Loading...
08-11-1993 LAS; CRUCES MEOPOLITAN PLANNG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DONA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AGENDA .. he following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning ( rganization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, August : 1, 1993, at 7 :00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 T :)rth Church St. , Las Cruces, New Mexico. . he City of Las Cruces. will make every effort to provide reasonable e :commodation (s) for people with disabilities who, wish to attend a l iblic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the neeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I. CALL TO ORDER II. REVIEW OF MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Amendment to the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) , Resolution 93-008 . B. Re-evaluation of project priorities for 1993- 94 Annual Element (AE) , Resolution 93-009 . IV. OTHER/DISCUSSION V. ADJOURNMENT Publish: Sunday, August 1, 1993 PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS, CR CES MEMOPOLITAN PLANNYIG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DOWA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AGENDA T following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning 0 ganization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 1 :., 1993, at 7 :30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N rth Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. TLe City of Las Cruces . will make every effort to provide reasonable a :commodation (s) for people with disabilities who . wish to attend a p i.blic meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the m ^eting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I. CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Amendment to the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) , Resolution 93-008 . B. Re-evaluation of project priorities for 1993- 94 Annual Element (AE) , Resolution 93-009 . IV. OTHER/DISCUSSION V. ADJOURNMENT Publish: Sunday, August 1, 1993 AIL C�_� I_J 1� 0/y PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METRPOLOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 1 21 MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1993 3 � The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metrpolitan Planning C Organization' s Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, August 11 , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church 5 Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Luchini , Chairman (Dona ana County) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) 7 Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 8 Nelson Clayshulte (Town of Mesilla) Ken Miyagishima (Dona Ana County) 9 John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) 10 Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) STAFF PRESENT: Brian Denmark, MPO Officer 11 Michael Parks, City Planning David Carpenter, City Planning 12 Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 13 CALL TO ORDER 14 Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. There was a quorum present. 15 REVIEW OF MINUTES 16 Mr. Luchini said, the first order of business is Review of the Minutes for 17 July 14, 1993. Mr. Haltom moved for approval of the Minutes. Mr. Southworth seconded. Mr. Luchini said, it has b=en moved and seconded for 18approval of the Minutes of the last meeting. Are There any other comments, if not, all those in favor signify by saying ayz. Any opposed? The Minutes 19 were approved unanimously. 20 ; Mr. Luchini said, under New Business we have Amendment to the 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) , Resolution 93-008. 21 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, as we continue to move along the 22implementation path of ISTEA, we' re continuall:r learning new things and '' changes in the ways we used to do things in the past. One of those changes 23 lis proposed before you tonight, and that' s amendments to the Unified Work Program, where we will be responsible to produce a long-range comprehensive 24 transportation plan within the next year. What we have had in the past is the Major Thoroughfare Plan which does address oie mode of transportation, 25IIbut it doesn't take into account the other modes that are applicable under ! ISTEA. And so, we will be responsible for those other modes such as bike 26 path master planning, long-range transit planning, and things of that sort. ! We were aware of this particular issue, however it. was just not part of the 27 ! UWP, and that' s why we' re presenting it to you tonight. We are currently jworking on a bike path master plan; the Transit Department, with our 28 , assistance, will be working on the transit 20 year plan; City Council has approved a contract with the consultant to work on an airport master plan 29 ; which would also be incorporated into this long-- 'a,ige transportation plan. lWith that Mr. Chairman, the other items within the proposed resolution are 30 ( simply word changes to reflect some of the issues that the State Highway ( Department wanted us to include as part of ISTE,1. I ' ll be glad to answer 31 ,lany questions. 32 -1- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MrFTING AUGUST 11, 1993 I 1 2 Mr. Luchini said, does anyone have any questions? Mr. Haltom said, would you explain to me how you inadvertently have been 3 working on a plan? Does that mean you didn't know what you were doing. . . 41 Mr. Denmark said, we knew that more had to be done to our Major Thoroughfare Plan than what had been required in the past, however the State Highway Department had not given us specifics on what that actually meant. There are certain criteria that we' re going to have to meet that they' re not 61 really quite clear on what those criteria are. Ye' re still waiting on a response from them. The regulations have just been submitted basically last 7 March, so there' s a lot of things the State Highway Department are not clear on as far as implementing parts of the act. That' s the problem here. We 8 ; have no clear direction from the State or the Federal government as to how, specifically, we' re supposed to put this plan together. We did know 91 conceptually that we were going to have to come up with plans for the other modes, so some type of planning has occurred and been incorporated into the 10 overall plan. 11 Mr. Haltom said, so, inadvertently. . .accidentally, we went along the right path. 12 13 Mr. Denmark said, we were planning ahead. Mr. Southworth said, actually, I think we directed them to do a lot of 14 this. If you will recall the Highway 70 Study, for, example, it is a 20 year study; the Interstate Access Study, and we' re talking about 30 years there. 15 We've been directing them to do all of this long-range planning. 16 Mr. Denmark said, just as a quick side note, I was at a meeting in Dallas about a year ago dealing with the initial rules of ISTEA and that was one of 17 the things that we realized. We' re way of ahead of many MPOs throughout the nation as far as just having a Major Thoroughfare Plan. Many MPOs don't 18 ' even have that. So, I think we are a step ahead of most jurisdictions. 19 ' Mr. Haltom said, I move for approval of Resolution 93-008. Mr. Tomlin ; seconded. Mr. Luchini said, are there any other comments. If not, all 20 those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion carries ! unanimously. 21 ! Mr. Luchini said, we have another resolution, Re-evaluation of project 22 ' priorities for 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) , Resolution 93-009. 23 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I ' d like ;.o turn this over to Mike Parks who, with you, Mr. Chairman, was at a msecing today and can provide 241 some information. I 25 'i Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I 'd like to pass out ; two documents before I begin. A lot of information we came across today 26 '11pertains to this issue. Basically, we attended a District 1 programming ] meeting of the Highway Department. That meeting was to determine what 27 , projects will be included in next year' s Annual lement and Transportation 1Improvement Program for the state. What I 'm handing out here is what the 28 ! State has proposed under their new plan. If you will notice there, on page one of the first document are the State Proposed AE Projects. Those are 29 '; all the MPO projects that the State is proposing. The second page shows the ! TIP projects that the State is proposing. In March of this year, we 30 ; transmitted to the State Highway Department a letter that is included in ; your packet. That letter was the best information that we had at the time. 31 ',; What that letter was made of was two separate lists. The first list was of 32 -2- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING URGANIZA1lON MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 2 projects that could be rated with our system; the other list was projects that could not be rated such as those from enhancement and transit funds. We were well aware of that. The State has said, that they were confused by 3 the two lists and needed something for the official record that showed one complete priority list for the MPO. So, what staff has done, if you ' ll look 4 at the second handout we gave you, there are three options. It shows priority projects that can be attached to the resolution in our packet. We 5 molded the two separate lists into one list. The first option on that page integrated Transit' s priorities with the Hiryhway projects. Transit, as 6 their highest priority, has the purchase of a bus using Surface Transportation money. Their number two project was the University at Locust 7 and Espina bus project. Those projects are Number 3 and 6, respectively. Other than those, all of the MPO approved projects in the original letter 8 goes in order. You approved Mesa Grande as the top priority for the MPO. You approved Lohman as Number Two. You approved US 70 Frontage Roads as 9 Number Three; and so forth as your list. Quickly, moving on, for Option II, what this one does is connect the two lists. All of the highway projects 10 are listed first and then we have the buses and enchancement projects after the highway projects. That' s just simply to have the two lists combined. 11 � The third option, the only major change to this is that Lohman/Amador is the Number One project, putting US 70 as Number Two, and Mesa Grande as Number 12 Three. The reason for the flip-flop here is that technically Mesa Grande is still part of the US 70 Frontage Road project, and could be developed as 13 ' part of the US 70 project. We tried to roll those into one package for the Highway Department' s convenience. It also shows Number Four as the buses, 14 and it' s basically the same as Option I with the exception of those first two projects. Now, for the reality check. What tie Highway Department did 15 today was adopt the projects on the first han..'out that I gave you of their proposed projects. That is their list. Regardless of any option that we 16 sent them, what you see in the first list is prohably what' s going to be unless we insist otherwise. This is what they have programmed for their 17 AE. Within that list I see no mention of developing US 70; 1 see no mention of the Mesa Grande Overpass or frontage roads or LDhman at Walnut. It' s not 18 until you get down into the TIP that you begin to see anything that' s off of what we said was the priority for the MPO ,,nd that was under US 70. 