Loading...
10-04-2007 AWN I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 OCTOBER 4, 2007 4 5 Following are minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held 6 on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church 7 St., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Bartholomew (RoadRUNNER Transit) 10 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 11 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 12 Jean Hinsley (proxy for Henry Magallenez— EBID) 13 Terry Coker (Las Cruces Public Schools) 14 Henry K. Corneles (DAC Engineering) 15 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 16 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 17 Luis Marmolejo (DAC) 18 19 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 20 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 21 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 22 Tim Sanders (BLM) 23 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 24 25 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 26 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 27 Crystal Meraz (CLC — Recording Secretary) 28 29 PUBLIC: Ray Mathew (NMDOT) Philip Philippou 30 Ted Scanlon Paul Pompeo 31 Dave Church Kirk Clifton 32 Brian Soleman Dr. Narendra Gunaji 33 Joseph De La Rosa Klaus Wittern 34 35 1. CALL TO ORDER 36 37 Meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. 38 39 Tom Murphy made a request to change the agenda and to hear items 4.3 and 4.4 to the 40 front of the agenda. 41 42 Tom Murphy stated that John Knopp, Town of Mesilla, requested that item 4.2 be tabled 43 for discussion until he was present. 44 45 Debbie Lujan stated that it would be in the best interest of Mesilla not to table item 4.2 46 because she was present to represent Mesilla. 1 1 2 Tom Murphy stated that the representative from the Town of Mesilla wanted to go 3 forward with item 4.2 and staff was in agreement. 4 5 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 7 2.1 September 6. 2007 8 9 Mike Bartholomew asked for a motion to approve the minutes of September 6, 2007. 10 Loretta Reyes motioned to approve the minutes. 11 Dan Soriano seconded the motion. 12 ALL IN FAVOR. 13 14 3. ACTION ITEMS 15 16 3.1 Support for NMDOT Coordinated Public Transit — Human Services 17 Transportation Plan - TABLED 18 19 Beginning in October of 2007, FTA requires that projects funded from Sections 5310, 20 5316 and 5317 programs must be derived from a Coordination Plan. The New Mexico 21 Department of Transportation has developed these six Coordination Plans based on the 22 State's Regional Planning Organizations' boundaries. 23 The New Mexico Department of Transportation is requesting comments from the 24 general public, local governments, Regional Planning Organizations, and transit service 25 providers on the Final Draft Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services 26 Transportation Plans. Comments that were received on the first two chapters of the 27 Coordination Plans in June and July, 2007, have been incorporated into these Final 28 Drafts. 29 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 30 31 Mike Bartholomew commented that the FTA put a guidance of what the criteria was to 32 be included in the plan and one of the criteria was to include private, non-profits in the 33 discussion, etc. Mike asked if that was done as part of the process in putting this 34 together? 35 36 Ray Mathew stated that even though the State plan doesn't include the private entities, 37 NMDOT would encourage inclusion of the private sector. 38 39 Tom Murphy stated that if the Committee concurs, this item can be tabled so that 40 questions can be answered and brought back at the November meeting. 41 42 Frank Guzman motioned to table this item until the November 1St meeting. 43 Loretta Reyes seconded the motion. 44 ALL IN FAVOR. 45 46 2 1 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2 3 4.1 Proposed Mesa Grande Realignment 4 5 Representative from the Sonoma Ranch partnership proposed to the Policy Committee 6 at their September 12 meeting that the alignment of Mesa Grande Drive (a Proposed 7 Principal Arterial) be shifted to the east to not impact the Pat Garret historical marker 8 and to address terrain concerns. The State Land office owns the property on either 9 side of the existing and the proposed alignment. The Policy Committee has requested 10 that the TAC provide a recommendation on the alignment request. 11 12 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 13 14 Narendra Gunaji, consultant for Sonoma Ranch Development, gave a presentation on 15 the Mesa Grande alignment. 16 17 Terry Coker asked if it was possible to move the monument and what the costs would 18 be. 19 20 Mr. Gunaji said he had not researched moving the monument nor the costs involved. 21 The reaction from the Historical Preservation Office was that they did not want to take 22 any action or give him any information unless more studies were done on what to do 23 with the monument. 24 25 Terry Coker stated that if the Committee was going to look at the cost analysis of 26 realignment then they should also look at a cost analysis for moving the monument. 27 Terry requested that a cost analysis be done on moving and setting up the monument. 28 29 Frank Guzman asked about the topology of one alignment versus the other and the 30 existing terrain. 31 32 Mr. Gunaji stated that he decided to follow the particular alignment because the right-of- 33 way could be acquired from the State Land Office at the time he was conducting his 34 investigation and when he contacted the office staff and they walked the alignment with 35 him. The office staff did not have any particular problem regarding the alignment, but 36 personally speaking, this is going to be a decision based upon whatever forces are 37 driving the construction of Mesa Grande. His client's part will be whether the alignment 38 stays on the section line or the alignment goes away from the section line. His client's 39 will be building half the road anyway, so it doesn't make any difference where the 40 alignment goes. The important thing is that the decision should be taken for the 41 alignment for one dominating reason and that is the water line from the Jornada water 42 field, which is already completed to Highway 70, has to be brought to the tank that is 43 already there for the City of Las Cruces to supply for the development that is going on 44 around the east mesa. So the driving factor besides the roadway is the water supply to 45 the tank should be supplemented as soon as possible. 46 3 I Philip Philippou gave a brief history on the opposition in regard to moving the Pat 2 Garrett monument. Philip asked Dr. Gunaji what engineering reason exists for why the 3 road should be moved other than the monument, because there is a solution for the 4 monument. 