April 19, 2016 B&P1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The following are minutes for the meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory
Committee of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which was
held April 19, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in Commission Chambers at Dona Ana County
Government Building, 845 Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New Mexico.
MEMBERS PRESENT: George Pearson, Chair (City of Las Cruces Citizen Rep)
Ashleigh Curry (Town of Mesilla Citizen Rep)
Andrew Bencomo (Ped. Community Rep)
Maggie Billings (Bicycle Community Rep.)
Jamie Lakey (NMSU proxy for Mark Leisher)
James Nunez (City of Las Cruces Rep)
Gabriel Rochelle (Bicycle Community Rep)
Samuel Paz (Dona Ana County)
David Shearer (NMSU - Environmental Safety)
Lance Shepan (Mesilla Marshall's Department)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Jolene Herrera (NMDOT)
Tom Murphy (MPO)
Andrew Wray (MPO)
Michael McAdams (MPO)
Zachary Taraschi (MPO)
OTHERS PRESENT: Len Paulozzi
SooGyu Lee (CLC)
Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC
1. CALL TO ORDER (5:02 p.m.)
Pearson: I guess we're close enough. So it looks like it's 5:02 so I'll call this meeting
of the Mesilla Valley Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee to
order.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Pearson: Do we have a motion to approve the agenda as presented?
Rochelle: So moved.
Pearson: Gabriel moved.
Curry: Second.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Pearson: All in favor accepting the agenda as presented, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: Any opposed?
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 February 16, 2015
Pearson: Next is Approval of Minutes. Is there any discussion or comments on the
minutes as presented? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion to approve the
minutes as presented.
Rochelle: So moved.
Curry: Second.
Pearson: We have a motion and a second so all in favor, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Pearson: Now we're on Public Comment. Any members of the public wish to address
us? Seeing none.
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.1 Amendments to the 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Program
Pearson: Move on to Action Items. But now we have a couple of members that are
coming in so we'll pause for a moment.
MEETING PAUSED TO GET ORGANIZED.
Pearson: Okay. Now that we've got a couple of additional members have come in
and we rushed through some of the business already but why don't we go
through and introduce everybody, everybody give their name and who they
represent and as we go through, we have a new, one new member to
present. Why don't we start down here on this end.
Paz: Samuel Paz, Dona Ana County Planning Department.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Billings: Maggie Billings, Bicycle Community Representative.
Lakey: Jamie Lakey, I'm proxying for Mark Leisher.
Shepan: Lance Shepan, Town of Mesilla.
Curry: Ashleigh Curry, Mesilla Community Representative.
Nunez: James Nunez, City of Las Cruces Representative.
Shearer: David Shearer, NMSU Representative.
Rochelle: Gabriel Rochelle, Bicycle Community Rep.
Pearson: Did that pick up?
Baum: No.
Rochelle: No, so it, sorry. Gabriel Rochelle, Bicycle Community Representative.
Bencomo: Andrew Bencomo, Pedestrian Community Representative.
Pearson: And I'm George Pearson, City of Las Cruces Citizen Representative and
Chair of the Committee. We went through some of the quick usual
business. We'll just check, doesn't look like we have any other members of
the public so we'll go on to our Action Items now. We have a, a TIP
amendment.
ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION.
Wray: Ms. Herrera is unable to be with us tonight but she e-mailed me a statement
regarding this that she would like read into the record: This particular
amendment is a three, a $3 million amendment being added to
accommodate elements of the Amador Proximo. NMDOT is still working
out the details of the scope and road transfer agreement with the City and
should have more information in the upcoming months.
ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION.
Wray: Again Ms. Herrera e-mailed me a statement she would like read into the
record: These additional funds are being added to cover the cost of the
new retaining wall that will be built to hold up the existing retaining wall.
This project is now scheduled to let in October 2016 with construction likely
starting in, or excuse me, in January of 2017. 1 will stand now for any
questions.
3
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Pearson: Any Committee Members have any questions? So the Amador Proximo
elements, that's, they're going to put in the, the side access roads and the
protected bike lanes?
Wray: I don't know the extent that they're going to be accommodating. I know that
they have been negotiating with the City regarding that but DOT's position
has been that they can't afford the full build -out that the, the Proximo called
for.
Pearson: Right.
Wray: So I, 1 don't have that information.
Pearson: Yeah. I think this Committee would be interested in that when that becomes
available. I do remember $3 million as being the, the amount that would be
needed for that so maybe that is enough to do that full build -out. Any, go
ahead.
Nunez: Mr. Chair. I'm, I'm just getting a little more involved in learning some of the
processes for requesting funds. Just went to the Cradle to Grave Training
and we're going to have the NMDOT Conference here at the Las Cruces
Convention Center this week but I did, one thing did catch my attention and
that was to be sure when we are asking for funds to, that we include the
cost for designs and for taxes, New Mexico gross receipts tax. So as I learn
more about how we fill in our forms and our requests I'll, I'll make sure that
I flag that for myself to look toward but I just making a, so everybody here
kind of knows that too.
Pearson: Okay. So no further comments. I hear a, a motion to accept the TIP as
presented?
Nunez: I'll make the motion.
Curry: Second.
Pearson: Having a motion, all in favor, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: Any opposed? So that item passes.
5.2 Multi -Use Loop Trail Alternative Selection
Pearson: So we're on to 5.2, actually I have a question for staff. In the packet that I
downloaded last, the agenda has a 5.3 for the UPWP but the paper that I
picked up, the agenda does not have that so what agenda?
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Wray: The, the one that we have is the 5.3. We must've printed the wrong agenda
today in error. We apologize.
Pearson: Okay so the ...
Wray: Yeah, there is a 5.3.
Pearson: The 5.3 is included? Okay. So we're at 5.2 now.
ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION.
Bencomo: Yes, Chair. I have questions. So I'm just curious and I, 1 wasn't able to
attend the meeting, the Policy Committee meeting. What exactly are the
issues with using the laterals and why are they not going to be used in the
foreseeable future? What, is it just lack of movement, lack of the will to
move on that, to try to work with EBID? Or is it EBID themselves?
Murphy: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bencomo. The, the heart of the issue is that the, we've spoke
with both Town of Mesilla staff and with Dona Ana County staff and they
advised us that they've become, that they've come to an impasse with EBID
as far as getting a MOA, MOU in place that would allow the, the trail
agreements to be put in place. I think probably it's, it's a, you know it's, it's
a combined sticking point of indemnity and, and commitment to
maintenance on those facilities but since neither, neither the Town nor the
County is willing to move forward with making a request to, to do trail
development on those laterals MPO staff believes that we need to
downgrade it in our plans from, from our top priorities to a lower tier priority
since the solution does not seem that it's, it's imminent.
