Loading...
02-01-2001 I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 Thursday, February 1, 2001 4 City Council Chambers 5 6 7 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 8 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on Thursday, February 1, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. 9 in the City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las Cruces,NM. 10 11 Members Present: Bill Fleming, Chair(DAC Flood Commission) 12 Marty Pillar(CLC Engineering) 13 Robert Garza(CLC Engineering) 14 Zak Tucker(DAC Planning) 15 Dickie Apodaca(DAC Engineering) 16 Tim Sanders (BLM) 17 18 Members Absent: Arnufo Castaneda(Town of Mesilla) 19 Ben Woods (NMSU) 20 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 21 22 Staff Present: David Carpenter(CLC MPO Planning) 23 Lisa Fuselier(CLC MPO Planning) 24 25 Others Present: Dale Kemp (CLC Transit) 26 Frank Guzman (N.M. State Highway & Transportation Department) 27 Adrian Apodaca(N.M. State Highway & Transportation Department) 28 Laurie Evans (N.M. State Highway & Transportation Department) 29 Stanley Miller(Public) 30 31 32 I. CALL TO ORDER 33 34 Fleming: Let's call the meeting to order. Okay, it's after 4 o'clock,we'll go ahead and call the 35 meeting to order. 36 37 A. Review and approval of January 4, 2001 minutes. 38 39 Fleming: First item on the agenda is to review and approve the minutes of January 4, 2001. Does 40 anybody have any correction to them? I think we got most of the minutes in this time and last 41 time there were too many inaudibles and everybody talking at once so maybe if we slow down 42 talking, it will help. 43 1 I Carpenter: And Tina and MPO staff worked very hard to correct any inaudibles. 2 3 Fleming: Well,we thank you. We'll try a little harder this time to speak slower, clearer, and a 4 little louder. 5 6 Garza: And more intelligently. 7 8 Fleming: Right. Okay,we'll try that too Robert. 9 10 Pillar: Mr. Chairman, page 19, line 31, it calls out for 1788Tucker, I just ... 11 12 Tucker: I was looking at that. 13 14 Pillar: And then on page ... 15 16 Fleming: Line which one? 17 18 Pillar: 19, line 31 and then on page 22, line 28,who is Eck? 19 20 Carpenter: That would be Tina. 21 22 Fuselier: That's Tina. 23 24 Carpenter: You insulted the secretary. 25 26 Pillar: I think I'll leave now. 27 28 Carpenter: On page 22, line 28, Mr. Pillar did not realize that Tina's last name is Eck and she 29 spoke on the record. 30 31 Fleming: Okay, so we want to strike the 1788, is that correct? Zak,you want to strike the 1788? 32 33 Tucker: Well, I couldn't make sense of that. 34 35 Pillar: I assume that's what we would do. 36 37 Fleming: Okay, any other corrections, if not I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes with 38 the corrections brought up by Marty. 39 40 Pillar: So moved. 41 42 Garza: Second. 43 2 I Fleming: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes with the corrections. All in 2 favor"Aye." 3 4 All: "Aye." 5 6 Fleming: Any oppose? Nobody was opposed so it went unanimously. 7 8 9 II. ACTION ITEMS 10 11 A. Review and approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning 12 Organizations Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation 13 Improvement Programs (TIP) for FY2001/2002. 14 15 Fleming: Alright, now the action items we've got is to review and approve the Las Cruces 16 MPO's Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) for 17 2001/2002. Okay, so we need to look at that,they put things together with our input from the 18 last meeting, is that correct David? 19 20 Carpenter: That is correct Mr. Chairman. What staff would like to do is to go over it. We have a 21 substitution of the rating system for you today and we would like to go over any changes, 22 primarily where the changes occurred from the one that was originally in your packet and then 23 ask for approval from the TAC, for recommendation to the Policy Committee. The first page is 24 New Road Construction projects, that's Triviz at Lohman,that's project control number 3717, 25 that received 91 points. That was the only one under New Construction. The next pages, the 26 next two pages are related to Reconstruction, Overlay and Repavement Projects. As you will see 27 the highest rated project is number 2107 on the very first page at 106 points,then Snow Road 28 which is above that is at 54,then you have South Main Street, Conway to Carver. We just found 29 out from the State Highway Department staff, after your packet went out, that project 2518 was 30 originally on your TIP, that was actually Conway, the MPO staff had it as Conway all the way to 31 the entrance to the L'eggs Plant. It's now been divided into two projects, 2518 and 2360. So 32 Conway to Carver is one and then the next one is Carver to the L'eggs Plant. Conway to Carver 33 will be year 2003, the other one will be 2006. They respectively have 67 and 59 points. Then 34 you have 2560 which is Valley Drive from Phase II, city limits to Engler. 3418 is the next 35 project and that is an I-10 reconstruction project which is 82 points. Next project is 3448 which 36 is Phase II of West Picacho/North Main Street, from 14'hStreet to the River with 69 points and 37 then you have Phase III immediately after that, project 3679,which is Chestnut to Solano which 38 has 92 points. Next page is 3780 and 3781, those are Highway 70 projects. 3780 has 109 points, 39 3781 has 52 points. The last project on that listing is 9210 which is the University Avenue 40 reconstruction from Avenida de Mesilla to South Main Street with 59 points. Forth page is the 41 Signalization projects that we added. They are not included in the TIP in previous years but we 42 will be discussing them at the next action item. In case they get included in the TIP, staff went 43 ahead and rated them. The first one on the page being Amador at 17" Street, it has four warrants, 3 1 therefore it received 51 points in Column D, based on safety accidents, the 98 represents the year 2 in which the last accident data was collected for that intersection, it received 43 points. Multi 3 modal component points are next, they received 7.5 because of a bike lane, so Amador at 17' 4 gets 101.5. The next two are US Highway 70, West Picacho at Shalem Colony Trail, it receives 5 73 points, it had only three warrants. The next one after that is Valley Drive at Hadley Avenue, 6 it also had three warrants but it had more accidents and it also had a proposed, it also has an 7 existing transit route on it unlike Shalem.Colony Trail 8 9 Fleming: The accidents contained at the date that this was taken, up through that date. 10 11 Carpenter: Up through that date. Oh, let me correct that, sorry, accidents, those were the 12 accidents for that year. We look at the most current year, for 1998 it had, if you're looking at 13 Shalem Colony Trail it got 34 points, it had two accidents, one of those with injuries but it also 14 received 13 bonus points. So that's where it came from. It gets bonus points because it was a 15 top ten intersection. Next page which is Bridges, starting at the top is 3130,that's the Lohman at 16 I-25 bridge, that's 100 point. Next one is 3678 which is the I-10/Rio Grande Bridges, 63 points. 