Loading...
03-14-2001 I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING 3 Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4 Las Cruces City Council Chambers 5 6 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Policy Committee (PC) meeting held on Wednesday, 7 March 14, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las 8 Cruces,NM. 9 10 Members Present: Chairman Tommy Tomlin 11 Councillor John Haltom 12 Mayor Michael Cadena 13 Councillor Steven Trowbridge 14 Commissioner Paul Curry 15 Trustee Nora Barraza 16 17 Members Absent: Trustee Carlos Castaneda 18 Commissioner D. Kent Evans 19 Commissioner Carlos Garza 20 21 Staff Present: David Carpenter(Las Cruces MPO) 22 Tim McAllister(Las Cruces MPO) 23 Lisa Fuselier (Las Cruces MPO) 24 25 Others Present: Dale Kemp (Interim Transit Director) 26 Arthur Gaudet(Transit Consultant) 27 George Pearson (BFAC) 28 Mark Leisher(BFAC) 29 Eric Liefeld(BFAC) 30 Joe Maestas (FHWA) 31 Harry Zwibel (Bicycle Citizen) 32 Marlene Zwibel (Bicycle Citizen) 33 Shirley Armstrong (Bicycle Citizen) 34 Mike Armstrong (Bicycle Citizen) 35 Wayne Preskar(NMSHTD) 36 Loretta Reyes (BFAC) 37 Trina Witter(Bicycle Citizen) 38 Laurie Evans (NMSHTD) 39 40 41 I. CALL TO ORDER 42 43 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomlin at 7:00 p.m. 44 1 I Tomlin: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is our annual utility meeting. I'd like to welcome 2 C 3mmissioner Paul Curry to the MPO recently appointed by the Governor despite the recommendation 3 otherwise, accepted the appointment. Glad to have you Paul. 4 5 II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 7 Tomlin: First item of business is the review and approval of the minutes of the January 10'meeting. 8 9 Haltom: Move acceptance Mr. Chairman. 10 11 Cadena: Second. 12 13 Tomlin:It's been moved and seconded for approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying 14 "Aye." 15 16 All: "Aye." 17 18 Tomlin: All opposed"Nay." Motion carries unanimously. 19 20 III. NEW BUSINESS/ACTION-ACTION ITEMS 21 22 A. Resolution No. 01-005: A resolution approving and adopting the Las Cruces 23 Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2000 Annual Review of Bicycle Facilities. 24 25 Tomlin: The next item of business is Resolution No. 01-005, a resolution approving and adopting the 26 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2000 Annual Review of Bicycle Facilities. 27 28 Haltom: For purposes of discussion, I move approval. 29 30 Cadena: Second. 31 32 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for approval, Mr. Carpenter. 33 34 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,members of the committee,David Carpenter of the Las Cruces MPO staff. 35 Presented to you tonight is the 2000 Annual Review of Bicycle Facilities as developed by the MPO's 36 Bicycle Facilities Advisory Committee. There are various members of the Bicycle Facilities Advisory 37 Committee present tonight. I will introduce them. There's George Pearson who represents the City of 38 Las Cruces, Mark Leisher who represents the bicycling community, bicycle shops, Eric Liefeld who 39 represents the Town of Mesilla,and Loretta Reyes who represents the City of Las Cruces Engineering 40 Department. This resolution is the adoption and approval of the Las Cruces MPO's 2000 Annual 41 Review of Bicycle Facilities. This original requirement,this was an original requirement ofthe MPO's 42 1994 Transportation Plan that the BFAC, the Bicycle Facilities Advisory Committee,would develop 43 an annual review. The first annual review was developed by the BFAC in 1999. This is the second to 44 be developed by the BFAC and is the first to be considered by the Policy Committee. At the January 2 I meeting of the Policy Committee, staff was directed to bring this forward as a resolution. Highlights 2 contained within the annual review are an overall status of bicycle facilities within the MPO area. It 3 provides a prioritized a list of projects for implementation and their status. A couple of policy 4 recommendations and definitions related to t;cycle facilities and a detail inventory of bicycle facilities 5 both existing and future. With that Mr.Chairman,I'll turn the presentation over to a couple of members 6 of the BFAC, so we can go through that. 7 8 Leisher: Mr. Chairman,members of the committee, Mark Leisher the acting Chairman of the Bicycle 9 Facilities Advisory Committee. First thing that I wanted to talk about tonight was the current status of 10 the bicycle facilities that we have been working on. One of the problems that we have encountered is 11 we have a lack of connectivity between the existing facilities,what we do have. In addition,many of 12 those facilities that we do have are not up to AASHTO standards, design standards. 13 14 Tomlin: Excuse me, can I get you to move up to the microphone so we can here you. 15 16 Leisher: Sorry,I got a little bit too far and I am talking kind of quietly. And in the past,one of the other 17 problems that we've had is that many of the designs that were being done, did not consider bicycles 18 what so ever and one of the final points about the status of bicycle facilities is of those that we have 19 identified to this point, not many of them have been implemented. In 1999, starting with 1999, the 20 BFAC undertook to create a prioritized list of facilities and their status. At the request of the MPO we 21 created a detailed inventory originally and then from that inventory,we created a list of those facilities 22 we deemed most important. Nov7,those that were deemed most important,there was a set of criteria 23 that we used to select them. Those are primarily where people ride,facilities that tend to connect in a 24 route system, and those that were inexpensive and those that could be implemented very quickly and 25 easily. Now,out of the 13 prioritized items originally put on the list in 1999,two of those have actually 26 been implemented partially or completely at this point. The BFAC activities up to this point have 27 included working to include an implementation on the MPO's TIP. We have updated the MPO 28 Transportation Plan to include the new bicycle facilities map in `99 for the 2000 plan update. We've 29 also addressed certain design standards for including bicycle facilities in roadway cross sections for 30 arterials and collectors and we have also managed to adopt the US DOT Policy Statement for bicycle 31 and pedestrian facility integration. At this point, I will turn over policy recommendations to Mr. 32 Liefeld. 33 34 Liefeld: Looks like I got the short straw. My name is Eric Liefeld and I represent the Town of Mesilla 35 on the BFAC. As far as policy recommendations these, I think, are fairly consistent with the 1999 36 annual report that we submitted and in that report we basically recommended using the City's and other 37 municipalities operating budgets to address things that are relatively low cost. Those instances where 38 we have existing roadways that can be enhanced by either providing signage or providing,you know, 39 paint in the way of lanes or something along those lines. But at the same time, there are some things 40 that do require more money to address. In some cases where we have connectivity issues, there are 41 intersections for example which may need to be addressed through reconstruction. In some cases there 42 are roadways that are sort of longer term goals that we'd like to see bicycle facilities implemented on. 43 And those again, are things that are going to be needing additional funding, so one of the main 44 recommendations we have is to start identifying those things through a real budget line item in various 3 1 municipalities including the City of Las Cruces. Trail System is something that's been talked about for 2 a long time in this valley,people have looked at the existing acequias and laterals andthose are actually 3 used sort of as an informal trail system today. I know there's a lot of work going on with things like 4 the Burn Lake project,looking at how to connect projects and parks like that with trail systems. That's 5 also something that we're encouraging all the municipalities in the valley to look at. The final item on 6 here didn't solicit any laughter yet,but in the City of Las Cruces we'd certainly like to encourage you 7 as time goes forward,to start looking at Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator position,someone one the 8 City staff whose j ob it is to really understand in depth the position and perspective of both pedestrians 9 and cyclists in the City of Las Cruces. At this point, I'll turn it over to George,thanks. 10 11 Pearson: My name is George Pearson,I'm the City of Las Cruces representative to the Bicycle Facilities 12 Advisory Committee. The Annual Report also includes some talk of the facilities that are included in 13 the system,there are basically two types of facilities,in-road and off-road facilities. There's an example 14 here of the type types of in-road facilities, bicycle lanes where you have line of paint drawn and 15 bicyclists goes to the,on the right side,inside the separate': ne. These are examples,examples include 16 Telshor and Locust which are pictured here. Locust is pictured here. The second picture also shows 17 some problems with this type of facilities. Here it might be a little bit hard to tell, but there's a right 18 turn lane here and the bicycle lane is kind of indicating that you should go straight but then you're going 19 to be in conflict with the right turn and the bicyclist should really be further over in the straight through 20 lane and these are some of the kinds of problems that need to be addressed at the system. The other 21 type of facility is a wide curb lane, Espina's a good example of that and also many of the, all the 22 residential streets are just a shared facility where a bicyclist and the cars share the same lane with the 23 wide shoulder. One example, this is a picture of Espina, another example of a facility sharing with, 24 room for parking here is on the New Mexico State campus. Examples of the off-road facilities would 25 be the multi-use path,I don't have a picture of the multi-use paths but the examples in Las Cruces are 26 the Triviz path and La Llorona path. This is actually the most dangerous type of facility for commuter 27 bicyclist. Once a bicycle is out of the roadway it becomes essentially invisible to the car driver. There 28 are conflicts with cars at all the crossing points and if the separation between the multi-use path and the 29 roadway is not sufficient, then you have cars and bicycles coming towards each other which is not 30 wanted which is almost as bad as having the wrong way bicyclists on the roadway which shows that 31 we do still have an education problem for bicyclists that we need to address. Another conflict problem 32 with commuter on the multi-use path is all the other users of that path which is really more of a 33 recreational facility. Commuter bicyclists are probably going to be driving 15 to 20 miles an hour and 34 you have pedestrians,joggers, roller bladers, that type of user going 5 miles an hour. They're not 35 watching for the bicyclists,there can be conflicts there. I don't know if there have been any accidents 36 in Las Cruces,but nationally there are accidents all the time with that type of situation. Fora multi-use 37 path that parallels the roadway,it would be important to have an in-road facility where the commuter 38 bicyclists could use. The trails would be an unimproved path like the acequia path, this is a picture 39 along the Outfall Channel and there's another one along Armijo Lateral. They can offer some 40 transportation benefit when they're connecting unique designations and they're probably be most used 41 by low speed bicyclists,recreational bicyclists and the other type of recreational users,the joggers,the 42 runners. And then the rest of the report has a detailed inventory of all the roadways that we did,that 43 we looked at and recommendations for improvements. This slide talks about some of the,four specific 44 examples,Espina as a shared roadway,Locust has been partially improved as a bike lane,and we need 4 1 to exten_;that still. Northrise Drive was a proposed bike lane in our plan going way back but it appears 2 that it's not going to be considered as a bicycle facility so we probably go back and look at that and 3 figure out what happened there and then Las Cruces Avenue is going to be another facility which is 4 mostly shared facility lane connectivity all the way from,through Hadley in the Downtown Mall from 5 Motel all the way up to probably Walnut along Hadley. And I think that's the end of the presentation. 