Loading...
October 18, 2016 BPI 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 4I 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 October 18, 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 (Mesilla Citizen Rep) Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) Mark Leisher (DAC Citizen Rep) (departed 6:29) James Nunez (City of Las Cruces Rep) Lisa Willman - proxy Gabriel Rochelle (Bicycle Com. Rep.) Jorge Castillo - proxy Samuel Paz (Dona Ana County) David Shearer (NMSU - Environ. Safety) (departed 5:30) Lance Shepan (Mesilla Marshall's Department) Andrew Bencomo (Ped. Community Rep) MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT Maggie Billings Tom Murphy (MPO) Andrew Wray (MPO) Michael McAdams (MPO) Dominic Loya (MPO) OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC 1. CALL TO ORDER (5:00 p.m.) Pearson: Okay, it looks like we're at 5:00 and we've got probably everybody that's going to come here, so I'll call this meeting of the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee to order. It's right at 5:00 1 think. Let's just go through introductions. Will you start, David? Shearer: David Shearer, New Mexico State University. Herrera: Jolene Herrera, NMDOT. Shepan: Lance Shepan, Mesilla Marshal's Office. Curry: Ashleigh Curry, Town of Mesilla Citizens' Representative. Willman: Lisa Willman serving as fill-in for, proxy, pardon me, proxy for Gabriel Rochelle. I Nunez: James Nunez, the City of Las Cruces. 2 3 Bencomo: Andrew Bencomo, Community Pedestrian Representative. 4 5 Castillo: Jorge Castillo, Dona Ana County, proxy for Samuel Paz. 6 7 Leisher: Mark Leisher, Dona Ana Citizen Rep. 8 9 Pearson: I'm George Pearson, City of Las Cruces Citizen Rep. 10 11 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 12 13 Pearson: So next we have the an approval of the agenda. Are there any changes 14 15 16 Wray: No. 17 18 Pearson: To the agenda from staff? 19 20 Curry: I did note a change, oh sorry, no, pardon me. No, I was looking at 21 minutes. 22 23 Pearson: Okay. We're on the agenda. I'll hear a motion to approve the agenda as 24 presented. 25 26 Shearer: I move. 27 28 Curry: I second. 29 30 Pearson: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." 31 32 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 33 34 Pearson: Any opposed? 35 36 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 37 38 3.1 August 19, 2016 39 40 Pearson: So next we come to the approval of minutes. We've got two minutes to 41 approve so first we'll talk about the August 16th minutes. Any discussion? 42 43 Curry: Yes. I'd like to note on Members Present it said Blake Stogner in proxy for 44 Gabriel Rochelle but Gabriel was here and Blake wasn't so maybe that 45 was left over from a previous one. 46 Fil 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: Any other comments? Castillo: I have a few comments. The, so it was August and September, it's page 28 line 32, the minutes say "font sales," that should be "font size." Line 37 there were several "it's" there, a "where" is missing, "where it enhances." And the last one is line 40 where it says "floor of arroyos," that should be "flow, F-L-O-W of arroyos." Thank you. Pearson: Any other comments? So I'll hear a motion to approve as amended Herrera: I move to approve the minutes as amended. Bencomo: Second. Pearson: With a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? So that passes. 3.2 September 20, 2016 Special Meeting Pearson: Next we have the minutes from September 20th. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll hear a motion to approve. Bencomo: So moved. Pearson: And a second? Shepan: Lance Shepan. Pearson: Having a motion and a second, all in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? So that moves us past the approval of the minutes. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Pearson: Next we have public comment. Any members of the public wish to comment at this point? Seeing none. 5. ACTION ITEMS 5.1 Amendments to the 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Program 3 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: We'll move on to action items. We have a TIP amendment. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Pearson: Okay so the RoadRUNNER that's not new funding, it's just money that's, was there that's just being moved around? Wray: Some of it is new. Pearson: Okay, Wray: Portions of it are new. But some of it is, has been in the TIP too so it's a mix. Pearson: And the US-70 project, that's just a pavement preservation, that's not related to the various phase projects that, or the feasibility study for one of the phases? Herrera: Yeah, Mr. Chair. Actually this pavement preservation project is sort of in the middle of that capacity study but the engineers decided that the pavement is getting really bad and that we're not going to be able to wait until the study is done and we get a project designed there so they wanted to put this in there just to take care of that really poor pavement condition. Pearson: Any further discussion from the Committee Members? Hearing none, I'll hear a motion to approve as presented. Bencomo: So moved. Shearer: I second. Pearson: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? That passes. 5.2 Missouri Avenue Study Pearson: So now we're on to the Missouri Avenue study. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Curry: Mr. Wray it says "Missouri Avenue Extension Alternative 2 and Roadrunner Extension Alternative 2," is one of those maybe a three? 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 Wray: You are correct. Yes, the slide is in error. I will make a note and correct that. Yes you are correct. Roadrunner Extension is alternative 3. Curry: Thank you. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED WITH HIS PRESENTATION. Pearson. Okay. Thank you. While I quickly move to the recommendation page eight, so it says "Two alternative, two alternatives are recommended for further analysis," and then from there it's kind of hard to figure out what they actually are. I wonder if you could delineate a little bit further the non - motorized and the other one and ... Wray: You mean in the text of the document? Pearson: Right. Wray: Okay. We can certainly Pearson: It just ... Wray: Certainly do that. Pearson: Cause I think that's where people will jump to, for the meat of "What does this report do?" is that they're going to look at the recommendations and, and I, paging through the rest of it, it looks like you now, you always refer to the other alternatives as "Alternative 2," "Alternative 3," or whatever. So maybe in that section you should also reference ... Wray: Okay. Pearson: The alternative number. The other question that I had that was discussed but I don't really see it as part of, it wasn't part of your presentation, the Alternative 6, the bike/ped, pedestrian alternative, there was also some discussion at least of retaining the complete right-of-way that would be needed for the full build -out. Wray: Yes. That, that would be the idea is if, if a non -motorized facility is constructed the right-of-way to potentially build out Missouri completely would be retained so that that facility could be constructed at a later date if needed. Pearson: So I wonder if that needs to be explicitly stated as part of ... Wray: We can certainly do that. 9 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: That's, any other Committee Members? Herrera: Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments. On page 53 when you get into the travel demand model pictures, so there's, Figure 12 is Alternative 2 and then Figure 13 is Alternative 4, so Alternative Ts completely missing. Which I know it's not being recommended but it still should be in here somewhere. And then on page 55 they're numbered so Alternative 1 has the little description and then, I'm sorry Alternative 2 has the description, Alternative 3 is blank. And then just a quick question about the evaluation matrix. I think that it was a lot of information but I think it was helpful to just have a snapshot of kind of everything. Is there a, can you include that in the appendix? Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. It actually is included in the appendix. Herrera: Okay. Wray: We don't physically have the ability to print it at the City. It, it came on a, a nonstandard size sheet of paper and we, we tried, believe me. We, we could not print it at a legible size today. Herrera: Okay. Wray: So that was just technical impossibility. Herrera: No, that's perfectly fine. I just think that it's ... Wray: We, what ... Herrera: Good information. Wray: What I can do is this, maybe not this week because I realize that the draft report needs a lot of work to kind of get it up to snuff but as soon as possible I'll get a copy up onto the website that'll obviously include the alternative matrix and I will let this Committee know when that's available for download and review. Herrera. Okay. Thank you. I just, I know that we've seen it before, well I've seen it quite a bit and it's really helpful so it's good to know it's in there. And that's all I had, Mr. Chair. Thanks. Pearson: Other Members? Go ahead. Castillo: Yes. When did you say the deadline for comments from this body would be? 0 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 1Q it 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 )8 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Wray: Technically we can accept comments up until the Policy Committee finally approves it. From a realistic standpoint, probably the Monday of the Policy Committee meeting in November which I don't have a, a calendar handy to check the date but it's the second, the second Monday of November. We probably need to cut off comments at that time. Castillo: All right. Thank you. Nunez: Mr. Chair. The, say this is Phase A. I was curious, it, Phase B is that where they do a, a cost analysis? Wray: Yes. Nunez: All right. Thanks. Pearson: So with that, if there are no more comments then our action is to approve, recommend approval of this report to the Policy Committee. Hear a motion to make that approval. Shearer: I move that we make it, move forward with this. Nunez: Second. Pearson: Having a motion and a second, all in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? So that item passes. 5.3 Transportation Alternative Program Application Recommendation Pearson: Next is the transportation alternative program application recommendations. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Pearson: Maybe we should get all the applications and take a recess and then ... Wray: Our, our hope, if, if the Committee wants to do it that way, that will be fine but our hope was that we would be able to, to review each application individually and provide an individual recommendation from this Committee. But if, if you want to have them all distributed and then, then have a single discussion that would be fine too. Pearson: Well I was, that, since we haven't seen these at all I just think ... 7 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 Wray: That ... Pearson: Just do ... Wray: That would be fine. Pearson: The review period and then we can do each ... Wray: Go ahead and ... Pearson: Talk about each one separately. Wray: Okay. We'll do that. Dom will hand out the rest of them for you. Pearson: So we can temporarily adjourn. Wray: Call a recess I think is ... Pearson: Call a recess. So I get to call a recess myself or do we need a vote? Shepan: You can do it. Bencomo: I think there is ... Wray: I do not know the answer to that actually whether you can, whether you can ... Bencomo: I think we need a vote. Castillo: You can call a recess. Pearson: Okay I'll call a recess. Wray: Okay. Pearson: Until we review some of these applications. COMMITTEE RECESSES 12 MINUTES. Wray: Am I to understand you're ready to go? Pearson: Call back to order. David Shearer for the record did leave, so he had another commitment. Wray: Right. Thank you Mr. Chair. At this time we would like to introduce discussion of the Las Cruces Public Schools traffic calming projects. The, 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 there is a list of the, the projects in the application packet. The aim is to improve traffic calming circumstances in the vicinity of a number of schools. I apologize, I actually do not actually have a list of them here myself but I'd like to turn the floor over at this time to Ms. Curry for her to give a fuller presentation on the item. Curry: Thank you Mr. Wray, Mr. Chair. The, as, as Mr. Wray said the idea about the, behind this is traffic calming. We have 25 elementary schools and eight middle schools in Las Cruces that we're particularly working around here for traffic calming. There are several schools that are next to high- speed roads that traffic is unaware that there is a school zone in instances, the schools of Columbia, Tombaugh, Valley View, University Hills, Sonoma, Jornada, Desert Hills, Fairacres, Cesar Chavez and Sunrise which are next door to each other, Alameda, Conlee, and Highland. And the idea behind this application is that some of the schools would be put forward to receive a study to determine if permanent flashers would be necessary and they are the radar feedback flashers, so not just a yellow flashing "School Zone" sign but the ones that flash and say "Your Speed Is 25 miles an hour" or whatever the, whatever the speed is that somebody's going. So those would be, there would be a study done to determine the necessity of those around those schools, and also for some, several mobile dollies. So what that means is they're carts that are set up and if there's a problem area then the cart could be moved from school to school. That's just because we know it's really expensive to try to put these flashers at every single school. So if we have mobile ones we work with law enforcement and the Safe Routes to School and we would determine where they would be most needed. So Safe Routes to School has a monthly coalition that meets, that includes people from law enforcement, from traffic and engineering, volunteers, Department of Health, a number of people that would all