17 2503 is the next project, that's the I-25/Dona Ana Interchange, 50 points. The new one which it 18 actually,we now have a project number, a control number which 2360 I believe, 74 points and 19 then 3677 which is the I-10 at the University/South Main/RailRoad Tracks Bridge is 66 points. 20 One thing, under Column H, there is a structural capacity component, the State Highway 21 Department has stopped collecting structural capacity as we have it originally in our rating 22 system, so we worked with the State and they have another number that they use,what is the HS 23 stand for? 24 25 Fuselier: You would ask me. 26 27 Carpenter: That's the inverse of structural capacity. 28 29 Garza: What was it,the HS you said? 30 31 Fuselier: Yeah, the HS number. 32 33 Carpenter: That's the one we asked,we asked Robert Garza about it and that's how we assigned 34 the points. The lower the HS number the higher the points it got,the maximum number of 35 points. So if you will notice, 3677 at the bottom of the page had the lowest HS number of 30, so 36 we gave it the 30 points. That was the maximum available. Then the top two had HS of 33 so 37 we gave it 27 points and we adjusted proportionally downward. 38 39 Guzman: The HS designation is actually the configuration of the axels for the length of vehicle 40 that is imposed on the bridge, and you are correct, the higher the number means that the bridge is 41 able to have a higher capacity for that bridge structure. And I'm glad you all moved to that 42 because we've using something other capacity rating, a sufficiency rating though and that's 43 perhaps not as accurate as what you have now. 4 I Fuselier: That has something to do with a test vehicle, is that correct? 2 3 Guzman: Yes, it's different configurations of axels pose on the bridge member to future capacity. 4 Absolutely you can. 5 6 Carpenter: For the secretary's sake, can we have your name for the record. 7 8 Guzman: Yes,my name is Frank Guzman, I'm the Technical Support Engineer for the Highway 9 Department, District One. 10 11 Carpenter: The next last page before we get to the overall rating is Enhancement projects. The 12 vary from the street lights and landscaping on Avenida de Mesilla down to the University 13 Avenue landscaping. The highest on there would be 44 points for North Triviz, the lowest would 14 be 11 points for Spruce/Geothermal Wells at 1-25 landscaping. Then we took it and put it all on 15 the last three sheets in rank order are the overall projects. It lists the control number, the project 16 number, location of proposed work, termini and project type, it's total points, and it's rank and so 17 there we are. 18 19 Fleming: So basically this covers what's on the other two sheets all together on one, right? 20 21 Carpenter: Right, the last three sheets are a combination of the first five. And there in there by 22 rank order. One of the things that is very crucial for the Committee to understand is that we've 23 always ranked projects in this manner. You're comparing new road construction projects with 24 reconstruction projects with road construction,with bridges and signalization. We're proposing 25 in next year's work schedule that we would modify our rating system and update it so that there 26 is some weighting given to the various projects because a bridge project may receive maximum 27 number of 100 points where as a reconstruction project may receive a maximum number of 150 28 points. That automatically gives the reconstruction project an advantage. That is not a true 29 objective rating system, so we need to look at that. We're proposing that since next year we will 30 not have to rate projects, that we would undertake that effort of revising the rating system. 31 32 Fleming: So the other thing comes across with an equal basis then? 33 34 Carpenter: Either we will weight the projects accordingly based on the category or we will try to 35 refine the system where the maximum number of points are the same for all categories, that way 36 you can compare them all equally. That is what we are proposing. It may not be an easy task but 37 that's what we would like to look into. But that's where the rating works out. There were a few 38 projects that, the reason I had to hand it out today, is we were waiting on some accident data 39 from when the State split out the two South Main projects, that adjusted the numbers so that's 40 why we were able to hand that out today and I apologize. 41 42 Fleming: Where do the accident reports come from, State, County, or what? 43 5 I Carpenter: A combination of all of the above. From the City Police Department,the Town of 2 Mesilla Marshall Officer,through the Sheriffs Office, or the State Highway Department and so 3 we're trying to keep them all on the same year and for the same type of accident information. 4 5 Fleming: And they report them at different frequencies too, I understand right. In other words, 6 the State Police will come out with a report and it may cover a certain time period, and the 7 County will have one, the City will have one. 8 9 Carpenter: And they don't always share accident data with one another because it depends on 10 who files the police,who actually investigated the accident. 11 12 Fleming: So there's no,really there's no essential collection system that puts everything 13 together? 14 15 Carpenter: Correct. 16 17 Fleming: That might be something worth wild. 18 19 Carpenter: I hear you proposing of staff. 20 21 Fleming: No,No, I'm not saying anything David, I just said. 22 23 Carpenter: The other thing that the rank, you should note on the rank,when two projects have the 24 same number of points we gave them a ranking of equal value. So you will notice on the second 25 page, items 9210 and, projects 9210 and 2360 both received 59 points so they were both ranked 26 15' and then Snow Road became 17"ranked project. And that's pretty much it. What we're 27 asking from the Technical Advisory Committee is to make a recommendation to the Policy 28 Committee for adoption of this years rating of the projects. 29 30 Fleming: Does anybody see anything that we didn't discuss last week, other than the new things 31 that were brought in? I think everything has been brought up to date the way we discussed it last 32 week, it looks like. 33 34 Carpenter: There is,we did adjust the cost benefit for reconstruction projects because we added 35 an additional project. So a few more projects got higher points under cost benefit because we 36 added one more. 37 38 Fleming: Okay. Anybody have any questions over the data he's presented to us? If not, I'll 39 entertain a motion that we recommend that the MPO accept the TIP as prepared by the staff. 40 41 Garza: So moved. 42 43 Tucker: Second. 6 I Fleming: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we recommend that the MPO accept the 2 reports prepared by the staff. So, I guess since it's been seconded,we'll have a, are there any 3 questions on it? If not, I'll call for the question. All those in favor say "Aye." 4 5 All: "Aye." 6 7 Fleming: All opposed. Nobody's opposed so it's unanimous. 