
collecting traffic from local streets and connecting them
with arterials. Collectors specifically balance vehicle mobility and land access.
• Local streets primarily provide access to land, with little or
no through movement.
IMPROVING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The following assumptions are implicit in the conventional automobile-dependent functional classification system:
• Meaningful trips are made only by car or truck; walking, biking, and transit are inconsequential.
• A street with a certain function in the regional network
should have the same characteristics in the city as in the
suburbs.
• Limiting access to adjoining land is essential for arterials
and desirable for collectors.
The first assumption can be resolved by re-casting the network
as multi-modal public spaces rather than conduits for private
vehicles. The second assumption can be partly resolved through
the area-type distinctions discussed on the previous page.
The third assumption is the
most problematic. Limiting access to adjoining land is obvious for expressways, but when
access control is extended to
arterials and even collectors,
profound changes can be forced
on these important corridors.
The conventional classification
system, typically illustrated using this diagram, simply ignores
those effects.
Limiting access is accomplished
through techniques such as:
• Installing continuous medians that block left turns.
• Closing intersecting streets and forbidding new ones from
being constructed.
• Eliminating parallel parking in the right-of-way
A local example will illustrate the problems this approach can
cause. Alameda Avenue extends from Texas Avenue in central
El Paso east into Hudspeth County. West of Patriot Freeway,
Alameda is a vital commercial corridor lined with street-facing
restaurants, stores, and services, many in historic buildings. This
pattern was closely related to the streetcar that ran along Alameda from downtown.
Further east, the continuous canopy of street trees along Alameda has given way to used car lots and businesses that cater
to drivers more than nearby residents. Much traffic that once
traveled Alameda Avenue has shifted to I-10, causing further disinvestment along Alameda.
Because of its historic direct route into El Paso from the east,
Alameda Avenue must be considered a principal arterial street.
Public policies that would limit access to adjoining property
along Alameda because it is designated as an “arterial” would
be profoundly damaging to Alameda’s historic role in the community and its proposed revitalization.
Adjusting the physical design of the street is one of the first
steps in revitalizing Alameda Avenue and its adjoining neighborhoods, yet many of these adjustments conflict with the conventional engineering goal of limiting access to land along arterials.
One of Sun Metro’s new Rapid Transit System (RTS) routes will
run along Alameda Avenue beginning in 2014. Over time, Alameda can be converted back into a neighborhood-friendly street.
Sidewalks should be widened; parallel parking lanes should be
added near RTS stops to slow traffic and help local businesses
thrive at those locations; and one lane each direction could be
converted into dedicated transit lanes. Plan El Paso explicitly
calls for these improvements; potential impediments caused by
obsolete functional classification need to be removed.
December 13, 2012
Page 7
Thoroughfare Classifications
El Paso is in a better position than most communities to step
back from the paradigm of limiting access along arterials and
collectors.
In Compact Urban areas, there are already multiple continuous
routes in most directions. Because drivers can choose less congested routes, public officials don’t need to limit access along
occasional arterials to maintain traffic flow.
In Drivable Suburban areas, El Paso has provided a reasonably
continuous network of arterials along with a lesser number of
collectors. Although congestion often occurs during peak periods, the network does provide alternate travel paths for most
drivers.
The updated Thoroughfare Plan ensures that the future network
will contain a reasonably dense network of continuous routes.
The new plan still identifies arterials and collectors; those designations will now be based on the intended network function of
each type rather than the intention of limiting access to adjoining land. Individual arterials and collectors will always be able to
provide access to adjoining land; expressways of course will not.
Under the updated functional classification system, “principal arterials” will provide for longer trips on relatively straight paths.
Principal arterials often connect to expressways and provide
direct routes for high-capacity transit. This classification combines the City’s previous classifications of “super arterials” and
“major arterials” to match the “principal arterial” terminology
used by the El Paso MPO, TxDOT, and the Federal Highway
Administration.
“Minor arterials” are typically found between principal arterials
and provide continuous paths to intermediate destinations and
alternate routes for longer trips. Minor arterials can follow less
direct routes than principal arterials. Minor arterials typically
have only two lanes, but may have four lanes if necessary.
“Collectors” are typically found between minor arterials to
provide for frequent interconnections between neighborhoods.
Collectors can follow less direct routes than minor arterials.
In many cases collectors may be indistinguishable from local
streets except that they are part of a larger network that provides multiple continuous paths.
Local streets are not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan map. Ideally they are completely interconnected within each neighborhood and to adjoining neighborhoods; however, local streets can
be designed to slow or discourage (though not block) through
traffic. Limitations on through movements is possible only because the network of collectors and arterials is sufficient to
provide for most traffic flow.
The design of individual thoroughfares will still be correlated to
functional classification, but more choices will be provided than
at present. Because of the variety of physical and social contexts
that each type will traverse, a one-to-one correlation between
thoroughfare types and street cross-sections is not desirable.
In Drivable Suburban areas, an important thoroughfare design
determinant is the expected amount of traffic to be accommodated. In Compact Urban areas, however, the most important
design determinant is managing traffic speeds to levels that are
compatible with walking, bicycling, and transit use; this factor
is much more important that accommodating expected traffic
volumes on any given arterial or collector.
Table 1 below compares the updated functional classification
system with existing plans.
Table 2 on the next page summarizes the essential characteristics of the updated system, which will serve local needs as well
as improving consistency with state and federal standards.
TABLE 1 –- UPDATED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Existing City
Thoroughfare Plan
Interstate / Highways
Freeways / Expressways
Super Arterials
Major Arterials
Updated City
Thoroughfare Plan
Existing MPO
Functional Classification
Freeways & Expressways
Expressway
Interstate (Rural)
Interstate (Urban)
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterials
Minor Arterial
Collectors
Collector
Principal Arterial (Rural)
Principal Arterial (Urban)
Minor Arterial (Rural)
Minor Arterial (Urban)
Collector (Urban)
Major Collector (Rural)
Minor collector (Rural)
Page 8
December 13, 2012
Thoroughfare Classifications
TABLE 2 - MATRIX SUMMARIZING UPDATED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS & DESIGN CRITERIA
Expressway
Principal
Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Collector
Local
TYPICAL THOROUGHFARE CHARACTERISTICS
Network Function
high-speed travel to
regional destinations
straight paths to distant
destinations; connects
to freeways
continuous paths
to intermediate
destinations; alternate
routes for longer trips
continuous paths to
arterial network; allows
local trips to avoid the
arterial network
provides access to
all parcels not on the
arterial / collector
network
yes
yes
yes, but may include
minor deflections
yes, but may include
deflections & minor jogs
not critical; but are
highly interconnected in
Compact Urban areas
not applicable
1 mile
mid-way between
principal arterials
between arterials
as needed to provide
access to all parcels
state
state or municipality
municipality
or county
municipality
or county
municipality, county, or
private
express bus routes
high-capacity transit,
major bus routes
minor bus routes
para-transit, occasional
minor bus routes
para-transit
Direct Route
Spacing
Maintenance
Transit
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW & RECONFIGURED THOROUGHFARES
Number of Travel Lanes
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
4 - 8 lanes
Rural
4 lanes typical;
6 lanes in boulevard
2 lanes typical;
4 lanes if necessary
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes typical;
2 lanes typical;
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes typical;
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
30–35 mph
25–30 mph
20–25 mph
20–25 mph
45 mph
40 mph
20–30 mph
20–25 mph
55 mph
50 mph
45 mph
20–25 mph
wide sidewalks,
cycle tracks, or
boulevard access lane
sidewalks,
cycle tracks, or
sharrows
cycle tracks or
sharrows
with traffic
wide sidewalks
cycle tracks or
sharrows
bike lanes;
share travel lanes
with traffic
separated path
separated path
separated path
with traffic
wide sidewalks
sidewalks
sidewalks
sidewalks
wide sidewalks
sidewalks
sidewalks
sidewalks
separated path
separated path
separated path
separated path
yes (not at bus stops)
yes (not at bus stops)
yes
yes
no
occasionally
occasionally
occasionally
no
no
no
no
Target Speed
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
65 mph
Rural
Bicycle Facilities
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
none
Rural
Pedestrian Facilities
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
none
Rural
On-street Parking
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
December 13, 2012
none
Page 9
THOROUGHFARE MAPPING CRITERIA
A number of criteria were used to prepare the updated Thoroughfare Plan maps. The overarching network design principles
were provided under Goal 4.5 of Plan El Paso (right).
El Paso’s major thoroughfare network needs to serve the urban
pattern proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, not dictate the
pattern. The character of new streets on the network will correspond with anticipated development patterns, based on Plan
El Paso’s Future Land Use Map and the improved functional classification system described in this report.
The network needs to be complete and contiguous and conveniently spaced to serve the entire urban area. New development must connect to existing development and allow future
development to connect as well. Collector streets generally
terminate at other collectors and at arterials. Arterial streets
provide greater continuity over long distances and generally
terminate at other arterials and at expressways.
The network should avoid loops and severe direction changes,
except where required by topography, in order to maintain the
network’s legibility for future users. The network must be sensitive to natural features, historic travel routes, the character of
existing communities, and the street pattern established by obsolete yet not-vacated subdivisions northeast of Horizon City.
Streets are important public spaces as well as movement channels – the common thread that ties together old and new neighborhoods while providing convenient access to jobs, commerce,
education, entertainment, and open spaces.
The basic thoroughfare network will remain intact over time,
but the Thoroughfare Plan map will get modified as acceptable
alternative patterns and alignments are approved as formal
amendments to the map or as authorized minor adjustments.
Goal 4.5: El Paso’s network of major thoroughfares will become
the “Great Streets” of tomorrow. They will be integral parts of
the communities that surround them, allowing easy movement
and providing physical space for social, civic, and commercial
activities.
Policy 4.5.1: El Paso’s future transportation network will
shape the City and its inhabitants. The network must meld
all viable modes of transportation and carry out the goals of
Plan El Paso.
Policy 4.5.2: Capacity and redundancy should be created
by a densely interconnected network rather than by achieving
high capacities on individual arterial streets.
Policy 4.5.3: More narrow thoroughfares are better than
fewer wide ones. When major thoroughfares are spaced too
far apart, these consequences are unavoidable:
a. The remaining major thoroughfares must be too wide,
eroding their placemaking capacity and making them
inhospitable to pedestrians and bicyclists.
b. Motorized traffic may encroach on neighborhood
streets designed for lighter traffic volumes.
c. Transit routes along the remaining thoroughfares become inefficient to provide and unpleasant to use.
d Intersections with other wide roads will inevitably restrict the theoretical capacity of wide roads.
This restriction cannot be solved with grade-separated intersections because they are too expensive to construct and
maintain and too damaging to surrounding land uses.
Policy 4.5.4: Economically vital cities require multiple transportation modes and cannot hope to maintain free flowing
traffic during all peak periods.
Policy 4.5.5: The character of each thoroughfare should be
based on the physical context the thoroughfare is passing
through in addition to its role in the larger network.
Policy 4.5.6: Limited-access freeways disrupt the healthy
functioning of cities and should be the thoroughfare type of
last resort when planning an urban network.
Policy 4.5.7: When essential freeways or railroads will present insurmountable barriers to cross movement, they should
be depressed rather than elevated in order to minimize the
disruption to surrounding communities and to avoid the excessive costs of building and replacing long bridges.
Policy 4.5.8: The regional transportation network must respect the human and natural environment and minimize or
eliminate negative impacts such as bisecting or isolating communities, inducing suburban sprawl, or interfering with arroyos
and other natural systems.
Policy 4.5.9: The regional transportation network is larger
than El Paso County, including New Mexico, Chihuahua and
beyond....
Page 10
December 13, 2012
UPDATED THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP
Refer to Appendix A to review details of the Thoroughfare Plan Map.
December 13, 2012
Page 11
THOROUGHFARE CROSS-SECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Thoroughfare Plan update presents crosssections for new and improved thoroughfares, using the revised
functional classifications of streets and the revised “area types”
as described earlier.
