Loading...
04-22-2004 LAS CRUCES AREA TRANSIT (RoadRUNNER) TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES The Transit Advisory Board(TAB)meeting was held on Thursday, April 22, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. at the Branigan Library, Pearl Higgins Room, 200 E. Picac6o, Las Cruces,New Mexico. Members Present:. C. Harvey, Chairman; M. Baumann, J. Garcia; C. Ray; C. Wilson Jr, Members Absent: M. Elrod Others Present: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator; Toni G. Flores, Recording Secretary; Councillor Wesley Strain; Tom Murphy, MPO Planner; Richard Jacquez, City Attorney; Margaret Markham Call to Order C. Harvey called the Las Cruces Area Transit Advisory Board meeting to order at 3:00 p.m II. Review and Approval of Minutes C. Harvey moved to approve the minutes of the April Transit Advisory Board meeting Seconded by M. Baumann. Motion carried. Ill. New Business a Tom Murphy, MPO Planner, presented a comprehensive and detailed presentation on the amended Short Range Transit Plan. T. Murphy answered questions and received input from the Board members and the public. After review and discussion, the Board was asked to review the information and be prepared to take action on the amended plan at the next board meeting. (See attachment III-A.) b M. Bartholomew, Transit Administrator, discussed the proposed Route 9 Realignment. (See attachment III-B). The purpose of the realignment is to provide service to Mountain View Regional Medical Center, the adjacent medical office building and any future medical facilities in that area. After much discussion, M. Baumann moved the Route 9 realignment, as presented, was unacceptable. He asked that improvements be made to the proposal and resubmitted to the Board for consideration. Motion seconded by C. Wilson. Jr. Motion carried. c. The Board discussed the possibility of incorporating fare options to the Las Cruces Area Transit Tariff(see attached memo III-C). M. Baumann moved that M. Bartholomew and staff proceed with this proposal as presented. Seconded by J. Garcia. Motion carried. Las Cruces Area Transit Advisory Board Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2004 Page 2 d M. Bartholomew asked for the Board's recommendation and/or approval to de- obligate $64,000 of Federal funding directed for the Job Access Reverse Commute Program. After much discussion and recommendations from the Board, J. Garcia moved this item be tabled until the next Board meeting. Motion seconded by C. Wilson Jr. Motion carried. e Richard Jacquez, City Attorney, provided legal information to the Board regarding advertising on transit buses and bus-stop shelters (see attached memo III- D). After discussion, M. Baumann moved that M. Bartholomew pursue, as an additional source of revenue, the placing of advertising signs on the Transit buses, only, since this is not a violation of the Las Cruces Municipal Code. Motion seconded by J. Garcia. Motion carried. N. Other Business-Updates a M. Bartholomew reported a bench was installed at Munson Center. b The FY 03-04 Year-to-Date Ridership Data was reviewed and discussed(see attachment IV-E) . C. On May 8, 2004 Rideshare will host a Bike Rally Event. d The Transit Tri-Annual review was completed. V. Other Discussion a The TAB was invited to attend the Senior Programs Advisory Board meeting of May 13, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. at the Mesilia Park Recreation Center. b The TAB discussed and disapproved the placing of the Aggie logo on the Aggie Shuttle bus. VI Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Toni G. Flores,Recording Secretary For Charles Harvey, Chair Mary Ann Flenniken, Secretary Dater/60, 1t;Iq r � r Oil, Uf [as uruces LAS CRUCEP AREA TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING NOTICE & AGENDA A meeting o the Transit Advisory Board will be held or; Thursday, April 22. 2004 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at Branigan Library, pearl Higgins Froom, 200 E. Picachc, Las Cruces, N'ew Mi exicc. L Cali to Order and Roll Call; l Ravieej and Approval of minutes of(Special i4eeting r(°gar 4 n 4. t lntenmodal Facility Study and tie Bus Shelter.A.c©€ kation) Adarch 4, 2004, rni-lutes of the March 18, 2004 Board meetina, and this minutes of the public meeting on April 2; 2004, regarding ser-vrice to Mougntair View Hasp i a1. Hi. Nsw Bossiness 2. f,om Miurphy will Present the amended Short Range Transit Plan. Request Board apprcovaE to bring the rorNar` to ^..ouncH. e. Dis6ussion and request for apprcda' of routs 9 service to Mouentair, View Regional Medical Center. c. Proposal tc add fare options to the Transit tarii6. Req~e s-t board approval d. Request approval to de-obligate $64,000.00 of old Federal Finding for Job Access Reverse Commute Program. e. Discussion as to vi3hether to perm!t advendsing on transit property. Richard Jacquet will discuss legal poir"at sof view. Request 4irection fror r ,she Board. i + ' er EL:si nass updates V, + t aG, U3cussior fro ; Board Members If VO G ne•�d an accommodation n :.0r e d SarJii( `,/ 0 ei;=:ble vcu to fuily air ECIp te s'i: this meeting lease co{.ct- iu{C ^ yrs t '' 5! 5 F _ �-� !� �: be; ��e � . rn ..ir�c. G� :. , .-2.�C!ED/`Jcicc-. I E ,-�\i?t AL A1.VISORYCOI INi IEE (TI AC) MEETIN G Ma-ch 4, 2004 y o n�,itree TAC' mee1ir_v held on i t',ae Tec r�nical Advisor C Following the s'>> 1:- =y m-ir,_:es o Las Cruces, e�� are 200 . ChurchStree�., �� s New March 4.2004, at 5:00 p. .., eL: City Council Chamber; Mexicc. Meinbers Present: Dar So-i=,-o {CLC Public' orks, Chair) Robert Ai? .�ijo (DAC Engineering, Ice-Chau- Lo_ett:aReyes (CLC Public Worl<s) oh-, no r (Town of Mesilla) Chuck Mclv[ahor� (DAC Planning) Rich art: Ma,Rorie (NIIN6S� TiTn Sanders (ELM) Earl Torres {proxy for Mike BartCLC Transit) lH enni Mag-LLenez (EBS) /i.e �.'�cLrlt: An fc aStan��ia(TovYil Of�/IwS?�la) i ' ii_i��.. ai Orlando V. Fig_o (DAC Floor commis -p Star S* P eser_t: Lila Fusel-er (jL G �t� A,n dy Hu.-,71 o (ijf 0 S t a f, Torn Mussy(-�/TO Staffl � to Ti��_McAllister(�uP O S f_ Diana Carlson (Comm_unity Development) y -���r,+ Senator Mary Sane Garcia Ca'�erine Ljua to Oin.�rL 1 lv.. -sen': ti Tin Jacobs NmEke Becket`L Javier& Henrietta Vargas Loni Martinez Grace Chavez Vincent Chavez ;fie-rin Mill,er Yolanda GonzZ es ohn &Beverly Gutierrez S CALL TO OFFER T.,� c tyaas caileL to order at 5:0� p.rn. by Dan Soriano. 1\/Ir. Soriano asked for a motion to 1�_e n_ee'_ri� Y T T' (� 1 neap�oi1L'.i-! '/Tiiyyjth'-Transi`�-d Misor.v BJ�`�• - conduct bLsi - ohm 1{r,o,r, inc-v ey. Lcr�..Y Reyes secondtic. a�' iorr. Car, e RE L y'T l 'O (fnr til is agendz item.'the Ta C il?convene in loin session with the Tr�jra5it Aldvisor,,Board2. 'rte i -i n :tc- 0da1 Facility Study by Gr -o Snyder, Parsons-Brinkerhoff Je• t3L of o! i�. rn' ebb Gregg Sn�rder stated t_e Lnterrnodal Transportation Facility is a large transit project. Mr. Synder rI is the project manager and they also stated that?a-sons-B�in'�er�lo is a consulting operation. e have eng 11�erS, a':ChlteCiS and planners on the teai!. ti:%aS to re _er �� ,t r; �l� z, �-the exist ng transit in astructure for RoadRUN- Tli„ii job in the Strc_egic an transit, baSiCaliV aslsln the question,iS tT1c 1riII astir 1Ctlire ti7at=S in place i0daVCir.g t0 be S'af21C1ent for tine next 10, 20 vv rs. They also looked at Road:RJUNT R=s space requirements asking if the malntenanCe faC>lity Size was a L� prl cte and how m8.riy bus SpaCeS would they need t0 Construct a: il_ter;�,oda? Trans or�r:.lion centa . Past of that is forecasting the 2020 'fleet size ofRoadRUN -ER Transi,. Z_ Cr it to d tnis.. `L� e' v%Cn.�acl, tc the, star Oi the public transit system ir_ i 985. from 1985 t� 2002.tine S �SLtit -_-� Ldp--aste-than,ar_population and economic developirler_t. I>=s 4.4%aimually. + ,^ g= f 2 i� to 1% annually to the year 2020. Overall,the long-ie 11- r gro;v E� is pro';ecte to be gout i acini a--. iliSto lral`Ener!^iS that tr anS-i.'iidc-i-S11iU has actually grown faster than population a. d Should contig-1— to g os into tie f�tu Therefore.by the year 2020;P.oadRU K Transit should douUle in size. The- job*n tb'e S+-^nte '-.c Pls.'1 vvas to also ideP-tify and Screen pot nice S1ieS for ti a:1 Sit functionality. Ess:;ntially the-y--re try rlg to locate an Interimodal Transportation acili ty, and a tilai:stenance Facility that are sized azpropr ately fcr the yea-2020. For the Maintenance Facility sites they look at two things; (l Is the existing site on Hadley capable of handling i�hire System growth, and if not (2) uThat replacement Sites should be looked at. Lastly; their job was to submit the top recommended intermodal site and one t^ two alternative sites and also to recommend a maintenance facility site. The maintenar_ce facility, since it=s a much lower pr-ority,will be left to the nevi ew of the report for the recommendation. '11v . S;nd.er then! state,'- that ar. intermodal transportation center iS really a -tenant site for tranSfe rng passenger be weer!modes. The basic ince—I-tidal center characteristic is location. °. nrorerl-� Sites ir!ter ,_oda'_ f,.cilit,,r is really the Ahub@ of the overall public transportation network. 1 - future gro ��rth the system may have. Tlie location_ should also be moble to accommodate an;/ pacSerig?rS ail ell'leS S'r_o ld be a`ailable wltl7ir!ilio facility; rcS`7ooms, So0.a ma-Chines, etc. e•, � r 202C• Thrz s"tc tivould need to bp- z. e -. Sm/de-,-St rFL!..tli ' ' bit S b�":;rs iS wria t__. y forecast by th `e: i�� v-- It S`lOL�be able t0 aCCOm i o a:= 5000 squ r'' Beet ofbullt space 1 r ai 1 v �c or a u f0_ t_a s.t 2.di !!!-StTa_.J �':_Cti S; CL'.Stomer se<Vice,driver=s breai:�l00n1,e;, I`should be able t0 L ` ~ ser r� an: ro ti:rat:�i\ �0 n?opi- Ce-. da;-. 'odav at t: e centra,transfer locatlo-. cr Wyatt1.00(: peC,r;. get o- an4 off the buses - -d a is sP^ .,ility�. There ane a lot o' T-Vals thatoccur Ano'"e.t"ir 7 thev�vet ;1_• ori%z to eVe'nt r%0 u� ., Las :r ices a :c'.it=s �r_rc:.ant t..:, :publi transit be able to pro vide nobiLty to transport people to these events. this woula reduce the need fo_structured parking in the dotivntotim: and reduces the neer Tor narcing vera:_. The federa dollars that are beim leveraged for Via I rtic�:lar facility, should be a catalyst for future det,Jelopmer_: . Mr. Synder stateC they looked at 21 sit-.s throughout Las Cruces. They then rated each one of the ��� the r�po- . The sues were suggested by NIPC staff, downtown sites by seven cr:ter=' lis,. ,. in business eL��rles; ^amity manLgement ane of ers. They also looked at 9 downtown sitLs. The purpose i r , --+ >" �Yt- 97 re t0 Su-0 Ort the revitalization efl0? t0 optiri ize accessibility in or ioc.sing a:the dcwi_ ,,_S; 1 �' �ownto�y Th-eyhave selected the COwntOvd _and also to le�,'er- po,,P_tial transit 1nVeStIner;tiri tn� d T of��Iair_ar_d sites outside of the P�acetrack@ site L7,which is th^s ;;e located north of Ana o_, easy in ti-,e downtowr_area. T hey selected site C7 for a number of pCsiti�r.ti reasons: S Cit�7 already ot,"�_s 25% of the larc., S bus access Good : iJz_C ane t_ e bu'la=ny a_ � assessec for approxi natly$600,000, c Can construct a full intern oaal facility at the site; S Cor ppatiblt vnttl'the existing and olarsied land uses. LC a C01.1 l rba ildin2s. There are thr::-e private lard o%xners on the site. sitz is cur=en'.:iti ho e oL The " - T'iiere=s direct access to Main ate,'i.o'-��rr�an ftirn t;�e site. The site canbe constructed in two phases., m_ea i' does not have-t,be boug+ all at once. It=s one block f orrl the docsnte- mall so it=s Ve= ConvenientIi, fiatixr SpPC1'�!events. it=S eq al distance'oetwe n the nes; iustice center and the potential state office Co=- ggs and Church street and The i vC alternative sites are C2 and C • C2 is the soutr'vaest corn er c.Gri�v C4 iey s the southegs� corner of G-•igcs and"i ater Streei. There wouldbelow aCCuisition Cost and this nroiect could be done quickie. x�cwever, sites C2 and C� de have some negatives te.c The l church could conflict it the future wif.L mixed-use buildings that are planned on par'1=ng would need to bt addressed. Lastly,depending on the design:concept;the streets mavnct be able to handle all those buses as they may be too nary oyer. + e :�e had tvvc concerns; (1) The �,e �`�dvisor,� Board; stat., y r rrber 0f fn Trar<sit _ e lJ� 1, ,fat r 3_"i, _ that ; ;s based upon is ti_ 1 re _ Cr.e of the pr:,mi e t st the stud 1- P J_: '�,1 t. v n .y I'i ,r1;7.7 'area C (2� a� Le a. -�jr.Baur iiarLT does_ =t th nk this is go i It happen. as c rea. 0 re a:izc i s S and +'n.." `ol: r';:"!ding wou d be "a better C'101Ce as �"Otlld 1^VQ ;/e p Ve CCS' -Tr C J L11c..L _ � ;,!;I_ as a:C,-s tC fn.e dOyzi.:i` �`!n area. acatisit:on; ti' J Mir A f ; 1: ov ned by the Civ . He was no Sure i. the- W"0'uld be ali,C t(: 1 i.T° t.ansit" a`'th;', r~GreV. �r. Sr_V�er St<lrej ,: 'Gt1iC! be C CCIlsiClZratior.. r. � Ce la or Man,' Ja,e L7c:'c:a stat shy has been very sup ,o-d C 0_ u:e dolNniG`�%r. reyitalizatl0�. L�li Tally, they pro not,"d it as a cultira: collldor. Fio,7,ever, with. this Lnteripodal Center, site sees chaos, poSs'_bl ' looking at anottler local or! such as Solo or the existing railroad