8 9 10 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS 11 12 A. Discussion,input and review of the Transportation Improvement Program 13 (TIP) for FY2001/2002 14 15 Fleming: Now if I can find my sheet,we'll continue. Alright, so we're through with the Action 16 Items,we have three Discussion Items. The first one is a discussion, input and review of the TIP 17 programs for FY2001/2002. Didn't we do that? 18 19 Carpenter: No, the previous Mr. Chairman, the previous Action Item was for the ranking of the 20 projects. 21 22 Fleming: Oh, the ranking, I'm sorry. 23 24 Carpenter: This is the actual most important document, the actual TIP itself. What was included 25 in your original packet were four TIP'S. One was for aviation projects, one was for public 26 transportation, and the other two were both for thoroughfare projects. What staff has substituted 27 for you today, is we ask that you hold on to your public transportation projects,we're working 28 with transit staff to get a revised TIP from them. The aviation projects are fairly straight 29 forward, there's no ranking of those, they're in order by year essentially by funding availability. 30 What we substituted for you today is the thoroughfare projects, it says thoroughfare projects by 31 year and thoroughfare projects by rank. What we've been able to do is incorporate the aviation 32 projects at the end. They're sorted by highway projects and then aviation projects at the end. 33 And we would like to do is present this to you, answer any questions that you may have, any 34 changes that you're unaware of, and then we will go from there. It's probably easier to look at 35 the TIP based on thoroughfare projects by year. We are required to submit our TIP to the State 36 by rank order but it's easier to look at by year. The first project,the first three projects on page 37 one of six, in ranking by year is 3780,that is US Highway 70. Essentially 1.4 miles east of I-25, 38 that's essentially Venus to Porter, it's four miles in length and the project is listed three times 39 because there's three different funding sources and based on each one of those funding sources, 40 there's a different dollar value. That also happens to be our highest ranked project. The fourth 41 project listed on the page is 3130, that's the Lohman/I-25 interchange as is the next project, 42 3130. Once again the only difference is, is the funding source. 3717 is Triviz at Lohman,that is 43 to connect Triviz between Entrada del Sol to Griggs. Different project number but essentially 7 I it's tied back to the Lohman bridge reconstruction, different funding source as well. 3678 is the 2 I-10/Rio Grande bridges over the Rio Grande, that project was previously scheduled for 2003 by 3 the State Highway Department but due to emergencies it was moved to 2001. There is no local 4 match provision for that project. 5 6 Garza: On your 3717, the Triviz at Lohman,you show a local match and I believe that was 7 suppose to be a State match. Does that sound right? We had a series of agreements and that was 8 one of the fall outs. 9 10 Fleming: So the 260.6 will move over under State, is that correct Robert? 11 12 Garza: I believe so, I believe that's correct. 13 14 A. Apodaca: I think the last that we discussed was the enhancements,the $400,000 worth of 15 enhancements. The City match was $100,000 but we're taking that for your landscape design. 16 17 Carpenter: Under that item Mr. Chairman,we would ask that, this is not an action item so staff 18 will research that specific issue as to who the funding source is for the local match. 19 20 Fleming: Okay, that's on 3217? 21 22 Carpenter: That's 3717. Generally under STP under$200,000 projects,that is a local match 23 requirement,but the State may actually be making that match on the City's behalf so that may be 24 a contingency, may need to note that, that the State is paying for the local match but it still needs 25 to fall under the local match category. 26 27 Garza: Yeah, I think the 3130 is listed corrected with a$100,000 because that was our design. 28 29 Carpenter: If you go to the second page, 3130 is the project that Mr. Garza is speaking of,that is 30 the Lohman/I-25 interchange landscaping enhancements, it's funded by STP Enhancements for a 31 total of$400,000. Because it is enhancements it ranked twenty-sixth. Those are all of the 2001 32 projects. The next project is 2002 which is 3677, that's I-10/University/478/RailRoad tracks,the 33 overpass bridge replacement. That's all funded by the State and Federal Government. The next 34 one is the new with an astriks,that's Snow Road, the reason there's an astriks there is that project 35 is unfunded, $620,000. How the TIP works and under the Federal Regulations,you can include 36 projects that you do not have funding sources for within your TIP if you can reasonably expect 37 that you would receive funding for that project, there is always that potential. That's why we 38 have included Snow Road in this project, there are also others. The other thing that we may want 39 to keep in mind is that the Snow Road project,we will not have to make a decision on until next 40 year if there's no funding,we can move it to a later year when we can expect funding. 41 42 43 8 I Apodaca: Snow Road project,the County is doing some work out there, but it's not going to be a 2 total rehab. It's just kind of more of a maintenance type just to carry it on through the, last a 3 little longer. 4 5 Carpenter: Right, the next project is 3781, there's two of them. That is Highway 70, 5.4 miles 6 east of I-25,that's Porter to NASA Road, that's the reconstruction of the interchanges and the 7 creation of the frontage roads, it's listed twice because of different funding sources. Project 8 2107,that's Valley Drive from Picacho to the City Limits, that's proposed for 2003 but you'll 9 note the astriks, that is a proposed unfunded project. I have it based on previous years TIP's that, 10 that would be a four million dollar project with three million from the fed or the state and then 11 one million from the City. 12 13 Pillar: No,that's in discussion still I believe. 14 15 Garza: Yes, still being discussed. 16 17 Carpenter: And I have that listed with the contingency of the road exchange and I'm assuming 18 that's part of the ... So you need to be aware that, that could be delayed past that year depending 19 on other activities. It's very doubtful that I would anticipate it being moved up earlier. Is the 20 City of Las Cruces going to be the lead on that? 21 22 Garza: Phase I,yes. 23 24 Carpenter: In Phase I, okay. 25 26 Garza: That's still being discussed also as part of the overall discussion. 27 28 Carpenter: 3679, that's North Main, Chestnut to Solano, that is 2003. That has been delayed 29 from 2001. That's a State Highway funding project. 2518,that's South Main, Conway to 30 Carver,that is 2003,that includes the construction of the roadway and the intersection 31 improvements at Watson and Tortugus with South Main Street, $5,100,000, 2003. Page 3 of 6, 32 3781 again,well I know why it's not in the same location or maybe I don't. The computers not 33 supposed to sort by funding source. 