Pearson: So the City has already taken that extra step and done, done whatever the
roadblocks that EBID might have.
Murphy: Mr. Chair. Yes, the City has in the past had an MOU. It, it's currently lapsed
but it's something that the, the City's Risk Management section has advised
us that they don't view it as a, as a deal -killer, you know the maintenance
and indemnity issues. So we expected that MOU to be renewed at some
point. Further when we, we spoke to the, the Policy Committee and the
elected officials in particular they, they just advised us to move forward on
the, on the roadway sections.
Pearson: Okay.
Bencomo: So it, yeah I have more questions, sorry. So when you say "elected officials"
the, was that the Board of Commissioners said that, the, the Trustees of
9
PA
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mesilla said that, when you say "elected officials" what do you mean by
that?
Murphy: By "elected officials" I mean the, the elected officials that serve on the
MPO's Policy Committee, the three trust, three Town Trustees on there,
there are three County Commissioners, three City Councilors.
Bencomo Okay.
Murphy: And the NMDOT District Engineer.
Bencomo: Okay so it's just the representatives, not, not "just" but the representatives
on those Committees which are not speaking for the Trustee Board or the
Board of Commissioners so, I mean I, 1 understand at this point I think that
Policy Committee has spoken and, and it's going to happen. I don't think
we even have a, a, a, a way to change that at this point. But I, 1 feel very
strongly that this needs to be resolved. The City is doing it and I understand
the maintenance portion of it is probably, obviously there's the indemnity
portion of it but I think the maintenance portion's probably the, the, one of
the bigger pieces, who's going to maintain that and how. I think there is the
ability to do that with these governmental agencies. I just think the will to
do that may not be there. So I personally would hope that this Committee,
if we feel that using the laterals is, is a viable option which, and we're looking
at, at the Union process here, if we go down Union we have to deal with a
lateral anyway or jump to the other side of the road. If we go down 28 and,
and be, even be without a choice of University and Union, if we go down 28
and then turn left at Calle Norte, I just don't think that's possible. There's no
right-of-way available from 28 on Calle Norte for about a quarter of a mile
past that first section of houses there. The houses are right up against the
road on both sides. I, 1 just am not sure that there's even the ability to do
that there as far as road widths and things so I'm not sure how, how that's
going to occur. But I, I, 1 would hope that, maybe I'm the only one on this
Committee that feels that those laterals are, are very valuable and could be
a huge benefit to our community and City, County, Mesilla, everywhere. I
just, I, 1 hate this discussion that it's not, or going to be downgraded but I
understand the process at this point. It's, it's just the way it's going to be for
now. Maybe it can be changed later. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Curry: Mr. Chair. May I add in. I would like to second Mr. Bencomo's thoughts on
that and, and, and I wonder has EBID said that they won't do it, I mean has
there been any discussion beyond ... coming from EBID saying, "We won't
do it unless we have this or that." You know I, I'm just wondering if it's just
a personality thing right now, that there are personalities that don't want it
versus it really is an impracticality. Because I do look at how well it works
through the rest of the City, the City Loop works beautifully on the EBID
G
I
trails. And again to kind of discount that right now, I realize that there may
2
be six, six people who saying it isn't but is it really ruled out?
3
4
Murphy:
Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. We believe EBID has consistently maintained that,
5
that they're willing to enter into, you know into these MOUs provided you
6
know that the entity that requests it take over the maintenance and, and do
7
the indemnification. We, the MPO staffs perspective is that the sticking
8
point is on the count, count side and the, and the County side is they have
9
not, they have not come to the, to the same conclusion that the, that the
10
City Legal and the City Risk has come to that it's a negligible increase in, in
11
exposure and, and yes we'll take on that indemnity. We did you know and
12
you know we you know obviously have no control over County, County staff
13
or Town staff. We did raise, raise it at the Policy Committee where the
14
elected officials from those jurisdictions are aware of the issue and if they
15
feel strongly enough about it they, then they can enter into those
16
discussions within their own government. That being said the Policy
17
Committee thought it'd be more expedient at this point to push forward with
18
a roadway solution. We're not, you know we're not proposing taking the
19
EBID facilities off at all. We're just downgrading their, their priorities from
20
you know a couple of them were Tier 1 and this is, this is a way that we
21
communicate to the public that there's an issue with that so these are not
22
going to be on the short list for becoming trails right-of-way so, or you know
23
really you know ...
24
25
Curry:
Right.
26
27
Murphy:
Really soon. So I, 1 think, I think you know we agree that those, you know
28
some of those EBI facilities would be terrific additions to the trail system but
29
there, there's a lot of issues to work out so while those are getting out, being
30
worked out we lower the expectations of the general public.
31
32
Curry:
Thank, thank you very much Mr. Murphy. That was a, a good explanation
33
of things and as the Town Representative for the Town of Mesilla I'm going
34
to go and talk to you know the powers that be at the Town and just see if, if
35
maybe they'd listen to the consideration of revisiting this, this topic because
36
I'm looking at the, at the long-range picture. The long-range picture, it's a
37
really usable facility and in 20 years' time that would be an amazing place
38
that would really add to our community. As, as a cyclist both recreationally
39
and commuting I think it's so much nicer to be out of traffic whereas these
40
other two options you're still in traffic. As the Safe Routes to School
41
Coordinator I would feel much safer putting kids on a multiuse trail rather
42
than on a roadway facility as well. So I'm thinking you know the big picture
43
is this sort of resolvable issue so I'll take it upon myself to go at least to the
44
Town of Mesilla and talk to, talk to them about maybe you know a little bit
45
further into the details.
7
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
But if I may I had a couple other comments and thoughts that I
wanted to ask and make. So first off the Strava data counts, again I think
that you're seeing much greater cycle, cycling usage on University Avenue
because it's a safer place to ride your bike. University's a horrible street to
ride your bike as I know from you know near misses with school buses but
so I think that as far as using that as strong data I think the data only shows
where cyclists feel safest, not necessarily where if it were safe they would
use one over the other. So I don't think there's necessarily more cycling
traffic coming down Union. It's just that that's a safer road to, to bike on
because there's less vehicular traffic. So I just wanted to make that point.
I also wanted to see if any of these things could be, could TAP funding,
could the Rails to Trails funding be accessible if, if the Town of Mesilla, the
County, the City wanted to apply to be able to get design funding or is there
other foreseen funding that would fund the design and implementation of
this?
Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. Yes, that is the reason why we've been pushing this
so hard so fast is to get it in time for the TAP funding. It is possible that
other sources of funding may become available. Mr. Doolittle, the District 1
Engineer last week on the record said that NMDOT has looked at pursuing
funding for additional phases of study and then potential implementation on
University but they have nothing secured yet. They've just examined the
possibility intellectually. So other sources of funding may come available
but yes, we've been pushing this hard this year because the TAP cycle that
has now arrived.
