Loading...
03-01-2001 I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 Thursday, March 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,March 1,2001 at 4:00 p.m.in the 9 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 Dickie Apodaca(DAC Engineering) 15 Tim Sanders (BLM) 16 Ben Woods (NMSU) 17 18 Members Absent: Arnufo Castaneda(Town of Mesilla) 19 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 20 Zak Tucker(DAC Planning) 21 22 Staff Present: David Carpenter(MPO Officer) 23 Lisa Fuselier(MPO Staff) 24 25 Others Present: Dale Kemp (CLC Transit) 26 Alvin Dominguez(NMSHTD) 27 28 29 I. CALL TO ORDER 30 31 Meeting called to order at 4:03 p.m. 32 33 Fleming: I guess we'll call the meeting to order. 34 35 II. ACTION ITEMS 36 37 A. Review and approval of February 1,2001 minutes. 38 39 Fleming: And first in the action items is review and approval of the February 1'minutes and I was 40 going through it, I didn't see anything that looked out of place. So, any other, anybody see 41 anything? 42 43 Garza: They looked pretty representative to me. 1 I Fleming: Okay,if not,I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes and approve them as submitted. 2 3 Garza: So moved. 4 5 Fleming: Second? 6 7 Apodaca: Second. 8 9 Fleming: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of February the I", all 10 in favor. 11 12 All: "Aye." 13 14 Fleming: Okie Dokie, looks like it's unanimous then, so we've got that part taken care of. 15 16 B. Re-review and recommendation for approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan 17 Planning Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation of the 18 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002 through 19 2006/2007 20 21 Fleming: Okay, the next thing is the re-review and recommendation for approval of the MPO's 22 Rating of Projects in preparation for the TIP that we went through and approved,I don't see anything 23 that we hadn't discussed. We seem to have everything in there. The points they have are pretty 24 much like we had discussed. Any comment, Marty, Dickie, Robert? 25 26 Garza:No,this is where Mr.Carpenter you moved all the projects that weren't funded to the bottom 27 of the list so that it didn't appear ... 28 29 Carpenter: Actually, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, what I did and only I did in my 30 infinite wisdom, included 2001 projects in the TIP. Well, the first year of this year's TIP is 2002 31 so we rated projects that we did not need to rate and so we removed them from the TIP rating 32 system. 33 34 Fleming: Those were the ones that were back. 35 36 Carpenter:No,those are Highway 70 projects that have already been completed or will be let by the 37 middle of the summer. We have the next phase of Highway 70 to be let next week,we have Lohman 38 to be let this summer, that's already covered in this year's TIP. 39 40 Fleming: So these do not have any in 2001? 41 42 Carpenter: Right,because we're looking at Federal fiscal year 2001. So whatwe did is we removed 43 those projects that we shouldn't have rated and from the rating system,we eliminated them and the 2 1 points did not change for any projects that were left and based on those points,we re-ranked them 2 and that's what it is. So that's why we're asking that you re-review and make a recommendation 3 on the rating system first and then we'll talk about the TIP,that's Item B on your amended agenda. 4 5 Fleming: Now, all of these are funded, right? 6 7 Carpenter: No sir, not necessarily but we've rated all ... 8 9 Fleming: Okay, but we anticipate funding where you've got 2005, 2006? 10 11 Carpenter: We're hoping to anticipate funding for 2005 and 2006. Those projects that are listed as 12 unfunded in your TIP, we're including in the TIP in hopes of receiving funding for those projects 13 and if need be, we can adjust them through a TIP amendment later or through next years TIP 14 depending on the needs of the TIP. 15 16 Fleming: When you go through an update like on these signalizations, in other words, all this is 17 based on information received up through `98, is that correct? 18 19 Carpenter: That is correct. Some of it was `99 when we had opportunity,when we had more current 20 data we used the most. 21 22 Fleming: As the data comes in,will you update? 23 24 Carpenter: Right. 25 26 Fleming: Okay,is there any question on the re-reviewing of the MPO's Ratings? Okay,if there are 27 no questions, then I will entertain a motion that we recommend for approval the Las Cruces 28 Metropolitan Planning Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation for the TIP. 29 30 Garza: So moved. 31 32 Pillar: Second. 33 34 Fleming: Okay,it's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval for the MPO's Rating 35 of Projects in preparation for TIP for 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. All in favor. 36 37 All: "Aye." 38 39 Fleming: All oppose. Okay, it carried unanimously. 40 41 C. Review and recommendation for approval of the Transportation Improvement 42 Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002 through 2006/2007 43 3 I Fleming: Okay,the next item on the agenda is the review and recommendation for approval of the 2 TIP for 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. Now that was one... 3 4 Carpenter: Here's the meat and potatoes, here's the important stuff. 5 6 Fleming: This is the one we substituted, is that correct? 7 8 Carpenter: That is correct. You should have substituted this into your packet, yet again another 9 blunder on my part by including last year's projects. We took the opportunity at this time,staff took 10 the opportunity and we definitely want your direction, all of the projects listed on pages 1 through 11 the top half of page 3 are currently existing funded projects through 2002 through 2006. Pages 3 12 start the Transit projects through page 6. The bottom of page 6 starts the Airport projects,most of 13 which are funded and then page 8,the second item listed,project control number 2107 is where staff 14 took liberty to assign projects that are currently unfunded and are listed as proposed unfunded to 15 various years outside the years 2002, 2003, 2004. Under the Federal Regulations, the first three 16 years of the TIP must be financially constrained. Beyond those years,we can include projects in the 17 TIP that we reasonably expect to receive funding for. What we did is we, starting with the year 18 2005,we put Valley Drive first which is the number one ranked proj ect and then we put Snow Road 19 in 2005,we put the Amador and 17'Street intersection,signalization,and geometric improvements 20 in 2005. Then we also put Hadley Avenue and Valley Drive signalization and geometric 21 improvements for that intersection in 2005. And the next page on top of page 9,we put US 70 at 22 Shalem Colony Trail intersection, signalization in 2006 and then we put Valley Drive, the second 23 phase from the City limits to Myles/Engler in 2007. All six of those projects are unfunded. The one 24 exception, generally they're in ranked in order in assignment of years except for the Snow Road 25 project. I included that in 2005 because it had been on the TIP previously but at the direction of, 26 where as the Amador, 17",and Valley intersections were not,they were added this year to the TIP, 27 but I included them. If the Committee would like to make a formal recommendation to adjust those 28 to different years, then staff will do that. 29 30 Fleming: When we were talking to the Highway Department last time and isn't that about where we 31 talked about moving them or was it 2004? 