give input into, into this, this piece, so it's not, so it's not Las Cruces Public Schools working in a silo here. Ninety-two thousand, oh sorry. Not $92,000; it's $139,600 that's being requested for this. And I'd like to actually just give a quick story. Last week we got a report from a parent that there was a child who was hit on Missouri Avenue in front of Conlee Elementary at the crosswalk, a midblock crossing. She was crossing the road, didn't stop for the cars, the car stopped for her and somebody else didn't see her and crossed, and it was just cars traveling at a high speed. It's a very fast road. She was okay but it could've been a lot worse and so those are the kinds of things that we're really trying to prevent. So if we're encouraging our children to reduce traffic and walking back to school we want to provide an environment that's safe for them. If there are any questions about it I'd be happy to answer what I can. 01 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 Shepan: Ms. Curry as, and I was trying to figure out what page this was but it's the one with kind of a, a budget done up on it, on the Smart Traffic Speed Trailers. Curry: Okay. Shepan: Just to confirm what I was thinking, I looked up Custom Signal Smart Trailers. Their lowest -end model is the Model 650 and that's $5,000. Curry: What does it say on that? I'm not, I'm, haven't come across the page yet. Is the, is it this page here? Okay. Dollies, $12,000. Shepan: And then $12,000 for the Speed Trailers. Curry: Okay, and ... Shepan: So if, if they were going with the $5,000 model with their budget that's here, they're only going to get two of 'em. You've seen the one we have in Mesilla. That is a higher -end one. To re, to buy a brand-new one that was right around, actually it's a little bit more than what's budgeted here for a brand-new one. Curry: Okay. Shepan: We just spend $2,000 to fix our trailer. So it, they might want to look at ... Curry: Increasing that number. Shepan: Increasing that number because the one that they show from Custom Signal, the, the Model 650, you're not going to be, they're not going to move that one around a whole bunch without, before they're going to start having trouble with it and then there's going to be a cost to 'em to replace it. My suggestion is, is to buy better ones up front so they don't have to try to Band-Aid 'em later. Cause that's what happened to us. Curry: Thank you for that recommendation. And would you be able to tell me where did, where did you purchase yours from or what would you recommend? Shepan: We got ours from LCPD before I got on the Department and total we've probably put $5,000 into that trailer to get it to where now it works and it's fully solar -powered and I, now I can leave it out for weeks at a time. If you can get with me later on in the week I can pull up some documents and show you what I would like for Mesilla to get ... Curry: Okay. 10 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 Shepan: Eventually but I have some recommendations I can bring to you. Curry: Super. Thank you so much. I'll connect with you. Wray: Mr. Chair. Could I interject here and I apologize to the Committee. I failed to mention, we're not just asking for an, a recommendation on these items. We're also take, this is an opportunity for the BPAC to provide suggestions as Mr. Shepan just did, this is an opportunity for the BPAC to provide suggestions to the jurisdictions for ways in which their applications could be approved. So while we are asking for a recommendation on these items tonight to the Policy Committee we are also asking the, the BPAC to evaluate the recommendation and see if there are ways, or evaluate the application and see if there are ways that they could be improved and then the, the it'll be up to the jurisdictions to determine whether or not they wish to amend their applications in any way but staff is open to receiving those amendments and we certainly encourage the jurisdictions to implement suggestions up until November the 30th which is the deadline when MPO staff has to submit. So I apologize Mr. Chair. Shepan- Actually I have one more thing on that. With only getting one or two trailers with so many schools, and I know this from experience because when we put the trailer out in front of the elementary school then the middle school's calling it, the neighbors on McDowell are calling for it. We just get bombarded with requests for it all of a sudden, "Well why isn't it over here? It's more important over here than there." So the more trailers they have the better off, their phone calls would be less I guess you might say. Curry: Thank you. I think the idea behind it was just trying to keep the application to a reasonable amount so that ... Shepan: Right. Curry: It gets approved because if you ask for too much it's, you know you might get nothing and we thought at least start with something. Shepan: Right. Curry: The two mobile, but I, 1 hear your thoughts on that and I think that does make sense especially when you only have two for a, 33 schools. Bencomo: Mr. Chair. So a, a comment on that also, Lance. It, I think there might be a difference too cause yours are used for enforcement and that's what, they're not? I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Shepan: No, ours are not used for enforcement. They're, they're just notifying. We, there's a speed limit sign on top of it which correlates to the street that it's on and then it flashes your speed as you go by. That's all it does. Bencomo: But ... Shepan: It doesn't issue citations, we don't issue citations off of it. It's just a warning device to let you know how fast you're going. Bencomo: Okay. I was just curious if it might be a difference with a law enforcement agency having it compared to the schools having it, the schools are more for notification in different areas so ... Shepan: Right. Bencomo: Anyway, thanks. Shepan: It, it would do the same thing as the flashing lights in front of Mesilla Elementary School. That notifies vehicles of how fast they're going. That's all. Curry: Thank you. And I think just to add, we have noticed an enormous difference in traffic speed in front of Mesilla Elementary with, since putting in that solar feedback speed limit sign. They've really made a huge difference to cars paying attention and slowing down. Shepan: Depends on who you ask. Curry: That's me witnessing it. Herrera: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Jolene. Herrera: I have a whole list of comments. Pearson: Of course. Herrera: But it's only because I would like you guys to get funding and so I want to make sure that your application is as good as it can be when it goes up against all the other ones in the state. So some of them are a little picky but on the TAP application itself, number 5c I guess is not filled out. That's one of the things that the guide clearly says, is don't leave anything blank so I'm sure you can find some way to write something up in there. So make sure that everything is completely filled out. Also, there's a lot of missing information as far as you don't have letters of support from the 12 I City, the County for all of the roads that these signs are going to be 2 installed on. That's missing from here. You don't have a letter or a 3 resolution from Las Cruces Public Schools saying that they're going to pay 4 the local match. 5 6 Curry: Ms. Herrera. I believe that all of that was submitted. 7 8 Wray: It ... 9 10 Curry: They may have just not have printed ... 11 12 Wray: It ... 13 14 Curry: This for the package. 15 16 Wray: It should have been in there. 17 18 Herrera: Okay. It's not in this package that you just handed me. 19 20 Wray: Okay. I will ... 21 22 Curry: Yes. 23 24 Wray: See what I can do about getting, getting to the bottom of that. I'm not sure 25 what's happened there. 26 27 Herrera: Okay, yeah. 28 29 Curry: Yeah. 30 31 Wray: But yes there, there are letters of support from LCPD ... 32 33 Curry: Yeah. 34 35 Wray: From the City Manager's Office of City of Las Cruces. 36 37 Curry: Maybe you look at the back sides. Are you looking at backs ... 38 39 Herrera: Yeah, I did. I went through everything pretty thoroughly and there's ... 40 41 Curry: Did you? Okay. 42 43 Herrera: Yeah. 44 45 Curry: So ... 46 13 I Herrera: They're not in here. 2 3. Curry: We have from NMDOT, we do have a letter of support from the school 4 district, you, we have the Resolution Number 2008-25 for the Complete 5 Streets and the Resolution Number 09-301 again for Complete Streets, 6 one's Mesilla, one is the City; we have David Maestas ... 7 8 Herrera: Oh, there they are. 9 10 Curry: Transportation Director. 11 12 Herrera: Okay. They're like in the middle of the Safe Routes to School plan. Okay. 13 So that ... 14 15 Curry: From the ... 16 17 Herrera: Takes care of all of those. 18 19 Curry: Associate Superintendent, the Police Department letter of support. So 1 20 think un, unless you see something additional missing I think we were 21 fairly thorough. And I don't believe we got a letter of support from Harold 22 Love but we got a signature from him which we were told sufficed. 23 24 Herrera: The signature suffices for the Project Feasibility form saying it's a feasible 25 project but if you're looking to put a device on NMDOT right-of-way you're 26 going to need a letter of support from District 1 saying that that's okay. 27 28 Curry: Would you write us a letter of support please? 20 30 Herrera: That has to come from Harold. 31 32 Curry: Okay. 33 34 Pearson She tried. 35 36 Herrera: Yeah. I would love to but I'm not the authority for District 1. Okay. So 1 37 think that pretty much takes care of everything except for on the PIF form, 38 there's a lot of forms, but the Project Identification Form there's also some 39 things missing on there; number 34, number 36, and number 39 are not 40 filled out so just if ... 41 42 Curry: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. 43 44 Herrera: And everything else I think looks good. 45 46 Curry: Good. 14 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 Herrera: It's a good application. Curry: Thank you very much. Nunez: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Nunez: A couple items. The page 3 of 4, item 27 says "amount amount" but I, maybe it's been mentioned already, Federal, Local, Tribal, or Other so if we can have those values. I noticed the same thing about what you talked about Ms. Herrera. The letters, I did see those but I did not see one from the Project Development, in other words as I, help me understand, I was trying to read a little bit in detail of what, what all you're asking for. You're asking for a, it talks about road calming. You asking for any road changes or anything from the City, so it'll be a design, or is it ... Curry: No. It wouldn't be road changes. It would be, some of them would be structures, signage that would be put in. So that would be the radar, the permanent radar feedback signage and there are those pictures where he's identified where, so the study would need to have been confirmed that those would be needed and then determine exactly where they would be placed according to MUTCD standards and ... Nunez: So my question is, is the, are the City of Las Cruces engineers to design that, or is David Maestas' group which they typically do not, or is it the Las Cruces Public Schools engineers to get the ... Curry: No, I believe that it's David Maestas who had said that you know in his letter he said "The City Traffic Engineering Department supports your efforts in applying and will assist our coordinated efforts to maintain Safe Routes to School and keeping Safe Routes to School," oh that's the coordinator one. Nunez: Right, I think ... Curry: Okay. Let me look, let me look into that. Nunez: To, if you, if you can just make sure that it's ... Curry: Yeah. Let me look into that. Nunez: It's, it's addressed is my point. Curry: Thank you. 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 Nunez: So that if you need design ... Curry: Yeah. Nunez: Funds then it would be included or David Maestas' group is going to provide a design for a contract ... Curry: My ... Nunez: To do that work. Curry: And I, and I will need to look into that in more detail but my understanding is that we would apply for funds to be able to pay for it because I know the last time we did Safe Routes to School the City ended up having to do the design and we've tried to commit to not doing that again, putting them in that position. So on this we have specific support, I believe it would come from, funding would come from an outside source to provide that. But let me verify that before ... Nunez: All right. Curry: We do that definitively. Thank you. Nunez: And then the last item, I'm, I did hear you mention the number of elementary schools and then the other middle schools and then I counted up the, the, the schools that you have listed here which is about 12 or so, about half, or your list, or less than half. But the, I was thinking of, just as you mentioned others going to be calling is actually providing maybe one of these to a private school? Curry: Sure. This ... Nunez: For, for a little bit. You see my point? Curry: Well yes. So I tell you what, Las, the Las Cruces Public Schools is putting forth this application. Nunez: Oh, I got you. Curry: If a private school wanted to do it, that's fine. Nunez: All right. Curry: We do partner as much as we can in the spirit of communication and partnership. We communicate with the public schools, with the private 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 46 schools if they need us but you know really priority would go to Las Cruces Public Schools since this is a Las Cruces Public Schools application. Nunez: Makes sense. Okay. I'm, I'm new to this. Thanks. Herrera: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Herrera: I just have one more, so I read the letters now that I found them. Thank you. The only thing that I don't see in here is who's going to be paying the power bills for the, are they all solar then with no sort of power backup? Curry: Correct. Herrera: Okay. And to make sure on your application that if you are planning, if the schools are planning to get some engineering funding to put a plan set together that that's made clear in the application somewhere. And actually it's in those boxes that were pointed out. It has a specific part for preliminary engineering and all that so. Curry: Thank you. I'll confirm that. Herrera: Okay. Thanks. Pearson: Any other comments on this one? Castillo: Mr. Chair. Just a few comments. The, I, 1 would pay special attention to the naming of the project. I think it's, it's, in one of the forms it just mentions traffic calming. In the other form it mentions a program. So just be clearer about that. That, that would make it easier for the reader. And several times you mention data. I don't know if you have any actual data on like number of either traffic citations or actual number of complaints, increase, decrease. If you do that would be helpful. Mr. Nunez mentioned something about one of the budgets. I, I, 1 would, I would encourage you to double-check both budget numbers. I, 1, 1 saw some inconsistencies in, in the budget numbers so just check those. And then lastly I would kind of reiterate what Ms. Herrera had mentioned on number 36 which is security of motorized or non -motorized users. I mean the whole point to the project is for the non -motorized users so I would definitely add something in that item. Thank you. Curry: Thank you very much. Could I just ask you, you said you saw some budget number inconsistencies. Can you point to those specifically so I can know exactly what ... 