Curry: Thank you very much.
Nunez: Yes I, 1 agree with a lot of what's been said. I appreciate your comments.
That's a good idea, kudos to you Mr. Bencomo for the, even trying to attempt
to get to, close to those laterals. You persuaded me in the last conversation
we had of, hanging over the plans there. But what I wanted to ask was, is
if you could go back to the map a little bit and maybe kind of walk me through
a little bit ...
Wray: Which map?
Nunez: The map there, that'll work, kind of, if you can, cause I notice that you had
quite a bit more traffic I think you said to the east on the one versus the
other plan ...
Wray: Let me ...
Nunez: Like 10,000 versus ...
Wray: Let me go back to ...
�3
1
2
Nunez:
Five thousand.
3
4
Wray:
I think this would be more, I think this would be more ...
5
6
Nunez:
Oh, that'll work. Yeah.
7
8
Wray:
Illustrative. Yes. The, this portion of Union had 10,000 over 10,000 AADT.
9
This portion of Union had just slightly over 2,000 AADT.
to
11
Nunez:
And compared to the other option also.
12
13
Wray:
University was pretty consistent, six, five to six thousand both sides, let me
14
just go back to that slide, yeah.
15
16
Nunez:
Right. Yeah I notice the 10,000 versus 6,000 is what I was kind of wanting
17
to see the difference there, and the section of road, the distance. So if you
18
can go back to the map please and also show me, walk me through a little
19
bit through the Town of Mesilla versus County Road property or sections.
20
21
Wray:
The roadway itself is actually an NMDOT facility but it is in Town of Mesilla.
22
This portion here it crosses into County, well actually I'm not sure where the
23
ownership lies because we have this portion of the city that's down here but
24
then we have this bit of the county so I, this portion here would be County.
25
I'm not sure who the ownership is along here and then it would be City from
26
this portion here and Soo might actually be able to, to speak, to speak to
27
that. This portion is City here. We, we do have the Traffic Engineer from
28
City here so he can answer some questions as well, put him on the spot.
29
30
Nunez:
No this helps a lot. With the light blue I can see the City now, I can see the
31
County, I can see this, the Town of Mesilla. And then I guess, I know you
32
worked through this but I know, since this looks like the, the, the route that
33
we'll have to take based on the obstacles we're facing, what ought to
34
mitigate some of that, the concerns on, they talk about properties being
35
close. I mean you got some path there, right. Is that not right, that section
36
of pedestrian path, is that correct?
37
38
Wray:
Yes. There's a multiuse facility that exists along about that stretch.
39
40
Nunez:
Right. Okay.
41
42
Wray:
Right there.
43
44
Nunez:
That helps me. All right. Thanks for going over that.
45
I
Curry: Mr. Chair, Mr. Wray. I have one more question. Is this, are, are you
2
considering doing this as in -road facility, like sort of bike facility or was it a
3
separate standing multiuse path like that section on Union?
4
5
Wray:
The, the expressed goal at the beginning is really to have as much separate
6
facility as possible there. Even if we were utilizing laterals there would've
7
had to have been points of compromise. On NM-28 at this moment in time
8
for both of these options staff is envisioning just an in -road facility potentially
9
designated as, "Hey this is the point that connects from here to here." So
10
at this point we are, it, it's our understanding that there will have to be some
11
in -road facilities incorporated into it but the goal at the beginning was to
12
have as many separated facilities as possible, a separate, a separate path.
13
14
Curry:
Thank you. Cause I, I'm thinking in keeping with the rest of the multiuse
15
trail the, the loop trail that goes around, it's almost exclusively, I'm trying to
16
think, almost exclusively multi, off -trail, I mean at the ...
17
18
Wray:
Yes.
19
20
Curry:
A multiuse trail as opposed to in -road. So again I mean it's back to that
21
thought of the use of the laterals. I hate to give up this idea that the laterals
22
are a possibility cause it doesn't really complete the loop. I mean if you're
23
a family out for a bike ride you're not going to be wanting to bike your family
24
down NM-28 in -road facility with your you know five -year -old in tow. So I, I,
25
1 still just have that vision if if we're going to do it let, you know do it right or
26
do this with the thought in mind that later down the road we could add the
27
laterals if something were to change.
28
29
Wray:
Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. That is an excellent point. In, in doing this we're in
30
no way excluding any sort of future work that could be done on any sort of
31
facility. This, this process has been driven by wanting to, the timeliness
32
because we have the portion of Triviz that's now going to go down south of
33
University, the completion of La Llorona Trail and this, the two-year funding
34
cycle where if we miss this one it's not going to come up again for a while,
35
kind of a perfect storm of, a, a window of opportunity here to, to accomplish,
36
to accomplish something is really why this has been driven. It, it has moved
37
very quickly. It has moved very quickly.
38
39
Curry:
Thank you.
40
41
Pearson-
But even if we designate this route we might only find funding to do the
42
University portion and then might be another two years and by then maybe
43
we can get some, maybe the Rio Grande Valley Trail will come up and we
44
can connect further south on that perhaps or something like that.
45
10
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Wray: That, that is an excellent point Mr. Chair. If, if we amend it once we can, if
circumstances change we can do it again.
Billings: I have a question. Since I'm new to this Committee could someone briefly
explain "the laterals" and what that means?
Wray: Yes Mr. Chair, Ms. Billings. The laterals are EBID drainage facilities that
they use for moving irrigation water to the farmers in the community. That's
basically in a nutshell what they are used for.
Billings: The only problem I can see with those is road bikes but I mean that's a really
minor group that can't go on those trails so I think those would be ...
Curry: But the trails are paved.
Pearson: It would be ...
Billings: Oh.
Curry: It's a paved trail.
Billings: Those ones are paved? Okay.
Curry: Yeah.
Billings: I've only been on ...
Curry: That's what we're talking about, doing paved trails.
Billings: Oh. Okay then I think that sounds like a great option. Okay. Thank you.
Bencomo: Mr. Chair.
Pearson: Yes Andrew.
Bencomo: Sorry. I know I talk a lot but, so a couple more items, as far as the Strava
data I would be very careful with that. I mean that, Strava is, is, is very
popular with bicyclists but it's popular with bicyclists that are like hardcore
bicyclists like Ashleigh.
Curry: I don't use it.