6 7 Cadena: First I'd like to commend all members of the Committee, I think it's a worthy cause. I guess 8 1 would like to know where we go from here as a Planning Organization, I know this presentation has 9 been made before, similar type ones. In other words to move forward with some of these 10 recommendations, some are simple, simple as signages like share the road, I know there's a lot of 11 bicyclists out in Mesilla and 1 think it would at least help to start by getting those signs up, share the 12 road, I mean, do we want to write some type of letter of support to each municipality or for example, 13 the City Council, the Board of Trustees, the County Commissioners, and then maybe we ought to 14 recommend that the Committee make a presentation to each municipality so that we can at least 15 implement some of their ideas which would be very, would not cost very much to just put up some 16 signs and do some painting on the streets and those types of things. 17 18 Tomlin: Councillor Haltom, do you have a question? 19 20 Haltom: The resolution, my question is what does it mean, the resolution itself, what does it mean? 21 Does it mean it's a recommendation or is it an endorsement by this body of what they have requested? 22 I'm not quite sure as I read it. 23 24 Tomlin: Do you want to respond to that? 25 26 Leisher: Mr. Chairman,members of the committee, the resolution is to adopt this,the annual review 27 of bicycle facilities. 28 29 Haltc m: Adopt the review, not necessarily the recommendations for a number of things including 30 painting and signage but also improving intersections to make them more convenient for riders,and so 31 forth. What is this? I don't know, David you're the one I guess that drew up,what am I voting to do 32 here with this? 33 34 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, I did write the resolution as it is. I also worked with the members of the 35 BFAC to actually write the annual review. The review is a statement of the position of bicycling 36 facilities in the greater Las Cruces area. You may or may not agree with that but essentially it's an 37 endorsement, an approval of the plan, of the review that is before you. 38 39 Haltom: The review is not the plan? 40 41 Carpenter: Not the plan. 42 43 Haltom: You're distinguishing between the review and the plan? 44 5 1 Carpenter: The review is essentially a status report and some recommendations. You may agree with 2 all of it,you may agree with some of it,you may agree with none of it, but that is your position. It is 3 essentially to tell the public that this is something that we've adopted and this is the status. 4 5 Haltom: I ask because I'm also a City Councillor and I see things here that there's no way in the world 6 that we can afford to do. There are things we can afford to do reasonably, l think, but before I can 7 commit to the whole thing,lets' say is a plan,I would want to know a number of things including what 8 percentage of the population uses bicycles as a primary form of transportation and I've never seen 9 documents to indicate that. I know there are people who ride bicycles, there's people who do it for 10 recreation,there's people who do it to go back and forth to work,etc. But allocation of public resources 11 has to be based upon the number of people who would benefit from the expenditure and everybody who 12 has to prepare a budget knows,we don't have enough money to do the things we want to do and this 13 we don't have the money to do the things we planned to do but I just want to know if I'm voting on this, 14 I'm wanting to know what kind of obligation I'm accepting. 15 16 Carpenter: You're accepting no obligation. 17 18 Haltom: Thank you. 19 20 Carpenter: It is within the purview of the Policy Committee to direction staff as Mayor Cadena 21 suggested,that we can make the same presentation to each of the jurisdictional bodies andprovide them 22 with information and this is a recommendation from the BFAC,the Advisory Committee,but they can, 23 as jurisdictions take all of it, part of it, or none of it, and that has been communicated to the BFAC 24 because there may be items identified within the MPO's Transportation Plan that the local jurisdictions 25 aren't ready to implement. 26 27 Tomlin:And I think that's the key point right there is that through all the years that you pass documents 28 such as this and make recommendations, that is all they are in priorities from the MPO and it's up to 29 each individual body to implement where they can,given the constraints that they have and so on. So 30 it is,generally it is a plan,it's an advisory kind of a thing,how often have we approved something but 31 only to have it changed by a particular level of government whether it would be the State,whether it 32 would be the County, or the City, or Mesilla. It sounds good, but when we get down to different 33 factors,they then how do you implement that. One of the things I think that is a short fall from the 34 MPO is that often times the only members of the governing bodies that participate in this process that 35 see these documents are those of us that serve on the MPO,they are not forwarded to all members of 36 the County Commission, or the Board of Trustees, or the City Council, and I think that, that's an 37 important addition to the process that we need to make. Mayor Cadena talks about"well how do we 38 do this,"and I think that's the first step is that you forward enough copies to all of the entities addressed 39 specifically to individuals on the Commission,on the Council,on the Board of Trustees in Mesilla,and 40 let them know that this is,with a cover letter,that this is what was approved and a plan of action by the 41 NIPO and that they will be called upon. What happens generally is if there's one item here that comes 42 to the City Council that has a component that's addressed by this review or by recommendations of the 43 Bicycle Advisory Committee or rather only that portion of it is attached to that in order to justify or to 44 address it and that's a frustrating thing, I think, for members of the committees that work hard to put 6 I together the plans and those of us that like to see more support from our fellow Councillors and so on 2 and that doesn't sometimes materialize and so that adds to the frustration. Other comments? Councillor 3 Trowbridge. 4 5 Trowbridge: Right, Mr. Chairman, on that note I would say that's my interpretation,that's my view 6 point,that this provides a common reference point,that's something of a planning document so that we 7 have an idea of what can be done, where are the designated roads, how do they link up. So this is 8 something that can be referenced by staffs road building construction and so it could easily imagine that 9 while they're doing something they can always lay it out in some paint and save some time and money. 10 In the recommendations on page 4, I think the language, although it's City of Las Cruces should,the 11 operative word is should and not shall. I don't want to take up too much time but that's something that 12 perhaps we can revisit,members of the BFAC can visit various City Councilmen specifically what is 13 mentioned, in other words is this to supplement already monies in it or substitute or just be able to 14 identify and break out. What the purpose of creating a line item, I mean, it's just a, I just wanted to 15 make sure about that. I was going to ask, 1 know George Pearson, I appreciate it, George Pearson 16 comes often to our City Council meetings,sometimes gives us heck,we often deserve it,but one of the 17 examples you used was Northrise Boulevard and I had this vague memory that George Pearson come 18 to the Council,asked about it and staff made it clear that Northrise Boulevard,Northrise H as it's been 19 referred to,will have accompanying bicycle paths. So maybe we should just,that's okay George,I just 20 wanted to see what staff can say, if we can just settle that, what the status of that is, whether or not 21 Northrise II will have accompanied bicycle paths. 22 23 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, in my review of the plans from Northrise II extension, it does not. The 24 construction plans, as it's going on today, does not include an accommodation for bicycle facilities 25 within the planned construction at this point. The right-of-way constraints,I believe,are,were the issue 26 at hand because that was being funded by bonds and the persons that are paying back the bonds were 27 looking to be able to afford to pay back the building of the road and there was right-of-way limits in 28 order to accommodate that. 29 30 Trowbridge: We live and learn. Mr. Chairman,my memory was vague on it and I just needed to have 31 that clarified. Again,I would like to thank the Committee for coming forward and for all the hard work 32 that this document recommends, represents. Thank you. 33 34 Tomlin: Mike. 35 36 Cadena: Very briefly, I would like to recommend to the Committee that they go to each government 37 agency,the County,the Mesilla,and the City of Las Cruces,make your presentation,give everyone the 38 big picture and then ask them specifically what you want from their municipality and at least you'll get 39 a better understanding of what kind of support you have and where you stand and better idea of where 40 the funding's going to come from and get either, probably more support for what you're trying to 41 accomplish here. 42 43 Tomlin:Is there a problem that anybody has in having staff contact the County and the Town of Mesilla 44 to see if they can get on a work session agenda to make a presentation? 7 I Cadena: No. 2 3 Haltom: No objection. 4 5 Tomlin: Okay,so David if you could try to make arrangements for that as soon as possible,I think the 6 timing is good if the resolution passes to let people know that we passed the resolution here, what it 7 entails, and what we need to look forward to especially since we're all getting ready to go into the 8 budget,at least the City is. Members of the public,do you have any comment? Come up here,you can 9 use this microphone if you wish and state your name for the record please. 10 11 Armstrong: Mike Armstrong is my name, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. One thing, 12 we bicycle a lot so I'm here representing bicycling. I don't think this thing is working. 13 14 Tomlin: Yeah, it's working, it just doesn't work well. 15 16 Armstrong: Yeah, it is okay, I'll try to talk into it. One thing I'd like to just point out is that there will 17 be bicyclers one way or another on the roads whether any provisions are made for them or not,so that's 18 just kind of a situation and in order to make bicycling safe for bicyclers and make it also convenient for 19 the people that drive cars and so that we're not in their way, it would really improve that situation by 20 planning for the fact that there will be bicyclers. Now maybe there lvon't be a lot in some area and 21 there might be a lot in other areas but I think the plan tries to find the most used routes and highlight 22 those and plan for those and not take into account all the roads in the City. Let's see,a simple lines and 23 signs program that is not very expensive at least compared to building for instance a pathway like 24 Triviz, like La Llorona, would take care of most of the problems that bikers and people in cars have 25 with each other and it would make it safe for that and it would also support the bicycle friendly city 26 resolution that the City has already adopted. Just another aside here really quickly,we're missing a 27 good opportunity when a new road or a remodeled road is put in and there is no provision made for 28 bicycling,if that road happens to be one of the main thoroughfares,the main routes on the BFAC plan. 29 Once,if you can put that in as the road is built,it makes it much easier for the whole dual traffic mode 30 to exist, dual being the cars and bikes. The lines and signs program is much, as I said, much less 31 expensive than putting in these multi-use paths. Now I think some of the multi-paths have been very 32 successful particularly the one on Triviz, the people there use it a lot and I see all kinds of people on 33 it,there's hikers,there's walkers,there's people with baby