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 Castillo: Yeah. Without looking through the, the, the, the, the pile right now, so one of the main ones where it asks for the, the overall breakdown, I think it's like $139,000 and then if you look at the other two itemized items it's $85,000 plus $34,000 so either something's missing, or it doesn't equal $139, 000. Curry: Thank you. I'll look into that. Appreciate that. Pearson: Any other comments? So with those comments, so we should just take a vote to ... Wray: We, we ... Pearson: Move this forward. Wray: Do need a vote Mr. Chair. Pearson: So I'll hear a motion to move this project forward. Herrera: I move to move this project forward with the comments from the Committee I guess reviewed. Pearson: And a second? Nunez: Second. Pearson: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? Move onto the next one. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We'd like to direct the Committee's attention now to the Safe Routes to School Coordinator position application. This is an, a position of importance to the Las Cruces Public Schools SRTS Program. This is, it's the Coordinator position is essentially the person who heads up and sort of guides the implementation of SRTS throughout the LCPS system. This is a position that's been in existence with the MPO for six or seven years now. We've had a, a couple of people come and go through the position. It was originally housed within Mesilla Valley MPO, at that time Las Cruces MPO staff, has since shifted to be within the Las Cruces Public Schools' own staff and I will now turn the floor over to Ms. Ashleigh Curry who is the current incumbent of that position. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3$ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Curry: Thank you Mr. Wray and Mr. Chair. So as Mr. Wray said this is a continuation of, of funding that we're requesting for the Safe Routes to School Coordinator position. It's one of the few things that is verified in the TAP applications as being available for funding specifically with every school coordinator position. We're proposing, it's currently 20 hours a week. We're proposing to move that to 25 hours a week. As Mr. Wray said when the, when the program got started it's been under various, various umbrellas of funding. We also had a Champion position, a Safe Routes to School Champion that was housed through the Town of Mesilla originally and the program was a pilot program and moved on to, we are now involved in 100% of our elementary schools and lightly involved in all of our middle schools as well: Education, encouragement, just getting programs up and going and then of course coordinating engineering needs between schools and the City engineer, the Town, and the County. So it's an important position to keep things moving forward. We've been going for ten years in, again some of it under the MPO, some of it under the Town of Mesilla. But the Safe Routes to School has been going for ten years and I believe has really got a good amount of success and we'd like to just keep that moving forward. This is one of the few places that we can get funding for this position so if it didn't come from TAP funds I'm not sure that we'd be able to continue funding this elsewhere. This school district supports the, supports the program very well. It, it works well to be in the school district, that we have access to children and be able to go do the education in the schools with the children and of course there's the LCPS match. I, 1 should also just add we do have two half-time positions that are currently funded just one year out for, through the Department of Health that also fund two other Champions that assist with the encouragement and education pieces. Herrera: Mr. Chair. If I can just add that this is the only successful Safe Routes to School program in the state. It's a good one. Pearson: So do you have any picky? I saw one empty box. Herrera: I do. On the Project Information, Identification Form, the PIF, sorry number 19 and number 36 are blank. Especially number 36 1 think you want to talk about, and I saw the letters and things were in here as well so that's really the only thing. Just those two. Curry: Thank you very much. Pearson: Yeah. I think from my perspective if nothing else gets funded this is the project that needs to be funded so I would heartily approve this submission. Curry: Thank you. 19 1 2 Pearson: Anybody else have comments? James. 3 4 Nunez: Just the number 27 again, 3 of 4, breakout of the funds, I, 1 don't know if 5 they require amounts in the different columns; Federal, Tribal, Local, or 6 Other. 7 8 Curry: Page 27, is that what you said? 9 10 Nunez: Page 3 of 4, block 27 or question 27. 11 12 Herrera: Mr. Chair. That's one of those weird ones, so this form is used for every 13 kind of project and it doesn't fit some of them so that's probably why it's 14 not filled out cause there's really no preliminary engineering/right-of-way 15 construction. So I think on this form, the way that it's filled out it's fine but 16 on the previous application definitely fill in those different lines. 17 18 Curry: Thank you Ms. Herrera. I think somewhere in the instructions it does say 19 "where applicable" because this is the one thing that's a coordinator. The 20 majority of the TAP funding is for infrastructure pieces. 21 22 Wray: Ms.... 23 24 Curry: But thank you for noticing. 25 26 Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. Would it be helpful to at least put "N/A" in the 27 spots just to make sure that the Committee up in Santa Fe who'll be 28 evaluating this knows that the applicant is aware and has made a 29 conscious decision that this question does not apply to me? 30 31 Herrera: Yes. That ... 32 33 Curry: Yeah. Okay. 34 35 Herrera: It can never hurt. 36 37 Pearson: Right. That's one area where the TAP programs were designed for 38 construction projects for the most part but this is a program project so we 39 have to make sure that it does fit in. Any other comments? Do I hear a 40 motion to move this project forward? 41 42 Bencomo: Mr. Chair. 43 44 Pearson: Yes. 45 46 Bencomo: Point of order. Does Ashleigh need to recuse herself from this vote? 20 I '? Wray: Sure. 3 4 Pearson: We can do a roll call vote and Ashleigh could abstain. So Andrew could 5 you take the roll call? 6 7 Wray: There's no second. S 9 Pearson: Oh yes. 10 11 Wray: Actually there's no motion. 12 13 Pearson: There's no motion. 14 15 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I move that we approve this application. 16 17 Bencomo: Second. 18 19 Pearson: Okay. With a motion and a second, Andrew roll call please. 20 21 Wray: Ms. Herrera. 22 23 Herrera: Yes. 24 25 Wray: Mr. Shepan. 26 27 Shepan: Yes. 28 29 Wray: Ms. Curry. 30 31 Curry: Abstain. 32 33 Wray: Ms. Willman. 34 35 Willman: Yes. 36 37 Wray: Mr. Nunez. 38 39 Nunez: Yes. 40 41 Wray: Mr. Bencomo. 42 43 Bencomo: Yes. 44 45 Wray: Mr. Castillo. 46 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 46 Castillo: Yes. Wray: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Leisher: Yes. Pearson: Oh, and Mark. Wray: Oh, I'm, I am so sorry Mr. Leisher. I apologize. Mr. Leisher, Leisher: Yes. Wray: I'm sorry. You're so quiet over there. Leisher: Yes. MOTION PASSES. Wray: All right. Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to turn the attention of the Committee now to the application from the Town of Mesilla regarding the multi -use path along Calle del Norte. This application is a development of the work that I'm sure this Committee remembers earlier this year of designating the southern loop of the Las Cruces Multi -Use Path. Town of Mesilla is proposing connecting more or less the spot where the La Llorona Trail meets with Calle del Norte. Unfortunately there's some issue as far as ownership actually making a physical connection, so effectively starting from that intersecting point on Calle del Norte and then, then pushing the trail out to the east. Sorry, I lost my sense of, my inner compass there. We have Larry Shannon from the Town of Mesilla to speak on behalf of that application tonight. Shannon- Okay. There, the primary purpose of this application is to complete the Intercity Bicycle and Pedestrian Loop by connecting La Llorona Trail with the Mesilla, Mesilla Valley Multi -Use Connection Loop. So what we're looking at doing is going from La Llorona down Calle del Norte, down to the lateral. You have a map in your application that shows it going all the way to 28. We prefer not to do that. The funding is actually for the lateral then we would take the lateral down to either Union or to University. But right now the benefit primarily would be connect the, to complete that loop for the trail and the benefit to Mesilla in doing that would be that because Mesilla is primarily a, a, a, a tourist town we have quite a bit of pedestrian, quite a bit of bicycling, quite a bit of vehicular traffic. This would help to separate the bicycle traffic down Calle del Norte from the, the, what motor traffic would make it a safer pedestrian and bicycle route along Calle del 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3.0 31 3 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 -13 44 45 46 Norte. So safety would be a primary result of the, of this application. Plus the fact that because Mesilla is such a small town because it does rely heavily on the tourist industry and because bicycling is a major part of that this would be a definite benefit to the Town of Mesilla economically because it will help to promote bicycle and pedestrian traffic from La Llorona. By completing a loop you'll be able to get down to University from La Llorona. So it would benefit us because of the fact that we would bring in more pedestrian and more bicycle traffic and more economic growth to the city. Pearson: So is that ... Shannon: But this, at ... Pearson: Economic aspect, is that part of the application included in part of the narrative of the application? Shannon: I'm sorry? Pearson; Is, okay. Shannon: Yes. Pearson: Yes. Bencomo: I've got a bunch of notes on this one. Pearson: Okay. Bencomo; So just some, some suggestions on wording in, in the application. The, the, under the "Economic Vitality/Retail Growth" the Rio Grande Trail is in the works right now. It's going to happen I believe. The State is pushing that and it's, it's moving along, there's meetings happening so, and then the City of Las Cruces just passed a resolution to designate, recommending designation of the La Llorona Trail to be part of the Rio Grande Trail. So now that connectivity is even more important economically, vitality -wise, tourist, tourism -wise. So if some wording talking about the Rio Grande Trail, the possibility of that in the future, the City of Las Cruces passing that resolution. Those are I think some very powerful arguments for, for putting that piece in. Pearson. Well it's gone past that. The, the La Llorona Trail has been accepted as part of the Rio Grande Trail. 