Loading...
01-04-2001 1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMNIITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 Thursday, January 4, 2001 4 City Council Chambers 5 6 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 7 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)meeting held on Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. 8 in the City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las Cruces,NM. 9 10 Members Present: Bill Fleming Chair(DAC Flood Commission) 11 Marty Pillar(CLC Engineering) 12 Ben Woods (NMSU) 13 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 14 Zak Tucker(DAC Planning) 15 Dickie Apodaca(DAC Engineering) 16 Loretta Reyes for Robert Garza(CLC Engineering) 17 Dale Kemp(CLC Transit) 18 Tim Sanders (BLM) 19 Arnufo Castaneda(Town of Mesilla) 20 21 Members Absent: Robert Garza(CLC Engineering) 22 23 Staff Present: David Carpenter(CLC MPO Planning) 24 Lisa Fuselier(CLC MPO Planning) 25 Tim McAllister(CLC MPO Planning) 26 27 Others Present: Laurie Evans 28 29 30 I. CALL TO ORDER 31 32 Fleming: I guess we'll, it's 4 o'clock,we can call the meeting to order. 33 34 A. Review and approval of December 7, 2000 minutes. 35 36 Fleming: And the first item on the agenda is to review and approve the minutes of December 7, 37 2000. Has everybody had a chance to read them? Are there any corrections, I saw a lot of places 38 in there were everybody was talking. 39 40 Pillar: Mr. Chairman,that's one deal I'd like to just mention on this is that during our meetings it 41 helps Tina a lot if we do speak one at a time and loudly and clearly. It's going to help her out a 42 lot, this way we don't have a lot stuff in here where it's "inaudible" or"everybody talking at 43 once." 1 1 Fleming: Right, I think that's probably the best way to do it so any corrections to the minutes? 2 Yes, ma'am. 3 4 Reyes: Do I need to speak into the microphone? 5 6 Fleming: Yes, please. 7 8 Reyes: I'm Loretta Reyes here for Robert Garza,just to let you know. Page 6, line 17, the 9 statement made by Robert Garza at the end should ready"so 800 lane miles" instead of"land 10 miles." And that's the only thing I had Mr. Chairman. 11 12 Fleming: Anything else? Anybody else? If there's no further additions, I'll entertain a motion 13 that we adopt the minutes as distributed with the correction by Ms. Reyes. 14 15 Knopp: So moved. 16 17 Pillar: Second. 18 19 Fleming: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor. 20 21 All: Aye. 22 23 Fleming: All opposed. Carries unanimously. 24 25 26 II. NEW BUSINESS 27 28 A. Selection of non-voting members and election of officers. 29 30 Fleming: Alright,the second agenda is the selection of non-voting members and the election of 31 officers. I guess the non-voting members need to be selected first. 32 33 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the selection of the officers does come 34 second after the non-voting members are selected. Under the bylaws of the TAC, there are seven 35 standing members,they're two from the County, two from the City,two from the Town of 36 Mesilla, and one from NMSU. But the actual voting body is to be composed of those seven 37 members and two out of the remaining non-voting members. First we select the two non-voting 38 members and then we select the election of officers for members of the committee, for 39 nominating purposes,the non-voting members are Henry Magallenez from Elephant Butte 40 Irrigation District, Dale Kemp from the City's Transit Department who's here today, Ken White 41 from the State Lands Office, Tim Sanders from the Bureau of Land Management who's also here 42 today,you Mr. Chairman, Bill Fleming representing the County Flood Commission, Robert 43 Czerniak representing the ETZ Commission and Paul Arthur representing White Sands. You can 2 I make your nominations from there. Mr. Chairman,just for your information, once they've 2 selected the non-voting members, the staff takes over the nominations for the actual election of 3 the chair. 4 5 Fleming: Right. 6 7 Pillar: Mr. Chairman ... 8 9 Kemp: You come each time, right? 10 11 Sanders: I try to. 12 13 Kemp: That's always a good sign, so I'd like to nominate Tim if I can, I don't know what the 14 process is. 15 16 Pillar: Question Mr. Chairman. Of the seven members that are available for nomination has 17 there been any word from those of who wants to serve or doesn't want to serve. 18 19 Carpenter: The only person that we heard from today, as of today is Bob Czemiak from the ETZ 20 Commission,he is unable to attend but he said if,he was willing to serve as a voting member if 21 there was no other option or no one was interested. 22 23 Fleming: I would like to serve one more year and then turn it over to somebody else. 24 25 Tucker: Alright, do we have to second that first nomination? 26 27 Carpenter: There's no requirement for second on nominations,you just make a nomination ... 28 29 Tucker: I'd like to nominate Bill_ 30 31 Carpenter: And your nomination was Mr. Sanders? 32 33 Kemp: Yes. I mean, it's always good for you to have somebody that shows up. It helps the 34 process along. 35 36 Carpenter: Any other nominations? All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 37 38 All: "Aye." 39 40 Carpenter: All those oppose. The "Aye's"have it. 41 42 Tucker: No, I'll get him next year. 43 3 I Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,with that done,we'll open the floor to nominations for the elections of 2 officers. The two officers of the Technical Advisory Committee are the chairman and the vice 3 chairman, I serve as the secretary to the committee. So with that, I'll open the nominations to, 4 for chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee for year 2001. 5 6 Tucker: I'd like to nominate Bill Fleming for chair again. 7 8 Carpenter: Any other nominations? I'll close the floor to nominations. All those in favor of 9 electing Bill Fleming as the chairman of the TAC for 2001, signify by saying"Aye." 10 11 All: "Aye." 12 13 Carpenter: All those opposed. The "Aye's"have it. Election of the vice chairman. Last year it 14 was Mr. Pillar, I'll open the floor for nominations for vice chairman. 15 16 Fleming: I'd like to nominate Marty. 17 18 Carpenter: Any other nominations? Seeing none,we'll close the floor. All those in favor of 19 electing Mr. Pillar as vice chair of the TAC for 2001, signify by saying "Aye." 20 21 All: "Aye." 22 23 Carpenter: All those opposed. Motion carries. The agenda's yours Mr. Chairman. 24 25 B. Discussion,input and review of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning 26 Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation 27 Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002. 28 29 Fleming: Okay, I guess we're now at under new business, Item B, discussion, input, and review 30 of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's rating of projects in preparation for the 31 TIP program for 2001/2002. As I understand this was started last month through how it was 32 supposed to be done and everything and we'd like to finish it this week, is that correct? 33 34 Carpenter: It's not necessary that we finish it. There are some issues that are going to have to be 35 discussed by the TAC and direction provided to staff, Mr. Chairman. What we initially started 36 last month was we did an overview of most of the projects and the rating system and what was 37 covered in the rating system and we did a couple of them and based on the direction provided by 38 the TAC last month. The staff went in and filled in to the extent that it could,most of the ratings 39 and we're still researching a little bit of information,but you will notice on some of the sheets 40 that we're going to need your input as members of the TAC. So the first item on your, on the 41 packet, if you're looking at your packet,we also have it on the screen representing the TIP rating 42 system. Under New Road Construction Projects, this was for the most part the project we did 43 last month. 