34 35 Fuselier: It's sorted by year. 36 37 Fleming: The first one is in 2002,this is 2003. It's a different phase, isn't it? 38 39 Carpenter: It's a different phase because that's an interstate interchange construction,they have 40 one of the last interchanges to be constructed in 2003 where as some of the frontage roads and 41 the other interchanges are suppose to be done in 2002. 2560 is Valley Drive from the City 42 Limits to Miles/Engler. I put that in the 2004 even though it's proposed unfunded. The only 43 9 I reason I did that is because 2003 is Phase I which is also unfunded. I'm assuming the lead would 2 not be the City of Las Cruces for that phase. 3 4 Garza: To be determined. 5 6 Carpenter: Next project is 3418 which is an I-10 pavement rehabilitation, 2005. 3448 is the 7 second phase of or Phase II of US Highway 70 which is West Picacho/14th to the Rio Grande, 8 2005,National Highway funding. Would the City be the lead on that or would State Highways? 9 10 Garza: Highway Department. 11 12 Carpenter: 3833 is the I-25/University Avenue interchange reconstruction,that's for 2006 for 13 $8,000,000, interstate maintenance. 14 15 Fleming: Is that 14' or 17r'`? 16 17 Carpenter: 3448 is from 14t' Street to the Rio Grande just east of the bridge. That's where the 18 existing project stopped, the one they just completed on West Picacho. 19 20 Fleming: Okay, it's right across that canal, that drainage ditch. 21 22 Carpenter: Correct. Going on is 2360, that's the new project from South Main from Carver to 23 the L'eggs Plant reconstruction, 2006. We have it listed as State maintenance but the State 24 Highway staff is still researching the actual funding source for that project. 9210, that's 25 University Avenue between South Main and Avenida de Mesilla, $3.5 million, 2006. I-25 and 26 Dona Ana interchange, 2006, interstate maintenance that's project 2503. Please take note with 27 project 2560,the second one at the top of the page, if that is not funded in that year we will have 28 essentially no highway construction projects in 2004. 2004 is going to be a lean year, but we'll 29 probably not complain because we've had a lot funded between now and then. The last page is 30 the AmadorNalley Drive,the Shalem Colony intersection and all of the enhancement projects, I 31 put then in 2007 though they're not required to be rated but they need to be in the TIP if we want 32 to include them in the out years, that would 2004, 5, and 6 not 2007. So that's, the astriks 33 indicate that's where we need the Technical Advisory Committees recommendation as to what 34 years they would like them to be included, if they would like them to be included in the TIP at 35 all. On the first three projects, the interchange, the intersection signalization projects, staff 36 ranked them this year and we included them in the TIP,but if the City is going to do those 37 projects temporarily,we can also just as easily remove those projects but if we want to try to 38 pursue funding, then we can go from there. 39 40 Fleming: If we leave them in, does it make it easier to pursue funding or not? 41 42 Carpenter: Yes,but it would have to be in something that we could reasonable expect to receive 43 funding for in a year that we would use it. I know that the City is looking to do temporary 10 1 signals not what's been done as far as temporary signals at the Highway 70, but more along 2 permanent line signals at Valley and Hadley and Amador and 17" and those are next years, 3 correct or this years? 4 5 Garza: This year. 6 7 Pillar: Next month. 8 9 Carpenter: Next month. 10 11 Garza: It would be my preference if they stay in here, these intersections are in the top five I 12 think, most hazardous intersections in the entire State right now and the work, if you look at the 13 funding amount on these, there's a significant amount geometric improvements and other work 14 that needs to be done, that's not being done right now and I believe that putting the temporary 15 signals we're putting in now is going to help but they're still going to be very dangerous and 16 probably meet many warrants, even with the temporary signals in there. 17 18 Carpenter: So besides the signalization work we also need to include intersection reconstruction, 19 geometric improvements. That gets us to what year do you think they should be in there. 20 21 Pillar: Move them up as early as you can. 22 23 Fleming: Yeah, I think so. 24 25 Pillar: The Shalem Colony Trail intersection can be the Highway Departments and I know 26 they're looking at trying to get something done on that relatively soon as far as design wise. 27 Funding's going to be a big problem for them on that one, they're anticipating a million dollars 28 on that intersection. 29 30 Garza: `02 for Shalem Colony and then the `03 for the other two or put them all on `02. 31 32 Carpenter: Do you also realize that Shalem Colony has the lowest ranking of those two, of the 33 three? 34 35 A. Apodaca: Can I make a suggestion? 36 37 Carpenter: Adrian Apodaca from the State Highway Department. 38 39 Fleming: Yes. 40 41 A. Apodaca: From my understanding,the first three years of the TIP,the Federal Highway 42 Administration looks at as if it's set in stone, I can't give you guys any definition or clarity to 43 when these projects are going to be funded, but the State's looking at the first three signalizations 11 I projects as being a high priority,but as far as being able to say that they will be done in `01, `02, 2 `03 with any certainty, I don't know we can do that. 3 4 Fleming: Is it, even if we put them in then, is it hard to slide them? 5 6 A. Apodaca: I think it's easier to put them in the `04, `05, `06 range and move them up. 7 8 Fleming: It would be easier to do it that way than it would be to slide them? 9 10 A. Apodaca: That's my understanding and putting them in `04, `05, `06 doesn't mean that we're 11 bumping them back,we're going to do it in those three years. All I'm saying is that FHWA is 12 going to want to see the first three years as seeing some solid funding sources and I don't know 13 that I can say that there were some solid funding sources although it is a very high priority,we 14 want to them as soon as we can. I think if we put them on the outer three years and move them 15 up it will be easier than putting them on the first three years and then juggling them around. 16 17 Carpenter: Please take note that there are, the Federal Regulations said that the TIP has to be 18 financially constrained, those are those projects that are, have secure funding,but there is also the 19 Federal Regulations saying that you can reasonable expect funding for. I don't know that a 20 million dollars to reconstruct the Shalem Colony Trail intersection with Highway 70 is a 21 reasonable expectation in 2002. 22 23 Fleming: What if we were to go, like Adrian says to 2004 and we secured the funding earlier, I 24 mean. 25 26 Carpenter: Then it's an easy TIP amendment. All we're doing is changing the year and it goes 27 straight to the Policy Committee once the funding is secure. 28 29 Fleming: Can I ask you a question Adrian? Is there any chances State would do something like 30 the City's done rather than come in and do the whole thing out there at Shalem Colony and just 31 put in signals temporarily till they're able to do the geometric? 