Loading...
06-15-1994 1 LAS CRUCES MEIROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1994 3 4 The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, June 15, 1994, 5 at 7:00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 6 ITERS PRESENT Ray B. Luchini, Chairman (Dona Ana County) 7 John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) 8 Kenneth Miyagashima (Dona Ana County) Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 10 STAFF PRESENT: Brian Dem, MPO Officer David Carpenter, City Planning 11 Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 12 CALL TO ORDER: 13 Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. There was a quorum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 14 Mr. Luchini said, has everyone had a chance to look at the minutes from 15 our last meeting? Any comments? Mr. Tomlin moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Haltom seconded. Mr. 16 Luchini said, all those in favor of the motion for approval of the minutes, say aye. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously (Mr. 17 Ferralez was not present for this motion and vote.) 18 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Luchini said, we' ll proceed to Old Business, Review of the MPO 19 Transportation Plan. 20 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, as we mentioned at the last meeting, w are currently in the process of reviewing our MPO plan with a tentative 21 schedule with formal consideration at the August MPO meeting. Th Technical Advisory Committee has met twice to review this plan and staff is also still in the process of reviewing and revising some of the aspect 22 of the plan. It is our intent to finalize and incorporate all the comments we've received by the end of this month, so that at your next 23 meeting you will have a revised copy. We' ll be able to go through this revised copy and explain all of the comments that we've received and incorporated into the revision. To date, we have not received anything 24 that would be considered a problem. Everything has been very positive. We've received some good comments from the TAC and the public and we are 25 in the process of incorporating those. We are aware that the draft that you have contains several typographical errors and grammatical errors that 26 we are in the process of cleaning up. If you do have some of those corrections, we' ll be happy to take your draft and incorporate your comments and return your draft to you. We are also in the process o 27 working with the Technical Support Department in revising or finalizing the actual Master Plan into the GIS. So, next month you will receive 28 clean copy reflecting the Bike Path Master Plan, Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the Public Transportation Master Plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, we' ll 29 be happy to take any comments or answer any questions. 30 31 32 i i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 3 Mr. Haltom said, I noticed a discrepancy in the results of the Barton Aschman bike survey and the surveys done more recently. Can you explain 4 why there is such a discrepancy? 5 Mr. Denmark said, I' ll let Mr. Carpenter answer that since he did the survey. 6 Mr. Carpenter said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Haltom, to answer your question, we started the bike survey in July of last year. It was sent 7 out in April and we got all the results back in July. That was something that we did on the local level . These were Just general questions relating to bicycle transportation and there were some questions relating 8 to bicycle transportation in the form of recreation, just general bicycle use. In the Barton Aschman Study, bicycles as a form of transportation 9 was not considered to my knowledge, so we went back and did the survey over. 10 Mr. Haltom said, I noticed it was a very small percentage. 11 Mr. Denmark said, very small . That's exactly right. It's a very small number. 12 Mr. Haltom said, I think Barton Aschman asked how they were getting to 13 work and I think by bicycle was one of them. Mr. Denmark said, they are still in use today. There are some 14 individuals that still bike to White Sands Missile Range. We're not aware of what the impact was after that one bicyclist was killed 15 approximately two years ago. Our survey was done after that. The biggest thing we found out through our sampling was the fact that a lot of people are not even aware of the the facilities that we do have because they are 16 not even marked. 17 Mr. Haltom said, is it required that we make provisions for bicycles as part of the ISTEA requirements in order to receive federal government 18 funds? Mr. Denmark said, it is required that we look at all modes of 19 transportation and try to address each one of those. The question is, how do you balance it all out. The difference is that in the past you didn't 20 have to consider other modes while reviewing a particular project. For instance, when we were looking at the extension of Roadrunner and the 21 relationship with Las Alamedas and Dripping Springs Road, in the past we could have looked at that purely as a thoroughfare project whereas now, we'd have to taken into account public transportation or bicycle or 22 pedestrian movement, and if that would impact the need for that particular thoroughfare. Our analysis has to be done in a different manner than it 23 used to be in the past. We have to address that. Mr. Haltom said, you're proposing a certain amount of bicycle path or 24 lanes to have a certain percentage of landscaping. We don't have that requirement for streets, so why is landscaping more important for 25 bicycling than landscaping is for thoroughfares or streets. 