A basic cross-section is provided for each category, followed by
options (such as additional lanes or bicycle facilities) for each
cross-section.
Table 3 summarizes the new cross-sections, which are then presented in detail on the following pages.
These cross-sections will not become part of the Comprehensive Plan; they will be incorporated into the subdivision regulations (Title 19) to replace the existing cross-sections that are
described there and detailed in the city’s Design Standards for
Construction manual.
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF BASIC AND OPTIONAL CROSS-SECTIONS FOR EL PASO THOROUGHFARES
Street Type
Area Type
Principal
Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Collector
Local
BASIC & OPTIONAL CROSS-SECTIONS
Compact Urban
Drivable
Suburban
Rural
Page 12
Basic Cross-Section:
Four lanes without median,
with parking, sidewalk, and
parkway with trees
Two lanes without median,
parkway with trees
parkway with trees
Two lanes, with curb,
parking, wider sidewalk,
and parkway with trees
Potential Options:
• Add Safety Strip
• Add Cycle Track
• Substitute Multiway Blvd.
• Substitute Multiway Blvd.
with bike/hike path
• Substitute SmartCode
assemblies that match
physical context
• Substitute parkway/
tree well
Potential Options:
• Add Safety Strip
• Add Cycle Track
physical context
tree well
Potential Options:
• Add Cycle Track
physical context
tree well
Potential Options:
physical context
tree well
Four lanes with median,
with bike/hike path and
parkway with trees
parkway with trees
with sidewalk and parkway
with trees
Two lanes, with curb,
sidewalk, and wider
parkway with trees
Potential Options:
• Add two more lanes
Potential Options:
• Add median (continuous
or at major intersections
only)
Potential Options:
• Add occasional medians
Potential Options:
• Substitute bike/hike path
for sidewalk
equestrian trail and swales
Two lanes without curbs,
with equestrian trail
(optional) and swales
Potential Options:
Potential Options:
Potential Options:
Potential Options:
• none
December 13, 2012
Thoroughfare Cross-sections
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
Title 19 currently provides two options for principal arterial streets (referred to as major arterials in Title 19). One
is a six lane arterial with a raised median, with or without a
bike/hike path (illustrated at right); the other is a two lane
boulevard with 2 additional lanes in service roads on each
side (illustrated below). The principal arterial network is
highlighted on the map below.
Major Arterial Street, 6 Lanes, as exists in Title 19
(to be replaced by Principal Arterial, pages 14 and 15)
Boulevard, as exists in Title 19
Major Arterial Street, 6 Lanes with Bike/Hike, as exists in Title 19
Principal Arterials are shown above in relation to Area Types.
December 13, 2012
Page 13
In place of the existing Title 19 cross-sections for principal arterials, the next two pages present three principal arterial crosssections, which vary based on area types that describe the surrounding urban context (Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban,
or Rural).
These basic sections may be modified by using the potential options identified below.
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - COMPACT URBAN
The Compact Urban section has the slowest design speed (compared to the suburban and rural sections) to provide a better
balance between pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists in walkable
urban areas. Four travel lanes are provided in the basic section,
with an option to add two additional lanes if warranted by traffic demand. There is no central median, and interior travel lanes
are narrowed to 10’; a sharrow is introduced in the outermost
lanes, as bicyclists should be encouraged to share the roadway
in this multimodal environment.
On-street parking produces traffic calming, and provides a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. The street gutter pan should be located within the prescribed parking lane
dimension. Where left turn lanes are needed, parking may be
eliminated closest to intersections to provide needed width.
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Compact
Urban
Add 2 More Lanes
(see pg 25)
Drivable
Suburban
Rural
•
•
•
Add Median
(see pg 26)
Add Safety Strip
(see pg 26)
•
Add Cycle Track
(see pg 27)
•
Substitute
Boulevard
(see pg 28)
•
Multiway
Substitute Multiway
Boulevard with Bike/
Hike Path (see pg 29)
•
Substitute SmartCode
Assemblies
(see pg 30)
•
Substitute Parkway /
Tree Well
(see pg 30)
•
Substitute Bike/Hike
Path for Sidewalk
(see pg 30)
“•” = permitted
The Potential Options shown in this chart are modifications available for
the cross-sections.
Page 14
Principal Arterial, Compact Urban
December 13, 2012
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - SUBURBAN
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - RURAL
The Suburban section is the most similar to the existing permitted section. Four travel lanes are provided in the basic section,
with an option to add two additional lanes if warranted by traffic demand. The vehicular lanes are 11’ in width, and a raised
central median remains in this auto-dominant environment.
A 5’ Pedestrian Refuge is provided where the central median
enters the crosswalk. The pedestrian realm is widened to enhance walking and biking opportunities. The tree-lined parkway
provides separation between pedestrians, bicyclists, and moving
vehicles.
The Rural section provides two lanes, with an option to add
two additional lanes if warranted by traffic demand. A wide
swale provides separation between pedestrians, bicyclists,
equestrians, and moving vehicles. Trees in swales are typically
clustered organically.
Principal Arterial, Suburban
Principal Arterial, Rural
December 13, 2012
Page 15
MINOR ARTERIALS
Title 19 currently provides only a single option for minor
arterial streets, as illustrated to the right: a four lane street
with a raised median, with or without a bike/hike path.
The minor arterial network is highlighted on the map below.
Minor Arterial Street, 4 Lanes, as exists in Title 19
Minor Arterial Street, 4 Lanes with Bike/Hike, as exists in Title 19
Minor Arterials are shown above in relation to Area Types.
Page 16
December 13, 2012
MINOR ARTERIAL - COMPACT URBAN
In place of the existing Title 19 cross-section for minor arterials,
the next two pages present three minor arterial cross-sections,
which vary based on area types that describe the surrounding
urban context (Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban, or Rural).
In the Compact Urban context, two travel lanes are provided
in the basic section, with an option to add two additional lanes
if warranted by traffic demand. Vehicular lanes are reduced to
10’ in width and sharrow markings are provided to slow the
vehicular design speeds and provide a better balance between
all modes of travel (vehicle, pedestrian, and bike).
On-street parking produces further traffic calming, and provides a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. The
street gutter pan should be located within the prescribed parking lane dimension. Where left turn lanes are needed, parking
may be eliminated closest to intersections to provide needed
width.
Note: One travel lane each direction should be increased to 11’
in width on streets designated for transit.
MINOR ARTERIAL - POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Compact
Urban
Drivable
Suburban
Add 2 More Lanes
(see pg 25)
•
Add Median
(see pg 26)
•
Add Safety Strip
(see pg 26)
•
Add Cycle Track
(see pg 27)
•
Substitute
Boulevard
(see pg 28)
Rural
•
Multiway
Substitute Multiway
Assemblies
(see pg 30)
•
Tree Well
(see pg 30)
•
Path for Sidewalk
(see pg 30)
the cross-sections.
December 13, 2012
Minor Arterial, Compact Urban
Page 17
MINOR ARTERIAL - SUBURBAN
MINOR ARTERIAL - RURAL
The Suburban section is the most similar to the existing permitted minor arterial section. Two travel lanes are provided in
the basic section, with an option to add two additional lanes
if warranted by traffic demand. The vehicular lanes are 11’
width in this auto-dominant environment. The pedestrian realm
is widened to enhance walking and biking opportunities. The
tree-lined parkway provides separation between pedestrians,
bicyclists, and moving vehicles.
The Rural section provides two 11’ travel lanes. A wide swale
provides separation between pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians,
and moving vehicles. Trees in swales are typically clustered organically.
Minor Arterial, Suburban
Page 18
Minor Arterial, Rural
December 13, 2012
COLLECTOR STREETS
Title 19 provides several options for non-residential and residential collector streets as illustrated to the right.
The existing non-residential collectors include:
• Four lanes, with and without bike lanes
• Two lanes, with on-street parking and a median, with
and without bike lanes
Non-residential 4 Lane Collector, as exists in Title 19
(to be replaced by Collector Street, pages 20 and 21)
The existing residential collectors include:
• Two lanes, with on-street parking
• Two lanes, with raised median
Non-residential 4 Lane Collector with Bike Lanes, as exists in Title 19
Non-residential Collector, as exists in Title 19
Non-residential Collector with Bike Lanes, as exists in Title 19
Residential Collector, as exists in Title 19
Residential Collector, Two Lanes, as exists in Title 19
December 13, 2012
Page 19
In place of the existing Title 19 cross-sections for collector
streets, the next two pages present three collector street
cross-sections, which vary based on area types that describe
the surrounding urban context (Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban, or Rural).
COLLECTOR - COMPACT URBAN
In the Compact Urban context, vehicular lanes are reduced to
ten feet in width and sharrow markings are provided to slow
the vehicular design speeds and provide a better balance between all modes of travel (vehicle, pedestrian, and bike).
width.
Note: One travel lane each direction should be increased to 11’
in width on streets designated for transit.
COLLECTOR STREET - POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Compact
Urban
Drivable
Suburban
Rural
•
•
Add 2 More Lanes
(see pg 25)
Add Median
(see pg 26)
Add Safety Strip
(see pg 26)
Add Cycle Track
(see pg 27)
Substitute
Boulevard
(see pg 28)
•
Multiway
Substitute Multiway
Assemblies
(see pg 30)
•
Tree Well
(see pg 30)
•
Path for Sidewalk
(see pg 30)
the cross-sections.
Page 20
Collector, Compact Urban
December 13, 2012
COLLECTOR - SUBURBAN
COLLECTOR - RURAL
The Suburban section is the most similar to the existing permitted sections. The vehicular lanes are 11’ width in this autodominant environment. The pedestrian realm is widened to enhance walking and biking opportunities. The tree-lined parkway
provides separation between pedestrians, bicyclists, and moving
vehicles.
The Rural section provides two vehicular lanes. A wide swale
provides separation between pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians,
and moving vehicles. Trees in swales are typically clustered organically.
Note: Travel lanes may be increased to 12’ in width in industrial
zones.
Collector, Suburban
December 13, 2012
Collector, Rural
Page 21
LOCAL STREETS
Title 19 provides several options for multi-family and commercial/industrial and residential local streets as illustrated to the
right.
The existing residential local streets include:
• Two 10’ lanes, with and without on-street parking
• Two 9’ lanes, with on-street parking
• One yield lane, with on-street parking
36’ Local Residential 1, as exists in Title 19;
(to be replaced by Local Street, pages 23 and 24)
The multi-family and commercial/industrial local streets include:
• Two 14’ lanes, with on-street parking
• Two 18’ lanes
28’ Local Residential 2, as exists in Title 19
32’ Local Residential 3, as exists in Title 19
20’ Residential Lane, as exists in Title 19
Multi-Family & Commercial/Industrial Local Street 1, as exists in Title 19
Multi-Family & Commercial/Industrial Local Street 2, as exists in Title 19
Page 22
December 13, 2012
LOCAL STREET - COMPACT URBAN
In place of the existing Title 19 cross-sections for local streets,
the next two pages present three local street cross-sections,
which vary based on area types that describe the surrounding
urban context (Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban, or Rural).
In the Compact Urban context, vehicular lanes are reduced to
ten feet in width and sharrow markings are provided to slow
the vehicular design speeds and provide a better balance between all modes of travel (vehicle, pedestrian, and bike).
width.
LOCAL STREET - POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Compact
Urban
Drivable
Suburban
Rural
Add 2 More Lanes
(see pg 25)
Add Median
(see pg 26)
Add Safety Strip
(see pg 26)
Add Cycle Track
(see pg 27)
Substitute
Boulevard
(see pg 28)
Multiway
Substitute Multiway
Assemblies
(see pg 30)
•
Tree Well
(see pg 30)
•
Path for Sidewalk
(see pg 30)
•
the cross-sections.