Bencomo: But, so, as long as we, and a lot of runners use it too. As long as we always
try to keep in mind as the, as the, this Committee and then I hope that the
Policy Committee and the TAC would do the same thing, when we talk
about these facilities if we could always keep in mind that we're not just
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
talking about hardcore bicyclists, hardcore runners, we're talking about
families. We're trying to get families out there with little kids and I would
never, as Ashleigh said, I would never take my little ones when they were
small on any of these roadways, any in -road facilities. It's, it's, you don't
know what they're going to do as far as little ones. So those separate
facilities are very important and that's one of the main reasons I am such an
advocate for trying to use these laterals. It separates them from the traffic.
There'll always be the bicyclists that are going to zip down the main roads
and their, they have no fear of doing that and they ride all over the place but
we need to look at families that are going to be the future bicyclists and
runners and people that are using these facilities. So if we can always keep
that in mind and maybe push for the other committees to keep that in mind
also as we're doing this, but Strava is, is, is more, used I think more by kind
of the more hardcore users. And then the other comment I wanted to make
was if, if we're looking at these two options I would go probably myself and
maybe I, I'm, I'm thinking greedily here trying to grab as much as possible.
Option B would be Union if there were funds available for that because we
know that Option A, University from Main to 28's already going to get done,
correct that they're ...
Wray: I _..
Bencomo: NMDOT's already going to, there's a project in place to widen that road,
correct?
Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bencomo. That is not correct.
Bencomo: No.
Wray: There's no, no guarantee that that is going to get done.
Bencomo: Okay.
Wray: They're just investigating the possibility but there's no guarantee.
Bencomo: Okay. But..
Pearson: The planning to allow it as, made a step with the University Corridor study
but funding for it I think is still ...
Wray, Nonexistent.
Pearson: I think the Governor's veto got out last session.
Bencomo: Okay. So let me, let me restate that then, I was incorrect. I think there's
more opportunity for that one to get done anyway. They're already do,
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
they've already done planning on it. We, that's, that was the presentation
we got from Bohannan Huston was it not? We got a presentation on, and
we went through the process of looking at options there and selecting what
we felt was going to be best for that section from Main to 28 so it appears
that there's already traction and movement there and I would, I would still
support Union also because there's just less traffic on that road than there
is University, less automobile traffic. So ...
Pearson: You're right. I think ...
Bencomo: That'd be my comment. Thank you.
Pearson: That wanted to be, right along what I wanted to talk about. The University
Corridor identified only a portion of it would be able to support a multiuse
path and a portion of it would require in -road facilities and the loop trail in
my mind isn't complete unless it's 100% multiuse path. The Union side
hasn't had that level of planning but is there room to put the multiuse path
for the entire length down to NM-28?
Wray: Mr. Chair. There are places where the right-of-way does pinch kind of tight.
I'm, it, in my non -engineering opinion so please don't hold me to this, my
non -engineering opinion something could be fit in but I don't know where
the property lines lie exactly.
Pearson: Right. We haven't had ...
Wray: So we have not...
Pearson: The planning study or ...
Wray: We have, this is all very preliminary. We're just trying to draw the line on
the map to justify future, future planning.
Pearson: But we know that we can't get 100% multiuse on University and we think we
may not be able to but we think we may, there's still a chance that we could
on Union so with that in mind I would support the Union side. Any other
Committee Members?
Shepan: Yes.
Pearson: Lance.
Shepan: On your data for vehicle traffic west of Main Street, is that what was shown
for the month?
Wray: It's a . .
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Shepan Or is that a day?
Wray: It, it's an AADT which is Averaged Annual Daily Trips so it's, what we do is
we go out and we put the boxes out for 48 hours. The, the data is then
taken in by staff and sent up to Santa Fe to NMDOT up there. They apply
what they call Seasonal Adjusted Factors to that data to, to normalize it for
the rest of the year and then that's what's sent back to us as an AADT. So
that's, it, it's, it's more of a yearly count rather than, it's supposed to
represent a yearly.
Pearson: It's a yearly average on ...
Wray: Yeah,
Pearson: One, one magic day.
Wray: One, one, yeah, one magic day. There may never have been that many
cars appear on the road at that particular time due to they're applying the
formula to it in Santa Fe but that's, that's the basis of the data.
Pearson: And since you use that same formula across the entire system that gives
consistency as to where there are cars and where there are not cars.
Shepan: It's just, I know with Zia Middle School parents picking up and it's
predominantly during the pick-up times, we can have anywhere from 100 to
200 vehicles on University and if weather's bad like the hailstorm we had in
October, I'm willing to bet there was 500 vehicles out there in an hour time
span. So the University Corridor needs, really needs to get done just for
the safety of the kids, just because of that traffic flow there. And then on
Calle del Norte I don't know what, cause like you said the right-of-ways are
either nonexistent, I know there's a couple of spots that there's barely
enough room to park a car. Cause we sit out there and run radar and you
couldn't open up the other door.
Wray: On, on this portion of Calle del Norte nothing else is possible but putting up
a sign. Nothing else is possible but putting up a sign. Nothing else is
possible. I'll ...
Shepan: Right.
Wray: Flatly state that to everyone. Nothing else is possible right there. That is a
point that, where we will have to compromise. There's nothing else that can
be done if we're going to use that spot.
14
I
Shepan:
And I don't think, until you get down to Calle de Oeste before something
2
could really start to be done and then it would be primarily on the north side,
3
wouldn't it Ashleigh?
4
5
Curry:
The one before Calle de Oeste, I think just on the other side of the irrigation
6
7
8
Baum:
You're not on the microphone.
9
10
Curry:
Sorry about that. I think just on the other side of the EBID lateral, we, that
11
would be a place that you'd be able to start going west.
12
13
Shepan:
Cause there's a lateral ...
14
15
Rochelle:
Right, we could, which is to say a couple blocks down Norte, that's all.
16
17
Curry:
Right.
18
19
Rochelle:
Where the lateral is.
20
21
Curry:
Right.
22
23
Rochelle:
Oeste, I live on Oeste ...
24
25
Curry:
Right.
26
27
Rochelle:
And that's, yeah, the, you could do something before that but, but Andrew's
28
right. There's really nothing that can be done just by the traffic light.
29
30
Shepan:
That's all.
31
32
Rochelle:
But could I continue with that? I, I, 1 mean given the fact that we have to, 1
33
guess there's no alternative but to use Norte to connect ultimately with the
34
La Llorona Trail but I'm also wondering, I get, does Mesilla own that section?
35
36
Wray:
That is an NMDOT facility.
37
38
Rochelle:
It is, okay.
39
40
Wray:
It's NM2, it's NM2-something-or-other.