26 Mr. Denmark said, I don't think it's considered more important. It's Just the difference between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Carpenter, but a bicycle path is actually outside of the 27 actual street cross—section. So, for example, a part of the Triviz project would actually be considered a bike path where it is incorporated 28 into the natural landscaping. As a result, you're having to deal with vegetation anyway. The concept there is if you're using it as a path, most likely you're going to have to provide some form of landscapi 29 1 because of the grading that you create. So, you'd either be creating an I area where you just have a dirt area that becomes a dust or trash problem 301 31 _2 32 i l LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 or you go the landscape route with a particular pocket. Another way o 3 looking at it is that you are creating a sort of median between th bicycle movement and pedestrian and auto movement. Due to the fact that 4 we are in the process of trying to landscape those medians as part of the thoroughfares, it almost functions in the same way. That's where we're 5 coming from on this. Mr. Haltom said, the reason I'm concerned is because landscaping will cos 6 money and then the maintenance of landscaping will also cost someone. And when we look at our ambitions and the things we want: streets, bike paths, 7 and you think about the cost of landscaping added to that, then it become no longer realistic based on our resources. 8 Mr. Denmark said, no, and in fact, what we tried to accomplish is the fac that we do have existing facilities that need improvements and the pla 9 establishes an immediate action plan or a way to begin implementation. I also establishes the point that there is a need for continuing planning 10 because there are so many things that we haven't resolved yet. One o those, for example, is the bicycle lane which would be inside the actual street cross-section. Obviously, there's nothing to landscape. Th 11 question is when do you use a lane versus a path; and when do you determine the difference in using Locust as a bicycle lane versus Solano. 12 There's a lot of studies that would have to be done that we hope the Advisory Committee would take on, one at a time. So, we see the Maste 13 Plan getting more defined through time. Right now, it's a lot more broad as far as what it's saying but it does establish a framework in which the 14 Advisory Committee can work with it. Mr. Haltom said, I have some other questions on this. I have a great 15 concern about mixing bicycle and automobile movement. Motorists aren't used to bicyclists and it can be frightening; and I know that because I used to ride a bicycle to the University when I was teaching there, and 16 they scared me to death. What I'm concerned about is that we recognize that when you mix bicycles and automobile traffic, not only do you create 17 hazards but you often hamper the efficiency of the use of the streets along with this. There are bikers who ride along the street path and when 18 you get behind a bicycle and he's going 15 miles an hour and normal traffic is supposed to be going 35, but is probably actually going 45, so what you've got is a situation where you have veering people behind the 19 bicyclist and he is in danger. Some people nowadays are mean enough to hit the bicyclist. They're liable to get frustrated because they are 20 trying to get to work on time and then they're behind a bicyclist who can't go as fast as the rest of the automobile traffic. So, on page 7-35 21 where you're listing that bicycle facilities study corridors will consider the following criteria when determining final bike path alignments, and then on the next page where it talks about bicycle enhancement and safety, 22 and so forth, what I don't see is a consideration of the possibility of the facilities significantly reducing the efficiency of other vehicular 23 paths. I just wondered if that isn't one of the criteria you ought to consider. When you're mixing bicycles and automobiles, and you're giving the most consideration or the only consideration to bicycle use, we need 24 to remember that the greater proportion of the population uses automobiles. I think that you're ignoring one of the criteria if you 25 overlook that. I know there's a value judgement here. I realize that there's a lot of advantages to having peopele use bicycles instead of 26 automobiles such as reducing the use of energy, improving people's health and improving the quality of the air, but realistically, people aren't ready to go along with this. A lot of people in their prime want to own 27 an automobile because nobody gets to tell them what to do when they are in that automobile. Many people feel that owning an automobile is an 28 achievement. Some people who are frustrated have no other way of releasing that frustration do