<< BACK TO ARTICLES

FAR WEST TEXAS – There’s no need for a four-lane La Entrada al Pacifico highway through the Big Bend.

That’s the recommendation from consultants who have spent the past year studying the trade corridor’s feasibility for Texas Department of Transportation. Around 500 Big Bend residents gathered Tuesday night to hear the study team’s much-anticipated findings during a public hearing at Sul Ross State University’s Marshall Auditorium in Alpine. Another hearing was held in Presidio last night, and more are scheduled in Fort Stockton and Midland next week.

Brian Swindell, the HDR Engineering project manager who led the study team, explained that the forecasted amount of freight traffic coming through Presidio in 2030 wouldn’t justify expanding highways along the corridor. The corridor, signed

into law by then-Governor George Bush in 1997, would route trade from the Mexican port of Topolobampo to Midland-Odessa by way of Presidio, Marfa and Alpine.

“The existing infrastructure is sufficient in the entire study area,” he said. “Widening to four lanes is not necessary to handle the additional traffic.”

Projecting future freight traffic through Presidio was a critical part of the study, which looked only as far ahead as 2030, Swindell explained. A technical advisory committee—made up of about 60 city and county officials, special-interest group representatives, and residents from the Big Bend and Midland-Odessa region—has been giving regular feedback on the data and methods used for that projection.

In coming up with a forecast, the study team tried to take into account many factors: how much potential freight traffic might be diverted from overcrowded ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach or other U.S.-Mexico ports of entry; how much freight traffic would be generated from internal Mexican trade growth; and when Mexico might complete improvements to the Topolobampo port and the highway through Copper Canyon to Presidio.

Their analysis of those factors considered three scenarios. The first—which assumed there is no freight diversion from any other ports and the Mexican infrastructure isn’t completed by 2030—projected 152 trucks a day coming through Presidio in 2030. That average daily truck traffic jumped to 338 if freight is diverted from other ports of entry in 2030, but no Mexican infrastructure improvements are finished before 2020. If all three factors fall into place by 2030, the daily incoming truck forecast was 739.

Those truck numbers were converted from freight amounts for discussion purposes, Swindell added, but could also be converted to rail numbers.

Several other factors could also influence future freight numbers, such as Mexico’s new emphasis on rail versus roadway, a potential route through Torreon and Camargo to Presidio, and the development of other Mexican ports at Punto Colonet, Lázaro Cárdenas, and Manzanillo. But the uncertainty of those factors made it difficult to incorporate into the study team’s projections, Swindell said.

After coming up with the three freight forecast scenarios, the study team compared the results to TxDoT standards for acceptable road congestion. They found that even in the last scenario, with 739 trucks entering Presidio daily, the resulting traffic on the region’s two-lane roads wouldn’t warrant any expansion. Even in the northern parts of the study area around Fort Stockton and Midland-Odessa, no highway improvements would be justified.

“The existing infrastructure is sufficient to handle projected traffic,” Swindell said. “Our recommendation for this study area is that we need to focus only on safety and mobility improvements.”

Those improvements will be considered in the final phase of the study, which he said would probably be completed this May and presented at a third round of public hearings in August. The focus of that next phase will be the impact to urban areas and evaluating the need for reliever routes.

“If we see that traffic is having a difficult time getting through,” Swindell said, “we might propose alternatives.”

They’ll also consider where additional passing lanes might be needed, if there are any sharp curves that should be adjusted to safely handle additional traffic, and if there are any potential clearance issues at bridges.

Improvements will be recommended throughout the study area, Swindell said, but where those improvements are made will be determined after future, more-detailed environmental impact studies.

As part of that next phase, a rail option and building nothing will still be considered. But because the existing corridor can handle projected traffic, new corridor alternatives will be eliminated, Swindell said. Those alternatives have until now included a route proposed by area county judges along FM170 to Candelaria and up county roads to US 90 and Interstate 20 near Van Horn, as well as routes along other existing highways throughout the study area. That area reaches as far west as Van Horn and does not include El Paso.

Following Swindell’s presentation, several dozen speakers expressed a wide range of feelings.

Many were relieved and grateful no road expansions were recommended. Others were frustrated, angry or baffled that La Entrada is still a designated corridor and that the feasibility study is ongoing. Some felt their opinions weren’t being listened to, and a few questioned NAFTA and the reasons for bringing Asian goods through Mexico into the U.S. Most speakers still had concerns about the impact of any additional freight traffic on the region’s environment, tourism economy, and quality of life.

Jeff Davis County attorney Bart Medley started off the public comment period by saying he’d had to revise his speech over the course of the evening.

“I came prepared to make some comments about a four-lane highway,” he said. “I do applaud TxDoT for scaling this thing back. I think that’s a good step in the right direction.” But, he still had concerns about the corridor.

“Increased traffic means increased traffic accidents,” he said. Presidio, Marfa and Fort Davis have limited EMS and fire department resources, and the nearest emergency room is in Alpine. To handle more traffic accidents, more law enforcement, more EMS and more fire department personnel would be needed.

“Those are things that we don’t have funding for, and I seriously doubt TxDoT is going to provide us funding,” he said.

“We need to have some consideration as to where these trucks are going to go if they do come, and make sure they’re not being routed through our historical areas and our parks,” he continued. “We need to be planning ahead if this traffic ever comes.”

Fran Sage, a technical advisory committee and Sierra Club member from Alpine, applauded Swindell’s team as well. But she too worried about where trucks will go in even a scaled-down La Entrada corridor and how the study will evaluate and prioritize safety improvements in the next study phase.

Marfa resident John Wotowicz criticized the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance for using its connection to “a powerful Austin player” to keep money flowing to La Entrada, which he said was an ill-conceived plan with no net economic benefit and no popular support.

MOTRAN urged the Texas Transportation Commission to approve the La Entrada concept in 1995 and lobbied federal and state governments to fund the $1.6-million feasibility study.

“Why are we wasting time, resources and money on further investigation of La Entrada?” Wotowicz asked.

He called for legislation removing the trade corridor designation and taking La Entrada signs off area highways.

“Mr. Craddick, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Bush, tear down these signs,” he said, to much applause.

Alpine city councilman Avinash Rangra questioned the study team why there was no mention their report of La Entrada’s potential impact to the region’s economy, environment and quality of life. During the first feasibility study meeting last March, many residents asked that those issues be considered in the study.

“Nobody seemed to pay attention to what we talked about,” Rangra said.

He also urged the study team to focus on rail in their analysis of alternatives. “My suggestion to you is forget about the trucks. Think about the trains,” he said.

Susan Curry, also a member of the technical advisory committee and Stewards of the Big Bend, thanked the study team for making the forecast process transparent. At the start of the public hearing, Curry, along with Jeff Milam, Molly Walker and Joanna Nelson of Alpine’s ReViva Collective and Pete Smyke of Big Bend Letters, gave the study team around 2,500 petition signatures from people around the world opposing La Entrada.

“Thank you to the consultants and TxDoT for actually listening,” Curry said. “It was an uplifting and positive thing to hear this. But the fight isn’t over and we need to stay vigilant.”

<< BACK TO ARTICLES