strollers,there's skate board people,there 34 are inline skate people, but there are not any bikers, there are very few and if they are they are little 35 children and that's because it's,it becomes a safety problem for bikes to be on those roads or on those 36 bike paths. The other problem from a bikers point of view with bike paths is a bike path goes just from 37 Point A to Point B and there's no way to commute,say to the University if you live in Mesilla on that 38 bike path. You've got to use another road and that's what the plan that the BFAC has tried to put 39 together so there are ways to get all around the City from anywhere else in the City. Another thing that 40 I think, if you go to a place like Phoenix or we were recently in the South Bay area in California, 41 they've made provisions for bicycles and particularly in Phoenix it has become a very attractive thing 42 for tourists or people. We go over there sometimes and ride and we meet people from British 43 Columbia,you know,there's all kinds of people,Snow Birds there in the winter time that are bicycling 44 and I think it would really help if this City became known as a,you know,a bicycle friendly town and 8 I could actually promote itself in bicycling magazines to people in the north areas where it's cold and 2 snowy and everything in the winter time for them to come down here as tourists and leave some of the, 3 bring some more income to the area. It's an opportunity that really should be thought of in terms of 4 promoting the economy here in this area. People are nuts about bicycling and there may not be very 5 many of them as a percentage of the population,but the ones that are will come from Michigan,they'll 6 come from New York, they'll come from British Columbia, all over the north in the winter time to 7 come down and bicycle and this is an incredible area to bicycle because if you think of, a lot of these 8 states,my wife and I came,we grew up in the mid west, lived in Colorado,moved to California,then 9 retired here and you think about all those other places,it's hard to find a place where you can ride,say, 10 a hundred miles without going up a hill and you can go up and down the Mesilla,what do you call it, 11 I just call it the Rio Grande River Valley but I know there's some other name for it. You can ride up 12 and down that thing all day,go a hundred miles and never hit a hill and most of these,well gentle hills, 13 gentle hills,I heard somebody,I'm talking about a hill like going over the east mountains and that sort 14 of thing, if you're in Iowa even, you think of Iowa as flat, but we tried to ride there and we were 15 constantly going up and down, up and down hills. So it's an unique area for bicyclists. Thank you. 16 17 Tomlin: Sir, you had a comment, come on up. 18 19 Zwibel: I'll try to be brief. 20 21 Tomlin: Identify yourself. 22 23 Zwibel: I'm Harry Zwibel,I live here in the High Range,I'm a colleague of our last speaker,we both, 24 well my wife, his wife, and I, we belong to the Las Cruces Bike and Chowder Club and I have two 25 things to say. One is,when we have bike lanes,they really work,like the new Lohman extension takes 26 you from Roadrunner to Telshor,you can go from Telshor to Northrise,then you don't have a bike lane 27 from Northrise to Roadrunner and you don't have a bike lane on Roadrunner but having the bike lane 28 now on Lohman, at least from Roadrunner to Telshor is a big improvement. The other thing I'd like 29 to say is doing a survey now to find out who rides their bikes would far under shoot the mark. A lot 30 of people I know,refuse to ride their bikes because it's too dangerous and in fact the Las Cruces Bike 31 and Chowder Club riders deserve medals often because the bike lanes,the shoulders are glass covered, 32 dogs come out and attack us and in fact one of our riders did end up with a broken collar bone, a dog 33 knocked him over. Every now and then you get a driver who is extremely unfriendly but I've been here 34 now 3 'h years and we're moving in the right direction,I just wanted to point that out. We in the bike 35 club do appreciate what's being done and we just want to encourage you to keep moving. Thank you. 36 37 Tomlin: Alright, other comments? 38 39 Curry: I have one comment. As a former bicycle enthusiast before I hurt my back,we've,my family 40 and I and our friends used to ride bikes frequently down Telshor to the mall on the weekends and the 41 most dangerous things are the signs that you hit as you go along, the signs are about head level but 42 anything that we can do to promote the bike paths that isn't outrageously expensive, I'm in favor of 43 that. And then you have the problem where, when you ask a developer to make a street wider to 44 provide for a bike lane,you have a problem there because somebody has to pay for that. But in the case 9 I of these ways of accommodating bikers in any we can,I'm sure I'm speaking for the group in that they 2 would like to do that and terms of painting lines,whatever,we'll just look into that from there. That's 3 my comment. 4 5 Tomlin: Okay, any other comments? 6 7 Haltom: I wanted to say something that I made reference to before and that is their objection to sharing 8 a general path with others, I think there's two classes of bicyclists, there are those who use for 9 transportation and those who use it for recreation. And I have been to cities where there is a path but 10 with a line on it,one part for bicyclists,one part for walkers and j oggers and the people here that report 11 to us don't want that. Yet,they think it's appropriate for the streets to be shared between automobiles 12 and bicycles and I found that very inconsistent. I cannot see why a ten foot wide path could not have 13 a strip down the middle of it,one side with signage and something on the path itself,this is to show that 14 this for the cyclists,this is for the j oggers and walkers and baby carriages but this is rej ected out of hand 15 and I thinks it's a real contradiction which had bothered me because cyclists are very upset at people 16 in automobiles who regard them as a nuisance and many people do. They regard,the ones I've heard 17 speak,regard recreational cyclists and j oggers as a nuisance and don't want to share the same route with 18 them. To me,that's unacceptable. I think it's unreasonable to say, people who,you people who are 19 driving in automobiles,"you've got to share your roadway with us and pay no part of it"but to say to, 20 turn right around and say to those who are recreational bicyclists who don't drive as fast,they're not 21 going someplace, they're out riding for pleasure, to say"we don't want to share a path with you,nor 22 do we want to share it with j oggers,you don't go fast enough,you get in our way,"that's the same thing 23 I have said. As a matter of fact when driving alone and have to slow down to 20 miles an hour because 24 somebody is riding a bicycle on the street. So I think we need some consistency here. I think that, I 25 see no reason why 2 ten foot wide path,hard surface path could not be headlines on it and be shared just 26 as the streets are shared and I have been places where that was down, I've shared a path cyclists who 27 use,college student,he uses a way to get back and forth to the college,the University of Colorado,and 28 people who j og and walk on the same path. I had people get angry with me when my constituents really 29 chewed me out for lecturing people on this,but there is an inconsistency here and I still maintain that 30 it is one that is contradictory. 31 32 Tomlin: I'm not getting into a debate folks with this,he's had his comment,you've had your comment, 33 you've had your comment, I want to get down to voting before we, I mean, there's a philosophical 34 disagreement that this is not the time or place because the item before us is the review, so you're out 35 of order, you better be in order. What do you have to say? 36 37 Trowbridge: I was going to call for the question. 38 39 Tomlin: All those in favor of the resolution, signify by saying"Aye." 40 41 All: "Aye." 42 43 Tomlin: All opposed"Nay." Motion carries unanimously. 44 10 I B. Resolution No. 01-006: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 2 Planning Organization's Rating of Projects and Assignment of Jurisdictional 3 Bonus Points for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 4 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. 5 6 Tomlin: Next item is Resolution No. 01-006, a resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 7 Planning Organization's Rating of Projects and Assignment of Jurisdictional Bonus Points for the 8 Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. 9 10 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee... 11 12 Tomlin: Let me get a motion from somebody to accept this. 13 14 Haltom: Move approval. 15 16 Tomlin: Is there a second? 17 18 Barraza: I second. 19 20 Tomlin: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, let's go. 21 22 Fuselier: Mr. Chair, Commission members,my name is Lisa Fuselier and I'm the newest member of 23 the MPO staff. As stated, this is Resolution 01-006 which is to adopt the Las Cruces Metropolitan 24 Planning Organization's Rating of Projects and Assignment of Jurisdictional Bonus Points for the TIP. 25 Every other year the Las Cruces MPO is required to rate projects in the TIP which is the Transportation 26 Improvement Program which is the document that lists all the transportation projects that receive 27 Federal and State funding. The projects are rating within several categories,each of which has different 28 evaluation parameters. Most of the parameters are technical in nature,for example,AADT,the Average 29 Annual Daily Traffic, VMT, Vehicle Miles Traveled, Accident History, we looked at Cost/Benefit 30 Ratio, Multi-Modal Components on various projects, and Estimated Project Cost. The rating system 31 was basically prepared by staff, we did a lot research and in conjunction with the members of the 32 Technical Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed and has 33 recommended approval of the rating system at their March 1,2001 meeting. One feature of the rating 34 system is that each of the jurisdictions within the MPO has the option of assigning ten jurisdictional 35 bonus points to any project that jurisdiction deems to be of high priority. Very briefly,if you'll allow 36 me,I'll just run through the ranking system. David's going to be presenting the TIP next,so he'll be 37 discussing these projects in more detail. Valley Drive is rated number 1 with 106 points, this is a 38 reconstruction project from Picacho to the City limits. Number 2 is the signalization project,Amador 39 at 171, Street with 101.05. Number 3, US 70 Phase 3 reconstruction, Chestnut to Solano. Number 4 40 is another signalization project, Valley at Hadley with 83 points. The I-10 pavement reconstruction 41 from,it begins two miles south of the conjunction with I-10 and continues south from there,it's number 42 5 with 82 points. We have the I-25 at University interchange bridge reconstruction, it's number 6. 43 Signalization at US 70 and Shalem Colony Trail,number 7. Phase 2 of the US reconstruction project 44 which goes from 14th Street to the River not including the bridge,is number 8. The first phase of New 11 I Mexico 478 from Conway to Carver, this is a reconstruction and intersection improvement, is that 2 correct, that's number 9. I-10/University interchange bridge reconstruction, actually I believe it's a 3 bridge replacement, it's number 10. New Mexico 101 from Avenida de Mesilla to New Mexico 478 4 is number 11. The next one, 478 from Carver to the L'eggs Plant is also rated 11 because they were 5 assigned the same number of points. So in that case we ranked them the same and then just skip the 6 12 as we did in this case. Snow Road reconstruction from Glass to Union is 13. Phase 4 of US 70 from 7 Porter to NASA is 14. The I-25 at Dona Ana interchange bridge reconstruction is ranked at number 15. 8 And then Phase 2 of Valley Drive from City limits to Engler, this is a reconstruction, this is ranked 9 number 16. Implementation of MPO bicycle facilities is number 17, that's an enhancement and then 10 the last projects are just various enhancement projects,street lights,landscaping on University,on New 11 Mexico 28, at the US 70/I-25 interchange, and the Spruce/Geothermal Wells at I-25 underpass. And 12 with that, I will leave it to the Commission to.. 13 14 Cadena: Mr. Chair. 