23 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 Bencomo They did that at the last meeting of the Pearson: Yes. They had a meeting ... Bencomo: Rio Grande Trail .. Pearson: Special meeting in October and actually the Governor's going to be here on Thursday to indoctrinate it into the system. Bencomo: Okay. Good. So yeah, so that's a, that's a big piece I think. "Safety and Security," I'm sorry, still writing notes, okay. "Safety and Security" is section three. There's, there's not any mention in the text itself, you mentioned it discussion -wise but in the text, the large numbers of bikers and runners. I use that, we, my group uses that road a lot. We run out to the river and back. There's tons of bikers up and down that road all the time. They use it as a, as a major route whether to go to Snow Road or all the way out to South Fairacres Road, they use that route quite a bit. I think Lance can attest to this, there are multiple races that head down pieces of Calle del Norte, come out of the plaza and onto Calle del Norte. He's shaking his head, he doesn't like that but it's a good route. Shepan: They're better now that we run them backwards. Bencomo: Oh, okay. Shepan: Runners are, they behave better now. Bencomo: Yeah. So, so there's, there's a lot of races that are held. Mesilla's a, is a, is a huge place for races that go on there so that, that's another piece of not only "Safety and Security" but also "Economic Vitality." It also kind of fits into there cause it brings people into the community for that. Number four, "Accessibility and Mobility through Integration and Connectivity," just some wording changes maybe. It says, I mean it's your document but says, "This project will complete the Intercity Bicycle Loop" but it really won't. There are some pieces missing, they're not in Mesilla but there's some pieces miss, so I would suggest wording perhaps says "This project is a key component of the completion of the Intercity Loop" rather than "It completes it" cause there's some other pieces that need to be done. And then maybe listing the connectivity, the connectivity if once the, that loop is, is completed it's a key component of it, will connect Las Cruces, NMSU, Dona Ana County, and Mesilla. All the entities in the area will, if you list them all that's going to, that, that will eventually connect them. Also something that I, 1 would like to see not only in this application but generally speaking from the, from the BPAC as we move forward, we, we're talking about multi -use trails and I think we need to, to change, is it, hate the, the term because everybody says it now, "flip the script" but 24 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 anyway, use different words. These multi -use trails are not just recreation because when you say "recreation" they're way down at the bottom of the list. And these multi -use trails are not just for recreation. They, I did a, a kind of a self -drawn map using the bus route system and if we put some of these trails in that we're talking about there's tons of connectivity with parks, with schools, with bus stops that go right through the area, they're alternative transportation routes. They're not just recreation trails. They're used for recreation, they, to get people out. So we needed to start I think you could, be a more powerful argument to say they are alternative transportation routes for mass transit, parks, businesses, not just for recreation. And then under 5b, again "How will it improve the quality of life?" Once again if you connect to mass transit people can have more quality of life, routes to businesses perhaps, and then another thing that is, is kind of an intangible but when you have these trails out there for people to go out and do those things and people get out and they connect, they meet, you start building a sense of community, that is an enhancement to your quality of life by building community, by meeting your neighbors, by doing those type of things. That's the kind of wording I think that needs to be used in these application projects also. And then I have a final comment but, I mean a question for Ms. Herrera may, perhaps. Letters of support, are those only accepted from entities or perhaps could something like Southern New Mexico Trail Alliance, Las Cruces Roadrunners running group, could they provide those, community groups? Herrera: Certainly. I think the clarification is if there's a facility being proposed on somebody else's right-of-way that is a required letter of support but there's definitely others that could support projects. Bencomo: Okay. Herrera: And yeah, that's definitely, it helps the application because it gives it more of a regional feel ... Bencomo: Right. Herrera: To the people in Santa Fe. Bencomo� Awesome. Great. Yeah, because there are, there are at least four groups I know of that I, I'm 99.9% sure would give you a letter of support. They're, they're community groups. They're not governmental entities. So, and that's all my comments. Thank you. Curry: Mr. Chair. I might add to that that I think Safe Routes to School, the Las Cruces Public Schools would write a letter of support for that because 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 ultimately it, it provides that alternative transportation for our students when the, when the complete loop is, is completed. So this is a piece of that too. Pearson: Any other comments? Herrera: Mr. Chair. Sorry. Now I have my whole list. First of all the Project Identification Form is completely missing from the application. That needs to be filled out. Maybe, Andrew if you can just maybe resend the form. Wray: It's, Town of Mesilla had that attached. I'm not sure, maybe something has gotten jumbled in the printing ... Herrera: Okay. Wray: Would potentially be my guess. I, the, Harold signed the document. I, 1 know he did. I've seen it. Baum: You're not on the microphone. Herrera: Sorry. The Project Feasibility Form is there, the one signed by Harold, but the actual Project Identification Form that has ... Wray: Oh, oh. Herrera. All of the detailed information, that's missing. So I don't know if the Town filled that out and maybe it's just not here. Either way it needs to be included. Shannon: I'll find out. Wray: No, that's ... Herrera: Okay so I guess moving on, I did notice that Calle del Norte, well it is a State road and there's no letter of support from District 1 so that's something that's going to be needed and you can contact Mr. Harold Love for that. Also the funding I'm a little bit worried about, on the Project Feasibility Form, well from the cost estimate and everything that it, it looks like you want to split the $616,365 equally between both years but that's not really how the funding works for this program. Really it's, the first year so Fiscal Year 2018 would be to complete your preliminary engineering and then the following fiscal year would be the construction funding. So when you fill out the Project Identification Form make sure that you're pretty clear on how much you need for preliminary engineering, and there's already a cost estimate in here that looks good so just taking those numbers and filling in the right boxes with this is, that's all that really needs 26 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 to happen there. And then also there's no mention of the MPO's trail map and plan on this application but this is part of it, and it's another planning document that can give you more points on your application so definitely mention that and include that somehow in your application. And then the map, this map is okay but it might be good to add another map that's a little more zoomed -out that shows kind of the connectivity and actually if you want to just include the MPO's trail map and kind of mark that up too, that might be helpful just cause it shows how this piece connects to the other trails. Shannon: So I apologize about the map. I did the map and it was ten-minute map there so, "We need a map." And, but yeah that definitely does need to be modified for the real application. Herrera: Yeah. I mean I think this is good for showing a close-up but just something that shows a little bit more connectivity regionally would be good. Shannon: Okay. Herrera: And that's all that I have, Mr. Chair. Thanks. Curry: Mr. Chair, Mr. Shannon. I wanted to ask you, have you been in touch with the other entity, the International Boundary Waters that would actually do the connection between the end of Calle del, Calle del Norte and the La Llorona beginning trail, or the trailhead? Shannon: Well I'm standing in tonight but to be honest with you I don't believe so, but I'll find out. Curry: Cause I think that that would also be a letter, a good letter of support or a letter just showing there's that connectivity because if somebody did realize that there's another small segment that involves a different entity, it's probably good that that other entity; a) knows that you're planning on this and; b) if we could get a letter of support from them that would be even stronger. Shannon: Okay. Pearson: Yeah the La Llorona Trail is in the IBWC area so somebody from the City presumably knows the correct contact if you can't find it yourself. Shannon: Okay. 27 I Pearson: Any other comments? So as far as voting on this one there was 2 suggested that perhaps the Town of Mesilla Representative shouldn't vote 3 since it's a town project. 4 5 UNKNOWN: (inaudible). 6 7 Pearson: Okay, so ... 8 9 Shannon: I'm Sorry. 10 11 Pearson: Lance is agreeing to that and so I'll hear a motion to move this one 12 forward. 13 14 Curry: Mr. Chair. As the Citizen Rep do I get a vote for the Town of Mesilla? 15 16 Pearson: I think so, yeah. 17 18 Curry: Okay. 19 20 Wray: No motion. 21 22 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I move to approve this application, I guess with the comments. 23 24 Willman: I'll second that. 25 26 Pearson: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Will you do a roll call? 27 28 Wray: Yes sir. Mr. Leisher. 29 30 Leisher: Yes. 31 32 Wray: Mr. Castillo. 33 34 Castillo: Yes. 35 36 Wray: Mr. Bencomo. 37 38 Bencomo: Yes. 39 40 Wray: Mr. Nunez. 41 42 Nunez: Yes. 43 44 Wray: Ms. Willman. 45 46 Willman: Yes. w 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 Wray: Ms. Curry. Curry: Yes. Wray: Ms. Herrera. Oh excuse me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to skip you. Mr., Mr. Shepan. Shepan: I'm not voting on this. Pearson: Just say ... Wray: Just say abstain. Shepan: Abstain. Wray: In, in the mic please so it can be on the record. Shepan: Abstain. Wray: Thank you. Ms. Herrera. Herrera: Yes. Wray: Mr. Chair. Pearson; Yes. MOTION PASSES. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We'd like to turn the attention of the Committee now to the last application that MPO staff received as part of this. It was from the City of Las Cruces. The application is for green infrastructure improvements concentrated in the Downtown area of the City of Las Cruces. There's also infrastructure traffic calming improvements at a, as a part of that. We have Mr. Armando Morales here from the City of Las Cruces staff to speak to the Committee regarding this application. Leisher: Mr. Chair. A brief aside, I need to leave in about three minutes, so_ Morales: Good afternoon everyone. As you know the City of Las Cruces has been invested in the Downtown Revitalization for some time now as you can see with the, the opening of the plaza and with the two-way conversion of Church and Water going on early next year. And we, we feel that, staff feels that green infrastructure will serve a number of the goals listed in our City documents, one of which is the, the MPO's Transit Plan. And some of I these goals are to increase pedestrian, bicycle, and economic activity in 2 the Downtown area and it will also create a sense of place. With 3 economic activity, as you know bicycles and pedestrians according to the 4 League of American Bicyclists, they spend more money, or they spend 5 money more frequently than motorized travelers and, and that's one of 6 the, the, that's one of the things that we're trying to target for the 7 Downtown area is to increase those aspects in, in order to increase 8 economic activity, economic development/activity. And I'll stand for any 9 questions you guys have. 10 11 Pearson: Could you describe the project a little bit more? Cause it's, it's a ... 12 13 Morales: So ... 14 15 Pearson: Million -dollar project, right? 16 17 Morales: Yes. So what the City has done, or sorry, what the City has done is 18 they've targeted areas on Church and Water that they believe are good 19 candidates to be placed for green infrastructure. And that green 20 infrastructure that was determined there were determined by the City of 21 Mesa's Green Infrastructure Toolkit in which it addresses all of the, the, 22 the best areas and the type of activity that is in that area. 23 24 Pearson: So the two-way conversion of Church and Water is going to happen 25 already. 26 27 Morales: Correct. 28 29 Pearson: And this would not be part of that but, so that project would leave space 30 where this project would come in and do these kinds of improvements. Is 31 that what we're looking at? 32 33 Morales: Correct. It is an extension if you will of that project. It is not a part of that 34 project but it can be looked as an, as an extension. Because of the, the 35 two-way conversion this, this will have much more benefit because in that 36 two-way conversion they are going to create an overlay in the Church and 37 Water area and the cross streets, Bowman, Griggs, Las Cruces, and 38 Hadley they are going to do a complete reconstruction and in that 39 reconstruction they're going to have, include green infrastructure. So 40 there will already be green infrastructure in those cross streets but the 41 two-way conversion project will not include green infrastructure on Church 42 and Water. And that is what we are applying for, to extend green 43 infrastructure to these streets to continue green infrastructure in the whole 44 Downtown area. 45 46 Bencomo: Mr. Chair. 30 1 2 i 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Pearson: Yes. Bencomo: So for my education cause I read it briefly or quickly and, and I saw, what do you mean, when you say "green infrastructure," I have an idea what that is, but what do you mean by that? What is the green infrastructure, I saw trees in there, is that, I mean those are literally green infrastructure but what, what is it? Morales: Green infrastructure is essentially strategic placement of things like trees, (inaudible) and drainage to liven up the neighborhood as well as help, help the, the terrain flow better as far as things like, like drainage and, and help with traffic calming and, and ... Bencomo: Okay. Okay. And, and those, yeah those general things I, 1 understand those but do you know specifically what, I, 1 saw trees like I said and then you say "traffic calming." What are they going to do as far as traffic calming? Is it going to be reduced road widths, is it going to be, what is it going to be? Morales: In some areas yes. What we'll do is we'll add curb extensions and that'll narrow some of the, the driving lanes but what happens also when you add more I guess visual, visual aids to, to roadways traffic tends to slow down because there's, there's more things to pay attention to. So with the increase of essentially things to look at you'll drive at a much slower pace. Bencomo: Okay. Thank you. Herrera: Mr. Chair_ Pearson: Jolene. Herrera: If I could follow that up with the, some of the same comments that we talked about previously at the Project Feasibility meeting, the scope is still pretty unclear and I guess to get to the comments just made, you need to list specific elements. If you're planning on doing curb extensions that needs to be mentioned specifically. Any kind of schematics or pictures that you can provide would be better because when you say "green infrastructure" most people have no idea what you're talking about, just like we all kind of didn't know. So I think it's good to put the words in here but any kind of visuals that you can provide. If there's other cities that have this implemented already that you can take pictures from, all of that kind of stuff helps. Also the funding is a little bit unclear, so it doesn't look like you're applying for any kind of engineering funds, so would the City be doing the plans then? 31 I Morales: Correct. 