32 33 Carpenter: 2004 has to be financially constrained so we can't put it in 2004. 34 35 Fleming: Okay, so 2005 would be the first year. 36 37 Carpenter: Right and we can adjust those accordingly. 38 39 Pillar:Mr. Carpenter,with our meeting that we had with the Highway Department this morning,we 40 discussed the Valley Drive, outside of the City limits and if I recollect correctly, the Highway 41 Department is saying they do not have that project listed in their TIP. 42 43 4 I Carpenter:That is correct because it is an unfunded project currently. There's nothing that prohibits 2 the MPO from putting an unfunded project in it's TIP provided it's in the out years. 3 4 Fleming: Now we're talking about 2560 is the project, right? 5 6 Pillar: Yes. 7 8 Carpenter: 2107 actually on page 8. 9 10 Pillar: Page 9. 11 12 Carpenter: Right, and 2560 is the second phase of Valley Drive. 13 14 Fleming: Yeah, that's from the City limits out. 15 16 Carpenter: Right. 17 18 Fleming: That's the one you're always talking about. 19 20 Garza: I think, both phases fall in the same category. 21 22 Carpenter: Both are unfunded projects. If you look in your packet at the very last page,2001/2002 23 is the very first year of the TIP,we have$23 million dollars worth of highway projects,2002/2003 24 we have $12 million dollars of funded projects, 2003/2004 which is the last year of financially 25 constrained TIP with have zero thoroughfare projects, 2004/2005 we have $11 million dollars of 26 funded projects, $5.365 million dollars based on the information contained within your packet of 27 unfunded projects,2005/2006 we have$1 million dollars of unfunded,and then$9.3 million dollars 28 of funded projects and then 2006/2007 we have$3 million dollars of unfunded. We do not have any 29 enhancement projects assigned to years. We've only assigned those known thoroughfare projects. 30 We can assign those as well to years if the Committee has direction to do so. 31 32 Garza: What's the advantage to including them or not? 33 34 Carpenter: There's none really. 35 36 Garza: Just for tracking so we can look ... 37 38 Carpenter: Just for tracking. 39 40 Garza: ... to know what's what. 41 42 Carpenter: Right. If we put them in a year then, and we receive funding for them and we need to 43 make adjustments, then we can track it a little easier, we can mark it as an advance from 2006 to 5 1 2004 or a delay from 2005 to 2007. At the direction of the Regional Planning section in Santa Fe, 2 they ask that we, however, though we assigned unfunded projects to out years, that all of the 3 unfunded projects would be listed in our TIP at the back and that's they way they are now. We have 4 to write a cover letter to the Secretary outlining our concerns and our concern is that we have 5 projects that are unfunded but we're not alone in that concern. Santa Fe and Albuquerque and the 6 rest of the State are in the same boat. 7 8 Fleming: Any comments, Robert? 9 10 Carpenter: Does anybody want to make adjustments to the recommended years for those unfunded 11 projects? 12 13 Garza: I don't see the point in it, I think just putting them out there until they are funded and then 14 if they get funded then we'd have a better idea of when they'd be done. 15 16 Carpenter: Right,it also gives the State Highway Department the opportunity to understand that we 17 would like Valley Drive funded first and then so on. If you all would like Snow Road moved 18 beyond Amador and Valley/Hadley intersections,we can do that as well,to put them in right priority 19 order. We can even adjust the year. 20 21 Garza: Well, I would simply suggest that it be listed in the order that is more apt to reflect reality, 22 I mean,is it going to be,Dickie you might know, Snow Road,is that a project that's going to come 23 up sooner. It's unfunded still so is there any hope that it might be funded. 24 25 Apodaca: See,that portion there is in the Town of Mesilla,but there is a portion of it that is already 26 been contracted,that would be from Calle del Norte to Union. That's taking on a complete rehab 27 but from Calle del Norte to Glass is still in need of reconstruction. I think they're using some of the 28 town money to do the reconstruction. We're doing the contract management for them. 29 30 Sanders: So is this, Calle del Norte to Glass Road, is that this segment or is it actually Glass Road 31 to Union? 32 33 Carpenter: It's Glass Road to Union for the entire reconstruction, the rehab that is currently 34 underway is from Calle del Norte to Union. The Town can't afford to rehab the entire roadway 35 segment. The Calle del Norte to Union section is much worse than Glass Road to Calle del Norte, 36 not that they're both not bad, they are. 37 38 Dominguez: The current project that I think,they just let,is being funded part of it through the local 39 government road fund. 40 41 Carpenter: Right. 42 43 Dominguez: And I would assume that's probably how this one's going to be funded. 6 I Garza: I think on these that are in the back,we probably ought to just leave them alone and how they 2 appear in order really doesn't matter because they're at the top of the list doesn't necessarily mean 3 that they're going to be funded first. 4 5 Carpenter: Right. 6 7 Garza: So it's kind of an insignificant thing, I think. 8 9 Carpenter:Just depends on what money you get first,the pot of money that becomes available if any. 10 There's nothing that prevents us,we can be doing the same thing next year in pushing it further out. 11 12 Fleming: There's nothing that keeps you from doing this next year,moving it out a year, is there? 13 14 Carpenter: No. 15 16 Fleming: As long as it's not funded. 17 18 Carpenter: There's nothing that keeps us from moving it forward, if funding becomes available. 19 20 Fleming: If we get the funding we can bring it in. 21 22 Carpenter: Right. 23 24 Fleming: Okay,I don't see any reason to change them,myself. Okay, if there's no other concerns 25 or questions or anything about it,I'll entertain a motion for the recommendation for approval of the 26 TIP for Fiscal Years 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. 27 28 Pillar: So moved. 29 30 Sanders: Second. 31 32 Fleming: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend for approval the Transportation 33 Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. All in favor"Aye." 34 35 All: "Aye." 36 37 Fleming: All opposed. Okay, it carries unanimously. 