it while they are driving home. They become 29 dangerous. I think that some attention ought to be paid to the impact which a particular bicycle facility will have on the use of, maybe, the 301 31 -3- 32 .I• LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 general facility by other means of transportation. When you're dealing 3 with different speeds and different sizes, you're creating dangers and you're also possibly creating traffic jams. 4 Mr. Denmark said, I think those are good comments. I'd like to expand a 5 little bit on that. I think you are right about the possible impact to other modes of transportation including pedestrian movement. There's always a problem at intersections or even public transportation when 6 you've got RoadRUNNER Transit coming in and they stop at a particular area. So, that's a good comment that we will keep in mind. 7 Mr. Haltom said, the survey results surprised me. I live in an upper 8 middle class residential section and I seldom see a bicycle. I've driven by the University many times since that bike path was put In and I think I've seen about 3 bicycles. That's been a number of times that I've been 9 by there. Apparently they use it more early in the morning going to class and afternoon after class. What I would hate to get involved in is 10 promoting a great deal of public revenue for something that we wish people will do, but they won't. It's nice to say what people ought to do, but it's another thing to make them do it. I can tell you, you couldn't get 11 me out on the street on a bicycle. 12 Mr. Denmark said, that was a concern of staff, too. The fact that some people think that we should be putting in bike paths or lanes on every 13 thoroughfare is questionable. I think we need to give careful thought to whether that's needed or warranted or realistic. That's why we wanted to adopt the concept of study corridor areas like we have on the Major 14 Thoroughfare Plan. Individually it needs to be reviewed so the standards are set up as to how you do it, and you use the criteria; then you make 15 the decision based on further analysis if it's appropriate or not. 16 Mr. Haltom said, this isn't China or Europe? Mr. Denmark said, no, it's not. 17 Mr. Haltom said, the automobile is king. No matter how much we wish it 18 wasn't, and we wish people would take more time and use bicycles and so forth, it just isn't so. I don't believe that by building facilities, you're going to reach a very large proportion of the people: It's 19 quicker, it's easier, and besides that you're the master behind the wheel . There's been a study of that attitude. It's a very common 20 attitude. You've seen mild people who just get into their automobile and become aggressive and hostile. Those people will kill you. 21 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Haltom, the thing about it is, the automobile is 22 the backbone of our economy. Mr. Haltom said, that's for sure, and it's also the backbone of our 23 problems, too. Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment. One thing 24 that struck me as I was going through this was the enormous amount of work that was accomplished in a very short period of time by a couple of 25 people. I was just amazed that they put this together so rapidly. I made a bunch of trivial little comments for correction, but the main impression 26 that I got out of the whole thing was, "boy, somebody did a lot of work." Mr. Denmark said, I think Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Parks did a really good 27 job in a very short period of time as you indicated. They really had to push to get it done. I've had to be their worst enemy by pushing them 28 harder and harder or making them change things, but we're finally getting close to the end. We're really appreciative of all the comments we've 29 received. They've been very positive and helpful . I I Mr. Haltom said, I have one other comment. There is some redundancy in 301 the facts about Las Cruces for the different forms of transportation. 31 -4- 32 • I° il LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 3 Mr. Denmark said, there are certain things we're going to be taking out we try to streamline it. The reason we have it separated by elements i 4 because we know that different people are going to be interested in onl one aspect. The might want just the Bicycle Master Plan Element, so w wanted to make sure that they had all of the information. The way we thi 5 we can do it, is incorporate the front portion of the main plan with th goals and objectives and policies. That's a comment received from th 6 TAC, and that's what we're working on now. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Denmark, I noticed that it calls for a 20 year 7 plan, and I don't have any problem with that, but is there any snformatio included about the studies that have been done in the past regarding 8 roads. 