32 33 A. Apodaca: We talked to somebody on that. 34 35 Pillar: No,when we meet with the Highway Department on these three projects,we went out and 36 walked Shalem Colony and they're looking at the main problem being major geometric 37 improvements out there not just putting a signal up. So that's why I think that one's going to be 38 that much money, do it all at once. 39 40 Guzman: It would be a very difficult to quote on quote set temporary signals without some 41 substantial (inaudible) and barriers and things of that sort. It would be difficult. 42 43 Carpenter: That's an extremely wide intersection. 12 I Fleming: Yeah, I realize that, but being extremely wide like that,we've already had one death 2 within the last few months and we're going to have some more before it's over with. So I mean, 3 it's one of those things that granted you can't build exactly what you want but if there's a chance 4 we could alleviate part of the problem and save some, that would be one thing, I don't know. 5 You guys in the Highway Department have to handle that, it's under your jurisdiction. 6 7 Garza: Can I ask a question? Maybe you guys can help me with this. There's a specified 8 funding source for traffic signals in the State, but as I understand,they're working on like two 9 years back, I mean, they weren't able to get to some of those that were warranted way before 10 these were. Is that the case? 11 12 A. Apodaca: That's from my understanding and also that the State,what they do is rank 13 signalization projects statewide and my understanding is they have one pot of money and try to 14 take care of the highest needs as the funding is identified for those needs but the list is much 15 larger than the funding can supply. Of the first three projects they are in the top five statewide, 16 so they're definitely very high on the state prioritization list as well and we're trying to secure 17 funding to do those as soon as we can. 18 19 Garza: I guess the reason I was asking that question was that being that they're in the top five, it 20 would seem logical that funding,we could be reasonable expecting to get the funding within the 21 next three years or so. 22 23 A. Apodaca: Well, that's, I would say that's probably reasonable to expect also but what I'm 24 saying is that if we put them in `02 and we need to put them to `03,we're going to have to do a 25 TIP amendment but it's... 26 27 Fleming: But if we go with `04 then what your saying is that's reasonable expectation. 28 29 A. Apodaca: Right,we're here to do a TIP amendment... 30 31 Carpenter: We'll have to do a TIP amendment no matter what. 32 33 A. Apodaca: ... what the Federal Highway Administration is looking at the first three years 34 saying, okay well you've got these projects in `01 with secure funding, you've got these projects 35 in `02 with secure funding, and you've got these projects in `03 with secure funding,but that 36 might not be the case because we might have to move priors from `02 to `03, `03 to `02,juggle 37 them around. I understand that from a Federal Highway Administration prospective it might 38 look a little better to move from `04 up to `02 if that were the case. 39 40 Carpenter: I think it's important that we included it in the TIP the years that we included in the 41 TIP is not so important but you also have to realize that we have other projects in the `02 and `03 42 that are proposed unfunded, Snow Road and Valley Drive,both are proposed unfunded. The 43 million dollar price tag for Shalem Colony Trail and Highway 70 is probably not a reasonable 13 I expectation any time in the future, the others possible but you also have to realize that Snow 2 Road is $620,000 and the Valley Drive projects are $4 million and$3 million a piece but we 3 already have them programmed for 2003, that we're going to have to make a change. I would 4 feel less secure inputting them in 2001. We were proposing these projects for 2001, I'd have 5 serious concerns,that's July, it's not going to happen. 2002, might be pushing it, 2003 and 2004, 6 might be more realistic. 7 8 Evans: David, we want to see on the first unfunded is at the end of list, they don't need to be here 9 at all until they're funded. 10 11 Carpenter: We could do that also. 12 13 Garza: That sounds like a good way to approach it. I just don't want to say,well we don't need 14 them until then. 15 16 Fleming: Okay,what was that we're going to do with them or it was suggested what we're going 17 to do with them? 18 19 Carpenter: Based on Ms. Evans suggestion is that all of the proposed unfunded projects would 20 not include a year,they would essential go to the end of the TIP, they would be marked as 21 proposed unfunded projects, and then we can leave them there. 22 23 Fleming: But not have a year associated with them? 24 25 Carpenter: Right. 26 27 Fleming: Basically this TIP has to cover 2001, 2002, and 2003, right? 28 29 Carpenter: Those are the first three years of secured funding out of six. So you have to,the first 30 three have to be financially constraint,the first three... 31 32 Fleming: And we've got that pretty well covered? 33 34 Carpenter: That is correct. 35 36 Fleming: Okay, so 2004 coming up we don't know what's,have any idea? 37 38 Carpenter: We have some idea,we don't have much in 2004,we have more in 2005 and 2006. 39 But based on that. 40 41 Fleming: So instead of putting in 2007 all these... 42 43 Carpenter: No date. 14 I Fleming: We would just leave the dates out. 2 3 Garza: To be determined. 4 5 Carpenter: To be determined. 6 7 Fleming: Okay, I can live with that. 8 9 Carpenter: We could do also the same for Snow Road and the two Valley Drive projects. Those 10 are on page 3, 2560 for 2004 the second project on page 3, that would go to blank as would 11 project 2107 in the year 2003. And Snow Road also on that same ... 12 13 Fleming: Just take those years out then. 14 15 Carpenter: Right. 16 17 Fleming: And then we could move,would you move those projects down to the end? 18 19 Carpenter: To the very end. 20 21 Garza: But the ranking would stay. 22 23 Fleming: But the ranking stays with it. 24 25 Carpenter: That is correct. That way if funding sources become available and they ask,well do 26 you have one,we already have them rated and ranked. 27 28 Fleming: Okay, does this reasonable you guys doing it that way is better you think? 29 30 A. Apodaca: Yeah. 31 32 Carpenter: We will do the same for the Outfall Channel, for the enhancement projects based on 33 ranking which finishes off page 4 and the top of page 5. 34 35 Fleming: Okay. 36 37 Carpenter: The last page, 5 and 6, those are Federal Highway, Federal Aviation/Airport projects 38 and those are ranked in order by year and that's been discussed between MPO staff and the 39 airport staff. 40 41 Fleming: Okay,that's when,beginning in year 2000, right on page 5? 42 43 15 I Carpenter: Correct. Generally we would not include 2000 year project from the airport because 2 this is the 2001 TIP,but the airport is looking at a possible change to that project and so they 3 have the funding but it's close to the end of the fiscal year and it may need to be changed 2001 so 4 they wanted to include it. 5 6 Fleming: Okay, it sounds reasonable to you Zak, Tim, Marty, Dickie? It sits with you David? 