38 39 D. Review and recommendation for approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan 40 Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for FY2001/2002 41 42 Fleming: Okay,the next thing on the agenda is the review and recommendation for approval of the 43 MPO's Unified Planning Work Program and that's in the packet we've got here. 7 1 Carpenter:Mr.Chairman,members ofthe committee,the Unified Planning Work Program is exactly 2 the same with the exception of typographic corrections and few phrase changes but we did take the 3 Chairman's direction to add,on the bottom of page 12,the East Mesa Loop Road. We added,"MPO 4 staff will coordinate with the Dona Ana County Engineering staff to formally adopt the final 5 alignment of the East Mesa Loop Road, a bypass route that will extent from roughly the Mesquite 6 area south of Las Cruces to the US Highway 70/Weisner Road area east of Las Cruces." Once the 7 final alignment is determined,the MPO's Major Thoroughfare Plan will be amended to reflect that. 8 That's in addition to the State Land's Planning,the Shalem Colony Trail, and Stern Drive projects 9 that we currently have in place. 10 11 Fleming: Okay,that was the only thing the County, I think,was really wondering about so I think 12 that takes care of that. You have anything else Dickie? 13 14 Apodaca: No, I think that's it. 15 16 Fleming: Okay,if that's the only change then I'll entertain a motion that we recommend for approval 17 the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for Fiscal 18 Year 2001/2002. Do I have a motion, anybody? 19 20 Apodaca: So moved. 21 22 Fleming: Is there a second? 23 24 Garza: Second. 25 26 Fleming: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we recommend for approval of the MPO's 27 Unified Planning Work Program for 2001/2002. All in favor. 28 29 All: "Aye." 30 31 Fleming: All oppose. 32 33 E. Recommendation for reclassification of Elks Drive from a Major Arterial to 34 Collector status within the MPO's Transportation Plan 35 36 Fleming: Okay,now we're going discuss and look at recommending reclassification of Elks Drive 37 from a major arterial to a collector status with the MPO's Transportation Plan. In our last meeting 38 we were made aware of this, so I guess now we'll get the information we need to go through it. 39 40 Pillar: What I have prepared today is a short presentation on the effects of Elks Drive if we stuck 41 with the classification analysis of a major arterial with a 120 foot right-of-way. What we're looking 42 at on these slides here, the magenta line designates the 120 foot right-of-way, and put the red line 43 on the inside here, be an 85 foot right-of-way. Few years back the City of Las Cruces rebuilt a 8 I portion of Elks Drive from Highway 70 to about this point here in this area and in that area, we 2 installed the improvements within a 75 foot right-of-way. We obtained right-of-way to get to 75 3 feet. The handout that I handed you shows that 75 foot right-of-way and what was proposed within 4 that right-of-way. Now what I'd like to do is,just kind of keeping that in mind,we will start with 5 the 120 foot right-of-way. This is the first half of the roadway, the second half we're looking at 6 going to Arrowhead Estates between this area which is currently being developed right now and 7 from this point of Elks Drive out we are looking at still obtaining the 120 foot right-of-way, 120 8 wide right-of-way width. These are just overviews,I have several of these that would come in and 9 show close ups of what is happening. The major arterial has a 120 foot right-of-way,within the 120 10 foot right-of-way we have two lanes be built in direction with a center turn lane with plenty of 11 median left for future expansion of that roadway to add additional lanes. We have several different 12 classifications of major arterials, some we have with bike lane options where we have a dedicated 13 bike lane within the roadway and we also have a multi-use path. The BFAC in their study that they 14 have put together,they are looking at Elks Drive as having bicycle facilities and they are wanting 15 dedicated bike lanes within the roadway. So with the major arterial we can accommodate that. 16 When we look at a collector status, current collector status for the City of Las Cruces 85 feet of 17 right-of-way and in this slide here,we do show a bike lane,a dedicated bike lane,we have two lanes 18 in each direction with the center continuous left turn lane. There's also multi-use path option and 19 we still have the five lanes in here. 20 21 Fleming: How wide is that bike lane up there? 22 23 Pillar: This bike lane is 4 feet wide,that's from the lip of gutter,the bike lane is total 4 feet by itself. 24 Okay,this slide is showing the existing Elks Drive,right behind you on the foam board back there, 25 we have how the existing Elks Drive was striped out. It was striped out different than the typical 26 section that was handed out. What it has is one lane heading north, it's 18 Moot wide lane and 27 that's including the curb and gutters so it's really a 16 1/2foot wide lane heading north. Also on that 28 side which would be right here along the east side,you can see this area in here is for the multi-use 29 lane,that is that additional 10 feet wide. Right now,we have not developed that as a multi-use path 30 and it's something that if,you know, the Bicycle Facilities Committee, they are looking at having 31 bike lanes within the roadway and not a multi-use path maybe that be a recommendation that this 32 Committee could make that we do away with multi-use path and use this area to expand the roadway 33 within the 75 feet. When we look at, in this area, if we went with the 120 foot right-of-way,you 34 would see that this is the Bar-F gas station,that we'd, the 120 foot right-of-way clips the building 35 here. The elevation difference between their driveway and the Elks Road down here is probably 36 about 5 feet and if we took the full 120 foot right-of-way,this would end up being a total take due 37 to the elevation difference,they could not have access onto Elks Drive. The Alameda Cleaners here, 38 the 120 foot, this would hit an awning, kind of like a porte-cochere, that's in front of that. The 39 building which is here would have sufficient setback despite awning modifications. 