3717,that is the Triviz at Lohman,the Triviz underpass which is scheduled for year 4 1 2001, actually sometime this summer is it's intent to bid and construction commenced. Based on 2 the rating system, Column D starts the rating system,we assigned 22 points for the anticipated 3 AADT. It received one bonus point based on the length. Based on the cost benefit,which in the 4 rating system has you evaluate all the projects within that category. We only had one project so 5 it received the full eleven points. Column G is major thoroughfare plan and policy conformance, 6 it does and does Column H which received the full twelve and five points respectively. Vehicle 7 miles traveled, that was an estimate made by the TAC last month. On the anticipated vehicle 8 miles reduction during the peak hour,we assigned it two points. For travel time reduced,we also 9 estimated a percentage reduction which equaled two points. Pollution reduction, it received 10 twelve points for both noise and air pollution reduction. The next column is estimated project 11 cost which is in excess of$500,000, it's actually $1.7 million to construct the Triviz underpass 12 which we reduce the points by six. Estimated accident reduction, it got the standard fifteen 13 points plus five bonus points and then multi-modal component we added ten points because there 14 is, as part of the construction the City is going to build a bike lane to connect to the existing bike 15 lane and based on that we have a total of 91 points. With that Mr. Chairman,we'll take direction 16 from the committee as if there's any changes that they see based on this project, if not,we'll 17 gladly move on to the next sheet. Mr. Chairman, it's staff s position that this meeting is mostly 18 discussion input and review at this point. We will bring you, hopefully, final document for 19 approval of the entire rating system next month so we don't need an approval of this, each 20 individual item tonight. 21 22 Fleming: Okay. 23 24 Pillar: Mr. Chairman, I see no problem with the first item, I think we can just move onto the next. 25 26 Fleming: Okay, anybody else have any? Now you're talking about(inaudible). 27 28 Pillar: The new road construction. 29 30 Fleming: Okay. Now,you put these others in,your staff has, haven't they David? 31 32 Carpenter: That is correct. That is to date,we're still collecting some safety information and the 33 other issue is travel time and cost benefit. If you look at the next series of projects under 34 reconstruction, overlay, and repavement projects, cost benefit and travel times are an estimated 35 guess of staffs,that's what we had to do,we're anticipating next rating system that the model 36 will be up and running, fully functional which will save us on the travel time and vehicle miles 37 traveled issues. So if you look at the next sheet, the asterisks up above, Columns H and L 38 represent,that's where staff needs TAC's,the Technical Advisory Committee's input. The plus 39 marks above Item J, I believe that,we may also need your input for route designation,we're still 40 researching that because that relates to hazardous cargo,we're still looking into that and then 41 safety we're also looking into accidents. So those numbers, in those two columns, it's not as 42 important right now because staff is still working on that. 43 5 I Fleming: In the minutes,there was an issue addressed to, too much, but Marty had mentioned 2 four intersections in the MPO that rated in the top five in the State and I believe you all were 3 going to look into those. 4 5 Carpenter: We haven't received a formal proposal from the City or from any one else to actually 6 include those in the TIP but that is within the TAC's perogative, that's more appropriate to add 7 under the second, the next item under the agenda is to direct staff to include that in the forth 8 coming TIP. The biggest issue related to that is we can include it in the TIP without any 9 problems,but it is not likely that we will receive funding for the current year, it would have to be 10 out years or it would have to be a TIP amendment if funding was made available in the future 11 year. It would most likely go into the TIP as proposed unfunded and we can try to anticipate 12 what year we could actually construct that project or receive funding for that project. 13 14 Fleming: Can I ask a question about the funding portion of it? What,you know, every year it 15 seems like we get some of the things at the end of the Legislature for the roadway of pork barrel I 16 guess,that every, one of the Legislators, as well as the Senators, gets the money to do something 17 within their district. Could we approach them on these things because this, it really bothers me 18 that we do a lot of things and we got the four out of the top five. 19 20 Carpenter: That is correct. The other thing that the committee members need to understand about 21 the TIP is in years past part of TEA-21 and ISTEA both, the TIP was a lot more expansive and it 22 included all funding sources at the state level. It has been refined and only federal funding 23 sources and a few of the state funding sources are still in the official TIP. So legislative earmark 24 items no longer appear in the TIP. Co-op and memorial funds no longer are required to be in the 25 TIP, so the City and the County and the Town of Mesilla or NMSU for that matter, could 26 actually receive Co-op or memorial fundings without it being required to be in here and 27 evaluated. They do their lobbying and they receive their funding appropriately and I know the 28 City actively does that and so that's why some of these projects,you would think"well it needs 29 to be in there"but actually it doesn't because of the funding source. 30 31 Fleming: This is what I was asking about,would it be more productive for the City and the 32 County to get together and request of the Legislators to take care of these things. I mean, to me 33 it's,when we start to talk about safety and we spend some of the pork barrel money on other 34 things, it bothers me because if we can save two or three lives,to me it would be worth while for 35 any of these representatives or the senators to get behind something like this. 36 37 Carpenter: It would be, but it does not hurt in case available funding is made available from 38 somewhere else throughout the State, a project falls through or there's a determination that it 39 doesn't qualify and the money becomes available,then they can turn around and say"oh this is a 40 higher priority, Las Cruces already has it in the TIP as a proposed unfunded project,"they're 41 aware of it,we can transfer that money to that project and it will qualify and it's a Christmas in 42 July if it happens to be in July or whenever it happens. 43 6 1 Fleming: If we put in the TIP,we're not causing it to be left out of any other possible funding 2 arena. 3 4 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 5 6 Fleming: Alright. That answers my question. Sorry I interrupted things David. 