15 16 Tomlin: Would you quit jumping the gun. 17 18 Fuselier: I'm almost done, to decide which of these projects you wish to assign your jurisdictional 19 bonus points to. 20 21 Tomlin: Mayor. 22 23 Cadena: Can I go? 24 25 Tomlin: Yeah. 26 27 Cadena: Alright, a couple of things. Happy to report that on page 9, Snow Road has been funded 28 through various factors so you can scratch that,we should begin construction in about a month but what 29 I want you to do is take all those points and move them over to University Avenue because I have a big 30 concern and so do many residents and does having a school on a street count for any points because 31 there's a, it's an accident waiting to happen there if you happen to drive there about 3:30 or so when 32 Zia Middle School lets out. There's a lot, the road is narrow and there's no turning lane or anything 33 of that nature,it's been discussed for a lot of years and I know there's only a little bit of money but I'd 34 like the support of this Planning Organization to see what we can do to get that road repaired. 35 36 Carpenter: What number? 37 38 Barraza: Eleven. 39 40 Tomlin: Which just goes to show you that this makes no difference because Snow Road is way down 41 there and it's done. So it's not how you rate it, it's who you know. So this is an exercise in futility. 42 What do you want? 43 44 12 I Trowbridge: I want to here a vote for futility. A technical question on number 2 and number 4 on this. 2 Amador and 171 Street,Hadley and Valley,they recently,a State rated them like number 1 and number 3 4 as the most dangerous intersections of the State and I have the impression that they were on bid or 4 they were in the stages of being the specs or whatever the terms are but yet on the left hand column 5 here,we see no control number, unknown and unknown for both of those,number 2 and 4 and is that 6 accurate, I wanted to ask. Is that up to date? 7 8 Carpenter:Mr.Chairman,Councillor Trowbridge,those are up to date projects. Unfortunately the State 9 Highway Department as in all the other jurisdictions in the State of New Mexico are extremely tight 10 on funding. They have a prioritized list of signalization projects,numbers,let me clarify this. Number 11 1,I believe,was Amador and 17'ranked in the State last year. Number 3 was Union and Stern which 12 we now have a traffic signal in place. Number 4 was Hadley at Valley. Number 5 was US Highway 13 70,which is West Picacho, at Shalem Colony Trail. Unfortunately,the State only has a pot of money 14 of approximately$2 million dollars to spend on signalization projects,but they have a longer list than 15 the priority and they were working on the 1999 priority list versus the 2000 priority list and those 16 roadways were not included in the 1999, so the 1999 ones have been funded. That's why we've 17 included these projects in the rating to encourage the funding of these projects as soon as possible. The 18 Amador and 17' Street, then Valley Drive at Hadley intersections are all receiving temporary traffic 19 signals in coordination with the State and the City of Las Cruces. You will not notice them any 20 different from any other traffic signal however, that is only a temporary fix, there are other 21 improvements that need to be made to the overall intersection, as with US 70 Highway and Shalem 22 Colony Trail, that also needs to be included. 23 24 Tomlin: And the members of the MPO must understand like with Valley Drive and Hadley, in order 25 to get the signal there we had to agree to accept maintenance of Valley Drive. 26 27 Carpenter: The maintenance has not been agreed yet on Valley Drive. 28 29 Tomlin: It has not been accepted. 30 31 Trowbridge: I think you might be referring to Amador,maintenance on Amador has been transferred 32 to the City. 33 34 Tomlin:After driving that again,I'm sorry I voted for that in exchange for the construction of Amador, 35 Motel from Picacho to the sports complex. 36 37 Curry: I have a question for Lisa. What was the difference between I-25/University Avenue 38 reconstruction and I-10, oh, there it is. 39 40 Carpenter: That is a replacement. 41 42 Curry: A total replacement. 43 44 Carpenter: Take the bridge off and do it again. 13 I Curry: When do you want our points? 2 3 Carpenter: Whenever the Chairman's ready to direct to you to assign your points. 4 5 Tomlin: To assign your points? 6 7 Carpenter: To decide where each jurisdictional points of ten want to go. 8 9 Haltom: We get to assign ten,right? 10 11 Tomlin: Right, they get to assign ten. 12 13 Curry: We get a hundred. 14 15 Haltom: You've got a lot of power there,just one person with ten points. 16 17 Tomlin: We'll start with you Paul since you,you get to go first. 18 19 Curry: It won't do any good to assign ten points to something that only has 20 or 30 points already so 20 I'm going to pick, I would choose I-25 at University Avenue reconstruction. 21 22 Tomlin: The County has spoken. 23 24 Cadena: Which number? 25 26 Curry: Number six. 27 28 Tomlin: Mayor,you and Nora have to wrestle for where you're going to spend your ten points or flip 29 or whatever. 30 31 Cadena:I think we're in agreement,unless she disagrees for New Mexico,the reason I keep interrupting 32 you,I'm used to being Mayor,talking whenever I want. But I think 101 from New Mexico 28 to New 33 Mexico 478 is where we would like to put our points. Are you in agreement, Nora? 34 35 Barraza: I'm in agreement, yes. 36 37 Trowbridge: What number is that sir? 38 39 Barraza: Number eleven. 40 41 Tomlin: I lost my resolution. I'll go with, how much are you paying me per point. 42 43 Trowbridge: Mr. Chairman,just for food for thought, I'd like to have Council consider adding ten 44 points to the number one on the list. 14 I Tomlin: Valley Drive? 2 3 Trowbridge: Soon to be renamed the Tommy Tomlin Highway. 4 5 Tomlin: Listen, I'll tell you what, I've given up all hope with that happening in my lifetime. It's been 6 now pushed back for almost 14 years. 7 8 Trowbridge: The reason I mention that is because it is site for a lot of intensive use to share a light,our 9 so called sports complex being built there and so that's,and that would be,even though it's number one 10 on the list,it would really push ahead. I'm not sure what the status of two and four are but please give 11 it a thought. 12 13 Carpenter: Items 1, 2, and 4 are all unfunded projects within the proposed TIP that you will consider 14 later tonight. 15 16 Tomlin: So what does that mean? 17 18 Carpenter: We're begging for money. We're going to be begging for money. 19 20 Tomlin: So, are you saying that we should put our ten points with someplace that we've already got 21 money. 22 23 Carpenter: I would ... 24 25 Tomlin: Or are you just trying to cloud the issue? 26 27 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,members of the committee,I'm trying to point out issues related to the TIP 28 as all of the jurisdictions, all of the MPO's experience each year, there's never enough money to go 29 around. I would encourage that those projects that are currently unfunded receive your jurisdictional 30 bonus points because,we use that in submitting to the State that these are our priorities should funding 31 become available to implement those projects. 32 33 Tomlin: Okay,so I'm going with Trowbridge and that makes Valley Drive 160 and that and a buck will 34 buy you a cup of coffee. Any further discussion? 35 36 Curry: Is this one funded yet? 37 38 Tomlin: If not, all those in favor of the resolution signify by saying "Aye." Do you have a question? 39 40 Curry: He's telling me my project is already funded so I wasted my ten points. 41 42 Tomlin: Well then pick another ten points. 43 44 Carpenter: I will burst Commissioners Curry bubble, it's proposed for funding for the year 2006. 15 I Haltom: Maybe you can get it moved up. 2 3 Tomlin: Alright, are you going to leave your ten points? 4 5 Curry: I'll leave it where it is. 6 7 Tomlin: All in favor of the resolution signify by saying "Aye." 8 9 All: "Aye." 10 11 Tomlin: All opposed, no. The motion carries. 12 13 C. Resolution No. 01-007: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 14 Planning Organization's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 15 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. 16 17 Tomlin: The next item is Resolution No. 01-007, a resolution adopting the Las Cruces MPO's 18 Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. 19 20 Haltom: I move approval. 21 22 Barraza: Second. 23 24 Tomlin: Discussion, go David. 25 26 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,to be a victim of technology I'll move up here. Before you tonight is the six 27 year TIP for the Las Cruces MPO Transportation. 28 29 Tomlin: Lisa broke it. 30 31 Carpenter: She did such a good job on the previous presentation. 32 33 Fuselier: You can use the little arrow. 34 35 Tomlin: I've got the sledgehammer in my truck, let me go get it. 36 37 Carpenter: Before you tonight for your consideration is a TIP that is a substitute, I have substituted a 38 TIP for each of your. Your MPO Officer forgot to include the rideshare funding,we don't look fondly 39 upon that each year so I am substituting ... 40 41 Tomlin: You don't look fondly on it? 42 43 Carpenter: Not to include funding projects that we have funding for. 44 16 I Tomlin: What we need to do is amend the resolution to include this new Exhibit A. 2 3 Carpenter: That is correct. 4 5 Tomlin: Do I have a motion? 6 7 Haltom: So moved. 8 9 Tomlin: Is there a second? 10 11 Barraza: Second. 12 13 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded to substitute the new Exhibit "A"with the rideshare funding 14 provision included in it for the Exhibit "A" that was handed to us in the packet prior to this evening. 15 16 Carpenter:And the correct one has the date on the bottom of every page as Tuesday,March 13,2001. 17 18 Tomlin: Which was yesterday. Always a day behind and a dollar short. 19 20 Carpenter: More than a dollar short, Mr. Chairman. 21 22 Tomlin: All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying "Aye." 23 24 All: "Aye." 25 26 Tomlin:All oppose"Nay." Motion carries. We have now the amended resolution with the new Exhibit 27 "A." 28 29 Carpenter: Exhibit"A"is the,would be the official TIP if it's adopted by the MPO Policy Committee 30 and would be forwarded to the State Highway Department for consideration and inclusion in the State 31 Transportation Improvement Program. Looking on pages 1 through the top of page 3 are the current 32 funded Highway or Thoroughfare projects. Pages 3 through 5 are the Transit or Public Transportation 33 Programs, projects. Pages 6 and 7 are those projects contained at the Airport, the Las Cruces 34 International Airport. Bottom of page 7 represents the MPO's Planning funding for the first three years 35 and the bottom page 8, starting with project 2107 which is the Valley Drive project through the 36 remainder of page 10 are all the unfunded projects within the MPO's jurisdiction. The MPO's TIP is 37 required to be financially constrained based on estimates provided by the State Highway Department 38 in coordination with District 1 and the Santa Fe Office of the Regional Planning Section. These are, 39 based on Federal fiscal years starting in October of 2001 and ending in September of 2002 through 40 Federal fiscal year 2006/2007. Project 3677 on your first page is the first funded project, it's the I- 41 10/South Main overpass bridge,it's abridge replacement for 2002,that's being conducted after October 42 of this year for interstate maintenance. Project 3781 is the final phase of US Highway 70 frontage road 43 system from Porter to NASA road. That is a high priority project for 2002. 3781 is the third one,that 44 is an identical project,different funding amount,different funding source for$11 million dollars. 3679 17 I is Chestnut to Solano,that is your first 2003 project,that is North Main Street from Chestnut to Solano. 2 That is continuation of the project that was just completed on West Picacho and North Main Street. 3 2518 is Conway to Carver which includes reconstruction of South Main Street and the intersection 4 alignment of Watson and Tortugus for $5.1 million dollars in 2003. Page 2, 3781 another phase of 5 Porter to NASA Road on US Highway 70 for 2003, high priority project. 3481 is the interstate 6 rehabilitation I-10 south of I-25. 3448 is US Highway 70 West Picacho from 14"Street to the Bridge 7 which the next phase of West Picacho, that is 2005. 