40 41 Carpenter: Before you go on Marty, the red line represents the 85 foot. 42 43 9 I Pillar: Oh, excuse me,yes the red line is the 85 foot option. When we look at the 120 foot right-of- 2 ways,we go through all these slides,I can just go over this to start with. There will be 12 homes that 3 will be total take,we'd have to buy 12 homes,do relocation. There's a fourplex apartment complex 4 that would be a total take,a daycare center that would be a total take,Alameda Cleaners,have to do 5 some modifications on their site, and then the Bar-F gas station would be a total take. If we looked 6 at with going the 120 foot right-of-way,what that would have is,we'd have enough right-of-way to 7 add additional lanes in the future whenever the traffic warrants that and development to the north 8 warrants additional lanes. We will have 12 less residential driveways and three less commercial 9 driveways that will access onto Elks Drive. We will provide the bicycle facilities,bike lanes within 10 the right-of-way. Then there's the possible reuse, resale of some of the total takes as we look at 11 those individually I can show you what I'm talking on that. The drawback on this is that when we're 12 buying 12 homes,even if you just go to$100,000 a home and then relocation and moving expenses, 13 we're $1.3 million dollars just for the homes and the you buy the fourplex apartment complex,the 14 daycare,and the Bar-F gas station and prices on those,I really don't know,because the problem with 15 those is to relocate a business to a like condition,that's going to be pretty tough especially for this 16 Bar-F gas station,it's that corner. And another cost of doing this is the homes that we buy,the City 17 will then own, we have to go in and do asbestos abatement in those homes before they can be 18 demolished. So those are some pretty big costs with 120 foot right-of-way. If we were to downsize 19 the classification to a collector which would be the 85 foot right-of-way,there's several things that 20 come in play here. We would have three homes that would be total right-of-way take,possibly four 21 at the very north end due to elevation difference. Wouldn't really know until we got into it. We 22 would have to buy the fourplex apartment,the daycare center would have problems with their length 23 of their driveway turn around,they're suppose to have a drop off lane in that. If we were to do the 24 85 foot right-of-way, we'd have two north bound lanes, two south bound lanes, and a center turn 25 median. I'll just go ahead and go forward on some of these pictures. Okay, on the church and the 26 Elks Lodge's, Moose Lodge it really wouldn't be affected by the 85 foot right-of-way, if we want 27 the 120 foot right-of-way it wouldn't be affecting the parking of the church. The school, 120 foot 28 right-of-way would take part of their turn around,that would have to be some work redone on that, 29 the 85 foot right-of-way hits right along their parking. Now we're coming to the areas where we're 30 hitting some of the homes. These two homes front on Hermosillo Street but you can see by this,the 31 85 foot right-of-way,the home is even 6 feet inside of that. This home would have a 13 foot side 32 yard set back which would meet code. These two homes up here,they're 8 and 7 feet inside the 85 33 foot right-of-way,those would be total takes to widen that and obviously a total take with 120 foot. 34 Here we're looking at a home, 120 foot right-of-way,it's a total take,if we come with 85 foot,we'll 35 have a 20 foot building set back and this is the daycare center. This is their parent drop off area. By 36 code they have to have so many linear feet of drop off area. By us taking 85 foot right-of-way,you 37 can see that we significantly reduce the drop off length on that,that be something that City staff and 38 Planning would have to look at,how we could work with the daycare if we were to just go with the 39 85 foot right-of-way, 120 touches their buildings,that's going to be a total take. To the north,here's 40 the fourplex apartments. The problem we'd run into with the 85 foot is that parking stalls are located 41 along here. If we take their parking stalls away,they really don't have an usable lot. The building 42 can't be used because there's no place to park, 120 foot goes to the face of the building. In this area 43 right here, we do have 70 feet of right-of-way. And if we were looking to go to the 75 foot 10 I classification or right-of-way width is the previous Elks was done,was that this line moved 10 feet 2 over and then we still have a 3 foot parkway which we could allow this fourplex apartment to use 3 to get their parking depth and meet code. So there's something to look at that. As we go on, the 4 homes along Edgewood here,all the setbacks that are shown are to the 85 foot right-of-way, 18 foot 5 here, 50 foot here. One thing we look at, if these were total takes, here's the depth of the lot right 6 here that fronts on this road,now when you look to the 120 foot right-of-way,this is even a deeper 7 lot then this one here but the problem with that is that currently collector streets and above the City 8 doesn't allow residents, residential homes to obtain a driveway permit. If we were to go with the 9 120 foot right-of-way, purchase all these homes,there could be the possibility of combining these 10 and putting in apartments or you might have a driveway, one on Edgewood and one over here on I 1 Elks,so that's a possibility if the 120 foot option is taken. As we get up towards the north end,what 12 is going to start happening is that these in here were at the same elevation,Holly and Elks are at the 13 same elevation,as you continue north on Elks,these homes,the elevation starts rising above the road 14 and that's where even with the 85 foot, even though we have a 19 foot setback, the elevation 15 difference between the roadway and the house could be causing problems and that's especially 16 evident with these last two homes here. And that's where I'm looking at the four possible full takes 17 with the 85 foot right-of-way. Now, if we were to reduce the right-of-way width to 75 feet, we 18 would only have two homes as a total take and problems with the drop of length for the daycare,and 19 then allowing the fourplex apartment to use part of the parkway for their parking. With the 75 feet, 20 we could get two lanes each direction, a center median, but we would have no bicycle facilities at 21 all. There would be no shared use lanes or anything like that. Right now,this is just an overview 22 of what's happening, what we've looked at here, all the dimensions on this are from the aerial 23 photographs,they're not from actual surveys or anything but what I'd like to look at is if there's any 24 comments from the Committee or direction that you would like me to look more into to continue 25 with this presentation. 26 27 Garza: Can I ask a question,Mr. Pillar, can you put the cross section up there showing the 85 foot. 28 Okay, for the benefit of the Committee, can you point out on, say the top example since that does 29 have a bike lane, and the MPO Bicycle Facilities Advisory Committee wants a bike lane on this 30 road. Now if we saw what the effects of the red line would be for a 85 foot right-of-way,if you were 31 to take 10 feet out of that section,where would it come from? 32 33 Pillar: More than likely the 10 feet would be coming from, in the bike lanes. We'd probably take, 34 make this 11 foot and 11 foot and make both driving lanes 11 foot,that would give you 2,then 4 and 35 4 from the bike lanes would make 10. You could take a small portion out of the parkway. We have 36 the parkway at 3 feet wide because on collector streets and above are,street light foundations are 3 37 by 3 and then it just leaves you 48 inches of unobstructed sidewalk. 