7 8 Carpenter: First project on Reconstruction, Overlay and Repavements is Snow Road 9 reconstruction. Based on what we have, I'm still checking into the status of that as to whether it 10 needs to be in the TIP or not for the forthcoming year. It most likely will need to be remaining 11 but I'm not sure at this point. Based on AADT,what we did is we put the annual average daily 12 traffic in the line right below where the points were assigned, so for that segment of the roadway, 13 it has 608 AADT which earns it eight points. Based on the length of the project which is in 14 excess of a mile, it gets four bonus points. Based on the pavement condition and this can be 15 corrected by the committee,pavement condition, it is not included in the City's pavement 16 condition program because it's not within the City limits of Las Cruces. Staff s estimate of the 17 pavement condition status for that portion of Snow Road,we put it in an index of,between 75 18 and 79 and the road is fairly poor, it's not necessarily the worst and it's not dirt, so we, staff 19 assigned it the 24 points for that index, for that condition, but the committee can debate that and 20 assign higher or lower points as it sees fit. The next category is travel time, staff assigned it zero 21 points because the overall system wide reduction on reconstructing Snow Road would be 22 insignificant. Grading and drainage,we assigned it the four points because the road is relatively 23 flat and we have to address grading issues. Route designation,we assigned zero because it's not 24 a designated truck route or a hazardous materials storage along there. Accidents,we're still 25 researching. Cost benefit, I'll have to look at the cost. I doubt it would be in the top 25 26 percentile based on cost and overall benefit. Estimated project cost, it was estimated in excess of 27 $500,000 so it received the minus six points. The 620 below that is,represents the total cost of 28 $620,000. Multi-modal component, neither transit or existing bike lane exists on there but I 29 believe the bicycle facility map does indicate something so we could add points in that column. I 30 completely overlooked that one when we were adding that. 31 32 Fleming: That's with zero? 33 34 Carpenter: That would be zero and it would need to be changed. For the entire length, a bike 35 facility is proposed. 36 37 Pillar: Okay, so that's five. 38 39 Carpenter: That would be five. That gives it existing points of 39. Based on cost benefit,how 40 does the committee want to tackle this, do we want to try to tackle this on an individual project 41 basis or do the assignment for cost benefit all the way down, determine what the top 25 percent 42 are. We have ten categories,ten projects within this category. So that's approximately,ten 43 divided by four is two and a half. 7 I Pillar: Mr. Chairman, David, question for you. How is the cost benefit ratio is there a criteria 2 that is called out on how we rate these projects or anything or is this something that we're merely 3 going to try to develop ourselves. 4 5 Carpenter: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pillar, there's nothing in the rating system as to 6 determine the ratio that we use. The overall cost, the lowest amount of cost with the greatest 7 benefit would, I would assume would have the greatest cost benefit. So if you had a project that 8 only cost $100,000, but it provided the greatest benefit to the number of roadway users, then it 9 should be the top rated project and that's the tough one. 10 11 Tucker: So you'd match maybe the AADT's to the cost amount in this case? 12 13 Carpenter: That would be an approximate, best way to do it because we have several projects,we 14 have US Highway 70 reconstruction which are in the millions of dollars compared to Snow Road 15 which is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars but the benefit of project 3780 at the bottom of 16 the page comparing that to the Snow Road project, is the AADT is 30,000 to 600 compared to a 17 six,well a combined 20 million dollar project compared to a$600,000 project. And we can rank 18 them based on that and then staff can assign the points for next month based on the ranking. 19 20 Fleming: So basically we're looking at the average or annual average of daily traffic as well as 21 the cost of the project to try to figure out the cost/benefit. 22 23 Carpenter: That would be staff's recommendation, that would be the best way to compare cost to 24 benefit. Because the higher traffic volume indicates the highest possible, the current volume of 25 users on that roadway. 26 27 Fleming: So basically we just would need to divide the cost of the project by the AADT, is that 28 correct? 29 30 Carpenter: That is correct. 31 32 Sanders: So there's not like a standardized methodology? 33 34 Carpenter: No, not currently because the transportation model is not functioning. 35 36 Fleming: And then rank them according to how they turn out. 37 38 Knopp: Cost divided by traffic, right? 39 40 Carpenter: Right. 41 42 Fleming: So when we're looking at 3780 down here,we take all the,where the three AADT's or 43 just one. 8 I Carpenter: It's just one. 2 3 Fleming: Look at the three. 4 5 Carpenter: Right. Mr. Chairman, committee member Knopp has offered to do the cost benefit 6 using his calculator and then we can do an overview of the remaining points assigned for each of 7 the other projects. 8 9 Fleming: Okay. 10 11 Carpenter: If that's acceptable. Next project is Valley Drive, final design, Picacho to Engler. 12 This project,the committee members need to be aware that the year is wrong,that's 2001,that's 13 2000 and will most likely be completed in time so it will need to be removed but we're going 14 ahead and rank it because we're not sure that the final design is going to be complete within the 15 year 2000. We're looking at, as a reminder,we're looking at 2001/2002 projects. Based on that, 16 Picacho, Valley Drive has an AADT of 18,000 plus which gave it the fourteen points. 17 18 Pillar: Mr. Chairman. Excuse me Mr. Carpenter on that,when we look at the, on this design 19 project,what I was looking at on this earlier was that I thought this was Phase I and Phase H but I 20 see now that this design AADT is 18140 and it will be the same. I just realized that. Because I 21 was thinking that was Phase II but I don't see Phase II of Valley Drive anywhere on the TIP. Is 22 there a reason why that's been pulled? You know,we have Phase I construction which would be 23 the fourth item on here but we're not showing Phase H of Valley Drive construction on here. 24 25 Carpenter: You are correct Mr. Pillar. Phase II as is Phase I is,both Phase I and Phase II are 26 unfunded and we overlooked Phase II. They're both planned for years 2003. The AADT 27 difference between those two projects is substantially different because. 28 29 Pillar: For the construction. 30 31 Carpenter: For the construction,yes. If we had included Phase H construction in there, the 32 AADT, once you get pass the City limits is less than 15,000. 33 34 Pillar: 9,485. 35 36 Carpenter: Right. 37 38 Fleming: What's the cost of that Phase II project? 39 40 Carpenter: The anticipated cost of Phase H, I believe it is around three million. 41 42 Fleming: So basically, they would be two different projects. 43 9 1 Carpenter: They would be two different projects because you have a different AADT,they're 2 going to be funded differently, their length is differently, so staff needs to add that project. 3 4 Fleming: Okay. Mr. Knopp, did you come up with the. 5 6 Knopp: I was wondering on that, that's completely separated. We don't have to take anything 7 out of. 8 9 Carpenter: We don't have to take anything out of Phase I or the final design. 10 11 Knopp: Okay. 12 13 Carpenter: Actually Mr. Chairman, there is a correction to that. I just realized something. 2107, 14 project 2107 which is Valley Drive, final design, actually should be Valley Drive construction of 15 Phase I. That is for year 2003. 16 17 Fleming: Construction of Phase I. 18 19 Carpenter: Right, rather than final design. 