depot would be beth- tilargareti arm' am com_nlain+: �o the bad bus routes. This pla is predicated on keeping the current bus route sYster .. It takes too long to get f Grr one place to another. There are no manor arter es t'nat c-=, h.trans;crtation in botln directions. There are no buses mm=g the—le—north of Lohman and Am I,n r e-g"s to the Solo building,the City would be out only for the purchase price,not the cup�ent appraised pric:.. -- f t' He didn=t read �/lilre Becke`i; �xi'th i•aS C-rices GvYn=C+u� ; just h� a point of C1ar�lrCa lora. an,nailere in t re steady that the d nt0'Nn ar-215 intended to be a retail center. It=s more of a mixed use and retail is Orj1V one CO1nnCrrent. He also stated that if there are going to be nim-ent office dot,,Tntoy%vTi, that a bus systeir_would be very helpful. Gr-ace Chavez, G-"vVner of tfie 77elcoiTe Lnn. asked if It=s proper for t.ee businesses to go Out of bus-;n- ss when- ey'=r' t +7n'?to bring i-n businesses to tl_-ie dC,';ntovV-'- area. The Soho building is Vacant and is alread-y'ovi-n ed b-the Ci 1Y-. Beveri_v Cutie-e<ctil e .ems NL-. Snyder by saying there are four businesses locate on tl7e prGDose d sit not tl�see. I✓ls. CutieL-ez would like to see a breakdG,;y on the money. She has the same ,e,st G - i ,- Albuquerque=s Inte=odal Center is built on gi_,,,.._ons anc cor�._en.. a. Z✓1�. _,�arlslla_s_express�� . -, ,o rno-e inner cit buses than is expected of Las Cruces. She is Eve acres and tiny onl, 11cre _ Y conceirea aboutu --ft-le size orsi.e C;1 V�ltn e-.Jeryt 'mg they--"e intending to have there. She feels they would need Eve acres for the Intermodal_ Center in Las Cruces and that they should look at futile us". ^-�v ' + ; s^me cf file questions. (1) He stated that City Council adopted the 171r. ��_ cer ata=�,sse-y v redeveloprnent o rthe downtown as a reta 1 area. The existing con i7tion is the re�ritalization of the dGWr!to'w1 (2) They did SCretin 21 Sites aCCordina to the seven criteria listed ir:tl?e report. (3)T'-ey have looked a t' e exisi:in g depot which is located to the west of downtown tl rough a residential neig hborhood an d a par- ,so the rna.ir b , access to get to that facility v✓ould be t1�ToLlah a residential aea. The dei of is c=ently being used as a n-useum and is being operated by volirnteers. It does not r let7eraye t.^e t_1_Sit C0:13rS '_i t_2e otil'e-lases that are going on ir_the downto r.area. (4) The Solo 1 �''` does Ot�i'. it. It=S a acre ander tiT/nth a Store Of SIL: rS asEess"d a 2 r .' loM and t e �.i;�/ apJ;O Ci 1atLi; 70,00 �u�lp fc 't W' ._c is too big. They vz/oui-f have to take do,%`.m 70,000 squa.re f J = <e r.se frGn a cost effec ave stand poi,=. 3 Heir evaluation is and l ivl_�C V/,t [L P$ m- t_ se L case` G.. ,.,1e `luc_.:ux le;._ 2t ^� .S C4 ta.{lnV down a bu11dir.g. 5)�1�r. :�nVCer cannot address t'fu F ,•• l01 the purgose of the s«d .. That is a decis=on for the Transit 1Gr i ?sysl-em o.tht a a. _. aS A �;_, r r• P G yCte C way`o "o Or'e tion is a ��„ l n i t :r. ti L Cr cil C `-cid i t a loo_�in�S, l 1 the c�%t p -�_^_ Ch is -wa� ��r-iCe on ma.""Gr S'.ree s �: would regi i_e a total SVStei` rte` e.,� iec'., the Cit,, v7i'1 have to do ari retie � �.n CG���`' � , costly, ,o; �-i,� -_ �t phase G. the �r-� .. e�'_v__ori--r Ei'_t_.1 ass_ss _:.ei_.. h is fede�11;/Trandated process because you=re using federal money. �C°ro Gf the r 4nFy tG bail`alis f Cilit- wall be federal money,,not local money. L:that phase, ill o` the COSI Gfpoteritiall;�b ing land and relOCang bUSlria SSeS V✓111 be eVakll'dted. -if it turps out that the site is too expensive tc buy;that business owners are reluctant to sell and want to litigate,then thea are alteiLlat.vE sites,to look at. (7)The AlbuaueTaue hrAe­_,m. odal Center is.a t No-sto>y,40,000 square: foot building. has space for rail service adiacent to it. and can handle 1; Grevhound buses at one tie. so not.al' the space is devoted t0 the public transit susterr. m Hei,_�P�agallenez, TAC merr;ber. asked about the cost of moving businesses, Mr. Snyder state:'LI at ifbus"I esszs, are to be relocated;there is a strict federal process for doing that. L_ order to evali ate that. the City needs real estate experts and business experts that Value businesses. as-well as input fro­ the business oti,1ners themselves. This would occur in phase Ti of thisrqi eect. CGa Cil_o Si-air_ Ct.r":_2 t that t'^_' elle^ate SitES Or C2 2nd C� happens to be the On1V stn,-et trial G'0 M= tC �% c�O�e for e' eP_ts 8nd consequ'eritiV is a tote'_ con-Eict for Che -proc.edures to the lY:=. SIl`!der 5= ts, ti ai GI-lC�- VinL'£ f-o Church $'u'eG_ to Campo Streei will be closed pEi_la lEntlt%w cf t�iE Justice C,-nt,r's constr acted. 'Griggs Avenue fron.�/°7ate. Street t0 Church St eet; aCCGrdinr to lnE r:vtaliZa ion plus,Ti12V remain open or Tn a�%be C1rJSEd dL li b special events. ThE .ur GSE Gf th E dog;✓i ii,yn rCt✓italization plan is tG increase access iii the downtown by converting streets to 2-way and raking sure there is a uniforn grid systeri. Councillor Strain also advised to take into consideration the fed+era'_building; for security reasons, will only be one street width i= front. Consequently, would tl_.at be increasing the exposure by putting it across from the old courthouse and the new courthouse. Mr. Snyder stated that the street closure that will be done when the Justice Center, is contracted is Griggs bet,xreen Church and Campo, pernanently. The street between City Hall and the Justice Center will also bL-closed peer anentl�,. They will be taking one travel lane on Car ipo street for the securitvbuff;., of the building JO-T_ �'�>no`�p. T A-" mE nlber, stated t at hi CGnCerr Vf2S the naive �Inte 11_odal Center@ when it ESSE'i1S 1?" SO�r o:_ li'_�•e e �O�n 0`%rr t u'S Center. If it Y"aS 10Ca e along the interstate, It wOL'ld be fi, elieAs 'y ;Vhi+= Sands El Past, etc. The locations} selected,is not near an,/ hE t c - = in v btiSE:i, i.+,. C hOLr C Y '_i"tiiC lil'WJE TnOre Inteiinodal if i',.were some,%v'_Jere along Literstat' 2` ar_d thte ..__vnz bike c.`t',.. `A �'ra� t i t would mean ���=. y^ ., ai, _ L%c ._ i._e v _!.L:: �rar,5- Sysierr! 1S _vCu c_±Ori fi tae 'reev 4-, S��•_!'ri r d "_=. lnt� -�v b'1Ses do travel or.city st- e%3.%3. 1:.e site selected wouldpro,;id;, a co�-dinatev n-ci._.RD-��' �=ervi'y Coa:,E in the Las Cruces area to Corri e and pick_up passengers. 1 r�i r` ^ i T ` fi 11 � there dlliing the evaluation Q'^ h�"i"'Cil'0, 1�:C rP,ei..JBr. _:lCei �i�:f.-a._ Hype O_ p�bllc I'ri W"3S proceSS. Snvde'_- state.'.. fney solicited fi OUi fi . City=s staff, dOwI'_t0i%v,_ bUS1P_eSS Owrler5, and the revit2liz.ation m,Ctl,. ;hey also looked at previous studies. Ci,"_??c;c lC>� t'i0"s1., TAC raernb-.r, asked how extensive, tulle con-suming ancostly is a route redesign, if it,xrer, changed to i-nclude the areas of?-2l, Lohman, Amador, et:,. �JL". Sr t/der c vlSe i r?; ld'OcSivstil 've t L'ovil2ly t'2e eXis;.iIl-bus system.Oil and Stai �I ri�OVeTlir the service.routes, sched-ales.etc. Typically. for cities orthls size with this bus 1 eel,the radial route strc: t��re is the rliost ef=lcient. �/liku Ba t1101'�P `r rSit A i'_' �n:s`rator adv?Slid that al tr Ziex t 1T?154t F�C-v SO=yBOarG meeting, Marci 8th, t'-_e; vVill be discuss ng-Ln-- s`norr range transit plan. Basically;the recommendation for route restruicl sfteri!.� re-r%0 1, be e-the intodal center is established. ` lb'lik:Bow-m-'27- ti:' City or_the Solo site tivas available O:i.-Fit v✓aS Laken. 1✓ill{e ojl n Or Llterir l pUbl"tC eid' es ireCtor; a' sed that i.! C Solo Slie 15 Cilrieiltly yell'.° Considered for bot a C3n'It'nti^il center- and a City O=iICe/Sta e cornplex. Mer are very StrOri? considerations fo-flat site. Y o-wl-ver. it=s not to say it couldr.=t be considered for an Intermodal Center. Margaret Tvla_ldlam asked i a traf is impact study had been done on what would happen if the building dere placed ma the proposec'. location. It is one of the heaviest and most difficult traffic points in the city. She was surprised that nothing had been mentioned about the area around Burn Lake. which would cause less of a traffic.impact. Itilr. Sn�%der advised that a traffic 1;rpact analysis is mandated as part 01! the environmental dccu�ientaticr., %,�l_icl.would it dude;r_oise, air Quality, cultural resources and historic buildings. Dan Soriarc, TAC Charman, advised the public that there would not be any action taken by tht, Technical.Advist,r_Y'Co=ill%ti. Bev-rlv C t_er-ez ask _`%l r a`tior- 1;-o "t'd be taken a'ld if the12"Tri would be cu on consent of the, Ci ti Counci.'. a; ends. 6 ivlilz= Ba`ho-or�e :; L�;;isec t _. tr..e Tr,, , si Board is bei:_ asked to rake _ . commendation to t the sn:,_-.%- k" _ln t "C'r.t would cG t0 the Cit`•'Council f,)r further discusslOn. eVO-iy'{L?'tieiC� had a aSt 02 other cuestions: + +: environmental S r- r 1) 'W'hat L!"e-�ega've: .n�iironmental impart a e fC_ SitL CL, 2i I�-site rt,. E Paso Electric, headquarters and control center would be expensive to rove. For sites '�'� aid C4the report states that Athe land cannot be obtained throw"h eminent domainE, she would like that clarified, The report states that site C6 Ais adjacent to er, elementary school and a Potentially histor_c ir=illation st_ictureC, she would like that cla:_-ified, Z.r ferti ice to the SOlo Sate, the report states Athe portions of ti?e site could be used fir a 0.center incorporating Onl� RoadRU?% 'ER transit routes, she would like Ip C cls-ifcat'_,`�n 0_rt:�i uS*' ��O%GIy Mr. Sayer answered- Ms. Gutierrez= questions: 1` tiv henever there is E'.location next LO a SC1 00?Or ChtirC:ieS;1t=5 ii=. o tailt that t'_ieV are P_Ot diSl r+oe d tiJi �. excess noise or air pollu iGr. TL i5 riot i0 Sal/ IL 1S 2 rieaStlVe Lnpact,but a poten tial LTiiut?c . C-6 iS t'_�ie maun 1-CC3t?CII and contro C nt'er for EI aso �ilect-3. If situ C{ were carried. forvvard, that investigation_would have to be complete. Site C5 is a church parking lot. Federal req?.iirerer state that churches cannot be takei-1 by eminent domain. - _ �%dY et;^ger a Citc� is historic or not is a de+^ISi07 made 17V 'the stat: I�1SiO�iC PreServali0i' �liice. Dar_ Soriatic inte7venec and stated that the T AC was conversing with the Transit Advisory Board only for the presentatio-n by K. Snyder. He asked for a motion to separate and, reconvene in the conferenc:,roonn. john Kr_o:; moved to separate. Robert Armnijo seconded. All in favor. Molle Op7 osee.. Moti0r. carried. /TA ' separate at 6:20 l:.rr, and reconvened at 6:25 p-nn-) iii. �P_p1? '��� F ME li'y.ES; February 5, 20-04 rs, L' Lace 15 line Sand i u-;t-MjC�/i. ion stat � n1 = ?on_P e S,h- .o,Athoug_hC ' GLtbe Ath01�Ali' MD. P:ann:,.t. r, s Gu :cGs_t ^to t:z_+C should be Abut th,,re-,vas serious opposition.0 7 T of c e,lt S'I'c�eL iiCt Or.t a= ? line �, yl+/1r. -Pi' -d=s@ Si�''ou, be Alvtr. �''Ia-C. iOr. pccbe A_ri i is r,_C ;%e,� t_ accer;t :e mir tes as amenred. Check McMlshcn secorded. All ir" favor. Nc_e on?osed. Minutes accented as amended. Outfall Crllaruiel Study Area Opt-ions Li54.Fuselirpr.,,_et!te�'tliTee options for the outfall channel•. Study area. er L-0` tta Reves stLt�d tnat Dal-, os rle 15 shot;v7 a5 a prOned collector and asi{ed if it v;as a currerit ma'or arterial and iftreyplanneL to take acquisition of the'right-or Way. Mi 5=lie"slate; Y.1=a".Da"r—.. rl �S Ol riently a CClle-tor ar_d they do plan to ta'_S:a0tluistiori Ofthe nQ'^y-of v ati `FL tali 'fi'o-ks is Lvor_ink or_ the cost estimates. but the rou_z'_ cc--t estL ates s? e rece':ver Were: A ,e ial 53 rnilhon a rile Collectoer- S2 rillior_a mile Local - S million a mile jvi:.Fuselier stated tha the Cupit Develop-in eiorment is proposed or va ant land n ear icach o Middle aril 1\/�cldield rich SC110o M,S. F'tlSel_er'had riot received any nP� 11f0iTilatiOrl from the consultant. Rich MacRor=e aSke 1f the cost estiniates include everyt min`, right-or Way acquisition and constriction: Ti—,,,-_ Sanders asked if tie otitfali channel area currently had any right-of-way. Ms. Fuselier, stated yes, the City has some right-of way and the EBID had the rest. Henry lvlagallenez stated the C ty does have perrnission to utilize the right-of-vray belonging to FEID. The right--of-way is 120 feet. Rcbe � _ilio aSa:the1Pr,gth G till outfall_ channel is. NI 'Fuselje, stall- floe '_e:_ctl_ is aoproximately 2 mlkk s. j Sanders sta!:ed lie 11Ced opt.0::. �. N/fs. FL1Selie J'a F. i`, ,rt_ too r?y nO t tC reileVe theOa<?lanC CO"{10r. . t.Da:.- oranr asked ou."Fal" charnel ol1d setTO r els. Fuselier slated the cost depended on the develo-o ent from, the south to the north. M_. Sanders sug:estec chancing the outfall channel studv condor to include the MPO route. Ms.Fuselier stated that':,/ould take it to th --1 Z area with their regulations a:_d it is not feasible for the developer. NI's. Fuselier spoke with lMr. Pillar who stated there was an existing 42" sewer line that would require a shift alignment of Motel Boulevard to the east. Ms. Fuselier also added there would be a big change to the 1-`' street extenS40-,. City does have so:l e right-or way acquisition, �o�:re r r the Las Cruces Public Schools o�vrAs the property and wants to bU41d an.athlet c facillt,%and has asked the City to vacate the right-of-way;which means the TAC needs tc, rno e on a_= oi,tior. Clean-up avid work at aetthng rid of the McCls=y and Hoagland exte%S:Ons a_a, 2i✓orti��; cf i i h Street extension. 