19 Basically, it boils down to this: all of tie projects that they have proposed for their AE and TIP have already been in the pipeline for several 20 : years. What they' re finding out in reality is that initial funding for ISTEA is not even matching what the first bill said. In fact, it' s 21 decreasing every year, that is their funding sourcz from ISTEA. So, we were led to believe that ISTEA was going to give us a lot of money and we would 22 ', be able to do a lot of things, and in fact, the reality, is that they' re not ; approving a lot of the funding. Because of that, the State Highway 23 ; Department is going with projects that were already programmed, already in ! the pipeline, and they' re not really allowing any new projects coming in; at 24least in the first few years of the TIP. That' s what was stated today. We do have some leeway in the out years, however what they' re telling us, and 25 ' what we found out today is that if we want to insert any priorities, it will jbe at the expense of projects that are already in the pipeline. For an 26 ', example, Main Street from Union to Pajaro is scheduled to be constructed to four lanes in the next few years. Tortugas and Watson Lane, the 27 iintersection, is scheduled to be m aligned and a traffic signal installed. � If the MPO Policy Committee decided that US 70 or Lohman is a higher 28 , priority than the four lane on Main Street, the State Highway Department does not have a problem with swapping those projec*s, but it would be at the 291, expense of widening South Main. And we wouldn't know when the widening of South Main would get put back into the process . Valley Drive is another 30 ! project which is to be widened to four lanes from Picacho north. Again, the same circumstances would apply. If the Committee desires to insert another 31 priority, they would swap out Valley Drive and put in whatever priority they 32 -3- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION METING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 want. Basically, I was told that from year to year, District I has about 2 thirty million dollars to program. Of that 30 million dollars, and I hesitate to give a percentage, but they led me to believe that somewhere 3 between 60 and 70% of that goes to just maintain the present system. That's 4Ino new capacity, no new construction projects of any sort. They told me that they have about 5 million dollars to work with on a yearly basis. Most of that comes from the enhancement projects, and that' s only if the local 5 ; governments are willing to fund it at 25% match. To put it in a nutshell , the meeting at the Highway Department was sobering and it kind of opened my 6 ; eyes to what we can and cannot do. It' s simply because they were told by the fells what their monies would, in fact, be. We've never known that until 71 now. 8 Mr. Luchini said, the Mesa Grande Overpass, they don't want to go along with that at all because they feel that US 70 would take care of it when the time 9 ' comes. They say they' re going to spend sever�.1 million dollars on that overpass and it' s not going to go anyplace. They feel it' s going to be a 10 '' burden out there for later on when they develop Highway 70. They feel that it would be better to work on the whole thing a.rd not the overpass first. 11 Those are their feelings. Isn't that what they talked about, Mr. Parks? 12 Mr. Parks said, yes, they indicated that they wanted one project. 13 Mr. Ferralez said, did they refer anything to Lohman. 14 Mr. Luchini said, I think that Lohman has a good priority to get it done. 15 Mr. Parks said, concerning Lohman, they were really unware of that, and I found that quite surprising. Somehow the communication, when we send stuff 16 to Santa Fe, it doesn' t seem to be getting distributed where it needs to go. We' re going to start doing things a little differently. We' ll start 17working from the top down if we have to in order to let the people know what our priorities really are. Lohman has a chance to go through, and they all 18 agreed that it needs to be included, but at the exp_nse of what project? 19 ' Mr. Luchini said, that' s right. You 'd have to give up some other project. 20 '; Mr. Parks said, I suggested that (this is based on pure speculation) , but if Congressman Skeen comes up with the money to do t,-,e final design, right now 21 Iin the 1996-97 year, US 70 is scheduled for construction. 22 IMr. Haltom said, it' s not on here. 23 ! Mr. Southworth said, it never goes beyond Three Crosses, according to this. 24 ' Mr. Parks said, . . it was a typo left out of the handout. i 25 'j Mr. Haltom said, I don't see anything for the remainder of this century. Mr. Chairman, I noticed several things here. One, for example, Dunn which 26 we got money for that through the House Memorial (or State Severance Tax) . We asked for the money and we got it. That' s the only reason why that' s on 27 ; here. I am certain if the Highway Department had anything to do with it, we 28 wouldn' t be doing that. Mr. Denmark said, that' s what we' re finding out--toat' s there' s a lag period 29 and our Annual Element really, to them is goin) to end up on their STIP, years behind because they' re looking at stuff that we asked for a year ago. 30 ' A lot of these projects are what we thought were approved a year ago or approximately a year ago. Now we' re seeing that our Annual Element really 31 ' serves no purpose other than going to the out years on their STIP. So that' s 32 -4- I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11 , 1993 I 1 one of the changes that we feel we need to do, and we were planning on 2 reformatting our AE/TIP instrument to where it' s similiar to theirs. That way we can be a little bit more consistent and realize what has gone through 3 and what has gone through their programming. We' re also finding out that information that we've been receiving through their representative up there, 4 has not been quite accurate either. That' s been part of the problem. 5 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, my deepest apologies . I neglected to put it in the handout, but the 1996-97 year of their 5-Year Plan does include the US 6 70 projects, and it' s funding is 6 million dollars. What I suggested at the meeting today was if Congressman Skeen comes up with 2 and one-half million 7 and that money is used for right-of-way acquisition and final design of US 70, then because of the funding category, the 6 million that' s there could 8 be diverted to Lohman in 1996-97. We have a preliminary design on Lohman, and it is such a design that they told me in Santa Fe that their in-house 9 people could work on the final design. They said the project would not be forgotten as long as it got on the plan. That' s one of the things that we 10 , might be able to get in there, but itwould be later. 11 Mr. Ferralez said, would it be possible to trade South Main for Lohman and 12 bring it up sooner. If it' s a choice between the t,,o, I 'd say Lohman. . . Mr. Luchini said, I think we have a good opportunity to change the projects 13 around to fit our needs here, and it looks like they'd go along with it. 14 Mr. Parks said, I think that' s right. They made that clear many times that if we transmit to them changes in our priorities, t-ey would work with us. 15 Mr. Ferralez said, gentlemen, I suggest that Ne very seriously consider 16 telling them that between South Main and Lohman, we ;geed Lohman. 17 Mr. Luchini said, it' s up to you people in the City to make those changes because I think they' re agreeable. I thought the meeting was very good. 18 Dona Ana County has quite a few projects on there that they' re going to fund, and I was very happy with that. There' s IIoing to be quite a bit of 19 ' money, especially for the southern part of the County. 20 iMr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, while we were -t a break in the meeting today, I spoke with the staff and I found out that the State is possibly 21 ,, going to increase their debenture and Severance Tax capabilities, and so ! therefore, it was expressed to me that we should begin to work very heavily 22' with our legislators to get House and Senate Memorials for some of the 'l 23 , projects like Elks Drive, Hadley, Shalem Colony Trail , and even Lohman. Mr. Haltom said, as a matter of fact on our legislative program we asked for 24 ' a million dollars for design on Lohman. 25 Mr. Parks said, they seemed to be saying that we'd have better success going ; that route than we would through the proper channels in the Highway 26 ! Department because the Federal funds are so tight. 27 Mr. Haltom said, that' s the exact opposite of what rye were asked to do. 28 Mr. Denmark said, that' s exactly what we've been finding out. We're going 29 to have to get more aggressive with 0e Legislature , Mr. Tomlin said, as we look as this State Propozed TIP project where they 30 have the date and the projects that are scheauled for those particular 31 years. We've got 1994-95 upon us and these things are well underway. 32 -5- I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11 , 1993 1 Nineteen ninety-five/ninety-six, end we talk about maybe swapping it with 2 Lohman. One of the projects we've been tLlking about for a long time is 3 Valley from Picacho to Engler. Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Councilman Tomlin, right now it is my 4 understanding that the City does have a scoping report almost completed for Valley Drive and ready to go to the State. Next, would be to start work on 5 the JPA and all that stuff that needs to happen there. The Main, Union to Pajaro, and Main, Tortugas at Watson, those projects are tied together. So, 6 if there' s any swapping, these are viewed as one project from the State level , because they' re going to let those contracts at the same time. 7 Mr. Tomlin said, what would that buy? 8 Mr. Parks said, right now it' s programmed at 2.5 million. I believe the 9 design for Lohman and the bridges is . well , I hesitate to say exactly because I don't have the preliminary study in front of me. 10 Mr. Tomlin said, let' s say we get the design money through the State 11 Legislature, what would this buy us? 12 Mr. Parks said, it would get it probably 90 per cent done. I hesitate to say it would get it 100%. What we' re looking at is two brand new bridges on 13 Lohman and one of the things that they expressed to me was when they start looking at bridge replacements, they look at structural integrity. Right 14 now those bridges are very good as far as integrity. It' s the capacity problem that we have to deal with. They might hesitate to do it, but if we 15 ;' set it up as our priority. . .they would probably go along with it. 16 ', Mr. Denmark said, you could go from Walnut now that it' s opened up to three l anes. 17 , Mr. Parks said, part of the plan was to go with three lanes, and it' s 18 ,! already three lanes and it didn ' t cost us anything but some paint. 19 jMr. Denmark said, you could delay. . . 20 ', Mr. Ferralez said, if the first: bridge, in their analysis, still has ! structural integrity, how about asking them if that can be kept and 21jredesigned so it can carry the traffic one way an, then a second bridge for ' the other direction. 