The Far West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Plan

September 2011 – August 2015

Far West Texas / El Paso

Regional Transportation Coordination Committee

August 31, 2011

Acknowledgments

This plan was written by Bob Schwab of the County of El Paso as the lead agency for the Far West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee. The plan was prepared under the direction and guidance and in partial fulfillment of a regional human services - public transportation coordination planning requirement of the Texas Department of Transportation Public Transportation Division. The plan represents a full year of research, analysis, discussion and composition by many West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Stakeholders, including numerous health and human services organization representatives listed in Appendix II and transportation providers profiled in Appendix IV.

The West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee is grateful for the contributions and input of many individuals and in particular Bob Geyer of El Paso County for his continuing leadership and service as the Lead Agency representative, Linda DeBeer of Sun Metro for her comments and Joanne Mundy of the Texas Department of State Health Services for her extensive review and numerous helpful suggestions. The Committee would also like to thank Michael Hoppe with the El Paso County Information Technology Department for his invaluable assistance in formatting the document.

The West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Steering Committee:

Rene Pokrzywinski, Chair Sun Metro Roberto Wallace, Vice Chair Viba Transportation Ivan Garza, Secretary Sun City Cab Xavier Bañales Project Amistad Jane Jones Volar CIL Frank Lozano Desert Adapt Robin Roberts Frontera Womens’ Foundation Emma Vasquez Big Bend Community Action Committee

Far West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee 5081 Fred Wilson El Paso, Texas 79906

July 21, 2011

Dear Fellow Far West Texans:

As Chair of the West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee, it is my honor and pleasure to present the Human Services – Public Transportation Coordination Plan for our region of Far West Texas. The document represent hundreds of hours of work and is devoted to our vision that “all persons of the six-county Far West Texas region will have access to customer-centered, dependable, convenient and safe transportation services and choices.”

The Far West Texas / Upper Rio Grande region is composed of Brewster, El Paso, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties an area of nearly 22,000 square miles and sharing a 500 mile border with the Republic of Mexico. Its rapidly growing population, remote rural and dense urban environments, impact of Mexico and unique geography present numerous challenges for the region’s population, especially for persons dependent on public transportation for their mobility. It is our hope that this plan represents road map to addressing those challenges and a continuation of our commitment to effectively tackle them.

The framers of this plan recognize the importance of mobility to the social and economic health of our region and that every transportation asset must be deployed as efficiently and effectively as possible to make the most of limited resources. Rather than a static document, this plan represents a framework to a dynamic approach for addressing our regions mobility issues and will evolve in response to changing needs and conditions.

I thank all the contributors to this plan and encourage your active participation as we work together to ensure that the fundamental mobility needs of all persons of our region are met.

Respectfully,

Rene Pokrzywinski, Assistant Director Paratransit – Sun Metro Chair – Far West Texas / El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary...... 1 A. Plan Purpose ...... 1 B. Planning Requirement and Summary of Coordination Legislation and History ...... 1 C. Summary of the Region’s Population and Geography ...... 3 D. Population Dynamics ...... 4 E. Summary of Needs Assessment ...... 4 F. Summary of Transportation Inventory ...... 5 G. Mobility Issues and Priorities ...... 6 H. Vision and Summary of Plan Goals, Objectives, Recommendations and Actions ...... 7 I. Plan Scope and Framework ...... 8 II. Description of Regional Transportation Needs and Resources ...... 9 A. Regional Description ...... 9 1. Geography of El Paso and Far West Texas ...... 9 2. Current and Projected Population and Characteristics of El Paso and Far West Texas ...... 14 3. Demographics and Transit Dependent Populations by County and Region ...... 15 4. Population Density, Growth and Development Patterns ...... 19 5. Inter-Regional and Inter-National Travel Dynamics and Patterns ...... 20 B. Mobility Needs Assessment ...... 21 1. Assessment Approach and Methodology ...... 21 2. Needs Assessment Limitations ...... 22 3. Needs Assessment Findings and Analysis ...... 23 4. Accessible Transportation Coalition ...... 28 5. Alignment with Other Needs Assessments ...... 29 6. Needs Assessment Summary ...... 35 7. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination ...... 36 C. Inventory of Existing Transportation Resources ...... 36 1. Summary of Transportation Inventory ...... 36 2. Approach and Inventory Methodology ...... 39 3. Inventory Limitations ...... 40 4. Inventory Results and Analysis ...... 40 5. Inventory Projections ...... 41 6. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination ...... 47 7. Provider Profiles...... 48 III. Regional Mobility Gap and Duplication Analysis ...... 49 A. Mapping of Needs to Inventory ...... 49 1. Gaps in Regional Transportation System ...... 49 2. Geographic Distribution of System Gaps ...... 49 3. Duplication in Regional Transportation System ...... 51 4. Geographic Distribution of Transportation Duplication ...... 51 5. Consequences of System Gaps and Duplication ...... 52 B. Gap/Duplication Analysis ...... 52 1. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination ...... 52 2. Discussion of Strategies to Address System Needs/Gaps/Duplication ...... 53 3. Capacity of Transportation System to Respond to Needs/Gaps/Duplication and Discussion of Regional Transportation Policy Issues and Alternatives ...... 55 IV. Regional Transportation Priorities, Recommendations and Actions ...... 56 A. Vision Statement ...... 56 B. Mission Statement ...... 56 C. Goals ...... 56 V. Conclusion ...... 59 A. Summary of Plan Findings and Analysis ...... 59 B. Summary of Plan Priorities ...... 60 C. Plan Recommendations and Actions ...... 60 D. Roles for Far West Texas/ El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee ...... 60 E. Roles and Recommendations for Other Regional Policy Makers ...... 60

Table of Tables

Table I: One-Way Distances in West Texas/El Paso Region ...... 12 Table II: Highway Infrastructure, Vehicles, Area and Population Density by County ...... 13 Table III: Travel and Tourism Impact by County ...... 14 Table IV: Far West Texas/El Paso Transit Dependency Indicators ...... 17 Table V: Socioeconomic Indicators and Regional Health Resources ...... 27 Table VI: Transit Accessibility Metrics for El Paso and Selected Cities…………………………………………….31 Table VII: Population and Urban Gaps Characteristics for El Paso and Selected Areas…………………………….34 Table VIII: Transit Program Funding Estimates ...... 42 Table IX: Transit Program Historical Funding ...... 42 Table X: Regional Transportation Funding by Year - DRAFT ...... 43 Table X: Rio Grande Council of Governments – Area Agency on Aging Transportation Support...... 46

I. Executive Summary

A. Plan Purpose

This Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Plan attempts to identify regional mobility priorities and formulate strategies to address those priorities through greater coordination between health and human service organizations and public transportation providers. The plan is built upon a comprehensive assessment of the needs of transit dependent populations and an inventory of existing transportation resources with an analysis of the gaps and redundancies in the existing public transportation system. The Plan enumerates specific actions and projects to address system gaps, duplication, and population growth, while also outlining activities to achieve greater system efficiency and innovation. The foundation of the Plan is a realistic vision of effective regional mobility achieved through the mission of successful coordination efforts and carefully considered goals and objectives.

B. Planning Requirement and Summary of Coordination Legislation and History

The need for health and human services and public transportation coordination has grown out of the recognition that scores of federal programs support transportation services in one form or another with little or no coordination between them. As early as 1997, the General Accounting Office found inefficiencies, duplication and lack of coordination from this disjointed approach. Subsequent GAO research identified 62 individual funding streams that fund transportation resulting in Executive Order 13330 issued on February 4, 2004 which states:

Federally assisted community transportation services should be seamless, comprehensive, and accessible to those who rely on them for their lives and livelihoods. Transportation within and between our communities should be as available and affordable as possible.

Human services transportation coordination aims to improve transportation services for persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes by ensuring that communities coordinate transportation resources provided through multiple federal programs.

Coordination will enhance transportation access, minimize duplication of services, and facilitate the most appropriate cost-effective transportation possible with available resources.

The federal transportation funding bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, enacted in 2005, and still in existence today through continuing resolution, calls for state Departments of Transportation to undertake activities to ensure that maximum feasible coordination of transportation programs occurs to optimize Federal grant awards. The state and regional transportation planning process contributes to the goals and objectives of SAFETEA-LU through the

Page 1

development and implementation of the following elements:

 Local [Plan] Development;

 Comprehensiveness;

 Inclusion of public, private and nonprofit, workforce, human services and public transportation agencies, advocacy groups, passengers, and the general public;

 Identification of needs, including gaps in service, and ways to address them; and

 Sufficient transparency to support cross-jurisdictional project selection processes as needed.

The 78th Legislature of the State of Texas anticipated this need and prior to the issuance of the Executive Order adopted Texas Transportation Code Chapter 461 stating:

Public transportation services are provided in this state by many different entities, both public and private. The multiplicity of public transportation providers and services, coupled with a lack of coordination between state oversight agencies, has generated inefficiencies, overlaps in service, and confusion for consumers.

The code’s amendment established a requirement for “Statewide Coordination of Public Transportation” with three expressed goals:

 Eliminate waste in the provision of public transportation services;

 Generate efficiencies that will permit increased levels of service; and

 Further the state ’s efforts to reduce air pollution

To achieve these goals, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) established a Regional Service Planning project within the Public Transportation Division in 2005 and required that each of the 24 planning regions in the state submit a Regional Transportation Coordination Plan to the Division by December 2006. Planning grants were awarded to Lead Agencies to support this requirement and stakeholders were identified and organized to begin the planning process. This plan represents a TxDOT mandated up-date to the Regional Coordinated Public Transportation Plan – Vamonos, prepared by El Paso County as Lead Agency and submitted to TxDOT by the Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee on December 1, 2006.

The 2006 Plan identified three groups of actions representing immediate, near and long- term transportation priorities, many of which have been achieved with continued support for provided by TxDOT and secured by the County of El Paso to sustain a viable regional transportation coordination effort for the Upper Rio Grande Region. A detailed summary of those activities are profiled in section VI of this plan.

Page 2

C. Summary of the Region’s Population and Geography

The Far West Texas region corresponds with the Rio Grande Council of Governments region, Health and Human Services Region 10, the Upper Rio Grande Workforce Development Region and the El Paso TxDOT District. The region contains all of Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties with a population of 784,475. Far West Texas is the 8th fastest growing region in the state according to Texas Data Center estimates for 2009; however, recently released population data from the 2010 census indicates growth above the TDC estimates. Much of this growth is concentrated in persons between the ages of 5 and 19 and over 65.

El Paso is home to the University of Texas at El Paso the second largest school in the UT system and Ft. Bliss, the largest military base in the United States and recipient of several thousand troops reassigned through the Department of Defense’s base consolidation act. The proximity to Las Cruces, the second largest city in New Mexico, and White Sand missile range creates adds significant commuter demands on public transportation systems.

The region is 83.3% Hispanic and well above the state rate in percent of persons with a disability, with low income or elderly. Many communities in the region have poverty rates almost four times the state average. The region has amongst the lowest level of educational attainment and, along with the low incomes, suggests a greater reliance on public programs, and a greater need for heath services. The incidence of diabetes among low-income Hispanics is especially high resulting in large increase of dialysis care. These factors combine to create a higher level of transit dependency than would be indicated by population size alone.

The region is the largest geographically in the state with an area of 21,709 square miles and contains five of the six largest counties in Texas. The five eastern counties in the region are characterized by a few small towns that lie from 25 to 100 miles to the nearest community. The small size limits the level of amenities most of these local communities can support, especially medical and social services, resulting in extremely long distances to basic services. The mountainous region is traversed by state highways and county roads which often limit the ability of the elderly and infirm to drive the long distances necessary to obtain services. The long distances, as much as 200 miles round trip to the nearest pharmacy or 400 miles to the nearest dialysis center, also present economic barriers for persons with low income who are least likely to own well maintained and fuel efficient cars. The long distances and few local medical services are major reasons why many elderly persons leave rural communities in the region, negatively impacting local economies.

In El Paso, the Franklin Mountains extend south from the New Mexico border to within a mile of the Rio Grande, bisecting the city and squeezing traffic onto a highly congested I- 10 corridor. The mountains complicate east–west travel and present challenges for the city’s fixed-route transit system.

Page 3

D. Population Dynamics

Complex dynamics associated with a massive expansion of Ft. Bliss in El Paso and social conditions in northern Mexico suggest that the region’s population has grown and will likely continue to grow at a rate much greater than indicated by the Census. While not counted in U.S. population figures, Juarez, Mexico is a city of 1.5 million people with an annual growth rate over 5% and is highly interdependent with El Paso both culturally and economically. Separated by only the narrow channel of the Rio Grande and home to five ports of entry with 65,000 border crossing daily, the combined populations of the two cities would make the metropolitan area the third largest in Texas behind Houston and Dallas-Ft. Worth.

Four of the five eastern counties in the region are among the few rural counties in the state that grew between 2000 and 2010. The remote beauty of the region both attracts retirees and visitors that return to make the region home and contributes to its transportation challenges. Recently announced mining and solar energy projects taking advantage of the area’s natural resources could have a significant impact on the area’s population.

E. Summary of Needs Assessment

While they share common mobility needs, the extreme differences between the relatively urban El Paso and the sparsely populated eastern counties is reflected in the differences in their transportation needs as well. In El Paso, expansion of the city limits has outpaced growth of the fixed route system necessitating route extensions or the introduction of new routes. Similarly, rapid population growth of the communities outside the city limits in El Paso County overburdens the rural transit system serving those communities. The growing population and ridership is demanding expanded hours of service, especially in the early morning, as well as frequency of service. Additionally, there is a demand for more express service to reduce commute times. Many persons cite the difficulty of using the fixed route system when accompanied by more than one child, especially with a stroller. Of greater difficulty is getting to work after first getting a child to childcare when reliant on the fixed route system. Pathways to bus stops are not always accessible, there are too few shelters (an important accessibility feature given the often harsh West Texas climate), stops are not well marked, and a range of improvements are needed to accommodate persons with visual impairments. The El Paso County and Sun Metro’s fixed route systems use common stops and transit centers to facilitate transfers. However, the fares do not transfer from one system to the other, indicating a need for more seamless integration of the two systems.

The Sun Metro paratransit system known as the LIFT, provides demand-response coverage ¾ mile on either side of fixed routes, ½ mile beyond the ADA requirement, and supplements the service using New Freedom funds to provide additional coverage. Nevertheless, the LIFT does not currently provide same day service, which limits mobility for persons dependent on that service, and operates in a curb to curb mode which can limit the mobility of others. There is a need to expand awareness of demand- response transportation programs, especially targeted to eligible populations and the

Page 4

organizations that serve them, and to address the redundancy of duplicate eligibility determination and certification processes. Likewise, greater coordination between the various demand-response providers, including the Medical Transportation Program (MTP) in service coverage, trip assignment, and coverage will create more of a systems approach to serving special populations.

The five eastern counties of the region are largely served by one provider that operates general public, MTP, Job Access, Elderly and Disabled and contracted transportation services through a demand-response and subscription service approach. Nevertheless, there is a widespread lack of public awareness of many of these services, especially general public transportation. Mixing multiple populations in the rural services increases the efficiency of the provider, Big Bend Community Action Committee (BBCAC), but often results in very early departure times, long waits and long trips. BBCAC faces the challenge of servicing a very large geographical area and the long trips place high demands on vehicle drivers. Indeed, driver retention is a significant barrier to service expansion for BBCAC. More midday service will provide riders more service options and likely increase ridership. Likewise, the introduction of targeted fixed-route service may increase public awareness of the availability of general public transportation. Since all of BBCAC’s services are provided in a demand-response mode, coverage in their large service area is nearly universal. However, advance reservation requirements limit mobility options and the provider should attempt to accommodate same day trips whenever possible.

F. Summary of Transportation Inventory

General public transportation exists throughout the region in the form of a fixed-route and paratransit system in the city of El Paso operated by Sun Metro; commuter service to the various communities in El Paso County outside the El Paso city limits operated by the County of El Paso; and general public demand-response service throughout Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties operated by Big Bend Community Action Committee. The latter service was introduced as a direct result of earlier regional transportation coordination efforts and therefore represents relatively new public transportation infrastructure for the residents of the five eastern counties of the region.

The region also benefits from several Job Access Reverse Commute and New Freedom projects in both the urbanized and rural areas of El Paso County and in Presidio County. Some of these projects are approaching the end of their funding which will significantly affect the level of service that continues. The El Paso urbanized JARC and NF programs employ a centralized eligibility and trip assignment process, greatly facilitating coordination of those resources. A JARC subsidized commuter bus route provides weekday north and southbound service between El Paso and La Cruces, New Mexico with a midway stop in Anthony, Texas providing critical access for that low income community to the urban labor markets and White Sands missile range.

The Medical Transportation Program that serves the entire region is managed by Project Amistad which directly operates the service in El Paso County and subcontracts for the

Page 5

service to BBCAC in the eastern counties. Since the eastern county MTP sub-contractor also provides general public and various specialized transportation programs through an integrated demand-response service, there is a high level of service integration in that system.

The TxDOT regionally administered Section 5310 program has provided capital support throughout the region to qualified organizations serving the elderly and persons with disabilities for the purchase of public transit vehicles. In addition, the Area Agency on Aging provides funding to a variety of providers to support the operating cost of transportation services for the elderly population. Many health and human service agencies purchase passes or contract for services using the existing transit providers. Nevertheless, some service organizations operate their own transportation programs to address specific client needs or because of the perception that the existing public transportation infrastructure is inadequate to satisfactorily address those needs or because the organization’s services are limited to enrolled clients for whom transportation is provided as an integrated package of services.

Regional transportation providers maintain extensive fleets, and due to recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funded purchases, many older vehicles were recently replaced and the region-wide average vehicle age is now less than five years.

El Paso receives inter-city bus and train service by virtue of its population density and placement on the I-10, I-20 and I-25 corridors. There is limited inter-city service in the eastern counties, however, with Greyhound bus service only in Van Horn, Amtrak only in Alpine and All Aboard America linking Presidio, Marfa, and Alpine with Ft. Stockton and Midland-Odessa in the adjacent region.

El Paso International Airport is the only facility in the region supporting commercial air traffic. Several municipal general aviation airports in the eastern counties provide critical access to air ambulance, fire suppression, emergency services and economic development for remote communities.

G. Mobility Issues and Priorities

Service awareness and coordination between services remain critical issues for the region, as is maintaining pace with population growth and land development. Better use of existing resources will result from effective policies and travel training programs to encourage and facilitate greater use of the Sun Metro and El Paso County fixed-route systems. Allowing seamless transfer between the County and Sun Metro systems will enhance this objective.

The region will work to design and implement transportation solutions to address specific unmet mobility needs including those of single parents commuting to and from work and childcare with multiple children, victims of domestic violence unable to use fixed-route services, residents of remote communities that require off-hours or more flexible options, and other specific populations that do not have access to private autos.

Page 6

An Accessible Transportation Coalition is exploring multiple accessibility issues related to accessible pathways for the fixed-route system and eligibility and scheduling for the demand-response systems. Their recommendations should be carefully considered and proper resources identified and deployed so service levels are not diminished to address these needs.