7 8 Carpenter: Perfect for me. 9 10 Fleming: Okay, Robert? 11 12 Carpenter: It makes my life easy. 13 14 Tucker: The only issue I have Dave, is that I have a five page report rather than a six. 15 16 Fleming: That's why they call you 1788,Zak. Okay, Tim before you leave, can I entertain a 17 motion from somebody that we accept the TIP as amended in this meeting. 18 19 Carpenter: It is not an action item, it's discussion only so staff will take our direction from the 20 comments made today and next month hopefully we will have the entire thing ready for you. 21 22 Fleming: Okay. 23 24 B. Discussion,input and review of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning 25 Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for FY2001/2002 26 27 Fleming: Okay, now we need to look at the Unified Planning Work Program for 2001/2002, is 28 that correct? 29 30 Carpenter: Correct, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, each year the MPO staff has to 31 have an Unified Planning Work Program that tells us what we're going to work on. For the most 32 part, every year several of these items remain unchanged, that's attending committee meetings 33 and then working on the TIP and the UPWP, those are always listed on our Unified Planning 34 Work Program. We also do ongoing data collection activities such as the traffic count program 35 and population and land use information collection. We also maintain the long range 36 transportation plan. With that, for the most part, everything is unchanged through page 10. 37 Beginning on page 10, talks about projects that we will undertake. Some of them are new, some 38 of them are old. Currently,you will notice on the very first item on page 10,the Travel Behavior 39 Survey, the contractor will, this has been in the UPWP for a couple of years,we just finally 40 executed the contract and we have an addendum going to the contract next week,hopefully to the 41 contractor but it's nonsubstance of changes that's procedural stuff, it doesn't effect the contract. 42 This will be a carryover, they will have started at this fiscal year and it will end next year so 43 that's why we're including it in this years UPWP. The EMME 2 model improvement,that will 16 I be crucial and it will be tied back to the results from the Travel Behavior Survey. We will also 2 continue our GIS activities. Page 11, Bicycle Element/Bicycle Facilities Master Plan update, 3 that relates to the BFAC. Second item is future roadway planning and evaluation of west Las 4 Cruces/Shalem Colony Trail area, that's a carry over from this year's UPWP, staff doubts that 5 we will have it ready for the TAC and the Policy Committee to make a transportation plan 6 amendment by the end of this year's fiscal year so we're including that as a carryover project, as 7 is Stern Drive. State land planning project, that is also a carryover. New projects are at the page, 8 the bottom of page 12. Truck route/hazardous cargo route designation,we will be working with 9 the County's Office of Emergency Management on designated hazardous cargo routes within the 10 MPO boundaries. It's a very lengthy process, it's legislative in nature, it requires coordination 11 between the City, the County, the Town of Mesilla, the State Highway Department. The other 12 thing is we are also looking at updating the City's, the truck route map for the MPO area. We 13 have an old, old truck route and we thought that we would undertake that effort. Intelligent 14 transportation system plan development, this item is called for within the MPO transportation 15 plan,we would like for the City's Traffic Operations Department to take the lead and then the 16 MPO staff would assist in actually the development of an intelligent transportation system plan. 17 That relates to signal pre-emption and maximization of your signalization timing and there's 18 other things, it also has to deal with emergency vehicle notification. The City of Albuquerque 19 and the Middle Rio Grande Council Governments,which is the MPO for Albuquerque has had 20 quite a bit of success with ITS planning and they have offered and made their services available 21 to the Las Cruces MPO to help us undertake this effort. Scenic Byway Study and High Mesa 22 roadway and rail study, these are efforts that will have to coordinated with the other agencies like 23 the Dona Ana County and the South Central Regional Planning Organization; the Town of 24 Mesilla for scenic byway designation primarily for Avenida de Mesilla as you head south from 25 Mesilla. And then the High Mesa roadway and rail study, due to development along the border 26 at Santa Teresa, there's the potential for the need for finalizing the alignment for the High Mesa 27 road out on West Mesa and that will have to be a coordinated effort between the County 28 Planning staff, MPO, and the Regional Planning Organization staff. The majority of the roadway 29 alignment would be outside the MPO jurisdiction, but there is some of it that it is inside. That is 30 a study corridor currently on the MPO's transportation plan and so we would like to assist or 31 undertake that effort. 32 33 Fleming: I didn't see any mention of the study corridor out here on the East Mesa, is that going 34 to be in this? 35 36 Carpenter: Well, those are ongoing projects with the County and the BLM, that would be most 37 likely a part of our regular update to the transportation plan. If we need to do an amendment,we 38 would consider those projects being lead by the County and BLM and then they would approach 39 the MPO staff for a plan amendment and then we would go through our process. 40 41 Tucker: David, if we wanted to look at some kind of linkage between Organ and West because 42 there was some discussion in the Comp Plan about that and this was mentioned a few meetings 43 back, is there someway that we can bring it a little bit more ahead and active? 17 I Carpenter: We can,we can identify it just like we did the Shalem Colony Trail, it's just pending 2 on the direction of the TAC wants us to do,we can do that. 3 4 Fleming: Now this what, east/west? 5 6 Carpenter: This is the East Mesa Loop Road. I take you're talking about the East Mesa Loop 7 Road. 8 9 Fleming: Yeah,the East Mesa Loop Road. Okay,what's the best way for us to get that on so we 10 know that these guys are coordinating with you guys and everything, David? 11 12 Carpenter: We'll just put it in there. 13 14 Fleming: Can we put it in there without any problem? 15 16 Carpenter: Not a problem. The next item is a short range transportation planning. That's 17 primarily related to planning for alternative modes other than highway planning. Welfare to 18 Work Plan, Short Range Transit Study, Welfare to Work is a carryover, the Short Range Transit 19 Study,this would most likely relate to implementation,we anticipate having the actual plan from 20 the consultant before the end of the fiscal year, but then it will require us to do public hearings 21 for actual implementation with this gentlemen, Mr. Kemp from the Transit Department for the 22 City. Also included as a new project is a Long Range Transit Plan/Inter-Modal Transportation 23 Feasibility Study and we're looking to do that as soon as we get the Short Range Transit Plan 24 Study done. Capital Improvement Program, US 70 Assistance Analysis, that's a carryover. 