11'e-o-os t0 this is file Clean U Orthe corridor. The tori to til'S lL t.'lf-- c;^%trl:ttee would not be looking at eveiyr ig. 1M5. Fseller advised that Staff suggests cleaning ur a ce;-tain area ant then going to the next phase after, it has started development. Ms. i usel:er allSo : 2ted t cz;y have, to notify the residents a r a ' rl--i . r �d as ofthe public i. .,,��t process. Mr. Sanders suv`estee focusing on everyt_r,ina now due to the traffic mess. Viz. Nfc-L'/ffahon asked if the outfail channel in=cluded west of Valley. Ms. Fuselier stated yes. Mr. McMahon_ asked*+;khat the entire out ill channel area would require. Ms. Fuselier stated all o-fthe area would require notification to residents for public input. N r.Mayallenez a reed with Ms. Fuselier to concentrate on a certain area as nothing will chanae for quite a vihile. Mr. Sanders stated that whether concentrating on a smaller area or larder area, thev both would require the sa=ne process ofpublic input. therefore,he did not think it was that big a deal to include the whole area as a study col rido_, 1\/rr. Soriano fo_- an consensus frorn the com=mittee. A11 a�7mLed. Nlf- Sart~,,__ _ec r.:_. _e' sta__ co=en r it:e on the lai, Sr2a as it would �i�l i add the outfall channel. y 5 ;L 171- Richard NtacRo:le inoveC to Sd oLlri1 the ML eetina Chuck NfIoIN/a or secoL dt-d. Al: %ere i favor. Tore oppose. iVleeting adjourr_ec at 6:55 Approved �C IT 7J.' 4 )moi T20 r%* CT e S7 Tee'. &cc ir tie Los 20(D .5.1A. Elurod: j r ia P� -,'s cri J -7,:2 a nj venni'ken, secr� ter:,; P�jbflc Call to 011jor RCAF talken', Coe? W crder 8:05 lin-', 'C", Im"a!-Vev, i TAE2 in e nnc2l Advi 2gerds Rem, 7-- i t e Stod,by S, ydGT7 F prc,-, qa,7,aq Gre-gg Snyder P'a-rs-ons Brinikem, cq essnt��.,�. the (s,=e alledlecy. sez -Ehe board, p 'Me -Pon:ses from -.ion aiz n t,,z iy Sep2rMy NVS MUS 'urn rSc-., wcr* a-r<; S�._'Ond- -d Ray, Tvl,06br. sn ers-ince FROOT11 v-.,,enitie CA '' ---q, Snyder bers vM8, The Boai-c 71- u..,n the C-7 pl t! no", ear- to '17 Ij b, ange it cc,4 o t7c sc W7, TV i I so n iS Vcr Mir-- di*su1s. lo; P& U,M= V,Cc — by 0-ve ,D�t __-L' C UC S -.^, TRANSIT (Ro2dRUNNER) MEE7 NG MINUTES The e ! r ansit AdvisCry EBcGrd TAI S) m-e tir;c was held On 1 hur sday• Nlarcih 18; 20,04 et Br2niaan Libra-,.; (Dear? Hiaains Room); 2O0 E. Picacha Ave., Las Cruces; New Mexico. 1yr^ ,Czc �1'2Sci:t: C. iarve-,. Cri2irrilan, M. Elrod, J. Drietze. C. Ray, & C. Wilson, Jr. rjl ejmh,ers Absent.: AM). l3r•Ur-m_=rin 1. Garcia ©-'11'c'� arc s>,": �:l;i<c CZa, ; olor::i,,h4, Transit Administrator; Merv, Ann FIenn-iken, Transit �,dl~t!rrfstrctiVE SE r i2N; Nellie Garcia; Dia!-A-Ride C;JEr2ti0ns S7uJ^E tsor, MI':�e JCnnsor,,`�,CT ng�-ublic Services Director; Tom Murphy, M-PO Fici-:ner, Cc,u ncillor V4E.` " / Str G;II. :',Is in aL EnI G'!C� were �enEra ( ^`J :C•.(,!x,11 C,. i\G`- 2t_';2 Ch Cal' iC cr` e at _:OE C. Harvev. RCH Call W2S t2ker 1. {VI. it:tr oduced Maroc Ee-cOmr, tlhe ne�,v FclesitcrC D Olcc.% SOcClal!St. M. Bard iolclm!evv announce i'72t j. Fnetz resia!l d "Oi; i lE Soar- ar IC i!lls will be l!S IcSt f7 EE iriG. s s es C. ', 2rV81' mG ie'� t0 ^c 7C:+"v�Ic ti is Tlll!;U ES Or f le aar- ary I ransi l=Oard mBEiirG ScCOi dee by C. Wllson, .Jr. Motion carne'. New Business i, Transit pr0i7i:•.sal to C;ince RoLft. c SS AcG so that, is betiLer see des iftuntain vlE'N Rec"On .l Nle#21'Ce: Cant-_­, and the adjacent Medical Offte Building, c, i r�..E. 'Discussacr, M. Bar holomew explained the pro�7G: @d new rOULE to Mountaln Ve`pl'R&gionai Medical Center. Initially, there was Concern about the bus traveii tC or, prVa?:E crO,Pe V. Mountain View and the CitV will get into a contr 2- re ardinc this issue. The newrealignment Will UO tC the pUbI1C for Input. C'aiJn; 1/i2rci �t`r, tr2nSii 4�Illi be condUCtJIiC a surrey on all t')2 routes. c )r__-)ya! Of s4- f­ recorn i nn2-don h8 r sults Of this �zLJr'ie t?-;e i?lfor-in:fn on, from the public mccetinc_ Will be brought to the board c. [_ 'v i..SC J., t �,�ry ;.:> 1 a�8 C.crlsit SllEitErs being ill.n�iELl by COrn lU:3j I I3IOC:4 Federal i.rz!ICJ 11 f.dril:iisbri7li{,ri 4unds, n: _� '1 c s< to -Tom l/j !r-p by brou`ht fon+tic':? he shelLe lni0r h-tion cnC he rr�s =r 1!-,C ii: o! ry^c.;mended sights. f jrCC;rtirli�i'JC'" PiliiL COr'13 lEf7 - there Lilc.iTOpub 11c JT,.i,Ert Fow Ecnard ; cioro`/al o Sia reccm,T-,l.Endt'iion -^ E r e �.- .arY V mOIlOne� ape CV2l. Seconded by C. Wilson,. Jr. Motion carried. j, Di-sc-usSiOr: of p;ropcs d holidlzy service schedule A B D:-cussior: - Mike Bartholomew presented the Holiday Service schedule tC the Soard for approval. (see 2tt2Ch-ad). L Opportunity for Pu'clic con mien.-there was no public comment c. RscuGst for Bo, rd appy oY2lof'siat ii recti-ni i c-ndation - C. liar e f recomi Tended', to proceed with i this proposes; as Presented. Second-cd by C. Wiisor, lr l lct'on Carried. v DisCI�SSlcrl ci prcooc,=d . `2•"e-,box rnod isonev, buses being Ge!',verEd in ScrJiSr + r 20,04 a. AE DIscuss.ion, -.Afte' so!e- discussion rege ding the S, ,a, CarTEchnolccy and fine p�,esent2ticr: of V ne Automatic Fare dollectio i v'-/stem. -1. Fr?Eii moved to 2cceDt this proposal, Seconded by C. F,!=v. NIC, 10? C2rrled. c. CIPPO^un t�y'sv" i'ubili cornfiEni-th ere L!as n0 pi:bilC C^mr enl. Discussion c` st-=ff• p7oposal to iTn-lennen't a Shopping bap Umit. o±. `.the paratrahsN' yILe ��1lG. a!i�'i 2. TAS Ulscuss!o -There was much Ciscussior: recardinc the bac limit for the Dial-^.-;`=<'•de proposal. V `o. G-I 'io:r.Fubiic comment- Some of the public was confused between t;ne Dial-A-Ride proposal and the Fixed Route. The Fixed Route was not reauestiria this ii~ lit. C. R ac3 s- for Board app✓ oval of stat recti m.end,2tion - C. Harvey moved to approve the proposal to include 4 piece beg limit for the Dia!-A-Ride. Seconded v C. Harvey, Jr, !motion Carried FV. Other Business ^i,^,r, 1 1 ^c c�":.. GN 'U INCL _. iRider-hl1 c rs-_ > - Rd&shio Buts were discussed. Ren-c)7on sig u'S 'Jf - Orma'Hona! sians the Cantral i ransler Fcint and Nlesilla Vc'lic ! 1� _.':' - !\'''•.. mar ^iCiCme'% discussed the Installatior of the inform-tion siQynS ct ! nC*filled t e xt ric o months. is. �o ~. rAl be 1 t_ I;n L r 8:,. Gol v:� Ct. &r-(-c.s1z i^rpor am update - I h" sate is s`�ili l ,.`le process of e",h I^p se-Oce, 8v2 c,ii.: t'n� 5.c.., i'T L' tt'e . . ,C C 7" :;C�_ y •1 ?^t"�c I2 ,Ji P12?i LDCct !Ol I ri:jrOl'! vr?SErtc TJ ti 2 Board the 12�'dE : Snot Rance Pian. see 2ttaci IE'.~_'). v lr?ri'iTc-til 1: nr s" Cc' "E" FcCl l ;y' 1 plate -Sidi`+vlij be looki7,k7 at tj-,` COiiCerllS andWT T bring t�iESz t0 the Public. r ` S c c:� r i �= r� c 1 c S't a it x3 i.,e Ljp.dZta - i 6 SOard f c T aUESt . iE`al cG�V,C JG QUEC has been f V''EC tC address OUr BOcr-I at the neXt m-etinci. RecueS6 -Oz, a S F'Cl . r-eetsric on ArAl L.L. 2004. - (le Board C� 2Crr 1GGd t0 thiS SOeCiai meet;ng. :?er C9iscussion f:O�di Board' INI-a bars and Public I we coriicers ed t`"lat NiveFc brouc t tOr'vvarC n o i the public H/Er- the Sound System Cr t,-Ie 'K bUSBS ani the Gc':. ;UEiiiiC St2tiOrl or Motel SiVC. �'(•'E "`?E�ili^..0 cCl!^'U'"1�� c-L•:�Jl! =.Ci'. D ,- re- M/Ae�V �.1�., Cj.0 T'i ^�a en, C c et27,y Ci G-!ies Harwey; Cha. Dote: - UCES ^!;;A iRANSig P'UBi_1C )MME 3 ING NI I N'±E S The 1 ransk Adlsoq 8'can_ ASI meeting was held on Frid=- , April 2, 2004 al 3:00 in the L aS CruCe_ Q, COi_7CP C''2mbers. 200 N. C huirch Street. L2S Cruces, `J`ew Mexico. Pr Sent: C. 1 aNey, C ,air-m2 n of the Transit Advisory Board; Mike Bartholomew, Transit Ad! !inistrato-, Dia,.ne Wax., Public Se:rdces Executive Secretary , Mike Johnson, `acting-Pui)lic Services Director; Tom Murphy, MP-0 Planner; also, Ben Woods, NMSU reoresenta0e; Mr, Olson, representing the SOUtherr 1 New McAco Cancer i re at:. en. Cert;ie ��a�r to Chder # r as At 2 Michael J1, Ba. c}lomctiw v,,eicamed evevone and thanked ther-!, for attending this pKic meeting rega:df nr_: the possible, route realignment to Service Mountain View Regional :V ediiCG: r1, PRE SEN !'..s 10N' M. �,!o,Of i�e.i pre^.5en ted ?-ie ovein/,. gin" of routes 3, 6, and 9 as they presently service MGU;-itO,i` VieW RegiOnal Medical Center. He then presented the results of a survey that was tai�en akz)ng wit- the traTisit recommendation and explaiined the reasoning beNnd the recommendation, Transits fisit's .ecommendatio i WCUIC be using Route 9 with the' tot, end, servicing Mountain View Regional Medical Center. i 1 . Oisen, spolke A reg2AS to having service to Mountain View Regional Medical Center. catlents who ars Inde"going_ Cancer treatment, need reliable service to that area. He has n0 suggestions of the iogiStlCS Of the Services. rust would like to see the service there. Mir, Ber,Woods, spoke in regards to how we can improve the sevice to the University and the Horseshoe area: and also address the growing demand in the Route g area. M. mentioned that our next meeting will be on April 22. AT this meeting we YK be discussing the short range transit plan. '_`is.. Acijo, r merit �,Le: G ,<.I�IC r cr.�' oT_. CCr ii!e! _ �,�'!coa�th010mew agJO_rn2d th2 r? eeting at 315`x.! Pre p2red Q Approved by: !ala;,; Secre ',^ C e,-.-I`✓s Haivey, Chair Date: -351""a", .- � $}Yt- .y^ � >i r_. >...�..�'Y......_..n .xi..tfi........il,u..1 .......�`} .w1..�4:-1=.�':':...._...�....... ..�..1 ., r�.....Y!•4 ... Y.i. .. .o �.....>,,.i.. .......... �. . y{ � L• � L7 LU alp L L L .S C-OLJrgA:S Grate HS L L R u u tc %lip 1:Z5, L .4 3` it x-, . .M1s1i:% 10`1 FD X, X1 114 untain VI-'11l �!1 Ei� t ti 01- mit�1 t..*�k $ .,,''�,a� � + k AMA y r 1 XY 4. d 2� t y yryt f E R� .iY• �,01- f �� �,� R+• X'fi '-'nr�' F+-. �Sr' rap. 1..x �c.,� � '`t�"}`�.-r' .r f..:k�,'r �, e � g`'i°5"4 t�.+ae�'7 ss�.,f-�. r £: VIEW 'C r ,fix .i•;, �` n-5+;"�.� �` �•�'. t "rn-5x t�.+ r X ti z t x r `2'��.��,�v. �r��s trFt..� y.- 1 J •�`, r M1 .1291 e d ountain "Vem Ivi - Mountain View i� rte. tl P. 5 y xN�'' IN 0 At a� shQ., mym mv NNE Y ra 'T205.`*u n Y r •r 'k.�" U,c r,a, r".y Lv k' 4 ^,}r' t SJ',.3 .,y : G ,J N J }n3 t £ E L t r "''xY .a. 3 •'" i 1 ~ d oila cc T L MEMORANDUM, I!NF! ER-DIEPARTMEN i A TO: Mlichasi: Bartholomew. Transit Director Nlflch2el Johnson, Acting Public Services Director F F0'JV: RlochE-d MI. Jla-cauez. Assistant City Attorney r�'�=;�='_ S U S J'E C T: A dvet-Hsinc Signs or, Buses and Bus-Stop Shelters DA T E April "FZ., 200-1 1 n tr c)d u ct 13,o n Soardl has requested infor-m2�jon or, whether advertising on, L the L_ L,ansbuses. and bus-stop shelters are a violation of I e I as Cruces Municipal Code (L_CMC 199 7). 1-F they are not violations, the Transit Adviscn,, Board has requested jnforM2t!Or` On \PVne-I'i'.'he',- the C tv may regulate the type O-i advertising or, buses and bus- sL4. oc, shelters. 1. Si ants on Buses A 4 sign 1 flt..!vertilsifng sig: or, buses would be considered a vehicle s g pu-,sL2nL4- to the LCMC_ 1997. A vehicle sion means a sign painted on or attached to either a vehicle or to a trailer designed to be pulled., behind a motorized vehicle, which relates to a business, activity, use, se-vice or product. LM"'i 1997 Sec. 36-3. (hereinafter will Just refer to the section Of LCMC 1997) Tl­'e DC'NNIC !!'07 -addresses vehicle signs iii two sections: P Ced. OF p2';n1e(_7 On any motor vehicle, recre2tiOn2l vehicle, trailer I or Friova-bl!e device that reasonably indicates the use of such vehicle. o*,' device as e sign is prohibited. This includes the of such iehi,cle_ flail_'" c.,.- device 11 such manner as t.o const!l sign. This does ;n c' i.n-hude ve-licles, etc.; used in the course o nornnal business L Sec, 365-1 C)( vehicie signs are permitted Qi.ovided the vehicle is j- -which it is used cc,q ' - -rc t- --e legitimate pa; o s e s c, L business fo� I on. i i^nc 1 �T•_:S'_ ac' Bus- iol 11C :PTs Pa G .L o_ C Diacinc advert!sine srgr s on buses would not be a violation of section 36-10(b). The buses would still retain their use of providing public transportation, ii be used in the course of nor, :a( business activities. The placing of advertising signs on buses would not reasonably indicate the use of the buses as a sign. N r—h!cle signs Or buses may be permitted since the buses would Continue to contribute tc the leciti rete' purpose Of providing public transportation. Sir-ins oin Bus-Stop Shelters Ad°�rei-isine signs on bus-stogy shelters would be considered: i. a off-premises sion; �. an attached) sion: Or G billbo.=rd. OT-,tpfeiri ses sign is a sion Which adve ises Or directs attention t0 a business, product, service or aCtivi V which is not 2V2'!12ble on the premises where the sign is located. Sec. Attached'sic.r, is an',,, sign whiOh is fastened to, connected -110, or painted On and wholly or partially supporter! by a building. Sec 36-3. Billboard is an off-p-erases sign directing attention to a business, activity, commodity, ser Vice,, entertainment, or communication, none of which may be conducted, sold or offered on the premises where the billboard is located. Sec. 36-3. Ili. Restrictions to Signs on Bus-Stop Shelters Sec. 36-81 prohibits any attached off-premises sign. Sec. 36-9(a` requires a permit for billboards. Sec.36-83 requires billboards to meet the foliov/ing criteria: All j;l' n^:r`c s-t 17 z r^'car y r r d 2, M-" , Cr I.11-2 � ;! c., a,. Le iO c.