9 Mr. Denmark said, yes, we have basically incorporated all of the studie that have been done over the past 8 to 10 years as a part of that. W looked at not only what Barton Aschman did but also what the City did. I 10 you' ll recall the Planning Department came up with their own populatio projections, for example. We looked at those to see if they were in lin 11 with what Barton Aschman did. The traffic analysis was also part of th overall study and that was incorporated as part of the analysis. Th 12 advantage we have now is due to the efforts that we're doing with the GIS, we're able to input all of that data and start putting it together. As ax example, the Growth Management Project that's currently being considered 13 right now as far as impact fees, etc. , as part of the RFP that staff will be reviewing soon, is tying that in to the efforts to get those done as 14 far as population projections in relationship to the traffic analysis zones. It would be just with a narrowance of the service area. So, 15 there's a way of further enhancing that information. Mr. Ferralez said, I just wanted to make sure that there's enough of a tie 16 in so that everyone isn't running in difference directions and ending u by re-doing studies that have already been done. 17 Mr. Denmark said, that's an interesting comment, because a lot of people don't understand why there's so much front-end wording in a plan. Th 18 reason is to document what has been done, what is ccurrently being done, and the process, etc. Through time, staff changes, policymakers change, 19 but they are able to have that documentation as to how we got that information, how it was analyzed, and how they can further enhance it. 20 So, that's the purpose of a lot of that paperwork. Mr. Luchini said, are there any other comments? 21 Mr. Haltom said, the only other comment, I'm sure staff is already aware 22 of, is there are some grammatical errors. Mr. Denmark said, yes, we're already working on those, but if you' ll give 23 us your copy of the draft, we' ll incorporate your corrections and return your draft to you. 24 Mr. Luchini said, do we need to take any action on this tonight? 25 Mr. Denmark said, not tonight. We're still accepting public comments and we' ll provide you with a revised copy in July, and then in August we' ll 26 have the formal review and consider it for adoption. 27 Mr. Luchini said, if there's no other comments, we' ll go on to New Business. 28 I NEW BUSINESS 29 I Mr. Luchini said, okay, we have Amendment to the Transportation I Improvement Program in FY 1995-96 to include two Fixed-Route Buses for 301 RoadRUNNER Transit - Resolution 94-006. 31 -5- 32 1 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 3 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dale Kemp from the Transit Department is here to make the recommendation to amend our AE/TIP with an addition. 4 Mr. Kemp said, Mr. Chairman, I' ll try not to talk in circles about what we're doing. First of all, there is one error. It says expansion, but it 5 should be replacement. What we're doing is telling the Federal Transit Administration that when they go in to ask for all of their apportionments, we will need money for our system so that we won't be left 6 out. What has happened is, on the City budget of 1996, we would have the option of either replacement of the 5 eligible buses, or continue to use 7 them. In the transit business, it is not usual to run a bus 10 to 15 years, but what they're trying to do is cut back on the operating costs 8 and increasing capital . President Clinton is doing this in an effort to stimulate the economy. By giving us the option to replace the buses rather than repair, which might be more costly, because many items to fix 9 the bus is only 50/50 match; but replacement would be an 80/20 match. Mr. Clinton's idea to stimulate the economy through replacement rather than 10 repair would stimulate the bus manufacturing industry and creating jobs and helping the economy and also creating a whole new market of used buses which again would stimulate the economy and create new jobs. This would 11 also mean introducing newer buses that meet Clean Air Act Standards. When we realized that we had not put this on the AE/TIP, we thought we could 12 correct it next year, but we were told that we needed to take care of this now rather than later, for the long-range planning of the Federal Transit 13 Administration. This is not obligating the City of Las Cruces to any new buses at this time because we would have to go through the regular budget process. This is merely a plan. If you have any questions, I' ll be glad 14 to try to answer them. 15 Mr. Southworth said, if I understood what you said, there should be a reduction in the operating expenses to partially match the increase in 16 capital . Mr. Kemp said, I met one-on-one with the administrator for the Federal 17 Transit Administration, and I asked him, you're giving us money to buy new buses, but you're not giving us the money to hire the drivers to drive the 1s buses and it doesn't make sense. That's what they're doing, and that would be the other match. 19 Mr. Southworth said, no, I understood what you were saying but it's a trade-off between the cost of operating old buses and the savings we get 20 out of operating new buses, and the capital expense of buying them, but I didn't see a reduction in the operating expenses for the year. 21 Mr, Kemp said, this is just a planning document right now. This is really the first year, and I honestly can't tell you what it's going to look 22 like. The rumors right now are that we might do the operating reduction, however, the small transit operator (200,000 and below) which is hurt more 23 than the large operator, they're taking a look at maybe keeping our operating assistance at the same level and not reducing it. I don't know 24 what is going on at this time and we won't know until about November. Mr. Southworth said, you're talking about the percentage match. 25 Mr. Kempright. It's 50/50 match for said, gh operating versus 80/20 for 26 replacement. Am I not understanding what you're asking? Mr. Southworth said, the whole cost of operating those buses will be 27 reduced if we're running new buses as opposed to running 10 year old buses. And, I didn't see any reduction at all, but I don't expect it to 28 equal the cost of new buses, but there should be some trade-off. Mr. Kemp said, the operating assistance that we get never matches the 29 cost. It's sort of a moot point. Maybe I don't understand exactly what 1 you're asking. What I was told when I questioned what we were doing, I 301 was told that this is a planning document only, and plans can change. 31 —6- 32 1 i II LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 3 Mr. Southworth said, you're showing total operating costs for 1995-96 0 $612,000.00, but I would expect that if you're using new buses as opposet to 10 year old buses, that your total operating costs would be something 4 lower than $612,000.00. Also, if you continue throughout the next fe years to use new buses instead of having to repair old clunkers, so 5 would expect that the operating costs each year would continue to go down. Mr. Kemp said, right. They will come down, but on our planning document 6 for what money we're asking for, the federal government generally doesn't give you the total you ask for anyway. What we're showing here is not 7 true operating expense. It is just a match. It never equals out. 8 Mr. Southworth said, you're saying, basically, that you're elevating the cost so that the match you get will be closer to the actual amount. 9 Mr. Kemp said, right. 10 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Resolution 94-00 with the correction from expansion to replacement. Mr. Tomlin seconded. Mr. Luchini said, are there any other comments? If not, all those i 11 favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. 12 Mr. Miyagashima said, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Out o curiousity, I heard somewhere that we may be looking at possibly adding 13 couple of bus routes into the County. Is that the case in the next couple of years. 14 Mr. Tomlin said, the City approved a pilot program to the East Mesa area. 15 Mr. Miyagashima said, I was thinking that it was for the South Valle area. 16 Mr, Denmark said, no, there's nothing in the works for that area except the Task Force that will be looking into that issue. There was the South 17 Valley Feasibility Study done. We incorporated that into this plan as far as looking into that and pursuing that as a study corridor area. It might is be looked at differently than in the City, such as using vans instead of buses. 19 Mr. Kemp said, I just wanted to comment that Senator Nava introduced bill that directed the Transportation Program Division for the State, the 20 City of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, and City of Sunland Park to get thei thoughts on a transit authority. That task force is in the process of 21 working on that. If you have any questions, Dan Stover of the Public Transportation Bureua is here from the State and he's on the task force. 22 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Kemp, aren't you also on the task force? 23 Mr. Kemp said, no, I'm not. The members are Jack Valencia and Tim Russ for the City of Las Cruces. The members are appointed. 24 Mr. Miyagashima said, since we have three members of City Council, I' like to ask another questions. I'd like to bring up Main Street. 25 Especially early in the morning when you have people wanting to turn left when you're going north, it causes a huge traffic build up and I was 26 wondering if you had looked at removing the medians much like we did on Lohman. 27 Mr. Tomlin said, we have looked at that. 28 Mr. Denmark said, the US 70 project that currently in process will be removing those medians. That was my understanding. 2911 Mr. Tomlin said, that's providing we don't find any tanks. That was one 301! of the things we talked about. The plan was if the project goes ahead, 31 -7- 32 i I . ii LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION JUNE 15, 1994 1 2 3 then we' ll remove the medians, but the problem happens to be that there's a couple of old gas station sites along North Main. 4 Mr. Ferralez said, I was told that they located some of them. 5 Mr. Denmark said, I think they are still in the process. Mr. Tomlin said, the problem is if they find a tank, what they' ll end up 6 doing without having to go through the process they did in Hatch, would be to simply repave it and do some upgrade that way. That is in the design, 7 but whether they can do it or not, we don't know at this point. 8 Mr. Carpenter said, Mr. Chairman, that project starts from near Motel Boulevard (by the Rio Grande Bridge) all the way along Picacho, then north or North Main Street until Main intersects with Solano. It also includes 9 improvements at the signalized intersections as well . I think that's in some form of getting a consultant to do the final environmental document. 10 Mr. Quentin Ford said, they've hired the consultant and we're about six to eight months away from the final . One of the reasons that we can be a 11 little bit more positive about that is that we had a bond issue from the Highway Department, and eight million dollars was dedicated to this 12 prOjeecctt. chI alsowantedto add that Representative Skeen looks like he has g getting somewhere between two and two and three-quarter 13 million dollars in the next round of funding for US 70 from I-25 east. Mr. Denmark said, we' ll be submitting to City Council the Joint Powers 14 Agreement to the State and City for that project and we're also working on the RFP that goes for an Environmental Update Study. If these moneys come 15 through we' ll be able to follow through with the final design. 16 There were no other comments, and the meeting adjourned. 17 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 18 . Minetva Sdnchecretary 19 Las Cruces Planning Departmot 20 MINUTES APPROVED BY: 21 22 Ray B. Luchini, Chairman Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11 301 31 -8- 32 i LAS CRUCES MEf�OPOLITAN PLANNG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DORA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PUBLIC NOTICE The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, June 15, 1994, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable accommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a public meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the meeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . OLD BUSINESS A. Review of the MPO Transportation Plan. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program in FY 1995-96 to include two Fixed-Route Buses for RoadRUNNER Transit - Resolution 94-006 . V. DISCUSSION/OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST VI . ADJOURNMENT Publish: Sunday, June 5, 1994 PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING OIZATION 4;OLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: June 15 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: Review and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on May 11, 1994 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Policy Committee Meeting Minutes for May 11, 1994 . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: None LAS CRUCESMETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PRICY COMMITTEE ACTION FOR FOR MEETING OF: June 15 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Review of the MPO Transportation Plan. ACTION REQUESTED: None SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . None (Please bring your copies of the Transportation Plan distributed at last month' s meeting. Policy Committee members not at last month' s meeting will have their copy of the MPO Transportation Plan included with this packet . ) . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: ISTEA mandates that all MPO' s adopt a 20 year Transportation Plan by December of 1994 . Staff has prepared a draft plan for the Policy Committee' s consideration and is seeking relevant public insight and comments on the plan. The TAC will have started to review the Transportation Plan at their meeting on June 2, 1994 . In addition, MPO staff and the TAC will be taking public comment on the Transportation Plan at this meeting. As always, if you should have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact Brian Denmark, Michael Parks, or David Carpenter at 526-0620 . LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING OR C IZATION QLICYCOMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: June 15 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program in FY 1995-96 to include two Fixed-Route Buses for RoadRUNNER Transit . ACTION REQUESTED: Review and Consideration of Resolution 93-013 , amending the FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 Transportation Improvement Program for the FY 1995- 96 funding year. SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Resolution 94-006 2 . Copy of Interdepartmental Memo from Dale Kemp, Transit Analyst, to Michael Parks, Planner for MPO. 3 . Page 6 of the TIP showing amendment of the two new fixed-route buses in FY 1995-96 . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: In a memo date May 31, 1994, RoadRUNNER Transit notified MPO Staff of an omission of a request for two fixed-route buses for FY 1995-96 . This request is a result of the need for two new buses for Las Cruces and due to the future expansion of fixed-route in the City of Las Cruces . The City of Las Cruces will provide the matching fund for the purchase . This action will not change any of the other requests from RoadRUNNER Transit for FY 1995-96 , nor any of the other years within the Transportation Improvement Program. Staff from RoadRUNNER Transit will be present at the meeting to answer any questions that the Policy Committee Members may have concerning this matter. A public notice of this meeting' s agenda was published in the Sun News on Sunday, June 5, 1994 . OPTIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 94-006 , amending the FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 Transportation Improvement Program in FY 1995-96 for two fixed-route buses for RoadRUNNER Transit . MPO Staff will then forward the amended TIP to the New Mexico State Highway & Transportation Department . 