December 13, 2012
Local Street, Compact Urban
Page 23
LOCAL STREET - SUBURBAN
LOCAL STREET - RURAL
The Suburban section is the most similar to the existing permitted sections. Bicyclists and vehicles share the travel lanes in the
local street setting. The tree-lined parkway provides separation
between pedestrians, bicyclists, and moving vehicles.
The Rural section provides two vehicular lanes and a wide
swale. Bicyclists and vehicles share the travel lanes in the local
street setting. A path may optionally be provided for equestrians, separated from travel lanes by a 13’ swale. Trees in swales
are typically clustered organically.
Note: Travel lanes may be increased to 12’ in width in industrial
zones.
Local Street, Suburban
Page 24
Local Street, Rural
December 13, 2012
POTENTIAL OPTIONS
OPTIONS: ADD TWO MORE LANES
Two additional lanes may be added to the certain Suburban and Rural arterial streets (see Table 3), if warranted by
traffic demand. The widened cross sections are illustrated
on this page; they include:
• 6 Lane Principal Arterial, Suburban
• 4 Lane Minor Arterial, Suburban
• 4 Lane Principal Arterial, Rural
6 Lane Principal Arterial, Suburban (proposed)
4 Lane Minor Arterial,Suburban
December 13, 2012
4 Lane Principal Arterial, Rural
Page 25
OPTIONS: ADD SAFETY STRIP
OPTIONS: ADD MEDIAN
In Compact Urban contexts, a safety strip may be used instead
of a median. The safety strip is typically 10’ in width, and of a
different color and/or material (for example, cobblestone) than
the travel lanes. The safety strip can provide space for turning
vehicles, eliminating the need for a turn lane; the use of the
safety strip also slows vehicular speeds, which is essential in the
multi-modal Compact Urban setting.
In Suburban and Rural contexts, a median may optionally be
added as indicated on Table 3. The width of the median shall be
14’ minimum; adding a median to the street section will result
in a wider right-of-way. At the intersection, the median width
can be used for a turn lane and a minimum 5’ wide pedestrian
refuge space.
Principal Arterial, Compact Urban, with Safety Strip
Minor Arterial, Suburban, with Median
Page 26
Medians are not typically found in Compact Urban settings, as
they create a wider street space (distance from building face to
building face) and faster vehicular speeds than desired.
December 13, 2012
OPTIONS: ADD CYCLE TRACK
In Compact Urban contexts, a cycle track may be added to the
cross-section to provide further enhancement of bicycle facilities. Experienced cyclists will prefer to travel in sharrow lanes,
and these should continue to be provided; however, novice bicyclists may feel more comfortable using the cycle track as an
alternative. Cycle tracks provide heightened awareness, and
promote the use of bicycling as a mode of transit. Cycle tracks
are typically best implemented in areas where block lengths are
long (equal to or greater than 800’) for a more continuous flow.
On this page, options for one-way or two-way cycle track configuration are illustrated. The cycle track and planter width shall
be as illustrated; the sidewalk width may vary, and thus only a
minimum dimension is specified.
Two-way Cycle Track
One-way Cycle Track, Adjacent to Sidewalk
December 13, 2012
One-way Cycle Track, Adjacent to Parking
Page 27
OPTIONS: SUBSTITUTE MULTIWAY BOULEVARD
The Multiway Boulevard option provides a
blending of faster-moving through lanes in
a central thoroughfare, and slower-moving
lanes in the extended pedestrian realm, separated by a side median. This section can be
used in place of principal arterial streets in
Compact Urban areas, where sufficient rightof-way is available.
The central thoroughfare may be 4 or 6
lanes, dependant on traffic demand. A median or safety strip may optionally be provided as part of the central thoroughfare in
4 lane sections. A median shall be provided
as part of the central thoroughfare in 6 lane
sections..
Principal Arterial (4 Lane) Multiway Boulevard with Safety Strip
Principal Arterial (6 Lane) Multiway Boulevard with Median
Page 28
December 13, 2012
OPTIONS: SUBSTITUTE MULTIWAY BOULEVARD WITH BIKE/HIKE
The Multiway Boulevard with
bike/hike is an alternative to
the previous sections, providing further enhancement of
bicycle facilities. Experienced
cyclists may prefer to travel
in sharrow lanes, and these
should continue to be provided; however all bicyclists
(including novices) will feel
comfortable using the bike/
hike path in the side median.
This section should be used
for key linkages in the bicycle
network, provided sufficient
right-of-way is available.
The central thoroughfare may
be 4 or 6 lanes, dependant on
traffic demand. A median or
safety strip may optionally be
provided as part of the central
thoroughfare in 4 lane sections.
A median shall be provided as
part of the central thoroughfare in 6 lane sections..
Principal Arterial (4 Lane) Multiway Boulevard with Bike Hike
Principal Arterial (6 Lane) Multiway Boulevard with Bike/Hike
December 13, 2012
Page 29
OPTIONS: SUBSTITUTE SMARTCODE ASSEMBLIES
OPTIONS: SUBSTITUTE PARKWAY/ TREE WELL
The Smartcode (Title 21) provides an assortment of approved
multi-modal street options that are appropriate for Compact
Urban settings. Any cross-section approved for use in the T4,
T5, and/or T6 Transect Zone under Title 21 shall be available for
use in Compact Urban areas.
In Compact Urban areas, plantings should be calibrated to the
unique urban setting. The basic Compact Urban cross-sections
illustrate plantings in long planters (of at least four feet in width
and twelve feet in length); these planters are intended to maximize percolation to root systems. These may be substituted for
tree wells in areas of greater pedestrian activity, mix of uses and
intensity (such as near shopfronts); or for continuous parkways
(planting strips) in primarily residential settings.
The minimum size for a tree well shall be 4’ x 4’. Grates that are
flush with the sidewalk are preferred to accommodate overflow
pedestrian activity.
The width of a continuous parkway shall be 5’ minimum. A minimum sidewalk of 5’ in width shall be provided adjacent to the
parkway. Use of the continuous parkway option can result in
a narrower overall right-of-way in residential settings, where a
wider sidewalk (as illustrated in the basic section) is not needed.
OPTIONS: SUBSTITUTE BIKE/HIKE FOR SIDEWALK
On Suburban local streets, a bike/hike path may be substituted
for the sidewalk on one or both sides of the street.
Minor Arterial, Compact Urban, with Tree Wells
Local Street, Suburban, with Bike/Hike
Page 30
Local Street, Compact Urban, with Continuous Parkway
December 13, 2012
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Once city officials have amended Plan El Paso to include the updated Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix B for details), the subdivision regulations in Title 19 will need to amended to reflect the
new TP map, to summarize the essential characteristics of the
new thoroughfare cross-sections, and to implement other policies of Plan El Paso relating to the City’s subdivision regulations.
At the same time, the Design Standards for Construction manual
will need to be updated to include the new cross-sections.
The following list summarizes the required amendments and
updates.
TITLE 19
IN CHAPTER 9:
• 19.09.030, update and clarify sections A and B
IN CHAPTER 15:
• 19.15.010.D, update section D about bike & hike pathways
• 19.15.020.A, update TP terminology
• 19.15.040, update vacation language to reflect Plan El Paso
Policy 3.1.3
• 19.15.050.A, decrease size of subdivisions not requiring
two points of vehicular access
• 19.15.050.B, increase the connectivity index score as called
for in Plan El Paso Policy 2.3.3.a
• 19.15.120, revise footnote *** to clarify that signal spacing
limitations apply to freeway frontage roads but not to boulevard access lanes
• 19.15.160, update language on alleys to reflect Plan El Paso
Policies 2.3.5.c, 4.2.2, and 4.2.4.f
IN CHAPTER 18:
• 19.18.020.B, exempt development and redevelopment in
Compact Urban areas from minimum acceptable levels of
service
IN CHAPTER 21:
• 19.21.020.C, update sidewalk language to reflect new thoroughfare cross-sections
• 19.15.060.F, clarify to reflect to the two categories of arterials streets
IN CHAPTER 23:
• 19.23.040.B.3, update language on lots that front on arterial
streets
• 19.15.060.H, clarify to accurately depict the relationship
between the TP map and the allowable cross-sections for
each thoroughfare type and area type
IN CHAPTER 50:
• Update definition of “Comprehensive Plan” to reflect the
current Plan El Paso
• 19.15.060, add requirement for installation of a concrete
landing strip and base for bus shelter at future bus stop
locations, which will be determined by Sun Metro
• Update definition of “Street” to reflect new thoroughfare
classification system
• 19.15.060, add requirement that curbs in no-parking zones
be painted yellow to advise the public of space needed for
fire trucks to maneuver around corners
• 19.15.080.A, adjust language to reflect Plan El Paso Policy
2.3.5 regarding block perimeters
• 19.15.110.A, update Table 19.15-3 to reflect updated functional classifications and cross-sections and to reference
Title 21 thoroughfare assemblies that can be used without
requiring SmartCode zoning
• Update definition of “Thoroughfare Plan” to reflect current
terminology
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
• Update Pages 3-1 through 3-9 to reflect the revised thoroughfare cross-sections presented in this report
• Update other sections as needed to reflect the ITE Recommended Practice, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A
Context Sensitive Approach.
• 19.15.110.B, revise text to reflect updated functional classifications
December 13, 2012
Page 31
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Page 32
December 13, 2012
APPENDIX A - MAP ATLAS
(edge of map)
WASHINGTON ST
T
!
!
!
ANTONIO
S
!
!
!
!
POPLAR ST
!
!
!
!
!
OAK ST
!
!
!
!
ER
DONIPHAN DR
VE
LE
LA TUNA CORRECTIONAL
D
VALLEY CHILE RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DE ALVA DR
!
§
¦
¨
!
10
!
DR
BOSQUE RD
WESTSIDE
DESERT BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
VINTON R
D
See Map A3
!
!
(edge of map)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
D
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SELVA DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SR
CAMPO
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
LOS MOCHIS AV
!
!
!
LA MESA AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B1
!
GATO RD
!
!
! !
TALBOT AV
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map A1
!
(
!
!
!
375
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DESERT BL
!
!
!
!
!
STRAHAN RD
WESTSIDE DR
!
!
Miles
!
2
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
NORTH
!
* For land in theBOR
O-6
andD RD
G-8 sectors, please refer to Policy 4.4.5.
DERLAN
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ERNP PaAg e A . 1
SS R D
PASE
O
R
!
!
NO R
!
!
!
!
! !
!
December 13, 2012
!
!
1
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
½
!
I
!
!
!
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural *
Open Space
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
0
!
!
Local
PROPOSED THOROUGHFARES:
Expressway
Principal Arterial
BAILEY RD
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
EXISTING THOROUGHFARES:
GARDNER RD
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
DEL N
O
RTE
TRANS
M
OU
Appendix A – Map Atlas
(edge of map)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
STATE LINE RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
STAN ROBERTS SR AV
!
!
!
!
!
MARTIN L KING JR BL
STAN ROBE
See Map A4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
W BAR
CENA
!
DR
!
54
£
¤
LOMA REAL AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
ANDR
E
!
!
MARCUS URIBE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RS
T
!
!
!
!
MURPHY ST
!
TIGER EYE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B3
!
!
!
!
DY
E
!
!
!
!
SALEM DR
!
!
ANGORA LOOP AV
!
!
!
SEAN HAGGERTY DR
!
!
!
R
DD
RO
A
RA
IL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CROSS ST
!
RD
!
ICE
!
ING RD
!
WORTHY DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R
!
SD
!
LU
!
!
!
Miles
!
GU
!
!
2
!
RE
!
1½
!
1
!
!
½
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
!
Page A.2
0
TRANS MOUNTAIN RD
!
Local
I
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
!
(
DONALD DR
PROPOSED
THOROUGHFARES:
SUN VALLEY DR
Expressway
Principal Arterial
DEER AV
Minor Arterial
FAIRBANKS DR
Collector
!
Expressway JUNCTION DR
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
375
Collector
!
!
!
!
!
(
375
December 13, 2012
!