-amu only 1: a:eas Zone and Onl/ along scree... designated as major arterials or interstate hichways. Billboards srai( not cca?event-ir any other zoning djstric . Billboards mullst be located alone street segments havjnc a m'Mjmum of 76 c;^f + roerceri c t ce. c.�r:n-ner.,;G, yr ,ndus ria: zoning. v� )1j4� ':Ys Utiiil C,e ere.Cte vUitlnln ti-le 6 d0'yvnt01;1Jr area as de!ined in section Me-, ol-a-ri u-m: drnd Bus-S-o-c She'`CZ'r. Pa`- of ` Z-. ! Ota! sign. area, spacing, height and setbacks shall be. subject to the following re,cl ireme.n:s: Billboards located along interstate highways shall. not exceed 400 square feet 0F total sic; area, shall be spaced a minimumof 1,000 fee: a;Ja measured radiaN and shall not exceed 40 feet in height measured from around level. Billboards located aloric maior a "serials s call not exce-d. 300 SQUare feet of rota' slog area, shall be spaced a minimum Of 1,000 feet apart measured radially and shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured from o,our d leve:. ' here shall be a minimum Clearance of 16 feet rneasured i r tl�e crourd level to the bottom, of the billboard face. C.. -. m2^-i!7,-,,um o'two faces, paralilel, back-to-back is perimitted, provided '- <)t`-: faces are of the- same size and attached to the same pole for S1.i000!t. E:aC'i face Shall not.adver`_ise more than One rl^,!essace., L. 8ilib_G^ 's s'n=11 be suppo led by a maximum of two Upright poles. E, Ve tiCa or horizontal stacking of billboards is prohibited. =. Riill,oards shhall be se -jack c minisHus� Ci 1 feet fro;? ti c- prGper<y line rrOrltii:C alORg na?Or a.ler{alS and 30 feet from the pr Gpej line fronting along interstet highways. In each case there shad be a miniMLH—nl Of five feet "rJi i all other prGperty lines measured from the properly IIRE to any uoFdon of the billboard structure. G. Bi lboardS shall have c minimum sign area o' 72 square feet. Befor= the Cit,. Can consider placing signs on bus-stop shelters; Sec. 36-81 would have to be recealed, or an amendment to the code that exempts off-premises att=chid signs cn bus-stop shelters must be enacted. In addition, signs placed orf bus- stoo shelters would also have to confor i to the requirements that have been established for billboards. 1'V. Constitutional Restrictions on Limiting{ Advertising in a Public Forum "dee isirig c�: Luses and or, bus-stop shelters in public rights-of-way is governed by the free sceech protections foun-C! in the f=irst Amendment to the United States CO lStitUt;Ori a. <Z P,I I_;CIE l h; svCiiot i I , o'the NSvv Mexico CGntit{tutlGn. ijrldEr born co-,Stit lions, governmeht's abill!:' to restrict speech depends on whether the forum is viBvver as- coen or ClOS-=d- to the public. Once a forum is open to the public for speech. g^.`•/ :,,M—='!l is lira it i'. <s ail. , so 1i.r ,rid- e 1' i ;Ilt i _�.. Ilt O alb �...ge the- Spe C h. y.,.. �.7?j:7 3S.:i? n.1` "•Or3s uln lar the Un':'ted St2tEv ConSt"Liift ..I `CE-.. ��cat S`lcll rM2,./,ei i0 iG'd\:'...c.0rIdgir'ig the O`thepress- �.-E-. Cor,s; a,mc- 'Id I. ! The Llls_,�,:nEr?dment Memon).&'unn: Ci:".w_:J�_c and, Pit s- iOr } Pa o...^t 2��OiiOS to sats ieG!S12tureS T'?rouch the F011rt20ntsi Amc-ndm int, and iicS been held to apc!1 tC iOC2i OrCalnaiiCcS. Sc U.S. COnSi. amend. 'IV', § i; Cantwell v, COnnecticui, 31^ U.S. 296, 303 (19410); Loge!' v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 44.4, 450 (1938). The e,cer;s to which cov-eri ment car restrict speer h depends on the public nature of the forum; ir-i v\,ich the sroeech occurs. whether the restrictions are based on the content of the speech and the basis F0. the restrictions. =ot.�e curpose of rev`ewi;c restrictions on advert,.. on go'.+ler:meat property, thio United` Skates SU me r ! c e '.j-; r 'h r t�, es f forums: (1) "traditional u L L�pre , vou� a id nut e !h'ee I p o=, public forurr,s," (2) "designated public forums," and (3) "nonpublic forums." See Pe, EdUC. Ass'r; v. Perry Local Educators'Assn, 460 U.S. 37! 45-4e (1983); Cornelius v. 1 AA',CP Legal Def_eIse a,nd Edc;c. FLII'30'; Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985); see also Leh,,7, a.,-7 v: Civ of Shake-Heights, 18 U.S. 298; 302-03 (1974). Tradit'onal public IOr'm_zz ar-a those th2t "bv long tr2d1tiCF1 Or by ao+v`emmen' flat ha(vel been det0 c `{. S4 S c streets, r 4- U.S.a �e en 2.in debate:" ch a Larks, re ts, and public sidGW211<S. Per, , 6O U . 2t �•ti- "Desicnate i public forums" r eS'wIi when government allows the public to use Ciovelmjment propei til for ex resslve activity. /c. '-or example, meeting ro&jis a lin;'+iGr�i film are made available o regis!eren2 e student grOucs are a aesig !ed public forum,. lidma v'. �Ace-? , .�� S. 3, -`9( -` v is neither L 26 267 198 f i �.,e probe,i% �r a tr2d':'icn .' pu"Olio 10FUM n+tier a deslan2ted public forum, tiler; It iS considered a nonpublic fOrilii:. Gov-riiicrt es--=bllSheS a nonpublic rOrin "when it does no more than reserve eligibil�C,r for access Ic the to um to a pa,ligular class of speakers" who must !hen obtain permission tc use the property. Arkansas Educ. l elevisior Com'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666. 670 ('i998j. For ex2mpie, 2 school d.istrict's internal mail system i-Q a nonpublic forunn, Perry Educ. Assn v. Perry Local Educators'Assr, ^60 U.S. at 45. In both traditia:al pini+c f0'rUmS and designated public forums; content-based recUlations restricting protected speech are presumed invalid and will be upheld only when the government can prove that the restrictions are necessary to directly advance 2 compelling state interest and that the restrictions are narrowly drawn to achieve that interest l the compelling interest testi. Cornelius, 473 U.S. 2. 800. In nonpublic forums, the _Ciovei'rimen can impose reasonable content-based restrictions that preserve the forum for its intended purpose.: as Iona as the restrictions are viewpoint neutral, that is, they do not orefer one viewpoint over another. Id. Buses "tet):i3� :c r. d ,c Designated Fubflc Forum- Off" a �'�*orjiioub'fi'c FD•'."umn ,ri^e CC:I.tC.S 1C !%e`Ic.t, Co^Cl iuc thata `Crui i is a designated public forum by la rC�n_ de'"in'i-ii tie p.,o0er2t issue and limit'nc the foriurn to the _Ctl.21 2dvertisina s;1a,CL. c c ^� (+'S :';ide Illi ;Sty%8S Inc, v. SO�..thea.Sterr? Pe nsy/va:'lla= Tra,sC. ^' j " �.. 9r (Jain lLL/f (3d r. Q 1, Gcnld, { ''C C.�x. /JiT ! L .i -, : 1 2.`,,C� Snu SOaGe, a id not the X en0,' of'i"l8 bus �'U2S the ;G 2 0r,e NI=r _orar'_d?n, Si ,':s or Buses and.Bus-Stop Shelters Pay- 5 or i proper7f a issue); ;iii; �ine , i.rots �!.ss'r; inti v, Dsp't o,'A,,,ia"on , 45 F.2d 1144, 1151-52 (7`'' Cir.y 1995)(holdinc that w�ere one sought access to advertising display cases in an alrpOrt terminal, the diispla4' case and not the airport was the relevant forum). This approach is no' Ilikely in our, case, Where the Structure holding the advertiSinc is Within the public rig ��ht-of-v ay. If a court ere to narrowly define the forum as the advertisina Space, however, then it would examine Whether the advei-using space is a designated public forum or a nonncublic forum;. If hc'Uvel,�er; a g�o`�rernment opens its advertsing space to "public-service, public issus, and polltica! ads," the space is a designated public forum; not a nonpublic forum. PlanneGParcnthoog' '.C:s'n/Chicago A!-,-a v. Chicago Trans. AL.th'y, 767 1=.2d 1225 (7`r` Ci:. 1985); Nely,,), Yor `4agazine v. Metropolita ; Trarsp. Autj�.ority, 136 F.2d 123 (2d Cir. �0. �. is='s d'es r s 4 F r 4. r 1998). For example, i') 1 �8 ...�c ais� Cri,,._ Bri �., i!/,gni t,��s; 1 8 .2�, 2 " (3d Cis. Net,i-- York Magazine, t?c coy u!' Concluded that thie a.dve:iisinC SpaCE of the exterior of buss W2S a d`si.gn2ted public forum because the autIncrity permitted r0ii?;Ca' arid, o'her nonCoiigym:rCia Gd`•/=-Lising. Thus, t'':le i!al spur a,iJ7- authority Could n0. sisal?o`n% a ad`;et !SE"?Ent CariCatun ig t!he I aVOr. i��a�N ��Or ✓jaryaZ/r?@, 1 3v �.2d 2' The COI:':: stated t"la ithe adve,l!Sing Stia ,e had `OE...r limited to COf'rlmErCial adveirtissment. sud'n a limitation WO!it d indicated that makii g moi ley Was U iE primary CO21 Served b;y' openin` the prope�'. But when a transportation authority Opens Its acveriising space for general public disclosure; the transportation authority accepts the possibility of clashes of opinion and controvers;r, and plus public discourse before sound commercial practice. id. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit Cour: of Appeals in C.hildr en of the Rosary v City or Phoenix, 154 F.2d 972, 983 (9th Cir. 1998), held that the city.did not create a designated public forum because it "consistently promulgate(d] and enforce[d] policies rests ictinc, advertising on its buses to commercial advertising." Id. at 978. The court +' t t r t n concluded tinct because tie city had not opened the advertising Space Oft buses as a medium for genera' discourse; the advertising space was a nonpublic forum and upheld the regulation. C, .us-Ss;:)p she.I}ers Considered Tradiftn2l Public Forums S2sed en tie location of t-he bus-stop shelters in the public ri(_J!-ts-of-Way, it is like ="^ e courrt a 1alvzing `pie iss'le ,would find that the bus-stop shelters are 8i '�E;' +rcd ii0 cOu t ; i . lana Ed olib!iC forums. The bus-stop shelters ar'� Stationary IO_2 ed Cis Side`, �, hs a-rid vnJthin pub"c rights-C''Na;a`. As suc 1; they are akin •,�'ic COUi iL ':iav2 analyzed r8strictiOnS 0r. ne�Ajlsracks, they have t1- Cie `\ c. iss-!e is the pubic side all< and have ' s delned i' i 'CU'" sOeCaJSe they relocated in public rights-of-way. n h!S,2.0 , C, � 2 Q! O See GoIC- COasf P�,�; car!o�� Jn v. Corrigan; �'2 `=.3d 33E, 1344 (" . Cir. 1994); }nc ide---T-? ?rc Ci` .. or. user and Bus-Stop Shte(" r-Z Pa,-,- l CI^-cauo Na,Ais,oape~Publis hers.4ss'r: v. Cit_V c Whatton, 697 F. Supp 1464; 1466 (N.D. IiI, 1988). See also M t-o Dis.olavAdvertisina. Inc. v. City of Victo,Mille; 143 F.2d 11� 41qti (C."' Cir. 1998)(bus-stop shelters could be traditional public fo;-ums because they are on the street. and streets are held in trust for the use of the public and for purposes of assembiv and public spee-ch). C. Restric-tJons cr Protected Speech In e anion ntc. restrictions oi" speech, courts distinauish between commercial and noncommercial spee._,h. as weH as whether the restriotion is based on the content or the placement of the speec h. Courts a low restrictions on commercial speech that directly advai?ce a substantia: uovErnmen'21 interest. Restrictions on-nonccmmercial soeech. ho-wEti/^c", must be n:c'rrCWi; L ilOrEd t C serve c Compelling �OVErnmcntal IntcfcSt. CC nrnercia SCEECsI does r C riore than propose c CO`imercia': i'anSaction. Plttsburci%i Press Cc. 1i. Pitts:burai', Commissio!, On HUma„ Relations. 41 U.S. 376 Of C73), s ne 'C!tV' Of Las C,rulce.s can Impose content-based restrictions O;I commercial spe=c;: F the rES rictions (1) promote a substantial govErnmEntal interest; (2) directly advance the interest, a ,d (3) Sweep n0 further than necessary t0 achieve the interest. Centra' I-'tldsoi- Ga,3 & Plec. Cors. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563-68 (1980). The Cit»' would bear the burden of establishing that its regulations sans ,v each of thes.= three requirements. See Bolaer V. Youngs Drua Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60; 71 n.20 (1983). in, order-te reauiate commercial speech based on its content, the Ci`J mels': prCVE that tine advertising Inas a i cCrUal effect on the IntECESt served by the reaulation. Untied Food & Commercial U✓orkers Union,; Local 1909 v. Southv;.est Ohlo P,eeional Transit Authority, 163 1F.3d 341, 354 (6th Cir. 1998')- he City mall also be able t0 restrict VVhere some advertisement are displayed based on their secondary effects. The United States Supreme Court has upheld regulations on speech when the purpose of the regulation was not to restrict "offensive" speech but served tine limited purpose of decreasing the "secondary effects„ of such speechYouna v. ,':rfericar; .++Juni T-ieatres, Inc.; 427 U.S. 50, 711 (1976). The harmful secoindar! of =cts of aicohcl; tobacco; and firearm advertisina include promoting: (i) th SaIC-. a^•r S Of �iGC-0, s0 mir0' , ?2) the salmi and use CrtCbaCCO tc :C11nCCS; and; (3) the uni-wf u'i sale a-d-J, u-se of fireaimms. The secunda v effects of c^:ICChiOI. tobacco, an C f;r=amts ?'. \/ r ci"cG r ia'a! supcOrt restrictions. 1`0" exaT0.5, bann'na such a4:jCriSErnr- -.cam, SChiioals and Oii.ces where children are Iikely t0 be found. If the r �i em n i C,iro �t � Gan0 � a�tobacco.Ste e'd iii " ' ;mac a acl,. , a'_ C'-',_,-F '1110VVS 'TO i� SUCL- rdvertisem-nts; the Courts might i:C=FzIiC� Ti. . :. t� ;' Sir S rns on L ilSee e and Bl _ li Stop She. rS Pap. 7 of C uphoiC' thc- restt:Ictiori aS valid reguiatiOnS aimed at the secondary effects of advertising such p70ducts. Alsc, e. cou:_; could Find that the City's imeresi in providing a safe envirini^ein+ and eri f_;lcinc and Pri7motinG public trans.pOrtatlon fuStiiicS 2 ban on Tlreairr" a;J llgi'Os advertisinc. 