Same day service is very limited on both the urban and rural demand-response systems, severely limiting mobility when persons dependent on these systems cannot anticipate transportation needs in advance. Appropriate resources obtained to expand services or derived from service efficiencies will be directed to addressing this issue.

A careful analysis of the relationship between MTP, paratransit and dialysis transportation services will be explored to identify opportunities for improved coordination, better utilization of resources and improved services to riders.

Work will also continue amongst transportation providers to identify issues of common concern where joint action is indicated, such as the bulk purchase of transit related commodities, driver recruitment and training and operating practices.

The urban providers will continue to work together to design and implement centralized transportation information and referral and consolidated eligibility programs to increase awareness and improve access to specialized transportation services. Likewise, the region will work to implement mechanisms to ensure that all future proposals for discretionary funding clearly and effectively address identified transportation priorities and address specific service needs without duplication.

In the eastern counties, improving awareness of transportation services will remain a priority. In addition, increasing service frequency and possibly offering targeted fixed- route services should be explored when resources are available. The on-going challenge of recruiting, training and retaining qualified drivers will remain an eastern county priority as will identifying and securing resources to address emerging workforce transportation needs. Alternatives to very long trips, reducing deadheads, and facilitating innovative mobility solutions for very remote communities through car sharing and other practices will be explored.

H. Vision and Summary of Plan Goals, Objectives, Recommendations and Actions

The foundation of this plan is a vision of customer-centered, dependable, convenient and safe transportation services and choices for persons of the six-county region with the mission to maximize mobility and achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness of public transportation resources through proactive planning and coordination between transportation providers and health and human services providers. To this end, the region adopted six goals:

1. Maintain an inclusive and sustainable planning process

Page 7

2. Fill unacceptable gaps in service

3. Provide technical assistance and training

4. Build and maintain universal transportation marketing and information programs

5. Work to eliminate physical, financial, regulatory and operational barriers

6. Implement coordination strategies and measure efficiency and quality of transportation services for continuous improvement of regional planning

Each of these goals and associated objectives are included in their entirety in section VI. A. of this plan.

I. Plan Scope and Framework

State and federal law requires the development of regional human services – public transportation plans to qualify organizations in the region to receive certain transportation funding. Moreover, programs that subsequently receive funding should address identified transportation needs and gaps and provide services that maximize transportation resources without duplicating existing services. The stated intent of Chapter 461 of the Texas Transportation Code is to eliminate waste in public transportation services, generate efficiencies that will permit increased levels of service and further the state’s effort to reduce air pollution that can be achieved through regional health and human services and public transportation coordination.

This plan attempts to identify regional mobility needs through a comprehensive needs assessment, Plan Section II. B and identify transportation resources through an current inventory of such resources, Plan Section II. C. A gap analysis, Plan Section III. will identify those areas, services, and approaches that represent gaps or deficiencies in the network of existing transportation services as well as identify service redundancy where redeployment of services will potentially increase service levels. Plan Section V. will lay out the regional mobility vision, goals, objectives and principles and a series of actions needed to address system gaps, growth, duplication, efficiency and innovation as well as specific project priorities for the use of JARC, New Freedom, State Planning Assistance, Rural Transit Assistance Program, and Inter-City Bus discretionary funding programs.

It is beyond the scope of this plan or the activities of the Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee to direct the planning or operations of transportation providers as directed by Texas Transportation Code Chapter 461.

Page 8

II. Description of Regional Transportation Needs and Resources

A. Regional Description

1. Geography of El Paso and Far West Texas

The Far West Texas region addressed in this plan corresponds with the Council of Governments Rio Grande Planning Region 8, Health and Human Services Commission Region 10 and the Upper Rio Grande Workforce Development Area 10. The region is comprised of Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties, an area of 21,709 square miles, geographically the largest such planning region of the state and containing four of Texas’ five largest counties.

The region is bounded by New Mexico to the north, the Republic of Mexico to the south and west and the Permian Basin Region to the east. There are seven ports of entry along the region’s nearly 500 mile border with two northern Mexican states. Not in the Far West Texas planning region but contiguous to its eastern border are Pecos County and Reeves Counties, the second and ninth largest of the state’s 254 counties. For most residents in the southern and eastern part of this region these large land areas must be traversed to reach the cities of Ft. Stockton and Pecos (location of the nearest dialysis centers) and Midland-Odessa (the location of many medical and other amenities and destination for much of the far West Texas population).

The region contains the city of El Paso, the sixth most populous city in Texas and the largest border community in the world, with four border crossings to Cuidad Juarez. A new point of entry being built in the city of Tornillo in southeast El Paso County is expected to be completed in 2015. When the Guadalupe Tornillo International Bridge is placed in operation, one in five of all Texas ports of entry to Mexico will be in El Paso County. The city of Juarez has an estimated population of 1.5 million persons1 and in 2008, more than 756,000 trucks, 14 million personal vehicles and 8 million pedestrians passed through the seven ports of entry in the Upper Rio Grande region.2

In 2006 there were 267,000 people employed in manufacturing in the El Paso- Juárez region and $55 billion in U.S.-Mexico trade crossing through this border, 18 percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade. According to the New York Times:

Corporate expansion in Juárez has created thousands of engineering, design and managerial jobs as well. Many of these people work in Juárez, live in El Paso and shop and dine in both places. Consequently, they cross the border regularly, speeding through the dedicated commuter lanes on two of the bridges that span the river (after passing a Homeland Security background check). In fact, the El Paso-Juárez region is the largest bilingual, binational work force in the Western Hemisphere, according to a labor report by the Wadley-Donovan Group, a management consulting firm.3

Ciudad Juárez "is now absorbing more new industrial real estate space than any other North American city."4 However, a Wall Street Journal article noted “there has been a

Page 9

mass exodus of people who could afford to leave the city.” The article quoted a city planning department estimate of over 116,000 abandoned homes, which could roughly be the equivalent of 400,000 people who have left the city due to the violence.5 Many of these people have joined the population of El Paso and/or will likely return to Juarez sometime in the future.

In addition to its international border with the Republic of Mexico, El Paso also borders the state of New Mexico and is about 30 miles from Las Cruces, the second largest city in New Mexico, with a population of 93,570 and home to New Mexico State University. Also nearby is the White Sands Missile Range and Test Facility, the largest military facility in the United States at 3200 square miles and southern New Mexico’s largest employer. Doña Ana County surrounding Las Cruces and bordering El Paso County has a population of 200,000. An estimated 19,000 persons commute daily between El Paso/Juarez and Doña Ana County.6

El Paso is home to the University of Texas at El Paso and Ft. Bliss, at 1700 square miles, the second largest military installation in the nation behind White Sands. Ft. Bliss hosts an active force of 14,000 with a supporting community population exceeding 120,000. In 1990, Congress enacted the Base Realignment and Closure Act which was intended to transform and reshape the U.S. Defense Department’s infrastructure. This realignment process and the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President recommendations will eventually will bring more than 11,000 new troops to Fort Bliss. Some of these additional troops have already arrived, with the remainder scheduled to arrive by 2013. About 53,000 family members are expected to accompany them.7

The expansion of Fort Bliss represents the largest net gain of any military installation in the U.S., almost tripling in size from about 14,000 to more than 37,000 soldiers. This growth will also create a projected 24,000 civilian jobs in the El Paso area. In addition, between 27,000 and 33,000 family members are projected to accompany the new troops. By 2013, the installation’s gross annual payroll will rise to nearly $1.78 billion, from $478 million in 2005, and the Army will invest nearly $5 billion in new facilities and infrastructure.8

By 2013, Fort Bliss will be transformed into one of the most technically advanced army installations in the world, employing state-of-the-art technology from different military branches. Fort Bliss is part of a two-state regional military complex of more than 7,100 square miles (4.1 million acres) consisting of the Texas installation and New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base. Together, these facilities comprise the largest contiguous land area owned by the U.S. Department of Defense.9 The Base Realignment and Closure Act parallels a Department of Defense strategy of assigning solders to a single base for the life of their military careers. This approach combined with the enormous growth of Ft. Bliss will have a lasting impact on the population of El Paso as base personnel establish community connections, put down roots, raise families and retire in the region.

While geographically the smallest of the six counties in the region, El Paso County

Page 10

nevertheless produces the largest agricultural output generating 51% of the region’s crop value and 43% of its total agricultural value. Much of this production lies along the Rio Grande as it leaves the city for its long run to the Gulf of Mexico. The lower valley as it is commonly called is home to numerous pecan, cotton, and vegetable farms in addition to alfalfa fields, cattle ranches and dairies. The cities along this corridor; Socorro, Clint, San Elizario, Fabens, and Tornillo lie outside the El Paso city limits and are home to farm workers and, increasingly, city dwellers seeking lower housing costs. Each of these cities has seen population growth in the last decade with some above the state average. Also southeast of El Paso, Horizon City has grown 179% from 2000 to 2009, nine times the state average of 19.9%. The communities northwest of El Paso but still in the County; Canutillo, Vinton and Anthony are experiencing less rapid growth but are also home to increasing numbers of low income families.10

Most of El Paso’s civilian economy is centered in manufacturing, retail trade, education/health/social services and is heavily influenced by its close proximity to Mexico. El Paso is home to the University of Texas at El Paso with an enrollment of 22,106 supported by 2,890 faculty and staff. The campus is in the midst of a $270 million dollar construction and renovation program.11 Texas Tech University recently established a branch of its medical school in El Paso and the El Paso County Hospital District’s University Medical Center currently has 354,000 sqf under construction or major renovation at a cost of over $182 million.12 A growing technology sector has a synergistic relationship with Ft. Bliss and White Sands and as the most bi-lingual city in the state El Paso will likely continue its rapid job and population growth as the Hispanic population of the state and nation grow.

Like many other Sun Belt cities, El Paso has a concentrated mostly commercial downtown with a hand-full of high rise buildings, surrounded by older inner-city neighborhoods and sprawling suburban and exurban development. Uniquely, however; El Paso is bisected by the Franklin Mountain range and Ranger Peak (5653 ft.) which extends from the Doña Ana County line in the north to within two miles of the border with Mexico, essentially dividing the city into eastern and western halves and complicating intra-city travel.

Most of the population of El Paso County is clustered within a few miles on either side of I-10 and to a lesser degree along U.S. 54 running north toward Alamagordo New Mexico. The concentration of the population along this route, the large number of border crossings with Juarez, the commuter volume between El Paso and Las Cruces (also on I-10) and the impact of the Franklin Mountains “squeezing” the city near downtown El Paso combine to create a highly congested I-10 corridor. El Paso has undertaken a large-scale project to build Loop 375 around the city so travelers have an alternative to I-10. Portions of Loop 375 are completed and the El Paso Regional Mobility Authority is working to secure additional funding to complete the project. Another proposed I-10 alternative is the Northeast Parkway, a 21-mile stretch of highway to connect Loop 375 with Highway 404 in New Mexico, mitigating congestion at the border between the two states.

Page 11

To the east, the rural Brewster, Culbertson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties occupy the northern reach of the Chihuahua Desert and are characterized by vast ranch lands dotted with a few small remote cities. The area is considered the most mountainous in Texas and contains all of the state’s mountains over 5000 ft. The populated areas of the rural counties range in elevation from 2000 to 4800 feet and are often at some distance to the nearest other community. The cities of the region are most often connected by county roads, state and U.S. highways, and in the northwest, by IH-10. Ranching still plays a major role in the rural region’s character if not economy, but most employment is centered in education, retail trade, and tourism related jobs. The classic western topography has long attracted motion picture production, an appeal that continues today.

With populations ranging from 126 in Redford to 6,336 in Alpine, the cities in the rural counties are of insufficient size to support many commercial and medical enterprises. Valentine has no paved roads and not a single retail business. The nearest community, Van Horn, is 28 miles to the north on U.S. 90 making for a 56 mile round trip for milk, bread and gasoline. Since there is no drug store in Van Horn or Marfa, the closest pharmacy to Van Horn is in Alpine at a round trip distance of 236 miles or 174 miles for a resident of Presidio. In fact, like many basic health services, there are no pharmacies at all in Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties. This remoteness characterizes most of the region. Table I displays driving distances between cities in the rural counties.

In addition to long distances, rural county inter-city travel usually involves remote, isolated and mountainous highways which can present a barrier for some drivers and a costly proposition for all. Lack of population necessarily limits much commercial development and lack of density presents challenges for public and private transportation providers.

Table I: One-Way Distances in West Texas/El Paso Region

Alpine Van Horn Ft. Stockton Odessa Midland El Paso Candelaria 135 183 109 279 299 304 Presidio 87 135 154 231 251 256 Marfa 26 74 93 170 190 195 Alpine - 100 67 166 186 221 Ft. Davis 26 98 86 149 169 219 Van Horn 100 - 118 164 184 121 Terlingua 82 182 171 270 290 303 Marathon 31 131 58 157 177 252 Sierra Blanca 133 33 152 196 218 88 Dell City 190 90 209 208 228 97 Source: Texas Department of Transportation

Page 12

Table II: Highway Infrastructure, Vehicles, Area and Population Density by County

County Centerline Lane Miles1 Daily Vehicle Registered Area in Population Miles1 Miles1 Vehicles1 Square2 per Miles Square Mile Brewster 290 591 250,341 10,003 6,192.6 1.5 Culberson 322 748 683,479 2,315 3,812.5 0.6 El Paso 477 1,621 10,276,798 566,539 1,013.1 748.5 Hudspeth 340 826 1,223,637 3,566 4,571.0 0.7 Jeff Davis 277 469 193,263 3,198 2,264.4 1.2 Presidio 272 545 182,369 7,469 3,855.5 2.1 Regional Total 1,927 4,799 12,809,887 539,090 21,433.8 36.6 Statewide Total 79,975 192,542 488,790,361 21,171,729 261,797.0 95.5 Source: 1 Texas Department of Transportation 2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Summary File 1

The community of Alpine in Brewster County is the largest city in the rural counties and is home to Sul Ross State University with an enrollment of about 2000 students. Sul Ross is the largest employer in Alpine and the only post secondary educational institution in the rural counties. More than 80 miles south of Alpine is Big Bend National Park with 801,000 acres on the big bend of the Rio Grande. Texas’ only other national park, Guadalupe Mountains, is in northern Culberson County and contains Guadalupe Peak, the state’s highest elevation at 8,749 ft. In nearby Presidio County is Big Bend Ranch State Park with over 300,000 acres, the largest state park and comprising more than half of all of the state park land in Texas. Outside of Ft. Davis in Jeff Davis County is the Davis Mountains State Park and the McDonald Observatory, an internationally significant research facility of optical and infrared telescopes. Marfa is home to the Chinati Foundation, housing much of the work of the late Donald Judd considered the father of the minimalist art movement of the mid- twentieth century. Each of these features along with the region’s scenic beauty draws numerous visitors and forms the foundation of the area’s tourist based economy. Travel and tourism is the second largest export-oriented industry in Texas (serving consumers outside the state) behind oil and gas, accounting for 2.3% of earnings and 3.8% of employment in the state. While these averages apply to El Paso, Hudspeth and Presidio Counties, the impact of travel and tourism in Culberson, Jeff Davis and Brewster Counties is up to five times that of the state, punctuating the importance of this sector to the region. Table III displays travel and tourism impact factors for far west Texas.

With 500 miles of international border and much turmoil in northern Mexico, the Department of Homeland Security and its Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Agency and other law enforcement units have a considerable presence throughout the region and forms another significant component of the economy. The relative shortage/availability and cost of housing in neighboring communities creates noteworthy commute patterns for various Department of Homeland Security agents and the personnel of other rural counties’ employers.

Page 13

Table III: Travel and Tourism Impact by County

County Total Direct Earnings (in Percent of Travel and Percent of Travel and Travel thousands) County Tourism County Tourism Tax Spending (in Earnings Related Employment Receipts thousands) Employment Brewster $47,900 $21,850 12% 1,340 20% $ 3,650 Culberson 35,580 4,020 4 180 10 2,570 El Paso 1,392,972 303,470 2 11,810 3 93,780 Hudspeth 5,640 303 1 20 1 360 Jeff Davis 7,670 2,720 12 100 8 430 Presidio 8,630 1,590 2 60 2 700 Total 1,498,390 333,980 - - - 101,490 Source: Dean Runyan Associates

Much of the rural region has been identified as having the nation’s highest concentration of solar rays reaching the earth’s surface per square foot due largely to its latitude, number of sunny days, clean air and altitude. In fact, Tesara Corporation recently proposed a 154 megawatt solar concentration plant in Marfa in partnership with the City of San Antonio. A megawatt of electrical generation capacity is sufficient to power about 250 average Texas homes. The facility is projected to create 200 construction and 20 permanent jobs, a significant contribution to the job market of Marfa with its population of 2,125. Culberson County is home to two wind farms with a combined total of 147 turbines capable of producing 68 megawatts of electricity. Should the solar industry take hold, the region may experience additional population growth from emerging solar power and expanding wind power industries. These geographic and climatic attributes also support a significant greenhouse operation in Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties, generating over $75 million in vegetable production and producing almost 90% of Texas’ cluster table tomato output.13

Several recently drilled natural gas wells in Brewster County were moderately productive but abandoned due to low gas prices. Rio Grande Mining Company, based in Vancouver B.C. Canada, has filed application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to re-open a silver mine in the southern Presidio county town of Shafter. The company has announced that if permitted and in full production the mine could employ up to 200 persons at the site. The small village of Shafter does not have any available housing or sufficient parking space to accommodate such a workforce and will need transit services to get workers to the site. If the price of natural gas increases sufficiently and the Shafter mine begin production, minerals extraction will play a significant role in the economies of Brewster and Presidio Counties and potentially create the need for targeted workforce transportation programs.

2. Current and Projected Population and Characteristics of El Paso and Far West Texas

An estimated 784,356 persons currently reside in the Upper Rio Grande region, an increase of 80,000 from 2000. All but Culberson County experienced growth in that period, with Jeff Davis County and many individual cities growing at rates above the

Page 14

State’s average. These positive growth rates are projected to continue into the future with a regional population exceeding one million persons in 2020. The growth of Ft. Bliss, a burgeoning call center industry and the University Medical Center drive El Paso’s population growth with El Paso representing 96.8% of the region’s total. The appeal of the rural counties for retirement drives much of the in-migration population growth in those counties, adding a disproportionate share of a more transit dependent population segment.14

The region is largely Hispanic (81%) and young (42% under age 25) compared to Texas (36% and 37.7%) and the U.S. (15% and 34%). Although much younger than the state average, persons over 65 are also represented at a higher rate than the state rate of 9.9% in all but El Paso Counties with Marfa, Redford and Valentine at almost twice the state average. Nearly 75% of the region’s residents report that a language other than English is spoken at home as compared to 31.2% for the state as a whole, with eight communities in the region reporting rates over 90%.15

Most of the region’s counties and cities also have an incidence of disability that exceeds the state average for most age groups. In El Paso, armed services members returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are surviving with a higher incidence of disability and resulting mobility challenges.