RA
IL
R
MCCOMBS ST
ODONNELL DR
See Map A1
54
£
¤
!
!
!
!
!
(edge of map)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ER
S
!
DY
!
STAN ROBERTS SR AV
!
T
!
TF
!
IO
!
TR
PA
AY
EW
E
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
54
£
¤
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map A3
!
!
(edge of map)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ODONNELL DR
!
!
!
!
DD
!
RO
A
!
!
!
!
RA
IL
!
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B4
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.3
!
!
!
!
!
!
LOS MOCHIS AV
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LA MESA AV
See Map A1
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GATO RD
!
!
! !
TALBOT AV
!
(
!
!
!
375
!
TRANS
M
!
OU
!
!
!
!
!
DESERT BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
NORTH
!
BORDERLAND RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
WIND
CRES
!
!
AV
RN
LINDBERGH ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
T DR
TH
O
!
!
!
!
!
RIDGE ST
!
!
DR
TT DR
BARTLE
MONTOYA DR
!
HELEN OF TROY
REDD DR
UPPER VALLEY RD
!
!
!
!
RTE R
D
R DR
COATES RD
GOMEZ RD
!
DEL N
O
E
RESL
§
¦
¨
10
!
S RD
DR
R
HAN D
DONIP
(edge of map)
DR
ESTERN
RESLER
NORTHW
ARTCRAFT RD
ERN PA
S
PASE
O
!
! !
!
!
See Map B2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
STRAHAN RD
BAILEY RD
WESTSIDE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GARDNER RD
!
!
!
!
!
ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MESA
!
!
!
!
!
MESA
ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
December 13, 2012
!
!
!
!
Page A.4
!
!
!
Miles
DO
N
IPH
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
1½
!
1
!
!
!
½
RK
A
DP
El PasoANCounty
L
N
SU El Paso
City of
!
!
I
0
Compact Urban
D
Drivable
A R Suburban
ER
NT
O
Rural
FR
Open Space DR
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
!
!
R
DD
EN
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
RB
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map B1
R
ND
HA
NIP
D
DO
YR
OR
EM
E
RIV
ROSINANTE RD
See Map C1
!
!
!
! !
!
!
MO
A
OY
NT
RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map A2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RD
!
OUNTAIN
K
PAR
AYS
!
TRANS
M
M
TOM
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S RD
!
!
(
RTE R
D
!
375
!
!
!
!
DR
!
DR
HELEN OF TROY
!
RESLER
DEL N
O
!
PASE
O
!
ERN PA
S
!
NORTH
!
!
!
See Map B3
!
!
!
REDD RD
!
!
!
!
R
!
IDGE D
!
See Map B1
!
HIGH R
HILLS ST.
R DR
R
E DR
FRANKLIN
E
RESL
EST
D
G
BEAR RID
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
OR
NA
V
VIA DESCANSO
AGUA S
T
!
GALENA DR
LN
!
OJO DE
!
!
MOON
COMET
R
RD
AD
MO
O
!
!
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
BL
O
!
!
!
!
!
!
BYRON ST
!
!
!
El Paso County
FORREST
City of
El Paso
MC
KINLEY AV
PIERCE AV
FORREST
MCKINLEY
Page A.5
TOMPKINS
ST
O
AN
HE
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TE
CI
LL
!
!
MO
N
!
!
!
!
IS
PA
M
CA
T
ELO
Miles
!
!
December 13, 2012
DR
TS
IGH
2
!
1½
!
½
!
!
DR
0
!
!
Local
!
!
§
¨
¦
I
G
AR 1
!
IPH
AN
10
!
DO
N
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural PIERCE AV
Open Space
!
!
!
!
R
PA
ND
A
L
UN
R
KD
DR THOROUGHFARES:
PROPOSED
AL
TIV
S
FE
Expressway
Principal Arterial
CAROUSEL DR
MinorDRArterial
T
AU
Collector
ON
T
AS
D
AR
R
Expressway SA HILLS D
ME
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
MAULDIN ST
ALABAMA ST
S
ME
A
NL
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE
PLAN UPDATE -- Map B2
SU
AMA ST
See Map C2
DR
!
DR
AN
IPH
RD
N
K
AR
DP
DR
MCKELLIGAN CANYON RD
O
FF
S DR
N
DO
LE
DE
R
ND
CL I
RI NG
OAK
PIA ST
BR
O
DR
IR
D
TH
U
R SP
ND
ER
B
O
I
DR
N
MI
CA
NC
TA
ES
I LL
ST
DR
R
AD
E
SILV
MESA
SAT
TE
E LLI
ZION DR
H
EY
ESPINOSO PL
CLOUDVIEW DR
TITANIC AV
ON
ST
DR
RTLETT
BELVIDERE ST
TARASCAS DR
!
!
W BA
!
!
!
ANDR
E
!
!
!
MARCUS URIBE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MURPHY ST
!
!
!
!
!
ANGORA LOOP AV
!
!
!
SEAN HAGGERTY DR
!
!
RS
T
!
!
!
!
!
!
TIGER EYE DR
!
!
!
!
DY
E
!
!
!
See Map A3
SALEM DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DR
RO
AD
!
RA
IL
!
!
!
!
!
!
CROSS ST
!
!
!
!
KENWORTHY DR
RD
ICE
EL
O
GSCHWIND ST
RUSHING RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PATRIOT FREEWAY
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
THREADGILL AV
A DR
!
!
!
WREN DR
!
!
!
!
!
HONDO PASS AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RS
T
!
!
SE
OA
DD
APOLLO AV
!
!
ILR
!
!
RA
T
AN
BL
!
!
TETONS DR
E
RG
R
JO
MA
!
COMET ST
!
R
!
MOONLIGHT AV
DY
E
!
!
!
GALENA DR
!
R
!
!
SD
!
!
LU
!
!
375
!
!
!
(
!
!
GU
!
DIAN
RE
!
!
!
TRANS MOUNTAIN RD
!
!
!
DEER AV
FAIRBANKS DR
!
!
(
375
!
!
SUN VALLEY DR
!
JUNCTION DR
!
!
!
!
DONALD DR
!
!
!
HERCULES AV
!
!
!
TITANIC AV
!
!
!
!
NS
!
I LL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GE
T
AN
!
!
!
0
R6
U
SP !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ZANE GREY BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ER
CK
RI
!
601
! !
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
AC
!
!
!
RE
!
RD
!
AIRP
ORT DR
! !
!
AL
!
!
!
OB
GL
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
I!(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DR
!
H
!
!
!
!
!
!
½
!
ART RD
!
!
!
!
OR
GE
Y
RR
PE
C
EA
!
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
!
GE
R
AL
!
!
!
OB
!
!
EASANTON RD
!
SERGEANT MAJOR BL
THOROUGHFARES:
PROPOSED
Expressway
Principal Arterial
L
Minor ArterialUNDERS B
FO
Collector
SPUR
!
!
!
!
!
MARSHALL RD
!
!
!
SHERIDAN ST
!
!
DYER ST
!
!
!
!
!
GL
!
!
!
!
ST
!
!
!
!
PIA ST
!
!
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CASSIDY
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
D WILSON !AV!
1
!
!
!
!
!
Local
!
!
601
!
!
!
!
(
!
!
SLEWITZE (6TH) ST
Expressway
PIERCE AV
PIERCE AV Principal Arterial
HAAN RD
Minor Arterial
Collector
FORREST
FOR
MCKINLEY
BL
!
See Map C3
!
REST
R
JO
MA
!
BYRON ST
R
SE
!
KEMP AV
Page A.6
TOMPKINS
DR
!
ELLERTHORPE AV
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE
PLAN UPDATE -- Map B3
FRE
CKINLEY AV
ES
ID
!
MAULDIN ST
D
OL
O
IR
!
ALABAMA ST
!
DR
54
£
¤
!
H
EY
JULIAN AV
!
ON
ATLAS AV
ZION DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B5
See Map B3
See Map A4
SE
T
AN
375
DR
TR
R
JO
MA
BL
!
(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
601
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map C4
!
!
BL
!
Y
RR
PE
!
!
!
U
SP !
1
!
0
R6
!
E
RG
EL PASO
THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map B4
EO
!
!
!
!
G
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Page A.7
!
!
DR
!
!
!
H
AC
!
!
!
!
RE
!
AL
!
!
!
!
!
Miles
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
OB
GL
½
!
!
!
DR
0
!
!
!
!
H
December 13, 2012
!
!
!
!
C
EA
I
!
!
R
AL
Local
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
(
!
!
OB
375
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
GL
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
!
GE
!
(
K
TAN
D
OL
T
AN
BL
AWK
CKH
BLA
NS
O
IR
ES
ID
E
RG
R
JO
MA
!
See Map B6
See Map B4
(edge of map)
REMINGTON RD
TAMARA DR
OSHEA DR
KRAG ST
C H HUNTON ST
CRUZ TIERRA ST
JIM BRIDGER RD
DESERT WILLOW DR
FLAGER ST
RD
OLEARY RD
ET
VAN FLE
See Map C5
ROUND DANCE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1
1½
!
!
!
!
!
2
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
MONTANA AV
CAMINO DE TIERRA RD
OSHEA DR
!
!
½
!
YUTE DR
!
!
!
SQUARE DANCE BL
!
!
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TANGERINE AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
I
!
!
Local
Page A.8
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
FRANKIE LN
Collector
HOPE AV
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
SANTE FE TR
KRAG ST
FLAGER ST
!
!
(edge of map)
OLD BUTTERFIELD TR
TUNISIA ST
QUINN AV
See Map B7
HUECO TANKS RD
OVERLAND STAGE RD
See Map B5
HUECO MOUNTAIN RD
TAMARA DR
DEBRA KAY RD
ARACELI AV
OLEARY RD
FAITH RD
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
2
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
AV
A
AN
MONT
Collector
!
OSHEA DR
CAMINO DE TIERRA RD
!
HOPE AV
HUECO TANKS PARK
See Map C6
!
OSHEA DR
IDGER RD
El Paso County
City of El Paso
INE
SL
December 13, 2012
GA
RD
YUTE DR
Miles
Page A.9
MO
(edge of map)
HUECO TANKS RD
(edge of map)
See Map B6
UECO MOUNTAIN RD
See Map C7
Expressway
MON
TANA
Principal
Arterial
AV
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.10
December 13, 2012
ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
MESA
!
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 UpdateM
ST
!
!
RB
R
ND
HA
NIP
D
DO
YR
OR
EM
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
E
RIV
ROSINANTE RD
!
See Map B1
ESA
! !
!
!
MO
D
AR
OY
NT
!
!
!
R
DD
EN
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map C2
(edge of map)
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
DO
N
IPH
!
!
!
!
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map C1
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
!
(edge of map)
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
!
NL
SU
R
KD
!
!
AR
DP
AN
!
!
!
RD
RA
TE
N
O
FR
Page A.11
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ALABAMA ST
SO
BIN
RO
R
KE
!
!
T
NS
TO ST
AN
ST GON
E
OR
!
BE
E
SC
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LOS ANG
RD
ELES DR
AV
NA V
IZO NA A
R
A NTA
MO
BYRON ST
OU
SS
MI
RI
TE
!
G
MA
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ST
SAN
!
ST
!
L
EL
R
B
MP
CT
T
SP
E
LL
D
OS
YA
ND
E
ON
A NT
OF
FI
IO
DYER S
PAISAN
!
(
375
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Z
CHAVE
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ST
E ST
CESAR
!
!
!
!
S
KANSA
F
SANTA
AV
SIXTH
!
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.12
I
ALAMEDA AV
V
NA
0
SH
DURAZNO AV
R
OD
SAN
PAI
CA
S
PA
EL
PR
O
§
¨
¦
AV 10
MONTANA A
YANDELL DR
V
SA
XA
!
!
!
MAGNOLIA ST
V
YA
AV
R
ER
ST FF D
U
I
H CL
C
S
RIM
C
NI
(edge of map)
Local
STEVENS ST
PE
R
V
NA
KERN D
R
!