38 39 Garza: If I may Mr. Chairman,as a follow up question then,the difference between 85 foot right-of- 40 way and 75 foot right-of-way, I forget your numbers, but you said about half the number of 41 structures will be affected going to 85 feet from 120. 42 43 Pillar: Yes. 11 I Garza: So number of total takes and right-of-way costs to drop it to 75, do you have a number? 2 3 Pillar: Well,to go to 75 feet,we only have two homes that would be a total take and then you have 4 the problems with the length on the daycare and allowing the fourplex apartment to use part of this 5 parkway to make their Code depth for parking stall. So we go from 120 foot right-of-way where 6 we're buying 12 homes,the fourplex,the daycare,having problem with the Alameda Cleaners,and 7 buying the Bar-F gas station down to 75 where you're buying two homes. So there's significant 8 difference there and at that what we install to start out with the major arterial is just two lanes and 9 north bound direction lanes and south bound and just... 10 11 Fleming: That bottom one is the 75 foot? 12 13 Pillar: No,this is the 85 foot, it's just different configuration will the multi-use path. The one that 14 you have in front of us is the one that was proposed with the northeast area, when that portion of 15 Elks Drive was rebuilt a few years back. In that, they had the multi-use path. 16 17 Fleming: And that's that 10 foot is a multi use path? 18 19 Pillar: Yes. 20 21 Fleming: Let me ask a question, can bicycles use that multi-use path similar to on Triviz? 22 23 Pillar: Yes, multi-use path, that's what has been installed on Triviz. 24 25 Fleming: For walking, running,jogging, as well as bikes. 26 27 Pillar: Yes. 28 29 Fleming: Okay, and that was the one that the bicycle committee didn't really like? 30 31 Pillar: That is correct on Elks Drive. 32 33 Carpenter: It's not their preferred option. 34 35 Fleming: But we could give them, even though it wouldn't be their preferred option,we could give 36 them a option of having bicycle use on this if we went with this, is this correct? 37 38 Pillar: If you went with an 85 foot right-of-way. 39 40 Fleming: But you can't go with this one, the one you handed out? 41 42 Pillar: The one we handed out, I just wanted to show that because that was 75 feet of right-of-way. 43 12 I Fleming: Right, but it had the 10 foot in there, right? 2 3 Pillar: Yes. 4 5 Fleming: Is your, other than narrow driving lanes, is there a reason why we couldn't go with that? 6 7 Pillar: The template that you have in front of you now has no parkway. As you see the back to 8 sidewalk,back to sidewalk is 75 feet wide and if you try to add in bike facilities within the 75 foot 9 along with parkway for the street furniture,we run out of room. 10 11 Carpenter: The other thing is, the 75 foot right-of-way has a 10 foot median not a continuous left 12 turn lane. 13 14 Pillar: But we're looking at that being a continuous left turn. 15 16 Carpenter: But you couldn't do that in 10 feet, could you? 17 18 Garza: Missouri, if you look at Missouri Avenue and you compare it to what you're looking at on 19 the overhead,the 85 foot,we built Missouri in 85 feet and the center turn lane is down to about 10 20 feet and what we did though is that we,instead of building 12 foot driving lanes on the outside and 21 a separate 4 foot bike lane,we combined that into what we call the shared use lane. It's a very wide 22 lane on the outside but it's basically that same section so what we're suggesting here is, if 1 23 understand,we're going to build basically what Missouri looks like for Elks Drive and that will be 24 it's ultimate full build out, I mean, five lanes within 85 feet with a bike section and if I understand 25 what I'm hearing Marty say is that, I guess,where we're going with this, is we're being asked to 26 formulate a recommendation to the Policy Committee to make a change to the classification of this 27 road and what is our recommendation going to be. Do we want to go beyond the 85 down to 75 at 28 the cost of losing bike lanes and some lane width and saving some money on right-of-way cost. 29 That's what you get. 30 31 Sanders:What was the difference between the buildings and houses you have to take from the,going 32 from 85 to 75, I heard the 120 to 75 but not the 85 to 75. 33 34 Pillar: Okay,from the 85 feet there's three homes for sure that would be full take,the possibility of 35 four more on the north side, so there could be seven homes taken on the 85 foot, the fourplex 36 apartment and those would be takes. The 75 foot has two homes. 37 38 Sanders: Period? 39 40 Pillar: Period, for total take. 41 42 Sanders:Any you're proposing to do that along the entire route that you showed us because this,the 43 thing we got talks about a section of it from Avondale to Lavender, I'm a little confused on that. 13 I Pillar: Okay,we're looking from here at Lantana Drive and Arrowhead Estates from here south all 2 the way back to Main is the section that we're looking at reclassifying. 3 4 Sanders: So this, so it's actually from Avondale all the way to Main. 5 6 Carpenter:From Lantana because the existing from North Main to Avondale you already the 75 foot 7 cross section,you have that. 8 9 Sanders: Okay, I'm just referring to this thing we got in the packet. 10 11 Carpenter: That's what staff contained in the packet,you're looking at from North Main which is 12 there to just right before Avondale,that's existing in that 75 foot cross section you have here. And 13 then from Avondale forward to Lantana you could do the 85 feet or the 75 feet. You really should, 14 we need to clarify within the packet that,that's really from North Main Street to Lantana,it would 15 be a collector status not just from Avondale to Lantana, it would be from North Main. Correct? 16 17 Garza: Yes. 18 19 Fleming: With 75 foot, can we get five lanes in there? 20 21 Pillar: Yes,you can get five lanes, no bicycle facilities. 22 23 Fleming: Okay,how wide would the lanes be then? Would they be this 4, 11,and 1-10 or would we 24 be able to use that ten foot we've got there on this drawing? 25 26 Pillar: Okay,what I was going to look at was just taking like this 85 foot, if you were to take out, 27 if you were to make this 11, 11, 13, 11, 11 and take away the bike lane and the bike lane,that would 28 be 75 feet. 29 30 Fleming: And we can do that and just take two houses, right? 31 32 Pillar: Yes sir. 33 34 Fleming: Okay, how far then, if this goes up to Avondale, how far is that without a bike lane? 35 36 Carpenter: If you take it to Lantana, how far is it, two miles? 37 38 Garza: I don't know. 39 40 Pillar: That I don't know exactly. 41 42 Carpenter: I think it's close, it's not more than two miles. 43 14 I Garza: One thing that I think is important to point out also from the City's perspective is that what 2 you're looking at up there are design standard cross sections that are within our design standards. 3 We don't have one in our design standards for 75 feet, our, I think Mr. Pillar would be showing it 4 to us so if we did go to the75,we're deviating from our approved standard specifications so we're 5 kind of creating something that doesn't exist elsewhere so that's something to consider as well. 6 7 Fleming: And with 85 feet,you're going to get the apartment complex, right? 8 9 Pillar: Yes. 10 11 Fleming: Okay,what about the Bar-F,would you get it or come close to it,that's the red line right? 12 13 Pillar: Well, with the 85 feet,we're looking, there's a 28 foot setback to the Bar-F building. You 14 can look right here and see where the little plants are, right where the 85 foot is there's a concrete 15 retaining wall that was built with this project. 16 17 Fleming: Okay, can they still get into the street from there? 18 19 Pillar: This driveway is pretty steep right here. 20 21 Fleming: Right now it is steep, this would make it even steeper, wouldn't it? 22 23 Pillar: Yes it would. So there would be things to work out there and that would be,you know, it 24 would be ideal to close this driveway off due to the distance to the intersection. If it could get back 25 here, it would get a little better. 26 27 Woods: Mr. Chairman,I guess I'd like to propose a motion at this point is to give recommendation 28 on this, I propose first would be that we change the status of a major arterial to a collector which it 29 sounds like from the general consensus is going around here that most people accept that,that seems 30 to be a logical move and the second portion of that motion would be that we stick with the current 31 design standards of the City as a collector street when we do that which would be an 85 foot right-of- 32 way. 33 34 Garza: I'll second that. 35 36 Fleming: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we recommend reclassification of Elks Drive 37 from a major arterial to a collector status within the MPO's Transportation Plan and that we also do 38 not deviate from the standards that have been developed and are in use by the City at the present 39 time, is this correct? 40 41 Woods: Yes sir, that's my motion. 42 43 15 1 Apodaca: Mr. Chairman, we got a question. By doing this what does it do to the existing 2 development,I mean,I assume the existing structures are okay with the setback and everything that 3 have, but by doing this aren't we boxing in the City on the new development that coming in, if 4 there's any vacant properties, what does it do in case some time in the future the collector isn't 5 adequate,then we're going to be stuck with even a bigger expense and more taking of the properties 6 and structures with a wider right-of-way, does it not force the setback a little further or how is that 7 handled in the City? 8 9 Garza: I'll answer that Mr. Chairman. Part of what brought this about was recent request that came 10 through our City Council for a subdivision north of the area we're talking about and it was 11 determined at that time that there's not sufficient capacity today on Elks Drive to allow them to 12 continue to develop but after that took place, we were given, staff was given direction to start 13 looking at Elks Drive and start working towards an expansion proj ect and scope it and look at it and 14 see what we're up against and that's where these things came about. One of the other elements of 15 it was to go through the corridor and identify any vacant land that exists and what we the City are 16 proposing to do at this point in time and I don't think Marty hit on it, but no matter which one of 17 these options we pursue, we would be buying the necessary right-of-way from those, probably 18 buying the full takes right now of all of the vacant land that exists along that corridor so that would 19 occur regardless of which width we take. Now, I think Marty mentioned,north of this area where 20 there's large tracts of land that could be subdivided,in that area we're recommending that it remain 21 at 120 feet from essentially Lavender north. 22 23 Carpenter: Lantana north to El Camino Real where it ties back in at Dona Ana,near the Village of 24 Dona Ana. Because as you go further north, there is still property between Elks Drive and the 25 interstate and the majority of that is undeveloped but the further north you go, Elks becomes the 26 frontage road for the Interstate just probably a couple miles past the City limits which is at Kennedy 27 or Hatfield, by the middle school. 28 29 Fleming: If this would be an arterial then north of where we're talking about now,is there going to 30 be another way they can get on the interstate or another way that they can connect to something for 31 traffic or is all the traffic going to come down because we're going to have a maj or arterial out there 32 and we're going to bottleneck later down here,maybe we aren't treating our purpose of going 85 foot 33 right now with a collector. 34 35 Carpenter: Within the MPO's Transportation Plan the long standing discussion, that Mr. Woods 36 would be aware of, is the Engler Road issue. Engler Road is a proposed collector that would align 37 with Kennedy and go under the interstate which would be,which is further north of what's on your 38 screen. 39 40 Fleming: Do you have a thing out that far? 41 42 Pillar: No. 43 16 1 Fleming: You don't have it out that far? 2 3 Pillar: No, I stopped here. 4 5 Carpenter: Engler, here's Highway 70, here's the interstate, here's the Dona Ana interchange. 6 Engler would come from Valley Drive up Engler,this is the current Kennedy alignment here,under 7 the Interstate at Kennedy,but no interchange at this point and then further eastward and then there's 8 a potential for Taylor Road further north to go under and connect to Del Rey at a future date. The 9 need is not there now. 10 11 Fleming: Is the traffic as it comes down,where is it, it comes onto Main, right now? 12 13 Carpenter: It comes onto Main this way from Dona Ana, it comes down toward town. 14 15 Fleming: It comes onto Main, now where's most that traffic go? 16 17 Carpenter: This way. 18 19 Fleming: Okay,if we're looking at that and we keep building out there and the majority of the traffic 20 goes there,we're going to have and so we're going to have a bottle neck here unless we get out there 21 and have something else that looks into it. How far,in other words,what kind of a time frame do 22 you have for this? 23 24 Garza: It's development driven. 25 26 Carpenter: It's substantially further, though this alignment is specifically for eastward movement 27 because all the people that are here have to do this and then this. You will get some relief with that 28 movement with the reconstruction of Highway 70 and the frontage roads,but there's going to be a 29 point with continued development that this is going to be necessary to take you further that way and 30 then as you get further out then connect onto Highway 70 because this is still serving all of that to 31 a certain extent. Either they are going to I-25 to 70 or they're taking from this area to 70 and then 32 further north. 33 34 Fleming: I realize we're development driven,but somewhere along the line you've got to watch to 35 it because development can really screw you up for 5 or 10 or 15 years if you don't put a little 36 pressure on the development. It's kind of like that they'll build it and they'll come, if we were 37 looking at building those things, I can guarantee you they would relieve it real quick. 38 39 Carpenter: That's why we do this now is because every time someone wants to develop in this 40 corridor, they're providing the right-of-way. Their subdivision, they have to give up their 41 proportionate share off the front which means that they have to plan their development around that, 42 that way the right-of-way issues are not as crucial at that future date that we're not having to acquire 43 as much right-of-way and as many homes because from here to here, there's a huge change in 17 I elevation, there's a lack of development because of the escarpment that runs along here. So as 2 people start to develop this,right-of-way will be acquired here and along there to accommodate that. 3 When the City, when the MPO actually did the initial Engler study, the proposal was for a major 4 arterial from 110 to 120 feet right-of-way. The current alignment calls for a collector at 85 feet. It's 5 a substantial reduction and that was done to accommodate the public that lives out there now because 6 they were saying that it is major impact. 7 8 Fleming: But from now on,these developments, are they going to be required to give it so you've 9 got the 120 foot right-of-way from there on out, where's development? 10 1 I Carpenter:We've got the 85,not the 120. The MPO Policy Committee had adopted a classified data 12 alignment as an 85 foot collector. 13 14 Fleming: Okay, a collector. 15 16 Carpenter: It's a collector, not an arterial. 17 18 Sanders: I've got one other question about this proposal and they way I read this, staff 19 recommendation is that from Main to Avondale they're recommending it be a major arterial which 20 would be 120 feet. 21 22 Carpenter: We need to correct that. 23 24 Sanders: Okay, that's just what it says. 25 26 Carpenter: That's just what it said but Mr. Woods' motion is from North Main Street to Lantana as 27 a collector using the 85 feet. 28 29 Sanders: Correct,I was just going back to why the City Engineering staff was recommending 120. 30 31 Carpenter: It wasn't the City Engineering staff, it was the MPO staff. 32 33 Sanders: Okay, forget that. So we're back to the 85 feet all the way to Lantana and then 120 from 34 there north. 35 36 Carpenter: North, to the Village of Dona Ana. 37 38 Fleming: Will the City be able to live then with the collector status of this from their end to North 39 Main? In other words,you're not really ... 40 41 Garza: It's expanding what's there now by ten feet. 42 43 Fleming: Yeah,to 85 foot, you're not looking at ... 18 I Garza: Going beyond that, not without buying a gas station or two. No, not likely. 2 3 Fleming: In other words, I would hate to recommend we do that and then three or four years down 4 the road, they come back and say "well we should have done a 120." 5 6 Garza: That's where we are, I mean. 7 8 Carpenter: Planning is visionary, but it's not perfect. 9 10 Fleming: The way the development's going right now though, the new subdivision that you're 1 I talking about that brought this whole thing about,we ought to be able to handle that with the 85 foot 12 collector coming from. 13 14 Garza: The point is right now,you only have a two lane road and we're trying to get to where we 15 have a four lane road as quickly as possible is the objective right now and of course we don't want 16 to be short sighted and then box ourselves in, but given the generators to the north and the other 17 cross roads that we're talking about, I'm not so sure that we would have that problem. 18 19 Fleming: That answers my question. Dickie. 20 21 Apodaca: Is there a mechanism to have a forced setback, additional forced setback for new 22 construction so you have that if that filling station ever does fold and go under and somebody comes 23 to reoccupy that lot,is there a mechanism to force an additional setback,so if the City of Las Cruces 24 comes back and says we do need this 120, the problem won't reoccur. 25 26 Carpenter: The only option,there's not an automatic force provision for that. The only option is for, 27 if they redevelop the lot and they subdivide the property then we can ask for it but there's no 28 guarantee that we'll get it. We generally try to make it a condition of the approval, but it's not 29 automatic and generally we would only get that in the subdividing of property. 30 31 Garza: We attempted to do just that with Highway 70 knowing that it was coming for years, we 32 knew it was coming,and then a lot of development was taking place along that corridor and people 33 would come in and we'd say "hey, you know, the roads going to be here, so you need to setback 34 from there" and they said"yeah,but the right-of-way line's here now" and we said"yeah,but you 35 need to setback from where the roads going to be" and they said "that's taking without 36 compensation, write me a check or not" and we even had a few situations where we got into 37 litigation over it because we were trying to hold that line and we contacted the Highway Department 38 and said"are you willing to pay them for that now" and they said"no." Some people built within 39 the space that we knew needed to be setback within and now they're dealing with full takes on this 40 projects. Unfortunately, so the answer is probably not. 41 42 Apodaca: Unless it be some modification to the comp, plan and zoning ordinance and everything 43 else that go with it in between. 19 I Carpenter: Right,the State Legislature has a proposal before it now to,another takings bill,there's 2 always one introduced every year at the Legislature that if a government regulation passed, if the 3 government entity passed regulation that decreased the value of the individual property owners 4 property by 25%or more,then it would be a considered a taking and that you would have to provide 5 compensation or correction. That is a serious impact on right-of-way acquisition or regulations. 6 7 Fleming: Any other questions, Dickie? 8 9 Garza: I think ultimately somebody from staff which is going to probably be Marty, will be 10 presenting the same thing to the Policy Committee and I think they're going to be asking a lot of the 11 same questions that we're asking here today and maybe with these question being asked today, if 12 staff can research more and maybe have more information to help answer the what 13 ifs. 14 15 Fleming: Right,because we're just an advisory committee so all we can do is give recommendation 16 but by bringing these things up, I think it's a, maybe from present staff and everybody else, what 17 may come up, I don't know. Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we recommend 18 reclassification to Elks Drive from a major arterial to a collector status within the MPO 19 Transportation Plan and also stay with the current design standards that are being used by the City. 20 Is that the way it is? 21 22 Carpenter: And for the record it's from North Main Street to Lantana. 23 24 Fleming: Okay, good, alright. All in favor. 25 26 All: "Aye." 27 28 Fleming: All opposed. Okay, it looks like a very unanimous. 29 30 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS 31 32 A. Status of Short Range Transit Plan 33 34 Fleming: Okay, discussion items are status of the Short Range Transit Plan. 35 36 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the City, the MPO hired with cooperation 37 from the City of Las Cruces Transit Department and the City Council, hired a consultant, Arthur 38 Gaudet&Associates out of Carrollton, Texas,which is a suburb of Dallas. The contract started in 39 the first part of December and we have done a mail out survey which is in the current City of Las 40 Cruces utility bills to 38,000 residents at no expense other than the $1,200 dollars for printing 41 expenses, the mailing is free thanks to the City Utilities. That is ongoing through the month of 42 February. The month of January,the middle of January,the consultant did boarding and alighting 43 surveys, on and off counts,all of the bus stops for each of the routes and also did on-board surveys 20 I for the passengers that currently use the transit system as part of the Short Range Transit Study. The 2 reason I'm bringing this up today is March 13'and 14",the consultant will be in town and we will 3 be having public input meetings. We've scheduled a series of three,they're the same meeting,but 4 in order to accommodate the publics schedule and staff and other interested parties schedule,we've 5 scheduled one for Tuesday the 13t' at 1:00, 7:30 in the evening on Tuesday and then 9:00 in the 6 morning on Wednesday,to receive public input. We're doing advertisements in the local newspaper 7 as well as notifying selected interested parties that may have input on those issues. We've also 8 extended invitations to all of the Transit Department's staff, those will be going out tomorrow for 9 those individuals, we did that also to accommodate the Transit drivers because of their work 10 schedule,if they're interested in providing input and participating in this meeting. We felt like the 11 three meeting scenario would help them accommodate their schedule without having them impacting 12 the operations of the transit system. So that's why we're bringing it up today. The consultant has 13 had positive feedback out of the mail out surveys,we probably have about 500 returns already which 14 is phenomenal from mail out surveys. We consider that a success and we're about half way through 15 the process and their completing that. The consultant was very impressed with the transit operators 16 and the transit bus drivers. They have made our process so much easier on the boarding and 17 alighting and handing out the passenger surveys,the drivers helped by saying "here, please fill out 18 this survey for us." The drivers have a great rapport with their passengers and their customers and 19 they go that extra mile and so we wanted you to be involved. We're anticipating in April but more 20 likely in May,the final report will be in,the final Short Range Transit Plan which will be coming 21 before this Committee for recommendation to the Policy Committee. At the March 13'h and 14' 22 meeting,the consultant is developing numerous options to give the public to provide input on, on 23 routing, on modifications to the routing system,as it currently is,if any. We may receive input that 24 says they don't want to change the routes at all and so we are looking at those options. So we would 25 like to extend the invitation to any of you that are interested to participate in the public input 26 meetings. 27 28 Garza: Again, for the record, when are those? 29 30 Carpenter: Tuesday and Wednesday,March 13"and 14'. The Tuesday afternoon session is at 1:00, 31 the Tuesday evening session is at 7:30,and then the Wednesday morning is at 9:00 and they all will 32 be here at the City Council Chambers. 33 34 Fleming: That it? 35 36 Carpenter: That's it. 37 38 Fleming: Okay, any other discussion topics anybody wants to bring up? Can I ask Planning a 39 question? 40 41 Carpenter: Sure. 42 43 Fleming: I've been reading in the paper about the waste disposal, are you guys involved in that? 21 I Carpenter: In the waste disposal. 2 3 Fleming: Yeah, out here at the collectors station and not being used and all the trash going to the 4 Santa Teresa landfill_ 5 6 Carpenter: No. 7 8 Fleming: Who in the City is handling that? 9 10 Carpenter: That would be the Solid Waste Department. 11 12 Fleming: Okay. 13 14 (All talking at once) 15 16 Fleming: Alright. 17 18 Garza: Do you have a bunch of trash you needed to get disposed of? 19 20 Fleming: No,no,I was just, I heard them talking about,you know,they tried to get Mesilla so that 21 the City can handle them and I thought"well maybe if everybody's competing with them,the City 22 out there, maybe the City can compete in the ETZ with some of the other things." 23 24 Garza: I think that's been talked about. I don't know if that's been talked about. Probably going to 25 be pretty soon. 26 27 Fleming: But,you know, if they're worried about not getting a trash put in out there in the landfill 28 here and they're losing money,that would be one way some of the money could come back to them. 29 30 IV. OTHER DISCUSSION 31 32 Fleming: Okay, I don't have anything else, anybody in the audience have any discussion topics or 33 anything they would like to say? 34 35 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 36 37 None. 38 39 VI. ADJOURNMENT 40 41 Fleming: Okay, I guess I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. 42 43 Sanders: So moved. 22 I Pillar: Second. 2 3 Fleming: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor. 4 5 All: "Aye." 6 7 Fleming: Okay,we adjourned. 8 9 Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 23 L A S U C E S D O N A A N A M E S I L L A METROPOLITAN ±` '' ` PLANNING ORGANIZATION w: - h - P.O.BOX 20000 1 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 — - PHONE(505)528-3222 1 FAX(505)528-3155 ell AMENDED 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 March 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 11. ACTION ITEMS r 200A . 1 ' 1✓J� t ` A. Review and approval of February 1, 2001 minutes. * B. Re-review and recommendation for approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan �4: ' Planning Organization's Rating of Projects in preparation of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY2001/2002 through 2006/2007. <� G, _ C. Review and recommendation for approval of the Transportation j Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2001/2002 through 2006/2007. `D Review and recommendation for approval of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Unified Planning Work Program for FY 2001/2002. r— E. Recommendation for reclassification of Elks Drive from a Major Arterial to f Collector status within the MPO's Transportation Plan. /111. ISCUSSION ITEMS - Status of Short Range Transit Plan THER DISCUSSION V. PUBLIC COMMENTS V1. ADJOURNMENT 4-0 CU_v"i' � F 44 /17 J i ,r