2 3 Herrera: Okay. And then for construction management, the City has inspectors 4 that have certifications to ... 5 6 Morales: Ah yes, yes sir. 7 8 Herrera: Do that? Okay. So I would be clear about that in the application. Make 9 sure that you say that. There's also mention of a map in here showing 10 the, the limits and I'm not sure if it's this one, it's a little unclear if it is this 11 map so if you can just, I don't have a specific comment. Just make it more 12 clear I guess. 13 14 Morales: Okay. 15 16 Herrera Just think about it from the perspective that the people that are going to be 17 on this Committee may have never been to Las Cruces, maybe they've 18 never been Downtown so they probably don't know what it looks like. And 19 if you can help them see that in their minds you're more likely to get a 20 better score. That's all the comments I had Mr. Chair. 21 22 Pearson: So it's actually the TIDD doing the application that the City represents, or 23 how, is the fiscal agent? How does that work? 24 25 Morales: Yes. The fiscal agent is, is the TIDD. 26 27 Pearson: Okay. So it's actually a City application but the funding's coming from the 28 TIDD, is that how you ... 29 30 Morales: Yes sir, yes sir. Sorry. Yes Mr., Mr. Chair. 31 32 Pearson: Anybody, go ahead. 33 34 Castillo: I, 1 would agree with both what Mr. Bencomo and Ms. Herrera had 35 mentioned and include in there a, a more compelling I guess narrative on 36 how the non -motorized audience is going to benefit from that. You 37 mentioned something about traffic calming and that does help motorists 38 but a little more on like the length of the, the walking distance, you know 39 how many, I think there are some studies that, that talk about maybe a 40 projected, you know pedestrian counts or just off-street activity, bicyclists 41 or, or whatever you have just, just to make a, a more compelling narrative 42 that, that you are addressing some of the, the, the true objective of, of the 43 TAP program. That's all. 44 45 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I guess I just have one more comment. I started reading the 46 letter here. If you're still able to update this letter I would address it to 32 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 Daniel Watts and call this a Transportation Alternatives project, not a Recreational Trails project just because that's a different type of funding and this project's not eligible for that type of funding. And then also it's just a little unclear with what you just explained about how the TIDD is the project sponsor. So is, is that part of the City, because the letter says that it is. Morales- What, what the TIDD is, is it's, it's a Tax Increment District and it, it receives its own funding which serves on a, another board which happens to be the City Council as well. But yes they, I'm sorry can you repeat your original ... Herrera: Yeah. I'm just a little bit worried about it just because it's pretty clear in the guide that the sponsor of a project really needs to be a local government. So I think if it can work to have the TIDD somehow have a MOA or something with the City so that the City's the actual sponsor of the project. I might just be confused about how a TIDD works but I don't want your application to be thrown out just because they're confused about who the project sponsor's going to be. Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. Would it be appropriate me, for me to ask at this moment, do you believe the TIDD is an eligible applicant? Herrera: Is it a, the, is it a government agency then, is it ... Bencomo: Mr., Mr. Chair. The, the TIDD is the, the City is the, going to be the project coordinator. The TIDD is simply a, a, a mechanism for them to direct tax collection to a specific area of the City. That's all it is. That's, so it's not the TIDD that would be applying, I believe. It's the City and they would use TIDD funding, which Tax Increment Development District is just the Downtown only. That's how they collect the funds that have to stay in that area and be used. But it's through the City. Herrera: Okay. Bencomo: So, but I think the, whoever the project engineers will be doing that and, and yeah you might want to, your, to, back to your question about the engineering piece, you might want to clarify that and they probably know but the City, if they were going to do all the engineering, it doesn't seem like they would, like they would ask for a, why would they not pay for the engineering out of this, so that probably needs to be clarified if they're going to do that to be sure. Cause typically the City will apply and engineering will be Phase 1 of that or Phase A, whatever they call it and then the second part will be construction. So that, if it's not in here it needs to be clarified also, as Ms. Herrera stated. 33 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 Herrera: Thanks for the clarification. That makes it a lot more clear. This letter is very confusing then because it says that the TIDD is going to be the sponsoring agency of the project. So that wording is ... Pearson. Yeah, it needs to be ... Herrera: This letter needs ... Pearson: That the City is the sponsoring agent. Herrera: To be reworked. Pearson: But the money comes from the TIDD. Herrera: Right. And that's perfectly fine. Pearson: That's okay. Herrera: Yeah. That's okay, it's just the way that this is written is not I think how it works in reality. So just, if you can work on this letter some to make it clear. Morales: Yeah. Herrera: Now I'm done. Thank you Mr. Chair. Willman: Mr., Mr. Chairman. I would say this picture, the only graphic that's included, it's just the, kinda the racetrack around where your description includes primarily Picacho from Main to Campo and on Campo from Spruce to Lohman. That's not even in the picture. And then of course Lohman from Campo to Alameda is outside. I mean I, might not make that much difference. It's just what you're talking about working on isn't depicted in that picture. Morales: Okay. I can, I can clear that, that image up then. Pearson Okay. Any further discussion? So I'll hear a motion to move this project forward with the comments. Bencomo: Mr. Chair. I move that we move this project forward to a vote with the comments added. Shepan Second. Wray: Did we need to have a recusal discussion regarding this item? 34 Pearson: I think probably in the same idea the Town of Mesilla recused themselves 2 from their application, so maybe the staff from the City should recuse 3 themselves? 4 5 Wray: And I apologize, I did not get the motion and the second, who made them? 6 7 Bencomo: I made the motion. 8 9 Pearson: And Lance. 10 11 Shepan: Lance Shepan, second. 12 13 Nunez: Since I can't vote can I, 1 will add in a comment. To make it stronger 1 14 suppose is, I was kind of like you, Andrew, Mr. Bencomo. Green 15 infrastructure, the, if you, if you read this map, this, this gave me the most 16 information actually, if you look at the items and the bullets there and 1 17 hope you can somehow highlight it, but the, the, talks about the, I, I, the 18 little bit that I know about this project is I think that they just really didn't 19 have the funds to add trees and green and some of the other items so 20 now with this they'll be able to in the Downtown area. Otherwise they're 21 just going to have asphalt and they're not going to have other things, and 22 you guys mentioned the benefits if they had the trees and that should calm 23 it, blah blah blah. And so, but, but to get, so anyway that, I, I, 1 would just, 24 1 think with some wording and some, maybe even in color or something 25 you could make this a little bit, define it up front like Ms. Herrera said and, 26 and then, cause it, even rereading the description, the second sentence 27 threw me off. I'll be honest with you. It talked about some benefits or 28 something. But anyway that, that's my suggestion, just to make it, reread 29 it, rewrite it a little bit to make it stronger. All right. I'm out. I'm done. 30 31 Pearson: Okay. So we have our motion and a second. 32 33 Wray: Mr. Castillo. 34 35 Castillo: Yes. 36 37 Wray: Mr. Bencomo. 38 39 Bencomo: Yes. 40 41 Wray: Mr. Nunez. 42 43 Nunez: Recruit, recused. 44 45 Wray: Ms. Willman. 46 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI 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 Willman: Yes. Wray: Ms. Curry. Curry: Yes. Wray: Mr. Shepan. Shepan: Yes. Wray: Ms. Herrera. Herrera: Yes. Wray: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes, MOTION PASSES. Pearson: And well before we go on, maybe to form, for the first proposal we didn't have a roll call vote so maybe we should for the record do the roll call on that one. Wray: Is that permissible I guess? Pearson: Because it's probably appropriate we have, no? Baum You already had the vote. Pearson: No? Baum. You've already voted, you all said yes, so you're okay with that. Pearson Okay. Wray: Before we move on though I had been directed to, to make a statement to the Committee and to the applying jurisdictions. Earlier I said that we would need the applications by November 30th, that, that is the deadline that MPO staff has to NMDOT. However, due to trying to account for potential problems that we may have uploading the applications to the ftp site, it, it would behoove the jurisdictions to have their, their final completed applications to us by November 23rd. We'll, I'm sure we'll still take them after that, after that but you have to understand that it, that if you do push us to the wall like that we may not be able to get it up to NMDOT in time. 36 1 2 Pearson: So is ... 3 4 Wray: And NMDOT will not take anything past five o'clock on November 30th no 5 matter how much we beg and plead. So applying jurisdictions please do 6 keep that in mind that we really need 'em by November 23rd. 7 8 Pearson: So is that the Wednesday before the holiday? 9 10 Wray: I have no idea. 11 12 Curry: Correct. It is. Correct. 13 14 Pearson: Okay. 15 16 Wray: Thank you Mr., oh, I'm sorry. I guess ... 17 18 Pearson: Okay. 19 20 Wray: Have we officially moved on? 21 22 5.4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Recommendations 23 24 Pearson: On to our next item. 25 26 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. If you'll bear with me for just a moment while I bring 27 up the next, the next item. At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Michael 28 McAdams who is going to speak to the Committee regarding the bicycle 29 infrastructure projects. 30 31 McAdams: Mr. Chairman and Members. It seemed like we met another time this 32 week too. About, about two weeks ago we got together and we, on, on 33 the 20th of September we got out the maps, we looked at them. We 34 decided what would be a good project for implementation and the staff 35 went back and collected the recommendations on the map and the 36 comments and we came about with the list you have if you have your 37 packet of, of about you know several projects we think that will be possible 38 for implementation. There is an upcoming deadline of November 1st 39 where we can submit these projects to the ICIP for the City of Las Cruces 40 and what we've done, and we developed a set of recommendations which 41 we think would be good to put forward to the City. Now later, the County 42 projects and other, for Town we'd like to leave for later as their deadline is 43 January 1st. We'd like to work with the County and with, with the BPAC 44 on settling that. So today we'd just like to look at the one, the 45 recommended list, ICIP and prioritize them. And we may want to go 46 through these individually. It's, Mr. Chairman it's up to you how you want 37 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 to proceed with this or we can do it collectively you know. I guess the discussion's now. I guess I'd like to leave it up to discussion at this time. Pearson: Okay. One project that, maybe it's on here that I don't recognize, but one that I've been talking about a lot is connecting from Motel Boulevard to the outfall channel. McAdams: Okay. Pearson: The Picacho Middle School has a weekly bicycle program that would use that. McAdams: Right. Pearson: And right now I think it's just, I don't think there's a formal connection there. I think that there's some private developer land there so identifying how that would work ... McAdams: I guess we could look at, I mean we, we'd like to choose from the list we presented I think because I'm not sure those, those aren't the, the present list right now. We could add it but we'd like to go with those first and then proceed with others perhaps. Bencomo: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes, Bencomo: I have a question for, so this was the, the, the meeting you're talking about was the work session we had, correct? McAdams: Yes. It was. Bencomo: Okay. McAdams: Yes. Bencomo: So we had the work session, we had it, public there, we had us there, we gave input and this is what we came up with on ... McAdams: Yes. Bencomo: The project McAdams: Correct. Bencomo: Recommendations 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4.0 McAdams: Correct. Bencomo: So a couple of questions ... McAdams: Okay. Bencomo: And I'll ask them and then we can go ... McAdams: Okay. Okay, sure. Bencomo: The color coding on here, just curious what that is and then on ... McAdams: Oh you mean on the .pdf? Yes, let me show you the code. Bencomo: Yeah. McAdams: The coding, color coding on the .pdf you have in front of you, the red of course is the projects that we see. I, maybe you want to zoom out because it's like it's too close. And the green are for the, the project, we have existing bike facilities so, and the numbers are the numbers that are corresponding with the projects you know. Not sure if I can zoom, yeah. Bencomo: Okay. So the red are the projects. McAdams: Right. Bencomo: The other ones are, are existing bike lanes, the green and the ... McAdams: Yes. Bencomo: Maroon is the ... McAdams: That's, that's correct. Bencomo: Multi -use trails. McAdams: Right. Bencomo: Okay. And the two red, or the one, two, three, looks like four maybe red projects? McAdams: Yeah, there's, we can go through those individually if you like. Bencomo: I, what ... 