!
SAN DIEGO AV
DR
See Map C3
!
!
ALTURA AV
ESTRELLA ST
!
!
DR
!
NT
!
R
MO
SUN BOWL DR
!
D
PIE
D
MESITA
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
TOMPKINS
WHEELING AV
COTTON
!
!
!
ALTURA AV
PIEDRAS ST
BL
O
!
!
!
!
!
MOBILE AV
RAYNOR ST
!
!
!
COPIA ST
ALABAMA ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
MAULDIN ST
BR
O
DR
IR
D
ER
B
ND
TE
CI
LL
!
!
!
!
!
!
MO
N
!
!
WALLINGTON
T
MESA S
See Map C1
BL
MCKINLEY
!
!
!
OKEEFE DR
C
ER
!
DR
U
EC
EX
E
TIV
T
EN
!
!
!
HE
!
O
AN
T
ELO
!
IS
PA
M
CA
FORREST
MCKINLEY AV
DR
TS
IGH
!
!
!
FORREST
!
DR
AR
!
10
!
§
¨
¦
T
!
IPH
AN
AU
!
DO
N
N
GO
PIERCE AV
DR
!
!
!
!
PIERCE AV
!
!
!
DR
!
L
IVA
ST
E
F
CAROUSEL DR
!
!
!
AR
DP
AN
R
KD
HIL
R
LS D
!
A
MES
T
AS
!
!
NL
N
R
S
ME
DR
D
RD
LA
KD
MCKELLIGAN CANYON RD
N
HA
N
SU
AR
DP
FF See Map B2
DR
S DR
DR
RI NG
IP
ON
ON
CL I
!
TH
U
R SP
OAK
LE
DE
O
!
N
MI
!
ST
CA
!
ESA
I
E
SILV
CLOUPlan
DVIEW 2012
El Paso
Thoroughfare
Update
DR
M
NC
TA
ES
DR
E DR
R
AD
I LL
T
E LLI
SAT
ZION DR
YH
ESPINOSO PL
December 13, 2012
!
!
I LL
!
!
!
£
¤
MAULDIN ST
D
OL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GE
!
!
!
UR
SP !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MARSHALL RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!ER
!
UND
!
FO
!
!
!
!
ZANE GREY BL
!
!
!
(
!
!
!
601
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
JEB STUART RD
!
SPUR DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AIRP
ORT DR
! !
PLEASANTON RD
!
A
SHERIDAN ST
!
RE
!
I NG
!
AL
!
!
!
SH
!
S! B!L
OB
GL
RD
!
DR
!
!
DYER ST
!
!
!
!
PE
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
BOEING DR
AN
MONT A AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
§
¨
¦
10
BUR
GES
L
DR
DR
ST
AV
ACER AV
AM
A
NO
RT
HL
OO
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DR
PD
!
!
CA
STI
LES
!
!
FO
NS
E
R
HUNTER DR
DELTA DR
YL
E DA
AV
MONTWOOD DR
HA
WK
GE
IND
US
TR
IAL
AV
MAR
KET
AV
!
(
375
PHOENIX DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TA
XC
!
!
!
!
!
See Map D3
OD
R
!
!
!
MON
T
!
!
!
A
AL
!
!
!
ME
CAROLINA DR
DA
!
!
AV
!
M
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
!
!
!
!
Miles
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
!
!
½
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
R
Y
MIDWA
!
0
Y DR
PD
I
!
Local
ERR
E
OO
HL
RT
NO
IMO
SA
AV
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
ALB
UM
AV
TO
N
CLARK DR
ID
INS
BL
GLENWOOD ST
NT B
ST
ALAM
GEIGER AV
BR
E
AT
BLANCO AV
W
AR
RAYNOLDS ST
TR
O
C
AS
PAISANO DR
WH
SM
OS
WEDGEWOOD
VISC
OU
CO
MCRAE BL
O DR
DR
CIELO VISTA
BL
EDGEMERE
CATNIP ST
CHELSEA ST
GER
ONIM
R
UDE
YANDELL DR
!
R
MAG
MONTANA AV
!
AIRWAY BL
!
!
!
YARBROUGH DR
!
DR
!
YARBROUGH DR
AIRWAY BL
!
SeeDR
Map C4
WEDGEWOOD
!
!
!
!
See Map C2
!
ROBERT E. LEE RD
!
GS
!
!
STI
N
!
STEVENS ST
DR
!
!
ER
CK
RI
!
COPIA ST
H
!
!
!
C
EA
!
!
!
!
RR
PE
R
AL
!
!
!
!
!
ESTRELLA ST
OR
GE
GE
OB
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
KNI
G
!
December 13, 2012
!
PIEDRAS ST
!
!
!
!
HA
54
£
¤
R
!
SERGEANT MAJOR BL
!
RAYNOR ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CASSIDY
!
!
!
!
GL
!
HAAN RD
ALAMEDA AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
375
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DURAZNO AV
!
(
!
!
!
!
FRED WILSON !AV!
!
!
!
TOMPKINS
ALTURA AV
G AV
!
!
1
60
!
!
LTURA AV
!
!
601
SLEWITZE (6TH) ST
!
!
!
MCKINLEY
OBILE AV
!
(
!
!
!
!
!
!
FORREST
CKINLEY AV
OR
AJ
!
BYRON ST
R
SE
See Map B3
TM
AN
!
PIERCE AV
FORREST
D
Appendix A – Map
BL Atlas
!
KEMP AV
!
PIERCE AV
IR
S
DE
!
ELLERTHORPE AV
!
ALABAMA ST
!
!
DR
JULIAN AV
54
SI
ON
GILES RD
YH
ZION DR
H TS
DR
Page A.13
YAR
B
A
ROU
LOM
N
AL A
!
D
K TA
TR
NK
A
TM
AN
R
JO
BL Appendix A
!
(
!
!
!
!
– Map Atlas
!
!
!
!
601
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map B4
!
!
!
!
!
!
1
!
!
GE
!
!
GL
!
OR
GE
BL
!
!
!
!
!
Y
RR
PE
!
!
!
!
!
!
60
!
UR
SP !
!
!
OB
!
R
AL
!
(
!
C
EA
!
375
!
H
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R C POE RD
EDGE
TIERRA ESTE RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
JOE BATTLE BL
TIERRA CORTEZ AV
!
!
NOLAN RICHARDSON DR
EDGEMERE BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SAUL KLEINFELD DR
!
!
LEE BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PEBBLE HILLS BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GEORGE DIETER DR
!
!
RED SAILS DR
!
!
PEBBLE HILLS BL
!
JASON C
!
EDGEMERE BL
!
!
!
EAST GLEN DR
!
TURNER RD
A N DR
RICH BEEM BL
See Map C5
!
!
BRECKENRIDGE DR
!
!
!
!
LEE TREVINO DR
!
!
WEDGEWOOD DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
!
!
!
!
LEE BL
GEORGE DIETER DR
!
!
!
!
!
LEE TREVINO DR
!
!
LOMALAND DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RD
A
ZA
RA
GO
Z
RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
December 13, 2012
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
BOB! HO
PE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ON DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A
INS DR
!
!
D
!
!
!
LMiles
IC
AN
O
!
!
PE
N
!
DA
LE
!
PE2
L
1½
!
!
DR
!
VIN
O
!
!
TR
E
!
!
LE
E
!
!
R DR
!
!
375
* For land in the O-6 and G-8 sectors, please refer to PolicyR 4.4.5.
CA S
T NE
!
!
1
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
VISTA DEL SOL DR
Rural *
Open Space
!
(
I
½
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
0
!
!
Local
R
DD
LAN
DR
!
!
!
R
!
VISee
STA Map D4
DEL
S OL
D
!
PELL
ICAN
O
GEORGE DIETER DR
!
VISTA DE ORO DR
!
!
!
!
MONTWOOD DR
!
YARBROUGH DR
!
!
!
D
!
RA
ZA
AR
!
B
BO
LL
HE
Z
GO
BL
L
L SO
TC
MI
DR
I RE
A DE
VIST
TRAWOOD DR
!
JANWAY
F
SUN
YARBROUGH DR
375
!
See Map C3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
WEDGEWOOD
!
!
MCRAE BL
!
!
GILES RD
!
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
YER
M OL
A ND
Minor
Arterial
DR
Collector
Page A.14
!
!
!
DR
!
!
!
A
LOM
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MONTWOOD DR
DR
!
!
!
H
AC
ANA AV
MONT
! !
! ! !
ROBERT WYNN ST
RE Y
!
!
!
RE
!
CARDIG
DR
!
!
!
!
AL
!
ALB
UM
AV
ER AV
TER
!
!
OB
GL
!
D DR
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
E
IR
S
DE
HAW
LD
SI
ON
PELLICANO
TAMARA DR
OSHEA DR
CRUZ
KRAG ST
C
DESE
D
See Map B5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RICH BEEM BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GREG DR
STACY ANN LN
BULL ELK DR
!
ZA
!
SANTIESTEBAN LN
!
!
O
AG
RD
!
!
!
R
ZA
!
!
E BL
LA VON AV
!
!
EDGEMERE BL
!
BERNARD DR
!
DALL DR
!
!
JASON CRAN
OSHEA DR
MARVIN LN
FLORA LN
AUGUSTA DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
See !Map
C4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DAVID DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R C POE RD
!
MAGER DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MONTANA AV
ROUND DANCE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
JOHN HENRY ST
!
!
!
!
VISTA DEL ESTE ST
!
!
!
TANGERINE AV
SQUARE DANCE BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
FRANKIE LN
!
!
!
!
!
CAMINO DE TIERRA RD
!
See Map C6
!
QUILLAYUTE DR
!
DESERT MEADOWS RD
!
!
HOPE AV
KRAG ST
FLAGER ST
SANTE FE TR
EZ AV
!
RALPH SEITSINGER DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
JOHN HAYES ST
!
!
TIM FOSTER
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHARLES FOSTER AV
!
!
!
!
!
RICH BEEM BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PEBBLE HILLS BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ASCENCION ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
E
ASC
!
!
NC
!
ION
!
!
See Map D5
!
!
!
ST
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
Local
!
!
!
I
!
!
!
!
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural *
Open Space
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
!
Miles
!
!
!
December 13, 2012
!
PELLICANO DR
* For land in the O-6 and G-8 sectors, please refer to Policy 4.4.5.
OLEARY RD
FL
ET R
VAN FLE
Page A.15
!
!
!
!
TAMARA DR
OSHEA DR
DEBRA KAY RD
FAITH RD
ARACELI AV
OLEARY RD
HUECO TANKS PARK
See Map B6
OSHEA DR
CAMINO DE TIERRA RD
HOPE AV
MONTANA AV
E
LIN
QUILLAYUTE DR
S
GA
QU
AL
MIE
DR
See Map C7
SN
O
DESERT STORM RD
See Map C5
RD
GA
INE
SL
RD
See Map D6
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural *
Open Space
I
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
ANN LN
MO
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.16
December 13, 2012
See Map B7
AV
(edge of map)
See Map C6
MON
TANA
GA
INE
SL
RD
See Map D7
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.17
!
(
375
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TA
XC
!
See Map C3
OD
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MON
T
!
!
!
A
AL
!
!
!
ME
!
!
AV
Y DR
OO
HL
RT
NO
SA
AV
ERR
E
CAROLINA DR
DA
!
MIM
O
YARBROUG
WEDGE
PHOENIX DR
YARBROUGH DR
CA
!
!
!
FO
NS
E
R
GILES RD
!
DR
PD
STI
LES
HUNTER DR
!
!
!
!
!
YL
NO
RT
HL
OO
TO
N
RA
DELTA DR
ACER AV
AM
A
AV
GEIGER AV
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PD
!
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R
Y
MIDWA
!
!
!
LOM
H TS
DR
YAR
B
ROU
GH
ND
AL A
!
!