8 9 Trowbridge: Has there been any alteration in that particular time line. My sense was that came as a 10 shock to me that's proposed in 2005. 1 thought that originally this $13 million dollar state project and 11 Council was going to go with it because it promised to be done rapidly but something's different here. 12 13 Carpenter: As you will note on project 3418 and 3448 in the note side on the far right,if there are any 14 notes from 2003 based on last years TIP,and based on funding the State has requested that this project 15 be delayed, that phase of that project be delayed from 2003 to 2005. 16 17 Trowbridge: The reason I mention it Mr.Chairman and staff may take notice,it was an expectation that 18 the continuation and extension of Motel Boulevard which was rapidly chosen to be done by Council 19 a year ago would have for the sports complex to become feasible,the in and out egress,exit of students 20 there,Picacho Middle School is done haphazardously in a sense that it doesn't line up the lanes and so 21 originally what was said was"well when Picacho is completed that will be taken care of,"but since this 22 is not going to be done until, for several more, five more years. 23 24 Tomlin: So the moral to that story is,is that be careful what you relate to people,it's going happen and 25 what sequence because they can change. 26 27 Carpenter: There is, the City Engineering staff is working with District 1 of the State Highway 28 Department, which is out of Deming, to make improvements to the Motel Boulevard/Picacho 29 intersection specifically to address that misalignment issue. 30 31 Tomlin: Again? 32 33 Carpenter: Again. 34 35 Tomlin: Missed it the first time, we'll try it the second time. 36 37 Carpenter:That is correct. 3883 is the 1-25/UniversityAvenue,Commissioner Curry's favorite project, 38 interchange reconstruction for 2006. 2360 is the next phase of New Mexico 478 which is South Main 39 Street, Carver to the previously known as the L'eggs Plant. You will note that,that is a split project 40 which was split with project 2518 on page 1 and that is a delay, it's a split of that project and it's 41 delayed from 2002 to 2006. Next item is 9210 which is University Avenue,Town of Mesilla's favorite 42 project from Avenida de Mesilla to South Main Street has been delayed from 2003 to 2006 because of 43 a lack of funding. Those are the funded projects as is the I-25/Dona Ana Interchange,2503 for 2006. 44 Members of the Policy Committee need to take note that there are no funding projects identified in 18 I Federal fiscal year 2004. The next projects are all transit projects. The first four are a clarification to 2 the TIP for last years TIP for the funding for 2001,the bottom of the page starts 2002,2003,and 2004 3 funding requirements for the transit system for the City of Las Cruces. That gets us to page 6, 2002 4 through 2006 are various improvements at the Las Cruces International Airport. Page 7 is the PL 5 Planning funds so the MPO can do our job. Those are estimates of funds for the out years for PL 112 6 and 5303 funding. PL 112 is our Thoroughfare funding and 5303 is our multi-modal which includes 7 bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and all other modes of transportation planning. Now for the bad news, 8 starting at the bottom of page 8,2107 we have proposed the Valley Drive project from Picacho to City 9 limits,it's currently a proposed unfunded project for$4 million dollars, due to the Federal regulations 10 that the TIP must be financially constrained,we have to put Valley Drive based on rank in the firstyear 11 in which we can include a project that does not have secured funding. Staff has proposed that to be the 12 year 2005, that is the delay from a previous project of 2003. 13 14 Tomlin: Which is a previous delay of 1995. 15 16 Curry: So what good are your points? 17 18 Tomlin: I give up making, trying to make the point. 19 20 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,to try to indicate or to make you feel a little better,the City is working with 21 the State on the design of this project currently. My understanding is from the District 1 Engineer that 22 once the final design is complete and a road exchange contingency is agreed to,that within three years 23 of that road exchange contingency Valley Drive will be reconstructed. So there is the possibility that 24 this project could move up depending on funding availability. But I will not guarantee that I will not 25 be making these same statements next year at this time. The other projects are Amador at 17t'`,Valley 26 at Hadley, Snow Road to Glass Road based on Mayor Cadena's suggestion, staff would like a motion 27 at some point to remove this from the TIP if that is Mesilla's desire,Shalem Colony Trail/US Highway 28 70 is next, that is intersection and associated improvement, that's a million dollar project we have 29 proposed unfunded for 2006,that is a heavy price tag for improvement but the signal is but just a part 30 of it, there's drainage issues along Shalem Colony Trail. The next phase of Valley Drive is next and 31 then the remaining projects are all unfunded enhancements between bicycle facilities,landscaping,and 32 street lights in various. 33 34 Tomlin: Do you have any pavement down on Snow Road. 35 36 Cadena: No. 37 38 Tomlin: Then I wouldn't remove it. 39 40 Cadena: Let's just wait until next month. 41 42 Carpenter: It is still unfunded. 43 44 Tomlin: I wouldn't move it, I mean, I'd leave it. 19 I Cadena: Let's get it built and then we'll move it. 2 3 Tomlin: We'll amend it. 4 5 Carpenter:By approval of this resolution,Mr. Chairman,staffwould like the opportunity to correct the 6 letter that's contained in the packet and forward the TIP to the State Highway Department if it's 7 approved by the Policy Committee tonight. 8 9 Tomlin: Any problem with doing that, do you need a, you don't need a motion for that just to 10 recommend that,is there a problem with that? No problem with that. Any further discussion on this? 11 All those in favor ... 12 13 Curry: I have one question. How do we get the bypass around the City placed on this list? 14 15 Tomlin:You wait till everybody that was bornprior to 1963 after they're dead becaus e all the protestors 16 are dead. 17 18 Trowbridge:We did have,Mr.Chairman,some discussion,it seemed long time ago but even ayear age 19 and there was actually some protest, we were discussing Shalem Colony Road as possible place for 20 purchasing as a starting point but I don't know, maybe staff can ... 21 22 Tomlin: Don't bring it up until after you get elected the next time. 23 24 Trowbridge: Can orient Mr. Curry on where those plans lie. 25 26 Tomlin: The people sometimes, Commissioner, demand planning but reject it out of course when it 27 comes too close to home. 28 29 Carpenter:Mr.Chairman,for Commissioner Curry's sake,the next item is the Unified Planning Work 30 Program forthe MPO staff specifically included in that proposal foryour consideration is the East Mesa 31 Loop Road final alignment to be incorporated into the MPO Transportation Plan. That is contingent 32 upon working with your County staff and the Bureau of Land Management. Once we get it planned 33 and final alignment in the Transportation Plan, then we will look to pursue funding. 34 35 Tomlin: Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 36 37 Cadena, Haltom, Trowbridge, Curry, Barraza all voted"Aye." 38 39 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." I vote "Nay" in protest of the moving of Valley Drive back again. 40 41 The motion passed 5 to 1. 42 43 44 20 1 D. Resolution No. 01-008: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 2 Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY 3 2001/2002. 4 5 Tomlin: The next item on the agenda is Resolution No. 01-008, a resolution adopting the Las Cruces 6 Metropolitan Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for FY 2001/2002. 7 8 Cadena: So moved 9 10 Haltom: Second. 11 12 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for approval of the resolution. David. 13 14 Carpenter: I will turn it over to Lisa,a victim of technology again and she wants me too I will takeover. 15 16 Fuselier: No, no, absolutely not. Every year the Las Cruces MPO's required to develop the UPWP 17 which is the Unified Planning Work Program which basically describes all the transportation related 18 planning activities for the upcoming year. As you can see in your packet it's a fairly lengthy document 19 but basically the first ten pages are items that remain largely unchanged,which occur every year,going 20 to the committee meetings,working on the TIP,working on this document, on going data collection 21 activities like the traffic count program,population and land use information collection,and of course 22 maintaining the long range transportation plan. So the real meat of the document would start on page 23 10 and in the interest of brevity, I'll just hit on a few of the major points, basically the updated 24 information and the major changes. 25 26 Tomlin: Did she say hit on? That's politically incorrect,isn't it? I'm sorry,it's just one of those things. 27 28 Fuselier: The big, the big update this year is the Travel Behavior Survey, I'm sure many of the 29 Committee members are aware. We've hired a consultant,was hired in February of this year and they 30 will be conducting a Travel Behavior Survey and from the results of this Travel Behavior Survey,we 31 will be using this information to update our ME2 Transportation Model and we're very excited about 32 this,because the model has not been updated in a number of years except for on a corridor level. One 33 thing the model improvement will include is a multi-modal component which it has not had up till this 34 point. As part of this we're also hoping to make it more user friendly with a GIS user interface. Page 35 11,project level,we've already heard from the BFAC,we've touched on Shalem Colony Trail planning 36 a little bit, Stern Drive, that's a carry over from last year. We need to look at figuring out some 37 alignment alternatives for getting that connection done. Some new projects, if you look on page 12 38 would be the truck route and hazardous cargo route designation. MPO staff would be working with the 39 Dona Ana County Office of Emergency Management to implement some official hazardous cargo 40 routes within the MPO boundary and this is a legislative process that requires a lot of coordination with 41 various governmental entities in order to allow the placarding of the routes and such. Another the thing 42 the MPO wants to look at is to update the existing truck route map which is presently very old and it's 43 not been updated for awhile. Another new project is the ITS, Intelligent Transportation System Plan 44 Development. The way we see this is that Traffic Operations Department would probably take the lead 21 I on this and the MPO's role would be in developing the ITS plan and what this is, is it's a system that 2 allows things such as signal preemption, maximization of signalization timing, emergency vehicle 3 notification in case of accidents, and some of the larger Cities have it and are very happy with it and 4 think it improves efficiency in the way the whole transportation network works. And then also as we 5 touched on earlier in response to Commissioner Curry, the East Mesa Loop Road, getting the final 6 alignment of that and that will require an amendment for the MPO Transportation Plan. Page 13,these 7 are the short range transportation plans and one of the next agenda items, we will be hearing from 8 Arthur Gaudet who's in the process of conducting the short range transit study so I'll just let him talk 9 about that. But we are in the process of doing that,we've held some public input meetings which have 10 been very good and finally the last page,page 14 is the TIP and also the TIP rating system update. One 11 thing staff would like to look at is perhaps,when we went through the rating process,we noticed some 12 things in the rating system that were somewhat outdated and we would like to look at perhaps,like for 13 example,we had to assign the maximum amount of points to all the projects for cost because the dollar 14 amounts in the rating system were basically too low for today's costs, so we want to look at perhaps 15 updating that and standardizing that somewhat. That's all I have to present,I'd be happy to answer any 16 questions. 17 18 Tomlin: Questions? 