Educational attainment and income levels are lower than state and national levels. Within the region, Jeff Davis County had the highest median household income at $38,850 and Hudspeth County has the lowest at $25,095 compared to $47,563 for Texas in 2007 (the most recent data available). El Paso County’s median income was $35,116 in 2007. Income per person held to the same pattern with annual per capita income for the region averaging $26,491 or 71% of the state average in 2007. Poverty rates in the region are high, with every county above and only Horizon City and Terlingua/Study Butte below the state average of 12%. Ten communities have poverty rates twice the state average and five communities have poverty rates over three times the state average.16

3. Demographics and Transit Dependent Populations by County and Region

Youth between the ages of five and nineteen, persons over 65, persons with disabilities and persons with incomes below the federal poverty are most likely to be dependent on or more likely to use public transportation. The incidence of each of these groups is higher in the Upper Rio Grande region than in the rest of the state. Low incomes often suggest greater reliance on public health and human services and a higher percentage of disposable income spent on transportation. According to the United States Census Bureau, more than 21 percent of Americans 65 and older do not drive. Also, individuals in this age group are twice as likely to have a disability as those aged 16 to 65. Moreover, it is anticipated that a significant portion of this same population will live outside the boundaries of traditional fixed-route public transportation and will more than likely need to rely on service-based agencies for transportation and access to non-emergency medical care. Table IV displays population and demographic data for the region and highlights those characteristics

Page 15

which exceed the state average.

In almost every population category there is a high incidence of transit dependent persons across the region suggesting transportation services be tailored to the needs of that group. Also, in almost every community there are several population groups likely dependent on public transportation. Since transportation by its nature operates in a geographical space, groupings of transit dependent populations in close proximity should be examined along with location needs to determine their highest concentration.

In El Paso County; Anthony, Vinton and Canutillo are located at approximately 5 mile intervals northeast of El Paso. In all three communities, the percentage of families living below the federal poverty level is nearly twice the state average and almost three times that average in Canutillo. Each has a higher than state average of households with no vehicle available but none have a relatively high percentage of persons over 65 and only an average incidence of persons with disabilities.

Page 16

Table IV: Far West Texas/El Paso Transit Dependency Indicators

Census Population Population Percentage Population Persons Persons 5- Population Population with a Disability Families Percentage Designated 2000¹ Estimate Change Projection Aged 65+¹ 19¹ Ages 5-19 By Age Below Households Place January 2000-2010 2020³ and 65+¹ (percent of group) Poverty with No 2010² 5-20 21-64 65+ Level¹ Vehicle Available¹

El Paso 679,622 758,303 11.6% 981,772 66,073 180,970 247,043 13,867 77,460 31,209 34,264 21,798 County 9.7% 26.6% 36.3% 7.3% 22.1% 48.0% 20.5% 10.4% El Paso 563,662 625,085 10.9% n/a 60,121 145,024 205,145 11,059 63,871 28,237 26,968 19,972 10.7% 25.7% 36.4% 7.3% 21.5% 47.8% 19.0% 11.0% Anthony 3,850 4,444 15.4% n/a 255 736 991 29 240 120 131 76 6.6% 19.1% 25.7% 3.9% 19.1% 53.8% 22.7% 11.1% Canutillo 5,129 5,290 3.1% n/a 417 1,515 1,932 267 1,073 208 398 145 8.1% 29.5% 37.7% 19.4% 40.9% 44.0% 31.9% 10.2% Clint 980 1,015 3.6% n/a 129 251 380 17 92 38 42 13 13.2% 25.6% 38.8% 6.3% 16.7% 31.9% 16.6% 4.2% Fabens 8,043 8,540 6.2% n/a 631 2,622 3,253 131 784 258 769 304 7.8% 32.6% 40.4% 4.7% 20.8% 44.5% 41.2% 14.6% Horizon City 5,233 14,597 179.0% n/a 423 1,457 1880 49 402 161 106 28 .08% 27.8% 35.9% 2.9% 13.8% 34.3% 7.1% 1.7% San Elizario 11,046 13,657 23.6% n/a 514 3,932 4446 309 1535 325 937 189 4.7% 35.6% 40.2% 7.6% 29.7% 67.4% 40.2% 7.3% Socorro 27,152 32,742 20.6% n/a 1,726 8,331 10,057 584 3623 921 1982 523 6.4% 30.7% 37.0% 6.4% 25.3% 52.6% 30.9% 7.6% Tornilllo 1,609 1,658 3.7% n/a 83 518 601 130 435 48 136 35 5.2% 32.2% 37.3% 22.9% 58.0% 58.5% 36.6% 8.7% Vinton 1,892 2,152 13.7% n/a 57 656 713 57 200 27 104 37 3.0% 34.7% 37.7% 8.2% 22.3% 40.3% 25.2% 7.8% Texas 20,851,820 25,010,235 19.9% 32,736,716 2,072,532 4,921,608 6,994,136 410,156 2,315,414 879,978 632,696 548,125 9.9% 23.6% 33.5% 7.9% 19.9% 44.0% 12% 7.4% Brewster 8,866 9,416 6.3% 9,979 1,297 1,904 3,201 234 1,116 579 282 236 County 14.6% 21.5% 36.1% 10.8% 22.7% 46.4% 12.6% 6.4% Alpine 5,786 6,336 10.0% n/a 860 1,241 2,101 131 642 437 221 188 14.9% 21.4% 36.3% 9.6% 20.2% 52.5% 15.5% 7.6% Terlingua 267 298 11.6% n/a 28 70 98 22 21 9 9 5 Study Butte 10.5% 26.2% 36.7% 20.4% 9.6% 52.9% 10.2% 3.4% Culberson 2,975 2,495 -16.0% 3,374 334 823 1,157 21 356 124 174 71 County 11.2% 27.7% 38.9% 2.5% 22.6% 39.4% 21.5% 6.7% Van Horn 2,435 2,115 -13.0% n/a 272 699 971 12 263 109 160 68 11.2% 28.7% 39.9% 1.7% 21.2% 42.2% 24.3% 8.3% Hudspeth 3,344 3,371 0.8% 4,252 331 966 1,287 47 393 184 278 79 County 9.9% 28.9% 38.8% 4.7% 23.2% 56.4% 32.6% 7.2% Ft. Hancock 1,713 1,811 5.7% n/a 135 533 668 21 187 103 194 44 7.9% 31.1% 39.0% 3.6% 21.7% 65.2% 44.6% 8.5% Sierra 533 575 7.9% n/a 49 128 177 3 31 16 29 17 Blanca 9.2% 24.0% 33.2% 1.8% 10.4% 34.8% 19.6% 8.7%

Page 17

Census Population Population Percentage Population Persons Persons 5- Population Population with a Disability Families Percentage Designated 2000¹ Estimate Change Projection Aged 65+¹ 19¹ Ages 5-19 By Age Below Households Place January 2000-2010 2020³ and 65+¹ (percent of group) Poverty with No 2010² 5-20 21-64 65+ Level¹ Vehicle Available¹ Dell City 413 421 1.9% n/a 55 116 171 23 105 44 38 15 13.3% 28.1% 41.4% 14% 42.5% 62.9% 26.4% 7.9% Jeff Davis 2,207 2,643 19.8% 2,422 359 510 869 33 311 160 89 36 County 16.3 23.1% 39.3% 7.4% 25.0% 44.2% 14.1% 4.0% Ft. Davis 1,050 1,446 37.7% n/a 164 236 400 15 164 80 62 19 15.6% 22.5% 38.1% 6.4% 28.4% 44.2% 20.7% 4.5% Valentine 187 220 17.6% n/a 39 51 90 0 16 16 6 11 20.9% 27.3% 48.1% 17.0% 43.2% 12.8% 15.9% Presidio 7.304 8,128 11.3% 10,338 1,017 2,042 3,059 148 1,136 613 605 331 County 13.9% 27.9% 41.9% 7.0% 32.6% 59.1% 32.5% 13.1% Marfa 2,121 2,125 0.2% n/a 392 481 873 32 320 202 91 117 18.5% 22.7% 41.2% 6.6% 30.3% 49.9% 15.7% 13.4% Presidio 4,167 5,160 23.8% n/a 464 1314 1778 105 679 328 417 186 11.1% 31.5% 42.7% 7.7% 34.3% 71.0% 40.4% 14.4% Redford 132 126 -4.5 n/a 32 29 61 - 9 14 23 6 24.2% 22.0% 46.2% - 17.6% 51.9% 65.7% 13.6% Texas 20,851,820 25,010,235 19.9% 32,736,716 2,072,532 4,921,608 6,994,136 410,156 2,315,414 879,978 632,696 548,125 9.9% 23.6% 33.5% 7.9% 19.9% 44.0% 12% 7.4% Source: 1U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 2Texas State Data Center, Texas Population Estimates, November 2010 3Texas State Data Center, Texas Population Projections, February 2009 Amounts in red represent values greater than State rate

Page 18

The communities of Socorro, San Elizario, Clint, Fabens, and Tornillo similarly lie along a line at short intervals southeast of El Paso along the Rio Grande. Only Clint had a relatively high percentage of persons over 65 years of age, but all had a very high incidence of families living below poverty, with Fabens and San Elizario at poverty rates of 41.2% and 40.2% respectively. Ft. Hancock, just a few miles south but in Hudspeth County, had a higher poverty rate at 44.6%. While only Clint had a high percentage of elderly persons, the percentage of its elderly with a disability is low, but nearby San Elizario, Socorro and Tornillo have a very high percentage of the elderly that have a disability at 67.4%, 52.6% and 58.5% compared to the state rate of 44%. Both San Elizario and Socorro are growing more rapidly than the state growth rate of 19.9%.

The community of Horizon City also southeast but north of I-10 has the highest growth rate in the region at 179.0%. Horizon City has a very low incidence of persons below poverty and other transit dependent populations except persons aged 5-19 which is likely a function of the rapid rate of growth in this ex-urban community.

The City of El Paso exceeds the state average for every transit dependent population except persons ages 5-20 with a disability. While its growth rate is estimated to be just above half the state average (which is based on historical growth trends) the dynamics associated with conditions in Ciudad Juarez and northern Mexico combined with the impact of Ft. Bliss growth is very likely understated.

Among the rural counties, only Jeff Davis County along with the communities of Ft. Davis and Presidio grew more rapidly than the state average. With rare exception, however; communities in the rural counties exceed the state average for all transit dependent populations. Every community except Terlingua/Study Butte have more families living below poverty than the state average and most exceed the state percentage with no vehicle available. Unlike El Paso and its surrounding cities, with just over the state average of persons over 65, nearly every rural community and all of the county rates for this group exceed the state average. Like El Paso County, every rural county and most of their cities had a high incidence of persons with disabilities in the working ages between 21-64. Apart from their higher incidence in the population, long distances and the nature of rural poverty likely exacerbates the transportation challenges the elderly and poor families’ face, which understates the impact of these statistics.

4. Population Density, Growth and Development Patterns

Table II displays the huge differences in population density between the urban El Paso (748.5 persons/sq mile) and the eastern counties (0.7 to 2.1 persons/sq mile). While several eastern county communities are growing more rapidly than the El Paso and state rate, they are tiny by comparison and will not likely change much in relative density or absolute population for many years or generations to come. As such, no community in the eastern counties is expected to grow to become even a “small urban” population center for transportation funding purposes. Nevertheless, the growth in Presidio (23.8%) and Ft. Davis (37.7%) and their proximity to employment

Page 19

and education opportunities in Marfa and Alpine warrant the consideration of scheduled fixed route service to augment the current demand-response between those communities. Since the rural population of the Upper Rio Grande region is increasing, the 2010 Census will likely have an impact on §5311 rural transit formula funding for the region. However, the amount of this growth relative to the overall growth of the rural Texas population and the impact of existing rural areas being absorbed into small urban or urbanized areas will determine the outcome of federal transportation funding levels.

In southeast El Paso County, rapid growth in San Elizario (23.6%) and Socorro (20.6%) along with the explosive growth of Horizon City (179.0%) will continue to place demands on El Paso County’s rural transit services. Annexations by the City of El Paso in recent years, particularly toward the east, allow Sun Metro to serve those areas but lines and service have not always kept pace with population growth and annexations. Estimates of El Paso city population growth of 10.9% are most certainly understated given the expansion of Ft. Bliss and timing of the census. Data from the 2010 Census will nevertheless be used to recalculate rural, small urban and urbanized transportation funding. A possible result of the loss of rural §5311 funds for the El Paso County system will result from the expansion of the El Paso urbanized area into the current rural area. Ironically, the UAZ expansion will probably not include the three most rapidly growing areas, leaving them beyond the reach of the urban fixed- route system and eligible for service only from the El Paso County rural system at a time it may be losing resources.

5. Inter-Regional and Inter-National Travel Dynamics and Patterns

In El Paso city and county, there is an enormous impact from border crossings with Juarez in addition to the large number of commuters between El Paso, Las Cruces and White Sands. The recent resolution of NAFTA related international trucking regulations is expected to greatly impact border crossings and, while not directly impacting public transportation, may have an indirect impact from the increased level of economic activity expected as a result. Air quality is of great concern in El Paso given its proximity to the relatively unregulated Juarez. Reducing the number of private autos crossing the border between the two cities is one way to minimize pollution. Customs and border enforcement practices exacerbated by national security concerns create long lines of idling vehicles. Increased use of public transportation either crossing the border itself or in close proximity to both sides of the ports of entry could go a long way to improving air quality and congestion in the area.

The small populations of the communities in the eastern counties deprives their residents of many large city amenities including medical specialists, complex medical treatments, commercial airports and much retail shopping. As a result, many rural residents must commute to El Paso or Midland-Odessa for many of these and other services. As their population grows, more such travel will occur. In addition, the growing popularity of the rural communities as leisure and retirement destinations creates an opportunity for car-less and eco-tourism travel. The recent addition of

Page 20

general public transportation services in the five eastern counties adds an important element to the ground transportation infrastructure, including frequent trips to the El Paso and Midland Airports, but most of the inter-regional trips provided by the current operator, Big Bend Community Action, have very early departures and do not operate on weekends. The only inter-city transportation alternatives are two inter-city bus lines, All Aboard America and Greyhound. All Aboard America operates two daily north-bound and south-bound trips between Presidio and MAS with stops in Marfa and Alpine. However, Greyhound maintains only one stop in the region in Van Horn. Amtrak operates the Sunset Limited through the region with stops only in Alpine and El Paso. The addition of Greyhound stops in Sierra Blanca and possibly Ft. Hancock and an Amtrak stop in Marfa would greatly increase inter-city transportation options for residents of those communities, especially if inter-lined with local public transportation.

B. Mobility Needs Assessment

A foundation of this plan is the assessment of mobility needs of the region’s residents with particular emphasis on the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with low incomes or receiving public assistance, persons served by the regional workforce preparation system, children and others deemed to be more transit dependent than the general population. Transportation needs identified in this assessment will be evaluated against the Inventory of Transportation Resources to identify service gaps, redundancies and other issues that inform system planning, development and other requirements that impact the goal of universal mobility.

1. Assessment Approach and Methodology

This needs assessment relied on a range of existing data sources and original research conducted for this plan. Apart from regional geographic and demographic data, the needs assessment examined 2-1-1 system call logs, the independently developed Community Action Plans compiled by the two Community Action Agencies that serve the region, a needs assessment developed by the Rural Border Health Initiative through the El Paso County Hospital District, news articles related to local transportation issues, and state and national transportation literature for the identification of common themes and insights that might bear on transit issues in far west Texas.

The original research was conducted through a combination of a written survey and face-to-face interviews with executive directors and senior management of 35 individual health and human services organizations that serve the region, including the regional Workforce Development Board and all of the various component agencies of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The written survey (included as Attachment I) was prepared by Lead Agency staff with in-put from a regional coordination plan workgroup and included questions on agency clientele, services, and means of service provision; agency provided transportation and mode; client transportation needs; factors that limit client use of fixed-route and demand-

Page 21

responsive transportation; and the identification of time and location service needs.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with each survey respondent to review survey responses and delve deeper into client mobility needs and issues. The interviews allowed for a real time exchange of ideas and, importantly, the opportunity to ascertain the organization’s knowledge of transportation resources and programs and organizational or other complex factors that impact their use.

Finally, the results of an Accessible Transportation Coalition workshop facilitated by Easter Seals Project Action were incorporated into the needs assessment and represent the input and views of a broad array of persons throughout the region. While the focus of the two-day event was on transportation accessibility, numerous, more general needs and issues were identified that impact other transit dependent populations and the general public.

2. Needs Assessment Limitations

It is important to note that the surveys and interviews were not conducted through a random sampling process and largely represents the views of managers serving various populations; therefore, the results lack statistical significance for making inference to the population in general. The surveys and follow-up interviews should rather be viewed as an information gathering process. An attempt was made to identify and survey every health and human service organization in the region that serves a transit dependent population. Most responded and every need or issue mentioned became a part of the needs assessment, regardless of its frequency across multiple organizations. Commonly identified issues or needs were highlighted, but all needs were recorded even if the issue did not occur to multiple organizations.

In addition, responses may have been clouded by the perceptions, biases and personal experiences of the respondents. Follow up interviews helped to introduce a common lexicon so there was a consistent use of transit terms and definitions. The interviews also helped to dispel commonly held myths about public transportation which may have influenced responses and to ask additional questions based on the role of the respondent. Many organizations involved multiple persons in formulating their response, expanding the perspective of the reply, and those additional persons were often involved in the interview as well.

Most of the demographic data used in this assessment is not ideally current and relies on the 2000 Census. The four-page Community Profiles prepared for each county and city in the region by the Census Bureau were used extensively to extract information that enumerated the incidence and proportion of transit dependent persons in the population or otherwise indicated the likelihood of transit dependency. The Texas Data Center at the University of Texas at San Antonio provided current population estimates and projections to 2020. Other socioeconomic and health resources data are much more current and derived from different Texas Department of State Health Services reports. Infrastructure and economic information was taken from a variety of reports prepared by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Original sources are

Page 22

cited where known.

Information on the region’s geography was similarly derived from a number of sources including, Sun Metro, the City of El Paso, the El Paso MPO, TxDOT and the Texas Comptroller.

3. Needs Assessment Findings and Analysis

Surveys of health and human service agencies and interviews with key staff in those organizations were conducted throughout the region to identify first hand the transportation and mobility issues faced by client of those organizations. While not every such organization could be surveyed, each division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was included as well as many non-profit organizations that provide services to populations deemed to be transit dependent. Given the differences in the geography and public transportation systems between the urban area of El Paso with its much higher density and highly visible, fixed-route transit service and the sparsely populated rural area with its long distances between cities and demand-response only public transportation, the survey results were necessarily divided between these areas.

More that 35 health and human services organizations provided time, data and insight for this needs assessment. Many of these organizations are part of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission system of agencies. Others are independent, private, usually non-profit organizations, serving persons with low income, persons with disabilities, the elderly, victims of violence or other groups. A list of these agencies and contact information is included as Attachment II.