22 1Mr. Parks said, I 'm not an engineer, but it is my understanding that it 23 ; would require two brand new bridges because you need three lanes. According , to Tom Koglin, to use his example, a bridge might never be rebuilt even if 24 ' there' s no deck because what they look at is structural capacity. You could have a "Dukes of Hazard-type" ramp and it would still be fine under the 25 State system (per Tom Koglin) . I guess what I 'm a3king the Policy Committee tonight is to make this decision. If you do want to swap projects we need 26 to know tonight. If you simply want to submit a list that combines the two original lists like they asked and let this go -hough and regroup for next 27 year, we can do that too. 28 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the need for a complete revision of Lohman is so strong at this time, that I 'd like to get a 29 consensus on swapping both projects on South Main. 30 Mr. Luchini said, you know, we talk about the South Main. . .Watson Lane Interchange realignment, and that' s a State Road, and I 'm wondering if they 31 would go along with that. 32 -6- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11 , 1993 i 11! Mr. Haltom said, Lohman is a State Road, too. j Mr. Luchini said, I just don't want to get into a conflict with a City road, 3 � State road, or County road. But if that' s the consensus, I would go along with it. 4i i� Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that since that stretch from 5 : Walnut to Telshor is the busiest street in the Las Cruces Metropolitan area, !1 then it seems to be that there' s a greater need than the one on South Main. 6 I Mr. Cadena said, where would you put that since Lohman isn't even on the 7 j list. 8 ' Mr. Haltom said, it would be on 1995-96, I guess. 9 ! Mr. Cadena said, but where would you put these other, two projects. i 101 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, NMSHTD has a cateyory for projects like that 1called "Redistribution" . Now, they did say that redistribution is full , 11d but they would look for a year that they had ope,?, so they could reprogram it somewhere on the list. I doubt that it would dropped because there' s 12 1several citizen activists for that project. 13 ! Mr. Denmark said, it would be picked up in their next year' s Annual Element, possibly. 14 ii ! Mr. Cadena said, I agree that because of the traffic counts and everything 15 ! else that may be a greater need, but there' s defintely a need for these two projects for that intersection. As you all know< it doesn't line up and I 16 ' think there' s a real big need to accommodate these people coming from the 17 ( South Valley. ', Mr. Haltom said, I think I put that in a couple -),- years ago. It' s not in 18 Imy district but I just drove over there and said, "this is madness. " 19 I, Mr. Cadena said, especially now that Watson Lane is open and there' s more , people using it. 20 IMr. Luchini said, they' re going to p!it a signal on katson Lane, regardless. 21 Mr. Cadena said, can they signalize it without realigning it? 22 Mr. Luchini said, they say they can, but they would prefer to combine it 23 ! into one project and get everything done at one time. They don't want to put in the signals and then have to do it all over again when it's 24 ' realigned. 25 ' Mr. Parks said, one of the things I learned at the meeting today from one of ' the engineers is that the cost estimates are increasing for that everytime 26 !they go back and look at it. You have the Circle K on the corner, the ' distributorship and then the railroad crossing. What they' re proposing is 27 to put in a temporary signal that costs, first it was $60,000 and now they've raised it to $120,000, to only last for two years until they redo 28 that whole street. It brought about some discussion as to whether that was prudent or not to spend that kind of money and t;ieo take them out and redo 29 the whole thing anyway. It may warrant some more thought as to the timing 30 of this project. 31 Mr. Miyagishima said, will they be reusing those saire lights? 32 -7- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11 , 1993 1 2 Mr. Parks said, that was asked, but it was never answered. Mr. Luchini said, I think they kind of hinted that they might be able to 3 reuse them. That' s one of the problems we have, they spend money and then they can't use the equipment over again. They want to align Tortugas and 4 that' s a major project. 5 Mr. Parks said, another reason why the Highway Department wanted to do this project is that they are scheduling projects for South Main, outside of the 6 MPO, that are coordinated all the way to Mesquite. They' re tying those overlay projects on NM 478 for the entire route ali the way to Anthony. And 7 so this kind of fits into their scheduled. They' re working from our section to the south, in phases. 8 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, was NAFTA mentioned? Maybe it' s in 9 preparation for increased traffic on I-10. 10 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Ferralez, it was mentioned but not in reference to this project. I think they'v sensed that it might be an 11 issue but not particularly. They' re preparing to spend $500,000 to do a study for the High Mesa Road alignment. If they find out from that study 12 that the High Mesa Road is feasible and warranted, then it is my understanding that they' re not ,panting to put it a lot of improvements in 131 the South Valley because they don't want to beef up two roads. They want to 141 force the traffic out of the Valley and onto the high Mesa. There are some question marks in this area, however. 151Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I 'm still concerned about the Mesa Grande Overpass, and I don't feel that saying US 70 is going to take care of it. 16What we' re seeing is that the Route 70 is never going to get done. We' re talking about something that would take apparently 10 years of their 17 discretionary funds to do if they put it all on the Route 70 project. That' s isn't a solution at all . To me, in my ignorance, it doesn't look 18 like it would be that difficult to put in the Mesa Grande Overpass and not have the other frontage roads for a while. That much needed overpass could 19 go in without a great risk of having it misaligned or something of that sort. I think we know enough about the final alignment to be able to put 20 something there that would be useful in the long-terra. 21 Mr. Luchini said, I agree with you, but I 'm not an engineer. They' re the ones that do that, and that' s the expression that we got from them. 22 !! Mr. Parks said, they' re hesitant to build something and then say, well , we 23 meed to have it over about 100 feet this way. 24 Mr. Haltom said, we've got the conceptual design, and it seems that would 25 be. . IMr. Tomlin said, if you ' re going to get the design money, I could see 26 jputting off building the overpass until you have the final design, but why ! can't the final design. . .and by golly, if the final design isn't worth it' s 27 isalt then it would be crazy, but it should be good enough to where you should be able to build the overpass or any section of the road and come 28 back and do another portion of it and have it all fit together. 29 Mr. Denmark said, the plan proposes that it be phased. anyway. 30 Mr. Tomlin said, that' s right. 31 Mr. Denmark said, I mean, it seems they' re being inconsistent according to 32 what the plan says. -8- LAS 'CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 Mr. Southworth said, I guess one thing we should do is on the 17th of 2 August, everyone of us that can get over to Congressman Skeen' s meeting to do everything we can to get some seam behind getting that design money. I 3 think that would be very helpful . 4 Mr. Luchini said, I think quite a few people from ':he Highway Department are 5 going to be at that meeting. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, how much time did they devote to discussing 6 the increase in traffic because of the school ann the certain hours of the days and the White Sands traffic. Did they discuss this? Did everyone get 7 informed? S Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Ferralez, r.hey did not take the time to discuss that particular issue. They' re aware of it, but I can't say for 9I certain that they've read the preliminary reports. I know that they were ff transmitted in 1990, but it has been 3 years since then. I 'm finding myself 10 having to re-educate, run copies and send them so they can have them on their desk. 11 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me t''^at we ought to make these 12 things that we' re discussing here tonight known to them. What we are " discussing here tonight is of major importance f,Dr our own community here. 13 It seems to me that they really don' t take it to ire;rt. 14 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, what is Mr. Sayre' s role in all of this, as the district engineer. Let' s say for example that you' re talking about the 15 Mesa Grande situation, I saw him Saturday at the g~and opening of Onate High School and three or four people that spoke, inclu-Jing the Mayor and members 16 of the School Board, talked about the fact that sere we are; we' re working together and this overpass will become a reality and everything else will 17 work. 18 Mr. Luchini said, Mr. Sayre never said a word, Die way or the other about the Mesa Grande Overpass. He talked about t,, e Dona Ana Interchange and a 19 ! couple of other items at the meeting today, but he never mentioned that at all . 20 Mr. Haltom said, there' s something wrong here. The Dona Ana Interchange, 21 ! according to the Barton Aschman Study, is something that could be done at the very last. 22 IMr. Tomlin said, I was looking at this list when he were talking about Main 23 ' and Union, and 1996-97, the Dona Ana Interchange. If we can do some things, we talked about the need to put Lohman in. It seems to me that the South 24 � Main/Tortugas project is more important than the Dona Ana Interchange. There' s more traffic there and the need is grea---er there (Main/Tortugas) , 25 than Dona Ana. I 'd like to bump the Dona Ana Interchange to their Redistribution Category and either put Lohman here, or move Lohman up, and 26then move these other two projects (Main/Tortugas) down to the next year. I wouldn't want to move these off the list, but for Dona Ana, I think we could 27 move off the list because of the Interstate Access Study and some other information that we have. I think that would address two really critical 28 ; areas, I think; one directly in the City, and one in the Urban area. 29 Mr. Haltom said, can we do this? 30 '' Mr. Parks said, I 've been told that if you don't ask for it, you definitely 31 won't get it. 32 -9- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 I 1 Mr. Haltom said, I would prefer to do that. I think Councilor Tomlin' s 2 suggestion is a good one. Because I recall that the Barton Aschman study indicated that was the last one that would be needed (Dona Ana) of all the 3 others. Now the Spruce Interchange was another matter. It would be very useful now. 4 Mr. Tomlin said, one of the things that we'd want: to look at, I think, Mr. 5 Chairman, would be if they' re going to do them those years, that it would probably not be in the anyone' s best interest to do those at the same time-- 6 the Spruce Interchange, NMSU and Lohman. So, if we' re going to do that, I 'd like to suggest that we put Lohman up in 1995-96; put Main down to 1996-97. 7 Mr. Haltom said, Highway 70 is also 1996-97? 8 Mr. Tomlin said, yes, it' s already 1996-97. 9 Mr. Ferralez said, if you' ll put that in the Form of a motion, I ' ll second 10 it. 11 Mr. Tomlin said, I ' ll move to do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ferralez seconded. 12 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, one item of discussion on that motion. If you 13 move it to 1996-97, I believe we need to redistribute something out of there so that we don' t overrun that year' s funding level . Currently, they have 7 14 million dollars scheduled for 1.996-97, and so we would have to adjust for i 15 . t. IMr. Tomlin said, we' re moving Dona Ana out of there, entirely. 16 ! Mr. Luchini said, how much is on Dona Ana? 17f Mr. Southworth said, 10 million dollars over two years. No, I 'm sorry, it' s 18 2 million. 19 Mr. Parks said, the Dona Ana Interchange was a topic that I asked about. There are 3 projects in the State Program that are not on our Annual Element 20 or our TIP. I asked why we weren' t informed about 'hese projects, and part of the answer is valid for some projects, but for other projects it is not. 21 One of them was, it was already in the pipeline before ISTEA came into effect, therefore, it is not und-ir ISTEA guidelines so they don't have to 22 tell us about it. Number two is that because ISTEA is in effect now, the new projects they put on for US 70 and the Tnterstate, we need to bring 23 ''. those into our documents because they seem to think they have ultimate jcontrol of the interstate regardless of whether it' s inside our boundaries 24 '! or not. There' s two clauses within ISTEA that are very confusing. One is ; cooperating and the other is consulting. They say that we have to cooperate 25 !1with them and they have to cooperate with us on our projects concerning those not on the interstate which includes US7O; but on projects on the 26I interstates, they consult with us. I don' t know whether that consulting means that we can have a say, or they simply tell us what to do and we put 27 lit in our document. 28 iMr. Denmark said, what it really means is that i,!e' re going to have to be far ! more aggressive and begin to attend almost every State Highway Commission 29 'Imeeting regardless of where it' s at and let them know what our priorities are. 30 Mr. Luchini said, Mr. Parks and I have attended the last two meetings. 31 We've had some input into some of the things that +ire happening but just Mr. 32 -10- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 Parks and I going out there to try to do things, we've taken it upon ourselves to do these things and I don ' t think it' s fair that we take the 2heat. I think we need the consensus of the board, ire order to go down there 3 and fight for whatever we want down here. Mr. Tomlin said, if I understand whet Mr. Denmark is saying, is that once we 4 approve our document, we need to be there to make sure that they see this so that it stays in there, and whoever is going would have that and could say, 5 we'd like to stress that the MPO Policy Committee has adopted this and is 6 committed to that, and requests that you be committed to it also. Mr. Ferralez said, in 1986 the Commission came to Las Cruces, and Mayor 7 Steinborn made a very good presentation about Highway 70, and the Commission did not commit itself but they said, yes, we realize this is a major project 8 and very needed, and the school wasn' t even thought of at that time, but they saw videos taken of the traffic at certain locations. They said, "My 9 God, that' s a lot of traffic" . We still have part of the same Commission. 10 Mr. Luchini said, I don't think we have the sane Commission. That' s the trouble that we have with the State of New Mexico, we' re always changing 11 people around and there' s no continuity in what we' re doing. I think that's a bad situation. Whatever projects that we sec, even though we' re not 12 around, a lot of times I think we should get involved and push for it 13 because that' s the only way we' ll get anything. Mr. Southworth said, I think we should ask Tony Sayre, he comes to all of 14 our meetings and listens to all of these thing3, to give a presentation on what he proposes to do, and have us review that ani see what we think. What 15 '' benefit we think it will be , o our MPO area. I 'm talking about what he plans to do within our MPO area. 16 Mr. Luchini said, we' re the ones that have to live with the traffic or 17 whatever. They live in Santa Fe or someplace else and they don't have to put up with these things. 18 Mr. Ferralez said, when is the next meeting in Las Cruces. Do we have a 19 schedule. 20 IMr. Parks said, they' re in the process of changing the schedule. They move it all over the State. To my knowledge, it' s not going to be here for some 21 time. 22 . Mr. Ferralez said, I would suggest that we, as a body, attend the next (, meeting wherever it is. 23 'i 'i Mr. Parks said, right now the next meeting is in September and that' s when 24 !' they' ll be approving this document. 25 'j Mr. Denmark said, they will be finalizing their TIP for their next fiscal ''1I year. 26 Mr. Parks said, what you' re suggesting right now, with a phone call tomorrow 27 ,1 and a fax, I can make them aware of the changes you pass tonight. It is !, possible that it can be developed and put into the planning document for 28 September. 29 '� Mr. Ferralez said, you might mention in a nice way that we' ll be there at ( the next meeting. 30 1 � Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, the one that really floors me is the Dona Ana 31 Interchange because that came from Tony Sayre. What are we here for? If 32 -11- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 I 1 the District Highway Engineer says I 'd like to have this one done, you have 2 to wonder sometimes, how did he decide to do that. Because if you've been 3 out there, there' s not a lot of traffic out there: Mr. Luchini said, what I got from him is that he really wants that 4 ! interchange done out there. 5 Mr. Parks said, yes, that' s what I heard. I also heard that he was looking at the ramps on that interchange because they E.re 30 years old, and they 6 were deficient based on a lifespan of the roadway and not necessarily a redesign of the alignment; although, that was talked about because of the 7 problems there where Elks come in, Dona Ana School Road comes in, and Camino Real comes in, and it' s a box culvert that doesn't have enough width to 8 handle the traffic. It was a big project and it was discussed for quite a while. 9 Mr. Ferralez said, what about traffic counts. 10 Mr. Parks said, traffic counts do not warrant it. I can prove that with the 11 counts we have now. I think he' s looking at it from t�:e roadway lifespan. 12 Mr. Luchini said, anyway, we have a motion on the floor. 13 Mr. Tomlin said, the motion was to move the two Main projects to 1996-97, drop the Dona Ana Interchange project out of this document all together, and 14 put Lohman improvements in 1995-96. (Mr. Ferralez seconded) . 15 Mr. Luchini said, any further discussion on the ,notion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. 16 Mr. Miyagishima said, was the Dona Ana Interchange I-25 reconstruction or 17 the I-25 North of Dona Ana. 18 Mr. Parks said, we' re dropping the one for two million, the overlay. 19 Mr. Luchini said, alright, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed. The motion carries unanimously. 20 Mr. Tomlin said, on this other document where we have the three options, do 21 we have incorporate that into the motion? 22 Mr. Parks said, it was asked for at the State level , so they could have an official copy on file. I think you should select one of those options, and 23 then amend the motion that was just passed right now to include whatever you want included. 24 Mr. Tomlin said, my motion was just to change 'phis document. We haven't 25 adopted this document as changed. I have no problem with adopting this document as changed, if we need to incorporate that. The resolution, as I 2V read it, needs to have this added. If you look at those lists, I prefer the format of Option 2 and putting the road projects first, and the other 27 projects second. 28 IMr. Ferralez said, we' re proposing that this go in the same resolution. 29 j Mr. Denmark said, right. This would have to go in the same resolution. 30 Mr. Ferralez said, does it have to go or could we make a different resolution? Because, I wouldn' t want them to have an excuse because they go 31 together. 32 -12- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION F':ETING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 2 Mr, Tomlin said, this is what they are requesting. Right? 3 Mr. Denmark said, right. The problem they have is that they originally told us to separate it out, and now they' re telling us that they want them together. So, we' re putting it together to provide clarification on what 4 we, as the MPO, feel are the priorities. You further enhance that through 5 your recommendation on the State' s. Mr. Tomlin said, so my motion is to have Option 2 along with the changed 6 State AE and TIP. Mr. Haltom seconded. 7 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, we had a suggestion that the Mesa Grande Overpass and US Frontage Roads be combined. Perhaps the design, if we get 8 enough money for the design for that whole area. . . 9 Mr. Tomlin said, I think one of the problems, and if we want to talk about it politically, I don' t know how many of us have talked about the fact that 10 , this is our highest priority. It was mentioned at the ribbon cutting, it' s been mentioned at several public meetings here. . . 11 Mr. Southworth said, it was mentioned in the Legislature up in Santa Fe that 12 _ it was our highest priority. 13 Mr. Tomlin said, I would have no problem in doing what Mr. Haltom suggested, if we take it and put US 70 Frontage Road Design and Construction of the 14 Mesa Grande Overpass as a priority because desig- ' s going to have to come before you have the construction, and if you wor< it correctly, that would 15 be acceptable. We' re going to phase this is, w: ' re going to start at the Interchange of I-25 and go east and do it 5 miles at a time. 16 - Mr. Luchini said, I agree with you. What I get from them is, for some 17 reason, they want to go with that. 18 Mr. Southworth said, apparently, they haven' t reads the Barton Aschman study which shows the alignment. 19 Mr. Luchini said, we can leave it in there and let them fight it out. Let's 20 push for it ourselves. 21 Mr. Tomlin said, does staff have any response to Councilor Haltom' s Isuggestion of perhaps taking one and three (1 & 3) and putting them together 22 '' and wording it where we want the design and the construction of Mesa Grande ! Overpass as being our number one priority. 23 iMr. Parks said, it is inclusive of it. US 70 includes that and we could 24 ; say US 70 Frontage Road and Design and construction of overpass at Mesa , Grande. 2511 Mr. Denmark said, but based on what you've learned today at your meetings, 26 ' what would be the most appropriate action. To put number 1 as final design, 27 ' ,� the whole thing, and number 2 is construction of Mesa Grande. '! Mr. Parks said, right. They want the whole thing. 28 jMr. Tomlin said, politically, what I 'm saying is that in order to vote to 29Ichange this, I would want that the construction of Mesa Grande not be the ( second priority but be incorporated into the number one priority--the final 3Odesign and construction of that. Because, we know we've got to have the jdesign before we can start construction. 31 '; 32 -13- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNIN:, ORGANIZATION P`_ETING AUGUST 11, 1993 1 ' Mr. Haltom said, the design of highway and constuction of the Mesa Grande 2Overpass. I 3 � Mr. Parks said, we talked about. . .why not. . .the first phase of the project is scheduled to go from I-25 to Mesa Grande and then from Mesa Grande to 41 NASA. . .we talked about designing the whole thing, then constructing Mesa Grande and then falling back to the City and do the US 70 flyover and go up 51 to Roadrunner and on out to Mesa Grande and tie it in. That was even suggested at the State level at one point when we were doing a roundtable. 61 1 Mr. Tomlin said, that' s the way to compromise and play the game kind of like 71, they want to play it. I have no problems dcinr that, but we have got to have Mesa Grande tied to the number one project. 8 ' Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I 'm afraid that if we do that, then what 9 we're going to end up with will be a 2 and a half million dollor project instead of a half a million dollar project where the design of Mesa Grande 10 is a half a million dollar project or less, but if they put all of it together in one bundle, then we'd have so much money that it won't happen 11 for a long time. 12 Mr. Tomlin said, but see, Skeen ' s proposal as I understand it is to get federal money to design the entire thing. That' s going to include the Mesa 13 Grande Overpass. 14 Mr. Southworth said, yes, but Skeen is one republican representative in a Congress of 435 representatives, and I just don' t think we have a guarantee 15 that' s going to go through. 16 Mr. Tomlin said, well the other option is--I 'in not saying that we put all of our eggs in that basket--because of what we' re talking about, here is a 17 separate thing all together. My point is that I don't think you can build the Mesa Grande interchange without having the whole thing designed so 18 that. . . If you do that, then you solve their problem of what if you build this thing and we're 30 feet out of alignment. 19 Mr. Southworth said, I don't see that problem. I guess that the fundamental 20 thing. 21 Mr. Tomlin said, I don' t see it either but that' s one of their concerns and. . . 22 Mr. Southworth said, I 'm not sure it' s a concern, I guess. 23 Mr. Ferralez said, I think it' s an excuse. 24 Mr. Tomlin said, we can leave it this way, as far as I 'm concerned. 25 Mr. Southworth said, I liked your motion just the way it started. 26 Mr. Luchini said, any other discussion? If not, let' s vote on the motion 27 ;1 for Option 2. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it (unanimous) . 28 Mr. Southworth said, I think to be consistent on what we've done, I think we 29 !1 need to do something about the design of Mesa Grande under the AE projects. d We proposed moving these around so I think we need to slip in some $300,000 30 dollars someplace to cover the design of the Mesa Grande overpass for the 31 current year. 32 -14- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 I 1 Mr. Tomlin said, they don't have that anywhere. 2 Mr. Haltom said, in order to put that on the current year, we' re going to 3 have to eliminate something. 4 Mr. Tomlin said, well , since we've taken Union to Pajaro and moved it back a 5 year. . . Mr. Haltom said, that Watson at Tortugas at Main. . .no, that' s the signal . . . I 6 guess they can do that. . .but preliminary engineering design. . . . Let's see there's Triviz, University to Entrada, bike paths, bike lanes and trails, 7 and landscaping. That' s 450,000 dollars. That' s almost enough right there, isn't it. 8 Mr. Southworth said, that' s enhancement funds in this case and they' re not 9 interchangeable. 10 Mr. Haltom said, well , that Main/Union to Pajaro. That' s 100,000. 11 Mr. Tomlin said, how about Dunn? 12 Mr. Haltom said, that' s done already. We got money from the Legislature appropriated last year. 13 Mr. Tomlin said, why don' t we take that off and Union to Pajaro and you've 14 got 290,000. 15 Mr. Haltom said, the great part of the cost of that is going to be for flood 16 i control . Mr. Tomlin said, but it has Severance Tax money listed here. 17 Mr. Haltom said, what we got was $190,000, and the City' s Flood Control put 18 ' up the rest to take care of the water. 19 Mr. Ferralez said, is this a memorial ? 20 Mr. Haltom said, no, this is Severance Tax money when they were parceling it 21 out this spring. The point is, we've already got that. Mr. Cadena said, Main and Union, makes sense and then the signal light, I 22 don't understand spending 20,000 for just a couple of years. Why not just ' hold off and wait until you reconstruct for the signal light. 23 !, Mr. Southworth said, that' s the point, because that' s not even going to be 24 !' constructed until 1995-96. 25 ;'IMr. Haltom said, that' s 240,000 total . 26 , Mr. Southworth said, what' s the other 140,000. 27 IMr. Haltom said, Union to Pajaro is 100,000, and here' s 60,000 and 80,000, so that another 140,000, making it 240,000, total . 28 Mr. Tomlin said, so we'd take Main/Union to Pajaro ,ind Watson to Tortugas. 29 30 Mr. Haltom said, the signal and preliminary engineering. 31 Mr. Southworth said, okay, so let' s put Mesa Grande up there where Main is. 32 -15- I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEL-1ING AUGUST 11, 1993 i 1 2 Mr. Haltom said, Mesa Grande design in place of Main/Union to Pajaro; and strike that as well as Watson to Tortugas, and that gives you hopefully 3 enough money to do the design of Mesa Grande overpass. This may not work but we' re going to try. 4 Mr. Southworth said, okay, then we can put in 340,000 up there, and balance it out. 5 Mr. Tomlin said, if that doesn 't work, then maybe next month instead of 6 meeting here, we should meet at O' Ryans if that' s what they' re going to do. I 'm a little disappointed that we' re having to do this after all of the 7 effort we put into it. 8 Mr. Southworth said, we can make this up by. . .we've got two and a half million in the year 1995-96 that we' re moviig down to the next year and 9 we' re only substituting two million, so we can pLt the 340,000 back in for 10 the design in 1995-96 and still balance, with something left over. 111 Mr. Tomlin said, so is that in the form of a motion to modify. I Mr. Southworth said, yes, but it' s getting a little complicated. 12i Mr. Haltom said, we haven't done anything by motion yet on this. 13 Mr. Southworth said, I think we ought to put the Main/Union to Pajaro and 14 then instead of four lane reconstruction for, the two million. . .no, well , we' re going to put that down to the next year. I guess we're going to have 15 . to insert that same listing that' s on the first gage, fourth item, and the last item on the page, insert those into the 1995-96 year. 16 Mr. Haltom said, they' re already there--four lane construction. 17 Mr. Southworth said, that' s the construction which is moving to 1996-97. So 18 we've got to put the design the year before that. 19 Mr. Cadena said, along with the construction, you include the signal . 20 Mr. Southworth said, yes. That will be a total of 340,000 that we' ll be adding to 1995-96, but since we' re moving 2.5 million down to 1996-97, there 21 ought to be. . .Mr. Chairman, I move we delete, on page one of the State Proposed AE Projects, line "Main/Union to Pajaro engineering four lane 22 reconstruction" where it shows design, and we alio delete the last line on the first page which shows "Watson at Tortugas and Main, signal and 23 preliminary engineering" and in place of those on the first page, we put "Mesa Grande Overpass new construction, design" for 340,000 dollars. 24 ' Further move that we then add to the year 1995-96 the two items we just deleted from the first page, that we add those to -che year 1995-96. We've 25 ' already replaced that with a 2 million dollar project for 1995-96, so the total cost for 1995-96 will then be in balance. 26 IMr. Haltom said, I truly hope, that staff gets this . 27 Mr. Tomlin said, is it appropriate to put the design, monies on the TIP. 28 29 ! Mr. Southworth said, yes. ' Mr. Tomlin said, because they have no design work ��.hatsoever on the TIP--all 30 of them are construction projects or improvements or upgrades or rehabs. 31 32 -16- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11 , 1993 1 2 Mr. Denmark said, I don't think that' s a problem:. I think it' s just their lack of certain thinking and knowing what would be in the pot for design. 3 They were just looking at current projects that they' re aware of. 4 Mr. Tomlin said, okay. I ' ll second the motion. 5 Mr. Luchini said, any other questions or discussion'. 6 Mr. Cadena said, so we took out Dona Ana Interchange and adding US 70 frontage roads? 7 Mr. Tomlin said, we took that out before. 8 Mr. Luchini said, all in favor o� said motion, say aye. Any opposed? The 9 ayes have it (unanimous) . Did we vote on Resolutior 93-009? 10 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, you need to vote :)n the resolution with the new components. 11 Mr. Haltom said, I move for approval of Resolutin 93-009 with the changes 12 made previously. Mr. Southworth seconded. 13 Mr. Luchini said, it' s been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have 14 it (unanimous) . Okay, any other discussion? If not, I ' ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 15 ' Mr. Denmark said, it doesn't require any formal action on the part of the 16 Policy Committee. The Annual Report has been included in your packet, 17 however if there' s any comments you can address them at the next meeting. Mr. Haltom said, I wanted to call attention to a couple of grammatical 18 errors. On page 7, "Transportation projects below are projects that were either began" and it should be "begun" , and then ;age 10, "Volunteer groups 19 that works" should be "work" . That' s all . 20 Mr. Luchini said, while I was in Detroit this last time, they included communications in our Transportation Systems that we have, which seems kind 21 of weird to me, but that' s what they' re doing. We've got airports, surface transportation, bridges and now communications under transportation. Also, 22 - we're still fighting to get that 2.5 cents on the gas tax. In fact, the State mentioned that today, also. We might succeed in getting some of that 23 money back to the State. They' re talking about putting it in to the reduction of the deficit but we' re fighting pretty hard to keep it intact 24 for transportation. That' s about all I learned up there in Detroit besides 25 ' the fact that there' s no money available. Mr. Denmark said, one quick note. It was asked at the last meeting about 26 publishing our agendas as a story within the newspaper. That would be about ' one hundred to a hundred and fifty per meeting.. If we did an ad, as was 27 ' suggested at the last meeting versus twelve dollars with a standard legal notice. 28 29 30 31 32 -17- LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1993 l 2 There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. 3 ' 4 ,� MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 5 6 ! Minerva Sanchez, Secretary City of Las Cruces Planning 8II ( MINUTES APPROVED BY: 9 'I 10 Ray B. Luchini , Chairman 11 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -18- LAS CRUC:' METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORTIZATION OLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 11, 1993 ACENDA ITEM: RF VIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: REview and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on July 14, 1993 . STIPPORT INFORMATION: Policy Committee Meeting Minutes for July 14, 1993 . D33CUSSION/OPTIONS: Nc ae LAS CRUCMETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 11, 1993 AC ENDA I TEM: Ar.endments to the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program. ACTION REQUESTED: R( view and Consideration of Resolution 93-008, amending the FY 1993-94 OF P. SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1. Resolution 93-008 2 . Proposed amended pages 7-8, FY 1993-94 UWP. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: It has come to staff' s attention by NMSHTD that long range planning efforts need to be better emphasized within the UWP. According to the I: 'I'EA, a long range plan is to be developed and submitted to the state b�, the fall of 1994 . MPO Staff has inadvertently been working on the plan and now requires its inclusion in the UWP to legitimize such work. Tre Major Thoroughfare Plan, Bike Path Master Plan, Long Range Transit Plan, and the Airport Master Plan are elements of this "Long Range" Plan and are currently in various stages of development . OF"PIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-008 , approving and amending the FY 1993-94 UWP. 2) Modify Resolution 93-008, Modify as per Policy Committee direction. LAS CRUCETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-008 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993-94 UNIFIED WORK PROGRAM (UWP) TO INCLUDE LONG RANGE PLANNING. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee is informed that : WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) on March 10, 1993 . This document can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee. WHEREAS, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Planning and Research Bureau has requested the Las Cruces MPO include stronger emphasis toward long range planning in the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program. WHEREAS, due to the nature of MPO planning activities, staff have already been involved in this effort . It has been requested as solely a matter of procedure by the NMSHTD in keeping with federal guidelines . The proposed changes apply specifically to the "Proposed Programs" section found under Program Level 200 : "Transportation Planning Projects" of the FY 1993-94 UWP and are shown attached as pages 117-811 . MPO Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval . NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows : LC MPO Resolution 93-008 -2- 1 . THAT the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program (UWP) be amended as indicated on the attached pages 7-8 proposed for the FY 1993-94 UWP. 2 . THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 11th day of August 1993 . AT:"EST: Chairman Luchini _ VOTE: Chairman Luchini: Moiled By: Councillor Haltom: Councillor Ferralez : Councillor Tomlin: Se::onded By: Commissioner Miyagishima: Mayor Clayshulte• Trustee Southworth: Trustee Cadena• API?ROVED AS TO FORM: At i,orney LC MPO Resolution 93-008 7 F� 1993-94 UWP PFOPOSED PROGRAMS: Flture Roadway Planning and Evaluation for an Arterial near Engler Road - - This is a carry-over project that will evaluate plan future al --ernative alignments for an east-west arterial connecting areas east ar. i west of I-25 in the vicinity of Engler Road. The final alignment wi 11 be compatible with the Major Thoroughfare Plan to ensure continuity w-Jth the regional network. Several public meetings have been held and cc )rdination continues with other governmental agencies. Pz Lority: 1 Es ,imated Completion: 2nd Quarter Pi ,acho Hills Alternative Access Study - - (A long range plan that would anE!nd the Major Thoroughfare Plan.) Due to development of the Picacho HiLls Area, the need has arisen to look at alternative routes that would rELieve future congestion on Picacho Hills Road as well as provide sEcondary access in times of an emergency. Priority: 2 Es ,imated Completion: 2nd Quarter Bi ice/Pedestrian Path Master Plan With the enactment of I`> EA, more emphasis is being placed on planning and funding the implementation of alternate modes of travel other than single occupant vehicles . Therefore, a study of potential impacts and benefits of a bilze/pedestrian path system within the MPO is warranted. A map and plan will be produced providing details as to future routes and policies regarding their use. Priority: 3 Es'-imated Completion: 4th Quarter Lc ng Range Plan -- A Long Range Plan is required by ISTEA and due by the fall of 1994 to the state. "The Long Range Plan must: identify Ti ansportation facilities (including Multimodal and intermodal fa^ilities) that function as an integrated transportation system, include a financial plan, assess capital investment and other measures ne-essary to preserve the existing transportation system and make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve ccagestion, and must indicate appropriate transportation enhancement activities. " "There must be reasonable opportunity for public comment or the long range plan before approval. " Staff will be working in cooperation with the state to assure full compliance with the ISTEA. (C cotes from: FRWA's "ISTEA, Selected Fact Sheets"; January 1993) Pi iority: (flexible) E.ctima ted Completion: 4th Quarter LC MPO Resolution 93-008 8 F� 1993-94 UWP F'C:JCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Metropolitan Planning Organization City of Las Cruces Dona Ana County Town of Mesilla New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department FL QDING SOURCES : City of Las Cruces New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department PF')DUCTS : -Revised Major Thoroughfare Plan -Bike/Pedestrian RepeLat Plan -Long Range Plan LAS CRUCf5METROPOLITAN PLANNING OR IZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 11 , 1993 A-;YENDA I TEM: R. -evaluation of project priorities for 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) . Al"TION REQUESTED: R, view and consideration of Resolution 93-009 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 Resolution 93-009 . 2 Cover letter for this years' s AE/TIP submission to NMSHTD. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: The MPO has been informed by NMSHTD of the need to further and more e::plicitly define the MPO' s top projects . With the approval of the FY 1593-94 AE/TIP, the MPO sent a cover letter to NMSHTD defining priorities with respect to: 1 Highway funding; 2 Flexible funding under ISTEA. Ii. preparation of the state' s AE/TIP, NMSHTD needs to know the combined priorities for the MPO with respect to these two lists . The state has a-,ked the Policy Committee to combine the two lists found within the cover letter (enclosed) . This information is needed as soon as possible ii. Santa Fe due to the state' s approval deadline for their own AE/TIP. Because none of the top priority highway projects recommended by the MPO have been included in the preliminary state AE/TIP, any priority project now chosen by the MPO will bump currently listed projects (within that finding source) back into the state' s TIP. OPTIONS: 1) Amend and Approve Resolution 93-009 , in accordance with Policy Committee priorities, permitting staff to convey the stated priorities to Santa Fe for consideration in their AE/TIP. 2) Deny Resolution 93-009 . The original priorities as listed in the cover letter remain. LAS CRUCETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-009 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR THE 1993-94 ANNUAL ELEMENT (AE) AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) . The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee is informed that : WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the FY 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) and Transporation Improvement Program (TIP) on March 10 , 1993 . These documents were sent to NMSHTD under a cover letter expressing top priority projects for the MPO on March 12 , 1993 and can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee. WHEREAS, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Planning and Research Bureau has requested the Las Cruces MPO to provide a clearer and more explicit listing of top priority projects for their FY 1993-94 State AE/TIP. WHEREAS, on the attached list of projects, project #1 is the utmost and highest priority. WHEREAS, the attached list shows projects in sequencial order from 1 to It expresses the Policy Committee' s priorities for FY 1993 -94 and will be conveyed to NMSHTD for consideration in the development of the State' s Annual Element and Five-Year Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows : 1 . THAT the attached list of projects reflect MPO Policy Committee JC MPO Resolution 9309 -2- ariorities for the FY 1993-94 AE/TIP. ? . THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to Lmplement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 11th day of August 1993 . ATI'EST: Chairman Luchini _ VOTE: Chairman Luchini : Mo ,ed By: Councillor Haltom: Councillor Ferralez : Councillor Tomlin: Se::onded By: Commissioner Miyagishima: Mayor Clayshulte• Trustee Southworth: Trustee Cadena• AP''E3ROVED AS TO FORM: At i:orney LC MPO Resolution -009 -3- PRIORITY PROJECTS ' he following projects were rated using the MPO' s Rating System: 1 Mesa Grande Overpass 6. Lassiter Road Description - New Construction-Design Description -Reconstruction-Recondition&Overlay Funds Pursued- National Highway,Surface Trans.Prog. Funds Pursued-School Bus Route 2 Lohman/Amador 7. Hadley Road Description -Reconstruction-Design Description -Reconstruction-Widening Funds Pursued-Interst. Maint.,STP,Bridge Replacement Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 3 US 70 Frontage Roads 8. Thorpe Road(NM320) Description -New Construction-Design&ROW Description-Reconstruct-Widen,Resurface&Replace Bridge Funds Pursued-National Highway Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 4 Walnut 9. Elks Drive Description -Reconstruction-Widening Description-Reconstruction-Widening Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program Funds Pursued-Coop funds 5 Shalem Colony Trail Description-Widen,Tum Lanes,Street Lights,Design&ROW Funds Pursued-National Highway,Surface Trans.Prog. Tae following projects were not rated using the MPO' s Rating System and vere not combined with those above that were rated. The Rating System coes not provide a method by which the following might be ranked. f'owever, priority was assigned based on need as determined through the b'PO' s review process : 1 University Ave. t)3 Locust&Espina Description-Bus Pull-off Lanes as part of Univ.Ave.Corridor Plan Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 2 Bus Description- 1 -35'Bus with Handicapped Accessible Lift Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 3 Bus Shelters Description-Bus Shelters installed at bus stops Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 4 Bike Path:NM 28,I-20 to NM 359 Description-Bike Path facilities along NM 28 Funds Pursued-Enhancement 5 Bike/Pedestrian Paths Description-Phase 1,Bike Path and Pedestrian Facilities in Various Locations in Las Cruces Funds Pursued-Enhancement 6 Parking Shuttle Description-Provide Parking Shuttle at the NMSU Campus Funds Pursued-Surface Transportation Program 7 Billboard Removal Description -Removal of Billboard along NM 28 in Mesilla Funds Pursued-Enhancement 8 Landscaping Median Description-Landscape and Beautification of Median on NM 28 at 1-10 Funds Pursued-Enhancement � QCRUCES METORnPOLITAN PLANNING Of . ZAT10�1' MESILLA DONA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES March 12, 1993 L-93-006 New Mexico State Highway Commission New Mexico State Highway & Transportation Department P.O. Box 1149 - Santa Fe, NM 87504 - Dear Honorable Commissioners: The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has developed its 1993-94 Annual Element and FY 1994-95 through FY 1988-99 Transportation Improvement Program for the Las Cruces Urbanized Area. The Las Cruces MPO Policy Committee, after receiving public input and review by the Technical Advisory Committee, has determined the following projects as the highest priority for the urbanized area. - Projects 1 . Mesa Grande Overpass ` Description - New Construction - Design Funds Pursued - National Highway, Surface Trans . Prog. 2 . Lohman/Amador Description - Reconstruction - Design Funds Pursued - Interst. Maint. , STP, Bridge Replacement 3 . US 70 Frontage Roads Description - New Construction - Design & ROW Funds Pursued - National Highway 4. Walnut Description - Reconstruction - Widening Funds Pursued - Surface Transportation Program 5 . Shalem Colony Trail Description - Widen, Turn Lanes, Street Lights, Design & ROW Funds Pursued - National Highway, Surface Trans . Prog. 6 . Lassiter Road Description - Reconstruction - Recondition & Overlay Funds Pursued - School Bus Route 7 . Hadley Road Description - Reconstruction - Widening Funds Pursued - Surface Transportation Program rn no .u.f--e t%I n I ee rel 1^+ n AICW U=)e1e%n JQ%Znnd 909-nnon r w + F w 8 . Thorpe Road (NM320) Description - Reconstruct - Widen, Resurface & Replace Bridge Funds Pursued - Surface Transportation Program 9. Elks Drive Description - Reconstruction - Widening Funds Pursued - Coop funds In addition to the top nine projects, the following are the Las Cruces MPO's priority projects pursuing Enhancement or Transit related _funds. These projects were unrated using the MPO's -Rating System; however ,_the_ priority was assigned based on need as determined through the MPO's review process. 1 . University Ave. @ Locust & Espina Description Bus . Pull-off Lanes as part of Univ. Ave. Corridor Plan Funds Pursued -Surface Transportation Program 2., Bus Description - 1 =" 35 ' Bus with Handicapped Accessible Lift Funds Pursued - Surface-Transportation Program 3 . Bus Shelters Description - Bus Shelters installed at bus stops Funds Pursued - Surface Transportation Program 4. Bike Path: NM 28, I-10 to NM 359 Enhancement Description - Bike Path- facilities along NM 28 Funds Pursued - Enhancement 5. Bike/Pedestrian Paths Description - Phase I, Bike Path and Pedestrian Facilities in Various Locations in Las Cruces Funds Pursued - Enhancement 6. Parking Shuttle Description - Provide Parking Shuttle at the NMSU Campus Funds Pursued - Surface Transportation Program 7. Billboard Removal Description - Removal of Billboard along NM 28 in Mesilla Funds Pursued - Enhancement 8 . Landscaping Median- Description - Landscape and Beautification of Median on NM 28 at I-10 Funds Pursued - Enhancement .P Enclosed are complete copies of the 1993-94 Annual Element and FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99 Transportation Improvement Program for you review and consideration. Si cer ly Way Luchini "MO Chairman or LAS CRUC METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 11, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Other/Discussion. ACTION REQUESTED: None. SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Fiscal Year 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report (Attached) . 2 . Letter from U.S . Representative Joe Skeen extending an invitation to attend meeting on August 17, 1993 to discuss US 70 Frontage Roads (Attached letter) . 3 . Summary of Legal Notices for MPO Policy Committee Meeting Agendas to be published in the newspaper (See below) . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: 1 . Enclosed for your reference is the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Transportation Report for your review. It contains information concerning the actions and activities of the MPO and local governments during FY 1992-93 . 2 . Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated July 28, 1993 , from U.S. Representative Joe Skeen to Mike Parks, for local government officials to attend a meeting at the new Onate High School to discuss the US 70 Frontage Roads . 3 . Staff researched the possibility of placing an advertisement of the MPO' s Policy Committee Meeting Agenda in the Sun-News. The cost of a legal notice is thirty-six cents ($ 0 . 36) per line as compared to a small "commercial" advertisement that would cost between $100 . 00 and $150 . 00 (on the average for each meeting) . Also, staff researched the possibility of having the legal notice translated into Spanish and then published in the Sun-News in conjunction with the English version. The City of Las Cruces translator requires that she have the agenda a minimum of one week before it is needed to be published in the newspaper. Staff currently must prepare the agenda 13 days in advance to meet the publishing deadline, thus the translation into Spanish would require that the agenda to be prepared 20 days in advance. Staff does not see that the placement of an agenda in Spanish as being feasible. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FY 1992-93 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION REPORT C LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION M.P.O POLICY COMMITTEE Ray B. Luchini, Chairman - Dona Ana County John Haltom, Vice-Chairman - City of Las Cruces Michael Cadena, Member - Town of Mesilla Nelson Clayshulte, Member - Town of Mesilla Herculano Ferralez, Member - City of Las Cruces Ken Miyagishima, Member - Dona Ana County Edward Southworth, Member - Town of Mesilla Tommy Tomlin, Member - City of Las Cruces Technical Advisory Committee Richard Golden, Chairman - Las Cruces Public Schools Ben Woods, Vice-Chairman - New Mexico State University Tim Armor, Member - Dona Ana County Ed Baca, Member - New Mexico State Land Office David Church, Member - Flood Control Commission Harold Daw, Member - Planning & Zoning Commission Marvin James, Member - Bureau of Land Management Michael Johnson, Member - City of Las Cruces Jean Hinsley, Member - Elephant Butte Irrigation District Robert Hollinger, Member - Town of Mesilla Patricia Hughs, Member - ETZ Commission Dale Kemp, Member - RoadRUNNER Transit Ron Matros, Member - Town of Mesilla Fred Perea, Member - Dona Ana County Larry Rodriquez, Member - City of Las Cruces New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department Richard Montoya - Regional Planning Section Dan Stover - Public Transportation Bureau MPO Staff Brian Denmark, MPO Officer Michael Parks, Associate Planner David Carpenter, Assistant Planner ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The MPO would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions without whose help this report would not have been possible: City of Las Cruces Robert Caldwell - Parks & Recreation Chris Grussaute - Parks & Recreation/KAB Dale Kemp - RoadRUNNER Transit Tim Russ - RoadRUNNER Transit Mike Johnson - Traffic Engineering Larry Rodriquez - Engineering Town of Mesilla Dana Miller - Town Clerk Dona Ana County Fred Perea - Engineering This report is presented as a public service to the Las Cruces area residents . The projects listed herein are not necessarily endorsed by the Las Cruces MPO. Official MPO projects are listed in the Annual Element (AE) or the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to inform the citizens and policy makers the status of the Las Cruces Urbanized Area' s transportation system and the urban transportation planning process during the Fiscal Year 1992-93 . Through the 113C" transportation planning process; continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated. The transportation system is designed and developed to meet the needs of the citizens who use it . The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was federally mandated in the early 1980' s to act as the coordinating agency among local governments . It is administered through a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Las Cruces and the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) . The MPO coordinates roadway planning, construction and rehabilitation projects, data collection activities, safety and bridge enhancements, and transit activities between the three local governments which comprise the MPO; Dona Ana County, the Town of Mesilla, and the City of Las Cruces. The MPO is responsive to other local agencies and other governmental departments with regards to the transportation system. The MPO works closely with the NMSHTD on transportation projects within the Las Cruces Urbanized Area, and is funded by Highway Planning funds through the Federal Highway Administration and by Section 8 funds through the Federal Transit Administration. Both of these funding sources are administered by NMSHTD. ORGANIZATION The MPO is comprised of two committees, the Policy Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) . The Policy Committee sets the agenda for the MPO and gives direction to MPO Staff and the TAC. The members of this committee are elected officials from the Town of Mesilla, Dona Ana County, and the City of Las Cruces. This committee sets policy for future roadway planning in the urbanized area which includes the City of Las Cruces and five miles beyond its boundaries . The Technical Advisory Committee' s membership consists of technical professionals and representatives from various local governments and agencies . Membership of the TAC has been extended to the Las Cruces Public Schools, New Mexico State University, the Extra- Territorial zoning Commission, the Las Cruces Planning & zoning Commission, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, the Transportation Safety Board, and the Las Cruces Flood Control Commission. The TAC is responsible to evaluate the technical aspects of policies and directives handed down by the Policy Committee and as suggested by the public. The TAC then provides recommendations to the Policy Committee after careful technical evaluation. -1- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report ORGANIZATION (cont'd. ) While the MPO is made up of two committees, it is also staffed by two (2) full time employees and an MPO Officer. The MPO Officer is designated by the City of Las Cruces which is the administrative arm of the MPO outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in the early 1980' s . The JPA, as mandated by the federal government, is still in effect and gives the responsibility of administering the MPO to the city. The city is responsible for appointing the MPO Officer, providing office space, and executing legal documents of the MPO. The MPO is funded through Federal Highway Administration planning funds and Federal Transit Administration Section 8 funds. Due to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) , greater emphasis was placed on transportation planning in metropolitan areas . For this reason, the planning funds increased from $78 , 233 for FY 1991-92 to $100, 416 for FY 1992-93 . This represents a twenty-eight percent increase in funding. DATA COLLECTION The MPO is responsible for data collection on population, transportation and highway statistics, and land use within the MPO boundaries . In FY 1992-93 , the MPO gathered information on land use in two specific areas of study, the North Valley and the Picacho Hills Area of the West Mesa of Las Cruces . This information is currently being used in the evaluation of two long-range planning projects, a North Valley, East/West Thoroughfare connection and an alternative access into the Picacho Hills Subdivision on the West Mesa. MPO Staff windshield surveyed land use of approximately ten (10) square miles from the northern city limits of Las Cruces to the Village of Dona Ana between Interstate 25 and NM 185 (Valley Drive) for the first project. Also, staff inventoried land uses for approximately nine (9) square miles of land surrounding the Picacho Hills Subdivision west of Shalem Colony Trail and north of US 70 . Traffic data collection is a major portion of the MPO' s field work. The MPO is involved in NMSHTD' s Coverage Count Program which coordinates traffic volume data collection of major roadways within the MPO' s boundaries . The MPO has been involved in the statewide program since its inception in 1989 . The MPO collects 535 traffic counts at different locations on a 3-year cycle which are submitted weekly to NMSHTD. Approximately one-third of all the traffic counts are collected in each fiscal year and recounted every three years . This allows for the MPO and NMSHTD to keep extensive histories of traffic volumes of the each roadway segment . In FY 1992-93 , MPO Staff collected the following number of traffic counts : -2- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report DATA COLLECTION (cont'd) Month & Year Counts July 1992 43 August 1992 42 September 1992 23 October 1992 15 November 1992 22 December 1992 22 January 1993 11 February 1993 22 March 1993 40 April 1993 32 May 1993 38 June 1993 19 TOTALS 329 Traffic volume data is currently being collected on a federal fiscal year cycle. At the completion of the traffic counts for the federal FY 1992-93 which ends in September 1993 , the traffic counts will be conducted on a calendar year basis to coincide with other data collection activities mandated by the federal government . As part of the traffic data collection program, the MPO is required to create a Traffic Flow Map on a annual basis . The 1992 Traffic Flow Map was completed in late December 1992 with assistance from the Technical Support Department of the City of Las Cruces. Copies of the 1992 Traffic Flow Map were sent to each member of the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees and to each local government for public display. -3- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report PLANNING ACTIVITIES The MPO' s planning process includes the preparation of a short- range planning document called the Annual Element (AE) , which is pursuing state and federal funding for projects within the next fiscal year budget. A long-range planning document is prepared in conjunction with the Annual Element called the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . The TIP is a listing of projects that are desired by the MPO to receive funding for the next five years after the Annual Element . Both documents are produced through a lengthy process of review and revision that begins in November and lasts until early March. The 1993-94 AE/TIP was reviewed by the TAC, the general public, the Town of Mesilla, Dona Ana County, and City of Las Cruces before final adoption by the MPO Policy Committee on March 10, 1993 . Categories within the AE/TIP include construction and reconstruction of roadways, traffic signalization, railroad crossing/safety improvements, bridge repair and replacement, and transit-related activities . In each of the above mentioned categories, each project is evaluated and prioritized to determine those projects which are most beneficial to the public. The following are the highest rated projects in the AE/TIP for 1993-94 by category: Construction projects: - Mesa Grande Overpass at US 70 Reconstruction projects : - Lohman/Amador from Solano Dr. to Telshor Dr. Traffic signalization: - University at Las Alturas Bridge repair: - Mesilla Lateral along NM 292 , south of Glass Rd. Transit-related activities: - 35 ' Bus with handicapped accessible lift The AE/TIP does not mandate which projects will be completed and/or in which order; however, the federal government requires that any project pursing state or federal monies must be listed in these documents to be eligible. The document under which MPO Staff operates is called the Unified Work Program (UWP) . It provides a guideline for work to be completed during the upcoming fiscal year. It is through this document that staff received direction on what the Policy Committee would like to accomplish within that time frame. Projects listed -4- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report PLANNING ACTIVITIES (cont'd) in the UWP include both the routine administrative tasks as well as long-range/special projects . Like the AE/TIP, the UWP was approved on March 10, 1993 . The UWP also lists sources of funding and includes a program area budget . TRANSIT PLANNING MPO Staff works closely with the RoadRUNNER Transit Department on a wide range of projects . These include working with Transit Department personnel through the TAC for inclusion of transit' s request for the AE/TIP and collecting other transit related data. In early 1993 , MPO Staff conducted customer satisfaction surveys for the transit department. The results of the survey showed that 93 . 7 of the ridership of all fixed routes served by RoadRUNNER Transit were pleased with the overall service provided to them. RoadRUNNER Transit maintained ridership counts through 1992 and found that it equalled 763 , 579 riders . This was an increase from 678 , 762 riders from 1991 calendar year totals, representing an increase of 12 . 5001. RoadRUNNER Transit' s demand response or paratransit ridership equalled 13 , 774 riders for 1992 , an increase of 21 . 9001. Total miles travelled by the fixed routes for 1992 equalled 387, 655 miles and 39, 473 miles for the paratransit system, without a single accident occurring on either system. -5- Q FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS A total of 67 intersections had at least five accidents within the city during 1992 . Of the 67 intersections, the median total accidents was 8 . 0 and the mean was 10 . 1 . In 1991, the number of intersections with five or more accidents totalled 59 , with the median number of accidents totalling 9 . 0 and a mean of 10 . 1. Below is the most recent data (calendar year 1992) from the City of Las Cruces Traffic Engineering Department reporting of the top ten intersections with regards to traffic accidents . NIS E/W FATAL INJURIES PROPERTY TOTALS STREET STREET ACCIDENTS DAMAGE I-25 Lohman 0 3 32 35 Solano N. Main 0 3 23 26 Elks N. Main 2 5 17 24 Valley Picacho 0 4 15 19 E1 Paseo Idaho 0 2 17 19 Del Rey N. Main 2 4 13 19 S . Main Idaho 0 4 14 18 Solano Idaho 0 1 16 17 Valley Amador 0 2 14 16 Solano Boutz 0 3 13 16 -6- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Listed below are projects that were either began, completed, or both during the FY 1992-93 . The information was obtained from representatives of each governmental agency that was responsible for the projects completion. Project Lead Agency Cost Status 107 St . Funds N. Alameda Area Las Cruces 2 . 5 mil . Under Const . Acrylic Sealing of City Streets Las Cruces 96, 300 Completed Baylor Canyon Rd. Dona Ana 60, 000 Complete Bowman Ave. Chip Seal Las Cruces 4, 200 Complete Chip Sealing of City Streets Las Cruces 273 , 400 Complete Cold milling of City Streets Las Cruces 521, 000 Ongoing Del Monte St . Reconstruction Las Cruces 56, 000 Complete Del Rey Blvd. Realignment Las Cruces 1.25 mil . Under Design Dona Ana Rd. Dona Ana 50, 000 Complete Dripping Springs Dona Ana $238, 000 Complete Road, Phase II Dunn Dr. Construction Las Cruces 470, 000 Under Design East Mesa Stormwater Mgmt. Plan Las Cruces 325, 000 Complete Edgewood Arroyo Paving Las Cruces 30, 000 Complete El Camino Real Dona Ana 50, 000 Complete E1 Centro Rd. Dona Ana 60 , 000 Complete -7- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report Project Lead Agency Cost Status E1 Molino Drain & Rdwy Improv. Las Cruces 1 . 5 mil . Under Design Elks Realignment Las Cruces 650, 000 Under Design Hadley Ave. Storm Drain Las Cruces 1 . 5 mil . Under Design Holman Rd. , Phase II Dona Ana 109 , 000 Complete Jornada Rd. , Phase I Dona Ana 100, 000 Complete Linda Vista Reconstruction Las Cruces 380 , 500 Under Design Luna Vista Rd. Dona Ana 60, 000 Complete Mesa Dr. /N. Main Intersection Las Cruces 90, 000 Complete Mesa Dr.Chip Seal Las Cruces 6, 500 Complete Missouri/Triviz Intersection Improvements Las Cruces 130, 000 Under Design Monte Vista/College Reconstruction Las Cruces 460, 000 Under Design NM 28 Widening & Improvements Mesilla 3 .2 mil . Under Const. N. Las Cruces Flood Control Plan Las Cruces 295 , 000 Under Design Nevada St. Reconstruction Las Cruces 44, 000 Complete Parker Rd. Reconst . Las Cruces 500 , 000 Under Design Picacho/N. Main Reconstruction Las Cruces 1 .4 mil . Under Design Porter Dr. Impr. Las Cruces 221, 000 Under Design _g_ Q 0 FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report Project Lead Agency Cost Status Sandhill/Camino Real Drain. Proj . Las Cruces 4 . 5 mil . Under Design Sidewalk Improv. III - Complete Projects III & IV Las Cruces 140, 000 IV - Ongoing Solano Dr. Widening Las Cruces 230, 000+ Under Design Special Assessment District, Phases I & II (City Wide) Las Cruces 1 . 1 mil . Under Const . Stanley Rd. Dona Ana 60, 000 Complete Triviz Dr. Extension Las Cruces 564, 000 Complete Union Dr. Widening Las Cruces 1 . 3 mil . Under Const . Valley Dr. Widening Las Cruces 3 .4 mil . Scoping Report Venus St . Paving Las Cruces 33 , 000 Complete Venus St . Drainage Channel Las Cruces 8, 100 Complete Villa Mora Sidewalk & Drains Las Cruces 350, 000 Under Design Wyoming Ave. Reconst . Las Cruces 170, 000 Complete -9- FY 1992-93 Annual Transportation Report ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION/CLEAN UP Two projects designed to keep various roadways throughout the city clean and more attractive to motorists is the Adopt-A-Median project and the Street Clean-up program. Both of these projects are conducted by the Keep America Beautiful/Community Pride Program in the Parks & Recreation Department for the City of Las Cruces . There were 56 medians adopted and maintained in 1992 , totalling 168 volunteers and over 2 , 000 man hours . The street clean-up program in 1992 covered 40 streets (approximately 97 total miles) by 30 volunteer groups that works four hours a year on each roadway. Also, 41 groups spent three hours a year cleaning 143 miles of state and federal highways in the Las Cruces Area. These roads included US 70, Picacho Avenue, University Avenue, and Valley Drive. These programs are continuing to expand on a daily basis and should be able to maintain litter free roadsides . The Metropolitan Planning Organization is committed to maintaining the free flow of information by being responsive to both individuals and elected officials. All inquiries or comments can be directed to the MPO by calling (505) 526-0620 or by writing the MPO Officer at P.O. Drawer CLC, Las Cruces, NM 88004 . -10- 2447 R SURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT OFFICES: WA: INGTON,OC 20515-3102 FEDERAL BUILDING (202)225-2385 ROSWELL.NM 88201 (505)822-0055 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS �lCongrezz of the Nniteb e0tata 1085-8,SOUTH MAIN SUITE A lUECOMMIREFS: gouge of Repreontatibe.9 US(505)5 2 7-17 7 005 VICE-CHAIRMAN O I .Z AURA DEVELOPMENT,AGRICULTURE JOE SKEEN NNE EISOLD .ND RELATED AGENCIES 2D DISTRICT,NEW MEXICO I OF STAFF INTI ]OR AND RELATED AGENCIES July 28, 1993 Or Mike Parks, Associate Planner , Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization �� � I �V\'' P.O. Drawer CLC Las Cruces, New Mexico 88004 Dear Mike: As you are aware, there is considerable interest in constructing a frontage road system along US70 extending from I-25 to NASA Road. A number of studies have been completed identifying problems associated with the fact that US70 is a major highway, without underpasses, overpasses or frontage road systems. To solve some of these problems, a considerable effort on the federal, state, and local levels is going to be required. I believe that it would be helpful to explore the need to construct a frontage road system to address this situation, especially now that Onate High School has opened. It is my opinion that a meeting of all of the interested parties will help facilitate a better understanding about this frontage road project. Therefore, I would like to invite you to participate in a public meeting with the New Mexico Highway Department (NMHD) , City Planners, local businesses, School Board Officials, and elected representatives. The meeting will take place at Onate High School off US70 on August 17th from 1: 30 to 3 : 30. This informal discussion should afford all of the participants an opportunity to register their comments. I look forward to meeting with you and all those who will be directly affected. erely, Skeen Member of Congress