19 20 Trowbridge: I just wanted to, on the,I was waiting for the bicycle folks to bring it up but I know that 21 there's been some changes in the last couple of years with TEA-21 monies originally 1970's it was 5% 22 of every dollar coming back from the Fed's had to go to alternative transportation. Is that still there? 23 When they were asking for a line item budget,the BFAC,I'm not sure if that's where they're going if 24 they wantto have this demonstration that 5%of every dollar that's coming from the federal government 25 is going to an alternative. Is that requirement by the Fed's still in place? 26 27 Tomlin: Dave. 28 29 Carpenter: I don't think so. 30 31 Tomlin: Find out. 32 33 Haltom: I doubt that it is, obviously. 34 35 Tomlin: There's ISTEA, there's been some changes. 36 37 Maestas: What was the question again, I'm sorry. 38 39 Carpe.-iter: By the way,Mr. Chairman,members of the committee,Joseph Maestas,he's the Planning 40 and Program Management Engineer from the Federal Highway Administration,New Mexico Division. 41 He's our Federal Highway Rep in Santa Fe. 42 43 Trowbridge: Thank you for coming and being here Mr. Maestas. My name is Steve Trowbridge and 44 I was simply asking, I knew that in the early 1970's there were attachments made,energy crisis, 5%of 22 1 every dollar that came from the Fed's would go towards alternative transportation. That was the spirit 2 of it and then it's going through a lot of changes. The City of Las Cruces used it for many years for 3 landscaping, there was a lot of latitude and I don't know if that's still in place, if there's 5% of every 4 dollar that comes from the Fed's has to go to that. Is it at all accurate to say that any more. 5 6 Maestas: Mr. Chairman, Councillor Trowbridge... 7 8 Tomlin: Could you use the microphone please. 9 10 Maestas: The US Department of Transportation still does focus on alternative modes of transportation, 11 managing transportation demand, but we do it in the form of many other programs instead of just a 12 straight return on the federal dollar. For example, we have the CMAQ program, Congestion, 13 Mitigation, and Air Quality program and it's earmarked for areas that have a certain air quality status 14 whether it's non attainment or maintenance,we have the enhancement program which allows projects 15 such as bike facilities and other things like that for alternative modes of transportation. We also use 16 other funding, for example,there's other federal aid highway funding categories that can be used for 17 trying to change travel behavior,I mean,if you feel like you're getting to much congestion here on the 18 streets,high vehicle miles traveled,there are public outreach campaigns that can be used,so really you 19 just have so many options in a nutshell,but know that you don't get that straight return, but we have 20 kind of a wider array of programs to help encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation and 21 then of course we have our transit program. We have the separate Federal Transit Account separate 22 from the Highway Account in the National Highway Trust Fund so there is a specific pot of money for 23 public transportation. 24 25 Trowbridge: Thank you for clarifying,Mr.Maestas. Mr.Chairman,I just needed to have that clarified 26 for the record,because I think there are some folks,well meaning folks who are under the impression 27 that,that formula is still in place and it's not. 28 29 Tomlin: They just want any money. 30 31 Haltom: Could I be a teacher again? 32 33 Tomlin: Sure. 34 35 Haltom: On page 10 on the Travel Behavior Survey,you say"existing data or data,"however you want 36 to pronounce it has. I believe"data"is plural. I think maybe we have datum is the singular,is that not 37 correct? So I'd say it say "have" to be consistent. And then keeping with the general frivolousness 38 position that has been taken here tonight,it reminds me of an old song about agreement and subject and 39 verb. The professor says"PiR2,"students says"no,pies are round, cornbread are square." That's my 40 contribution to foolishness tonight. 41 42 Tomlii.: Any further comments? All in favor of the resolution signify by saying "Aye." 43 44 All: "Aye." 23 I Tomlin:All oppose"Nay." Motion carries. Commissioner Curry,I want you to know that if you come 2 next MPO meeting,thenyou alonewill holdthe County Commissioner record for consecutive meetings 3 attended by a Commissioner. So you have an opportunity to put yourself in the record book and I 4 would encourage you to take advantage of that opportunity. 5 6 Curry: Thank you very much, Councillor Tomlin. 7 8 Tomlin: You're welcome. 9 10 Haltom: And may I add,we are usually much more serious than we are tonight but I think the lack of 11 seriousness is due to frustration on the part of our Chairman. 12 13 Carpenter:And actually Councillor Tomlin is the record holder and Trustee Barraza is the recordholder 14 for Mesilla, so Mayor Cadena you have your work cut out for you. 15 16 Cadena: Okay. 17 18 IV. STAFF REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION 19 20 A. Status of U.S. Highway 70 Project 21 22 Tomlin: Alright,the next item on the agenda is status reports. Wayne,I saw you down on South Main 23 Street the other day,I want you to stay the hell away from South Main until we get North Main down. 24 25 Preskar: Well, we're still working on North Main, just a quick status on the existing construction 26 undergoing. We plan to be substantially complete by the middle of June. We started serious paving 27 this week, they're going to pour the deck of the bridge over Del Rey starting next Monday night and 28 should have it, it'll probably take about a week to pour in stages and we hope to have traffic back up 29 on the mainline by late April. So we should have that job pretty well in hand,we might still be doing 30 some seeding and some rock work. The next project which takes us to,really,to Porter Road with the 31 frontage roads and to Onate High School with the interchanges. We opened bids last Friday and 32 actually got very good bids. The apparent low bidder is Reiman Corporation at$20.5 million dollars 33 rounded and the second low bidder was A. S. Horner at$21.1 million dollars. There may possibly be 34 a bid protest so I'm not sure if, but one of those two will be low, I'm sure. But we still anticipate 35 starting in May, probably late May, middle of May, starting construction. Our intent is to get the 36 frontage roads at least around the Mesa Grande interchange so we can get the new crossroad done in 37 there before school starts so that we can minimize the impacts and minimize the impacts on us and 38 minimize the impacts on the school. And then we'll continue,we'll be getting the dirt,I believe from 39 probably Roadrunner and Rinconada to build those interchanges so there'll be a lot of activity out there 40 again. The third project,3781,it's funding over various years,right now we've had to set it back,we're 41 intending probably to open bids in September,maybe August if we get the right-of-way purchased and 42 that's going fairly well. So we should be actually starting physical construction on that in November 43 which will take us out to NASA Road. Budget wise we're real close,I keep saying that,we're amount 44 at $82 million dollars for the entire corridor based on our estimate for the last project, if our estimate 24 I is third or fourth high again like it was on this last one we're right in there at$80 million dollars. So 2 we're going to be awful close to it. So the next couple of years there will be a lot of activity. I don't 3 know that it will affect people as much as the project we have under construction right now because 4 one of the problems there for us and for the people is there's no real good options, you have to cross 5 I-25 just about. Spruce has helped a lot actually but, so I think the affects on traffic and the travel 6 public are probably worse on this first project which is a little smaller in scope,money wise it's not that 7 much smaller if you add both projects together. So that's where we stand on that project and hopefully 8 we'll be done by the end, still plan on being done by the end 2002, beginning of 2003. 9 10 Tomlin: Okay,watch your hot mix, okay. We don't want any Picacho hot mix. 11 12 Preskar: We're hoping for the best on that. Jobe's is supplying ours so we're... 13 14 Trowbridge: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask ... 15 16 Preskar: I don't know if there are any questions or anything. 17 18 Tomlin: Councillor Trowbridge has a question. 19 20 Trowbridge: Thanks,this current phase you said would be completed in mid June. What is the eastern 21 boundary of this current phase? 22 23 Preskar: It's approximately, it's actually between Venus and Saturn Circle. Do you know where the 24 ambulance service is, it's really almost right there where the ambulance, that facility where the 25 ambulance storage is. 26 27 Trowbridge: Thank you. 28 29 Preskar: So it's really not very far up the hill, actually for the amount money but there's a lot of work 30 on I-25 too, actually. 31 32 Trowbridge: Thanks a lot. 33 34 Tomlin: Okay, any other questions. Thanks Wayne. 35 36 Preskar: Thank you. 37 38 Tomlin: Nice to see you again. 39 40 Preskar: We'll see you in a couple of months. 41 42 B. Status of Short Range Transit Study 43 44 Tomlin: Status of the Short Range Transit Study. 25 I Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Short Range Transit Study was funded by 2 the MPO and the contract was awarded in November of last year. The MPO hired Arthur Gaudet& 3 Associates of Carrollton, Texas. Mr. Gaudet has experience, over 31 years of working in the transit 4 system,he started out sweeping buses and then drove buses and then he's been a general manager and 5 now he's in the consulting business. 6 7 Tomlin: Did that in Texas? 8 9 Carpenter: Not completely. 10 11 Tomlin: Sweeping out buses. 12 13 Carpenter: Massachusetts I believe. 14 15 Tomlin: Oh, that's better because, you know, Texas is really, never mind, cleaning out the buses in 16 Texas. 17 18 Carpenter: As part of our process,we thought we would take the opportunity to give the MPO Policy 19 Committee an update as part of their meeting tonight because we've done public input over,yesterday 20 and today,over three various meetings to try to accommodate the public and we've done data collection 21 both on the buses and through your various utility bills that were mailed out in the month of February. 22 So we've tabulated the results for the on board surveys that were conducted and we're still collecting 23 through the end of next week the mail back surveys. We're anticipating over a 1,000 returned surveys 24 from the City, from the utility bills that were sent out. When we consider that we mailed out 38,000 25 utility bills,that is not overly positive but 2%, 2'/z% is a very good return considering that we haven't 26 always had that much return from the public. 27 28 Tomlin: Before the Sun News breaks the story, I did not return my survey. 29 30 Carpenter: So now you're going to return your survey? 31 32 Tomlin: No. 33 34 Carpenter: But that's where we are and I will turn it over to Mr. Gaudet for a very brief presentation. 35 36 Tomlin: Dare he come forward. Come on Mr. Gaudet,join the party. Welcome to Las Cruces. 37 38 Gaudet: Thank you sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Actually sweeping buses and 39 working in that area was in Massachusetts so I also got my start in the industry laying on my back in 40 the snow under buses thawing out air systems with a blow torch which is,I think something probably 41 foreign to a lot of folks here. And 1 do want to keep this brief in honor of the hour and also in honor 42 of the fact that we have had three sets of public input meetings in this room over the last two days, 43 totaling something between 8 and 9 hours so we've had,we've had a lot of public involvement in this. 44 We kicked off the project in December with a meeting,meeting with David and we went with several 26 I other people to kind of lay the ground work. Some of it was laid in the Request for Proposals. One of 2 the objectives of the study was to find a way to return the Roadrunner transit service to a 30 minute 3 schedule. It's been operating on the temporary 40 minute schedule for several years and one of the 4 stated objectives was to return it back to a 30 minute service. One of the other objectives that goes 5 along with that is to straighten out the routes,Roadrunner transit currently runs a lot of looping routes 6 which takes people out of their way and increases travel time. So in order to decrease the individual 7 passenger travel time,one quite popular method is to go back to the old route structure which has routes 8 going essentially in a straight line so passengers going to downtown board the bus as it's going to 9 downtown, passengers going away from downtown ride a straight line and they get off as the bus 10 reaches their point. The current structure tries to cover a lot of territory but in so doing passengers 11 trying to go toward downtown have to board the bus as it's running away from downtown and in some 12 cases they get quite a tour and it takes quite a bit of time. One of the other things and I came out in 13 August and spent a day riding buses to look at the system after this Request for Proposal was released. 