1. i oncorn rn arc al Speech ordinance is invalid if it...regulates noncommercial billboards based on their conte:it." National Advertising Cc. v, Citii of Ora.ngea 861 F.2d 246, 248 (9th Cir..1988) (citine 11 at:OmedJe. lrc. V. City of Sar (�iego, 453 U.S. ,90; 513, 516 (1980))- A reaulatioi i is Conten;-':lased vvhei, the Govern!I Ienl regulates soeeCll because li disagrees with The message it conveys. Ward v. Rock. Against Racism,, 491 U.S. 78 (1989). Regulc:tionS diet Se- e purposes unrelated to the Content Of t'the Speech are Cv+nten. neutral. 1;. . 79 CO ui5 will; however, Invalidate regulations restricting cY;e=C \j 11 e;^ `ll]`1 i 1 c' --ver i nfi e is stated pu pose ?o t"?e regul ions is merely a --retext TCtr cerscrsh ., See e.c- Gerr,tser, V. Cityof;'os Anoeles 99A F.2d 570, 575 (9=1 Cir. '993). in b-0th tr ditionai public forums and designated public 'orums; government abdi-'-,/ t0 regulate noncommerClai spec is Strictly limited and any regulati0 i of protected nOnCOrnmei"Ciel.speech In a traditional public forum or a designated ou'--tic 'f0"u i must s2'tisi J the Compellingstate Interest test. In : 'ct%o.nG!Adve;pis;re', the Ninth Circuit invalidated Gn ordinance that regulated nohcorn merCial billbo� rds '.based on their content. National Advertising, 861 F.2d at 248. T Ih- CItV*s ordinance banned all "general or billboards edvei iising signs." lGf. at 247. The cid; defined general or billboards signs as those "sign[s]which directed aLl:E�;ntion to a 'business, coy:nmodity, industry or other activity Which is sold, offered or conducted elsewhere than on the premises upon Which such sign is located, and Which i aiv be Sold; offered or conducted on such premises only incidentally, If at tali " Id. at 247; 248 n.2. !he coin,t noted th2t the exemptions required examination: of the content of signs because "jiln most instances, Whether offsite noncommercial signs are exempted or prohibited turns on Whether or not they convey messages approved by the ordinance." Id. at 2^-.8. or tent-bas:d restrictions Or. protected stieech in elder a traditional public for irrcr- a designat=d public forui-:7i. are subject to the compelling interest test. co- rlt-cased reS,i oicons or, protecLed speeCfll 2r-= lncc7-,stitution2!, unless Ir c' y Clhc C! eSt%bli'ti neS t lc t^e rZSL. tit^ 1S are nc^CcSSary to serve a,CO n(Jv;ling slate ,. ; ercSt. g61 F.1n-^��_ cr+d c^� n� "Oii �' = /n t achieve t at in< C a �G'uot nl iffier -lit^, .�,sti'r ':j -arry ocal' EdLIcato-s'Ass"n, 460 'J.S, 37, 45 tC to ^:c:rr0li;li Crawn the regulations ?gust be the 1^2Si resl:riCtive 1' j l`• 1 1 me 7s 2✓ .liable fo- s-Yviriig .; Lity � compeiiinG interest. Ic. April 14 2_004 �T i7:Or`'n.d=. _fid- ;stn` J "_S 0?= tiSe and BUZ7 tOD Stic(it'z' p[t`?? E. Ragulating Unprote>✓tec Spend]~ ✓vernme,i imav rJ"Ohibl- Unpr Otected speech, Such as false adveitlSing, speech! intended to, incites.. unlaYt Li! GCkivitl;', defamatory.Speech "fighting wor1 n and obscene speech. Ohao;linsky i:. State of New Hampshira, 31 U. 0_68 5 72 ;19 21. COVe rnment reit=ills the aUt^sOrlty tG regulate Unprotected speech In anI fOrUr(iI that Is. govern mi�ent may prohibit Unprot=ected speech in traditional public forums; designated 7 Public forums, and nonpublic forums, as such speech is de=ined by the courts. _. als.e L. Vef sine Government ria:% prohibit commercial advertising of illegal activitjes (e.g. prestitutior) or advst Iisi ,g tin t is untru-hfui, misleading. ordeceptive. See Pittsburgh Press v P „ ur � Co mmJ sior' on Human Relaticns 4113 U.S. 376 (11-073). The 7S pclic`y' Prohibits cave:iissrnen iia i at "appear i0 Make persona a1t2Cks on ally J'_)G /{:jt_G';!, COM-02i-I''; L"O ; M; .or lns�.. n Buses and Bus-sto>✓ Shel-ers "ace ° Of Incite i�r,ediat_ physical retaliation. Chaoiinsk;' v, State of New Par;?nshJre, 3,15 U.S. 568 11942). Most reg,dations restricting such speech are invalid because they are vague or over broad. For exu 1pie; a regulation. t lat defines the prohibited speech as "a-noying conduct." and "abusive language" will notsurvil✓e constitutional review because file in-lprecls:e teras co jld be applied to protected speech. Gcac-inc- v. Wilson, 4055 U.S. 518 (1972) (.o1ding that a statute prohibiting such terms could no," be used to punish a perso i who says to a police officer, "white son of a bitch, I'll kill you.") Courts W 1.1 also invalidate regulations that apply only to "hate speech:" those fighting words that insult or provolke violence on the basis of race, religion, OF gender. P,.�.V. v. City of St. Pay,'; 505 U.S. 377 11992). PrChi0it SDGGC''n th21 dGPICtS or describes s.'e.xual condL,ct In a a-e ,illi off&'s Nj,e v,,,a , a`_''pe,=}C it C; r• rig A 'r c 1 C serious ' p �; .. �:u.,.,n� i ,:.,r s, in se;;; and ha.. no ilt^era':, politica;, artistic ors-entifie value. Miller v. Califimia, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). The- Urllieu State: Suprer,"e Court has said `that, in evalUating tyle free speech rights of 2d,_iltS. sexual expression that is indecent but no': obscene is protected by the First Amendment. P,ernc v. ACLU. 521 U.S. 844 (1998). Conclusion The placing Of signs Or, City buses would not be violation of the LCMC. The City should also be able to establish a policy to regulate the type of advertising that would be per mi;led on the bus signs. This policy would be best incorporated within the contract wit, whomever the City contracts to perform the advertising on buses. The placing of signs or, bus-stop shelters would be in violation of the LCMC. The necessar changes o=amendments would need to be enacted prior to considering placing sicns on bus-stop shelters. If changes are made to make signs on bus-stop shelters in compliance with the LLMC, any regulation to the type of advertising would have to pass the compelling Trite,est tes_. C1 Fe;min A% Guide, Citi ALLor ,e,I La !! Uir Mc't-crso`.l. "arling/Sign ,Sdmin!str-atiOni CRY of Las Cruces M...a ann '<.j£tirx. AssiS'i n Ji Visa, , ,r HER M"ChFel 1-h r:-zAbi;c 2004 y + 6 f-,-- fare ... .i���: i..C'��, v,a i.;��� i":„�� "i,.,,1pc w�..i< �^.r,- ^ ',Z.2 •3i.� -i:,,. Ll~."..A, �r'' r'-,L•�„ ,'� `Gv s te`. ... ` 1.?Ae,: int, ir:.du •: .r fare A.✓r},,ce..-<.. A, 2:,?3. ':. T;i G7. i.:: '..�.3i'�_, o January i vj �Lj'�� ��w „.lyM�,..t Advisory, ?' Vpir-t `,-ed '511-h Stc.: rim, 1 e8Won, ;.w ^d+� }'?eeded i i;� Gam? C?0%'tsr:s ic, th '£c Slhouild be ncfled ?' at` , met n- th;e 'SMB d a--gairist increases. 3 }tx"£'efil'd 2:* -'t� 1�4 ?, i= L t'r.�,,.��. .'2S SOt^�' G--- C?l C S°? a"3 UMr DFr 'W urJ' S✓_ Y`C)U .h �4Y'vw".�isszl — 3 !-ese p.aJ-s-es �' o'd, b+e ai..?��.a 2.?.�1 S •the M w3L !. } n ,,�,}; �yr , n -U-ie e,d + e }....a,i223. tb.13..- ?'-�(^;.�? i ..-.1s i;^ "1' .a r :' .a:ar'V Y?aa 1.. moi : ; l ev .�,'._, }.e e:v i -1 v: v vu: i E May to .-he �:^-..s'_ 8F_.1u `•yve”iii thebecin i g cd next re ui.- r .s.C.+hi c"! "lea ;1-1 school c.,.:d 4ato y u4--i cid e "IS t:! .i,ode v:y✓1. ld be ,e.c- im- eor—il ipso: ?:nese;" ^ses ��j' ;r�}. . ." ;? ? j be { r ! w y,i s ld f;,; i:'�X10 i' 1 (A tit2=!!ddr' '.� Jai�•,.. .... >.,.,'.Var.. ...U'..w, 0.:v 4J.4:I V.�sJ . ._ .. `,$; .. .�° ?:.._. ,.a.). ., .?.'• va3r �r; Z.. :",�.��.,"� +�. � it.%.'W `. it ya usv`..�. �!; ),'':' .... C s r'r Jr...-''e.'"re ? ..tion su7i :nfy) f rJ 1 .,q v1 r.y ? v��i°�.l w. ,.:i. 3? ...,..:y e. ?1.i 021+.....}r'�. ��r a r'v iC ;'�,� .nom 'I Cz-3a',g. Sne good in C' the youth'pati,vou-k Pir ",ide an yet' cip..'Jon to 'famllikes vilth �IUI'Ifi 63 niot pa:rticipate, in CJ�Cy- 1"I"'cul-d aliokx riot sponsored, prog-ramis to have access to w e ;o�7sjc,:;j ,pass for youth, perticipa!"..'s, Day passes scld by the ddive,'anid gD-od for unUmfed use hor en ent-,re dsy. 1 $1.25 the slmfg!e '122ras 2 $0,5(0, snd' $0.25 re7spe-c-d-ve-aly I 'tP."ou"d Fkie th, q i0r, of be."ing able to sall the foflo�mng- faee rned',-,�2 are rm� curren,tlly defli-ned, in the Sem-.1, rnnau*.] pass - 111 raccmimnen..J' a ch-o%arge of S'82.570) and $4125 ".'s) (S savmq-,�.ovsr 6, rnoneths, Annual pasevs - I re-6:Dr-,mmend C. c. -arge oT (R) and $82.FCD (S) (a Wduced Pre Mans (cur-,entiy w.-- only have aduft to'Xen,,z'- ii-? ',*Ots of 12 fur reccmi7r.,enc' a chotge of$2,50 for 12 tolkens (reduc-,---d sling! -- e fa.. is $0151 Th-is 6p i;9 vvou"':'d racquire that a tcken that is d., gran,, the adluiit toiken. On oken1s good fc-r a cnp-i,'�/a y takens (currs.ntllyvve bn.,y have 3.0-punch card!i for $22M) i I J I , " 10 $7.50. This end selflr,117- t, -: ' - jeS, tok p ,dkats ot To; we PUM-18se a tokeri dFJJ�eremjt firomn Fixed routs opton, %wou"Id rzq"-,Ire te.,k-,ans, O. is gra cd for a onejAv2y f2re. :1-2-nd, to','ken* are naraly discounted Sh1x,e the fiere is alrezady higlhiy d"Sccuntve�, on DF-La-fr--Zide. Fdr exarnple in or fixed, route a reguiair fare pays Sir rnor thia,'n 2;:)% ccS the acilia? c-ost of rx-fe a,-Id the reduced hues pay mor-F, than 1 S5,; el the actual cost. The Djal-z-19jde fare Onl- ? pays for about 6259% ox the actuat cost cXf 2 ride. if YCw rencur t 1s, I m9d Uke to bdng thAe 'flinal te the TAI-83 cn Apn"i 222 a.m.,J t-..'esn 110 foir aHp,rov�i' edd ihese 4,.-2tegar2es to the taritaf. If we issue. -S r-.`.-+1..- Youth Passes and a b SRTP Addendum 1. Introduction 2. Operations 2.1.1. Fixed Route 2.1.1.1.1. Routing 2.1.1.1.2. Headways 2.1.1.1.3. Sunday service 2.1.1.1.4. Weekday Service hours 2.1.2. Paratransit 2.1.3. Rideshare � 2.1.4. Maintenance �fu: 2.1.5. Marketing 3. Capital = 3.1.1. Rolling Stock 3.1.2. Passenger Amenities 3.1.3. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 3.1.4. Intermodal Center%,, 3.1.5. Maintenance and Operations Facility ' 4. Revenue Enhancements 4.1.1. Fares 4.1.2. Advertisig k� ` 4.1.3 Federal funding 4.1.4. Gas Tax k 5. Policy2ption& 51.1 Secy ce expansion 5.1.2. Performance measures 51;3. Capi a curernent 5�-4� Revenue Enhancements 5. 1SRTP Upkte Es ; SRTP Addendum 1. Introduction The City of Las Cruces contracted with Arthur N. Gaudet & Associates to prepare the Las Cruces Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) in 2000. Development of the SRTP would provide a guide for public transportation as mandated by the City of Las Cruces' Comprehensive Plan and satisfy Objective 1 of the Public Transportation Goal in the 2000 MPO Transportation Plan. Work on this plan was completed in May 2001 and a Final Report was delivered. However, changes made to the RoadRUNNER fixed route system, land use changes in the community, and turnover in,,,the Transit staff led to the report not being presented to policymakers until now. The purpose of this addendum is to document the changes that hewn;;,occurred since the May 2001 SRTP and evaluate the recommendations of the report in re atron to the current conditions. Also included in this document is 'an outline of the near term (5 years) changes needed to take place in the system.,"This report will evaluate operating, capital and revenue issues. Not all changes will be implemented in ile next five years, however, it is hoped that this document will provide a guide for prioritizing those changes. The major findings of the Gaudet Reporti,are as follows: a 1. The current schedule, with 40-mute dways, is 'difficult to understand and use. Y c�. 2. Current service starts too�late in the morning to serve many work trips. 3. The route poi em is mdi�ect, requmng excess travel time and excessive passenger transferring. Each route set up as a 1 gip:' In order for a passenger to make their return trip, the eniire route '" t: e� ,'4den. This is in contrast with direct two-way `� routesT`opertmg on cerEan streets 4 The transfer pulse center. th radial routes is successful, and should be continued. 5 � lie Central Trari'sfer Po tt �fTP) presents operational and safety problems, hQ,ever, it is ceiit a ly locafed. Any relocation of the CTP should be within '/z mile of the existing location. 6. Marketplg opporturrfties are missed due to the lack of route names. 7. Increased marketing'and public outreach is needed to increase ridership. This addendum will address the choices that are available 2 2. Operations 2.1.1. Fixed Route RoadRUNNER operates both a fixed route and a paratransit system. Operating costs are split among local funds (50%), state funds (5%), fares (12%), and federal assistance (33%). The funds from the State are used exclusively for the Rideshare and Welfare to Work programs. Fixed route headways are set at forty minutes for Routes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Route 9 operates on eighty (80) minute headway. Route 4 is the Aggie Shuttle that operates on the NMSU campus and is funded by the Associated Students of NMSU (ASNMSU). The paratransit system operates 9 routes providing cub to curb service for ADA certified passengers and senior citizens. Subsequent to the Gaudet study, changes were made to the transit system and several land use changes occurred that impact either the routes or the transit riders. Some of �rc these changes are: A � y North Main, east of I-25 was changed to a limited-access freeway with frontage roads (East and West Bataan Memorial Highway). The East Mesa has continued to experience steady growth. A grocery store adjacent to the Central ZzansferPoint,closed,-eliminating a major rider destination. . Several social service, agenciesoved theiP offices to locations not on existing bus routes. A second hospital was opened near'k'a ruriuer Parkway and Lohman. This caused the ri relocation of medical practices, affecting both employment location and rider destination. xn' Route 9,Q,' changed from;operatizon a mostly linear route on Triviz and North Main, between theMesilla Valley 1Vlall (MVM) to Dunn Dr., to a looping route that starts at the Mesilla ValleMa11, proceeds up Telshor into the Elks neighborhood, then east on Bataan Memor 'AQ (formerly N. Main) to its turnaround at Bataan Memorial and Dunn, sa back on Bataan Membrial to Roadrunner to Lohman to the MVM. 2.1.1.1 Routing Implemented Changes -Route 3 modified to 2-way travel on Telshor near Memorial Medical Center (later reversed Dec '03 due to public concerns,) -Route 3 was also modified to serve the NMSU campus by turning around on the Horseshoe. 