41
42
Rochelle,
Okay. Yeah, just, cause, I mean they just rebuilt the levee the last year
43
which has made it even more difficult if you're riding an off -road bike to get
44
down to the trail. It's practically a quarter of a mile from Norte to the trail so
45
that's all got to be, the paving there has to be figured in for ultimately
46
completing a multiuse trail.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Murphy: And I, 1 think I would add to that. I, you know the, the TAP funding that we're
envisioning ultimately is, isn't going to, isn't going to pay for the entire thing
to be done at one point. I think we're, what we're trying to do is we want to
designate a preferred option at this point and then start looking at
strategically what would be the best initial projects to do. And what you
suggest there, you know that might, that might be a nicely -sized project for
this application is extend La Llorona Trail from its end up to Calle, Calle del
Norte and then maybe even go up Calle del Norte till you know you hit Calle
de Oeste or one of the laterals because really you're not going to build a lot
more than something, you know something of that size in any one funding
cycle.
Rochelle: Thank you.
Pearson: Any Committee Members? Well this is an Action Item so we're being asked
to take an action on this. And I've heard a couple of suggestions for Option
B so I will listen to somebody to make a motion.
Bencomo: Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion that we accept Option B for this process,
not exactly what I'd hoped for but we'll move forward with what we have.
Shearer: I'll second the motion.
Pearson: Okay. We have a, had a motion and a second to move forward with Option
B. All in favor, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: Any opposed? Hearing none, we've completed that item.
5.3 Recommendation of approval of IFFY 2017 and IFFY 2018 UPWP
Pearson: So now we're at 5.3. Go ahead.
TOM MURPHY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION.
Pearson: Any, any Committee Members have any comments they'd wish to ask? I
think there isn't anything new, that this is a continuation and ...
Murphy: Yeah. The general, I mean ...
Pearson: No surprises.
Murphy: Bulk of is, is supporting our committee structures, hold, holding meetings,
you know, you 'know doing traffic counts.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Pearson: It has some important things that this Committee's interested in like the Safe
Routes to School Action Plan.
Murphy: Yes sir.
Curry: Yes. I appreciate that being in there. Thank you.
Pearson: So I'll hear a motion to forward, what is this, approve this to the ...
Murphy: Recommend approval.
Pearson: Recommend approval to the Policy Committee.
Curry: I'll recommend approval.
Rochelle: Second.
Pearson: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes.
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
6.1 Missouri/Roadrunner Study Corridor Presentation
Pearson: So we're on to Discussion Items, 6.1,
Murphy: Mr. Chair. And I apologize, we'll have to ask to scratch this one from the
agenda. We had some miscommunications with the, our, our consultant
and they were not ready to have the presentation but we will have it for you
next meeting.
Pearson: Okay.
7. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS
7.1 MPO Staff Update
Pearson: Okay. So we're on to 7.1, MPO staff update.
Murphy: Okay Mr. Chair. And I don't remember if Andrew has shared this one
previously but he did allude to it. We are now live with our new website.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The address, the address is mesillavalleympo.org and can we, he'll type it
in here real fast.
Rochelle: He scared me, I saw Donald Trump for a second and I thought he was on
this Committee.
Murphy: Make sure I'm spelling, and probably I think most of you have, have seen it.
We do have a greater deal of functionality with our calendar which is not
coming up. For example you can download, download the meeting packet
from the meeting date and you all know, you have that in your hand so I
would go, go back to other things. We have a, we have a resource page
where we have our, you know our core documents such as the
Transportation Plan including all the maps which, which we produce, Trail
System which we referred to this evening, our TIP which we amended, our,
our UPWP and so on so I invite you to, to look it over, give us some, you
know give us your feedback on that. It's something that I think we're going
to, we have a little more control over now that we have a, a independent
site and we can make more changes if deemed necessary but we feel that
we've come up with a pretty functional layout.
Pearson: Okay. I did look at it briefly.
Murphy: Oh. And, and then also well be reminded from, from, from people who have
more memory than I do, we have a new section and we have the TAP guide
and the, and the Recreational Trails guide on our site so you download that
and, and review it. I guess we're going to be asking for, for your jurisdictions
to get any proposals to us by September 23rd so we can run it through the,
the committee process and we are required to for, forward it to NMDOT for,
for ranking and an award by November 30th. So this'll give us enough time
to run it through this Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Policy
Committee.
Pearson: Okay. I did look at it earlier and you had all the previous meetings, the 2015,
what seemed to be missing are some of the earlier 2016 meetings and that's
what confused me. I was looking for 2016 for the earlier meetings and I
think you had told me that you had, that was going to be on the calendar
where you could find those things so ...
Murphy: That, it, that is on Andrew's work schedule. I, I'm, I'm soaking the noodle
now it, you know if he's going to get it, get it here in next few days.
Pearson: Okay. And I had also asked about populating out the already -scheduled
meetings on the calendar even if there's nothing there so we already, the,
the, those dates have already been approved by the Policy Committee so
we know they're going to happen so.
18
I Murphy: Right. And, and that's just one of, one of those things. It's been on Andrew's
2
schedule but it, the, it, he's, he's getting, it's, he's getting to it.
3
4
Pearson:
Okay.
5
6
Murphy:
I keep him too busy with other things.
7
8
Pearson:
Anything else from MPO staff?
9
10
Murphy:
No. That's it.
11
12
7.2
Local Projects update
13
14
Pearson:
So we have Local Project Updates. We'll start with City.
15
16
Nunez:
Yes. I was looking over our last, list of letting, letting schedule projects and
17
the bulk of all these are really maintenance and reconstruction of roads. 1
18
know we have the microsurfacing on Peachtree, Mesa Grande. We do
19
have, Elks Road is under reconstruction and a lot of you have noticed the
20
Cutler with the mill and overlay on one section of Union and another on
21
Amador and we're about to do a little more work on North Del Rey. There's
22
also a lot of reconstruction of small roads throughout the city that, none of
23
these are really effecting any new shared lanes or, or, I, 1 did, I wish Mr.
24
Lee, he left from the Traffic Department, I was going to talk to him a little bit
25
about, or refer to him if there was any restriping or, or redesignation of any
26
lanes or anything but I'm not familiar with any. But I can get with him before
27
the next meeting.
28
29
Pearson:
He did mention to me that they're doing a restriping, you might've seen it,
30
of most of the major roadways so they're just re -freshening up what's there.
31
32
Curry:
He, he did address it at, at a meeting that we had earlier this morning. They,
33
they did look at, every street that's getting restriped they're looking at
34
whether bike facilities can go in or not, just depending on the engineering
35
of it. So for example Union Avenue was restriped today but they weren't
36
able to put in bicycle facilities but it is being addressed and looked at for
37
every restriping.
38
39
Nunez:
Well good. I'm glad we have some answers on that. Also the La Llorona
40
construction for the scope that, that's completed. And then they're, I'm not
41
sure but in a few days they're going to start on the dam trails here within a
42
few days even, I guess on that construction on the dam trails.