14 There are some demand generators that really are inadequately served. If the second largest employer 15 in the County is the hospital, a large portion of its workers and the group of workers who are potential 16 bus riders go to work at 7 o'clock in the morning,however you cannot get to the hospital by bus before 17 7 o'clock in the morning. So as we look at issues like trying to deal with the welfare to work issues, 18 getting people employed,one technique is to provide transportation so those folks can get to their jobs. 19 So those are some of the objectives of the study. From that kick-off meeting in the middle of January, 20 we did a complete system passenger count,over a course of a week we rode every route,every trip and 21 counted passengers boarding and alighting at every stop. Concurrent with that,we distributed the on 22 board survey, looked at frequency of use, trip purpose, attitudes about the transit system, and we 23 gathered some other statistical information. We got an extraordinarily high response rate and one of 24 the main reasons for that, we believe, is the assistance and participation of the drivers. My own 25 observation after 31 years in the business is I don't think I've run into as good a group of drivers 26 anywhere. As we were doing the surveys,the folks actually counting would ask the drivers for some 27 assistance,the drivers would hand out the surveys to passengers and ask the passengers to complete the 28 surveys. The reactions that we saw and I did a lot of riding and counting myself,the passengers would 29 do anything that those drivers asked because the passengers know the kind of service they get from the 30 drivers. And I really want to pass that on because it's something that we do not see in many systems. 31 So we have the on-board survey,we have the complete system passenger count which gives us boarding 32 and alighting information for weekdays and also for Saturdays over each route segment. The non-user 33 survey or the "Tell Us Where To Go Survey" and one responded, said "you really should call it 34 something else." Well we call it the"Tell Us Where To Go Survey"for areason because it gets people 35 thinking. That is under way. Over the last two days we had as I say between 8 and 9 hours of public 36 input meetings and we gave the public something to react to, we had a draft system plan, initial 37 recommendations, some of our routes have two or three options. Mayor,we have planned service to 38 Mesilla,we have two different options and we brought this to the public to get their comments,ideas, 39 and suggestions and where we have two options that each have pluses and minuses,similar or identical 40 cost,the determining factor,the deciding factor on which option is better,which option does the public 41 prefer. We will be taking this information back,we do have some folks that expressed concerns,I spent 42 the afternoon out looking at some of those concerns,looking at some of those options,David and I will 43 be doing some more work,we will be working with Dale and we'll be continuing with this and I believe 44 we're going to have this project finished probably within the next couple of months. What is going to 27 I come out of this project will be a series of recommendations,now this is the first time the transit system 2 has been adjusted and addressed in quite some number of years. The series of recommendations, I 3 anticipate when it's done I'll tell you what we actually did, but what I anticipate right now is a 4 recommendation for the optimum system based on the desire to return to a 30 minute service, the 5 objective of decreasing passenger travel time by straightening out the routes, by providing one or two 6 bus services to the major demand generators and other situations with the hospital, right now if you 7 leave on the west side of town it takes three buses to get to the hospital. You can drive it in 15 minutes 8 but you have to ride three buses to get to the hospital so one option we believe is going to be the 9 optimum system. The next option, we're kind of calling the affordable system, given the financial 10 constraints that we're aware of with the City,you know, the question is how much can you buy with 11 the existing dollars. The optimum system through the City's desire to return to a 30 minute service and 12 link the demand generators and do everything that we need to do based on the original Request for 13 Proposal,we believe that's going to add a bus. Given the City's financial constraints,okay,what's our 14 second option, so we believe that we'll then have, and we're calling it for a lack of a better term, the 15 affordable option and I think that as we work through this we may be able to come up with yet a third 16 series of options and choices and these will be recommendations. A third series of options and choices 17 that say well, and we can't call it the affordable option but maybe the retrenchment option, maybe if 18 the existing level of funding can not be maintained,what can we do. There has been some movement, 19 comment, some motion toward addressing the City's current budget constraint by potentially 20 eliminating service in one area,well if we need to,you know,if we have ten buses out and we need to 21 save 10%,we just eliminate a route. Well there are some other methods of doing and that's something 22 we will be addressing because quite frankly,I don't see any part of this town,now this is a draft of kind 23 of our main recommended option and we have the others on the wall. I guess my question would be 24 "what do we eliminate?" Do we tell these people that they can no longer ride a bus,who would like 25 to tell these people "well, sorry." So what we'll be working on is coming up with some scheduling 26 alternatives that will provide some level of service but not leave anyone stranded. If there are any 27 questions, I'll be happy to. 28 29 Tomlin: Might as well take out the Hoagland/McClure/Second Street/North Alameda Boulevard route, 30 completely eliminate any service to District 5. 31 32 Gaudet: As a result of the public comment,we have already kind of retrenched there,we don't believe 33 Second Street is going to work so our recommendation for that area is to leave it on Valley Boulevard. 34 35 Tomlin: We have the pre-1984 option. 36 37 Haltom: Service to Mesilla would necessarily obligate the Village of Mesilla to assume some cost. 38 39 Tomlin: You notice how enthusiastically that was received. 40 41 Cadena: Yeah, well, it's too late to argue with you. We've always supported getting the bus system 42 back and we're willing to do our share of fund seeking to be able to provide the service. 43 44 28 1 Haltom: In fact,we're facing a situation where we have to consider the possibility of cutting back the 2 service in Las Cruces. 3 4 Cadena: I understand that. My only concern on that one, Option One is standing there,you look like 5 you're planning to come through Boutz or Barker. 6 7 Gaudet: As a result of the public input meetings,we've had two options for service to Tortugas and to 8 Mesilla. Again,the City's stated goal in the Request for Proposal was to go to a 30 minute service. So 9 this option provides 30 minute service along El Paseo basically as far as the University and then a bus 10 every hour to Tortugas and a bus every hour to Mesilla. As a result of the public input comments... 11 12 Fuselier: Would you like the other map,Arthur? 13 14 Gaudet: Yes,actually that would be,that would be helpful,it would be the Option 2. As a result of the 15 public input we believe that this option, Option 1 for the Tortugas and Mesilla service, I'll say it this 16 way,it's my favorite but I was the only vote. So I have been out-voted. Option 2 then would provide 17 service along El Paseo which would link the downtown area with the high school,the tax office which 18 is important this time of year anyways, I've already been there twice today, the University, and the 19 hotel/motel area and again, folks work there,we're looking at the potential for tourists but I'm really 20 looking more atthe potential for employees,but we would provide that service via El Paseo to Tortugas 21 once an hour. For example, if the bus were to leave downtown on the hour it would be in Tortugas at 22 quarter past and back downtown at half past the hour. At that time the bus would then proceed west 23 bound on Avenida de Mesilla,go down 28,would then turn left on,I believe that's University,I've got 24 bifocals but they're not that good, is that Union? 25 26 Carpenter: Union, McDowell, University, and then back up. 27 28 Gaudet: And then proceed back in. That service would operate once an hour. 29 30 Tomlin: With a small bus or full size? 31 32 Gaudet: I think the anticipation would be a full size bus but you raise a very good point. In examining 33 the survey responses particularly the non-users surveys, and I haven't tabulated them yet but I have 34 gone through and taken a look at them. We've had several responses saying"why are you running big 35 buses,small buses should be cheaper,and the big buses seem to be empty." Well,one of the elements 36 that's kind of interesting and different here is that we have a large school population,we have a lot of 37 school kids that ride so larger vehicles are required at certain times of the day. At the public input 38 meeting this morning we had a representative of the school system who was discussing that Mesilla 39 route and the potential for some pretty significant rider ship for students at the alternative school and 40 Lisa can you help me with the name of that. 41 42 Fuselier: San Andres. 43 44 29 I Gaudet: San Andres,alternative school. There has been debate in the industry,I've got reference works 2 in my library dating back 20 years, you know, the standard title is big buses versus small buses for 3 transit service and the study comes out every once in a while and you just kind of change the name of 4 the authority. 5 6 Tomlin: Did the school district offer you money? 7 8 Gaudet: No. 9 10 Tomlin: One of the things that, which is a very good point, since the Las Cruces Public Schools has 11 adopted the policy of the ability to choose where ever you want to go to school, okay, as long as you 12 provide your own transportation. Now you might say well that's a benefit because it's boosted our 13 ridership but that's an important consideration that you have because they become a very important 14 customer of ours but I didn't think the school district would offer you any money. My other comment 15 would be on your survey is that I think you have to pay more attention to the actual rider survey that 16 you did than the general survey because one of the things that's going to happen when you adjust these 17 routes to meet the 30 minute headway is that you're going to have people that have grown accustomed 18 to this temporary 40 minute operation that are going to be impacted and I think we just really need to 19 recognize and be service oriented to those people that are riding our buses on a regular basis whether 20 it's to school and from school or to work and from work whether it's at the hospital or other places and 21 I think that,that's a very good point that you've made and in making recommendations to that. Then 22 I think the other big problem is going to be to convince the City Council who will ultimately approve 23 this, is that,that is the way to go and so my recommendation as an individual Councillor would be to 24 my colleagues on the Council,is to make sure if that's a valid point,is that you have the data to support 25 it. 26 27 Gaudet: Yes sir. 28 29 Tomlin: So that what we don't get into then is a politically-motivated readjustment of the routes in 30 order to be responsive to some vocal person who may one day ride the bus and want it close to their 31 house. 