3 -Route 8- Service to Valley/ Avenida de Mesilla and to the Town of Mesilla has been provided on alternating trips. Proposed Changes -A second East Mesa route has been proposed to be added in the FY '05 budget. Route 9 is proposed to be split into two routes to better serve the East Mesa. Proposed northeast bus routes u. 4 y Route 9: East Mesa Serves Highway 70 Onate HS Neighborhoods ( Four Hills Area, Las Colinas, Mesa Grande (north), Porter Ave (south), Southern Elks area) Connects with Route 10 and Route 1 Route 10: Roadrunner Loop around Roadrunner and Telshor Services Mountain View Hospital Services doctor's offices behind the hospital' Services shopping centers on upper and lower Telshor Connects with Route 7 on Triviz for travel to the CTP Medium Term (3- 5 Years): These are the areas that are identified to need extension of transit service the most and routes will be added as appropriate funding,is secured. Each new route will require 13.17 weekday hours on a daily basis and 12.17 hours on Saturdays to,match the existing route system. Total cost for adding each new route would be $159,203.16. (Table 2) This cost includes the vehicle operating cost, including the portion devoted to maintenance and the operating cost which consists of the driver and the incremental supervision. The administrative costs,cif RoadRUNNER are naincluded in this figure. Table 1 was constructed using 6 herrregional transit systems and shows how RoadRUNNER compares. Suggested new ro des SUP"Route 11: LohmaiV Amador Connects CTP to Mesilla Valley Mall via Lohman/Amador Confi4ts with Route 10 on Telshor/Lohman Relieves#oute 6 (Route 6 adjusted to serve Triviz north of Lohman) � r SRTP Route 12: Sot," o/Elks Two-way service on Solano Services Elks Rd. Area Relieves Route 1,Route 7, and Route 9 Changes to Route 1: Route 1 to provide two-way service on North Main Continue service up to Venus and Northrise to connect East Mesa routes with CTP 5 Ar- Changes to Route 7: Change from Lohman— Solano to Campo/Mesquite/Tornillo- Spruce More neighborhood oriented service, should use smaller bus SRTP Route 13 Mesilla/Mesilla Park Services Mesilla Park Community Center New retail area near Valley and Avenida de Mesilla Relieves Route 8 Should interline with Route 7 if smaller vehicle used SRTP Route 14 Telshor/Dripping Springs Rd. Two way service on Telshor Service to Farm and Ranch Museum Relieves Route 3 (Route 3 adjusted to serve Locust St) Route Adjustments Route 3 To provide service to new hospital, look in to possibility of shortening the southern terminus of current route. New turnaround: West on University,North on Jordon, east on Monte Vista, south on Locust, east on University. Pros: Provides service to hospital Cons: Takes service from center.of NMSU 2.1.1.1.2. He sways All RoadR routes operate on"40a minute frequencies with the exception of Routes 9 and 4 The Poliey�pressed ih,the Comprehensive Plan calls for 30 minute headways. These-headways can correspond't&the,same time each hour and therefore are referred to as clock face headways. Passengers find these headways make the system easier to use. For examp��t e passenger knowg1hat there bus will arrive twice each hour evenly spaced. (I 5"ailer.45 after) The realities of La ;truces make adhering to clock-face headways difficult. The city is continuing to expandleographically. It is no longer possible for a vehicle to cover its desired route within`30 minutes. The choice lays between accepting longer headways, reducing area covered, or adding vehicles to each route, or adding routes thereby creating the need for additional transfers. Current projections for the RoadRUNNER anticipate a fleet size of 16 fixed route vehicles. A fleet of this size could support 12 buses operating at any one time. The remaining four vehicles would be rotated out of service to provide breakdown backup and allow for preventive maintenance to be performed. Therefore, at current fleet levels, it is not possible to institute 30 minute headways on all routes. 6 One option is to provide multiple buses on the six routes that operate through the CTP. Providing 3 buses on each on of the interline pairs would allow for headways to be reduced. Operating 3 buses on an interlined pair would allow the routes to operate at 20 minute headways under the current route alignments. These alignments should be adjusted to increase service area and achieve 20 minute headways. Such an operation would preclude any new routes until the fleet could be expanded. Table 1 'FY02 data Location cost/rev. mi cost/rev. hour Las Cruces $3.50 $41.33 Albuquerque $4.79 $77.13 Santa Fe $4.96 $71.81 EI Paso $4.25 $51.68 Pueblo $4.80 $69.82 Amarillo $3.08 $48.39 Tucson $4.73 $62.47 Ft. Collins $6.62 $82.48 San Angelo $3.04 $48.65 Flagstaff $3.10 $46.90 Table 2 Route Weekday Saturday,, Total $per hour Total $ Hours„ Hours Hours SRTP 11 3,358 194 3852 $41.33 $159,203.16 SRTP 12 3358• t 494 -3852 $,41.33 $159,203.16 SRTP 13 ,. 3,358 • ,_�,,494 3852 $41.33 $159,203.16 SRTP 14 13,358 T494 3852 1 $41.33 $159,203.16 2 I.t:,.3. Sunday Service 7 RoadRUNNER d es not provide service on Sundays. However, the profile of the typical transit rider from t udet Report depends on transit for their mobility. 89% of RoadRUNNER's ri"'either do not posses a driver's license or have access to a car. The absence of Sunday transit service limits their travel and employment opportunities. The cost of adding Sunday service would be similar to the cost of current Saturday service. $20,417.02 for each route placed in service on Sundays. Also, Sunday service would need to be considered for any new routes that are added and the additional cost for Dial-A-Ride. Data source:2002 National Transit Database,published 12/23/2003 7 2.1.1.1.4. Weekday Service hours RoadRUNNER begins its weekday service at 6:30 am and runs until approximately 7:20 pm. The Gaudet report noted that the opportunity to serve some work trips is missed during the morning hours. Also,by providing evening service transit riders have a greater opportunity to participate in cultural and civic events. 2.1.2. Paratransit(Dial-A-Ride) Dial-A-Ride provides curb-to-curb, demand responsive transportation services to qualified individuals with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dial-A-Ride vehicles are wheelchair accessible and are operated by specially trained drivers. Beyond this scope, Dial-A-Ride is also made available to senior citizens as space is available. At this time the RoadRUNNER operates 9 routes Monday—Friday that provide service during the same hours that fixed route service is provided. Currently there is only one Dial-a-Ride route scheduled on Saturdays. A Dial-A-Ride route is planned to be added in FY 05 increasing the total number of routes to ten on weekdays and two on Saturdays. The cost for providing Dial-a-Ride is higher than fixed route on a per passenger basis. While the City of Las Cruces is required ta'pravide this service to qualified individuals when providing fixed route service, service to senior citizens is not required unless they are eligible under ADA. Currently the fare for.Dial-a-Rifle is $0.75, the maximum allowable under ADA is twice the fixed route°'system base fare. 2.1.3. Rideshare = ' Rideshare is a prn 'am funded primarily by e New Mexico Department of Transportation and"t ie N Mexico Energy,Minerals and Natural Resources Departt ment. The main Bicus of the program is to reduce the number of Single OccupAfi Vehicles (SOVs)on the road, thereby, reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. The activities that the Rideshare coordinator conducts are: Preesentations to employees at worksites and explain the benefits of ridehhang and using public transportation. Presentations to school children and explain the affects of air pollution and introduce the idea of rideshare to them at their level. Participate in various community events, where there is an opportunity to present information and materials about rideshare. The Rideshare website (nmrideshare.org) is available to anyone who would like to sign up for rideshare. Names are taken from presentations and entered them into the database. A search for possible carpools for this rider is then conducted. Matches are then sent to 8 i each person and they take it upon themselves to contact each other to implement and organize a carpool Technical support and help is available to anyone interested in starting a vanpool. The programs goal is to increase the number of car pools and vanpools and decrease the number of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs). A park and ride program for commuters traveling to White Sands and El Paso is planned. Eventually this would be expanded to add more park and rides to Alamogordo, Anthony, Silver City to Deming and other outlying communities. 2.1.4 Maintenance Currently the maintenance for RoadRUNNER is performed by the City's Fleet Management Section. Bus stops are not maintained, fixed route supervisors will respond as conditions warrant. An increase in the number of benches and shelters as'well as the installation of schedules at each stop will also increase the,need for bus stop maintenance. ;E 2.1.5 Marketing A finding of the Gaudet report was that the transit system could be better in terms of its self promotion. The report suggests naming individual routes so that there is an identity for each route. Examples would be to identify routes bp6olor, location, or destination. The buses scheduled for;delivery in September '04 have capability for name/ destination signage.4122/2004 The RoadRUNNER system information is available on the City of Las Cruces web site. Transit riders-Fitl dwweb access may downloasnaps and schedules for the system. This practice should bt nt hued. Suggestions for improving this information dissemination include:.acquiring asp° ific web domain name for RoadRUNNER or a direct link on the City's"6 page. Also downloadable schedule files could be provided. The following marketing strategies are anticipated to be completed in FY04: Signs providing sy °° ,,wide information will be installed at the Central Transfer Point and the Mesilla Va11gyMall. A system map and all route timetables will be provided. Scheduled for FY05 is signage providing a route map and schedule to be installed at all individual bus stops. A schedule holder will be installed on each bus stop pole. Also in FY 05ADA compliant signs will be installed at all individual bus stops. These signs will identify the location of the bus stop for the sight impaired. These signs are made of a durable plastic disk that identifies itself as a bus stop location in Braille. 9 i 3. Capital Capital costs for the RoadRUNNER Transit system are split with the Federal Transit Administration(FTA) on an 80/20 basis. The City of Las Cruces must provide a 20% local match for federal funds used for capital purchases. Capital expenses can be further classified as facility costs and vehicles. Below is a Table 3 that lists the current fixed route fleet. 3.1.1. Rolling stock Table 3 Bus# Year ADA lift Manufacturer FTA Comments manufactured replacement year 8601 1986 No Orion 1996 Replaced by 9601 8602 1986 No Orion 1996 Replaced,by 9602 8603 1986 No Orion 1996 Replaced by 9603 8604 1986 No Orion 1996' Replaced by 2003 8605 1986 No Orion 1996 Replaced by 2004 8701 1987 No Orion1997 Replaced by 2005 8702 1987 No Orion' 1997 8908 1989 No TMC 2001 8909 1989 No TMC -,2001-1,,,- 9401 2001 :9401 1994 Yes Bluebird2004 Medium-duty used for Aggie Shuttle (owned by ASNMSU) 9501 1995 Yes Eldorado 2005 Medium-duty currently deadlined (electrical and A/C problems) 9601 1996 Ye-, Eldorado 2006 9602 1996. "des Eldorado 2006 Deadlined during months of temp. over 80 degrees 9603 199 .. Yes Eldorado 2006 Deadlined during months of temp. over 80 degrees 2003 2000N Yes Nova 2012 2004 2000 UPI, Yes Nova 2012 2005 2000 Yes' Nova 2012 The FTA has a 12 year life span on heavy duty buses and a 10 year life span on medium duty buses. This policy is stated in FTA Circular 5010 that sets rules for agencies receiving Federal grants. As of 2004, 9 buses are overdue to be replaced due to age. Six buses have been replaced yet have been kept in service after the medium-duty buses purchased in 95-96 have proven to be unreliable. 