M
ALA
!
!
!
!
!
!
KNI
G
!
!
!
!
375
ND
EN
C
ED
R
WIN
ES
TER
VIS
DA
CH
(edge of map)
!
!
(
EP
E
See Map D4
!
!
!
!
!
V
AA
ED
IND
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R
PADRES D
!
(
!
375
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(edge of map)
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map D3
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
75
!
!
(
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.18
December 13, 2012
!
LEE
GEORGE DIETER DR
!
!
!
!
!
LEE TREVINO DR
!
!
LOMALAND DR
!
!
YARBROUG
!
!
!
!
VISTA DE ORO DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RD
A
OZ
ZA
RA
G
GEORGE DIETER DR
!
DR
!
!
VIN
O
!
TR
E
!
!
!
!
!
DA
LE
!
RD
!
LE
E
!
!
!
YARBROUGH DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PE
N
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
BOB HOPE DR
!
!
!
!
!
DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TED HOUGHTON DR
!
!
!
!
RANCHO GRANDE RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
YD
R
!
!
GU
!
ND
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
R
!
!
EL ES
TE
PEYTON R
!
PASEO
D
D
!
RD
EL D
BET
TER
MERCANTILE AV
BUR
ES
See Map D5
DON HASKINS DR
!
BOB HOPE DR
!
D
!
!
AR
!
!
OZ
!
!
ZA
RA
G
!
!
!
!
DR
CH
!
!
!
!
OP
WIN
!
!
!
!
LO
R
!
H
RT
SE
LD
DR
NO
DIE
!
AS
RO J
§
¨
¦
PELLICANO
!
R DR
!
!
!
O
!
AN
!
LI C
!
PE
L
DR
!
R
!
WEDGE
!
!
!
VISTA DEL SOL DR
!
V
AA
ED
See Map D3
!
!
GILES RD
!
!
!
375
10
VIS
DA
!
!
ND D
!
!
O LA
CA S
T NE
DR
!
BL
DR
!
(
M
ALA
BL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RO
!
!
!
EMERALD PA
DR
!
ST
!
JA
S
!
KID
!
!
!
!
!
!
HE
!
!
T
LY
BIL
R
PADRES D
!
DH
OL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
D
UE
CO
SOUTH
S
!
!
!
!
!
10
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AIN
!
!
!
!
!
!
RD
!
!
DR
D
LE
* For land in the O-6 and G-8
please refer to Policy 4.4.5.
BOVEsectors,
ER
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DD
MI
!
!
!
!
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
R
!
!
YD
!
!
NC
!
December 13, 2012
NA
!
Local
I
R
!
!
!
!
Compact Urban
Drivable
Suburban
L
ON B
HORIZ Rural
*
Open Space
PD
!
!
Expressway
BU
FO
RD
Principal
RD Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
OO
HL
RT
NO
!
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
§
¨
¦
RIO VISTA RD
!
!
!
!
See Map E4
!
!
!
TA
NK
SR
IDE DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AR
SP
N RD
!
MOON RD
!
!
O
PEYT
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AV
DA
!
! !
!
ME
RD
RO
Z DR
IGUE
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
10
!
!
!
!
!
§
¨
¦
!
A
AL
O DR
R
CO
SO
R
JOE
RD
MARK TWAIN A
!
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PD
NE V
ARE
Z
MARK TWAIN AV
!
RI C
OO
HL
RT
NO
375
E
AM
!
!
!
(
AV
AS
!
375
!
!
!
!
!
(
!
CE
I RE
S OL
!
DR
DEL
!
PELL
ICAN
O
VIST
A
LO
GH
– Map Atlas
See Map C4
YER
M
D
LAN
MA
Appendix
MON
TWOOD DR A
!
DR
B
BO
!
RE Y
D
!
TER
OL
AR
LL
RA
El
Plan 2012 Update
HE Paso Thoroughfare
ZA
TC
MI
!
R
LS
A DE
VIST
Z
GO
DR
F
SUN
DR
TRAWOOD DR
!
ER AV
Page A.19
KS
DR
!
JOH
!
TIM FO
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
E
ASC
!
!
See Map C5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ION
!
NC
!
!
ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
See Map D4
ESTE BL
PEYTON R
D
L
PASEO DE
See Map D6
BOB HOPE DR
EASTLAKE BL
ASHFORD ST
ALD
PARK
EME
R
DR
RD
HORIZON BL
N
TO
DR
DA
LE
ME
L
N RD
ANTWERP ST
DR
CA
KS
I NG
O
PEYT
AR
SP
RR
MARK TWAIN AV
DA
WEAVER RD See Map E5
§
¨
¦
10
ALBERTON AV
RUDI KUEFNER DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
ST
LE
RD
CE
El Paso County
City of El Paso
ED
R
SCENSION ST
Miles
Page A.20
!
!
ON
GT
!
TIMOTH
Y
!
2
!
1½
!
1
!
½
!
R
0
KENTWOOD AV
!
DR
I
IN
RR
DA
YD
Local
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural *
Open Space
!
NC
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
NA
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
RK TWAIN AV
A ZO
DR
KEN
EMERALD PASS AV
!
!
E BL
!
!
R
HORIZON MESA DR
BERRYVILLE ST
PELLICANO DR
December 13, 2012
R
NE
D
See Map D7
See Map D5
See Map C6
HORIZON BL
LAVINA ST
See Map E6
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
KENTWOOD AV
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.21
R
NE
D
See Map C7
GA
INE
SL
(edge of map)
See Map D6
RD
HORIZON BL
See Map E7
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.22
December 13, 2012
!
!
DH
!
!
OL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
10
!
!
RIO VISTA RD
!
!
§
¨
¦
!
!
!
R
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
OO
HL
RT
NO
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
L
NA
!
ON B
HORIZ
R
D
!
!
!
!
DR
PD
BU
FO
R
!
!
!
NC
R
!
!
!
!
DD
MI
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
YD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AIN
!
!
RD
DR
!
!
!
LE
BOVEE
!
!
!
!
A
AL
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(edge of map)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
D
YAR
RD
!
!
RD
RO
E
VIN
!
!
!
RD
AV
DA
R
CO
SO! ! !
!
ME
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RD
!
!
DE LUCIO
!
OR
SM
PAS
ER
See Map E5
!
!
!
D
I
SOUTH
S
!
!
!
!
!
TA
NK
SR
!
!
MOON RD
See Map D4
SD
N RD
UE
CO
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Map Atlas SPARK
O
PEYT
!
AV
DA
!
!
!
!
Appendix A –
!
!
ME
Z DR
IGUE
!
10
!
!
!
§
¨
¦
! !
!
!
MARK TWAIN A
!
RD
A
AL
O DR
D
OR
RR
CO
SO
R
JOE
!
MARK TWAIN AV
!
NE V
ARE
Z
R
!
AS
!
RI C
PD
OO
HL
E
AM
D
!
ERS
PET
RD
DE
AN
RB
BU
RID
GE
RS
ON
RD
SAN ANTONIO RD
See Map F4
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map E4
I
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
½
!
El Paso County
City of El Paso
NT
ON
RD
Rural
Open Space
!
0
RD
Urban HE
SCompact
OC
OR
Drivable
Suburban
RO
RD
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
Local
G
DE
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
IN
RR
Miles
December 13, 2012
RIV
ER
SID
E
RD
Page A.23
SO
CO
R
RO
HORIZON BL
RD
MARK TWAIN AV
ON
GT
RK TWAIN AV
SD
See Map D5
CA
N RD
ME
L
DA
LE
O
PEYT
DR
K
AR A – Map Atlas
Appendix
SP
ANTWERP ST
El Paso Thoroughfare
Plan 2012 Update
R
WEAVER RD
§
¨
¦
10
ALBERTON AV
RUDI KUEFNER DR
ON
GT
ST
LE
RD
CE
ASCENSION ST
R
IN
RR
DA
YD
TIMOTH
Y
NC
DR
NA
KENTWOOD AV
ED
R
TEMPERANCE
See Map E6
See Map E4
HIGH CAMPUS RD
AN
GE
NR
D
§
¨
¦
10
RD
NO
H
RT
OP
RD
LO
DR
11
10
RID
SO
FM
RB
BU
R
DE
TONIO RD
See Map F5
RD
G PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map E5
EL
RI N
I
2
!
!
!
1½
!
1
!
½
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
!
Local
!
!
!
!
RD
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
NT
ON
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
DE
THOROUGHFARES:
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
ER
HEXISTING
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
ME
RD
PD
AV
DA
RO
OO
HL
RT
NO
A
AL
SO
CO
Page A.24
R
December 13, 2012
10
R
HORIZON BL
LAVINA ST
See Map D6
KENTWOOD AV
See Map E7
See Map E5
HIGH CAMPUS RD
PRATT DR
INDIAN TRAIL DR
See Map F6
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
INDIAN TRAIL DR
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.25
HORIZON BL
(edge of map)
See Map E6
See Map D7
E
FAB
C
NS
L
AR
DC
SBA
FF
UTO
(edge of map)
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.26
December 13, 2012
SAN ANTONIO RD
See Map E4
H
OR
RO
I NG
RD
RD
DE
NT
ON
RD
SO
C
R
ER
SID
E
SO
CO
R
RD
RO
See Map F5
(edge of map)
RIV
ER
AN
ISL
DR
D
(edge of map)
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map F4
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.27
NO
H
RT
11
10
OP
RD
LO
FM
DR
TONIO RD
See Map E5
I NG
RD
DE
NT
ON
RD
H
R
ER
ME
RD
§
¨
¦
PD
AV
DA
RO
OO
HL
RT
NO
A
AL
SO
CO
R
10
R
RD
See Map F6
See Map F4
BB
WE
TER
POR
BR
REB
D
IN
MA
ST
AN
ISL
DR
D
A
AL
RC
R
ON
D
E
FAB
R
NS
D
§
¨
¦
10
L
WA
V
RA
KE
See Map G5
I
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Miles
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
½
D
AN
0
ISL
RD
Page A.28
Compact
Urban
AL
AM
Drivable
ED Suburban
AA
Rural V
Open Space
LE
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
DD
MI
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
RDPaso
City of El
AM
EL
C
R
December 13, 2012
NDIAN TRAIL DR
See Map E6
(edge of map)
See Map F5
FA
B
EN
S
CA
RL
S
BA
D
CU
TO
FF
INDIAN TRAIL DR
SR
D
§
¨
¦
10
See Map G6
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
10 1½
!
§
¨
¦
!
1
!
!
½
!
!
December 13, 2012
0
!
!
Local
!
!
AM
I
!
EL
RD
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
!
DA
AV
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.29
DR
D
A
AL
RC
E
FAB
ON
§
¨
¦
10
L
WA
V
RA
KE
See Map F5
AL
A
ME
DA
AV
DD
MI
LE
ISL
D
AN
RD
R
C
E
M
LA
RD
ISL
AN
LO
See Map G6
NI L
(edge of map)
OR
DT
RD
B
RO
INS
ON
AV
O
ILL
RN
TO
GU
UP
AL
AD
D
ER
(edge of map)
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map G5
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
Page A.30
December 13, 2012
§
¨
¦
10
See Map F6
DA
AV
§
¨
¦
S
OT
RD
TO
I
RN
LL
O
G
LU
DA
UA
PE
MIT
HR
(edge of map)
See Map G5
10
D
RD
AL
A
ME
DA
AV
(edge of map)
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE -- Map G6
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Compact Urban
Drivable Suburban
Rural
Open Space
I
2
!
!
!
!
!
1½
!
!
1
!
!
!
½
!
!
!
!
0
!
!
!
!
Local
Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
!
PE
RD
!
E
M
LA
El Paso County
City of El Paso
Miles
December 13, 2012
Page A.31
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Page A.32
December 13, 2012
APPENDIX B - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
EL PASO THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Purpose of the Thoroughfare Plan
The City of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan is a vital component of
Plan El Paso. The Thoroughfare Plan is primarily a map of the
existing and proposed network of streets and roads, showing
the approximate location, alignment, and functional classification of collectors, arterials, and expressways throughout El Paso
County.