Urban Fixed-Route Findings:

The most commonly sited factors that limit use of the urban fixed-route system were hours of service, pathways to bus stops, frequency of buses, cost, and route location. Additionally, the surveys and interviews identified issues associated with route markings, stop announcements, difficult to read system map, and to a lesser degree driver attitude. Several respondents also identified the logistical difficulty many experience relying on the fixed-route system for commuting to work, especially if a parent or care giver must first get a child to childcare. Additionally, many of those surveyed identified areas both within the city limits and in the rural parts of the county that they felt had no or inadequate services. Urban based fixed-route findings include:

 Bus service begins too late and ends too early

 Too few buses service each route resulting in insufficient frequency

 Bus fares are too high resulting in a large share of disposable income devoted to transportation or service completely inaccessible for lack of income

Page 23

 The distance to the nearest stop is too far in many areas of the city

 Bus stop signs are difficult to see

 The route system map is difficult to read

 Stop announcements provide too little orientation information for passengers with limited sight

 The system route design requires many passengers to have to transfer to one or more other buses to reach a destination, resulting in extremely long trip times

 Insufficient number of buses and routes provide express service resulting in long trip times

 Use of fixed-route service leaves victims of domestic violence vulnerable to attack

 Use of buses with strollers, diaper bags and multiple children very difficult especially with multiple stops or transfers

 Many persons inexperienced or intimidated by use of buses and require orientation or travel training which could be provided directly or through health and human service organizations

 Inadequate service hours and frequency in El Paso County rural communities which is site of many low-income families and housing placements

 Some newly annexed areas of the City of El Paso are not receiving fixed route service

Urban Demand-Response Findings:

Overwhelmingly, the most frequently cited issue limiting use of the urban demand- response system was awareness of the service and how to access it. Where there was knowledge of at least one demand-response service (most typically Sun Metro’s LIFT) respondents were often unaware of other services. There were frequent responses citing the advance notice requirement, the length of time between scheduling a trip and when the trip occurs and delays with the eligibility determination process as factors limiting use. Much less frequently, respondents noted pick up delays and driver attitude (for which there were an equal number of complements of driver sensitivity and professionalism.) Urban based demand- response findings include:

 Lack of knowledge and confusion about all the demand-response options and how to access each

 Eligibility determination process too complex and redundant to other eligibility-

Page 24

based demand-response services

 Advance scheduling requirement limits mobility

Rural System Findings:

Most transportation services provided in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties are provided by a single provider. General public transportation, which was introduced in 2007, has grown slowly since that time as the provider has built a fleet to serve the 22,000 square mile service area. Lack of awareness was overwhelmingly the most frequently cited factor limiting use of the various transit services in the rural counties; in fact, many respondents were completely unaware of the availability of general public transportation services. Many of these respondents knew about the Medical Transportation Program but assumed that all transportation services were limited to Medicaid recipients. Beyond awareness, survey respondents most frequently identified the early hours of trip departures followed by infrequency of trips, prior notice requirements, wait times for trip returns cost and dispatcher and driver attitude. Many were highly complementary of the service stating that it was providing mobility for scores of persons that were previously dependent on others for their mobility and believed the cost to be very reasonable given the distances traveled. Nevertheless, most respondents felt that trip availability outside of very early hours was a big factor limiting use of the services. Several respondents suggested more scheduled fixed-route service, in particular a route linking Presidio with Marfa and Marfa with Alpine. Rural findings include:

 Advance scheduling requirement limits mobility and precludes use of system for emergency or unanticipated needs

 Service too costly for some low-income residents not eligible for subsidized service or Medical Transportation Program

 Residents not aware of services, especially general public transportation, or believe services are limited to specific eligible populations

 Many trips begin too early and have long layovers precluding use for mid-day appointments or other purposes

 Too few time of service options to destination or return

 Service provider does not provide passes or tokens for organizations to issue to eligible clients

 Access to private auto preferable to bus service for residents of very remote communities that must make multiple shopping stops at destination to obtain supplies, etc.

Table V displays recent Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), State

Page 25

Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid enrollment levels in the region along with related socioeconomic indicators and health resources. The data confirms much of the need identified in the Needs Assessment. Every county in the region exceeds the state rate of persons without health insurance, and ratio of population to doctors and dentists. In addition, none of the eastern counties has family planning or DSHS Childrens’ Health Services available. Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties have no hospitals and therefore all hospital births to residents must occur outside of their county of residence. Although Culberson County has a small community hospital in Van Horn, its resident births in county ratio is only 2.2% compared with El Paso of 99.5%. The lack of in-county health resources combined with a high number of residents receiving public assistance indicates a lack of medical provider options and the need to travel long distances to obtain medical services.

Page 26

Table V: Socioeconomic Indicators and Regional Health Resources

Socioeconomic Indicators Health Resources

s. Available

TANF Monthly Ave. SNAP Monthly Ave. Medicaid Unduplicated Enrollment CHIP Monthly Ave. Medicaid Births Insurance Health Without Poverty Below Persons Physicians Care Direct Ratioof Population to D.C. MD Dentists Ratioof Population to Dentist Population 100,000 to Pharmacists of Ratio Hospital Care Acute Beds Staffed Hospital Beds Home Nursing Licensed County) in Births (Resident Ratio Service Birth Title VXXFamily & Planning Available Svc Health Childrens DSHS Brewster 21 699 1,842 57 59 50.9% 2,449 1,503 10 905 2 4,527 233.8 1 36 56 74.8 No No 32.9% 17.3% Culberson 20 463 778 44 27 881 601 3 945 0 <> 0 1 25 0 2.2 No No 77.1% 42.6% 24.3% El Paso 9,381 143,905 210,741 13,316 9,025 216,352 204,927 761 919 120 5,830 46.6 11 1,778 1,456 99.5 Yes Yes 62.6% 33.0% 28.4% Hudspeth 1 423 874 52 18 36.7% 1,292 1,055 0 <> 0 <> 0 0 0 0 <> No No 48.5% 32.4% Jeff Davis 0 42 346 20 9 782 287 1 2,167 0 <> 0 0 0 0 <> No No 56.3% 44.3% 13.1% Presidio 99 2,118 2,564 95 89 53.9% 2,509 1,820 1 7,657 0 <> 0 0 0 0 <> No No 40.8% 24.4% Texas 135,947 2,328,702 4,438,080 312,114 228,202 26.80% 16.30% 32,281 661 7,561 2,820 78.7 470 56,898 125,864 78.4 n/a n/a 56.2% Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, Center for Health Statistics – 2007, 2009 Ratio not calculated for a category with zero providers as indicated by <> Amounts in red represent values greater than the state average or ratio

Page 27

4. Accessible Transportation Coalition

In early 2008, Sun Metro applied to Easter Seals Project Action to participate in their national accessible transportation coalition initiative. El Paso was selected as a project site and Easter Seals helped to organize and provided a professional facilitator and two assistants to conduct a two-day planning event in El Paso. Nearly twenty individuals attended the highly structured event representing area disability advocacy organizations, local government and transportation providers. For the purposes of this needs assessment, a significant outcome of the Coalition event was the identification of “needs and urgent issues.” The identified needs were grouped by fixed-route, paratransit and accessible pathway issues listed below.

Fixed-Route Service

 Not all routes fully accessible routes

 Increasing fares unaffordable to some riders

 Service hours too limited

 Service frequency too limited

 Service coverage leaves some areas un-served or too distant to nearest stop

 Some routes inefficient with many dead ends

 Route announcements need to include landmarks and transfer points

 Accessibility limited for persons who are blind or visually impaired

 More passenger shelters are needed

 The system should attempt to broaden use by people of all income levels

 Services in rural areas inadequate; hours, frequency and coverage

 Printed schedules quickly outdated and outdated schedules still being distributed

 Lack of easy transfer between county and city buses

Paratransit Service

 Drivers need more experience and training in the myriad issues faced by passengers with disabilities

 No-show policy in need of reform

 Eligibility determination process should be simplified and streamlined

Page 28

 Greater coordination between Medical Transportation Program and Paratransit system could result in better utilization of resources and reduce impact of riders scheduling both for same trip

 Scheduling process is difficult for some riders

 Advance notice process limits mobility

 Improved statewide paratransit coordination could allow better mobility across service boundaries

 Greater public acceptance of paratransit services should be promoted

 Transit center monitors mounted too high and difficult to read

 Better public awareness of New Freedom program and it’s availability 24/7

 More accessible taxi cabs should be subcontracted to augment paratransit services

Accessible Pathways

 Not all sidewalks leading to bus stops are accessible

 Audible signals should be installed for persons with limited vision

 Not all shelters are fully accessible

While most of these issues focus on accessibility for persons with disabilities, many are universal in their applicability to mobility for all persons and underscore that fact that most persons at some point experience disability related mobility challenges and benefit from a fully accessible public transportation system.

5. Alignment with Other Needs Assessments and Locally Relevant Transportation Studies

The community action agencies serving the region, Project Bravo serving El Paso County and Big Bend Community Action serving the rural counties are required to conduct a needs assessment every two years and prepare a Community Action Plan (CAP). The needs assessment of both organizations is an open ended attempt to assess the broad range of issues faced by people in their service areas, particularly low income individuals and families. Even though the assessment was not focused on transportation, in both assessments adequate transportation and childcare were identified as the top two priorities of low income residents. The Project Bravo needs assessment determined that 50% of the low income clients served by the agency report having no car available. Unfortunately, neither assessment explored the issue in any greater detail, but its identification as a top priority emphasizes the importance of transportation and suggests a significant unmet need among this population.

A regional needs assessment conducted by the Rural Border Health Initiative, a project of the County of El Paso Hospital District but covering all six counties,

Page 29

likewise identified transportation as a significant unmet need among the persons surveyed. This needs assessment focused primarily on a broad spectrum of health issues, but lack of adequate transportation was identified as a barrier to accessing needed health services. The finding illuminates the census characteristic of the high percentage of households in the rural communities reporting no or only one car available and its health impact when services are located in a distant community. This impact is often felt economically when a working adult may loose a day’s pay to take a spouse or child to a doctor in a distant city or worse, experience an unfavorable health outcome when care or treatment is neglected because of the transportation barrier. In addition to health care practitioners being at some distance to most remote communities, Alpine in Brewster County is the location of the only commercial pharmacy in all of Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties.

El Paso 2-1-1 call logs were also analyzed to determine the degree to which the information and referral service encountered transportation related inquiries. In a sample 69 day period, 175 such inquiries were made, equating to approximately 875 inquiries in a year. Of those, 87% were asking about transportation to medical services, 8% for local public transportation and 1.7% for disability related transportation information. The remaining 3% were inquiries about inter-city travel or characterized as other. While relatively small in numbers, the El Paso 2-1-1 system is rather new and many residents are aware of the highly visible Sun Metro system and much more often make inquiries to that system’s call center. Nevertheless, the 2-1-1 logs indicate a significant need to more widely inform the public about medical transportation options.

In May 2011, The Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution published a report, Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America, which analyzed data from 371 transit providers to assess the accessibility of jobs by public transit in the nation’s largest 100 metropolitan areas, including El Paso. Seven percent of workers in these metropolitan areas rely on some form of public transportation and eleven percent of lower-income persons rely on public transit to get to work. The Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program developed a database of schedule, stops and geospatial data for all transit systems combined with census block-level information on income and employment to provide the first comparable, detailed look at transit coverage and connectivity across and within the nation’s major metro areas. Examining the working –age population (18 to 64 years old), the study measured coverage: the share of working-age residents living in block groups with access to at least one transit stop within ¾ mile of their population weighted center; service frequency: the median “headway” or wait time of morning rush hour transit services in a block group weighted by their working-age population; and, job access: the share of metropolitan jobs the typical working-age resident can reach via transit in under 90 minutes.

El Paso had a 94.3% over all coverage metric, the fourth best rank of the 100 areas studied. Ranking less well at 71st, El Paso had an overall service frequency of 17.2 minutes. For job access, El Paso ranked a middling 52nd with 29.4% of all jobs accessible by transit. Table VI depicts all the transit accessibility metrics for El Paso

Page 30

and other selected locations.

Table VI: Transit Accessibility Metrics for El Paso and Selected Cities Metro Area Coverage Service Frequency (minutes) Job Access Combined Low Middle High Low Middle High Low Middle High Access All Income Income Income All Income Income Income All Income Income Income Rank (%) Rank (%) (%) (%) (%) Rank (%) (%) (%) (%) Rank (%) (%) (%) El Paso 19 94.3 4 96.9 87.6 99.1 17.2 71 13.4 17.3 19.3 29.4 52 36.1 28.9 24.9 Albuquerque 7 73.1 29 82.4 70.3 68.4 14.0 50 11.4 14.7 15.1 52.9 7 59.0 51.3 48.7 Portland O 12 83.5 13 98.8 84.0 70.5 7.4 8 6.1 6.9 11.7 39.9 16 46.9 40.1 31.8 Tucson AZ 4 73.1 30 94.2 79.9 49.8 9.2 20 8.0 9.1 13.8 57.2 5 68.0 58.6 38.2 McAllen TX 86 53.3 67 38.5 51.0 72.0 58.4 100 62.8 58.4 56.5 16.6 91 15.2 16.0 17.5 Source: Brooking Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program, Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America, May 2011

Nationally, low-income neighborhoods tended to enjoy greater access to transit than those characterized by higher-income, a trend slightly less true in El Paso where low and middle -income neighborhoods have higher service frequency and job access. Given the greater reliance on public transportation by lower-income individuals (especially for job commuting) transit coverage, frequency and job access are particularly important for this population.

Metropolitan vs. suburban population growth patterns, the decentralization of employment (nearly half of all jobs in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas are located more than 10 miles outside of downtowns) and the suburbanization of poverty (which are traditionally less well served by transit) are all trends that will continue to challenge El Paso’s City and County fixed route transit systems. Meanwhile, based on the Brookings study, in order to assure the greatest possible access to jobs, particularly for El Paso’s lower-income residents, the City’s and County’s fixed route systems should consider increasing service frequency as a priority.

A similar study, Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options: Fixing the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby Boom Generation, was prepared by Transportation for America in 2011 and relied on an analysis by the Center for Neighborhood Technology of the adequacy of public transportation services for senior citizens in 241 metropolitan areas, including El Paso. With the first year of the baby boom generation (defined as those born between the years 1947 and 1964) entering retirement next year and the increase of seniors who choose to “age in place,” the study examines the availability of public transportation in the context of the post World War II rise of suburban communities. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, the elderly are less likely to change residence than any other population group (from 2008 to 2009, only 3.4% of older persons moved as opposed to 13.8% of the under 65 population). While most persons 65 and older lived in metropolitan areas in 2009 (80.6%), 72% of these older persons lived outside the principal cities and 19% of older persons lived in nonmetropolitan areas17.

Given this growing senior population in more car-dependent suburban and rural communities (a pattern reflected in both El Paso and the entire Upper Rio Grande region) and with the percent of the Texas population age 65 and older projected to more than double by 203018, seniors will increasingly find their mobility restricted unless public transportation properly adapts to this demographic and geographic

Page 31

change in our population.

In addition to the natural decline in driving of seniors as they age, seniors living on fixed incomes find car ownership a challenging proposition. According to AAA (formerly the American Automobile Association) in a report entitled Your Driving Costs 2011, the average cost of owning an automobile and driving between ten and fifteen thousand miles ranges from $7,600 and $8.700 based on an average fuel cost of $2.88 per gallon19. With the median income of older persons in 2009 only $25,877 and increasing uncertainty associated with the Social Security System (which represents more than 90% of the income received by a third of beneficiaries) reliance on public transportation will increase for this population.20

Seniors show a strong preference for communities that support walking and provide public transportation according to AARP which found that 70% of respondents aged 65 and older to a recent survey agreed that being near where they want to go was extremely or very important. Unfortunately, many suburban, exurban and rural neighborhoods are not within walking distance to grocery stores, doctor’s offices, community centers or religious organizations.21

The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) developed a Transit Access Index (TAI) to measure transit levels and intensity by Census block group using a ¼ mile buffer around each fixed-route bus stop. TAI results were categorized as poor, medium and good. To compare metropolitan areas CNT grouped areas of similar population levels. Within the metropolitan area group with 250,000 to 1 million people, only two other communities (Honolulu and Jersey City) had a smaller projected percentage of population age 67 to79 with poor transit access in 2015. Nevertheless, 13,738 persons, or 16% of this age group, were determined to have poor transit access compared to 85% for McAllen, 83% for Brownsville, 49% for Tucson and 42% for Albuquerque.22 While only a relatively few El Paso elderly live beyond the ¼ mile buffer zone to a stop, the study assumes the elderly are nevertheless able to use fixed-route bus service. Being of advanced years does not imply disability, but the reality is that the harsh West Texas climate does make use of fixed-route bus service very difficult if not impossible for many elderly persons, implying a mobility solution beyond a nearby bus stop.

To address the mobility needs of seniors, the Transportation for America report recommends that “communities, local elected officials and planners must confront the assumption that people [would] always be able to rely on the automobile as their primary mode of transport” and “must begin to think creatively about how to combine standard fixed-route service with alternative transportation programs.”23

In a report prepared in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration entitled Sizing and Serving Urban Gaps in Texas, the Texas Transportation Institute analyzed the differences between urban transportation provider service areas and the urbanized area boundary upon which

Page 32

federal urban transportation funding is based. According to the report:

Federal and state funding is largely distributed based upon federally defined geographic areas—urbanized areas or non-urbanized (rural) areas. For urban transit districts, federal and state funding is based upon characteristics of the entire urbanized area.

However, the transit provider in an urbanized area often has a service area boundary that differs from the urbanized area boundary. In some instances, transit is operated as part of city government and is confined to the city limits, although the urbanized area extends beyond the city limits. In other cases, portions of an urbanized area have not approved a local option tax to support a regional transit authority. This results in “urban gaps”—portions of an urbanized area that are outside the urban transit provider’s service area.

The largest FTA formula program is the 49 U.S.C. Section 5307 Urbanized Area program, which represents about 57 percent of all FTA formula funds. An urbanized area (UZA) contains a population of 50,000 or greater as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce after each decennial census.

Since service area boundaries for transit operators are not required to match the boundaries of the urbanized area, gaps in service can occur. In much of Texas it is not uncommon for those boundaries to not match, which is the case in El Paso as well. This lack of service and urbanized area alignment can be the result of local decisions related to transit funding. As the TTI report states, “in the large urban areas in Texas (other than Lubbock and McAllen/Hidalgo County), transit is financially supported through a local option sales tax dedicated to transit. The service area for the transit authority is created based upon the areas that vote to tax themselves for the service.”

The TTI report identified portions of urbanized areas not within the service area of urban transit service providers (Sun Metro in El Paso) by comparing the boundaries of urbanized areas in Texas with the boundaries of the service area of each urban provider. The areas of overlap were considered served markets, whereas the portions of urbanized areas outside the boundaries of the urban provider service area were defined as urban gaps.