2) Modify Resolution 94-006, modify as per Policy Committee direction. 3) Deny Resolution 94-006 , and the FY 1995- through FY 1999-2000 Transportation Improvement Program will remain unchanged. Aft LAS CRIw 04N S METROPOLITAN PLANNINGIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 94-006 AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) IN FY 1995-96 TO INCLUDE TWO FIXED-ROUTE BUSES FOR ROADRUNNER TRANSIT. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee is informed that : WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the FY 1995-96 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on April 13 , 1994 . These documents can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee, and; WHEREAS, RoadRUNNER Transit is requesting funding for two fixed-route buses from the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department using Section 9 Funds, and; WHEREAS, the funding is for the fiscal year 1995-96 , and that the City of Las Cruces will provide the 20o matching fund for these two fixed-route buses, and; THE MPO POLICY COMMITTEE FINDS THAT it appears to be in the best interest of the MPO that the amendment be APPROVED and ACCEPTED by the Policy Committee . NOW, THEREFORE, the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization, determines, orders and resolves as follows : (I) THAT the Las Cruces MPO' s FY 1995-96 Transportation Improvement Program be amended as stated above to reflect the change in funding amounts . (II) THAT staff and officials are authorized to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 15th day of June 1994 . ATTEST: Chairman Luchini Moved By: VOTE : Chairman Luchini : Seconded By: Councillor Haltom: Councillor Ferralez : APPROVED AS TO FORM: Councillor Tomlin: Commissioner Miyagishima : Mayor Southworth: Trustee Caro : Trustee Cadena : Attorney Policy Committee Mailing List Revised: June 5, 1994 AGENDA (35 Agendas) HAND DELIVER Br ::t � aria .... Ai3a ourrmsr ciit us ...�c x ;:;::: L ««:i <:cacBs::crY. .....::.:.............::::.::::....::::..................... May';©r;:Sitks::::: >:::::;:::<::«z:: >: :..................................................... : . fir Jx�3� r0�2u� h]FUA#x..... .ASSsLantzky dr; IA3 4Ri34S =TY $ASL .....: ..... ...:.. ...... .... 3x:>: o1im:>Ke I3: ::>::::>:::.. Co es:3:T 4AG::>::>:>::::.X.'# <Z fexfgat3ori:ES:f cer . Mx Ms3c� Medl�j1�YQi?R.. A. s a ate z :. .. TDWhI i)F;i MIPS k i<i i< i i i3<: `h]F(dAi MAIL Mr. Jerry Rosenbaum MPOAG, Lim.Exp, P.O. Box 1183, E1 Paso, TX, 79947-1183 Mr. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 604 San Mateo, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. John Fenner MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. 0. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1148 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Anaya MPOAG, DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mr. Marc Ersland MPOAG, Yellow Cab Co, 1299 S. Espanola, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Mr. Ben Woods MPOAG, NMSU-Physical Plant Dir., Dept.3545; Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003 Mrs. Martha A. Durrenberger MPOAG, P.O. Box 1655, Las Cruces, NM, 88004 Mr. Ramon Sanchez MPOAG, Services for Seniors, 310 N. Tornillo, Las Cruces, NM 88004 Dr. C. Quentin Ford MPOAG, NMSHTD Commissioner, 1985 Crescent Dr., Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Ms. Elaine Cundiff MPOAG, Engler Road Issue, 125 San Ysidro, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mr. Rito Medina MPOAG, Foster Grandparent Program, 330 S. Reymand, Las Cruces, NM 88005 Mr. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG-RPO Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 Mr. Anthony C. & Joseph Guillory MPOAG, Enchanted Southwest Tours, 755 Telshor, Suite 11E, Las Cruces, NM 88011 Mr. Leroy Salazar MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Const. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Tony Sayre MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Ms. Brenda Braswell MPOAG, SW Area Agency on Aging, P.O. Box 822, Mesilla C. Center, Suite 6, Mesilla, NM 88046 PACKET: (20 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER Brian Denmark MPOPKM, Planning Director Councillor Herculano Ferralez MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Councillor John Haltom MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Councillor Tommy Tomlin MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Commissioner Ken Miyagishima MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee, 225 E. Idaho, Suite 3, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Commissioner Ray B. Luchini MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee, 1737 Foster Road, Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mayor Edward Southworth MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, 335 Capri Arc, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Trustee Jesus M. Caro MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, 2101 Calle del Norte, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Trustee Michael Cadena MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 968, Mesilla, NM, 88046 FILE COPY MPOPK, JAE/David Carpenter MPOPK, DSD/Asst. Planner - CLC Michael A. Parks MPOPKM, Planner - CLC Minerva Sanchez MPOPKM, MPO Transcriber Mr. Bruno Zaldo MPOPK, City Manager, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. Donald Brooks MPOPK, Dona Ana County Manager Ms. Judy Price MPOPK, c/o Larry Shannon, County Planning Department PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE MPOPK, City Hall ------------------------------------- MAIL Mr. Jack Lord MPOPK, City of E1 Paso MPO, #2 Civic Center Plaza-8th Floor, E1 Paso, TX 79901-1196 Mr. Dan Stover MPOPK, NMSHTD (fax agenda 827-0431), P.O. box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Richard Montoya MPOPK, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149; Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Policy Committee Mailing List Revised: June 5, 1994 AGENDA (36 Agendas) HAND DELIVER BRANIGAN LIBRARY MPOAG, CITY HALL MPOAG, COUNTY COURTHOUSE MPOAG, Mayor Smith MPOAG, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. Jerry Trojan MPOAG, Assistant City Manager, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. John Keith (8 copies)MPOAG, Public Information Officer Mr. Mike Medley MPOAG, Airport Manager TOWN OF MESILLA MPOAG, ---------------------------------- MAIL Mr. Jerry Rosenbaum MPOAG, Lim.Exp, P.O. Box 1183,. E1 Paso, TX, 79947-1183 Mr. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 604 San Mateo, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. John Fenner MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. 0. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1148 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Anaya MPOAG, DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mr. Larry Shannon MPOAG, DAC-Planning, 430 S. Main, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Mr. Marc Ersland MPOAG, Yellow Cab Co, 1299 S. Espanola, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Mr. Ben Woods MPOAG, NMSU-Physical Plant Dir., Dept.3545; Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003 Mrs. Martha A. Durrenberger MPOAG, P.O. Box 1655, Las Cruces, NM, 88004 Mr. Ramon Sanchez MPOAG, Services for Seniors, 310 N. Tornillo, Las Cruces, NM 88004 Dr. C. Quentin Ford MPOAG, NMSHTD Commissioner, 1985 Crescent Dr., Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Ms. Elaine Cundiff MPOAG, Engler Road Issue, 125 San Ysidro, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mr. Rito Medina MPOAG, Foster Grandparent Program, 330 S. Reymand, Las Cruces, NM 88005 Mr. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG-RPO Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 Mr. Anthony C. & Joseph Guillory MPOAG, Enchanted Southwest Tours, 755 Telshor, Suite 11E, Las Cruces, NM 88011 Mr. Leroy Salazar MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Const. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Mr. Tony Sayre MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 Ms. Brenda Braswell MPOAG, SW Area Agency on Aging, P.O. Box 822, Mesilla C. Center, Suite 6, Mesilla, NM 88046 PACKET: (20 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER ...................::::::::::::::.:..:........: :::.:.:::::::::::.:::::.:.::....:.:.:: :::>::>:::::>:::::<:::>::>:>:::::>::s::>::::>::::>::::<:A9P�L?f..........laift�i t3I.:.... recLci e ;::: L © t'. ire m :«: ..c izacsc:aY ............................................... Coz8ncxl_2�r;;Herculan©:;::Terra:l;ez::>::>:M�L3i?IC3Ss:>:MPS?::::Aa1fe3':<�.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::�::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::. 4itt;C213Q O t Ra]LP tS PK#4 NtFC� P�?3ixy QgmmltiteC M�mb r, FiAS f3 S 1TYffA . ............ .:::....... C CIS...£F7i7� x:i:'3.C•lllltCf::i'.L'Q7c :2:;;;:;:::>iiiii......M? �?: ?:`;?:O:;lC}?:: 031181) :C:C,' :;1�12E11b.G.Y:'<G:2 ?:i:"..". . S.:X....... s::is >:::::..:... ::. .. .... Cotcmtii�i xone K 13 1�ki agis tlit+a NlL�4Pk 1 PL? Pcil��y Ct ttmtict�e 2 5 Iciahcs, ��txta 3 3;a� Cru sr>'i#I &$t3o1 1 :<`7s:Fs.......R rEic®r:-:�:xI7M�:iii: 88 t3 03 Ra:;:B:>:»L�tchi :>:i»»»:MR(3FI#aS>:>:>MFCE:>Biz c: >:G©iiirsi :..::3.............................,.........................,.........<..:.::::::::::::::. ©Sf�61;15S1DFi8,......... Ma3rCi „FS7V8FCl 4k4t-h 14 $#�Ma 4PfJ 4 1G3 CJmm?tCo ;°SEs1n�?eY 33$ ESQ? 1:. C> F?s C7rkEt4si r .............8......... D ...... .... - 2itste Tus M.::: czol <.:: hFP(S:P#lleyotmlk�ee Memo#x,'21{..3. CaIJ del �T#x�a: 2 asx�xces t3M 884U 3ru5tee A9�chl Cadarra _ A4E�ls1 , [#'Q Pgixcy+ Comm�ttae MetabeW 8 A9alla i4M< 88139;6 FILEXCOPY ii?h1F(3PK%: JkTl33v14i Gnt�x M P3£>. D�F� G ��arraer .........................................:.... .... ...... ... ......: ....... ...... .. MCh12:3 ::: ?d7S: M£?U?TS ::::;:£?:laztT}G.r;::'::�73C MaiYi�taatscnazifJPkMiYlfts¢ itae "`` Aaa. e r< I AS>::CF2UC CITY BATE ... �:� ..t3':: :.��::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. Mr ei.$Kp91 iiFf3 , E70I7a Ana Co�A�y 4anageZ ....... e mY«P:latEu3<::33eizkm....... exca,..: P I Ti#t'Mz. N{rE£xC L'K CyLy a13 ------------------------------------- MAIL Mr. Jack Lord MPOPK, City of E1 Paso MPO, #2 Civic Center Plaza-8th Floor, El Paso, TX 79901-1196 Mr. Dan Stover MPOPK, NMSHTD (fax agenda 827-0431) , P.O. box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Richard Montoya MPOPK, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504