Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit And Mobility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners accept Texas A&M demand-response transit plan; ask staff for phased cost options
Summary
El Paso County accepted a Texas A&M study recommending a package of demand-response transit services — co-mingled ADA paratransit, microtransit pilot zones, a user-side subsidy and a volunteer driver program — and asked staff to return with phased cost and funding options.
The El Paso County Commissioner's Court voted April 27 to accept the Texas A&M Transportation Institute's General Public Demand Response Transit (GPDRT) study, a planning document that lays out a multi-component approach to expanding transit in the county's unserved outer areas.
TTI recommended an approach that includes (1) co-mingling ADA paratransit trips with scheduled general-public riders to improve fleet utilization, (2) on-demand microtransit pilots in targeted zones, (3) a user-side subsidy program to reimburse partner providers (taxi/ride-hail or community operators) for specific trip types, and (4) a volunteer driver program that would reimburse vetted volunteers for mileage when appropriate.
Kelly Bloom of TTI told the court the combination of approaches aims to expand coverage in low-density areas at lower per-trip cost than running fixed routes into far-flung neighborhoods. "These models let us tailor service for the outer county where fixed routes are cost-prohibitive," Bloom said. County transit staff said the initial estimated cost of launching all components simultaneously would be about $631,000 for FY27, but stressed pilots and phased implementation would lower up-front needs.
Commissioners asked staff and El Paso Area Transportation Services (ETA) to return with near-term, midterm and long-term budgeting options and to identify potential grant support; county administration confirmed rural transit grants under Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 remain available and that the county could pursue a phased approach that starts with the lowest-cost pilots.
The court accepted the report, but did not commit to immediate full funding: commissioners requested a menu of implementation scenarios and cost-sharing proposals for the upcoming strategic budget discussions.