This analysis was based upon two sets of maps for each urbanized area. The first map was a 2000 map of the urbanized areas derived from 2008 U.S. Census TIGER/Line® Files. The second map was a 2010 map of the urbanized areas derived from population projections and their allocation to census block geographies developed for TxDOT Research Report 0-6199-1 Estimated Impact of the 2010 Census on the Texas Transit Funding Formula. Researchers overlaid the geographic boundaries of the urban transit service providers provided to TTI. This overlay delineated the urban gap areas for each urbanized area in Texas for 2000 and 2010.

Page 33

In order to quantify the size and population of urban gap areas, as well as the demographic data associated with assessing transit needs, researchers performed census block group-level calculations for each urbanized area containing an urban gap. Calculations associated with the Amarillo urbanized area will be used to illustrate the process.

The report concluded that “the largest urban gap populations are found in the major metropolitan areas: Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso. Although each of these areas has a major transit authority/agency funded by a local sales tax, the transit operators’ service areas exclude major population areas.” Table VII displays population and urban gap population characteristics for El Paso and the urbanized transit areas with populations closest to that of El Paso.

Table VII: Population and Urban Gap Characteristics for El Paso and Selected Ares, 2010 Area Projected Urban Gap % Urban Gap Urban Gap Urban Gap Urban Gap Urban Gap Population Population Population in Population Workers >16 Population>5 Population 20101 Estimate2 Urbanized > 65 yrs2 yrs with transit yrs with at with Known Area2 need2 least one Poverty Status Disability2 at >150% Poverty Level2 El Paso 714,000 126,370 17.7% 6,022 10,560 20,222 61,123 Austin 1,183,000 210,433 17.8% 9,125 13,959 22,119 15,943 Denton- 432,000 154,536 35.8% 5,420 7,734 11,872 6,688 Lewisville San Antonio 1,567,000 195,945 12.5% 15,890 16,585 27,792 22,950 Source: 1RMC 0-6199-Estimated Impact of the 2010 Census on the Texas Transit Funding Formula 2 Urban Gap population and characteristic estimates calculated by the Texas Data Center, University of Texas as San Antonio

Detailed geographic and demographic characteristics for transit gaps in the El Paso urbanized area by block group appear in Appendix VII and a map depicting 2000 and 2010 El Paso urbanized area, service area and transit gaps appears in Appendix IV. In addition, since the population of the urbanized area is a key factor in determining both federal and state funding levels. Urbanized areas are re-defined each decade after the federal decennial census. According to the report, the 2010 Census will likely result in several changes, including the following:

1. The boundaries of current urbanized areas will likely expand farther away from the core city. Currently rural areas will become part of an urbanized area. Federal and state funds for rural areas cannot be used to provide service in newly urbanized areas. These newly urbanized areas will fall into a transit gap unless allocation of urbanized area funds is changed or new funding sources emerge.

2. Other areas that are currently part of non-urbanized (rural) areas could become new urbanized areas. A new small urbanized area will need to identify local funding to contribute as match for federal Section 5307 funds in order to preserve transit services in the newly urbanized area.

El Paso transportation planners should closely examine the data produced in this

Page 34

report and pay particular attention to identified census block groups with significant gaps when considering fixed-route or other service changes. Likewise, providers of demand-response service should ensure that these block groups are in their service area and that both consider carefully re-evaluate service coverage and service strategy in light of the 2010 census and potential impact on service gaps.

6. Needs Assessment Summary

In general, regional transportation needs fall into five distinct but related areas: service capacity, service area, service awareness, special service needs and internal service issues.

Hours of service for the El Paso urban fixed route system are viewed as beginning too late and ending too early. The frequency of service is deemed to be too low by many and some areas of the city are too distant to the nearest bus stop, or in the case of recently annexed areas, not served at all. Fixed route service in the rural part of El Paso County is likewise deemed to be too infrequent and offered during limited hours. Conversely, the rural counties’ transit provider is seen as starting inter-city trips too early, with insufficient mid-day service. These capacity issues are highly influenced by area population demographics and resource limitations. The area is experiencing a rapid population growth, largely influenced by Ft. Bliss, Homeland Security and other border issues which will likely continue to produce regional mobility challenges.

The characteristics of the regional population also influence demand for public transportation services. The region has a much higher proportion of transit dependent populations than the state as a whole, with persons between the ages of 5 and 19 and over 65; persons with disabilities; persons with low incomes and persons without a car available represented at much higher rates than the state averages.

The geography of the region also impacts public transportation. The crowding of the I-10 corridor in El Paso and the division of the city by the Franklin Mountains, the enormous Ft. Bliss military complex and proximity to Juarez, Mexico and the traffic it creates all present numerous logistical, land use, development and therefore transportation limitations and challenges for the urban area. Conversely, the sparsely populated rural counties, while among the fastest growing counties in Texas, nevertheless have small populations concentrated in a handful of cities that are unable to support much retail activity which results in long trips to access basic services and amenities.

Related to service capacity are special service needs. These are the mobility needs of persons in specific, often narrow service categories: victims of domestic violence unable to use unprotected public transit services; single parents with multiple young children; residents of extremely remote areas of low population density; persons

Page 35

intimidated by public transportation or who have a disability that requires special accessibility assistance. To this group should be added, those persons dependent on paratransit or other demand-response services who are required to schedule trips well in advance. Advance scheduling requirements are fundamental to the efficient operation of a demand-response service but necessarily limit personal mobility. Each of these special needs requires close examination and offers the potential for service innovation.

The issue of service awareness is common to both urban and rural systems and reflects the recent introduction of many specialized transportation programs and resources to the region. When service demand is already high, it is difficult for transit providers to devote more resources to marketing efforts. Nevertheless, there is available capacity throughout the system and the opportunity to attract eligible and willing riders who are currently unaware of the services or how to access them.

Finally, there is a category of need internal public transportation operations that would likely not appear in a public needs assessment but nevertheless directly impacts the level and quality of transit services. Prominent among these is the recruitment and retention of qualified drivers, especially in the rural counties. At times, the shortage reduces service capacity and impacts service reliability and ridership. In addition, operating costs continue to rise in an environment where ridership is also rising. While currently 25% below its peak, fuel costs are expected to skyrocket as the national economy recovers and international demand continues to grow. Market uncertainty and inadequate refining capacity combined with a long term increase in demand will likely cause fuel prices to return to peak levels, straining transit operations and potentially limiting services. Fare increases are extremely unpopular and already limit the use of public transportation by persons with very low or extremely low incomes. Social service providers are seeing their budgets cut and will be hard pressed to increase or even retain transportation benefits in their budgets.

7. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination

Each of the needs identified in this report will be included in the Updated Regional Transportation Coordinated Plan and compared to the Inventory of Transportation Resources. The resulting analysis will identify actions needed to address system gaps, growth, duplication, efficiency, and innovation. The Gap Analysis will also attempt to identify other opportunities to address system reforms through coordination and identify specific regional transportation coordination priorities and projects for Job Access Reverse Commute, New Freedom, State Planning Assistance, Rural Discretionary, Rural Transit Assistance Program, and Inter-City Bus and other rural and urban discretionary funding programs.

C. Inventory of Existing Transportation Resources

1. Summary of Transportation Inventory

The Far West Texas region is made up of Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties, an area of 24,000 square miles and bordered by the

Page 36

Permian Basin to the east, the Republic of Mexico to the south and the State of New Mexico to the north. The City of El Paso which occupies the extreme western tip of the region has a population of 625,085 and a density of 2,495 persons per square mile. The balance of El Paso County, outside the El Paso County city limits, has a population of 133,218 and a density of 175 persons per square mile. The five rural counties of the region have a combined population, area and density of 25,783 persons, 20,696 square miles, and 1.2 persons per square mile.

The City of El Paso is served by a municipal transportation department, called Sun Metro, and operates 55 urban fixed-routes and paratransit systems under section 5309 of the U.S. Transportation Code. Sun Metro also operates a route through a contract for service arrangement for Sunland Park, New Mexico and is the recipient of urbanized Job Access Reverse Commute funds to operate both fixed-route services along an enterprise zone corridor and a city-wide demand-response service called Jobs Express. The City of El Paso subcontracts the management of Sun Metro to First Transit, a private transportation company. The map in Attachment D plots Sun Metro fixed-routes to major area streets and most workforce centers, shelters, housing programs, public assistance intake offices, community action agency locations, hospitals and other organizations in El Paso County. The map in Attachment E displays the coverage of Sun Metro’s LIFT paratransit program.

The County of El Paso serves as a Rural Transit District (RTD) for the area of the County outside the El Paso city limits under section 5311 of the U.S. Transit Code. The County sub-contracts for the operation of one commuter service fixed route with Sun Metro and four commuter service fixed routes with Project Amistad, a private non-profit organization. The County is also the recipient of a TxDOT administered rural JARC grant and partners with New Mexico Department of Transportation to provide express motor-coach service between El Paso, Anthony and Las Cruces, New Mexico. The service is operated by All Aboard America, a for profit inter-city bus company.

The University of Texas at El Paso provides fixed route transportation services for its students, faculty and staff, also through a subcontract arrangement with First Transit, operating four fixed routes on and around the UTEP campus adjacent to El Paso’s downtown.

Project Amistad (PA) currently holds the contract with the Texas Department of State Health Services to operate the demand-responsive Medical Transportation Program (MTP) for the six counties of the region. PA directly operates the MTP in El Paso County and subcontracts with Big Bend Community Action Committee to operate the MTP program in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. PA operates one city-wide demand-response program using El Paso MPO administered urbanized JARC funds and one fixed route program using TxDOT administered rural JARC funds. PA also operates one city-wide, demand-response program with urbanized New Freedom funds administered by the El Paso MPO. Finally, PA provides transportation services for the El Paso Housing Authority and for clients of Project Bravo, a private non-profit community action agency and for El

Page 37

Paso County funded senior nutritional programs through a contract for service arrangements.

Big Bend Community Action Committee (BBCAC), headquartered in Marfa operates demand-responsive MTP and general public transportation services for Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties. The MTP services are provided as a subcontractor to PA and the general public transportation services are provided as a subcontractor to West Texas Opportunities, the Permian Basin RTD operator. BBCAC is also the recipient of a TxDOT administered JARC grant to provide transportation for residents of Presidio to travel to jobs and training. BBCAC operates mid-day services transporting elderly subscription passengers to congregate meals programs in Alpine and Marfa funded by the Area Agency on Aging, and is contracted by area churches to provide transportation for their services and events. While all of BBCAC’s transportation services operate on a door-to-door demand- responsive basis requiring advance scheduling, many trips occur on a regular and predictable basis.

Bienvivir Senior Health Services, a private non-profit comprehensive senior services organization provides transportation for its member clients in defined areas of the city and county of El Paso. While limited to its member clients, the organization provides all-inclusive services and operates an extensive transportation system which may represent a model for this important and growing population.

University Medical Center operates a patient shuttle service for out-patient and non- emergency hospital admissions and discharges for patients without other transportation. No other hospital in the region provides this service.

Aliviane No-Ad, Inc., as substance abuse treatment organization; Centro De Salud Familiar La Fe, a community health program; Bienvivir; LPA; Buena Vida Adult Day Care; University Medical Center; Nazareth Hall Nursing Center; and Good Samaritan Society – White Acres, in El Paso and Big Bend Community Action; Big Bend Regional Medical Center; the Cities of Marfa and Presidio in the rural counties have all received assistance through TxDOT’s Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled program to purchase vehicles and provided varied transportation services.

Viba Transportation is a private for-profit transportation company and provides AAA funded demand-responsive transportation services for eligible seniors and patient transportation services under service contracts with area medical providers.

Sun City Cab is a local taxi-cab operator that is contracted by the U.S. Army to provide service for Ft. Bliss. Sun City Cab also received a New Freedom grant, administered by the El Paso MPO, to provide accessible cab service that go beyond the ADA paratransit requirements for riders referred by the Sun Metro LIFT program.

El Paso is also served by Amtrak and Greyhound through their respective downtown terminals. Amtrak provides three east and west bound inter-city trips each week with stops only in Alpine and El Paso. Greyhound provides two east-bound, five northeast- bound, nine west-bound and three north-bound inter-city trips each day from El Paso.

Page 38

Both operators link to their national networks. El Paso-Los Angeles Limousine also provides motorcoach service with four west-bound departures, three north-bound and three south-bound (Ciudad Chihuahua) departures each day. Another private operator provided cross border service to Juarez every 90 minutes.

In addition to its commuter service on the El Paso/Anthony/Las Cruces Corridor, All Aboard America provides motor coach service between Presidio and Midland with two north-bound and two south-bound trips each day with stops in Marfa and Alpine in addition to adjacent region stops in Ft. Stockton, Crane, McCamey, Odessa, the Midland-Odessa Airport (MAS) and Midland. Greyhound operates east and westbound service along I-10 with Van Horn and El Paso its only stops in the region.

The region hosts the El Paso International Airport (ELP) with services provided by six commercial airlines with 62 scheduled flights each day and an active general aviation service. ELP is served by a Sun Metro fixed-route and three of the City’s five licensed cab companies with 96 permitted cabs. Public, general aviation airports in the region are located in Alpine, Dell City, Marfa, Horizon, Presidio and Van Horn with paved runways ranging from 4700 to 6200 feet in length. Presidio, Van Horn and Dell City are unstaffed facilities without fuel. Alpine, Horizon and Marfa are minimally staffed airports providing fuel, automated weather observing stations (AWOS) and other services. While not supporting general public transportation, general aviation airports afford an important resource for the rural communities especially by supporting air ambulance, fire suppression efforts, and business travel vital to the economies of remote rural communities. Their further development has the potential to improve these services and access to them by residents of the surrounding communities.

2. Approach and Inventory Methodology

Information for this Inventory was obtained directly from the transportation providers through a combination of written surveys, responses to follow-up questions and phone conservations. The purpose was to be as complete and comprehensive as possible, yet depict information in the clearest and most meaningful way for transportation coordination purposes. By their nature, public transportation resources are fluid and change depending on funding levels, program and/or contract terms, logistical considerations or ridership demands. Each transportation provider is discussed in some detail with the services provided outlined to avoid duplicate counts, since several programs are associated with one entity and operated by another. While each known transportation provider is individually profiled, a chart is also used to graphically depict transportation resources separately for the rural and urban areas. This separation is important given the vast differences in transportation needs, approaches, trip logistics and other concerns between the urban and rural communities. The profiles and charts rely heavily on the Transportation Inventory prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute in October 2010, but even for resources included in the TTI Inventory, additional information was collected and an attempt was made to update any information that may have changed.

Page 39

3. Inventory Limitations

Any inventory necessarily depicts resources in place at a point in time and therefore may not be an accurate picture at a future point. To address this concern, care was taken to provide some historical data to establish funding trends. Nevertheless, the future is unpredictable and the reader should attempt to verify information for more current periods. The current political environment also creates a large amount of uncertainty about future funding levels and therefore the level of local service, so even trend analysis may be an unreliable predictor of future resources.

4. Inventory Results and Analysis

General public transportation exists throughout the region with fixed-route and paratransit services available for most of the El Paso urbanized area, commuter service available in the rural communities of El Paso County and demand-response services available in the five eastern counties. Attachment D maps Sun Metro fixed route service along with the locations of most workforce, housing, public assistance intake locations, community action, emergency shelter, hospitals and other health and human services organizations in El Paso County. General public transportation is augmented by various Job Access Reverse Commute and New Freedom services in El Paso City and County and JARC services are available for a limited time for the residents of Presidio. In addition, the Area Agency on Aging provides Title III B & E funds to cover transportation operating expenses for organizations providing transportation for elderly persons and TxDOT has provided §5310 funds for the purchase of vehicles serving the elderly and persons with disabilities. These resources are often combined or §5310 capital fund recipients use general funds for the operation of their typically demand-response or subscription transportation programs.

The Upper Rio Grande region is served by the Medical Transportation Program which provides six day a week door-to-door, demand-response services in all six counties. Project Amistad is the regional contractor for the MTP and directly provides the service in El Paso County and Ft. Hancock. MTP services in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties are subcontracted to Big Bend Community Action which has operated the MTP continuously for over 25 years.

The eastern counties’ §5311 services resulted from recommendations found in the Far West Texas/Regional Transportation Coordination Plan submitted to TxDOT in December 2006 and follow-up coordination efforts conducted by the County of El Paso following the plan’s submission. Early efforts of the provider concentrated on developing a fleet and other infrastructure allowing limited service. As capital resources were secured, service levels have greatly increased with trips to Midland- Odessa and El Paso occurring almost every weekday in addition to local demand- response weekday service through the five eastern counties.

Several hospitals in the region provide patient pick up and discharge transportation services, with some providing demand-response service to non-hospital destinations. Some nursing homes and adult activity centers provide transportation for residents to and from day center activities and others do not, resulting in significant mobility

Page 40

disparities for residents or participants of programs without transportation services.

5. Inventory Projections

Transportation resource inventories are largely dependent on funding and difficult to predict, especially in the current politically charged atmosphere of state and federal budget deficits, a lingering recession and uncertainties associated with the U.S. Census driven transportation funding formulas. The recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allowed the purchase of numerous vehicles for several area transit providers. The replacement of numerous older vehicles reduced the average age of vehicles in their fleets. Table VI displays aggregate funding estimates for various transit programs through 2015 and Table VII displays their historical funding levels since 2006. Table VIII displays historical funding levels by year and recipient organization and Table IX displays Area Agency on Aging Title III funding by recipient.