20 21 Fleming: Just like the 2560, right? 22 23 Carpenter: And 2560 becomes construction of Phase H. 24 25 Fleming: Okay. 26 27 Knopp: Then the traffic volumes change. 28 29 Carpenter: That's 9,000. 30 31 Fleming: Then 2560 is 9,000 what, Marty? 32 33 Pillar: 9,485. 34 35 Fleming: Okay. 36 37 Pillar: That was on a `97 traffic count. 38 39 Carpenter: So it gets eight points instead of fourteen. You see that, Tim? On 2560, on project 40 2560 control number. That goes to eight. 41 42 Tucker: So the termini's are correct though? Picacho to Engler and. 43 10 1 Carpenter: No,they're not. 2 3 Tucker: So what is 2560 then? 4 5 Carpenter: Let us fix this right quick. On the AADT right below that, Tim,your volume is 6 9,485. Go back up to the other project, 2107. Those points go up to fourteen instead of eight 7 right there where your at and your termini is Picacho to City limits. 8 9 Fleming: Engler's in City limits, isn't it? It's not, it's out. Okay. The traffic's heavier in the 10 City then it is outside, right? So that 18,140 would be. 11 12 Pillar: Phase I. 13 14 Carpenter: That is correct. And Tim changed the description to construction Phase I. 15 16 Fleming: Picacho to Las Cruces. Okay, 2107 goes from Picacho to City limits, right? 17 18 Carpenter: Correct. 19 20 Fleming: And then Picacho, it should be City limits to Engler would be the second one, right? 21 22 Carpenter: Correct. 23 24 Fleming: And in the City we have the 18,140 and outside the City the 9,485. 25 26 Carpenter: Right. 27 28 Fleming: Okay. 29 30 Carpenter: On 2560, Tim,you need to change the termini and the construction is Phase II. 31 32 Tucker: In both years are 2003, right? 33 34 Carpenter: Correct. 35 36 Tucker: Okay. 37 38 Fleming: Las Cruces City limits to Engler, Picacho to City limits. 39 40 Carpenter: That becomes City limits to Engler, Tim. Alright, Mr. Knopp has indicated to me that 41 he's ready for the cost benefit for each. 42 43 Tucker: One last,your total points on that last one, Phase II, that drops down to 24, does it? 11 I Carpenter: Correct. 2 3 Tucker: Okay, I can't read it from here, I'm sorry. 4 5 Carpenter: Pan across Tim. 6 7 Pillar: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the pavement rating for Valley Drive. We determined 8 that to be a zero or staff did. 9 10 Carpenter: Staff took an estimate and that's where we need your help. 11 12 Pillar: Valley Drive's in pretty bad shape. 13 14 Carpenter: It's not as bad as Snow Road. 15 16 Pillar: No, it's not. 17 18 Fleming: But it could be before long. 19 20 Carpenter: So what points would you assign to it? 21 22 Fleming: What do we have on Snow? 23 24 Carpenter: Eighteen or nine. If we assume Snow Road is correct at twenty-four. 25 26 Pillar: We have Snow Road at 24, I'd say Valley would be at nine. 27 28 Carpenter: Also, keep in mind that we have South Main at nine and for comparison purposes we 29 have West Picacho between 14' and the River at 18, and North Main which is from Chestnut to 30 Solano at 18, and then we have US Highway 70 at 9 for comparison purposes, from 14' Street to 31 the River. 32 33 Fleming: Okay, that's where the project ended that they just finished. 34 35 Carpenter: That is correct Mr. Chairman. 36 37 Sanders: That sounds about the same as North Valley. 38 39 Fleming: You have North Valley as, I drive both of them and North Valley, I'll put the two right 40 together,really, from Picacho on out, it's only got one bad place in there that compares to about 41 four or five on North Valley. I look at nine being a little low myself on Valley Drive. Do you 42 Marty or not? 43 12 1 Pillar: Okay. 2 3 Carpenter: Eighteen it is. 4 5 Pillar: Eighteen. 6 7 Knopp: For both segments? 8 9 Carpenter: Yes. 10 11 Pillar: If you say for both segments, Mr. Chairman, once we get outside the City limits... 12 13 Fleming: No, I think outside the City limits,when you get pass Engler it's a little different. The 14 road's not too bad out there. 15 16 Pillar: Once we,the transition goes from the four lane back to two lane, the two lane is in pretty 17 good shape,that's at the City limits where that transition takes place, right by the high school. 18 19 Carpenter: That's where Phase II begins. 20 21 Pillar: And I would say there would be a nine. 22 23 Fleming: That one would be, I'd go with nine on that one. 24 25 Carpenter: Okay. 26 27 Fleming: But in there in the four lane it's definitely in bad shape. 28 29 Carpenter: Okay. 30 31 Fleming: I think on 2560, probably nine would be sufficient on that one because once you hit 32 Engler and head on out north on Valley,the road's in pretty good shape. 33 34 Carpenter: Because you don't have as much start and stop. 35 36 Fleming: Right,well,you don't have the rollups from the trucks and things like that, I mean,you 37 don't get bounced around nearly as much. 38 39 Carpenter: Okay,what about South Main Street? Nine or eighteen or higher? 40 41 Fleming: Well, driving out to,when I go down there to Carver Electric to visit Lee, that's not bad 42 down there. The biggest thing there, from Conway to Leggs plant. 43 13 I Carpenter: Is the intersection of Watson and Tortugus. 2 3 Fleming: Are the intersections, I mean,the road's in good shape as far as that goes but 4 structurally, but the intersections are notoriously dangerous. At the watch front,back side. 5 6 Carpenter: So the nine is correct there? 7 8 Fleming: I would think so, structurally. 9 10 Carpenter: While we're looking at it, let's look at all the points assigned in that column. 11 12 Fleming: I think safety would be. 13 14 Carpenter: Safety is going to be a tell-tale factor and we're not through collecting accident data 15 for the segments. We have to work with the Town of Mesilla,the City police, and the County 16 sheriffs, and the State Highway. 17 18 Fleming: Let me ask you, is there any way that we working with the County can help you get 19 information, can we help. 20 21 Carpenter: Everyone has been responsive, it all has to deal with,we're trying to do this during a 22 major holiday season and people are off so we anticipate by next month that we shouldn't have a 23 problem receiving any of this data for safety. We have rated West Picacho from 14'to the River 24 not including the River bridges, 18 on pavement conditions,we've done the same on North Main 25 which is Chestnut to Solano as 18,US Highway 70,we've placed the pavement condition at 9, 26 that's for the segment between Venus and Porter. If you look at the next page,we rated the same 27 thing on Highway 70 from Porter to NASA we gave it a nine, and then on University Avenue 28 between NM 28 and South Main Street which is essentially Avenida de Mesilla and South Main 29 Street,we gave 30 points for pavement conditions. Is staff fairly correct in our estimations? 30 31 Pillar: I would say that the University Avenue and Snow Road are going to be pretty close to the 32 same comparison as far as. 33 34 Carpenter: How do you want us to assign these? 35 36 Pillar: I would say put Snow Road at a thirty. 37 38 Fleming: Yeah, I would too, I don't think I would reduce the University. 39 40 Knopp: As one who lives on that portion of Snow Road, I agree. 41 42 Carpenter: Mr. Knopp is ready to tell us on the cost/benefit. 43 14 1 Knopp: A question, I didn't see the next page and the interchange constructions. 2 3 Carpenter: Okay,those are all a 1670,that 16713. 4 5 Knopp: I didn't realize that, give me a second to add those in. 6 7 Carpenter: Well actually,you should only be using that ... 8 9 Fleming: Yeah, using that once. 10 11 Carpenter: You only use that once on those projects. 12 13 Fleming: Just add the cost column and divide by that and the same thing on the bottom of the 14 page here. 15 16 Carpenter: You only use 167131. 