25 Lohman/I-25,we will continue that through the construction process as it relates to public 26 transportation. Then the last page on 14 is TIP, that's talking about efforts related to the yearly 27 TIP process. This year we want to look at two parts. We want to update the rating system and 28 then also we want to look at a new software package that the Fed's have put out related to,we're 29 creating a TIP report. This years TIP is created in Access, but this one is a little more 30 comprehensive package. What we would like to do is evaluate the other package, if it's just, the 31 other package is intended for multiple,New Jersey developed it and it's, their MPO has like 13 32 counties,two states involved, it's a little more comprehensive package. It may not be worth the 33 Las Cruces MPO's efforts because it's very data heavy, it's got a lot of information, it may not 34 be justified for us using it, but we would like to evaluate. And that's pretty much it,the last page 35 is our funding,that is still a very much a work in progress, that's last years funding. We 36 anticipate receiving this month of what our funding source, our funding amounts will be. 37 38 C. Discussion of Elks Drive classification 39 40 Fleming: We have one more thing to discuss under Discussion Items and that's the Elks road. Is 41 there any. 42 43 18 I Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, there's several roadways inside the MPO 2 area,more specifically within the City limits of Las Cruces that are reflected on the MPO 3 Transportation Plan, as roadways of a higher classification than what they probably actually 4 should be. One of those is Elks Drive. Mr. Garza from the City's Engineering office approached 5 us to look at the reclassification of Elks Drive specifically from North Main Street to the Sand 6 Hill Arroyo and I will let Mr. Garza explain where he's coming from. 7 8 Garza: Thank you Mr. Carpenter. Basically what we're looking at for those of you who have 9 been out on Elks Drive,we have two lane road out there right now. City Council recently denied 10 a subdivision out in that area simply because of the impact to Elks Road. We realized long ago 11 that we needed to go out there and build an arterial, at least a four lane road. And so in doing 12 that we went out and we studied it,we looked at our typical 120 foot arterial width and we 13 realized that it was going to impact many homes, I think 8,we would have to buy the entire 14 house. The right-of-way cost was going to be in the area of about two million dollars and the 15 road construction cost was going to be approximately one million dollars,just widening the 16 existing road. And after realizing that and looking at it,we came to the realization that we 17 probably need a four lane road in there, maybe a five lane road or left turn median down the 18 center similar to what we have on Missouri, as an example. That road was recently rebuilt in 85 19 foot right-of-way and that's essentially what we're recommending we do with Elks for a lot of 20 reasons. One, by doing that we reduce the right-of-way impacts considerably. We don't take so 21 many people's homes and we can still built a road that can carry the capacity that we're 22 expecting on that road. The limitations of going 85 feet versus the 120 which was in the plan is 23 that we will not be able to expand it later to six lanes without a considerable cost so it's kind of a 24 decision we need to make now and I'm not real sure but I understand from our, some of the 25 previous Planning staff that there may have been some action taken by the City Council several 26 years ago to down grade this classification to 90 feet. Currently we have a road section in our 27 design standards, as I mentioned, for 85 feet and that's what we would like to see so we move 28 forward and build this project. 29 30 Fleming: So you're saying with the 85 foot right-of-way,you could construct a five lane road 31 similar to Missouri? 32 33 Garza: Yea, exactly,we could get bike lanes in the street, standard curb gutters, sidewalks, street 34 lighting, all the elements that we need we can get within 85 feet. 35 36 Pillar: Though with this 85 to 90 feet right-of-way, is this going to be enough right-of-way to 37 have the continuation of the multi-use path? 38 39 Garza: No,we would have to go with essentially what we have on Missouri as bike lanes and I 40 believe the BFAC,your Bicycle Facilities Advisory Committee, had Elks north listed as bike 41 lanes,they want bike lanes there. 42 43 19 I Carpenter: That is their preference. One of the unique portions of Triviz Drive is provided the 2 City and the MPO area is the interstate right-of-way has greatly served the implementation of the 3 multi-use path because the bicycling community and AASHTO's guidelines prefer that if you put 4 in a multi-use path on one side of the roadway,you need to provide some separation between that 5 traffic that is going in both directions on that multi-use path with the roadway traffic which is 6 heading north/south but you have bi-directional traffic immediately adjacent to it. The AASHTO 7 guidelines for bicycle facilities recommend a minimum separation of around 4 to 5 feet if not 8 more,they would prefer more. We have that in the Triviz path south of the Outfall Channel and 9 beyond but we won't have that on North Elks. We may have it, that potential on North Elks as 10 we go further north. 11 12 Fleming: After you get out by the interstate. 13 14 Carpenter: Because Elks becomes the frontage road to the interstate again and the bicycle 15 community and the BFAC prefer the bike lanes on the traffic. That doesn't probably also, 16 always serve the bicycling public to the outmost because there's a difference between a child 17 riding a bicycle and an adult casual bicyclist and what I would consider an adult professional 18 bicyclist. Those people that I consider professional bicyclists will ride on the road with the 19 vehicles, children and the rest of us probably wouldn't on a normal day unless we have a wide 20 bike lane. 21 22 Fleming: Well children tend to turn rather quickly. 23 24 Carpenter: As do adults. 25 26 Fleming: Yea, but most children will turn without even thinking. 27 28 Carpenter: One of the benefits of adult cyclists, they generally know the rules of the road,they 29 know that you're suppose to stop at stop signs whether you're in a car or on a bicycle,not 30 always. But they do know the rules of the road,where as a children will not know that because 31 they've never had to learn how to drive so that's one of the disadvantages of a bike lane. 32 33 Fleming: If we go with the 85, or we recommend later on if they ask us to recommend,will the 34 people on bikes, they'll still have a lane but it won't be like multi-use lane along Triviz, is that 35 correct? 36 37 Carpenter: That would be correct, it would be a lane on both sides of the roadway. 38 39 Fleming: A regular bike lane. 40 41 Carpenter: A regular bike lane. 42 43 Fleming: So the discussion is you just want to get our opinion of it, right? 