Page 41

Table VI: Transit Program Funding Estimates

Transit Program FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 §5307 Urbanized Formula (Transportation Improvement Plan) 14,235,323 14,325,323 14,325,323 14,325,323 15,367,089 §5307 Urbanized Formula (operations & admin)¹ 54,041,591 54,041,591 54,041,591 54,041,591 54,041,591 §5307 Urbanized Formula (ADA paratransit)¹ 1,163,606 1,163,606 1,163,606 1,163,606 1,163,606 §5310 Elderly and Persons w/Disabilities¹ 318,529 318,529 318,529 318,529 318,529 §5311 Rural Formula El Paso County¹ 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 §5311 Rural Formula – Rural Counties ? ? ? ? ? §5316 Urbanized JARC¹ 1,173,518 745,565 745,565 745,565 782,843 §5317 Urbanized New Freedom¹ 311,186 214,855 214,855 214,855 225,598 Title II B Older Americans Act² 141,284 ? ? ? ? Title II E Older Americans Act² 33,688 ? ? ? ? Source: ¹ El Paso MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan ² Area Agency on Aging

Table VII: Transit Program Historical Funding

Transit Program FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 §5304 State Planning Assistance (Las n/a n/a n/a 257,803 n/a 1,170,233 Cruces/Anthony/El Paso Commuter Route) §5309/5311 VCR 58,750 n/a n/a 146,345 n/a n/a §5310 Elderly and Persons w/Disabilities¹ 264,409 206,958 271,210 318,529 284,989 §5311 Rural Formula El Paso County¹ 425,870 408,524 472,430³ 460,956 705,619 (8/09-12/11) 248,989 §5311 Planning (Mobility Management) n/a n/a n/a 20,000 n/a n/a §5311 Rural Formula – Rural Counties n/a n/a ? ? ? ? §5316 Rural JARC¹ n/a 1,315,265 737,643 628,276 §5317 Rural New Freedom¹ n/a n/a 1,312,033 n/a 657,882 674,237 Title II B Older Americans Act² ? ? ? ? 100,084 141,284 Title II E Older Americans Act² ? ? ? ? 43,931 33,688 ARRA n/a n/a n/a 320,000 ? n/a United We Ride (Driver Training) n/a n/a n/a 35,445 n/a n/a Source: ¹ TxDOT PTN, El Paso District ² Area Agency on Aging ³ Includes ITS Project

Page 42

Table VIII: Regional Transportation Funding by Year - DRAFT

Provider Funding Program Program Term Services Provided Area Served Service Mode Population Served Funding Amount 2006 El Paso County 5311 (state) 3/23/06 – 8/31/2011 Regional Coordination El Paso, Brewster, Service and service areas Public Transportation - $138,044 Public Transportation Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff among public Fixed Route $60,000 Service Plan Davis and Presidio transportation providers $60,000 Counties Planning El Paso County 5311 (state) 9/1/05-8/31/06 Both fixed route commuter El Paso County in Commuter and Fixed Public Transportation - $205,124 (Operating and bus service & paratransit Anthony, Montana Vista, Route Fixed Route Admin) transit service Horizon City, Fabens and Tornillo El Paso County 5311 (federal) 3/1/07-8/31/07 Both fixed route commuter El Paso County Commuter and Fixed Public Transportation - $220,746 (Operating & bus service & paratransit Route Fixed Route Admin) transit service Lutheran Social Service 5310 (ED) 3/15/06-8/31/07 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $89,890 (Capital) LULAC Project Amistad 5310 (ED) 3/15/06-8/31/07 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $174,519 (Capital) 2006 Total 1,007,073

2007 El Paso County 5311 (federal) 4/17/2007-8/31/08 Both fixed route Commuter El Paso County (Anthony, Commuter and Fixed Public Transportation $223,912 (Admin and Service & Paratransit Vinton, Westway, Route Operating) Service Canutillo, Montana Vista, Horizon City, Sparks, Socorro, Clint, Fabens and Tornillo) El Paso County 5311 (state) 10/6/06-8/31/07 Both fixed route Commuter El Paso County (Anthony, Commuter and Fixed Public Transportation $184,612 (Admin and Service & Paratransit Vinton, Westway, Route Operating) Service Canutillo, Montana Vista, Horizon City, Sparks, Socorro, Clint, San Elizario Fabens and Tornillo Nazareth Hall 5310 (federal) 4/11/2007-8/31/08 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $66,739 (Capital) LULAC Project Amistad 5310 (federal) 4/30/2007-8/31/08 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $66,741 (Capital) Lutheran Social Service 5310 (federal) 4/30/2007-8/31/08 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $66,739 (Capital) White Acres Good 5310 (federal) 4/30/2007-8/31/08 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Public Transportation $66,739 (Capital) Samaritan LULAC Project Amistad 5316 1/31/2007-1/31/09 JARC 1 El Paso County Colonias to fixed route WTW $364,890 (Capital, service and Demand Operating & Admin) Response LULAC Project Amistad 5316 8/25/2007-8/31/10 JARC 2 El Paso County Colonias to fixed route WTW $680,424 (Capital, service and Demand Operating & Admin) Response Big Bend Community 5316 (JARC) 10/12/2007-2/28/11 JARC 1 Brewster, Culberson, Demand Response WTW $269,951 (Capital, Action Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Operating) Presidio Counties

Page 43

2007 Total 1,990,747

2008 LULAC Project Amistad 5317 11/27/07 – 9/30/10 New Freedom 1 El Paso County Demand-Response Beyond ADA $567,690 (Capital & Operating) LULAC Project Amistad 5317 8/12/08 – 8/31/11 New Freedom 2 El Paso County (Anthony, Demand-Response Beyond ADA $735,343 (Capital, Canutillo, Clint, Fabens, Operating, PM & San Elizario, Tornillo, Marketing) Montana Vista, Sparks, Socorro, Vinton and Westway and surrounding communities LULAC Project Amistad 5310 05/02/08-08/31/09 Demand Response El Paso County Demand-Response Elderly and Disabled $176,210 (Capital) Lutheran Social Services 5310 05/02/08-08/31/09 Demand Response El Paso County Demand-Response Elderly and Disabled $50,000 (Capital) White Acres Good 5310 05/02/08-08/31/09 Demand Response El Paso County Demand-Response Elderly and Disabled $45,000 (Capital) Samaritan LULAC Project Amistad 5316 8/12/08 – 8/31/11 JARC 3 El Paso County (Socorro Demand-Response WTW $737,643 (Capital, and Montana) Operating, PM & Marketing) El Paso County 5311 09/11/07 – 8/31/08 Fixed Route El Paso County Commuter service: Public Transportation $171,448 (Operating) Anthony, Canutillo, Westway, Vinton, Montana Vista, Horizon, Fabens, Tornillo & Socorro El Paso County 5311 (federal) 3/3/08-7/01/10 ITS Project El Paso County ITS technology evaluation Public Transportation - $300,982 (Operating and and integration deployment Fixed Route Admin) with other social service/transit agencies. 2008 Total 2,784,316

2009 El Paso County 5311 (State) 08/15/08-08/31/09 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route Public Transportation $195,189 (Operating) service El Paso County 5311 (VCR) 3/20/09-8/31/10 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route Public Transportation $265,767 (Operating & service Admin) El Paso County 5304 (PLN) 8/12/09-11/30/10 Interstate commuter bus El Paso County and New Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $257,803 (Planning service between el Paso Mexico service Expense) and Las Cruces NM El Paso County 5311 (ARRA) 06/30/09-12/31/10 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route Commuter Public Transportation $320,000 (Capital) service Service El Paso County 5311 (VCR) 02/06/09-08/31/10 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $79,000 (Capital) service service El Paso County 5311 (VCR) 06/30/09-12/31/10 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $67,345 (Capital) service service

Page 44

El Paso County 5311 (PLN-Coordinated 08/10/09-08/31/10 Implementation of the El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $20,000 (Admin) Call) mobility management service project El Paso Community 5304 (UWR) 08/14/09-08/31/10 Bus Driver Training El Paso County and Rural Training Public Transportation $35,445 (training) College Areas LULAC Project Amistad 5310 (ED) 03/13/09-08/31/10 Demand Response El Paso County Demand Response Elderly/Disabled $318,529 (Capital) 2009 Total 1,559,078

2010 Lutheran Social Services 5310 05/07/10-08/31/11 Demand Response El Paso County Demand-Response Elderly/Disabled $51,679 (Capital) LULAC Project Amistad 5310 04/22/10-08/31/11 Demand Response El Paso County Demand-Response Elderly/Disabled $79,310 (Capital) West Texas Opportunities 5310 05/03/10-08/31/11 Demand Response Rural Areas Demand-Response Elderly/Disabled $154,000 (Capital, Purchase of Service & PM) LULAC Project Amistad 5317 09/23/09-08/31/12 Beyond ADA (NF 3) El Paso County Expand the current NF Elderly/Disabled $657,882 (PM, Capital and program services to more Operating) locations LULAC Project Amistad 5316 04/09/10-05/31/12 JARC 4 El Paso County Expand the current NF Elderly/Disabled $628,276 (Capital, program services to more Operating and PM) locations El Paso County 5311 (State) 08/31/09-08/31/10 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $245,617 (Operating and service Service Admin) El Paso County 5311 (Federal) 12/7/09-08/31/11 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $97,621 (Operating) service Service El Paso County 5311 (Federal) 05/17/10-12/31/11 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $362,381(Operating and service Service Admin) 2010 Total 2,276,766

2011 El Paso County 5311 (Federal) 09/09/10-08/31/11 Fixed route commuter bus El Paso County Fixed Route commuter Public Transportation $248,989 (Operating) service Service LULAC Project Amistad 5317 (NF 4) 05/17/10-12/31/11 Expand the current NF El Paso County Expand the current NF Beyond ADA $147,636(Capital) Pending services to more locations program services to more $ 526,601 analysis comp locations El Paso County 5316 (JARC l) 09/02/10-05/31/13 Commuter Service El Paso County and New Commuter Service Public Transportation $1,170,233(Operating) Mexico El Paso County 5311 (state) 5/10/10 – 8/31/11 Regional Coordination El Paso, Brewster, service and service areas Public Transportation - $89,796 (Planning Public Transportation Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff among public Fixed Route Expense) Service Plan Davis and Presidio transportation providers Counties 2011 Total 2,183,255

Page 45

Table IX: Rio Grande Council of Governments – Area Agency on Aging Transportation Support

PROVIDER PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM TERM LOCATION SERVED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MODE HOURS/DAYS OF ELIGIBILITY FUNDING TRIPS PROVIDED SERVICE(S) SERVICE SOURCE/LEVEL per YEAR (10/09 – PROVIDED 7/10) LULAC Project 10/1/09-09/30/10 El Paso County Medical Demand Response Provider’s hours of Persons 60+ Title III B & E/Total 2037 Amistad Transportation operation and service amount based on days authorized trips; no set amount awarded VIBA Transportation 10/1/09-09/30/10 El Paso County Medical Demand Response Provider’s hours of Persons 60+ Title III B & E/Total 748 Transportation operation and service amount based on days authorized trips; no set amount awarded Big Bend Community 10/1/09-09/30/10 Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Medical Demand Response Provider’s hours of Persons 60+ Title III B & E/Total 485 Action Presidio, Brewster Transportation operation and service amount based on Counties days authorized trips; no set amount awarded Big Bend Community Sunshine House 10/1/09-09/30/10 Alpine City Limits Transportation to and Demand Response M-F Persons 60+ Title III B/Total 1225 Action Nutrition Center from Nutrition Center 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. amount based on for Nutrition Center authorized trips; no Participants Only set amount awarded Big Bend Community Presidio Nutrition 10/1/09-09/30/10 Presidio City Limits Transportation to and Demand Response M-F Persons 60+ Title III B/Total 2777 Action Center from Nutrition Center 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. amount based on for Nutrition Center authorized trips; no Participants Only set amount awarded Town of Van Horn 10/1/09-09/30/10 Hudspeth County Medical Demand Response Provider’s hours of Persons 60+ Title III B & E/Total 473 Transportation operation and service amount based on days authorized trips; no set amount awarded Bliz Shuttle Service 10/1/09-09/30/10 El Paso City Limits Medical Demand Response Provider’s hours of Persons 60+ Title III B & E/Total 569 Transportation operation and service amount based on days authorized trips; no set amount awarded City of Marfa Marfa Nutrition Center 10/1/09-09/30/10 Marfa City Limits Transportation to and Demand Response M-F Persons 60+ Title III B/Total 691 from Nutrition Center 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. amount based on for Nutrition Center authorized trips; no Participants Only set amount awarded

Page 46

6. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination

A diverse array of transportation providers, both public and private exists in the more densely populated El Paso, and a non-profit transportation provider serves the five eastern counties. All have recently acquired new or replaced existing older rolling stock resulting in fleets with relatively low average vehicle age. Many providers in the region have also added ITS hardware, software and communications devices. Big Bend Community Action, the main rural provider with integrated §5311, MTP, JARC, AAA and other contracted transit services, recently moved into new headquarters in Marfa, greatly improving its growing transportation operations. Project Amistad in El Paso also recently moved to new headquarters allowing consolidation of its fleet, dispatching and administrative functions. In addition, Project Amistad was recently awarded an Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) grant allowing for more coordinated services for these populations.

The variety of urban providers facilitates a range of transportation services and modes required to provide mobility solutions in the more densely populated and complex urban environment of El Paso. In spite of its geographical and demographic challenges, the municipal Sun Metro fixed-route and paratransit systems provide extensive coverage within the city limits of El Paso. Planned implementation of multiple bus rapid transit (BRT) lines and circulator lines attached to strategically placed transit centers should lessen trip times while providing more route coverage. El Paso was recently awarded one of ten national transit grants to develop one such BRT route along the congested Mesa corridor. Sun Metro’s LIFT system already uses New Freedom and other funds to extend paratransit service hours and coverage and plans are underway to create same day service.

The County of El Paso obtained Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds several years ago to launch a vanpool program targeted to area employers. The program has grown to nearly 50 vanpools operating every workday, removing hundreds of private autos from the daily commute. While vanpool participants pay for operating costs, CMAQ funds were used to purchase the vehicles and cover administrative costs for recruiting and organizing the employee groups. The County of El Paso has applied for additional CMAQ funds to expand this highly successful program and with an increasing economy of scale should be able to add many more groups with a smaller share of overhead cost. The County of El Paso was also recently awarded JARC funds to support the operating costs of a commuter service between Anthony and El Paso, leveraging New Mexico DOT funds which support the Anthony to Las Cruces segment of the route. The County was additionally awarded funds to more widely market the service and the Town of Anthony was awarded funds to construct a passenger shelter, further adding to the region’s infrastructure.

The range of transportation resources in the region and the diversity of transportation operators support a flexible and responsive infrastructure to meet future mobility challenges. Complementing this infrastructure is a professional administrative capacity with experienced transportation planners and mangers ready to deploy

Page 47

resources to meet future challenges.

7. Provider Profiles

Individual profiles of each transportation provider in the region appear in Attachment III. The profiles include provider contact information and outline each of the programs the provider operates including service mode, reservation requirements, geographic area served, service availability, fares, eligibility for service and funding source. The profiles also display basic fleet information. Since transportation services change with funding programs and fleets are constantly being replaced, the profiles represent the provider at a point in time rather than as a invariable picture of the organization. Nevertheless, the profiles do offer a picture of the capacity of the organization and overall view of the breath and depth of the regional transportation system and its resources.

While limited in their use for general public transportation purposes, school buses and other school district owned vehicles nevertheless represent a significant transportation resource. They are primarily for transporting children to and from school and school related activities, but may also be deployed for emergency purposes and some public benefit purposes. Regional school district contact information and fleet information appears in Appendix VI.

Page 48

III. Regional Mobility Gap and Duplication Analysis

A. Mapping of Needs to Inventory

1. Gaps in Regional Transportation System

In spite of its diverse transportation resources, there are many gaps in service that represent a barrier to mobility for many people of the region. In addition, there is some duplication in transportation services which if redeployed could present the opportunity to increase service levels or fill a gap in service, if in part. Gaps in service were identified by comparing needs identified in the Needs Assessment with resources profiled in the Inventory. While this process sometimes helped locate a resource to address a need, the Needs Assessment tended to elicit needs that remain unmet, at least from the perspective of the person identifying them, and therefore most of these needs represent gaps in service. Gaps exist throughout the urban and rural areas and in fixed-route and demand-response systems. Gaps exist primarily as a result of insufficient transportation resources. Additionally, gaps result from certain approaches to service delivery, lack of adequate public information about available services, and practical barriers transportation providers face to maximize service levels and efficiencies. As with the Needs Assessment results, regional mobility gaps are presented for urban fixed-route and demand-response services and for rural fixed- route and demand-response services.

2. Geographic Distribution of System Gaps

a) Urban Fixed-Route Mobility Gaps

 Early morning service begins too late and late night service ends too early to access employment on some routes

 Frequency of buses too low to conveniently use service if transfers are involved or multiple stops required

 Bus fares too high for some without assistance

 Distance to nearest stop too distant in some locations

 Commute time too long on some routes or insufficient express service provided

 Newly annexed areas of the City of El Paso not served by fixed-route

 Fixed route service too dangerous for victims of domestic violence

 Bus stop signs difficult to see

 System map difficult to read

Page 49

 Stop announcements provide too little orientation information for passengers with limited sight

 Not all system stops have accessible pathways

 Insufficient travel training available or insufficient awareness of travel training prevents some potential riders from using fixed-route services b) Urban Demand-Response Gaps:

 Transportation Information and Referral service needed to inform public of range of demand-response services

 Special transportation eligibility determination and certificated process should be consolidated

 Same day demand-response service

 Demand-response service for low-income parents who must commute to childcare then work

 Demand-response service for shelter residents or other human service program clients who must make multiple closely spaced daily appointments

 Del Sol, Las Palmas, Physicians, and Providence hospitals do not provide non-emergency, out-patient, admissions and discharge related patient transportation (University Medical Center does) c) Rural Fixed-Route Gaps:

 Private carrier Amtrak lacks stop in Marfa and Greyhound lacks stop in Sierra Blanca

 Current §5311 provider does not offer fixed-route or deviated fixed-route service or mid-day service where passenger demand may warrant it

 Rural El Paso County service frequency too low and hours of service too limited on some routes

 Transfer between El Paso County and Sun Metro fixed-route systems not facilitated by shared fares

d) Rural Demand-Response Gaps:

 Public awareness of general public transportation services

 Same day service often not available

 Limited availability of mid-day service or service options outside of very

Page 50

early departures

 Bus fares too high for some without assistance

 There is no mechanism for service organizations to purchase service for clients

 Limited bus alternatives for residents of very remote communities

 Limited job access transportation from lower Presidio County to emerging job opportunities in Shafter and Marfa

e) Other Rural Gaps:

 Limited car sharing or other bus service alternatives for residents of very remote communities

 Inadequate rural airport development and amenities to facilitate all time and conditions use by air ambulance, fire suppression and other users

f) Transit Provider Operations Challenges

 Recruitment and retention of qualified drivers

 On-going driver training

 Predictable operating costs, especially fuel cost

3. Duplication in Regional Transportation System

With rapidly expanding populations in El Paso and most of the eastern counties, no area or population is over-served and little redundancy exists. Nevertheless, there are areas in which improved coordination or redeployment of transportation resources may yield a net gain in the overall service level or in service efficiency. For many specialized transportation services, especially in El Paso, providers are already coordinating to minimize duplication. Most JARC and New Freedom trips for example are assigned through a centralized point (Sun Metro) which maximizes use of transportation resources across multiple providers. In the eastern counties, one provider already operates integrated §5311, MTP, JARC, AAA and other transportation programs thereby eliminating much occasion for duplication. Unlike service gaps however, the elimination of system redundancies may inconvenience or displace riders who benefit from a particular service. Again, system supplication is best described in its urban or rural context given the vast differences in the region.