17 18 Fleming: So you'd have 20,000 something divided by thirty. 19 20 Knopp: 20,000? 21 22 Fleming: Well, if you've got 6,000, I mean 6 million. 23 24 Knopp: We add these but we don't add these. 25 26 Carpenter: Correct. 27 28 Knopp: We keep 16713 as the total for all three and then the cost,we add the three together, 29 right? 30 31 Fleming: Right. Yeah, I was looking back at the previous, sorry Mr. Knopp. 32 33 Knopp: Just a second. 34 35 Fleming: It's about 20,000. That's a little over one. 36 37 Knopp: I rounded them to the nearest one decimal place so we can just go down the road, Snow 38 Road, and this is the daily traffic, average daily traffic divided by thousands of dollars in the 39 other column. So for Snow Road that's 1.0,next one Valley Drive is 60.5, and the next one 40 Main Street is 2.6, Valley Drive North where the Phase II is 2.4, the next one is unrated,US 41 70/West Picacho is 4.1, and then next US 70 Phase III is 5.8, and the, down at the bottom,well 42 now I had those separate but those should also be. 43 15 1 Fleming: Right,they should be added up. 2 3 Knopp: I didn't do that, that way but flip the page then. I'm sorry I didn't realize all six of them. 4 5 Carpenter: No,no,those are two separate projects. 6 7 Knopp: Okay,well then on the second page those three at the top of the second page are 0.8 and 8 let's add these others up. 9 10 Carpenter: I have on correction Mr. Knopp, on Valley Drive Phase I, the construction is 11 $400,000, $4 million dollars. 12 13 Knopp: It's not. 14 15 Carpenter: $300,000. I intermixed projects. 16 17 Fleming: Where was this? 18 19 Carpenter: That's the second project on the first sheet, 2107. 20 21 Knopp: Well,what happens to the Phase II then cost? 22 23 Carpenter: That's three million instead of four million. 24 25 Knopp: Okay, and neither is $300,000, right? 26 27 Carpenter: Correct. 28 29 Knopp: Okay, let's change that. Then that changes, it is not 60 then, it's only 4.5 for that Phase I 30 on Valley Drive. 31 32 Fleming: 4.5? 33 34 Knopp: Right. 3.2 35 36 Carpenter: And what is the first one? 37 38 Knopp: That's, the first one for Phase I is 4.5, for Phase H it's 3.2. The last three at the bottom 39 of the first page for US 70, the combined ratio is 1.5. 40 41 Carpenter: And what you'd get for University? 42 43 Knopp: About 15.8. 16 I Fleming: 15.8? 2 3 Knopp: Yeah. 4 5 Fleming: On the bottom one or the last three? 6 7 Knopp: Right, for University at the bottom. It's a cheap one. 8 9 Tucker: What was that grouping of 3781,what was the,was that 0.8? 10 11 Fleming: Yeah. 12 13 Tucker: Okay, thanks. 14 15 Carpenter: I think, let staff check on the construction, I think we missed a zero. 16 17 Fleming: On University? 18 19 Carpenter: On University. 20 21 Knopp: Like $3 million instead of. 22 23 Fleming: Okay,well that would move it back to 1.58 or 1.6, right? 24 25 Carpenter: That would be correct. Actually, let us check into that because we've assigned the 26 minus four points based on the cost of it being $300,000. We'll need to check that. We have 27 missed a zero. 28 29 Pillar: $300,000 is way short. 30 31 Carpenter: 5o it's probably $3 million. 32 33 Fleming: We're also going to have to change the negative numbers for Phase I and Phase II from 34 2107 and 2560,right? Where we had minus four and minus six, aren't those going to reverse? 35 36 Pillar: No. 37 38 Carpenter: Now they're both minus six. 39 40 Pillar: They're both minus six. 41 42 Fleming: Wait a minute, okay. They're both minus six. That's right because we left off a zero 43 off the one. 17 I Pillar: Phase II construction cost. 2 3 Fleming: Okay. Then that would make this three,you left the zero off, that was $3 million on 4 University, that would be minus six also, right. 5 6 Carpenter: Correct. So Mr. Chairman, based on the cost of benefit,the benefit ratio, the projects 7 with the highest number. 8 9 Fleming: Yeah,because we want to benefit the cost, right? 10 11 Carpenter: We went cost divided by benefit. 12 13 Fleming: No, he went benefit divided by cost. 14 15 Carpenter: Right. 16 17 Fleming: So we go the highest benefit to cost versus the lowest cost of benefit. 18 19 Carpenter: Right, so the highest number is the best. So based on that the first ranked project 20 would be. 21 22 Fleming: Would be 1379. 23 24 Carpenter: Right, that would be the North Main section. So that would be your first ranking. 25 26 Sanders: Could you move those over to the, are the project numbers,they're hidden somewhere. 27 28 Carpenter: Yes they are. They're to the far left. You can see the cost/benefit. Committee 29 member Sanders,you can see the cost/benefit now and the project. 30 31 Sanders: Okay. 32 33 Carpenter: So ranked number one would be North Main,ranked number two would be Valley 34 Drive Phase I,ranked number three would be... 35 36 Pillar: West Picacho construction Phase IL 37 38 Carpenter: Right,ranked fourth would be... 39 40 Fleming: Valley Drive north to Picacho. 41 42 Carpenter: Right, that would be number four. Ranked fifth would be South Main Street,ranked 43 sixth would be University on the second sheet. 18 I Fleming: Yeah, that would be 1.6. 2 3 Carpenter: And ranked seventh would be the 3780 project and ranked eighth would be Snow 4 Road, and ranked ninth would be the other US Highway 70 project on the second sheet. Based 5 on that, starting with 3679, it gets 6 points. That's the one with 5.8 on it, Tim. Right above the 6 5.8 put the six. As does Valley Drive Phase I, it gets six. As does project number three which is 7 the other North Main project which is actually no it doesn't, actually it gets four. As does the 8 next project which is 2560. 9 10 Fleming: That would get four also? 11 12 Carpenter: Project 2518, that gets two. 13 14 Fleming: University gets two. 15 16 Carpenter: North Main, 3780 gets two, all the rest get zero. 17 18 Tucker: Can you just run that down again from top to bottom now, so that I got it right. Snow 19 Road is what? 20 21 Carpenter: Zero. The next project 2107, six, 2518 gets two, 2560 which is Valley Drive Phase H 22 gets four,then we didn't do anything on the other one,then 3448 gets four, 3679 gets six, 3780 23 gets two, 3781 gets zero, and University gets two. 24 25 Tucker: So we have a whole new number of total points. 26 27 Carpenter: Based on the screen, Tim, not including safety issues which we're still waiting on 28 data on, 45, going down, 54, 37, 37, 9, 47, 56, 44 for all three of those projects, 36 for all three of 29 those projects, and then 49. 30 31 Tucker: Well that's not bad, that last one kind of lost two, gained two there. 32 33 Fleming: So that incorporates everything but the safety factors. 34 35 Carpenter: That is correct. Mr. Chairman, the next category is signalization but we currently do 36 not have any projects proposed. I would take in the next item on the agenda that the TAC would 37 be recommending that the Policy Committee add those. Add various projects under 38 signalization. We do not have any railroad crossing or guardrail projects. Essentially all of the 39 guardrails and railroad crossing projects inside the MPO are, have been upgraded over the years. 40 There used to be more projects. The next category in which we have topics is bridges. On page 41 fourteen of your rating system, that's where that begins. 42 43 Fleming: You said all the railroad crossings in the MPO have been upgraded? 19 1 Carpenter: That is correct. 2 3 Fleming: I don't think so. 4 5 Carpenter: Which ones? 6 7 Pillar: Parker Road, Hadley, Compress, University. 8 9 Carpenter: But they all have guardrails. 10 11 Pillar: Guardrails. 12 13 Carpenter: I mean arms. 14 15 Fleming: Do they? 16 17 Pillar: University has arms. 18 19 Tucker: Watson. 