20 I Carpenter: If the Technical Advisory Committee feels that they would support a down grade on 2 the classification of Elks Drive specifically between North Main and the Sand Hill Arroyo then 3 staff will proceed. 4 5 Fleming: What do you think Marty? 6 7 Pillar: Just a question on that Sand Hill Arroyo, Ben Holstein has a subdivision they just put in 8 there and in that we have the 120 foot of right-of-way,will we have the classification change at 9 that subdivision or the Sand Hill Arroyo? 10 11 Carpenter: It would probably be immediately to the south of that arroyo,the subdivision. 12 13 Garza: Including Arrowhead Estates as the subdivision. 14 15 Carpenter: So would you want to include Arrowhead Estates to the 85 feet or leave it at the 120? 16 17 Garza: No, leave it, leave what we have and probably do the transition between the Sand Hill 18 Arroyo and Arrowhead Estates and transition from 85 to 120 in that reach. 19 20 Pillar: Okay, if we were to do that,would a portion of the right-of-way that they have dedicated 21 at 120 foot,would that revert back to those property owners? 22 23 Garza: It could be, it could be vacated. 24 25 Carpenter: The other thing that you need to realize is that when the City excepted the proposal 26 for the Zia Shadows Mobile Home Park, we actually made that them dedicate 50 feet of right-of- 27 way on the east side and then we also,we bought an additional 50 feet in addition to that 28 dedication on the east side of Elks Drive. So it makes sense for us to finish Elks as a major 29 arterial and leave that designation unchanged as we head northward to Dona Ana. There also the 30 other, there's other roadways that we probably need to look at on a continuous basis such as 31 Spitz. Spitz is designated as a collector within the major thoroughfare plan for the MPO but 32 actually it will never be higher than what it is now, a major local so we need to undertake that 33 effort. And Spitz is probably rather unique, it functions as a collector, but it's built in a major 34 local cross section, so we probably need undertake some special notations within the MPO 35 Transportation Plan to reflect that,that it is still a designated collector but it's built within a 36 major local right-of-way. 37 38 Fleming: What's the approximately length going to be of this 85 foot right-of-way up to,you 39 know,where it starts there, I guess it starts at Main Street, right,North Main and then it'll go 40 until it start the transition with. 41 42 Carpenter: Central arroyo. 43 21 I Garza: About two miles. 2 3 Fleming: About two miles. 4 5 Garza: Starting right here at Triviz Drive, Highway 70, essentially from this point,Avondale 6 Drive actually, this will go all the way to 70, up to approximately here, essentially about a mile. 7 8 Fleming: Do you feel safe with that Marty? 9 10 Pillar: Okay, as far as reducing right-of-way on it, that'll work to get the project built and get it 11 up to five lanes. A question comes up as far, even if we down grade this to a collector,we're still 12 going to have 8 to 9 homes that front on Elks Drive, we're just going to grandfather those in. 13 14 Carpenter: Reduce set backs, reduce property lines, acquire the right-of-way in front. 15 16 Tucker: I need to take a closer look at our zoning. We will need to maybe work in conjunction 17 with the City, see if we could do a transition of zone designations for that area that will support 18 your effort here. 19 20 Carpenter: Most of the zoning in the Elks Drive area is single family residential except right 21 there at North Main. 22 23 Fuselier: Almost all of it will. 24 25 Carpenter: Almost all of it. There's also ... 26 27 Apodaca: ... Elks by Dona Ana's nonresidential zoning out there also. 28 29 Carpenter: Right, the other thing is, several of those parcels are large lot parcels,not your 30 standard 5,000 to 8,000 square foot, there's a couple I think that are actually half acre, if not 31 larger, and hopefully they have larger setbacks than normal as well. 32 33 Tucker: With the program you have right now,the excess and so on, can we do some future 34 estimations like,you know,we've got this zoning so potential for AADT. 35 36 Carpenter: That is a crucial part of the overall model update. That's the intent behind the model 37 update is so that you will be able to predict that if you change the land use pattern to a high 38 intensity use,that will generate so much more traffic than what is currently there,how does that 39 impact your overall transportation network. So why it's crucial that the MPO undertake this 40 effort of having the model and the travel behavior survey updated, because we haven't done that 41 in so long,we haven't been able to do that because the model has been updated from a land use 42 and a population and travel behavior statistics. 43 22 I Tucker: We, when I say we, staff ETZ side and the ETZ Commission will be looking at 2 prioritizing our activities and we're looking at studies in areas that we feel that perhaps the 3 zoning is not appropriated and tie that in with this effort. 4 5 Carpenter: I think it would have to be crucial to the model effort and to the planning efforts and 6 then you get back to amending the MPO's transportation plan. Changing people's zoning is not 7 a favorite discussion. 8 9 Garza: Especially,when you zone down. 10 11 Carpenter: So with that Mr. Chairman,we will bring this forward as an action item for 12 recommendation to the Policy Committee. It will most likely not be the March meeting, it will 13 most likely be April. 14 15 Fleming: Will we see it again or will it go? 16 17 Carpenter: You will see it. 18 19 Fleming: Oh,you'll bring it back to us for a recommendation then? 20 21 Carpenter: Yes. 22 23 Fleming: Okay. 24 25 26 IV. OTHER DISCUSSION 27 28 Fleming: Are there any other items for discussion? 29 30 31 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 32 33 Fleming: Any public comments? We've had some pretty good input from the Highway 34 Department, thank you guys for coming here today and you too. When I say guys, I include 35 everybody, guys, gals. Thank all of you. 36 37 38 VI. ADJOURNMENT 39 40 Fleming: Stan did you have anything you wanted to bring up today? 41 42 Miller: No sir, thank you. 43 23 I Fleming: Okay, in that case I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. 2 3 Garza: So moved. 4 5 Pillar: Second. 6 7 Fleming: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. 8 9 All: "Aye." 10 11 Fleming: Okay, we're adjourned. 12 13 Meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 24 r 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 20000 i LAS CRUCES NM 188004 AGENDA PHONE(505)528-3222 FAX(505)528-3155 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 February 1, 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 January 4, 2001 minutes. 11. ACTION ITEMS A. Review and approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion, input and review of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002. B. Discussion, input and review of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for FY 2001/2002. C. Discussion of Elks Drive classification. IV. OTHER DISCUSSION V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT