Loading...
05-11-1994 i�i 1 2 3 4 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 5 MEETING 6 WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1994 7 The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee Meetid on Wednesday, May 11, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City%=1 il Chambers, 200 North Church 8 Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 9MEMBERS PRESENT Ray B. Luchini, Chairman (Dona Ana County) 10 John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) 11 Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) 12MEMBERS ABSENT: Jesus Caro (Town of Mesilla) 13 Kenneth Miyagashima (Dona Ana County) 14 STAFF PRESENT: Brian Denmark, MPO Officer Michael Parks, City Plannirrgr 15 David Carpenter, City Planning Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 16 CALL TO ORDER: 17 Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. There was a quorum. 18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Luchini said, did everyone have a chance to review the Minutes? Mr. 19 Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the Minutes. Mr. Ferralez seconded. There were no further comments and the Minutes were 20 approved unanimously (Mr. Cadena was not present for this vote) . NEW BUSINESS 21 Mr. Luchini said, okay, we' ll move to New Business: Introduction of the 22 MPO Transportation Plan. 23 Mr. Denmark aid, Mr. Chairman, we are introducing the Intermodal Transportation Plan to the Policy Committee tonight to begin the process of review in accordance with the tentative schedule for the possible 24 adoption of the plan on August 10. We have submitted this plan to the Technical Advisory Committee and also to the Transportation Ad Hoc 25 Committee that has been created through City Council. As you know, this has been mandated by ISTEA. This is to create an intermodal plan that does more than review and plan for thoroughfares, but look at various 26 other elements such as public transportation, and bicycle movement. So, we have, through this process established objectives of what we want to 27 accomplish by creating a plan. There were several variables that impacted that, and one of those was time. We were under a short period of time in 28 trying to accomplish this goal. We were fortunate enough to have a Major Thoroughfare Plan and a lot of studies that have been done to help us put this plan together. Some jurisdictions didn't have anything to start 29 with, so we were fortunate. The document does look big and thick, however there is a lot of graphics in it, and there are a lot things in there that 30 � you're already familiar with such as US 70 arra Lohman, to name some examples. One of the objectives of the plan has also been to address not only the MPO but the Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan. We hope that after 31' the MPO adopts this that the City will get involved and update their Comprehensive Plan as a part of their Transportation Element. They will 32 probably be adding some additional policy that's of particular interest to the City of Las Cruces; things that the MPO doesn't deal with primarily such as streets below the Collector. The City would like to address some 1 i i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 3 of the policies related to that. So, that was one of the objectives,to beak this up into different elements in order for it to be adopted by different jurisdictions if they desired to do so. The plan contains some 4 background information related to transportation and also an explanation about what the ISM requirements are, and some of the criteria that we 5 have to review and analyze. As I just mentioned, we broke it up into several elements. Some of these elements being the Thorofare Element, Bicycle Element, Public Transportation and Intermodal Elements. The 6 Thoroughfare Element is basically the Major Thoroughfare Plan. It's basically all those unwritten policies and decisions that have been made 7 by this Committee have been incorporated into that element. So if you review the master plan within that section, it's just like- our Major Thoroughfare Plan. The Bicycle Element is brand new and so is the Public 8 Transporation Element. The Transit Department within the City has never really done a comprehensive plan related to their studies. Most of its 9 been strategic planning or looking five years ahead, but nothing as far as viewing for 20 years ahead. That's a brand new element. The Intermodal 10 Element essentially ties it all together in viewing all the modes of transportation as one, so it would be like graphically showing one map of all the different systems within the overall infrastructure of 11 transportation. There's also the financial considerations and constraints that we had to take into effect. ISTEA mandates that we tie the amount of 12 funding that we project to receive over the next 20 years and tie that to specific projects. So, there's a financial element tied in with this 13 p an' Finally, we have the action plan or the implementation which you're all familiar with as far as the Annual Element and the Transportation Improvement Program. We had to incorporate that into the plan. 14 Basically, for an exxpplanation of the elements, we took a lot of the concepts that have already been accepted by the Policy Committee. As I 15 mentioned the Thoroughfare Element is the Mayor Thoroughfare Plan. As far as what has been the priorities over the past few years and what we anticipate being the priorities that were established within the Annual 16 Element and the 'IYansportation Improvement Program. 17 One of the issues that has been raised already from public comment is Engler Road. If you' ll recall, we're awaiting a response from the County 18 on land use policy What we have informed them of is that we did not address or change the status of that project within this plan. We're not going to touch it until probably after this plan is adopted because of the 19 time that would be needed for the County to respond back to us and the public involvement that would be necessary would probably go beyond the 20 Asst deadline. So, we informed them that we would probably be addressing that after we hear back from the County. We do know what we're 21 waiting for from the County, and that is the completion of their comprehensive plan. They have tied their county—wide comprehensive plan with the EIZ s comprehensive plan. Essentially they are incorporating 22 that into one document. As soon as they have adopted that, they will e forwarding their land use policy to us in order to address the North 23 Valley. If the Policy Committee wants to review it in the meantime, we informed them that we would send them notice by mail and in the paper so they would be notified of the meeting. That is why they are not here in 24 force tonight. 25 The other part of the Thoroughfare Plan is the AE/TIP and it has been implemented into the plan. A lot of those projects you' ll see, you're 26 already familiar with. The next couple of elements, the Public Transportation and Bicycle Elements are brand new plans. Essentially they are looking at the same concepts that we incorporated in the Major 27 Thoroughfare Plan. If you will recall within our map, we are designati specific alignments for Arterials and Collectors, but there's other routes 28 that we designated as study corridor areas. Those have been defined as areas where they might not be needed within the next 20 years but they may be needed beyond that, or we're not quite sure where their alignment is. 29 It might be needed two miles over to the east versus where we've got it 30 shown on the map. We've incorporated those concepts into the Bicycle � —2 31 32 i iIi LAS CRUCES MEIRDPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 Element and also into the Public Transportation Element. The Public 3 Transportation Element also looks at consideration of a regional authority which is currently under review. If you' ll recall, there was a South 4 Valley Feasibility Study that was conducted and it encourages some form of regional transportation system and management of that system. However, 5 it's at the very beginning of that planning process, so all we did was establish that as a goal to pursue that to see if it's really a viable option for this area or not and pretty much left it as that. The Public 6 Transportation Element pretty much gears itself towards that. Some of the other issues are the interaction with the Town of Mesilla. Currently 7 there's no services being provided and that is somethinz that needs to be pursued; as well as out in the East Mesa. The biggest change in philosophy here is no longer callirxl it a Transit Element but more a 8 Public Transportation Element. So instead of viewing bus movement, for instance, what we're really looking at is van or car pooling, paratransit 9 vehicles, a variety of different type of services, so the system will no longer in the future be like what has been viewed in the past. That's one 10 of the changes. The Bicycle Element functions, the way we have recommended, is under the MPO. We are recommending that they create an advisory committee similar to the Technical Advisory Committee, but it 11 would be made up of three members who are "enthusiasts" of bicycle movement who would participate in that. We'd view them as being a little 12 more up to speed on what are really the issues out there related to bicycles. We would establish them as an advisory committee similar to the 13 TAC and they would be providing recommendations to this Committee as far as implementation to the Annual Element or the Transportation Improvement Program. We also realize through the planning and development of this 14 that there's a lot of things that we don't know. There currently are some form of bike system out there. For example, Councilor Haltom mentioned 15 Telshor. There is a bike lane on Telshor. No one would know it in certain segments because it is not designated. So, we obviously have things that we can implement now, and that's just takirq those existing 16 facilities and improving on them so that people realize that they're there. We also have some other areas where we're not sure where the bike 17 lane or bike path is appropriate, so we designated those areas as a study corridor area. We want that advisory committee to review that planning 18 process and look at that and provide recommendations. We see the Bicycle Element as being the beginning of this particular process. We've established an action plan where there's plenty of things to do over the 19 next five years. It's not only infrastructure related, it's also design standard development and guidance. We have received some comment from the 20 public on this and they've been very helpful, primarily dealing with safety issues, and the use of helmets and a variety of other things that- 21 have been addressed. We appreciate those comments. A couple of other elements I haven't mentioned is the Aviation Element and the Rail Element. Now we're having to incorporate those modes of transportation. 22 There really isn't too much that we have provided within those elements because it is not something we, as an MPO, control as much as 23 thoroughfares; or manage as much as thoroughfares or bicycle movement. There's a lot of activities that are currently going on. Within aviation, the City is working on a masterplan for the airport and for the 24 industrial park, and we're essentially relating that information within this document. We're saying that should continue to be pursued and 25 finalized. The Rail Element is the same thing. There's currently a study going on for passenger movement on a north/south direction, and that 26 should be pursued. We've found other studies that I'm sure some of you are familiar with such as the rail spur to the west mesa industrial park. That's collected a lot of dust, so what we did was brought it back and 27 said, well it shouldn't be thrown away; it should still be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean that it something that's going to be 28 implemented, but it's definitely something that should be part of the planning process tied in with some of the efforts of the city out in the West Mesa. Finally, there's the Financial Element which is probably the 29 toughest part we had. Determinirq what moneys we anticipate receiving 30 over the next 20 years and then trying to tie our implementation to that. -3- 31 32 1 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 We've received some ballpark figures of around 2 to 3 per cent and looked 3 historically at what we've received over the past, and just projected that out. We were essentially able to implement all of the Annual Element and 4 the Transportation Improvement Program plus additional projects. What we have done through implementation is tie in the US 70 Frontage Road project, the Lohman Project, and everything else that was within the Annual Element and the TIP is in the plan for implementation. That's basically what the plan does, so it really shouldn't be too surprising to 6 the Technical Advisory Committee or thePolicy Committee. The only surprises may be to the public that hasn't participated in this process. 7 The review process, the way we've set it up, is we beginublic notification at the beginning of this month and we have three full months of that particular type of action, so we're shooting for a July 29 8 deadline for receiving any feedback or comments. We have suggested that not only the Technical Advisory Committee but the Policy Committe and the 9 Transportation Ad Hoc Committee go through and review the plan because we have such a short period of time. Normally we'd go to the public first and 10 try to develop the draft through that process, then go to the Technical Advisory Committe and finally to the Policy Committee. Since we only have three months, we felt that we needed to pool together and work on those 11 comments at the same time. We don't think it should be a problem because as I said a lot of the work has already been done not over the last three 12 or four months but really the last seven or eight years. Finally, we're still in the process of reviewing it. We were really having to do a cram session on this thing over the last couple of months. A lot of work and 13 effort has been done by David Carpenter and Michael Parks. I appreciate a lot of the work and effort they've done and the extra hours they've had to 14 do to develop this plan. So, we're still in the review process of this draft and realize that there's a lot of things that we probably missed or 15 that we don't have quite documented correctly. So we're hoping that through this entire comprehensive review process, we' ll be able to get it cleaned up and ready to go by August. After it is adopted, we will then 16 forward it to the State acxi then after that, the State has to develop their own Transportation Plan and forward that up to the Federal 17 Government. 18 Mr. Luchini said, Mr. Denmark will this be available to the public? Mr. Denmark said, yes, we've got copies at the library, Public Information 19 Office, and within our department. We are notifying the public in the newspaper approximately every 2 weeks. We basically anticipated the 20 concern over the Engler Road issue and sure enough within a few seconds after it was notified in the newspaper, they were knocking on our door. 21 So, we were getting drafts to them, but they are obviously still concerned over this issue. 22 Mr. Tomlin said, we should have copies at some of the County Offices as well as the Town of Mesilla, so that everyone gets a chance to look it 23 over. Mr. Ferralez said, I have a couple of comments. One deals with mass 24 transrtation, Mr. Denamrk. I firmly believe that in the future, probably five years or four years or more, there will be a demand for mass 25 transportation to the North Valley, and the South Valley. I believe it will become more necessary and I can readily understand that these 40 20 passenger buses and so forth would not be economical, but in the planning I wonder if maybe a 10 or 15 passenger minibus would be the thing to use in that respect. The other comment is that I'm glad to see the 27 recusitation of the railroad spirit to the industrial park on the west mesa because I also think that, in time, there will be a need for that. 28 This may be 15 years from now, but at least by mentioning it, we'll make sure that those in the future realize that we weren't blind when we 29 considered this plan, but kept our options open. 30 ,4- 31 32 1 i�1 LAS CRUCES MEIROPOLITAN .PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 Mr. Denmark said, that's kind of the way we were looking at it, too. In 3 reference to your first comment, that's exactly what the South Valley Feasibility Study talked about, some of the services that would be 4 provided would be more like van pool type of services. The way they're looking at it now, is beyond just the South Valley. It's the North 5 Valley. The problem that we have is that there's a lot of critical issues that need to be discussed, because of the consideration of the transportation authority. For example, it greatly impacts us as an MPO, 6 because, does that mean we're going to be expected to expand our boundaries beyond the five mile area and go clear down to the south. If 7 we do that, then will we have to deal with the MPO in E1 Paso. Or, are we going to have to go north all the way to Hatch, for example. That greatly 8 impacts not only just planning and administration but the infrastructure that we're responsible for. You also start getting into changing joint powers agreements and by-laws, and so forth. There's too many things that 9 need to be done, and there's no way we can do all of that within three years, so, the approach we took is, fine, that's a good concept but to 10 pursue that we can't sit there and say, we will do it as part of implementation. 11 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, we'd also have to deal with RPOs. 12 Mr. Luchini said, the County is looking into transportation for the South Valley and the North Valley both. It's desperately needed, or rather it's 13 one of those things where we need and then again we don't need it. It's one of those things that's borderline, but we're working on it through the RPO. I'm a member of that committee also. Hopefully, if money is 14 available in the future for such a thing, we can go forward with something. ISM is actually very restrictive so for the County, it is 15 kind of a bad situation. Mr. Denmark said, the RPO was a concept developed by the State. They're 16 referencing ISIEA, but ISTEA didn't require it. ISTEA does require that they expand the planning process, etc. I believe that the State will 17 eventually require the RPOs to develop plans, too. Since they're new in the development, they're trying to bring them along slowly. 18 Mr. Luchini said, it's taken a long time to develop the RPOs. It's very new, and we're having a hard time getting it going. I think it' ll work 19 eventually, but it is going to take time. The County, on our own, we're looking at the transportation area for both north and south. 20 Mr. Tomlin said, when we talk about the Bicycle Element, the State has 21 used the Bike Path and Pedestrian Trail concept also. Is that addressed in here, or do we not consider that as part of a transportation plan but more of a recreation plan. 22 Mr. Denmark said, more recreation, and we are really responsible to 23 address just the transportation side of it and not the recreational side. We feel, and that's how the City element came in, we know that in the Transportation Element of the City we're going to want to talk about 24 recreational uses. A lot of those systems as they get outside, like Dripping Springs Road for example, provides transportation to the 25 neighborhood out there but it also provides recreational opportunities to trails on different systems. We believe that should be encouraged, but 26 the problem again is time. For example, sitting down and trying to decide what standards should be used for bike paths and for a lane, and when should a bike lane be used versus a bike path, or another problem is like 27 on the south side of town, even though Esping is designated, which is really the best for a bike lane because they all have their problems. We 28 know that in a couple of months, we're not going to resolve that. That's why we're hoping that this Advisory Committee can help with this because that's what they're supposed to be focusing on. We think they would 29 provide better advice to this Policy Committee and designates. We made 30 -5- 81 32 i I LAS CRUCES MEMOPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 3 that a big study corridor area. I think that what we see with the bike plan is a few amendments beyond what's there now. It's really geared towards a lot of action but it's not only implementation for 4 infrastructure facilities but it's a lot of implementation for further planning. One of them was recreation. 5 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tomlin, one of the things that came up in the discussions was the fact that just the use of the word "trail" 6 caused some problems. Trail implies recreation and therefore it wouldn't qualify for funding. So, we' ll need to keep that consideration in mind as 7 we get into this particular area. 8 Mr. Tomlin said, you have defined pedestrian in here and tried to set some parameters, but I also think that if we're talking about transportation that we need to remember the fact that some people must walk. It is their 9 only form of transportation. There may be no bus routes or there aren't any bike paths. The safest and most efficient way to move people is 10 walking. A lot of people do that, and I think that's an important concept thatdont want to lose sight of because when we're talking about street design and everything else, you allude to the fact that we have to 11 take in pedestrian considerations in those designs. We want to make sure that is stated somewhere, that we're doing that and it's our intention 12 where appropriate, to accommodate pedestrian traffic as a form of transportation. I think it is an important factor. 13 Mr, Luchini said, there'sso many things that enter into this and it's hard to decide everything. That's why we need a lot of input. I think 14 once we put everything together, we' ll come up with a good solution for a lot of the problems. 15 Mr.. Tomlin said, another thing that I would like to see us do somewhere early on in the plan, and that's what I dub "the statement of 16 flexibility". We should indicate that changing factors could and should change the focus of the Transportation Plan or certain things. I don't 17 know how many times you in the County or the Town of Mesilla have accepted a plan and then for whatever reason, it needs to deviate from that plan 18 and you have to say, no, you can't change that because the Transportation Master Plan says the road should go here and not there. That may be a dated concept and these things are not always updated as quickly as they 19 might want to be for whatever reason, and they want to try and pidgeonhole us to that concept that was there and not deviate from that. I think that 20 this is a plan but not a "commitment" that can't be flexible or able to deal with changes that occur. If we, for example, in the Engler Road area 21 do not stop the development in the North Valley, then something must be done as we stated. If something ch es and that's no longer a problem in the long term then we can change wh we're proposing on doing. That's a 22 prime example that factors can change, the County's land uses and Mesilla's land uses can change ani might cause us to not necessarily stick 23 to an approach that is still in the Transportation Plan. Somewhere I'd like to have that addressed. 24 Mr. Denmark said, I think we do address that' but I think we can further enhance that by being more specific. I think through our implementation, 25 that's exactly what we're saying. It's a continuing process, we don't just end it here, and then we do another study 10 years from now. 26 Mr, Ferralez said, the title itself, "Comprehensive Plan" is like a wide 27 for the future. There are changes that take place and you can't help it. Mr. Southworth said, I'd like to say a couple of things. One of them is 28 one of the purposes of these plans is for the citizenship of the area to I be able to look and see what the plans are and that assists them in their 29 own planning. So, even though there's obviously a need to change plans as conditions change what we ought to do is change the plan as conditions 30 -6- 31 32 LAS CRUCES MEMPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 1 2 change rather than going in and piecemealing the thing on a bit-by-bit 3 basis. We really ought to have a plan for updating this thing on a two or three year basis. Also, as real reasons to change come about, as you see 4 the pattern of development changing in the city, that would be something that would initiate those changes. But, I do think it's important to 5 always try to let the community out there know what the thinking is, and try to keep them as up to date as possible. 6 Mr. Tomlin said, I think one thing along those lines that was suggested with the City's Comprehensive Plan and some of those things get lost in 7 the shuffle, but early on they talked about whenever a decision was made by Council that would deviate from the Comprehensive Plan, that simultaneously with that action was a modification of the plan—it would 8 be amended to reflect the action just taken that was not in keeping with the plan. For instance, if they were to say, okay, we no longer believe 9 in neighborhood commercial nodes as a concept, and if we changed that in an area that has a node, then we would need to update the plan to reflect 10 that change. I think it's more of a paper problem than anything else to try and get all of those things documented and try to keep it updated. If you're talking about a periodicte, it makes it more manageable, 11 perhaps, and not losing sight of fact that we have changed it so it doesn't get outdated. 12 Mr. Southworth said, we should update the Transportation Element at this 13 point because the Comprehensive Plan gets even farther into planning things. At any rate, I do feel that it's important to update this and not try to just say, okay, we've decided to move this road over to here 14 therefore we' ll automatically change our Transportation Plan. I think that before we do that, we should stud it in more depth than that. You can get into a situation where you migt o to 15 you can't, so that changes things beyond your control. a right-of-way, and 16 Mr. Luchini said, I think_ you're right. It does have to be a flexible plan that can be changed as time goes by. We can't continue to live in 17 the past; we have to plan for the future. 18 Mr. Tomlin said, at some point in time after we get this thing done, I don't know how many people keep asking when we're going to address the issue of Lohman; when we're going to address the issue of the 19 interchanges. . .and I feel like saying where have you guys been? I try to be real polite. I think when we get this done that we should have the MPO 20 staff get with the Public Affairs for the County and City and I would like to see us put together an informational supplement which would go in the 21 Bulletin or the Sun News where we tell the people that these things are being addressed. I keep telling the people, all it takes is money. I don't think people realize how much time and effort we spend in trying to 22 address those long-range issues. Maybe I get tired of hearing the same questions. . .but maybe we need to inform the public that we have looked at 23 these issues and we have a plan to meet the needs of the community. Once, we have a document that's been finalizaed, then I would like to see us do that. I think that sometimes we're unfairly criticized for lack of 24 planning and that's only because they really don't know what's been done. 25 Mr. Haltom said, I think that's a good idea. I think it would be a great idea if -we couldget a lot of citizens to go in and see our GIS and 26 understand what could be done with it. People would find it hard to believe. If there is some way that could be set up to be shown over the television, so that the people would know that we not only plan, but we 27 have the capacity to see where the connections are on the GIS. I think that's a marvelous development. It's all been done without the public 28 knowing about it, I think. 29 30 -7- 31 32 i�i LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MAY 11, 1994 h 1 2 Mr. Tomlin said, . . .and the fact that the City and County cooperate with that, and it works well for both entities. Isn't Mesilla also going to. . . 3 Mr. Southworth said, yes, we just signed the contract the other day. 4 Mr. Luchini said, are there any other comments on the plan? 5 Mr. Haltom said, I' ll have some more after I've read it. We haven't had much time to review it yet. 6 Mr. Luchini said, does anyone else have any other comments? 7 Mr. Haltom said, I see some people in our audience that I don't recognize. Perhaps they are here to provide some input tonight. 8 Mr. Luchini said, are there any comments? 9 Mr. Trowbridge said, I'd like to get a copy of the plan, if I can. I'd also like to comment that a lot of people are presently using the 10 embankment as a bike path. I don't know if it's a legal byway but I think one advantage that it has is safety. You're not going to be hit by 11 a car. I would suggest that might be an area that should be looked at. Mr. Tomlin said, we have looked at that. Mr. Denmark mentioned a 12 recreational approach to that, and one of the things that we'd like to develop that we have, and I think you're talking about an Elephant Butte 13 Irrigation lateral that has an access road on top of it; and all through the city those things exist and offer an opportunity for us to work with EBID to develop a trail system. Even if it's recreational, a lot of 14 people could use it for transportation purposes. You could go, for example from the Leasburg Dam, north of town by Radium Springs, all the 15 way down through the Valley on a bike trail system. 16 Mr' Trowbridge said, many people don't want their children on bicycles because the roads are considered dangerous. It's considered such a novel experience because a lot of drivers of automobiles don't look for people 17 on bicycles. But that's just one possibility. 18 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you're aware that we do have in the works a bike path from University north to Missouri and then 19 forward to Montgomery Wards on Triviz. Mr. Denmark said, I'd like to just add that it's really unclear within the 20 Design Standards, for the City for example, when a developer has to put a bike lane in or pay their prorata share for it. It shows a bike lane but 21 it doesn't say this clearly a route that's for bike paths and you will be providing the necessary right-of-way. That's what we want to tie down so we know what routes are going to be used, and they will be built, and 22 there will be a lane for the kids or any other users for that bike lane. 23 There were no other comments, and the meeting adjourned. 24 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 25 Minerva Sanchez, Secretaxy 26 Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Department 27 MINUITS APPROVED BY: 28 29 Ray B. c ini, CTairman Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 30 31 32 1 CI OF L.,AS CIRU&S INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO Mike Parks, Associate Planner FROM Dale Kemp, Transit Analyst-Pro- SUBJECT AE/TIP nalystSUBJECTAE/TIP Changes FILE NTA-M94-055 DATE 05/31/94 During the AE/TIP process the following project was inadvertently left out . Request that a revision be made to the AE/TIP to include this project . Total Cost Scope Activity FY Match (000s) Rolling Stock New 95-96 80/20 400 Lead State Share Local Share Fund Source Actency Comments 320 80 Section 9 RRT 2 Buses (Expansion) Please contact me if you have any questions . DFK:mhs o) E- N Z d W Z Z O W 0 w Q z O a z 4_ O > _o 0 'o, w ¢ Q S J J 0 L U N > WZ= ,�" o F- Z � LL am ~ Qz a N m > Q . . . = c Z y O w Q : Q Z (n U O p N F w ZQ (nF '(�qq':m F- m(nm O Z Q w U p QOma :mammm J O U w O w U N :!'ik;:N N N N U U U UI > Z U U > y a L p H Z cr w p wI F v, JQQO ¢ O � � V a . NW Z a :I a m m m Q CO O w ?3:U) UUU m U O O ¢ ¢ ¢ W W 6 � U A p ¢ mmmm :a:gym m000 m m li ZO C� p ¢ mmmmmm p ¢ m n 0 O O w w w w :9:u w H H H w w . _ = . . j 0 w w w w w w Z O U o '^ LL N N N (A N ;11,?;::,m (n N m(n (n N LL fn N V) m m m (n LL O N d Z LL G Z a ¢ pl Q ¢ NI Q ¢ ml 3 O }�� O H m m m O M 1D :(Q::m m O ° M V) 0 M M M M M M ° fn O Q — 2 IL Z i O W W N W W 6 W W fn U Q Q QQOCC OI � OOa 'G7:O x000 J QQOI Om� m n QQO H 2 N ft:N N N N a H I O O O N M H 2 O E J Co-1:5O y N N M a :M::M M M Cl) N O m (n O M Cl) M M M M (n m < C O N }1 ~ d Q m 0 0 LoJ y Q F m Z OOC) u= Op OomOOO O OO - 00 a W T� > VJ _F000 _ = m U o o ;c;.0 0 0 0 0 o U o UI N N , 0. m ` ` mD:m ` mm0mm = • • • _ < m • _ _ • • °W dp d U H cc W JM W Q ¢ m o (n (n m N m m o Q ¢I m m n m m o v ¢I m m U m m is<:;m mmo m mmmmmo U mmmmmo Q m m U (n w V . . M :r:,m . N ao o) V 7 (n(o n ao C� tow V (n to r� co of (n w v N co`V Rl- = 11 > m m :::;::m m m m m m m m m m m LL > m m m m m m 11 > a) f Q s Q � N L > m 00 (� w o En L Ir f a m C 0 m m m w m 'h O O z aA � ¢ O ~ /7� Z a a F ami Ix>Z O Q X w d O w w U y U w a� > W w ° ( > z > Z H v, > Q Q cc z < F 'K o J . J ~ > ¢ m C Z H O U W W e �' = . s .W O 0 U LL U a q L a ¢ z �:::¢ U U a o a ; a W CF n z c � m Q� a Z U Ln H a LL f U U H y O W w Q Q Z C N zC7 Y LL J N N p Z 2 U j Q 2 X N a z (n O a Q Q u X Q Q LL C7 ¢ U O O C7 z J wa Z O ¢ Z w ? C7 w Z ii Q O a x ~ 0 ~ Z a Q L]- ¢ U y ¢ m O a o w 2 N c Q 0 0 r Z LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PL)LICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORMW FOR MEETING OF: May 11, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: Review and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on April 13 , 1994 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Policy Committee Meeting Minutes for April 13 , 1994 . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: None LAS CRUW METROPOLITAN PLANNING O�NIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: May 11 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Introduction of the MPO Transportation Plan. ACTION REQUESTED: None SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . None (Copies of the Transportation Plan will be distributed at the meeting) . 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. Drafts of the plan will be introduced and distributed at the meeting. Copies of the draft have been made available to the public at the MPO offices, the City of Las Cruces Public Information Office, and Branigan Library. The TAC will also receive copies of the draft plan at their meeting on May 5 , 1994 . 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 . Policy Committee Mailing List Revised: May 4 , 1994 AGENDA (29 Agendas) HAND DELIVER -_.... __. ........................................... $'R."i ITO- :iA.P.RAS?:Y: :::::::N1:P4?AC3:3:> ................................................................................. ........................................................................... ................... iii i z`;`....--1...... ilii:?'i< OM ZS)t3AT WM. . If�Jt3SS \.M..:..:..r:..:......i:.:.:..:.`.:..:"..i:..:..T..::......:..":..:.d.:..i:..:...........:.>....... ... * G! i '>k3JiI Lii ii. ii?<i? %MaY ...iftt ..i>'. :::::::::: : .......... : ............. ........ .............................................. ....... . . QAG.. : <.3G .... .J .. .... : .: : 2 ;: l ' ...x .......... ...........i.....i.>....i.:..�..i.:..�. .fi....:.i...:..................:..:......:.................T.:.9.:...a.......z.:...i...d...... .....;f...d.e...:..Rz........ .... ....Q....E.1..:..C..........._. .............................I..............{............................................................................................... .._..... .. . . :::>::>:: :::>: :::::::>::s:ii >A:zz .... ................. . .. -. E €':.... > >TAY �fl . . : ::>: ........................................... ..........................................-....................._M......._ ---------------------------------- MAIL 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. 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 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. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG-RPO Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 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 PACKET: (19 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 MPOPKK, 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. 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: May 4 , 1994 AGENDA (29 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. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 117 US Courthouse, Santa Fe, NM, 87501 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. 0. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. George Anaya MPOAG, DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., 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 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. Woody Jenkins MPOAG, SCCOG Transportation Planner, P.O. Box 7385, Las Cruces, NM, 88006 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 Mr. John Fenner MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 88504 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 88504 Mr. Larry Shannon MPOAG, DAC-Planning, 430 S. Main, Las Cruces, NM 88001 PACKET: (19 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER ie} >::: ::>::>:::::>::>::::Mi i'::>::::>:i?k viiia ::.:. :r��toe ......................................................................................<..................... .................... ........................................................................_........_............................................... _. ... .... ...... _ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... bunezllo e Cv1� :f� �#lex;;;;;;:P9P s�? 'w»:>NE'Q>s o3aC:;>: bmdixC: �e»Mei '>: 5::MUM_ 'F _ I. >.......................... ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ::::.. ::::: :::::: :::::...:...........i..............�. CounciLl riiS�hn:<:Nalbxxm:i:<:i>;:>:;;!si;:%M#?E3PICid:>ii:MPC>isPylic':::C©ears tteei:MesaaEr:::.LASX-RiICE5... ..HALL .....::::::::::::::::: :.Y:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::: '. . 4xst�C1XIOx TOmsrs. #5 1 #..... j #rKM. . MF4 PS?11Cy..CS?ja�klt��< £4��?�� taAS G€�;3 �i �T HALE ...................:...............................................:............................................................................... ................... .... ......... ... ..................................................................................... JAEfi nv14::4 �1i' 000. IC .............::................................................ ............... M2ca®1>A:>:L?a3fs::':'::>:::>:::>:::>:::::S:i »::A9PQ. Assrat® .. ..............................................................................,:...................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................ Mie sva:>Sa.,::::. M. ..... ................. . ...............................................................................:......................:.........:.......... ...........:...........................:........::::.:.......................................... ::>::>«:::>>::::li :»::::>::::>: E:'::>:Mia:eT :::Fi Mr 33o d1c1 23Ybok .. A9P.X.F9 . DOna Ana Aalsit Mdn q�x Ms »:Iti `:?Z3E@::`: iii `:: ML?4�3PIC'''iiC':47iZx"Zr. t2... SF0I:Fii C >:Plazii"`:33e'ar£m®eft ::::::::. ::: ::.::::::::.:+::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::..::.�::. :::::::...... PkI TtI:O itdFflTt.4.!r ff(?FE�C M.i�flPK,..................................................... L ------------------------------------- MAIL 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 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 de Norte, Las Cruces, NM 88005 Trustee Michael Cadena MPOPKM, MPO Policy Committee Member, P.O. Box 968, Mesilla, NM, 88046