43
44
Pearson-
Okay. Dona Ana County, do you have anything to report?
45
19
I
Paz:
County projects along Baylor, Baylor Road and Dripping Springs will be
2
complete by June. Roadway construction should be complete by May. So
3
those are the updates. I think the, the June deadline came from some
4
vegetation requirements that they had.
5
G
Pearson-
So they got pushed back a little bit.
7
8
Paz:
Yeah. But the roadway portion should be complete by May.
9
10
Pearson,
Town of Mesilla.
11
12
Shepan:
Nothing Mr. Chair.
13
1.4
Pearson:
NMSU.
15
16
Shearer:
NMSU, we, we basically just news. We had a, a Youth Family Bicycle
17
Education class or a training we did on Saturday, April 2nd. One of the
18
things I did want to bring up was a concern on the, the crosswalk at Hagerty
19
on University. We had a recent bicycle injury there and I was just trying to
20
find out something since it doesn't belong to the university. The crosswalk
21
lights seem to be out there and I just wondered a little if there's anything
22
planned to improve that crosswalk so I proposed that to the City so if there's
23
any permission I'd be happy to issue it. I've got several concerns on that.
24
Thank you.
25
26
Pearson:
Okay what exactly, where exactly was that again?
27
28
Shearer:
That's on University, the only crosswalk on University that's not controlled.
29
It's at Hagerty, I think it's called is the one street and they had a ...
30
31
Curry:
It's the one that's not at an intersection.
32
33
Pearson:
It's where the, the midblock.
34
35
Shearer:
Yes. Yes.
36
37
Pearson:
What?
38
39
Shearer:
There was a, there was a bicycle -related injury and one of the students got
40
hit by a car. I'm not saying that she was in the right when she crossed there
41
but the, basically was injured and this was I think the latter part of March.
42
43
Curry:
Was there not, I thought that Bill McCamley, our state representative had
44
somehow secured some funding to put in a signal, to put in a traffic,
45
pedestrian crossing signal.
46
20
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
.8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Shearer: It's been brought up by ASNMSU but I haven't heard for certain that
anything's going on and since it ...
Pearson: I thought that was one of the things that came out of the session is that
there's $100,000
Shearer: Oh.
Pearson: Capital outlay for a pedestrian, we're talking about a HAWK signal there.
Shearer: Oh, that came up? Okay. So I hadn't heard that. So all right.
Curry: Yeah. Talk to, talk, talk to Bill McCamley.
Shearer: Okay. Thank you.
Pearson: Okay.
7.3 NMDOT Projects update
Pearson: We don't have NMDOT. I had a couple of questions for NMDOT so we can
throw it out there anyways. On the Missouri project, the Triviz bike facility
that comes along there once you get to the, the intersection area there that
drops off of course to go through but it seems, especially the, on the north
side of Missouri on Triviz, that travel lane seems to be very narrow and I'm
wondering you know it seems like it's maybe 11-foot travel lane. I wonder
if a "Bicycle May Use Full Lane" sign shouldn't be appropriately placed there
or perhaps sharrows right down the middle of the lane until the bike lane
picks up again later.
Murphy: Mr. Chair. In matters to Triviz that would ultimately be the, the City of Las
Cruces so we'll
Pearson: Right. It's ...
Murphy: We'll pass that on.
Pearson: Right now it's in limbo -land, is it NM ...
Murphy: It's in limbo -land, exactly. It's under DOT control right now for the
construction but it'll be, soon to be returned to the City.
Pearson: Right.
Murphy: But ...
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Pearson: So that's the ...
Murphy: I think we can, we can pass that concern, concern along to Mr. lee.
Pearson: That was a particular direction that I went and noticed that as there just isn't
room for anybody to pass in that very narrow corridor so that's a concern. I
was going to ask about the TAP funding. I think we've talked about that
fairly well but one area that I was going to ask Jolene's input on was NGOs,
Non -Governmental Organizations are allowed to apply now ...
Curry: No.
Pearson: Aren't they?
Curry: No.
Murphy: Mr. Chair. According to the federal legislation NGOs and nonprofits are
eligible recipients. However they do leave discretion to the state and
NMDOT in the decision up in the Santa Fe at the, the Santa Fe level decided
that they do not want to open it up to NGOs.
Pearson: Okay.
Murphy: But it, however an NGO may partner with a, a governmental entity on an
application.
Pearson: Okay so that's, I was, having gone to the National Bike Summit I'd hear
more, heard more about that from the national side so thank you for that
information. I guess that's all I had on NMDOT projects that I had questions
about.
Curry: Mr. Chair. Is it time, when it's available can I make a comment?
Pearson: Sure. Not, we're at that point. Go ahead.
Curry: We are? We are at that point? Wonderful. I would like to just announce a
couple upcoming bicycle -related activities that we've got going on around
in the area. Las Cruces Public Schools together with Safe Routes to School
is, is presenting the Family Bike Fiesta which is April 30th and it's open to
really all the kids in our community and we're going to have a number of
bicycle -related activities: Education, some bike repair, flat, fix -a -flat repair,
some kind of fun activities with, we're teaming up with KidFit which is put on
by the Junior League. It's April 30th 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Young Park.
I've also got some posters here if anybody wants to take those and put them
in their place of work.
22
I
Also that, that leads us into National Bike, Bike to School Week will
2
be celebrated in the area from May the 2nd through May the 6th and we
3
have a website, walkbiketoschool.org, it's a national website that lists all the
4
schools that are participating and I think so far we have about 18 or 19
5
schools signed up for, for that National Bike to School week so just a, you
6
know an awareness that people are out there and also if anybody would like
7
to sign up and volunteer to bike with the, with the school we certainly could
8
use some extra bikers out there that, those mornings. Thank you.
9
10 Pearson:
Any other committee members?
11
12 Bencomo:
Mr. Chair, I received an e-mail from Kari Bachman who I work with at
13
Communities United and I forwarded that e-mail to you Mr. Chair, to
14
Ashleigh, Andrew Wray, I didn't have everybody's e-mail so I was trying to
15
get my computer to pull up the names. I think Michael got the e-mail also,
16
1 forwarded it and it's from the National Park Service and it's, they're
17
accepting applications for 2017 projects, its Rivers, Trails, and
18
Conservation Assistance Program and it's National Park Service but they're
19
also doing like urban trails. Albuquerque is working with that. They don't
20
do, from what I've read they don't do projects per se. they help you to like
21
do planning for your trail systems and so I'm wondering if that's something
22
that we might be interested in to, to do a more comprehensive plan of, cause
23
right now the, the, the trail system that we have now and I don't know that
24
we want to marry the two or have some kind of separate things or whatever
25
but there are other groups like the Southern New Mexico Trail Alliance
26
who're working on trails too. They're not the, the typical trails that you would
27
find like we're talking multiuse trails, things like that. Theirs are more like
28
out in the desert, things like that but I, 1 think they all eventually are going to
29
serve these same purposes and I think there's a lot of synergy they could
30
have in with these groups. So I don't know that, that we even want to do
31
that or go there. I think it's a good idea but that's just me. But the, they're,
32
Albuquerque's using it, Santa Fe's using it through the National Park
33
Service and so it's just an opportunity I think for maybe, to get some, some
34
assistance from an entity like that, that has a lot of expertise in that area.