20 21 Reyes: Hadley has arms. 22 23 Fleming: How about Parker? 24 25 Pillar: I was thinking where you said Dave,being upgraded. 26 27 Carpenter: Not the actual crossing. Not the crossing, the focus is primarily on arms,that's the 28 safety category. 29 30 Fleming: So we're not looking at the structure or the road or anything? 31 32 Carpenter: Correct. There's a lot of roads across the railroad that need upgrading,but going onto 33 the next category we have bridges. Unfortunately this category is at the least for the amount of 34 information that we have and we're still working with the State. We do know some information 35 and the committee's going to have to bear with us. We're still looking at the percentage of 36 commercial vehicles, the age of the structure we're still researching, safety we're still 37 researching,the structure capacity we have calls into the State Highway Department, and then 38 truck route and hazardous materials storage,we do have that information in there on two of those 39 projects. Bridge width we have that information for two of those projects, and multi-modal 40 component we have two. Based on that, currently the I-25 and University bridges are essentially 41 the same as is the Lohman/I-25 and the University/I-25 bridges are the same. The other two 42 projects are actually on the State Highway system and we're waiting for AADT's and other data 43 related to those bridges. I would anticipate that safety issues are going to be higher on the 20 1 Lohman/I-25 and the University/I-25, not necessarily equally but they will be higher than the 2 other two projects that are listed because,well with the exception of I-25 and Dona Ana,we're 3 still researching that. 4 5 Pillar: That ones had deaths on it. 6 7 Carpenter: Right. So please, if you have any suggestions,but for the most part this will have to 8 be finalized next month. 9 10 Fleming: Okay,we don't have a problem with that. 11 12 Carpenter: And then the last category is enhancement projects. There are no street lighting or 13 culvert projects and enhancements are next. What we've done is staff has evaluated them,the 14 first item is plan support, second item is usage based on the type of enhancement that it is,third 15 column F is estimated project cost, another subtraction category, project readiness, connectivity 16 to another project well actually connectivity to another facility such as a bike lane or a fixed 17 transit route, and then the last one is multi-modal component. As you will notice the landscaping 18 enhancement projects do not get quite a few of the point categories because they don't,they are 19 truly an enhancement, a cosmetic enhancement,they are not a modal enhancement,they are not 20 adding to bicycle facilities or alternative modes of transportation. North Triviz is Phase H of the 21 multi-use path is the closest. There is limited plan support, it's not identified other than in the 22 MPO's plan where as the street lights and landscaping are in City or County or Mesilla plans that 23 have been adopted that are enhancement like urban design corridors,Avenida de Mesilla and 24 University are both within that. Lohman is now within that, US 70/I-25 interchange landscaping 25 is not specifically identified,North Triviz and Spruce/Geothermal Wells are not. We could 26 probably add five more points to usage on North Triviz because it is identified within the bike 27 map. So we will probably add five for that. Usage, the North Triviz, it's the most, it gets 20 28 points because it,bicycle shared facilities. We're basing that on the fact that it's an 29 interconnection of alternative modes of transportation because it's an extension of the existing 30 facility. The rest,we took an assumption and we based it on ten. 31 32 Pillar: Excuse me Mr. Carpenter, on the Triviz bike path,the multi-use path and landscaping, 33 would that not receive 25 points being new construction? Within that project, that's all that's 34 being built is the path. 35 36 Carpenter: That is correct. We can change that to twenty-five. Construction costs are highest for 37 the North Triviz as they are currently estimated. The Avenida de Mesilla is around $100,000, 38 Spruce and US70 landscaping are $500,000, Lohman/I-25 landscaping is at$400,000, and then 39 the University projects are $200,000 plus approximately for each so that's how their points were 40 assigned. The next category is project readiness, essentially the two projects that are closest to 41 being ready are Lohman and North Triviz. I don't know that either one of them deserve the points 42 that staff has assign to them based on the category and the rating system. We're still working on 43 the designs for both of those. So should we remove those points, give everyone an equal basis? 21 I Pillar: Yes, I would say they should be removed. Because I'm working on the North Triviz 2 multi-use path and it's not at a field design inspection. 3 4 Carpenter: Okay, connectivity, the purpose of this factor is to give more importance to 5 enhancement projects that help connecting and/or adding/extending the existing bikes facilities 6 and fixed routes. The only that qualifies in that category is North Triviz so it gets, connecting we 7 give it 15 points. You could argue that, that is an addition and it only deserves the seven, it's just 8 a continuation. And then the multi-modal components, the only ones for each mode connecting 9 different modes of transportation are North Triviz and the University projects. That was a stretch 10 on our part because there is a bike lane adjacent to that project existing so we added those five 11 points but we could easily take those away as well. 12 13 Fleming: Should the street lights and the landscaping carry the same number of points out there? 14 15 Carpenter: Based on this rating system,that is probably the only way that you can do it. 16 17 Fleming: I didn't see any points in there where we could indicate a difference,but that was what 18 I was wondering about the rating system. It seems like the street lights would be a little more 19 important. 20 21 Carpenter: If we were adding a safety component into the rating system or if we had a safety 22 component in the rating system that the street lights may,would definitely contribute to safety or 23 you could argue that it contributes to safety. That would be acceptable,but currently we do not 24 have that within the rating system. So that's where we're at. 25 26 Fleming: How we do today, did we not talk all together? 27 28 Eck: Did pretty good today. 29 30 Fleming: When I was reading those minutes, everybody's talking, I thought well that doesn't help. 31 32 C. Discussion,input and review of the Transportation Improvement Program 33 (TIP)for FY2001/2002. 34 35 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,we have plenty of time to tackle time item B tonight or we can tackle 36 it next month because we will have the project rating complete and the committee will be able to 37 make a recommendation. You still have plenty of time for the overall TIP development. What I 38 had proposed,provided to you in the, in your packet for item B, the next item on the agenda on 39 review of the TIP. Essentially this is the existing TIP turned into a working draft and there's 40 some mistakes that I know of but that's the current year TIP and if you look at the very first page 41 marked page 1 of 11, project 2107 is on there, that's the final design of Valley Drive. That is to 42 be completed in year 2000,that's why under proposed action,the wording is remove because we 43 will have that done in this year so it doesn't apply to year 2001. If you look through it. 22 I Pillar: Excuse Mr. Carpenter, on that didn't we change 2001 to be Phase I construction. 