4. Geographic Distribution of Transportation Duplication

a) Urban Transit Duplication:

 Project Amistad JARC route operates along El Paso County Route 40 with

Page 51

free service in late morning after fare based route ends

 Sun Metro riders use LIFT service for medical trips that could qualify for Medical Transportation Program (MTP)

 MTP eligible riders use MTP demand-response service when fixed-route provides a less costly service

 Patient transportation to dialysis centers uncoordinated and ad hoc with dialysis providers not sharing costs

 Transportation providers duplicate transit related purchasing

 Transportation providers duplicate driver recruitment, screening and training

b) Rural Transit Duplication:

 All Aboard America operates the Presidio-Midland route with Inter-City bus funds that duplicates regular demand-response service provided by Big Bend Community Action

5. Consequences of System Gaps and Duplication

Most gaps in service are easily understood, but the general consequence of most is limited mobility and potentially lost opportunity or reduced access to important or critical services. In general, adequate transportation services translate into a more mobile population, more fluid labor markets with better access to both jobs and workers, greater access to human and health services with improved social and health outcomes, less human isolation and a better quality of life. Nevertheless, gaps in service represent a correctable opportunity for local public transportation systems to fully serve their customers or to realize their potential as a fundamental public resource. It is a core purpose of this plan to accurately identify, understand and successfully fill unacceptable gaps in regional transportation services. Duplication results in a lower level of service or less than optimal service effectiveness or efficiency. This plan also endeavors to establish mechanisms to identify, understand and address system duplication to maximize the level of transportation services.

B. Gap/Duplication Analysis

1. Implications for Regional Mobility and Coordination

Most system gaps are the result of inadequate resources to keep pace with growing demand or to provide the time and frequency of service that meets the demands of all users. Regional population realities and the uncounted influence of the large Juarez, Mexico population just across the border from El Paso will likely always result in the urbanized system receiving less §5307 formula funds than are necessary to meet customer demand. The §5311 rural transit funding formula does not fully account for the very long and therefore costly trips provided by the rural transit programs. As

Page 52

such, it is critically important to make every transportation resource count. Gaps related to service awareness are present in both the urban and rural systems and will require the commitment of appropriate resources to marketing and public awareness efforts.

Same day service gaps are also present in both urban and rural demand-response systems and will require changes in operating practices and perhaps fare structures. The mobility needs of special groups were identified and regional coordination efforts should encourage the development of programs to address them. Some gaps are the result of operating policies, such as better integration of the urban and rural fixed- route systems in El Paso city and county. Regional coordination efforts could more closely examine the matter and issue policy recommendations. Likewise, Amtrak and private inter-city bus carriers maintain few stops in the eastern counties and may be influenced by regional coordination recommendations, particularly if offered in combination with inter-lining opportunities that link local with inter-city service.

Numerous accessibility issues represent gaps in service. Regional coordination should consider these when setting priorities for the use of discretionary funds and endorsing projects. Regional coordination efforts may also look to the multiple advantages of encouraging use of fixed-route services when addressing accessibility issues.

Some gaps may require non-traditional solutions; car sharing and prescription dispensaries in remote communities, expansion of vanpools, development of rural airports, and other approaches to mobility and access to services inadequately addressed by typical transit services.

Finally, transportation providers continue to face operational challenges for which a coordinated approach to concerns like driver recruitment, commodities purchases, and staff training may present a solution.

System redundancies are few, but regional coordination should play a central role to their on-going identification and the adoption of mechanisms that prevent or minimize their occurrence and ensure new resources are directed to unmet needs. Of particular interest in this regard is the examination of dialysis related patient transportation and the assessment of route duplications in rural El Paso county and the eastern counties.

2. Discussion of Strategies to Address System Needs/Gaps/Duplication

a) Greater Reliance on Fixed-Route Services

With this condition in mind, encouraging the fullest use of the urban and El Paso County fixed-route systems will reduce costs associated with the much more expensive paratransit system allowing cost savings to be redirected to increasing service frequency, the expansion of service hours and accessibility enhancements. The latter issue of accessibility, if proactively approached, could itself result in a marginal increase in fixed-route ridership by users who might qualify for and otherwise use paratransit services. Improvements to fixed-route accessibility

Page 53

infrastructure should be accompanied by expanded and more widely marketed travel-training services. b) Better Coordination Between Paratransit and Medical Transportation Programs

Better coordination between the paratransit LIFT program and the Medical Transportation Program (MTP) could likewise divert ridership from a “cost center” program to a “revenue generator” program. Current discussion regarding the state-wide restructuring of MPT may prevent this approach from being an effective strategy, but if a capitated approach is adopted by Texas for MTP, the diversion of eligible and appropriate clients to fixed route will be important to providing adequate transportation resources to MTP clients who don’t have a demand-response alternative. c) Continuous Identification of Gaps and Capacity to Secure Resources to Fill Them

Effective coordination is one tool that can partially help achieve that objective and one important element of coordination is the establishment of mechanisms that seek to quickly and continuously identify gaps in service and mechanisms that ensure that all discretionary resources that are attracted to the region address the most important service gaps and/or yield the most beneficial results. d) Development of Targeted Programs to Address Special Needs

Victims of domestic violence, low income parents with small children who rely on public transportation to access both child care and work, homeless and other persons who must daily access multiple services in quick succession, low income patients entering or leaving hospitals, the newly employed working before or after fixed-route service hours or persons living in more affordable but remote areas may need demand-response service tailored to their particular needs with these groups prioritized for existing and new transportation resources. Emerging employment opportunities and workforce need in the eastern counties may also warrant targeted services. e) Addressing Accessibility Related Gaps

Numerous accessibility related gaps were identified. Some relate to physical barriers and many related to operational practices and policies. Understanding these issues and partnering with affected providers to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities increases ridership and improves mobility. Where applicable, New Freedom and Surface Transportation Funds should be prioritized to address these concerns. f) Improved Public Awareness

Lack of public awareness or confusion about special and demand-response transportation services also represents a gap in both the urban and rural systems.

Page 54

In El Paso where multiple providers offer service, there is a growing need for a widely marketed transit information and referral service and a streamlined and consolidated eligibility determination process. In the eastern counties, there is persistent need to promote the availability of general public transportation and dispel the myth of low-income only transportation services.

g) Same-day Service

The lack of same day service restricts mobility for those reliant on demand- response programs, both special and paratransit users in El Paso and all users in the eastern counties. Providers should make every effort to accommodate same- day requests and devote New Freedom or other resources to provide this service where reasonably possible.

h) Non-Traditional Services

Very remote communities, groups of low-income or other persons in close proximity who require greater flexibility than traditional bus service affords, may benefit from car sharing or other alternative mobility approaches. Vanpools and other shared resource solutions should always be considered and encouraged when appropriate.

i) Other Gaps

The issue of seamless transfer between El Paso County Rural Transit and Sun Metro should be examined and policy recommendations adopted to encouraged better integration of the two systems to the extent that the result is not a loss of service. Additional private carrier stops in rural communities should be examined and encouraged to improve access to those resources.

j) Service Duplication

Service duplication identified in this plan should be examined and addressed as appropriate with service adjustments made where possible. Going forward, all new applications for funding from area providers should consider the adequacy of existing services. Regional coordination committee endorsements for proposals should only be awarded to projects that do not unnecessarily duplicate existing or planned services, but address the region’s mobility priorities identified in this plan.

3. Capacity of Transportation System to Respond to Needs/Gaps/Duplication and Discussion of Regional Transportation Policy Issues and Alternatives

It is difficult to determine the capacity of the existing transportation system or individual transportation providers to respond to unmet needs, system gaps and duplication. Nevertheless, regional transportation coordination and cooperation is strong and has remained active since well before the submission of the original Regional Plan in 2006. Most of the activities identified in the original plan have been

Page 55

accomplished and work continues on those that have not. Regional Transportation providers meet on a regular and frequent basis and adopt practices that maximize service coordination. Much needs to be done and this plan is intended and expected to be a guidebook for future coordination efforts.

Funding uncertainties will certainly play a key role in what can be accomplished and regional transportation coordination has limited authority to direct or influence the operations of individual providers. Nevertheless, the Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee has the unique opportunity to recognize coordination opportunities and create the mechanism and environment to facilitate cooperative solutions that maximize transportation resource efficiency and effectiveness. It is with this spirit that the Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee adopted the vision, mission, goals and transportation coordination implementing objectives that follow.

IV. Regional Transportation Priorities, Recommendations and Actions

Regional Mobility Vision, Mission, Goals and Implementing Objectives to Address System Gaps, Growth, Duplication, Efficiency, and Innovation

A. Vision Statement

All persons of the six-county Far West Texas region will have access to customer- centered, dependable, convenient and safe transportation services and choices.

B. Mission Statement

Proactively facilitate the planning and coordination between transportation providers, health and human service agencies and advocacy organizations in the six-county Far West Texas region to maximize mobility and the efficiency and effectiveness of public transportation resources.

C. Goals

 Maintain an inclusive and sustainable planning process that seeks and values public participation, communicates its goals and activities to the public and honors its Regional Plan and Priorities

Implementing Objectives

 Maintain viable steering and stakeholder committees and prepare and follow annual detailed workplans to guide regional coordination activities and achieve goals and objectives outlined in the Regional Transportation Coordination Plan

 Maintain communications and joint planning with adjacent regions to ensure inter-regional coordination

 Establish and maintain a working relationship with appropriate entities to enhance

Page 56

regional transportation coordination with Las Cruces, Chaparral, Sunland Park and other relevant South Central New Mexico public transportation planning efforts

 Maintain www.gobusgo.org web site

 Fill unacceptable gaps in service, especially for transit dependent populations, through the continuous identification and assessment of changing mobility needs, expansion of financial support, increased efficiency, redeployment of redundant resources and services innovation.

Implementing Objectives

 Develop plan to address duplicate use/scheduling of MTP, LIFT and New Freedom programs

 Develop and implement strategy that offers same day Demand-Response service where feasible in both urban and rural systems

 Create workgroup to study current and future transportation needs and resources for dialysis patients and providers to maximize coordination and efficient use of funds

 Coordinate with City and County of El Paso, and other jurisdictions where appropriate, to advocate for use of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds that are consistent with the Regional Plan and address plan priorities especially accessible pathways to public transit

 Develop mechanism to coordinate services between existing and future JARC and New Freedom providers to ensure appropriate mode choice, assignment of trips and maximization of resources without duplication of service

 Encourage the development of transportation programs that address the special needs of domestic violence victims, parents of young children dependent on public transit to access childcare and work, human services program participants requiring frequent closely spaced appointments and low-income persons requiring non-emergency access to hospital services

 Develop and implement strategy to address route coverage to newly annexed areas of the City of El Paso

 Develop capacity to assist in the development of car sharing and alternative transportation programs in rural communities and other appropriate areas

 Research funding alternatives to increase service frequency and implement mid- day service in rural counties

 Identify resources and implement JARC service for proposed mining and solar

Page 57

plant projects in Presidio and Brewster counties

 Provide technical assistance and training to transit providers and encourage linkages between providers and with organizations serving transit dependent populations to create a customer-centered and seamless public transportation system.

Implementing Objectives

 Investigate alternatives and facilitate solutions for long trips/workdays for rural drivers

 Encourage and facilitate use of bicycles through the revision of rural counties’ public transit policies and the purchase of bicycle racks and related facility improvements

 Develop and implement driver Continuing Education process to include PASS and other skills training (adapted from 2006 plan)

 Develop and implement strategy to address demand-response and rural system driver shortage by exploring national best practices, incentives, and service approach (adapted from 2006 plan)

 Conduct annual forums or other means to inform transit providers, health and human service organizations and other stakeholders of transportation funding opportunities and encourage collaborative projects that are consistent with the Regional Plan and priorities (retained from 2006 plan)

 Prepare plan and mechanism for the consolidated purchasing of transit related commodities to achieve greater purchasing efficiency and economy of scale (retained from 2006 plan)

 Build and maintain universal marketing and information programs that communicate the availability of public transportation services and educate the public about their most efficient use.

Implementing Objectives

 Develop and implement strategy to encourage greater use of fixed-route services by demand-response eligible persons and facilitate provision of travel training service (retained from 2006 plan)

 Develop and implement rural system public awareness/marketing strategy

 Establish an information & referral capacity that provides a customer friendly source of comprehensive transit information through a variety of accessible formats

 Work to eliminate physical, financial, regulatory and operational barriers to the

Page 58

delivery of seamless regional transportation.

Implementing Objectives

 Develop and implement plan to facilitate seamless transfer between El Paso County Transit and Sun Metro

 Establish a consolidated eligibility determination process for all eligibility limited transportation programs to provide one-stop certification for all programs (retained form 2006 plan)

 Establish workgroup including the El Paso MPO and Camino Real RMA to research the creation of a El Paso county-wide transit system (adapted from 2006 plan)

 Encourage additional Amtrak and Greyhound stops respectively in the rural communities of Marfa and Sierra Blanca and develop inter-lining services to support seamless mobility

 Encourage development of additional services at rural airports to facilitate greater use and access to services

 Review efforts made by transportation providers to implement coordination strategies and measure the efficiency and quality of transportation services for the continuous improvement of coordinated regional transportation planning.

Implementing Objectives

 Establish a mechanism to guarantee that all future proposals for urban and rural discretionary funding (including JARC, NF, RTAP, RD, SPA, ICB, 5310 and other) from regional providers clearly and specifically define predetermined service parameters to ensure that funding addresses specific service needs and Plan priorities without duplicating existing services

V. Conclusion

A. Summary of Plan Findings and Analysis

Many known and new transportation needs were identified in the needs assessment section of this plan. Although extensive and diverse, there are insufficient transportation resources in place to address all the needs in the region. This lack of resources accounts for many of the gaps in the current transportation system and therefore it is imperative to identify new resources to address those needs and maximize the efficiency of existing resources. Some gaps exist as a result of population and development growth and some from the identification of special needs of public transportation users and potential users that have gone undetected. Service hours, location, frequency, affordability, and to some degree accessibility, fall into this category. Identifying new resources and re-deploying existing resources freed up through increased efficiency will be necessary to addressing

Page 59

these gaps.

Many gaps in service, even if resulting from insufficient resources, may be eliminated or lessened by provider coordination or operational practices. It is in this area that the greatest benefit is likely to be achieved and dominates the list of plan objectives. This plan attempts to identify and analyze these gaps and suggest strategies to address them.

Several needs identified in the Regional Transportation Coordination Plan submitted to TxDOT in 2006 continue to exist and activities to address them will continue into the future.

B. Summary of Plan Priorities

The regional coordination vision, mission, goals are an expression of the region’s priorities and include the continuation of an inclusive, viable and proactive transportation coordination effort; filling all unacceptable gap in service especially for transit dependent populations; providing technical assistance to improve system efficiency and effectiveness; improving and expanding marketing of transportation services to increase public awareness and minimize confusion; minimizing or eliminating physical, regulatory, operational and financial barriers to seamless service; and monitoring system performance to identify coordination opportunities and facilitate continuous improvement.

C. Plan Recommendations and Actions

The implementing objectives associated with regional coordination goals represent specific strategies or actions to address system gaps, growth, duplication, efficiency and innovation. While some are activities of the Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee or Lead Agency, many are activities or actions that transportation providers are encouraged to adopt. It is anticipated that each of these actions will be further developed and detailed in annual workplans with the identification of implementing steps, assignment of responsibilities and adoption of a schedule to facilitate their completion.

D. Roles for Far West Texas/ El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee

The Far West Texas/ El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee and its stakeholder members play a key role in achieving the objectives and realizing the goals and vision outlined in this plan. In a rapidly changing region that faces many unique challenges, it will incumbent on these stakeholders to remain continuously alert to gaps in service and committed to their solution, flexible in approach and disciplined in action. The continuous refreshing of this plan should remain a priority for stakeholders and will contribute to more systematic and considered approach to regional transportation coordination.

E. Roles and Recommendations for Other Regional Policy Makers

Regional policy makers each have a role in the mobility of their constituencies and must

Page 60

balance multiple priorities and therefore may make decisions from a different perspective than represented in this plan. We encourage such policy makers to consider the vital importance of mobility in people’s lives, and the challenges faced by persons dependent on public transportation. Furthermore, we encourage policy makers to appreciate the potential benefits of transportation coordination and recognize this plan as the consensus of diverse regional stakeholders who share the vision of customer-centered, dependable, convenient and safe transportation services and choices for all persons of the Far West Texas Region.

Notes

1 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Republic of Mexico

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

3 New York Times, March 28, 2007

4 ibid.

5 Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2010

6 El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization

7 Texas Military Preparedness Commission’s Master Plan for 2008, Texas Office of the Governor, Austin, Texas, August 12, 2008

8 Regional Growth, El Paso Regional Economic Development Corporation, 2010

9 Texas Military Preparedness Commission’s Master Plan for 2008, Texas Office of the Governor, Austin, Texas, August 12, 2008

10 Texas Population Estimates, Texas State Data Center, Office of the State Demographer, Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, The University of Texas as San Antonio, November 2010

11 www.utep.edu

12 www.umcelpaso.org

Page 61

13 Texas In Focus: Upper Rio Grande. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, June 2009

14 Op. Cit. 10

15 Profile of general Demographic Characteristics: 2000, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

16 Texas Department of State Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, 2007-2009

17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, A Profile of Older Americans 2010. www.aoa.gov/aoaroot/aging_statistics/profile/index.aspx

18 ibid

19 AAA Your Driving Costs 2011, www.aaaexchange.com/assets/file/201145734460.drivingcosts2011.pdf

20 Op. cit. 17

21 Keenan, Teresa A. (2010), Home and Community Preferences of the 45+ Population, AARP, Washington, D.C.

22 DeGood, Kevin (2011), Aging In Place, Stuck Without Options: Fixing the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby Boom Generation, http://14america.org/resources/seniorsmobilitycrisis2011

23 ibid

Page 62

Appendix

Page 63

Page 64

Appendix I

Health and Human Services Organization

Needs Assessment Survey Instrument

Page 65

Page 66

Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee

Mobility Needs Assessment Survey

Organizational Information

Agency Name:

Address (list each location where your agency receives application for or provides services):

Phone: Fax:

Contact Person:

Email:

Website:

Agency Mission:

Client Description or Population(s) Served:

Services Provided to Clients:

Page 67

How many unduplicated clients does your agency serve in a year?

How many clients access services at each of your locations on an average day?

Agency Provided Transportation Services

Do you assist clients with transportation?  Yes  No

If yes, please check all that apply and explain if necessary:

 Transport clients in agency operated vehicles:

 Reimburse clients for use of personal auto:

 Purchase and issue vouchers, tokens, or passes for client use of local public transit system:

 Contract with public or private transportation operator to provide transportation for clients:

 Agency staff provide client transportation in personal autos as necessary:

 Connect clients with volunteer drivers:

 Provide training to clients in how to use public transit system. Please describe your program:

 Other transportation service:

 Number of clients your agency directly provides transportation services to in a year.

Client Transportation Needs

Do your clients need to go to your facilities to request, apply for or enroll in your services?

Do your clients need to go to your facilities to obtain or participate in your services?

If your clients can apply for or receive your services remotely, please explain:

Does your agency regularly refer clients to other service providers as part of your service offering? (i.e. tuition assistance to training program at another location):

Are each of your service locations situated near a public transportation fixed route?

Identify the route for each location, if known:

What percent of your clients do you estimate access your services using fixed route transportation?

Page 68

What factors limit the ability of your clients to use fixed route transit?

 Cost  Location

 Disability  Age

 Language  Literacy

 Awareness/Knowledge of Transit Services  Time of Service

 Other, explain:

Do any of your clients access your services by way of a demand-responsive, paratransit or other non- fixed route public or private transportation services?