The Thoroughfare Plan map shapes El Paso’s transportation
network and travel patterns, which in turn affects the patterns
of growth. Although comprehensive plans in Texas are mostly
advisory in legal status, the city’s Thoroughfare Plan (sometimes
referred to as the Major Thoroughfare Plan) is “regulatory” (legally enforceable) by being referenced in Title 19 of El Paso’s
land development regulations. The Thoroughfare Plan is the basis for requiring new development to connect to and help build
the future street network to offset the traffic impacts of new
development.
The Thoroughfare Plan provides public officials a strong tool to
preserve corridors for future streets and roads while overcoming significant barriers, including topographical and environmental conditions, existing development, and vested development
rights.
The Thoroughfare Plan has important differences but also considerable overlap with other regional transportation plans, which
include the El Paso MPO’s Mission 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, TxDOT’s STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program), and the CRRMA’s 2008 Comprehensive Mobility Plan.
These other plans all include lists of specific projects, costs, and
funding to be implemented within a specified timeframe.
In contrast, the City’s Thoroughfare Plan is a conceptual geographic road network at presumed “buildout” of the urbanized
area. It does not schedule or program specific road improvements or contain financial details about how the network will
be completed over time.
This conceptual approach for the Thoroughfare Plan minimizes
conflict with the MPO plan, which is the region’s official projectsbased transportation plan for purposes of receiving state and
federal transportation funding and for demonstrating regional
air quality conformity. The MPO plan is limited to regionallysignificant transportation facilities, while the Thoroughfare Plan
contains a more complete network of major streets and roads.
History of El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan
El Paso’s earliest formal thoroughfare plan was part of the 1925
City Plan of El Paso. The 1962 City Plan updated the 1925 map.
The 1988 plan contained thoroughfare maps for each planning
area that delineated existing and proposed freeways and arterials, with a few collectors also shown.
December 13, 2012
The 1999 Plan for El Paso included a map labeled as “Proposed
Thoroughfare System.” That map was regularly updated through
comprehensive plan amendments and has been maintained as
a computer-based map on the City’s Geographic Information
System (GIS). The then-current Thoroughfare Plan map was
readopted into Plan El Paso in March 2012 on an interim basis
while an extensive updating process was undertaken.
Thoroughfare Plan Update Objectives
Objectives of the 2012 update to the Thoroughfare Plan included:
• Broaden and refine the Thoroughfare Plan to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which can usually be accommodated within the same rights-of-way.
• Refine the functional classification system to be more consistent with El Paso MPO and TxDOT.
• Update and expand the previous thoroughfare network by
reflecting the proposed location and character of future
growth from Plan El Paso with appropriate street spacing,
character, and regional connectivity.
• Prepare cross-sections for new thoroughfares that would be
suitable for replacing the cross-sections currently in Title 19.
The result of this update was presented in the report, El Paso
Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update. A single-page summary of the
new Thoroughfare Plan map was adopted into Plan El Paso in
2013 (see page 4.44). Major changes to the map and network
are summarized here.
New “Area Types”
New “area types” are now shown as an underlay on the Thoroughfare Plan. Area types are discussed on pages 4.32 and 4.33
of this Transportation Element. The Rural area type is now
based on Plan El Paso’s Future Land Use Map instead of the U.S.
Census, and a new Open Space area type is applied to land that
won’t be developed. The four area types on the Thoroughfare
Plan are based on the following sector and overlay assignments
from the Future Land Use Map:
RURAL:
G-6 – Rural Settlement
O-3 – Agriculture
O-4 – Military Reserve
O-5 – Remote
O-6 – Potential Annexation
COMPACT URBAN:
G-1 – Downtown
Local Transfer Centers
G-2 – Traditional Neighborhood RTS Stops
O-7 – Urban Expansion
Future Compact Neighborhoods
DRIVABLE SUBURBAN:
G-3 – Post-War
G-4 – Suburban
G-5 – Independent City
G-7 – Industrial
G-8 – Fort Bliss Mixed Use
G-9 – Fort Bliss Military
OPEN SPACE
O-1 – Preserve
O-2 – Natural
THIS PAGE WILL REPLACE PAGE 4.43 OF PLAN EL PASO
Page B.1
Appendix B – Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Thoroughfare Plan, as amended in 2013 by Ordinance _____
Page B.2
December 13, 2012
In Drivable Suburban areas, an important thoroughfare design
determinant is the expected amount of traffic to be accommodated. In Compact Urban areas, the most important design
determinant is managing traffic speeds to levels that are compatible with walking, bicycling, and transit use; this factor is much
more important that accommodating expected traffic volumes
on any given arterial or collector.
When Plan El Paso’s Future Land Use Map is formally amended,
the corresponding area types shown on the Thoroughfare Plan
will be automatically adjusted. When land in the O-6 and G-8
sectors is annexed, the sector designations should be changed
at the same time to indicate the character of future development. Any changes to the Thoroughfare Plan network should
be made at the same time.
The basic thoroughfare network will remain intact over time,
but the Thoroughfare Plan map will get modified as acceptable
alternative patterns and alignments are approved as formal
amendments to the map or as authorized minor adjustments.
Land Development Regulations
El Paso’s subdivision regulations (Title 19) will need to be
amended to reflect the new Thoroughfare Plan, to summarize
the essential characteristics of the new thoroughfare cross-sections, and to implement other policies of Plan El Paso relating
to the City’s subdivision regulations. The Design Standards for
Construction manual will also need to be updated to include the
new cross-sections. The El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update
report includes a tentative list of Title 19 amendments.
Updated Functional Classification
“Principal arterials” provide for longer trips on relatively straight
paths, often connecting to expressways. “Minor arterials” are
typically found between principal arterials and provide continuous paths to intermediate destinations and alternate routes for
longer trips. “Collectors” are typically found between minor arterials to provide for frequent interconnections between neighborhoods; collectors may be indistinguishable from local streets
except that they are part of a larger thoroughfare network. Local streets are not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan.
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (TMP)
The City of El Paso should take the lead in establishing a regional multimodal project-based transportation and land-use
planning “compact.”
Expanded Network
The overarching network design principles are provided under
Goal 4.5. The thoroughfare network needs to serve the urban
pattern described in Plan El Paso, not dictate the pattern. The
character of new streets on the network corresponds with anticipated development patterns.
The TMP would be similar in some aspects with the MPO’s Mission 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, but the two efforts
would coexist as the MPO and CRRMA plans have. Because the
MPO is now in the process of updating its long-range plan to the
year 2040, the two efforts could be integrated. The TMP would
provide project, location, design, and implementation clarity for
complete street networks, RTS and other high-capacity transit
corridors, walkable streets, and pedestrian and bicycle corridors and facilities.
The network needs to be complete and contiguous and conveniently spaced to serve the entire urban area. New development must connect to existing development and allow future
development to connect as well. Collector streets generally
terminate at other collectors and at arterials. Arterial streets
provide greater continuity over long distances and generally
terminate at other arterials and at expressways.
The network avoids loops and severe direction changes, except
where required by topography, in order to maintain the network’s legibility for future users. The network is sensitive to
natural features, historic travel routes, the character of existing
communities, and the street pattern established by obsolete yet
not-vacated subdivisions northeast of Horizon City.
Streets are important public spaces as well as movement channels – the common thread that ties together old and new neighborhoods while providing convenient access to jobs, commerce,
education, entertainment, and open spaces.
December 13, 2012
Rather than separate agencies planning and implementing travel improvements, the City would collaborate with its regional transportation partners – MPO, TxDOT, CRRMA, El Paso
County, and others – to create a Transportation Master Plan
(TMP).
The City has the authority to focus on regionally-significant
transportation improvements that respect the conformity process and other requirements the MPO must operate within.
The City also has the authority to focus on non-regionally significant transportation such as streets it maintains, as well as
multi-modal travel options that prioritize walkability, personbased travel choices, and balanced transportation networks.
Many municipalities have separate Comprehensive Plans and
Transportation Master Plans, with the former providing the
policy foundation and the latter containing the technical analysis
and project lists. These plans are closely integrated, but the TMP
is more flexible so that the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t have to
be amended every time a project detail changes.
Page B.3
GOALS & POLICIES
Thoroughfare Sustainable Mobility Plan
Goal 4.4: Transform the Major El Paso’s Thoroughfare Plan
(MTP) into a Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) will result in a
dense network of thoroughfares throughout the urbanized area
that will integrates all major travel modes and carryies out the
other goals and policies of Plan El Paso.
Policy 4.4.1: The City of El Paso completed a major update of its Thoroughfare Plan in 2012, as described in the
report El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update. In 2013, the
City adopted the revised Thoroughfare Plan map shown
on page 4.44; detailed map pages are available from www.
planelpaso.org or the El Paso City Development Department. The Thoroughfare Plan will be amended from time
to time as acceptable alternative thoroughfare patterns
and alignments are approved as formal amendments to
Plan El Paso. The City of El Paso will continue to use the
MTP that appears in Plan El Paso as the City’s official Thoroughfare Plan until the following policies have been implemented.
Policy 4.4.2: The City of El Paso intends to update and
refine the MTP and then readopt it into Plan El Paso as the
City’s new SMP. The Thoroughfare Plan makes the following distinctions:
a. Proposed thoroughfares are distinguished from
existing thoroughfares.
b. Streets and roads are functionally classified as
expressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, or
collectors; local streets are not shown.
c. In addition to the location and classification of
thoroughfares, the Thoroughfare Plan reflects the
following area types:
i. Urban areas are divided into Compact Urban and Drivable Suburban, as described under
Goal 4.1.
ii. Rural areas are defined as the following sectors from the Future Land Use Map: O-3 (Agriculture); O-4 (Military Reserve); O-5 (Remote);
O-6 (Potential Annexation); and G-6 (Rural
Settlement).
Policy 4.4.3: The SMP will include the following refinements to the MTP:
a. Broaden and refine the MTP to include a multimodal transportation network to supplement the
road network now shown.
b. Review and update the current MTP road network to reflect the growth forecasts and other policies in Plan El Paso.
c. Refine the MTP’s thoroughfare classification system to reflect the concepts in this Transportation
Element while maintaining compatibility with the
MPO’s federally mandated system.
d. Update thoroughfare cross-sections to reflect the
concepts in this Transportation Element.
e. Use today’s best practices for network design
principles as described under Goal 4.4.
Policy 4.4.3: The El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update
contained new thoroughfare cross-sections that reflect
the policies of this Transportation Element.
a. These cross-sections will be integrated into Title
19 of El Paso’s land development regulations to replace the existing cross-sections and standards.
b. Title 19 will also be amended to specify the standards and processes for allowing variations to the
adopted cross-sections and to provide additional
updates to Title 19 as proposed in the El Paso Thoroughfare Plan 2012 Update.
Policy 4.4.5: When land in the O-6 and G-8 sectors on
the Future Land Use Map is annexed into the City of El
Paso, the sector designations should be changed at the
same time to indicate the character of future development. The Thoroughfare Plan network should also be
modified if needed to reflect a corresponding road network in accordance with the principles in Plan El Paso.
iii. Open space areas are defined as the following sectors: O-1 (Preserve) and O-2 (Natural).
iv. When Future Land Use Map sectors are formally amended, the area types shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan will be deemed to have been
adjusted accordingly.
Page B.4
THESE PAGES WILL MODIFY GOALS 4.4, 4.5, AND 4.6 OF PLAN EL PASO
December 13, 2012
Network Principles
Goal 4.5: El Paso’s network of major thoroughfares will become the “Great Streets” of tomorrow. They will be integral
parts of the communities that surround them, important public spaces that allowing easy movement and provideing physical
space for social, civic, and commercial activities.