2 3 Carpenter: That is where I made the mistake further down. 2107 shared, on the control number, 4 you have to be very careful because the control number can be in multiple places, so if you look 5 at the middle of page 4 of 11,you will see 2107 again. So that's where it talks about final design 6 versus construction. You will notice all of page one is removal of the 2000 projects. Top of 7 page two, the first project that doesn't need removal is 3103, that's the Lohman/I-25 interchange, 8 the additional lanes and the bridge replacement. I'm proposing no action, it's correct, it's 9 anticipated for 2001. Then we have landscaping enhancement,we need to add that project 10 because it's currently not in there, that was an addition. 3679,the TIP has it as 2000, the State 11 has it at 2001, the State is proposing a delay from 2001 to 2003 and then we go on throughout it. 12 You'll see some of the projects that, if you see something marked under TIP FY or STIP FY,that 13 means the year that it was supposed to be funded but if you see the category N/I,that means it 14 was not included in either one of those,who's not included in the TIP or the STIP. And what 15 we're proposing by the word"update," if you look at project on page 4, project 2503, that's the I- 16 25 at Dona Ana interchange. The State has it in their TIP,their STIP for year 2005, it's never 17 been included in the MPO's TIP,that's why there's an N/I there but actually the State now wants 18 to delay that a year from 2005 to 2006. Next project, 3418, that's I-10 two miles south I think 19 the interchange of I-25 pavement rehabilitation. It was originally proposed as 2003 by us, the 20 State wanted it in their TIP at 2005, the State is to delay it to 2005. 9210,we have it in 2001 to 21 do University Avenue and the State has it as 2006 because that's a State proposed delay. Next 22 project we need to add, 2107 is North Valley Drive,we have it as 2003,the State does not have it 23 included. The reason is, is we do not currently have the funding source for it so that's why it 24 says proposed unfunded. 2560 is unknown, City limits two miles/Engler,we had it for 2003, it's 25 not included in the STIP and the State actually wants to take that to 2004 and beyond. It's 26 important to know we do not have funding for that as well,but we should include it in the TIP 27 because if funding becomes available from another source then we can add it. So what I would 28 ask the committee members to do is to keep this in mind and if there's any questions that you 29 have of staff or information that you can provide to staff or your not sure of why it's worded the 30 way it is,then please contact us or let us know and give us input. We will spend more time on 31 this next month because some of the years that we have marked as beyond 2004,we will be 32 asking the TAC to make a recommendation as to what exact year it needs to be placed. I know 33 we would all like for them to be 2001,but that is not a reality. 34 35 Pillar: Mr. Carpenter, I have a question. Could you enlighten me, guess would be the easiest way 36 to put it, on some of these items in here, rideshare, operating assistance,rolling stock, some of 37 things, once we go back to page 7, 7 and on, it's a lot with the transit system but. 38 39 Carpenter: If you started the top of page 6, the last two projects are landscaping enhancements, 40 all of the rest start where it says LC International Airp., that's the Las Cruces Airport. Of course 41 there's not termini. It talks about runway 30 extension Phase I, then the next one is acquire right- 42 of-way for runway 30 right-of-way and then the next one is enlarge runway 26 holding pad,then 43 a fire station and vehicle,then construct an airport maintenance facility, create a new corporate 23 1 taxi way, new east end on the roadways, microsurfacing and restripping of runway, 4/22, 2 rehabilitate runway 8-26, install remaining guidance signs, those are all airport and then once you 3 start with 7239 on the middle or to bottom of page 7, those are all transit projects. And we meet 4 next week with the Transit and I'm meeting with Ted Morris of the Airport Department to 5 finalize the TIP and STIP,the TIP for the Transit,but you will see for the most a complete 6 package in February with some discussion items that we're going to need the TAC's input on, of 7 what years to put them. We're trying to consolidate this years TIP into Access which will be 8 compatible with the State's TIP so they can compare the two documents and it will be easier. 9 We are also looking at next year of converting to a national TIP system called TELUS, it's 10 Transportation, Economic, and Land Use that was developed by the New Jersey Institute of 11 Technology on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration and we're hoping to get it on the 12 web, that people can look at the projects and it takes it from right-of-way acquisition, design and 13 engineering,to construction and you can track the entire project and it's a lot more global. We 14 just received the packets last week but it's going to take us quite a while to get the TIP in there. 15 And with that, that's all I have on that item. 16 17 18 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS 19 20 A. 2001 Calendar 21 22 Fleming: The next thing we've got to discuss is the calendar of 2001 which you provided us. 23 24 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,the 2001 calendar was included in your 25 packet, please mark them on your calendar. It's standard operating procedure that the TAC meet 26 at least bi-monthly but this is our busy time of the year and usually we get most of the summer 27 off and through the fall and then we start back up in December. We may be looking at that at 28 next year of just setting a calendar from December through May for the TAC of any given year 29 and then cancelling all the other meetings and having special meeting provisions as we need 30 them. But this is the unofficial calendar, it'll be official next week when the Policy Committee 31 adopts it. But we provided it to you so you could mark your own calendars. With that, staff has 32 nothing else. 33 34 Sanders: I've got one question I want to ask. We got a request in our office on a land exchange 35 that we are looking at that might change an MPO route slightly,what is the process for 36 completing this? 37 38 Carpenter: It is to submit a letter in writing to the MPO Officer, essentially requesting a plan 39 amendment to reflect that on the plans, to amend the thoroughfare plan. 40 41 Sanders: I guess as a result of our land exchange so it would be on the entity that's jurisdiction, 42 but it doesn't really matter who? 43 24 I Carpenter: It really doesn't matter who changes, it could be BLM as the existing property owner 2 or it could be the next property owner, if they want to move any right-of-way that is reflected on 3 the MPO map,based on their development, wants, or desires,then they would have to submit it 4 as the case may be. Generally it's the end user that wants to alter the route alignment that's 5 reflected in the, and then again it may be BLM. 6 7 Sanders: Yeah,what we're being asked to do is to reserve right-of-way for it for a lack of a better 8 word,prior to us transferring this land out of the ownership, so we would need to do the route 9 realignment first and then reserve right-of-way. 10 11 Carpenter: Right. Since that is being a condition of your transfer then it would be most 12 appropriate for BLM to submit that letter in writing and then we will, staff will look into it and 13 then bring it to the Technical Advisory Committee for a recommendation to the Policy 14 Committee as a plan amendment. 