32 33 Gaudet:I think the main piece of information we're gathering from the external survey and we designed 34 that as a tool for you to use as Council members is public attitudes about the bus service and a way for 35 you to gauge perhaps public support, if you decide to look at alternative funding methods or, and we 36 did it with the user survey as well, if you decide to look at a fair adjustment, quite frankly, using that 37 external information to design bus routes, I have been doing this for a while and I'm fortunate in 38 coming up through the ranks as I'm out there in the streets,I get to look at it and think about it as a bus 39 driver and since I have been a bus passenger and driver and I'm certainly aware of passengers and their 40 needs and behaviors,I get to look at it as a passenger. So,plus when I was riding and we were doing 41 the passenger counts,we had a lot of discussions on the bus with drivers and with passengers. So the 42 main focus of the design is we use in part, we use the on/off information that we gathered, so in part 43 we use hard data. For example, one question came up this morning about ridership, leaving them all 44 on Don Roser,we went to the numbers because we're proposing not to use Don Roser,we went to the 30 I numbers and the numbers are minimal. So we do use in part, hard data but we also use basically the 2 30 years of experience, I also brought in another colleague in on this so between the two of us, you 3 know, we've got 50 or 60 years of fooling around with buses and we went out and being aware of 4 behavior. Another element that we used, a great part of my business is scheduling and driver 5 scheduling so it's service design route planning is but also I spent an awful lot of time with the math 6 and the routes that you see here,we ran and we ran and we ran,you know,we plotted the mileage,then 7 we spent, Lisa and David got to spend a day learning what a bus driver does ?�ecause we spent about 8 eight hours with a driver running alternatives,route combinations,we were waiting to get complaints 9 because we had buses in neighborhoods that haven't seen buses before,you know, as we were trying 10 this. So a big part of this is what is the question of what's mathematically possible. Now,you'll get 11 into, as Council members,I think you're going to get into some decisions and questions, I'll give you 12 one example,it's something that I was looking at this afternoon in response to the public input surveys. 13 This area of Route 7 which operates Campo, Spruce,Madrid,Evelyn, and Walnut, our original design 14 to comply with our time plus looking at our ridership,had it making loop and then coming back Spruce. 15 Well we know that even though we're showing no ridership here at Meerscheidt we're checking in the 16 winter and the reports are we'll need to serve Meerscheidt in the summer so we revised the route based 17 on that and again one of the objectives is to provide in-and-out service as much as possible. In and out 18 service in particular to the health department, right now people have to ride out of their way either to 19 go or to go from the health department. We have one passenger for example,who boards on Madrid 20 on the first trip in the morning who works at the health department, so she rides downtown on Route 21 7 and transfers to Route 7 which is kind of an interesting thought,rides back out and goes to the health 22 department,takes 35 minutes to get to work,takes 5 minutes to go home. So we've designed this route 23 to provide service as straight as possible to and from the health department. We tried to minimize the 24 loop but we discovered we really are going to want to serve Meerscheidt but what happens,we have 25 two senior citizens who were at the, one was at yesterday afternoon's meeting and one was at this 26 morning's meeting and they both had the same concern, they use the bus stop here on Spruce by 27 Encantada Park and they're saying it's too far for them to walk to Solano to the bus stop on Sol-, no. 28 So the question is... 29 30 Tomlin: Out of Encantada Park? 31 32 Gaudet: That's what they were, that's what they were saying, they need. 33 34 Tomlin: They must have one of the back spaces. 35 36 Gaudet: I think that's true. 37 38 Tomlin: Next to Locust. 39 40 Gaudet: I started to go in there today and discovered it was a gated area. 41 42 Tomlin: And the only way you can get out is through the Solano entrance. They're probably spry 43 enough, they probably crawl over the gate there at Spruce. 44 31 I Carpenter: Doubt it. 2 3 Gaudet: Well,but now here is another element that's available and I understand their concerns but you 4 also operate demand/response service for senior citizens. Now, we talked about money and let's get 5 back to some of the other thoughts and it's not a hard and fast part of our study but on the other hand 6 I've been around this thing for a while and I've been a general manager on a system this size and I have 7 had to learn how to do a lot with nothing. Sometimes not with a little but with nothing. I've been doing 8 a little checking, David has, and Dale had done a study here a little while back to look at the potential 9 for generating additional revenue through sale of bus advertising. When we look at the senior citizen 10 demand-response service,you took over a contract,the transit district,the Transit Department took over I 1 a contract from the senior citizen service to operate dial-a-ride service for the seniors at zero fare so 12 we're transporting seniors with dial-a-ride service. Now dial-a-ride is going to be your high cost service 13 because you have to dedicate a vehicle and a driver and go somewhere and make a pick up. We're 14 operating buses that have excess seats, extra capacity, so one thing that you could do that will help, I 15 believe,make your demand response service less costly is provide incentives for some of those seniors 16 to ride fixed route buses where they are available,where they're capable,where the seniors can do it. 17 We get back to this particular instance,the two seniors who were here, one of them I have seen many 18 times because I've been back and forth here and I probably should know her name by now, yeah, I 19 believe if they live in those back spaces, they probably can't make it out. I really applaud them for 20 riding the fixed route bus and not trying to, and not adding cost to the transit system by riding the 21 demand response. 22 23 Tomlin: How old do you have to be to demand? 24 25 Kemp: Sixty. 26 27 Tomlin: Sixty? 28 29 Kemp: Sixty, but that's funded with the grant but it doesn't pay for all the cost but it's funded. 30 31 Carpenter: But you also have to look at,if we can get them to ride the fixed route service for free and 32 get reimbursement through the grant, if there's that possibility, why not let them pay for the cheap 33 system or the cheaper system or less expensive system,then if we can operate a bus for a dollar,a fixed 34 route for a dollar for example,why are we putting them on the demand response at two dollars. We get 35 more bang for our buck. 36 37 Gaudet: It's actually conceivable that if you were to get a senior citizen off of the free demand response 38 vehicle and get them onto an existing fixed route and paid them a dime every time they got on,you 39 might still be ahead. 40 41 Kemp: We've already started working with the senior citizen center to have a presentation to citizen 42 and to have that happen, to do more with less. 43 44 32 I Gaudet: So some of these,there are other elements that I would suggest that as City Council members, 2 you kind of keep in mind,I mean,it's the old story of be creative,we talk about bus advertising,I don't 3 know how much revenue that'll bring in because I haven't been involved in that for quite awhile. I've 4 been told,well there's a City Ordinance against it. My question, after fooling with this for some time 5 and I like to try to put myself in the position of the passenger,I like to put myself in the position of the 6 decision maker. If I have a choice of selling advertising on the bus and you're fortunate in this town 7 that I haven't seen anything where I think you would really have a great risk of obj ectional advertising. 8 In other cities,there have been some interesting controversies but if I had a choice of selling advertising 9 and bringing in some money or having to tell someone they couldn't have bus service. So what I'm 10 suggesting with this is that as you get the report and the recommendations,and again,with multiple sets 11 of recommendations,you know,kind of like Valley,here's what you should do,you know,as you're 12 telling the State with Valley,"well gee here's what you should do"and the State's saying,"well here's 13 what you can do," we're going to try to provide those options but then there may be some decision 14 points that you'll, that you'll have to make. 15 16 Haltom: That's if we realize that if you accept advertising,you've got to accept advertising,you can't 17 decide what you will accept. 18 19 Carpenter: Right,and there's also the question of the marketability of the advertising. We're not in the 20 same market as El Paso or Albuquerque. There's a whole gamut of things and with Mr. Gaudet's 21 assistance through this process,we're hoping to give the Council,the MPO,and all of the jurisdictions 22 multiple options to choose from and what we all can afford. So we'll go from there. 23 24 Tomlin: Thank you. 25 26 Curry: We'll trade the bus system for the jail, the detention center. 27 28 Tomlin: You know what the hell you're going to do then, then you'll raise the fares to match the per 29 day prisoner care. 30 31 Curry: We'll try. 32 33 Tomlin: We're not buying that, Mr. Curry. 34 35 Carpenter: What I did hand out to each of the members of the Committee is an individual route map of 36 all of the options, so if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 37 38 Tomlin: If we have any questions, I know your phone number and you'll get the call. Any further 39 business, any items? 40 41 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 42 43 Tomlin: No public here, they've left. 44 33 I V1. ADJOURNMENT 2 3 Cadena: I move to adjourn. 4 5 Tomlin: It's been moved. 6 7 Barraza: I second. 8 9 Tomlin: Second, all in favor. 10 11 All: "Ave." 12 13 Tomlin: All opposed"Nay." 14 15 Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 16 17 18 19 20 APPROVED 21 22 23 24 25 26 Chairman Tommy Tomlin Date 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 34 L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A M E S I L L A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION g P.O.BOX 200001 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 PHONE(505)528-3222 1 FAX(505)528-3155 AGENDA for the LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The following is the Agenda for a meeting of the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to be held March 14, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting. Please notify the City at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528- 3222 (Voice) or 528-3157 (TTY). This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. 1. CALL TO ORDER 11. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 10, 2001 111. NEW BUSINESS - ACTION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 01- 005: A Resolution Approving and Adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2000 Annual Review of Bicycle Facilities. B. Resolution No. 01- 006: A Resolution Adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Rating of Projects and Assignment of Jurisdictional Bonus Points for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. C. Resolution No. 01- 007: A Resolution Adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. r 1 D. Resolution No. 01- 008: A Resolution Adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY 2001/2002. IV. STATUS REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION A. Status of U.S. Highway 70 Project B. Status of Short Range Transit Study V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT r t Lai5 C!c I.t C,E< 1` �0 L l C��/ W M tit I'f's' E 1//q/It gA M 6 �_DD�E s S AO—AlE ; EL �.'t�'Iv/'�L�t-'L��f CON'J�,l�j� ��✓i-";'� L ,'�.���c�/1��✓ ! /Y `?� � 2- �>'�"� '7th �j // TA - s�� C� 5Zz�-X333'3 1 D LA