35
So thank you.
36
37 Pearson:
Any other Members? Go ahead.
38
39 Billings:
I have a comment. I was looking at the, the minutes for the last meeting
40
and I noticed you guys were talking about cleaning up dirt in bike lanes and
41
if the City could do anything about that, and I bike down Espina about four
42
miles each way and there are huge dirt like islands that you have to bike
43
into the road to get around and I was just wondering if any progress had
44
been done on finding out if there's like someone we call in the City or some
45
City Committee I could go talk to about cleaning up bike lanes like that.
46
23
I Pearson: Staff actually asked the question about street sweeping after that meeting
2
and got a response that was shared, but you weren't on the Committee so
3
maybe they can forward that to you also and remind us what that is if you
4
do have it. Part of the response was, off the top of my head the City wants
5
to sweep every street once every three months.
6
7
Murphy:
Mr....
8
9
Pearson:
But they are, have only one out of five pieces of equipment or something
10
running, something like that.
11
12
Murphy:
Yes Mr. Chair. I don't remember the exact response either but there's,
13
there's something with an equipment shortage and they trying to, trying do
14
some skeleton schedule. I think the, the best they, the, the City does have
15
a, a website where you can get, log on and, and you know I think it's similar
16
to the Report A Pothole. I think this, you can report a, a street sweeping
17
necessity through that as well.
18
19
Billings:
Thank you. And then I have one more thing since I am new to this
20
Committee and I brought stuff. On Alameda and Picacho there is a bike
21
lane like right before that intersection on Alameda. There is a bike lane and
22
it connects to Alameda Elementary School so I think it's kind of important.
23
It just disappears into a turn lane and there is no sign on Alameda at all that
24
says that the bike lane ends so I was wondering if we could get a sign or
25
like a bike lane painted on somewhere on that intersection so that it's not a
26
death trap cause it is now.
27
28
Murphy:
We can look into that.
29
30
Billings:
Okay. Thank you. That's it for me.
31
32
Bencomo:
Mr. Chair. And, and related to that and talking about the street sweeping
33
so that, that was one of the reasons why when I brought that up previously
34
I, 1 asked if we could, if there was somebody we could meet with because 1
35
understand that equipment breaks down, you only have so many, having
36
dealt in city government, we dealt with that in the Fire Department.
37
Sometimes we were way down on our fire apparatus and we had to do what
38
we did with our reserves but at the same time then we also had to reprioritize
39
and it's great to, that they want to sweep all the streets every three months
40
but when you're down on the equipment like that then let's focus on the, on
41
this, the ones that need it the most which would include the ones maybe
42
with the bike lanes, maybe prioritize it that way. I don't know if they, if they
43
do that, I don't know if they have a, a, anyway and also when they, when
44
they, I brought that up then I noticed about couple weeks later when I rode
45
down Elks they had swept but then they swept up to like I think it was like
46
close to Jasmine and then from there that way they, there was nothing. And
24
I
so I, I'm, I'm thinking maybe, I don't know if there's a place on the website
2
to do that like the Pothole Posse they used to have, maybe we can do that
3
but I think somebody needs to approach somebody and ask them, "What is
4
your system and what are we doing with this?" because I think the bike
5
lanes, if you can't do anything else do the streets with the bike lanes at least.
6
Otherwise we're just defeating the purpose of having those so. Thank you.
7
8
Curry:
I would second that. I, 1 don't know, maybe it exists already but like
9
someone's taken the idea of a place for public input, I'm hearing that both
10
from Ms. Billings and Mr. Bencomo that a place where public can comment.
11
"There's a pothole cover missing, I was biking this weekend and there's a
12
pothole cover missing and a big hole in the road," that kind of thing that the
13
public could call that in whether it's by, it's sweeping or repairs or the
14
crosswalk button is out, or you know whatever is going on. So does such a
15
thing exist?
16
17
Murphy:
Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. I, 1 think you know the Pothole Posse I believe does
18
exist and I think that's just kind of their catchy name for it. I think the, 1
19
believe their intention is to be all-inclusive of citizen -reported street
20
deficiencies.
21
22
Pearson:
Right. The Ask the City website, I guess I'll address the particular thing, 1
23
was at the end of the La Llorona trail, the Outfall Channel Trail and there
24
was a sign there that was falling down. It's one of the signs that talked about
25
the owls I think if you've been there but I, 1 went to the website and typed
26
that in and in a day or two I got a call, "Now where is that sign?" So they
27
are responsive and try to follow up on some of those things. I think if you
28
put things in there, if you don't hear a response and if the system, if the
29
problem continues past a week or something after respond, reporting that
30
then you'd follow up maybe with this Committee or with a City Councilor or
31
something like that.
32
33
Bencomo:
Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I'll shut up eventually. Something just popped into my
34
head and I meant to bring it up earlier and then I forgot and it just came
35
back. So we're talking about completing the loop around the city and then
36
we're talking about the obstacles and those type of things so one of the
37
obstacles that I am familiar with because of my brother lives close to there,
38
he is disabled, he's, he rides a power chair everywhere and he takes the
39
dog out walking and he can't get any farther than the railroad tracks down
40
off of Dona Ana Road. Is there any plan in the future, I know there's, now
41
we're talking about in agreements with the Southern, with the Santa Fe
42
Railway or whoever, I don't know who, BNSF is the one I guess that runs
43
through there. Really it's inaccessible. It's, it's not a complete loop so if you
44
have anybody that accessibility issues as my brother does then the, the loop
45
at that point is just really inaccessible. Even some bicyclists like when you
46
have once again families that have little ones you know you can't even go
25
I that way. So are there any plans to create those crossings there and I know
2 there's probably liabilities cause it says, there's a sign that says, "Trail
3 Ends," or something like that but it doesn't really end there. You can see it
4 on the other side so what, what is the idea behind that?
6 Murphy: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bencomo. I know the, in development of the Outfall Channel
7
Trail the City tried to get an agreement with BNSF to, to cross that. That
8
was one of those days where BN, you know, I, 1 hate to cast aspersions but
9
you know I think the railroads has been historically shy about cooperating
10
with local governments so it, it, I think there, the effort's been there on the
11
local level but it's one of those things that we have no control over but ...