10 2004 Scheduled replacements Buses: 8 Heavy duty buses are scheduled for delivery in September. Vans: 5 vans on order (1 with Federal $, 1 from Grant $, and 1 from Senior Programs) (The vans were delivered November 2003; 6 paid with 5307 funds and 1 with 5309 funds. There was no senior programs money involved with these. Fuel The current RoadRUNNER fleet is fueled by diesel vehicles. The City of Las Cruces has made a commitment to purchase natural gas for use by City vehicles and has constructed a natural gas fueling site on Motel Blvd. In order for that site to be used by transit, a larger compressor would need to be installed and the vehicles would need to be shuttled for refueling. In the event that the maintenance facility is relocated to Motel Blvd, this option would be more feasible. Large vs. small transit vehicles .: Frequently,there are appeals made to conserve resources by operating smaller transit vehicles at certain times or on certain routes. Policy 7 of Objective 1 in the Public Transportation Goal of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Where possible,public transit shall use smaller buses to conserve resources." However, it has been the experience of RoadRUNNER Transit that smaller buses do not necessarily conserve resources. FTA "life span" on heavy duty vehicles is 12 years. :Medium;,vehicles have a"life span"of ten years. Light duty vehicleg have a"life span"of seven years. Appendix B was developed using Circular 5010 asreference.. Smaller vehicles need to be replaced more often, FS ultimately requiring mo*,capital expense. Also, the mostsignificant cc�st.component ok operating expenses is the driver cost. Driver salaries and beef its ae4b t for over 60% of direct operating costs (Operating costs less administrative end supervisory costs). The remaining 40% includes maintenance salaries, maintenance supplies, and fuel. Since the buses are rotated on different routes it is not po'ible to break up these costs any further. However,we can estimate that th=' ing fit derived from using a vehicle with a slightly better gas mileage rating is offset to `replace the vehicle fleet more often. Maintenance costs ov the life of the vehicle are also lower on vehicles classified as heavy duty. All of the heavy duty buses that were purchased in 1986 are being kept in service since the medium duty buses purchased in 1996 have proven to be unreliable. (See Table 3) It should be the recommendation of this report that future bus purchases should be of a vehicle type that is classified as "heavy duty" by the FTA. They provide for the most efficient use of taxpayers dollars. 11 Security There has been an increased interest in providing a safe environment for transportation in recent years. The use of Automated Vehicle Locating(AVL) equipment and onboard cameras can provide a measure of safety for passengers and transit employees on the buses. Cameras provide a record to document risk management claims as well. AVL is described in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) section of this report. 3.1.2. Passenger Amenities There are currently 5 shelter locations in the City of Las Cruces. A frequent criticism of the transit system is that passengers are forced to wait in the hot sun. The provision of bus shelters at selected high boarding stops can help alleviate this problem. Shelters also provide visibility for the system and better announce the availability of the bus compared with just a steel pole. The City's 2003-2005 Consolidated Plan has dedicated Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funding of$50,000 for the purpose of locagartistic bus shelters in low income areas. An additional $46,000 has been secured from FTA Section 5307 funding. Additional CBDG monies may be come available and fifteen locations have been prioritized for shelters as funding becomes,available. The°Ioeations were selected on the basis of low-moderate income populations s rved,potential for increasing ridership and available City of Las Cruces ROW. Public hearings were held on these locations in conjunction with the development of the City's Consols&ted Work Plan. These locations are listed in Table 4. Criteria for locatingbus'shelterawas developed and endorsed by the Transit Advisory Board. Although the TAB waned to.have overview of the final site selections. The criteria included,-, Boardings (Passenger survey &-driver input)- A passenger boarding and alighting survey was conducted as part of2001 SRTP. Another survey is being conducted in the spring of 2004. Theses help identify which bus stops are used most frequently. Origin/Destination served (employment, shopping, transit dependant housing, school) Land use is a good° redictor'of where transit riders originate from and travel to, bus stops that serve a transitfrtendl use should be given priority in shelter selection. Waiting time- (Bus headway, walk access) Shelter needs become more important as the time between buses increase. Site concerns-(available ROW, likelihood of easement, severe physical constraints, fatal constraints) There are instances where a shelter may be warranted but due to the physical constraints near the stop, a shelter is impossible or too costly to locate. Routes served: Does it serve multiple routes, are all routes being served? Shelters that serve multiple routes can provide comfort to passengers transferring between routes. Route changes: Is there a likelihood of the stop no longer being served? Shelters should more often be provided on major thoroughfares. Buses that run on local streets are more likely to be rerouted when routes are expanded. 12 Passenger requests: RoadRUNNER should develop a method for tracking bus shelter requests from passengers and then rate accordingly. CDBG: Must be used in areas designated as low-moderate income. Table 4 Location Route Origin/Destination Locus/Ash7 Tres Arboles(Las Cruces Housing Authority Project) Motel/Picacho 8 Middle school,social services on Motel Blvd. Missouri/Espina 2&6 3 Census tracts,63%,,65%and 69%low moderate income families Spruce/Virginia 1 Apartment complex Amador @ Compress 8 Community of Hope 17 Copper Loop 8 Tresco;Juvenile detention center Bataan Memorial West @ 9 74%Low-moderate income Porter Walnut @ Nevada 6 Tresco childcare;Workforce development El Paseo @ Montana 2 &6 LCHSxretail;65%low moderate Boutz @ El Paseo 2&6 LCHS,rei il;65%low moderate Solano/Griggs(nb) 7 57%low mo&rate families Solano/Griggs(sb) 7 57%low moderate'hmilies Amador/Alamo 7 Shopping center Amador/Valley 8 73%low'ni6derate Picacho/ 17th 8 Amador/N,:17th 8 68%low moderate Campo/May 1 City Hall; 58%low moderate Hadley/Edison Pl k 8 "68%low moderate AmlorCEsperanza 7 51%low moderate Campo/Hadty 1 City Hall,Post Office University/Espiri ': 2 NMSU 'University/Jordan 3 NMSU 7, The top four CDBG locations had a special count conducted by bus drivers and the passenger boardings rerecorded. Site 1 had 17 boardings, Site 2 had 36, Site 3 had 28, and Site 4 had 36. Table 5 was developed by RoadRUNNER and is exclusive of those locations identified in the CDBG areas. These locations were chosen based on nearby land uses, site constraints, and driver input. The boardings from the 2001 survey have been added for informational purposes. It should be noted that the system counts were done in January and summer destinations would not have a high count. 13 Table 5 Options for shelters in areas not Route Serves Boarding designated at CDBG low income 2001 (funded by FTA grants) Survey 1. Valley and Hadley(by Save Mart) 8 Retail Business 21 2. Telshor across from Memorial Med 3 Hospital and medical 19 Center offices 3. Lohman by Office Max 3, 6, 9 Retail Business 13 4. Idaho @ Solano 2, 6 Retail, FYI. 8 5. Campo @ Las Cruces (City Hall) 1 Government, 9 inbound downtown 6. Telshor @ Summit Court 9 ISD, Social Security N/A 7. Valley and McClure 5 low'income housing,'' ' 9 tiler park 8. Picacho @ Campo 1 Library, downtown 10 (Sat) 9. Telshor and Commerce Drive 9 Re Post Office N/A 10. Bataan East @ Mesa Grande 9 Onate:HS" 17 11. Mesilla Park Rec Center 2 Recreation Facility 9 12. Telshor @ Idaho (northbound) 3 Telshor A is 9 13. Telshor @ Missoufi (southbound) 3 near MMC and 9 doctors 14. Main Greening (sot quad) 1 businesses 8 15. Missouri Gla€lys 6 School,business 7 16.Hoagland @ A] eda 5 residential 7 17. Solana,@ Madrid 7 Apartments, Park 7 (9 Sat) 18. Solano @`Spruce 7 Health Dept, 4 klr businesses 19. University @',',N-,alley I?Vhat-a- 2 Closest to Valley Rd 6 burger) ,x businesses 20. Hoagland/Valley 5 Mayfield HS 30 Subsequent sites will be selected by new ridership data,ROW issues and other site issues Other: Mesilla Vall mall 3,6, 9 Mall, transfer area 300+ 14 3.1.3. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) In January 2004, the MPO Policy Committee adopted an ITS Plan for the Las Cruces region. The Las Cruces MPO ITS Strategic Deployment Plan prepared by Resource Systems Group Inc., calls for several public transportation strategies to be implemented in the region. RoadRUNNER currently owns the Trapeze software to assist in paratransit operations. The Trapeze suite contains several modules to assist in a variety of transit system management issues, including optimizing fixed transit routes,plan paratransit routes, and generally manage transit fleet operations. Strategies to be pursued in the short term include: 1) Transit Vehicle Tracking-A combination of hardware and software that allows transit supervisors to know the location of each transit vehicle. This aids in tracking on-time performance and helps with incident response. 2) Demand Responsive Transit Operations (Dial-A-Ride)-A software package that plans routes to better utilize existing resources. 3) Transit Fixed Route Operations- A software package that plans routes to better utilize existing resources. 4) Transit Passenger and Fare Management-Allowsor better tracking of fare payment and offers passenger more payment options(e.g. Smartcard, student fares). Medium and long term strategies are: 1) Multi-modal "'ordination This market package establishes two way communicatotis:between multiple transit and traffic agencies to improve service coordination. Multimodaltoordination between transit agencies can increase traveler;convenience ,,transfer points and also improve operating efficiency. Coordinatib betwee I is and transit management is intended to improve on- time performa e of the t&nsit system to the extent that this can be accommodated A&ut degrading overall performance of the traffic network. More limited local'coordirriation between the transit vehicle and the individual intersection for signalpriority is also supported by this package. Potential benefits ui�lude a reduction in transit travel times due to signal priority; however this depends' n good institutional cooperation between traffic and transit managers. 2) Transit traveler information- This technology would involve placing real time bus arrival information at heavily used stops. The convenience that it offers is that a rider knows when the next arriving bus would get to the stop. 3.1.4. Intermodal Center The City of Las Cruces has a$1.98M Section 5309 earmark($2.475M total project cost) for study and construction of a new central transfer point. Consistent with the Gaudet 15 Study, a draft final report for a new intermodal center has chosen two downtown sites for detailed engineering study. The report was prepared by the consulting firm of Parsons- Brinkerhoff. Relocation of the CTP would involve a restructuring of the routes. Route re-structure should be undertaken as part of the Long Range Transit Plan, after a decision has been made on the Intermodal Center. 3.1.5. Maintenance- Operations Facility The Parsons-Brinkerhoff report also studied the feasibility of relocating the transit maintenance-operations facility. The current maintenance facility is located at 1501 E. Hadley on a 1.3 acre site. This site houses all of the transit functions. Administrative offices occupy 1,700 square feet, the maintenance shop is 4;100 square feet, and transit vehicle parking occupies 1.12 acres. The site is presentlyiovercrowded and there appears to be no room for expansion. The City is committed to developing the entire area for recreational uses. The City owns a 24 acre site on Motel Blvd. which is already;operating as the CNG refueling site. Approximately 14.8 acres of this locative would be available to house the transit maintenance-operations facility. Upgrades wouldae required to the refueling site to adequately handle transit vehicles. A decision is expected to be made in the spring of: 004. k� NSME 16 4. Revenue Enhancements RoadRUNNER cannot expand fast enough to keep servicing an expanding city. The need exists for more routes. However, new funding sources have not been identified. It is likely that a combination of strategies must be pursued. 