39 f 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4.6 McAdams: Okay. Bencomo: Are the McAdams The, if you look at the, you can go by, I like the numbers better so let's go with the first which is C, CLC001, let me, which is Espina and this is, would be bike lanes from the university to Lohman and we discussed about that, it doesn't, it doesn't presently have bike lanes on it. The second would be, let me get my list out, excuse me, CL, CL02, I mean let me just go and look real ... Bencomo: Looks like a typo, looks like a one, two. McAdams: Well actually 00, CLC01 is Espina. They're not in order because we picked, they were picked out from the whole list and the second one probably would be discussed is, would be Spruce, be the 00, CLC07, that would be a road diet. And that's mainly because of the accidents on that area. There's a fair amount of accidents involving some pedestrians well that was also identified as a possible project. The next one would be Roadrunner which would be, go from, from Lohman, excuse me from Bataan Memorial to Lohman. That'll be additional bike lane, bike lanes from, from road, from Roadrunner. Nunez: Excuse me. Is that number three? McAdams: That's, CLCO, yes it's 03. That's correct. Okay. Right here, okay. Yeah right. Curry: Mr. McAdams, just to clarify are we expected to prioritize these tonight or what's the expectation here? McAdams: Yes. We, we'd like to have a prioritization, which you think is one, two, three, I think there's seven projects would you like, would you one, you know in order. Curry: There's seven projects but there're 18 listed on the page that you give us. McAdams: We, we, these are the ones that we think the, the most appropriate. Curry: Okay so one to seven you've listed out as being ... McAdams: Right. Curry: The most appropriate. McAdams: Yes ma'am. ►,K 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 Curry: And then eight to 18 within the City are, are lower ranked so you've already ranked them somewhat yourselves. McAdams: Well we, we, we, yes we ranked them, yeah, what we thought were the, or the, of the list what would be the most appropriate. Murphy: Mr.... Curry: So you're asking us to rank one through seven ... McAdams: Yes. Curry: And ... McAdams: Yeah. Curry: Sort of ignore eight to 18 for now. Murphy: Mr.... McAdams: We don't think those are as feasible as the other ones. Curry: Okay, Murphy: Mr. Chair, Ms., Ms. Curry. If, if I may. What staff did with the, the workouts from the sheets from the, from the work session, we took ones that we could readily identify, kind of immediate projects that, that were, looked like they were very close to being able to be submitted for construction. We are, we are, we did speak with the City Public Works Department and we're looking at a November 1st deadline for submittal to get into their CIP process so what we'd, we used, we used our judgment to on a, on the projects that you all had fleshed out at the work session and said, "Okay we think these could move forward more immediate based on this very tight, tight deadline," and so what we're coming back to you this evening is what we want to, is ask, "Out of these seven that, that we're going to submit into the CIP, in, in, list which ones you know, which, you know put some sort of order on them," be it so that the City can apply them into different years as, you know as funding becomes available so. And then, and then of course the rest of the, rest of the work that, that you had done in the work session we intend to flesh out further but since we had a upcoming CIP cycle looking right at us we wanted to proceed with these seven immediately. 41 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 15 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 Curry: Thank you. That really helps clarify. But to further clarify, we're not looking at CLC1 through 7, we're looking at anything that has a note of "CIP" next to it in the right-hand column. McAdams: Yes. Curry: Cause that goes through 12. Murphy: That's correct. And, and anything that you know really is reflected on red. Curry: Thank you. Nunez: Mr. Chair. A question. Pearson: Yes. Nunez: The, the, so you're looking at just design or, so here's, here's a specific question. McAdams: Okay. Nunez: On CLC7 for example, you talked about a road diet on Spruce, right? McAdams: Right. Nunez: Well you're asking to design or a study to see if that's feasible or you're actually asking, you're, for us to prioritize it to try to get that work done, designed and completed? I'm not understanding the full scope of this. Murphy: Mr. Chair, Mr. Nunez. It would depend upon what was, what was submitted or what came out of that work session. Some of them certainly are not ready for construction and then are deserving of more study and I think that, that would get kind of fleshed out during the CIP project. It you know may need some preliminary engineering, may need some studies, something like you know, you know Spruce for example we you know presume that the engineers working on that would you know start doing speed studies, crash histories, things of that nature as whether to prove it. But then at the end of it there'd be a potential funding source to, to do the actual construction if all the studies you know work out. Nunez: All right, thanks. And to that end Mr. Chair, do you, do you just want us all to write down these and number and you're going to tally them up in a table or, cause for I guess my two cents, just looking at this at a glance I would pursue the bottom ones on the map and then go to the longer, bigger one, number three, which is behind the dam there, and then on Spruce maybe last. But that's just ... 42 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: Number three is Roadrunner so ... Nunez: My first pass you know. Pearson: Yeah, it's ... Nunez: So anyway go ahead, sorry sir. I'm done. Pearson: Because questions about other, there are a couple of other road diet projects that have been talked about, Idaho and Alameda, but they're not on this list and they, the other question, like the CLC08, that project is going to happen as far as I know. I just was hearing from the Traffic Engineer today that that's something like four months out. That's funded by State Capital Improvement Funds, or State set -aside funds. McAdams: I'm, I haven't heard that Mr. Chairman. I haven't heard that that was funded for the pedestrian crossing at University. Curry: It, we spoke to Sue Young today. Pearson: With HAWK signals. McAdams: Okay. Curry: Yeah. McAdams: That's, that's news to me. Murphy: Mr., Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. The, did you speak with them about HAWK signals by the Chick-fil-A facility? Pearson: Yes. Also. Curry: Both. Murphy: Oh, both, both of those locations, okay. Pearson: Yeah, the Chick-fil-A location ... Murphy: All right, was ... Pearson: Was being installed by developers and what he had said is he's not going to sign off on a certificate of occupancy for that building until issues are resolved so that those get installed. They're fighting about how much money to spend on that. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 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 39 .3y 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Murphy: Okay. And then to a previous statement I, and I, 1 do remember us speaking about road diets on Alameda and Idaho previously. I, but I kind of don't remember it coming through on the, on the sheet that we had made off of your, go ahead Andrew. Wray: Mr. Chair. I don't recall that particular road diet being discussed at the September 20th meeting so that's the reason why it did not appear on this list. Now I may have missed something but I, 1 don't remember hearing that. Pearson: Yeah, Wray: So if, if MPO staff didn't hear it or it didn't get written down then it didn't get generated on this, on this list. Murphy: Yeah I think those are, I, I, I, those are straightforward enough concepts, we've done them here in the past so I think if the Committee would like to floor -amend this list and add, add those two specific road diets, MPO staff could, could get those applications, CIP applications in to the City by the November 1st. But I would also kind of hesitate to expand beyond, any beyond that at this moment in time. Pearson: And could you explain the CLC09 project a little bit because ... McAdams: Yeah. Pearson: That sound, the location describes the completed ... McAdams: That would, I think ... Pearson: NMDOT process, project. McAdams: I'm not sure if they can, discussing, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if they're looking at green lanes there be, so to designate there better because right now there's kind of confusion about how to get through that area. Same thing with University, it would be, give better I guess visibility for bikes but I don't think that that's being considered Mr. Chair. Yes. Bencomo: Mr. Chair. McAdams: Yeah. Bencomo: If I remember correctly because that was specifically brought up and that is the ... LI' 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 4, 43 44 45 46 McAdams: Right. Bencomo: Area where they just redid that and they put the bike lanes and it's a real nice area but one of the things that was brought up by a member of the public was at those bike lane crossings where people go onto, through intersections and things like that the green striping or some way to identify that because cars turning there creates an extra danger as bikes are trying to pass on the bike lanes, and so they were talking about some kind of identification, striping, painting, whatever at those intersections. And that, I, 1 think that's why that's on there I believe. Cause that is that same area where they just redid it on Avenida de Mesilla and it's brand-new so I think that's what it was if I remember right. Pearson: Well the City couldn't do that project anyways though then, right? Herrera: (inaudible). Pearson: So I think we can, we can scratch CLC9 from the list to consider. Willman: Mr. Chairman. I, 1 would like to take off CLC01, just take it off the list. I mean I ride down Espina every day and the facility is pretty nice. But I think what would be a very bold move is to move on CLC07. Now that would impact me personally, helping me to get across town on my bicycle. Pearson: Right. One of the comments, we don't, we have fairly decent north -south but we don't have good east -west. So I would agree with that. Actually that was going to go to a road diet but there was a property owner along that corridor that objected and there wasn't the political will to fight that. So it's really, it really needs a road diet. We've got a, it's a middle school there. Curry: Sierra. Willman. Yeah. Sierra. Pearson: So that would be high on my list also, yes. Herrera. Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Herrera: Can I just ask a general question? So what I've seen in the past on the ICIPs or CIPs, whatever they're called is that you don't have to be super - specific on the project, that you can be kind of more general. So I'm wondering if we can put something in there or recommend to MPO staff to put something like "study road diets on various roads" so that we can at 9L 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 least do the beginning steps of that, see where they're appropriate. We can pick the, the roads, the two that you mentioned Mr. Chair, also on Spruce, the one that's listed here, and then if there's any others to at least get the planning part of that kind of done, and then maybe on the next cycle after there's some good data to apply for the construction part. I don't know, I'm kind of just throwing that out there. I don't know if that's possible to do at this point in time or ... Bencomo: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Bencomo: I, I, 1 would have to agree with that. I, 1 think that's, it's typically how the City operates as far as ICIP. They're going to have, just like the, the applications we just looked at. First year is going to be the, the study, the design, whatever, they're going to pay for that and then the next year is going to be that and that's, ICIPs are typically broken up like that. It's not going to be construction and, and study and design all together, and then it's a multi -year project. So I, 1 would have to agree with that. Maybe if, if you can do it broadly enough just to, to say, "Okay we're going to study these three streets," or whatever instead being, being down to one, maybe one, we need funds to, to, to do design, study and design on these three. I guess it would be study first cause then if the study didn't come out well they wouldn't design it. So study and then design on these major areas and then ... Pearson: So maybe our recommendation should be to do the road study, road diet studies, list some of these streets that we've identified already and others as appropriate. Curry: Mr. Chair. My thought on it is that if for example like they did on Solano the road diet, they're willing just to actually do it, I would take it while it's being offered to do it, and that's what I'm understanding from what Mr. Murphy said, that these ones look like the most feasible, not a lot you know, right off the bat. Just jump in and do it. So if a study is required on it then that's one thing but if, if we're wasting a year by studying something we, would they, the City, you know they would just adopt "Let's