What percent of your clients do you estimate access your services using a special transportation service?

Describe the factors that limit the ability of your clients to use these forms of transportation:

Does any lack of transportation or mobility affect your clients’ goals or their quality of life in any way?

Please describe the mobility needs of your clients:

(please use additional space if necessary)

If Location or Time of Service is identified as a limitation above, please

List the locations of trip origin or destination which you consider too remote or inaccessible to transportation services:

List the time of trip start or return for each trip origin and destination that fall outside of service availability

(please be specific and use attached chart or additional page if necessary)

Appendix II

Health and Human Services Organizations

Participating in Needs Assessment Survey

Page 69

Page 70

Appendix III

Regional Transportation Coordination Committee Accomplishments

Page 71

Far West Texas/El Paso

Regional Transportation Coordination Committee

Regional Accomplishments

Page 72

2006

• Established viable, on-going, regional coordination steering and stakeholder committees in compliance with Texas Transportation Code Chapter 461

• Researched and completed Regional Coordinated Public Transportation Plan fulfilling TxDOT requirement to receive future discretionary funding with outline of the plan adopted as the state model

• Identified multiple actions to improve mobility and transit system efficiency and effectiveness through coordination

• Co-Hosted regional elderly summit with Council of Governments Project S.A.L.S.A. containing significant transportation component and attended by several hundred persons

• Organized and hosted Rural Transit Summit at Sul Ross University in Alpine attended by every rural county judge; numerous commissioners, mayors, and state officials; Texas Transportation Institute; and representatives of the health and human services communities to discuss public transportation issues and opportunities for the rural counties

• Designed and launched www.gobugo.org website as a source of information about regional public transportation resources and coordination planning activities

• Selected to participate in Community Transportation Association of America Institute for Transportation Coordination in Washington D.C.

2007

• Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee (WTEP) adopts by-laws to govern activities of Steering and Stakeholder Committees

• Organized and facilitated transit funding opportunity forum to engage public and health and human services community, encourage collaborations and ensure transit provider grant proposals are responsive to Regional Plan and address identified priorities

• WTEP establishes TxDOT discretionary funding proposal review process and endorses projects that result in JARC funding for Big Bend Community Action and JARC and New Freedom funding for Project Amistad to address priorities identified in Regional Plan

• Compiled, published and distributed 3000 copies of a bi-lingual Directory of Public Transportation for Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties in Far West Texas to address public awareness need identified in Regional Plan

• County of El Paso receives CMAQ grant and implements Vanpool Program to address workforce transportation need identified in Regional Plan. The program grows to over 45 active vanpools by 2010

Page 73

• County of El Paso receives intelligent transportation systems (ITS) grant from TxDOT to develop specifications for statewide deployment of ITS technology

• County of El Paso receives CTAA grant to facilitate the planning and development of a general public transit system for the rural counties

• Sun Metro opens Passenger Assistance Safety and Sensitivity (PASS) training to other transit providers in response to need indentified in Regional Plan

• Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties undertake the process outlined in Texas Transportation Code Chapter 458 and adopt required resolutions to join adjacent Rural Transit District , bringing the 49 USC 5311 to the last un-served counties in Texas, an area of over 22,000 square miles

• Sun Metro delegates procurement of urbanized JARC and New Freedom projects to the El Paso MPO to facilitate more open and coordinated approach

2008

• Workgroup established to identify and act on bulk purchasing opportunities as identified in the Regional Plan. Stakeholders provided guidance on joining the State Purchasing Co-Op and Project Amistad representative secures 5 cent per gallon discount for regional transportation providers

• Organized and hosted professionally facilitated, full-day regional coordination forum in Van Horn attended by 42 persons representing heath and human services organizations and public transportation providers from two planning regions to identify regional mobility priorities

• Organized and facilitated TxDOT transit funding opportunity forum to engage public and health and human services community, encourage collaborations and ensure transit provider grant proposals are responsive to Regional Plan and address identified priorities

• WTEP conducts TxDOT discretionary funding proposal review process and endorses projects that result in JARC and New Freedom funding for Project Amistad and to address priorities identified in Regional Plan

• Lead Agency assisted El Paso Community College in securing funding for Bus Driver Training Program to address a high priority need identified in Regional Plan

• Region organizes Christina Gomez Memorial Regional Bus Roadeo drawing participants from five transportation providers in two states. County of El Paso obtains RTAP fund to support portion of costs

2009

• Far West Texas/El Paso Regional Transportation Coordination Committee adopts by- laws revisions

• WTEP conducts TxDOT Coordinated Call proposal review process and endorses

Page 74

projects that result in JARC and New Freedom funding for Project Amistad to address priorities identified in Regional Plan

• County of El Paso receives Mobility Management grant and assists regional health and human services providers to identify transit solutions for client mobility needs in response to multiple actions identified in the Regional Plan. Organizations assisted include Project Bravo, Center Against Family Violence, DADS, the Opportunities Center of El Paso, Family Crisis Center of the Big Bend, Permian Basin Center for MHMR, the Episcopal Mission, and others.

• Region selected to participate in Texas Institute for Transportation Coordination conducted by CTAA in Austin, Texas to develop a Transportation Information and Referral and Consolidated Eligibility capacity as identified in the Regional Plan and Lead Agency develops detailed workplan to guide implementation of the project

2010

• Big Bend Community Action receives FTA grant to purchase land and construct new headquarters based on its growing transportation program

• Organized and facilitated transit funding opportunity forum to engage public and health and human services community, encourage collaborations and ensure transit provider grant proposals are responsive to Regional Plan and address identified priorities

• WTEP conducts TxDOT Coordinated Call proposal review process and endorses projects that result in JARC and New Freedom funding for LULAC Project Amistad and El Paso/Anthony/Las Cruces bus route funding for County of El Paso to address priorities identified in Regional Plan

• Stakeholders appoint committee and adopt urbanized JARC and New Freedom selection criteria for use by MPO to evaluate proposals

• WTEP adopts Outline and provides direction for development of the Updated Regional Plan. Lead Agency conducts comprehensive needs assessment and inventory of transportation resources

• Lead Agency completes evaluation report on driver training program and planning report on Transit Information & Referral and Consolidated Eligibility projects as required by TxDOT

• TxDOT organizes regional PASS train-the-trainer event attended by provider staff throughout the region

Sustainability Funding secured by Lead Agency and applied 100% to project expenses without overhead, administration or indirect charges.

Page 75

Midland-Odessa Urban Transit District $ 9,500

CTAA Post Institute Planning Grant 15,000

Sun Metro New Freedom Mobility Management 10,000

TxDOT Mobility Management 20,000

TxDOT Regional Coordination (2006-2011) 477,104

Total 531,604

Actions or Activities identified in 2006 Regional Plan that were not accomplished:

• Access to TxDOT alternative fueling stations

• Mechanics training program for vehicles using alternative fuel

• Establish El Paso Countywide transit authority

• Establish Carpools

• Establish system of cost sharing and vehicle sharing [across multiple sources]

• Lower insurance costs

• Incentives for paratransit riders to use fixed routes

• Community based transit planning

• Eliminate eligibility criteria and obtain revenue sources to allow all transit providers to transport all special needs populations under a real-time dispatch system thereby eliminating all duplication, maximizing use of system capacity and minimizing vehicles miles traveled while providing greater mobility for more users

Page 76

Appendix IV

Sun Metro Fixed Route and Paratransit System Maps

Page 77

Page 78

Appendix V

Regional Map

Page 79

Page 80

Appendix IV

Transportation Provider Profiles

Page 81

Page 82

Page 83

All Aboard America 10615 West County Road 127 Odessa, Texas 79765 915-561-8529 www.allaboardamerica.com Transportation Services Provided

Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare Funding Mode Reservation /Eligibility Source

El Paso/Anthony/Las Cruces Fixed- No El Paso, Texas/Anthony, M-F/ 4:30 – 9:15 AM $3.00 one- TxDOT Park and Ride route Texas/Las Cruces, NM 4:25 – 7:55 PM way/ §5311 Commuter service general public Presidio/Marfa/Alpine/Ft. Fixed- No Presidio/Marfa/Alpine/ North bound departures from $6.50 TxDOT Stockton/ McCamey/ Crane/ route Ft. Stockton/McCamey Presidio 9:00 AM & 3:30 PM MAF- §5311 Odessa/MAF Crane/Odessa/ arriving Midland 2:35 PM Odessa (f) Coach Service with Midland Airport and 9:05 PM connections to Greyhound Southbound departures from $42.00 in Ft. Stockton and Odessa Midland 9:20 AM and 6:00 Presidio - PM arriving Presidio 2:55 MAF PM and 11:55 PM Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped w/lift Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus Standard Bus Motor Coach 8 5 6.5 400,000 2 57 Diesel Yes No Yes Articulated Specialty

Page 84

Bienvivir Senior Health Services 2300 McKinley El Paso, Texas 79930 www.bienvivir.org Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Bienvivir Senior Health Demand No El Paso County M-F/7:AM –5:00 PM No fee/ State/Federal Services Transportation Dept. response service Funding. limited to Bienvivir enrolled clients.

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus 37 34 4 500,000 5/6 9/12 Gas Yes No no Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 85

County of El Paso 800 E. Overland, Suite 208 El Paso, Texas 79901 915-834-8242 www.epcounty.com/transit Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source General Public Transportation Fixed- No Anthony/Canutillo M-Sat./ 6:22 AM – 6:40 PM $2.00 one- TxDOT Commuter Service Route Fabens/Tornillo M-Sat./6:43 AM – 4:47 PM way/general §5311 EPCC Mission del Paso M-F/6:25 AM – 7:16 PM public Horizon Sat/7:55 AM – 5:46 PM (El Paso County out of M – Sat./ 6:18 AM – 7:39 PM EP City limits) Las Cruces/Anthony/El Paso Fixed- No LasCruces, NM M-F/ 4:50 – 9:15 AM $3.00 one- TxDOT Commuter Service Route Anthony, Texas 4:25 – 7:55 PM way / §5316 El Paso, Texas general public Vamonos Vanpool Ride Yes El Paso County Unlimited Shared CMAQ Share originations costs/El Paso Co. Residents Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped w/lift Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus 7 7 2 16 Propane Yes Yes Yes Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated

Page 86

Specialty 1 1 2 Yes Yes Yes

Good Samaritan Society – White Acres 7304 Good Samaritan Court El Paso, Texas 79912 915-581-4683 www.good-sam.com Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Transportation Demand- Yes El Paso City Limits Mon-Fri/8:00 AM – 6:00 PM No/ §5310 Response Agency Clients

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van 1 1 3 25,000 3 6 Gas No No Yes Minibus 1 1 4 19,500 3 15 Gas No No Yes Standard Bus . Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 87

Lutheran Social Services of the South, Inc. 9640 Montwood Dr. El Paso, Texas 79925 915-240-5783 www.LSSS.org Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Buena Vida Adult Day Demand- Yes El Paso County M-F/7:00 AM – 6:00 PM No/enrolled TxDOT §5310 Center Response, in Buena Vida Subscription program

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Wheelchair Seats Fuel Mileage Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus 7 7 4 175,000 2 16 Gas No No Yes Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 88

Nazareth Hall Nursing Center 4616 Trowbridge El Paso, Texas 79903 914-565-4677 www.nazarethhall.org Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Transportation Program Demand- Yes City of El Paso Mon-Fri/ 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM None/Client Medicare / Response of program other

Fleet Description

Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van 1 0 N/A N/A 0 8 Gas No No Yes Minibus 1 1 N/a N/A 2 14 Gas No No Yes Standard Bus Motor Coach

Page 89

Articulated Specialty

Opportunities Center, Inc. 1208 Myrtle Ave El Paso, Texas 79901 915-577-0069 Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Opportunities Center Shuttle Demand- Yes City of El Paso Mon-Fri/ 6:00 AM – 6:00 None/Participation City/CSBG Response PM in Homeless Services Programs or Housing Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Wheelchair Seats Fuel Mileage Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van 3 0 11 175,000 0 9 Gas No No Yes Minibus Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 90

Page 91

Project Amistad 1359 Lomaland, Suite 400 El Paso, Texas 79935 915-532-3790 www.projectamistad.org Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Medical Transportation Demand- Yes – 24 to 48 El Paso County, Mon – Sat/6:00 AM– None/Medicaid pre- Texas HHSC Program (MTP) Response hrs subcontracts for services to 6:00 PM approved medical U.S. HHS Brewster, Culberson, trips Hudspeth, Jeff Davis & Presidio Counties Job Access III Demand- Yes – referrals El Paso UMZ Mon-Sat/24 hrs None/ JARC Elig. FTA § 5316 Response made by Sun Metro Jobs Express Job Access IV Fixed- No Follows County of El Paso Mon-Fri/6:00 AM-9:00 None/ JARC Elig. FTA § 5316 Route Westway route AM 3:00 PM-5:30PM N ew Freedom II/III Demand- Yes – 24 hrs Socorro and Rural El Mon-Sat/24hrs None/referred by FTA § 5317 Response Paso County Sun Metro LIFT Elderly and Disabled Demand- Yes – 24 hrs El Paso City and County Mon-Sat/24hrs None/elderly AAA – OAA Transportation Response TxDOT §5310 Komen for the Cure Demand- Yes – 24 hrs El Paso City and County Mon-Sat/24hrs None/referred by Komen for the Response Am. Cancer Society Cure Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Van Minibus 50 47 5 112,500 2 12-20 Gas No No No Standard Bus Motor Coach Speciality

Page 92

Sun City Cab Company, Inc. 2930 Magoffin Ave. El Paso, Texas 79901 915-544-2211 www.suncitycab.com Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source New Freedom Demand- Yes – referred City of El Paso M-Sun./ 24 hours/day FTA Response by Sun Metro /Disabled Urbanized § LIFT certified by 5317 through Sun Metro EP MPO

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 93

City of El Paso (Sun Metro) 700 San Francisco El Paso, Texas 79901 915-533-1220 (main), 915-533-3333 (info), 915-534-5854 (paratransit) www.elpasotexas.gob/sunmetro Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Sun Metro Fixed-route No El Paso M-F/4:15 AM – 11:05 PM Standard $1.50 ride FTA § 5309 urbanized area Sat/4:15 AM – 10:50 PM $12.00 wk (UZA) Sun/ 5:10 AM – 10:38 PM Student/Child <5 Holidays 5:10 – 10:38 PM $1.00 ride $7.00 wk Disabled/Senior >65 $.30 ride $2.50 wk Child <5 Free LIFT Demand- Yes – 24 hr 3/4 mile either M-F /4:10 AM – 10:00 $2.50 ride FTA § 5309 (paratransit) Response side of all Sun PM Metro fixed- Sat/ 5:00 AM – 10:00 PM routes in EP Sun/6:00 AM – 9:00 PM Paso UZA Holidays 6:00AM9:00 PM Jobs Express Demand- Yes – 24 hr El Paso UZA 7– days / 24 hrs No Cost, referred by FTA § 5316 Response Workforce El Paso Empt. Zone, Housing Solutions, or other Authority, Opportunities case workers Center, URG Workforce Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Wheelchair Seats Fuel Mileage Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van 14 2 .5 286,001 1 4 CNG/Gas Yes Yes Yes Minibus 65 65 5 297,636 3 10 Standard Bus 145 145 4.5 527,408 2 41 CNG Motor Coach Articulated

Page 94

Specialty Contracted Services: Same-day demand-response services using 18 taxi cabs and 2 vans compensated by cost per vehicle mile basis University Medical Center of El Paso 4815 Alameda El Paso, Texas 79905 915-521-7671 www.umcelpaso.org Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Demand- No Cities of El Paso, Mon – Sun/7:00 AM – 8:30 PM None/UMC TxDOT § Response San Elizario, Fabens, patients 5310 Montana Vista, Horizon and Socorro only

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Wheelchair Seats Fuel Mileage Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus 2 2 2 39,000 2 14 Gas No No Yes Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 95

University of Texas at El Paso (Miner Metro) Parking and Transportation Services 500 W. University Avenue El Paso, Texas 79968 915-747-6161 www.utep.edu Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Miner Metro Fixed – No On and area surrounding M-Th/6:30 AM – 9:05 PM Free to Student Fees Route UTEP campus Fri /6:30 AM – 5:45 PM UTEP 5 Fixed Routes Students, Faculty, Staff and Visitors Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped w/lift Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van Minibus 11 10 N/A N/A 2 16 Diesel No No Yes Standard Bus 5 5 N/A N/A 2 28 Diesel No No Yes Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 96

Viba Transportation 4100 Rio Bravo St., Suite 210 El Paso, Texas 79902 915-544-8422 www.vibatransport.com Transportation Services Provided Program Service Advance Area Served Service Days/Hours Fare / Funding Mode Reservation Eligibility Source Viba Transportation Demand- Yes El Paso County and Mon-Fri 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM None/ by Medicare, Response beyond by request Sat 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM funding DARS, Extended hours by request source AAA, Private MDs

Fleet Description Vehicle Type Number Number w/lift Average for Vehicle Type ITS Equipped Age Life Mileage Wheelchair Seats Fuel Capacity GPS MDT 2-way Sedan Van 3 0 1 40,000 0 8 Gas Yes No Yes Minibus 5 5 7 150,000 1, 2 14 Diesel Yes No Yes

Page 97

Standard Bus Motor Coach Articulated Specialty

Page 98

Appendix IV

School District Contact and Fleet Information

Page 99

Page 100

Regional School District Contacts and Fleet Information School Transportation Fleet Description District Contact Full Mini Motor Other Size Buses Coaches El Paso County El Paso 915-887-6616 306 0 0 0 Anthony 915-886-6500 5 2 1 1 Suburban Canutillo/ 915-877-7730 30 10 0 2 vans Vinton Clint/Horizon 915-852-8383 80 3 3 2 Suburbans, 3 vans Fabens 915-765-2600 13 2 2 4 vans, 1 sedan San Elizario 915-872-3982 33 5 0 0 Socorro 915-937-0602 136 72 7 7 Suburbans, 2 vans Tornillo 915-765-3000 5 3 2 Full, 2 vans 1 26 seat Ysleta 915-434-1740 104 36 11 68 vans Brewster County Alpine 432-837-7700 x 5 20 0 2 7 Suburbans Terlingua 432-371-2281 0 0 0 0 Study Butte Subcontracted/private Culberson County Van Horn / 432-283-2245 2 0 2 Suburbans Allamoore Hudspeth County Dell City 915-964-2663 4 2 0 0 Ft. Hancock 915-769-3811 5 5 1 2 Suburbans, 2 vans Sierra Blanca 915-369-2781 0 2 0 2 Suburbans, 1 truck Jeff Davis County Ft. Davis 432-426-4440 3 1 0 1 van No transportation to 1 Excursion and from school, 1 Expedition reimbursement only for qualifying students Valentine 432-467-2671 1 1 0 3 vans Presidio County Marfa 432-729-4252 6 3 0 2 Suburbans, 1 truck Presidio 432-229-1198 16 2 0 6 Suburbans

Page 101