Policy 4.5.1: Thoroughfares are the common thread that
ties together old and new neighborhoods while providing
convenient access to jobs, commerce, education, entertainment, and open spaces. El Paso’s future transportation network will shape the City and its inhabitants. The
network must meld all viable modes of transportation and
carry out the goals of Plan El Paso.
Policy 4.5.2: Capacity and redundancy should be created by a densely interconnected network rather than by
achieving high capacities on individual arterial streets.
a. The network needs to be complete and contiguous and conveniently spaced to serve the entire urban area.
b. New development must connect to existing development and allow future development to connect
as well.
c. To maintain the network’s legibility for future
users, the network should avoid loops and severe
direction changes, except where required by topography.
Policy 4.5.3: More narrow thoroughfares are better than
fewer wide ones. When major thoroughfares are spaced
too far apart, these consequences are unavoidable:
a. The remaining major thoroughfares must be too
wide, eroding their placemaking capacity and making
them inhospitable to pedestrians and bicyclists.
b. Motorized traffic may encroach on neighborhood
streets designed for lighter traffic volumes.
c. Transit routes along the remaining thoroughfares
become inefficient to provide and unpleasant to use.
d. Intersections with other wide roads will inevitably
restrict the theoretical capacity of wide roads.
This restriction cannot be solved with grade-separated intersections because they are too expensive
to construct and maintain and too damaging to surrounding land uses.
December 13, 2012
Policy 4.5.4: Economically vital cities require multiple
transportation modes and cannot hope to maintain free
flowing traffic during all peak periods.
Policy 4.5.5: In addition to serving its role in the larger
network, t The character of each thoroughfare should be
based on the existing or anticipated physical context the
thoroughfare is passing through, as described in Policy
4.4.2. in addition to its role in the larger network.
Policy 4.5.6: Limited-access freeways disrupt the healthy
functioning of cities and should be the thoroughfare type
of last resort when planning an urban network.
Policy 4.5.7: When essential freeways or railroads will
present insurmountable barriers to cross movement, they
should be depressed rather than elevated in order to
minimize the disruption to surrounding communities and
to avoid the excessive costs of building and replacing long
bridges.
Policy 4.5.8: The regional transportation network must
respect the human and natural environment and minimize
or eliminate negative impacts such as bisecting or isolating communities, inducing suburban sprawl, or interfering
with arroyos and other natural systems.
Policy 4.5.9: The regional transportation network is larger than El Paso County, including New Mexico, Chihuahua
and beyond. The potential relocation of regional freight
rail lines around the El Paso / Ciudad Juárez metropolitan area offers opportunities for better traffic flow and
critical drainage improvements in El Paso, safer communities on both sides of the border, fewer interruptions for
transcontinental freight trains, and an international light
rail corridor.
Transportation Master Plan
Goal 4.6: Coordinate the region’s planning for thoroughfares,
public transit, freight, aviation, and border crossing through better collaboration with regional transportation planning partners.
Policy 4.6.1: The City of El Paso will take the lead in establishing a regional, multimodal project-based transportation and land-use planning compact. The policies of Plan
El Paso and the updated road network in the Sustainability
Mobility Thoroughfare Plan can be the basis for a regional
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) that implements Plan El
Paso using a multimodal approach.
Page B.5
Policy 4.6.2: The TMP would be an integrated, projectbased multimodal transportation plan that becomes a regional transportation planning, project, and priority compact, similar to the role served by the 2008 Comprehensive
Mobility Plan.
Policy 4.6.3: Plan El Paso and its Sustainable Mobility Plan
would provide the policy foundation for the TMP’s technical analyses, project lists, and funding proposals. The TMP
would provide project, location, design, and implementation clarity for complete street networks, RTS and other
high-capacity transit corridors, walkable streets, pedestrian and bicycle corridors and facilities, and other travel
modes.
Policy 4.6.4: The City will explore the use of alternative
funding sources to continue to support transportation
options throughout the City.
Page B.6
December 13, 2012
APPENDIX C - SOUTHERN CONNECTOR
ENHANCED NETWORK ALTERNATIVE
Purpose
The Border Highway West Extension Project (often referred
to as the “Southern Connector”) is the name for several projects that would together create a new highway facility along
the Rio Grande. While highways through rural areas are an
accepted transportation practice with few negative externalities save for the facility’s tremendous cost and maintenance,
much of the Southern Connector would travel through existing urban fabric and result in severe effects to historic structures, property values, walkability, multi-modal potential, and
quality-of-life for surrounding residents. Several residences
and many Downtown commercial structures would be razed
to construct the elevated highway.
Mobility is essential to the prosperity of every City, yet at the
same time, various City policy documents including Plan El Paso
require “context-sensitive” alternatives to all transportation
projects. The principal and minor arterials described in the El
Paso Thoroughfare Plan Update are at-grade, multimodal, safe
for pedestrians and cyclists, and add to the real estate value of
fronting properties. In this Appendix, these design concepts
have been applied to create an alternative network to the
Southern Connector to increase citywide vehicular mobility
without the negative effects which communities must contend
with for new freeways.
One alternative alignment for the “Southern Connector”
The Southern Connector is proposed as an elevated toll highway.
Network of Street Improvements as an alternative to the Southern Connector (right): An enhanced network of higher-capacity but still contextsensitive thoroughfares is detailed in this section. Together they enhance
overall system capacity while not relying on a single massive facility. The
letters above show segments which correspond to the segments in the
“Southern Connector” Preliminary Alternatives Concept.
December 13, 2012
Page C.1
Appendix C – Southern Connector
I-1
0
Segment A: I-10
Currently a limited-access highway, this
segment of I-10 has enough room in its
right-of-way to add capacity by building
express lanes in the middle of the highway.
I-10
Segment A: Mesa Street
Mesa Street is one of the City’s major
transportation corridors, and is slated
to become one of the new Rapid Transit
Corridors. This segment of Mesa Street
can become a high-capacity, contextsensitive multi-way boulevard. Its 150’
right-of-way allows for up to 6 throughgoing travel lanes in addition to side access lanes and center turn lanes. This
street can accommodate multiple forms
of transportation in a functional, yet elegant manner.
Mesa S
treet
Mesa Street - Segment A
Page C.2
December 13, 2012
Segment B: Paisano Drive
Paisano Drive is an important connection that can be further enhanced by
adding express lanes for transit as well
as a multi-use path to allow long distance
bicycle connections.
no
isa
Pa
ive
Dr
Paisano Drive - Segment B
sa
Me
t
ee
Str
Segment B: Mesa Street
Along this segment of Mesa Street, the
right-of-way narrows to 110’. A contextsensitive solution can still be achieved
by providing bicycle and transit infrastructure, adding on-street parking and
expanding sidewalks to provide a safe,
comfortable environment for all users.
Mesa Street - Segment B
December 13, 2012
Page C.3
Segment B: ASARCO Streets
The redevelopment of the ASARCO site
provides an important opportunity to
increase connectivity by building a network of walkable streets. At least some
of these, such as the one pictured below
would have connections through the
entire neighborhood providing another
parallel route for automobile and transit.
ASARCO
Network of Streets through ASARCO redevelopment
Segment C: Connection to Cesar
Chavez Border Highway
A new connection from Paisano Drive
to the Cesar Chavez Border Highway
would help alleviate congestion at this
choke point in the City. This connection
does not need an expensive highwayscaled solution. A simple, appropriatelyscaled road can provide the necessary
relief for traffic.
N
ew
Co
nn
ec
tio
n
New Connection to Cesar Chavez Border Highway
Page C.4
December 13, 2012
Segment C: Paisano Drive
Once Paisano Drive reaches the urbanized portion of El Paso, a context-sensitive solution is required. A compact
multi-way boulevard can be achieved on
this segment to provide the maximum
benefit for all road users within the constraints of a limited right-of-way.
Paisano
Drive
Paisano Drive - Segment C
Segment C: Mesa Street
This critical segment of Mesa Street is
an important part of the City’s transportation corridors. Within its limited
right-of-way, transit and vehicular capacity can be preserved, while providing a
more pedestrian-friendly environment
with lower speeds, street trees and wide
sidewalks.
sa
Me
ee
Str
t
Mesa Street - Segment C
December 13, 2012
Page C.5
Segment C: Oregon Street
The Oregon Street corridor has the opportunity to become an important driver
of urban growth in this part of the City.
Dedicated bus lanes provide a direct
connection between UTEP and Downtown El Paso and can help spur new
pedestrian-friendly development.
on
eg
Or
t
ee
Str
Oregon Street
Segment D: Cesar Chavez Border
Highway
Though this road provides an important
relief for traffic moving through Downtown, it also borders dense neighborhoods, and should respond in a contextsensitive way. Keeping the road at-grade
and adding bike lanes and sidewalks can
add value to downtown El Paso.
Cesar
z
Chave
Cesar Chavez Border Highway - Segment D
Page C.6
December 13, 2012
Segment D: Paisano Drive
As Paisano Drive travels through the
heart of Downtown El Paso, a contextsensitive solution is required that can
support robust urbanism and enhance
economic value. A very compact multiway boulevard can be achieved on this
segment, that supports an active pedestrian environment, while roundabouts
help maintain capacity and flow for vehicular traffic.
rive
oD
an
Pais
Paisano Drive - Segment D
Segment E: Cesar Chavez Border
Highway
As the Cesar Chavez Border Highway
moves away from downtown El Paso,
there is additional room to add express
lanes while maintaining a welcoming design that maintains value for surrounding
neighborhoods and supports the development of a park along the national border.
ar
Ces
vez
Cha
Cesar Chavez - Segment E
December 13, 2012
Page C.7
Segment E: Paisano Drive
A compact multi-way boulevard along
this segment of Paisano Drive can maintain vehicular capacity while supporting
an healthy urban environment for all
road users. Four lanes of traffic maintain
through-movement for automobile and
transit, while slow-speed access lanes
create a pedestrian-friendly shared space
environment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians.
rive
D
ano
s
Pai
Paisano Drive - Segment E
Page C.8
December 13, 2012
APPENDIX D - MONTANA TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY
The Montana Corridor is a critical part of the transportation network for El Paso,
and is poised to become a major driver of future growth in the region. Major investments are being made in the Rapid Transit Lines that connect the city together. To
support the future viability of transit and urban development along Montana, every
effort should be made to support a context sensitive approach to balancing the needs
of all road users. Adding 50’ to the 200’ right-of-way currently under control creates
a high-capacity corridor for automobile traffic, in addition to separate dedicated bus
lanes, multi-use paths, slow-speed access lanes with parking and generous sidewalks.
This method of street design creates value for enfronting properties by supporting
compact, urban development along the corridor. This form of development, in turn,
supports the rapid transit system, and thus reduces the burden on limited roadway
capacity.
250’ Transit Expressway - Section View
250’ Transit Expressway - Plan View
250’ Transit Expressway - Overhead View
December 13, 2012
P a g e D. 1
Appendix D – Montana Transit Expressway
300’ Right-of-Way Option
Although not necessary for the creation of a successful multi-modal corridor along
Montana Avenue, an additional 100’ of Right-of-Way (300’ total) could give extra room
for a more generous pedestrian-friendly environment. Additional parking on the access lanes support more businesses and higher residential densities. More generous
sidewalks and pathways support a vibrant pedestrian environment and make enfronting properties more attractive for urban development.
300’ Transit Expressway - Section View
300’ Transit Expressway - Plan View
300’ Transit Expressway - Overhead View
P a g e D. 2
December 13, 2012

el paso thoroughfare plan - Spikowski Planning Associates

Transcription

Similar documents

Expansion of Fish Creek Thoroughfare Traffic Light

Thoroughfare Map - Town of Carlton Landing

Walk of Hope Walk of Hope

to Event Document - El Paso Symphony Orchestra

11230 CHIMNEY ROCK ROAD Paso Robles, CA 93446 Vineyard

El Paso Live

Ciudad Juarez Profile

Natural Rhythm - Blaze Magazine, For Horse Crazy Kids