12
13 Pearson:
And we have no leverage.
14
15 Murphy:
Everybody, everybody wants to keep trying.
16
17 Pearson: And we have no leverage either so we can't, don't have an opportunity to
18 tell the railroad, "You must do this." It's the railroad, "Well we've been here
19 for 100 years before everybody else," so that's where that problem lies.
20 Okay. Well I've got a couple other things I'm going to ask about. We had a
21 pedestrian facility on Telshor and I wonder if, in the newspaper reports it
22 was kind of halfway victim -blaming, halfway fatality -blaming. Do we have
23 an attractive nuisance there, do we a, a living facility with a shopping facility
24 on the other sides, are we doing enough to make a safe crossing there? Do
25 we need a pedestrian, that HAWK system set up in there or something? Is,
26 is there anything that we can do to follow-up on those kinds of things,
27 prevent future problems of that type? It's probably, it's a systemic problem.
28 The Governor's Highway Safety Association: Pedestrian Fatalities by State
29 lists New Mexico's number -one by population per hundred thousand in
30 fatalities. So we've got the problem in New Mexico in general so anything
31 in particular that we can do to avoid these kinds of problems is something
32 that we need to investigate.
33
34 Bencomo: Mr. Chair, related to that, another thing popped into my head. The City
35 Manager's newsletter last week, it did mention something about Telshor and
36 they talked about removing the bike lanes from Telshor, Lohman, and
37 Lohman North and then creating a multiuse trail I guess up against the dam
38 behind there so do we, is there any information on that? I, I, 1 spoke with
39 Ashleigh about it by e-mail and she brought up a very good point, the
40 concern of removing those bike lanes prior to building the, an, an alternate
41 to that is very concerning. So it, do you have any information on that? I, 1
42 felt that it was related to what you just said so I didn't mean to cut in.
43
44 Pearson: I think it's different but related, certainly related.
45
26
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Murphy: Yes Mr. Chair. I, I'll, we, I address that. I saw that in the City Manager's
newsletter as well. We have not been asked by the City to do any, any form
of analysis but I did advise staff that that may be forthcoming. We recent,
as you've seen in Andrew's presentation we recently got the 2014 crash
data so I'm having them put, put together you know the crashes along that
section. I think from you know, you know and then to address your, your
question Mr. or your comment Mr. Chair, from an MPO perspective what
we're trying to do is, is develop a systematic analysis of, of data like the
crash analysis so that we find you know trouble spots, we find troublesome
occurrences and then we, we're able to either pick a, you know pick an area
that we need to particularly focus on or is there a particular classification of
crash that we, that we need to pay particular attention to and so from an
MPO perspective what we're doing is we're trying to make, we're making
that part of our, our Safety Management Plan where we identify the most
dangerous locations and then we you know we make, you know we make
that known so that the, you know the, the agencies that do operate facilities
are, are able to be more aware of the problem spots and direct funding
accordingly.
Pearson: Right. Right. The idea of putting North Telshor into four lanes, that, I was
listening to City Council and that was Councilor Levatino bringing that up.
Complaints about traffic backing up at the intersection at Spruce is probably
what drove that comment. That is very worrying to me to convert that street.
It's a bicycle facility, it meets, it serves destinations so even if they turn,
made it a four -lane road bicycles will still be on there. We're gonna end up
with any number of, can't remember his name, Mr. Lemus, Lemus, traffic
fatal, bicycle fatalities. He was using that in, in an area where it was four
lanes or close to four lanes with a very narrow shoulder to meet, and it was
his only choice in order to go to his place of work. So taking out the bicycle
facility on North Telshor would be a problem and making a much less safe
facility because bicycles will use it, trying to divert to, bicycles to another
facility at the base of the dam is not going to be, work because it's not going
to serve the destinations for bicyclists and it also goes against Complete
Street policies that the City has so the City, if the City needs to increase
capacity which is a bad idea anyways, the increased capacity you're just
going to increase congestion but if they decide they need to do that they do
need to have bicycle facilities as part of that design.
Murphy: Mr. Chair, I do believe that the data is on your, agrees with the, agrees with
you. And, and it, just to, just to add on to that I think our experience with
doing road diets at various locations shown that going from four lanes to
three lanes and bike lanes increases safety. It does not reduce capacity
which is, is the chief complaint. So I, 1 think part of it is we need to, we need
to educate members of the public and, and maybe some of our, our leaders
on you know how efficient four lanes is versus three lanes and, and things
of that nature. So ...
27
1
2
Pearson:
Right. During the discussion on El Paseo, turning that into a road diet would
3
not be a problem because it's built way over capacity the way it is now. So
4
the similar kind of ideas I think fit throughout the rest of the city. We need
5
to talk about lowering traffic speed rates and that makes a more, for a more
6
livable municipality. And right along that line of, there was a, the City had a
7
presentation on the conversion to two-way of Church and Water. I'm kind
8
of disappointed that that discussion hasn't come to this Committee too. This
9
is, one of our primary goals is public input and for the City to bring those
10
projects here allows Committee Members and members of the public should
11
they choose to attend. It helps and the reason this Committee's here is we
12
have certain level of expertise and can offer some suggestions as to what
13
kind of projects, what kind of bicycle facilities might work. They were
14
presenting some ideas of bike lanes on the, on, in the conversion and
15
maybe having to drop them in certain areas, different ideas and those would
16
be things that would be worthwhile to bring the, to this Committee.
17
18
Nunez:
Mr. Chair.
19
20
Pearson:
Yes.
21
22
Nunez:
On that last comment that you had about the downtown area. I do know
23
that that's still in design.
24
25
Pearson:
Right.
26
27
Nunez:
And ...
28
29
Pearson:
So now's a good time to bring it to us.
30
31
Nunez:
Right. I can only invite, I'll talk to my supervisor.
32
33
Pearson:
Right.
34
35
Nunez.
And he's working with the consulting engineering firm on that.
36
37
Pearson:
And the last thing that I have is that this weekend, on Saturday at the WIA
38
Building is the New Mexico Bike Summit. So we're, have a program having
39
some national importance and some local importance. Everybody's invited.
40
1 think some of you have already signed up to attend and spread the word
41
and come and join us on Saturday. On Friday night before we're having a
42
free to, open to the public presentation on bike packing so that's also
43
available. Any last comments from Committee Members?
44
45
8. PUBLIC
COMMENT
46
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9. ADJOURNMENT (6:26 p.m.)
Pearson: Hearing none, I'll hear a motion to adjourn then.
Bencomo: So moved.
Curry: Second.
Pearson: All in favor, "aye."
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Pearson: And we're adjourned. Thank you.
Chairperso
7
29