15 16 Sanders: It would be beneficial if we had like ear, I mean name tags not ear tags. 17 18 Knopp: Didn't we used to have them? 19 20 Fleming: Yeah, I've got some, I think. 21 22 Carpenter: Staff will take care of name tags, name plates. 23 24 Fleming: We had some discussions of some of the things,has anything been done on the East 25 Corridor Study and that road from Mesquite to Weisner, David? 26 27 Carpenter: No sir, nothing specifically has been done other than the fact that it's reflected in the 28 Transportation Plan, but the exact routing alignment has not been finalized from the MPO. If the 29 BLM and the State are working on it actively and the County are working on it actively and 30 you're close then you're probably also need to submit something to the MPO, so we can get the 31 final alignment reflected in the MPO Transportation Plan. 32 33 Fleming: And also on the West Mesa Study Corridor,has anything been done? 34 35 Carpenter: Not on the High Mesa Road, no. 36 37 Fleming: Because I know we've discussed in the County, that if we were going to do anything 38 out there we need to coordinate with the City and MPO, as well as BLM, and see where we can 39 get some right-of-way before there's no way to get right-of-way. 40 41 Carpenter: The other thing,we still have next year to look at is the UPWP for projects which is 42 our Unified Planning Work Program, it's essentially what tells the staff what we should be 43 working on. There are two items this year that the committee members are still aware of is the 25 I Stem Drive alignment near University, the extension because Stern Drive does not go all the way 2 through between Boutz and University Avenue. That is to be studied this year, as is the Shalem 3 Colony Trail issue. It is very doubtful that we will get Shalem Colony completely studied this 4 year, it is also possible that Stern Drive would also not be completed this year so those will be 5 carry over projects. The committee members need to be aware of that we are in the process of 6 doing a Transit study. In two weeks we do ridership collection and the month of February we are 7 sending out 38,000 household surveys in the City utility bills at no cost to get input on the transit 8 system. Our consultant is doing that and by the first of February give or take,we should have a 9 consultant hired to undertake the MPO area-wide travel behavior study and corresponding 10 transportation model update. That coincides with our census information and everything else. 11 The transportation model in not being actively used currently because it has not been updated for 12 quite some time, it has been updated on corridor level for Lohman and US Highway 70 but that 13 doesn't do much for the rest of the MPO planning area, so we are undertaking that effort. That is 14 an eight month contract which is starting in February so the consultant is doing that and staff will 15 provide assistance and direction from there. But that's where we're at so those two projects right 16 now along with the TIP are occupying quite a bit of our time, that's why we're not doing the 17 studies and we'll most likely not get to those until March if not later. 18 19 Fleming: There was some things done at, some students collected some data or something on 20 Shalem Colony Trail. Can we get access to that? 21 22 Carpenter: Yes sir,you can. The City,we haven't even looked at it ourselves, but they did 23 finalize the report for the Shalem Colony area, the collected demographic and land use 24 information but we can make the report available to anyone. 25 26 Fleming: I would like to get a copy of it. 27 28 Tucker: Yes, I would like. 29 30 Fleming: I don't know whether,well because we've got to talk to Ken about the BLM land 31 update and what still is BLM land and hasn't been transferred out there on the West Mesa. 32 33 Sanders: I've got a map I could just provide to you all. Well I'll just ought to have that map 34 here. 35 36 Fleming: That'll be good. 37 38 Carpenter: That's it Mr. Chairman. That's all that staff has. 39 40 Knopp: Which are the State land also. 41 42 Sanders: It shows State land and all the State, Federal, and private and then all the MPO routes. I 43 think it would be helpful. 26 1 IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS 2 3 Fleming: Do we have any public input or anybody, Dickie's not public,he's supposed to be at 4 the table. 5 6 V. ADJOURNMENT 7 8 Fleming: Okay, I guess all entertain a motion to adjourn. 9 10 Reyes: So moved. 11 12 Knopp: Second. 13 14 Fleming: Who moved, did you Marty. 15 16 Reyes: So moved, I'll move, so moved. 17 18 Fleming: Ms. Reyes moved and it's been seconded. All those in favor"Aye." 19 20 All: Aye. 21 22 Fleming: Okay,we're adjourned then,thank you. 23 24 Meeting adjourned at 5:15. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 27 L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A M E S 1 L L A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O.BOX 200001 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 PHONE(505)528-3222 1 FAX(505)528-3155 AGENDA LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The following is the Agenda for a meeting of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Technical Advisory Committee for January 4, 2001 at 4:00 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 A. Review and approval of December 7, 2000 minutes. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of non-voting members and election of officers. B. Discussion, input and review , of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002. C. Discussion, input and review of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2001 Calendar IV. OTHER DISCUSSION V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT &'e� L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A M E S I L L A METROPOLITAN _'11 PLANNING ORGANIZATION �1, P.O.BOX 200001 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 PHONE(505)528-3222 1 FAX(505)528-3155 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 2001 Bill Fleming(V/NV)-Chair Tim Sanders(V/NV) DAC Flood Commission Bureau of Land Management 430 S.Main 1800 Marquess Las Cruces,NM 88001 Las Cruces,NM 88001 647-7256(W) 525-4393(W) Marty Pillar(V)-Vice Chair Dale Kemp(NV) City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit 575 S.Alameda 1501-A E.Hadley Las Cruces,NM 88004 Las Cruces,NM 88004 528-3333(W) 541-2543(W) Robert Garza(V) Henry Magallenez(NV) City of Las Cruces Elephant Butte Irrigation District 575 S.Alameda PO Drawer 1509 Las Cruces,NM 88004 Las Cruces,NM 88004 528-3333(W) 526-6671 (W) John Knopp(V) J.Ken White(NV) Town of Mesilla NM State Land Office 2090 Snow Road Lohman Atrium Suites Las Cruces,NM 88005 1990 E.Lohman 526-6017(I-1)915-833-3740(W) Las Cruces,NM 88001 524-6885(W) Arnulfo Castaneda(V) Town of Mesilla Dr.Robert Czerniak(NV) Mesilla Town Hall Extra-Territorial Zoning Commission Mesilla,NM 88046 PO Box 30001 524-3262(W) MSC/MAP Las Cruces,NM 88003 Dickie Apodaca(V) 646-2815(W) DAC Engineering 2025 E. Griggs Paul Arthur(NV) Las Cruces,NM 88001 Material Test Directorate,US Army WSMR 647-7100(County)644-0296(Cell) White Sands Missile Range,NM 88002 Zak Tucker(V) Tommy Tomlin(Es-Officio) DAC Planning Chairman of MPO Policy Committee 430 S.Main Street 200 N. Church Las Cruces,NM 88001 Las Cruces,NM 88001 647-7237(W) 523-7257(H)541-0276(City)527-9415(W) Ben Woods(V) Vacant Positions(All NV) NMSU Vice President for Facilities Las Cruces Traffic Safety Board Box 30001 Dept. 3545 Las Cruces Public Schools Las Cruces,NM 88003 Las Cruces Planning&Zoning Commission 646-3021 (W)524-3262 Mesilla Valley Safety Council