go ahead and do a road diet on Spruce." I would say let's not waste time studying it if they could just jump in and actually do it right away. Pearson: Right. Cause I think the point would be to move these projects forward. I think a road diet on Alameda is pretty obvious. We've got bicycle facilities to the north and then all of a sudden we've got a, a section, the connecting east -west is down on Las Cruces Avenue so you've got a big chunk from Picacho to Las Cruces that is a four-way road where a road diet would In 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 make it much safer. So if we can advance that through this process, advance that project by a year or two that would make overall a better city. Murphy: Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. I, I, 1 think Ms. Curry's points are right on. Mr. McAdams recently attended a workshop, I'm not sure if Jolene was there. Herrera: I was there. McAdams: (Inaudible) Murphy: The State's developing further guidance on when to implement where, where road diets are appropriate and they're, I, 1 don't know if they've got a document published yet but it's going to be moving that direction and in my mind that constitutes a good portion of what we'd be studying. I think for the main, you know everything else that goes into the studies, things that can be accumulated fairly quickly, crash history, road, road volume, speeds on there and you know rather than, rather than do it one year and then, or study it one year and construct it the next year in every single case, I vote what we want to do is kind of you know based on, based on your knowledge and Members of this Committee's knowledges of the, of the local street system come up with those, those candidates which we view as, as potential and get them on a list so when the, you know if and when money comes available those, those improvements can be implemented. Herrera: Mr. Chair. I definitely appreciate those comments. I guess the only, I don't know how the City upper management, City Council, I don't know what, are they just willing to implement things like that without any kind of data? I mean that's kind of where, so if you're talking about NMDOT, we're not just gonna implement a road diet without knowing all of the data and so I, 1 guess that's a hard call. So I'm looking at it from DOT perspective, like you do the study and then, but if they're willing to just jump on board and we say, "Do a road diet," and then they're going to do it. I mean yeah, let's do that. I just don't know. Murphy: If, if I may, if I may respond. It, I don't think we're going to advocate it in, in the absence of, of all the data. I think the, those data points are things that the MPO collects on a continual basis and at the time, you know absolutely the, the City's Traffic Engineer looks at our data before they do anything, they'll go out again, they'll, they'll collect their own data to look at it, you know look at it further. So I don't think any of these things are ever going to happen without really being studied thoroughly. I think it's more of a matter of we need, we need some group to say, "This is, this is the priority areas. We need you to look at these you know to, to do 'em." And, and I believe that you know I, 1 think we can be confident that if, if there's a reason not to do it, if it doesn't make sense from a, a capacity or 47 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 safety standpoint, the professional engineers are absolutely going to say, "No way. We're not going to do it." Pearson: Right. Cause another, Boutz might be a place for a road diet by Las Cruces High School and I actually asked about that and it was like, "No." And I believe mostly probably because of the, the peak capacity during beginning and end of school. But that's an area that we actually vitally need bicycle facilities. It's like a, a bicycle desert there. We have a good, a destination that should be used by bicyclists but no way to get there. Nunez: If I could Mr. Chair. I agree with Mr. Murphy and I was going to interject some of that information. The, Spruce is, can be looked at for a road diet and then, and being four down to three lanes, right, typically is what, what you do on a road diet. But the one on Boutz you mentioned five lanes down to three lanes. That's another one of the reasons why it's maybe not as practical but I, 1 was actually planning on getting into that a little bit tonight whenever I had my report for the City. But back to this map, at the very top: Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects for the City of Las Cruces. If I remember right in our discussion we even talked about how we might try to get some low -hanging fruit. So even my first comment was the bottom part of this map, the shorter roads. So whenever I saw Roadrunner, I thought that was pretty big in what you're asking for a bike path along there. So and in addition to what your first comment was, is some tie-in at Motel or something, I can't recall. But anyway the point I was trying to make is that I thought that's what we were trying to do is get the low -hanging fruit if we could and then next year and etc. etc. But I, 1 think to wrap all this around I don't, I, are we getting to a conclusion on what we're suggesting or buying in for you? I think I, do you want us all to write down our priorities here or I think we there, are you just going to go in this, the top seven here, and you've even expanded to your road diet discussion to two or three projects, which is fine if you want to look at those. But my last comment on road diets is, and you even asked me Mr. McAdams I think the other day, there was a, a, think you were in some study or some training ... McAdams: Right. Nunez: And you said the road diet failed, so I don't have a lot of information on what specific example you have but sometimes they do with the data that we get, so whenever we get that, it, Spruce may fail also. We don't know that until we get into it, right. So anyway I'm, really my question or my, my drive is, is yeah if you'd like us to priorities, prioritize these I suppose we could. McAdams: Mr. Chair, Mr. Nunez. I think you're right that sometimes road diets do fail and that's because perhaps insufficient data and study. I, and also maybe 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 not enough public input as well. That was one of the things they stressed at the workshop. And I think that we would like to get this on the table so that the City, City could really consider that it's not just study but these are some we would like to do. I think to press it, because I think to a certain degree I agree with Mr. Murphy and also Ms. Herrera too that we need data and we do have the data for it. But I think that as Ms., Ms. Curry was saying that we'd like to have these, not just study but let's go ahead and say, "These were, these are priorities, we should look at them and so we can get something done." Road diets are fairly easy to accomplish. They, they can back fire sometime but really they have, they're low capital. They usually just consist of lane restriping, often they're done as part of maintenance as well. But there's a good amount of benefits for road diets in that they particularly reduce rear -ends, sideswipes, etc. and also people crossing all four lanes. There is significant collisions on, on Spruce as we know and many of them could be reduced by this, and also there's been about three, three pedestrian and, and bicycle accidents. I actually, it's going to be a, not actually, crash (inaudible) sign. So I think there's, there's a good, a, a good, a good reason to look at Spruce as probably a, a potential candidate for road diet. But I mean as far as a, the, Mr. Chair, the, this Committee of course is willing to do anything that you feel in your right to do. These are just suggestions. But I think the really the imperative we'd like to get, like Mr. Nunez said something on the table, low-lying fruit, so we can start to move ahead you know. And stuff like the crossings, the pedestrian crossings at, at Walton are low-lying fruits. We've already talked with, with several people in Transportation about that. That would be connected with the, the bus, there's a, two bus routes that come to that area and that that's, the divot it's, it was originally across from Wal-Mart, the bus stop, now it's being transferred divot, divot and course people are going across Walton to get to, to Wal-Mart. And that would be kind of a low-lying fruit. So it, Mr. Chair it just depends on how the Committee would like to pursue this. Thank you. Bencomo: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Bencomo: So at the, at the risk of dragging this meeting on because I see tiredness in people's faces but, and at the risk of making enemies of MPO staff and other people ... McAdams: You know me. Bencomo: I'm going to, I'm going to be myself. You mentioned low -hanging fruit multiple times. McAdams: Right. 49 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 Bencomo: And yeah I guess it could be termed that. I almost feel like it's the path of least resistance not low -hanging fruit. I read the title here, it says "Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects." Somebody needs to show me where there's a pedestrian project on there. Those are all bike lanes. They're in -road facilities. There's no pedestrian ... Pearson: Well... Bencomo: Projects on here. Pearson: I'll argue that a road diet is a pedestrian project cause that improves safety for pedestrians. Curry: Number six. CL06 specifically says "Pedestrian Refuge." Bencomo: Okay. McAdams: Right. Bencomo: I am corrected. There is one on there, it's a pedestrian refuge, it's to ... Curry: And, and CL08 as well. Bencomo: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I just feel like we, we, we're, we're still taking the pass of, path of least resistance. This is, this is, what we're, what we're looking at isn't just this upcoming fiscal year or even the year after that. We, we need to start putting project recommendations in place into the ICIP that are not going to be probably approved for a decade, but we have to put them in there now because they're not going to move up the list unless we do that. And we have to do hard things like if we want to put multi -use trails like Roadrunner Parkway, you're putting bike lanes in, there's no sidewalks on half of that road. Murphy: Exactly. Bencomo: Well, what, how you going to do that? So a multi -use trail could serve both purposes there and you could still have bike lanes if you wanted to. I mean bike lanes, as you're, it has to be a combination of things but we're not adding those things in here that need to be in there long-term. It took us 12 years of ICIP on the list to get Fire Station 7 from on the list to actually start construction, 12 years. Over a decade. They have to be put in now. We can't wait for those larger projects that are higher -dollar, more costly, more ambitions. We, we have to do them now. We can't wait. These ones are great. I don't, not arguing that we shouldn't do these, especially as we mentioned before the east -west connections there, we 50 I don't have good east -west. For example the, the mapping that I've been 2 looking at and things like that, it would include Roadrunner Parkway multi- 3 use trail. Espina is wide enough that with a reconstruction project you 4 could actually add that. Is a reconstruction project very costly in long- 5 term? Absolutely it is. But is that, that, is that something we want to look 6 at into the future? Do we want to just keep saying, "Oh let's put them in 7 the roads and people can walk on side," or do we want to start adding 8 those features to our city? And if we start now adding those in, then in ten 9 or 15 years from now we will have those. But we have to start right now. 10 We have to, or it's not going to happen ever if we keep doing this. Thank 11 you Mr. Chair. 12 13 Curry: Mr. Chair. May I add something as well? I think we really need to be, I, 1 14 feel like sometimes these things are rushed and I know we're always on a 15 time schedule and people are tired and want to go home and whatnot, but 16 1 really feel like we need to be looking at our overview big picture, 17 connecting the schools, connecting the multi -use trails, connecting all of 18 the various pieces. And I, 1 see that you've ordered these in some way but 19 1 would love to see our big -picture map on here of what we have. I know 20 you've got a little bit of what we have but where are we ultimately going 21 and how are all of the little pieces on this recommendation furthering our 22 ultimate goal? And like Mr. Bencomo said we're looking at the, at, at the 23 long-range picture and there's a little piece here and a little piece there 24 because somebody came to the meeting last month and made that 25 recommendation. But how is that enhancing our bigger connectivity 26 between all of our alternative modes of transportation? 27 28 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Ms., Ms. Curry. I think that planning is incremental. And it, 1 29 agree with, with Mr. Bencomo too, we have to make bold choices often. 30 But often we have to make little choices too. Often the big choices, they 31 have to be in the Cl, ICIP many many years before they come about. But 32 also project being done right away is also imperative too. And I would 33 love to have the money, I think the City and the State would all also love 34 the money to do these things but I think that in planning we have to plan 35 what we can do right now and also put, push long-range project too. And 1 36 think, I agree with you and I bet, agree with Mr. Bencomo as well. So it's, 37 it's difficult I think right now and, and always we have deadlines. It, it, 38 deadlines will never go away. And I guess what we're saying, in the 39 essence we wait would be another year, we may get nothing and so we 40 have to put forth something in the realization that if we don't ask for 41 something we'll get nothing. So I agree with both of you. It's a dilemma. 42 43 Herrera: Mr. Chair. 