Potential Impacts, TTI Study

Thanks to Don Dowdey, for providing a study by Texas Transportation Institute TTI Study Leap Impact.pdf The study delves into LEAP impacts to small communities along the proposed trade corridor. It also provides an analysis regarding the projected truck traffic originating from the Chihuahua City maquiladora industry.

One very important factor neglected in the study is the impact on projected truck traffic for Presidio Port of Entry, relative to the future expansion of the Fabens Port of Entry. This expansion and upgrade coupled with a new connector highway to I 10, is critical to include in any kind of future truck traffic figures related to the Presidio PoE. Hopefully, TTI will include this data in future studies.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Potential Impacts, TTI Study

  1. I have a question. Chihuahua City is also 200 miles from El Paso. Why was there not consideration of going from there to El Paso instead of to Presidio? Its flat and its a straight shot to I-10 and 1-20. No major expenditures for Texas. No upset folks in this area and no pollution, noise or air here. El Paso is a city where you can already see the air you breathe.

  2. Kerr, you make a good point. The mileage from Chihuahua City is aprox 212 ms with grade changes at a minimum. The new road according to the table in the attached article http://recenter.tamu.edu/tgrande/vol9-1/1540.html
    it is aprox. 147 ms from Chihuahua City to Ojinaga. The new road is a toll road, and according to knowledgable truckers, if given the choice to pay a toll or drive on a non-toll road the Mexican trucker will generally prefer to take the non-toll option.
    With the Fabens enlarged Port of Entry coming on line, trucks originating from Chihuahua City may elect to head north to the most direct access to Interstate 10, (El Paso or Fabens)in lieu of the toll road or the older more mountainous Mex Hwy 16.

  3. Kerr Mitchell

    I feel its an option that should be considered. Most of the expense would be beared by the Mexicans with the only only addtional expense to more expansions in Fabens.

    Thank you for your input.
    Kerr

  4. I understand the toll for the new road from Chihuahua City to Ojinaga is $30.00 American or $328.86 Pesos.

  5. Mary Bell Lockhart

    I have a lot of comments about this report. First, there is NO mention of bypassing Marfa to the West going straight to IH 10/20, thence to Odessa. WHY? On current roads, Presidio to Marfa is 60 m, Marfa to Van Horn 74 m, Van Horn to Odessa 163 m, Odessa to Lamesa 77.9 m for a total of 374.9 miles. The route they talk about here is 331.8 miles (Presidio to Lamesa). Going west of Marfa is thus only 43.1 miles farther and that would be reduced by bypasses west of Marfa and east of Van Horn. This avoids a number of cities, has fewer changes in grade, fewer curves. It would be FASTER and CHEAPER. Why is this NOT considered???

  6. Mary Bell Lockhart

    Another point. Only someoone who has NOT been to Alpine would think that there is some sort of reasonable or rational bypass of Alpine that can be accomplished within the valley of Alpine that does no damage to our environment or our tourism. We DON’T WANT the tourists and other small-vehicle travelers to bypass us, we WANT the trucks to bypass us. The only rational way to do that is to bypass the mountains by running up from Presidio directly to IH 10/20. It protects Marfa, Alpine and Ft Davis as no other alternative does.

  7. Mary Bell Lockhart

    A further comment on this report is that it contains almost NO altitude information about the route. Grade differentials matter a lot to trucks. Instead of going “over” the mountains, rising from 2,552 ft at Presidio to as high as 5,115 ft west of Alpine then going down to 2,986 at Ft Stockson, we should go “around” them by a route west of Marfa. The number of elevation changes should also be considered. The route west of Marfa is basically downhill from a point west of Marfa to Odessa.

  8. Mary, you have clearly pointed out some disconnects in the logic of the report. If one goes to page 3 of the report and look’s at the map, simply the most direct way to the interstate system, is through Juarez/El Paso. There is a reason/logic for the label of the “Commonly Traveled Route” on page 3.
    It is also interesting to play around with Google Earth, (which I highly recommend for it’s accuracy of terrain) to look at the comparative route from Chihuahua City to Ojinaga and Chihuahua City to Juarez. Totally dufferent in grade changes.
    The terrain from Chihuahua City to Juarez/El Paso is basically flat, with minimum grade changes. On the other hand as you have mentioned, the grade changes from Chihuahua City to Presidio, and on to Marfa and Alpine are significant.
    By passes, according to TxDot, Charles Berry are not needed at this point, so in order to plan ahead, (which TxDot states they do not) one would have to very carefully examine the traffic which is anticapated, from Chihuahua City maquiladora industry.
    The catch here is that TxDot has min. funding and will not build until the need is proven.
    In the mean time truck traffic will most likely increase, not only on Hwy67 north from Presidio, but on Hwy 90 in both directions.

  9. I will send comments to the listed public officials. I believe this is a very important concern. Thank you for advising me.

    Elane Neu Scott

  10. Elane, thanks for your comments and supporting efforts. We need TxDot officals and our elected representatives to listen to us, and focus on the facts and do the right thing. TxDot has stated we have a 86bil dollar shortfall in funding for hwy construction and improvements. It is illogical and irresponsable to spend tax payers money and build a 4 lane divided hwy when the current data does not support the need.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s