4.1.1. Fares The regular adult fare (base fare) on RoadRUNNER is $0.50 and has been at that level since the inception of Las Cruces Area Transit (LCAT) in 1986. A review of base fares charged by other transit systems found that Las Cruces' fare,is among the lowest in the region. The current farebox recovery is 12%2. This rate is consistent with other transit systems of similar size in the Southwest, with a range 66% for Santa Fe to 17% for Fort Collins, C0.3 A published report of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)4 indicates that from the 249 bus systems that reported statistics, five had base fares under $0.50 and fourteen had fares of$0.50. The most commonfare was $1.00 while 22% of the systems had base fares of$1.25 or greater. Several factors must be considered when considering any fare change. First,transit fares have been shown to be especially elastics, particularly for smaller transit systems. Therefore, an increase in the fare would result in a rider&p drop. The reduced ridership would offset any increase in revenue and not necessarily improve the bottom line. Also, Las Cruces has an above average number of low and moderate4ncome households, a low transit fare reduces the portion that must be spent on transportation. In January '04, the Transit Advisory Board considered a fare change and voted to recommend that the fare not be changed. 4.1.2. Advertising Another funding€iption vailable to transit operators is to allow advertising to take place on their facilities and vehicles. Examples are: Shelter and bench advertising and advertising on vehicles. Currently, the City of Las Cruces Sign Code prohibits the sale of advertising on transit ben'es and shelters. Some members of the Transit Advisory Board have recty shown"interest in having these restrictions lifted. Several years ago, when thei;City Council last considered the issue, the decision was made that advertising wasxot part of the image that the City wanted to present of itself. Also of concern is vffither the City can control an advertiser's First Amendment rights on transit property. The amount of revenue generated would be constrained by the size of the Las Cruces market. Based on information gathered from the Lamar Transit advertising website, advertising rates for benches in small urban areas ranged from $80- $90 per month per sign and rates for shelters ranged from $150- $200 per month per sign. The City could expect 10%-15% of this amount in supplemental revenue. 2 Appendix A Las Cruces Area Transit(RoadRUNNER)FY2002 NTD report 3 NTD reports for Santa Fe,Fort Collins,Abilene,Las Cruces 4 TCRP Report 1994,"Fare Policies, Structures and Technology Update" 5 Effects Of Fare Changes On Bus Ridership,May 1991,American Public Transit Association 17 Concurrently,with this addendum, the Transit Advisory Board and the City Council are reviewing these options. 4.1.3. Federal funding As a small metropolitan area(under 200,000 people), Las Cruces is eligible for Federal operating assistance of up to a 50/50 match. Las Cruces currently receives 33% of its' operating funds from Federal Section 5307 assistance. However, there is a cap on the amount of Federal assistance is available. The funding is allocated to the States by a formula and Las Cruces is currently maximizing its share of available Federal funds. The formula is determined by the population of the urbanized area and includes Mesilla and the Extra Territorial Zone(ETZ). 4.1.4. Gas Tax RoadRUNNER Transit gets 10.38% of net receipts of the total of gas sold in Las Cruces as per Section 7161 NMSA. Any increase in this source would require a'change in the statute or the gas tax. � rrr gY 18 t 5. Policy Options The following sections on policy options will be presented to the Council in a work session. Depending on the choices made, this section will be re-written to highlight the policy direction that is favored. 5.1.1. Service expansion The following routes are a priority for expansion of service as funding is made available: 1. Lohman route 2. North Solano route 3. Sunday service (would also require an increase in Dial-A-Ride service) 4. Evening service (on selected routes to 9 p.m., would 40 require an increase in Dial-A-Ride service) 5. Mesilla route (may be dependant on funding contribution from the Town of Mesilla) 6. Telshor/Dripping Springs route 7. Reinstitute "clock face headways". Placing all routes on either 30 minute or 60 minute headways (dependant on ridership).,This option would require multiple buses on individual routes or more and shorter routes with more transfers. This option requires the enlargement of the RoadRUNNER fleet and incremental implementation. 5.1.2. Performance measures Dial-A-Ride should develop a method for tracking unmet ride needs for senior trips as a bl method for estimating servi&4emand. ys . RoadR�,, ER Transit should develop performance measures that evaluate the effectiveness of routes �se mei$dres should be designed to guide future route changes or adjustments. Examples are farebox recovery ratio, passenger miles served, passengers per revenue mile,etc. 5.1.3. Capital procurement Rolling stock All future bus purchases must be lift equipped to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Buses shall be classified as "Heavy Duty"by the Federal Transit Administration The buses should be equipped with electronic fare boxes and AVL equipment at the time of purchase. All buses will be equipped with bicycle racks. 19 o Appendix C lists the proposed capital requests. This schedule anticipates bringing the fixed route and paratransit fleets to a point where no vehicle is being used passed its' useful life. All future bus purchases should be equipped with onboard security equipment. Including but not limited to surveillance cameras. Passenger Amenities The shelter lists in Tables 4 and 5 represent a priority list and should be added in order listed. The lists should be updated periodically based on passenger requests and route realignment. Future boarding and alighting surveys should be conducted until RoadRUNNER has the ITS technology to track these numbers. v As the number of shelters,benches, and schedules are increased the bus stop maintenance needs will increase. A decision needs to be made whether to hire staff to perform those duties or to hire a business on contract. Facilities Concurrent with this SRTP Addendum, a report is bemgyprepared concerning recommendations for new transfer facilities and a new maintenance facility. Appendix C lists the anticipated costs associated with a new downtown intermodal center and a new maintenance facility. Transfer opportunities wild arise in the US-70 and I-25 area if the new route recommendations are adopted RoadRUNNER staff anticipates using Venus St. in the k vicinity of Northrise in the short°term. However this location should be considered as a top priority for a large sh-lter area and widening of the sidewalk area. Venus between Bataatl Memori4, t and Northrise 20 ArIAL 5.1.4.Revenue Enhancements IA- City staff shall pursue the avenues to enable advertising on transit property. 1B- City staff shall not pursue advertising on transit property. 2A-Regular Adult Fares on RoadRUNNER transit should be increased to $0.75. All corresponding fare classes should be increased correspondently. 2B- Regular Adult Fares on RoadRUNNER transit should be increased to $1.00. All corresponding fare classes should be increased correspondently. 2C-All RoadRUNNER Fares should be retained at their current.,levels. 2D- RoadRUNNER should institute a fare-free system. 3A-Dial-A-Ride fares should be set to their maximum allowable limitsr 2X the regular fixed route fare. 3B-Dial-A-Ride fares should remain 1.5X the regular fixed route fare. 5.1.5. SRTP Update This document represents and addendum to the SRTP developed by Gaudet and Associates in 2001. The purpose behind a;SRTP is to develop priorities for the short term(1-5 years). Updates to the capital request plan (Appendix C), shelter priority list, and route expansion should be.done on a yearly basis. 21 • Appendix A TO 8 � � s , . Y fak " M 1"! UWE a �C'�'f ;�' MSM{ z• fjQ r p9 s $ 3 GX` 'law ' i�StH yyegt� r. i �3 a 7— Tri ri BA 01,L!' ' 22 t Appendix B TCRP Report 61 Analyzing the Costs of Operation Small Transit Vehicles Page 15 TABLE 1 Vehicle classification Category 1—Van Standard vans have front engines with rear-drive. Most vans have a separate body and frame, and they are built on a chassis intended for commercial use. To provide wheelchair accessibility,vans are equipped with a lift or ramp as well as a raised roof with a taller door unit that provides easier entry.With modifications for wheelchair access and securement,total passenger capacity— which includes one wheelchair position—is 10 to 11 passengers.The useful life of a van is projected at 4 years. Category 2—Van Cutaway,Single Wheel The chassis and partial cab are obtained from a truck manufacturer,and a specialist body builder places a bus body on the chassis, integrating the bus body with the=front of the cab,retaining the short hood. With a single wheel in the rear,these vehicles are somewhat lighter and shorter than cutaways described in Category 3. These vehicles have a total passenger caftcity of 13.Useful life is considered 4 years. Category 3G—Van Cutaway,Dual Wheel,Gasoline Vehicles in this class are similar to those in Category 2; however;.,there are two wheels on the rear axle. This allows models with longer lengths,which also result in heavier vehicle weights. Total passenger capacity, including ADA-mandated wheelchair positions, is assumed to be 18. While the useful life of vehicles in this category ranges from 4 to 5 yea's,the model considers the useful life to be 5 years.Vehicles in this category are fueled with gasoline. Category 3D—Van Cutaway,Dual Wheel.,Diesel These vehicles have basically the same appearance and passenger capacity as those in Category 3G above; however,they are diesel fueled rather than gasoline.Use of diesel affects both maintenance and operations:Again,while the useful life of vehicles in this category ranges from 4 to 5 years,the model considers theuseful life to be 5 years. Category 4—Purpose Built,Fron#Engine Vehicles in this category arerpurpo a built, medium-duty. Models within this category vary in price, length, and weight.Taal;pe eager capacity is 22. The useful life of vehicles within this category ranges froni'5;to 7 yeas The model has assumed a useful life of 6 years. Category. �Purpose Built,Re 'Engine These hacles are similar tc;those ifi�,Category 4; however,they have engines in the back of the bus.Uso11 life is consideredp be 7 years in the model. Category6',-Medium-Duty,,Iow-Floor Front Engine Vehicles in tl is,pategory are purpose built, medium-duty with a lowered floor to improve accessibility for passengers. In'this category, engines are in the front.Total passenger capacity is assumed to be 20. Theeusefiil`life is 7 years. Category 7—Heavy-Duffy,Low-Floor Front Engine These are purpose built,heavy-duty,low-floor vehicles, with engines in the front.A major difference with vehicles in this category is life expectancy; the heavy-duty vehicles of Category 7 have a useful life of 12 years. Category 8-30-Ft,Heavy-Duty Bus Vehicles in this class are essentially shorter versions of traditional 40-ft transit buses,with a useful life of 12 years. Recently,more 30-ft low-floor buses are coming on the market,but no actual operating data were available to evaluate the low-floor version of the 30-ft bus. 23 Y o 0 o C o 0 0 0 0 C Ln o 0 Ln o 0 0 t0 0 COO N Ln0 co M COO M N C r N N H 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LD O 0 0 ` O O O � O O r 0 0 R ti O L6 rl O 00 CO N r t co N O co 0 N Lo 0 LC) OQ r r LO r N N N 0 v 69 69 69 69 69 (.9 69 69 69 Z O O O 0 O M O O O O O O CD O O O O a L r O O O O C'7 Il- O 'd• O y O r N r N 'q' N w a CL Q 0 Q EA 69 69 69 69 69 1 69 69 69 M J N (D " « a> `�- O Z 0 m � U 0cnLE NC: Zco03 > c E V1 O O C C C LL U C L m > p U L o O ({f p (6 W o a`) ? m" -m om ; "" � � = 3 �,'@ cpa o c � cl � o p u.ca ca U a) cn ra -- 0 - - o c o ao Co (' N m 6 a) Q U — Q? N p M C Q O O cnCL C Z � 0 3 � o � a a� N � a`> c E Q o cp N o W c O C) CD � � Eco 0vp - ccaEa) a Lri >, N 3 c UM (D N LO c 0 --`� � = p Z CO O N � -o `i cu � %W--p 3 0 rn> oy ..w c � N U. y CD3cn 5 � -o20EN � co0 � m � a�-•ta oo a) o X Q O - -a —4) C (B LCD > N j O N o O L O p' E co a) 7 N L - O a) O C _ C N C O . U "' U O U L a a N > a) ` vi > fl- > O O ca O �,o C 0 O O O O O c > flL H a) i Via . C } � M Oda �'.xc` a) 7 N N Co N N 3 C CO d } © �_.r0 C} 'C v : OL + W o m `� QE o o � o 'L a� cfl(D o a) us a� cn o cn a 'N m O 3 L L O_ L E C (.> C L :a) C CJ x 3 N o a) 3 CL— Co o .E r o E o •c -• 'N CL > c m cu �c m Co E o m r—m o o c o o � cs-:a� c o € m O U Q O Co =3 ca N (O N O N O O O C O V +. .O (0 O C(D 0 CpCo K cu c ac>o 0 0o E � � c° °c u) EA? � 0U 3 CL Co 0 .; m 'v c>v I- x a) CL— x 0LL Np o �_ � Qo � ac — (a :co co a� V L Q a) O H O O a) N 7 O a) Q L C O C`6 X a p L m w N L .- +. L (6 a) dm H m Q 0)a3 M 3 CO N r0+ V d O O O O M O 'C O O O O O 0 } O N N N N N a C..— Q C O Y- t0 O L O O O O O CD O N N N N N CLCLR H O d O LO O O O O L O O O O O O >. y N N N N N L e� w B z o RCK-RE 5fA a� 9 T Busroutes.shp s ROUTE 1 s INTERSTATE 10 ? � ROUTE 2 � 7'ROUTE 3 /ROUTE 4 S �} ROUTE 5 140 \v ROUTES '''RO UTE T ,x"-'- RO UTE 8 ROUTE 9 ner stem Flap Roadrun y w 25