44 45 Pearson: Yes. 46 51 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 McAdams: Yeah. Herrera: With all being said ... McAdams: Right. Herrera: Can we group some of these together and put them in as one project instead of having little teeny separate projects? So maybe do like the pedestrian stuff, so CLC06 I guess is a pedestrian one. Which other one is a pedestrian? Curry: 08. Herrera: 08, so group those together cause they're so small the cost is probably lower. Curry: Although, I'm sorry, I say 08 but we really should just strike that from the list because that's already in funding. Herrera. Okay. And then also I think we need to get rid of CLC09 which is what we just talked about, the University part. So take those out and then try to group some of the others together. Pearson: Yeah. Roadrunner's probably a project on its own. Herrera. Right, but some of the smaller ones, and then I also would like to propose Pearson: But the road diets can be talked about together. Herrera: Exactly, that we do one project for road diets. Pearson: And then that leaves the bike lanes for the rest. Herrera: Yeah. Can we do that? Is that enough prioritization? Murphy: Mr., Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. I believe, I believe so. I'm, with the, with the caveat this is the first time that the City's invited us into this, this part of their process so I am, I am uncertain how it's all going to shake out. You know I, I, the only thing I'm certain on is that we'll hit some point and the City Council will assign their own priorities so I think that probably is great help as far as consolidating some, some groups of projects that, you know that can be put forward. And staff will work on that and we will get a submittal based on, based on ... Pearson: Okay. 52 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: All commentary here into the City CIP process and then we'll keep ... Pearson: So this is an action item, so Jolene could you make a ... Curry: Can, can I ask another quick question? I'm sorry to, to drag things on, but what's the difference here under the recommendation for bike lanes versus bike facilities? McAdams: I think bike, bike facilities would be like, things like bike tracks I think is a rule, but they could be interchangeable as well. Curry: So "bike tracks" meaning? McAdams: Bike tracks would be separate ... Pearson: Yeah. McAdams: Lanes like we talk at University and 1-10 that would be separate lanes going through that area, all right. There's a, we've studied that before. There's a median there at 1-10 and University and that, that would be possible, but ... Murphy: Ms.... Curry: Well, so like a multi -use trail? Murphy: Mr. Chair ... McAdams: Yes. Murphy: Ms.... McAdams: I think that was suggestion ... Murphy: Ms. Curry. I, 1 think that the difference on our list really extends from the fact of the individual that wrote on the map how they termed things. Curry: Thank you. Herrera. Mr. Chair. I'm willing to make the motion. I just want to clarify what roads we're talking about for the road diets. So we got Spruce, Alameda and ... Pearson: Idaho. Herrera: Idaho, okay 53 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 Curry: Walton's is a road diet, CLC06. Herrera: Okay. So I don't even know how to make that motion. Mr. Chair. I move that we direct MPO staff to group projects together and submit them to the City for the ICIP. Is that clear enough? I don't ... Pearson: Well actually list the groups. Herrera: Okay. So the groups would be pedestrian projects, bicycle projects, and then road diet projects, and the road diets are to include all the, the roads that we just listed. Curry: Might we say rather than ped, bicycle projects and road diets, cause road diets will be more specific to bicycles, multi -use or multimodal projects? Because if there's some like those ones that if Mr. McAdams was talking about a separate, a separated lane like a multi -use trail maybe we should include those as bicycle/pedestrian as opposed to pedestrian refuges. Are there any that we're talking about specifically that would be separated? You're talking about on University at 1-10 would be a multi -use McAdams: That, again like Mr. Murphy, that came from a comment. I think they were, the person wanted to, was talking about multi -use. Curry: So maybe we should separate them as multi -use, road diet which is specific to bicycle, and then pedestrian which is more the pedestrian refuge. Herrera: Well road diets aren't specific to bicycles. I mean road diets help. McAdams: Well yeah. Herrera: Everything, all elements. Curry: But you couldn't, you're not necessarily going to walk with a road diet. I mean you, it's going to make walking safer but it's really more of a you know ... Herrera: Well road diets can add room to add sidewalks too. Curry: Got you. Yeah. Herrera: So I mean... Curry: Yeah. 54 1 2 Herrera: I think we need to look at all of those ... 3 4 Curry: Yeah. 5 6 Herrera: Elements. 7 8 Curry: Okay. 9 10 Nunez: And potentially bike paths too. 11 12 Curry: Multi -use paths. 13 14 Nunez: Well multi -use, well yeah. 15 16 Pearson: Want to try again? 17 18 Herrera: Not really. 19 20 Murphy: Mr. Chair. If, if I may, I'm, this isn't a formal action going up to the Policy 21 Committee so I think staff is probably comfortable just based on 22 discussion on, on what idea we have to go ... 23 24 Pearson: Okay. 25 26 Murphy: Go forward. I don't, don't think we need to twist, or figure out a way to 27 make it fit into a motion. 28 29 Pearson: Okay. 30 31 Murphy: And then just to kind of, hopefully the last thing I, 1 have to say is we've 32 also been invited to do, to, to get involved into the County's ICIP process 33 come January so take some time, think over what County projects that, 34 that we could be submitting applications for as well. 35 36 Pearson: Okay. 37 38 Murphy: But ... 39 40 Pearson: So we can... 41 42 Murphy: I think we're ... 43 44 Pearson: Talk about this next time. 45 46 Murphy: Comfortable without a motion or a vote. 55 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: Okay. Murphy: If the, if the Committee is comfortable. Curry: May I, may I make a request? Because you have to get this in by November 1st there really isn't time for another meeting for us to sit, but would you be willing to e-mail us before it goes forward so that we can see how it finally goes as a recommendation? I mean I know we're only ten days out but I'd like to see before it goes forward, just what it finally boiled down to. Murphy: Yeah. I think we can e-mail you what I, it, it's fairly, fairly small document sizes so I think Michael can get those e-mailed out. Curry: Thank you. Pearson: Okay. So I think we can move on then. 6. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 7.1 MPO Staff Update Pearson: So we're after our 7:00 closing time so are there any important staff comments? 7.2 Local Projects update Pearson: Any important updates that anybody wants to offer? County? Castillo- Just real quickly. So we did have a, a TAP project that went through the El Paso MPO, we mentioned that the last time. So it made it through the Technical Committee and it made it through the Transportation Policy Advisory Board so it should be on its way to Santa Fe for review and competition I guess. And also I would like to reiterate something that Ms. Curry had mentioned about the need for like a regional map of projects, of both bicycle and pedestrian projects. I think we can all can benefit from that. So hopefully maybe come the next calendar year or something we can, we can work on together. Thank you. Wray: We're, excuse me Mr. Chair, Mr. Castillo. When you say "regional map," we have the MPO Trail Priorities Plan and the Bicycle Priorities Plan currently existing on our, our website. Those documents exist. They've been recommended by this Committee and approved by the Policy Committee so we do have some vision documents out there for review. I 56 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 don't know if that's exactly what you're, you're asking for but we do have some, some documents in that line that exist now. Castillo: Well as we move forward with this list that we have ... Wray: Okay. Castillo: The, the, the, the new list. Wray: Okay. Got you. Pearson: Okay. James. Nunez: If I could, yes. I have a couple things. I'll be, I'll be brief as I can here. For the City updates real fast, right, cause we're trying to close the meeting. Pearson: Right. Nunez: The Dam Trails is about 80% and with the big rains they did actually have some washout and stuff and those are for, for the trails so they're going to work on trying to do maintenance and assess how to drain those better. And then I did have some information of course on those road diets and all. But then to jump head, we're doing a bunch of ADAs. You see along Solano ramps, etc. and then Palmer Subdivision and MacArthur school will have that coming up soon. But I think a number of you know that in our work study, or our work session we had in September we talked about, I talked about trying to get some green bike paths in the city. What I learned in talking to Mr. Soo Gyu Lee is that he's really pretty much under, underfunded even to keep the other stop bars and other hangings of, and crosswalks and everything else so he's, it's a real challenge for him. So that's why they really haven't gone with additional, like the green bike paths indicators. But what I was able to arrange with his permission was for Ennis -Flint, E-N-N-I-S F-L-1-N-T, Ms. Kara Griffin has, well is going to actually donate quite a bit of material for us to be able to put some indicators down and with Mr. McAdams we were able to find a pretty good location where we can get those donated and installed. Here's our hope, and I'm glad you had, what was his name, Marcus in your office and you guys had done the study and I don't remember if you all saw this or remember it from the work group but this is the map that they had of the pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the city. And you can see the concentrated areas in red close to the, along University Avenue and then over here at Missouri and then also at the south, south end of Main Street along what we call the racetrack. The, and I almost brought up with this in our last discussion too, because if you lay this map over the map you still have up here on the Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, 57 1 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 some of this overlaps this. So even to that end if you use this and maybe your argument to the City Council Members is that your hope is, is to have less crashes and more bicycle facilities, right that you hopefully would reduce crashes. So anyway to get to the point is that what we've decided, have found an area within this red region is at the corner of Locust and University. There is a pretty neat facility there. They have the center bike lane that goes in to go straight heading south onto campus. So Ms. Kara Griffin is going to do a demonstration for us and have this thermal plastic where they heat it up with a torch and we're going to have green patches there. It's going to say "Bike" and then a, probably a straight arrow. And then additionally at, at Locust, same intersection right by that bar, I can't know the name of it anymore, but going north on Locust and University we're going to have a bicycle symbol in the bike path and then an, and also a wide arrow on green. So we're working out the details to see when we might be able to do that but it's looking like right now maybe the last week in November or first week in December. So hopefully, and here's the idea is hopefully we can somehow get maybe the Council, person in charge, I think it's Smith for that region at the university there and then have others hopefully at some point find a way to, to fund Mr., the Traffic Department at the City and then even whoever else. You know the, hopefully it'll reduce accidents, increase awareness that the paths are there and, and also hopefully find a means to, to dig, get funds for more of these. So that's the current plan. Pearson: Okay. McAdams: Mr. Chair. Can I comment real quickly? We are now monitoring that corner. We've put out video cameras at, we're now at two sides and we're, we're going to count the cars, excuse me, counts of bicycles and also look at vehicular movement with conflicts there as well. So we have, hopefully went, we'll have a before and after, before the situation before the, the bike, green bike lanes and after too. So I think this will be, we're hoping this will be a impetus to look at, for the City to consider this as part of their, their regular process and institutionalize the process. Santa Fe is already, they're in the process of looking at bike lanes and they are trying to make this a, an institutional part of their but, you know their, their restripings etc. and often these can be done, the green bike lanes can be done at the same time they're doing routine maintenance. Pearson: Okay. 7.3 NMDOT Projects update Pearson: Okay. NMDOT is on break. 58 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 Herrera: Mr. Chair. There's really no construction projects going on in the city. The next one coming up will be the intersection of Spitz/Solano/Three Crosses. That one goes to bid next month, in November so we should start seeing construction spring of next year. It's going to be a mess but we're hoping to get it done quicker than the last phase went. And then also just so the Committee Members know I delivered a set of plans to the Chair for the project over the Pass, widening the shoulders and adding the bike lanes and things so we hope to get comments from him on those and we ... Pearson: If anybody wants to see those at some point let me know and we'll get together. Herrera: And everything else is peachy. Pearson: Okay. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Pearson: We're on to public comment. Anybody from the public? Seeing none. 8. ADJOURNMENT (7:31 p.m.) Pearson: Motion to adjourn? Herrera: So moved. Curry: Second. Pearson: All in favor, "aye." MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: We're adjourned. Thank you. Chairperso 59