5 6 Dave Church, LDI, stated the alignment as shown is reasonable. It can be done. If 7 anything the topography would lead the alignment to the west, it would actually follow 8 the contour better and be a less cut field situation. But they are not suggesting that the 9 straight road is fine. They should go the section line with the survey. There is no 10 topographical problem with doing it straight through. 11 12 Ted Scanlon, Scanlon White Engineering, stated that the arroyo channel is a little bit 13 behaved and better defined in the area of the section line where the road was originally 14 proposed and would probably end up being cheaper to build in that area. He stated that 15 any cost estimates that are completed with respect to the various options for the 16 alignment of the roadway should include the cost of land that would be consumed by 17 the entire roadway and the zoning of that land or the character of that land in it's value 18 as a development property, also. He believes that needs to be taken into account and 19 they have looked at the monument, etc. and have a number of options with respect to 20 taking care of that or relocating it. He urged the Committee to look carefully at any cost 21 estimates that are presented to them to make sure that the cost estimates include all of 22 the items that would be associated with each one of the options. 23 24 Paul Pompeo, Southwest Engineering, stated that he has been working on the 25 alignment surveys for all of the arterials and collectors in that section for the dedication 26 and right-of-way maps that are to be given to the State Land Office. In their analysis of 27 the arroyo crossings, all of the crossings out there are going to be very challenging and 28 costly and there is no benefit that they have seen of one alignment over the other. They 29 are all going to be costly and in his estimation it is going to take a lot of thought and 30 determination as to where those alignments are going to go. Their research has shown 31 that there is not one preferred design over another. 32 33 Terry Coker stated that he could not get a good feel for what the monument was, he 34 asked for a description of the physical dimensions of the monument, a gestimate would 35 do. 36 37 Ted Scanlon stated that if he had to guess, he would say about two feet by three feet or 38 roughly 30 inches somewhere in that neighborhood. 39 40 Mike Bartholomew asked Tom if this item would come to the Committee as an action 41 item. 42 43 Tom stated that it would come back as an action item at the November meeting. 44 45 Frank Guzman suggested that one of the key elements that was missing is what to do 46 with this monument from a SHPO perspective, but he agrees with Terry Coker that the 4 I Committee needs more information to make an informed decision from SHPO, they are 2 a key element to this whole thing. 3 4 Paul Pompeo stated that some things can that be done are the road can be shifted 5 around. He stated that there are several different roadway designs where roadway side 6 monuments are put in the center of the road, where you build half around, going east or 7 west. They can span it, put a culvert over it, put a bridge over it, or the monument can 8 be moved. There are several options of things that can be done. 9 10 Mr. Gunaji stated that he does not dispute the facts as presented by Mr. Philippou and 11 his engineers. The fact is he was working on this project before their interests were 12 made known and, therefore, at the time that he was doing this he took the easiest way 13 to do the alignment. 14 15 Terry Coker suggested that the engineering entities from each party get together and 16 look at this and Terry would like to see both sides of the question brought back to the 17 Committee. He would like a clearer cost and definition of spanning that arroyo. 18 19 4.2 Requested Mesilla Hills Drive downgrade 20 21 Recently, the MPO received a request from an adjacent land owner to amend the status 22 of the road to a major local. This request came at the September 12, 2007 Policy 23 Committee meeting. The Policy Committee directed staff to bring the issue to the TAC. 24 25 Mesilla Hills Drive is designated a Collector on the MPO's Major Thoroughfare Plan. 26 This designation was put into place during the 2000 Transportation Plan update. The 27 functional classification of the roadway is a local. It is not on the MPO inventory for 28 traffic counts. It connects to the rest of the Major Thoroughfare Plan system only at 29 South Fairacres Road. 30 31 Tom gave a brief presentation. 32 33 Debbie Lujan stated that there were two different things mentioned, one is a major local 34 and then according to the applicant, it states minor local. Is it supposed to be a minor 35 local? 36 37 Tom stated that the applicant did request that the road be classified a minor local, which 38 is outside the prevue of MPO's designation, so would fall off of the MPO designation 39 map and would not be an MPO roadway. On the future roadway plan it is a designated 40 collector. 41 42 Debbie Lujan motioned that the Committee reclassify Mesilla Hills Drive from its present 43 classification, collector to minor local. It's in the best interest of the Town of Mesilla, 44 whether they annex or not. 45 5 I Mike stated that this is a discussion item and would be brought back to the Committee 2 at a later date. 3 4 Tom stated that it would be brought back as an action item for downgrade per Ms. 5 Lujan's request. 6 7 Further discussion followed. 8 9 4.3 Intelligent Transportation System Regional Architecture 10 11 The Las Cruces Intelligent Transportation System Regional Architecture is a framework 12 for transportation systems integration in the region over the next 20 years. The update 13 of the ITS Architecture was funded through the New Mexico Department of 14 Transportation — ITS Bureau. The ITS Architecture has been developed through a 15 cooperative effort by the region's transportation agencies covering all surface 16 transportation modes and all roadway facilities in the region. 17 The first version of the Las Cruces ITS Regional Architecture was adopted by the MPO 18 Policy Committee in March 2004. An update of the Architecture was necessary to keep 19 up with the recent improvements made to the National Architecture as well as new 20 technologies that are now available. Also, the current Regional Architecture was only 21 available in a Word document, not in a digital, interactive medium. The new 22 architecture will now be more accessible to the member agencies who may be 23 interested in implementing projects based on ITS principals and guidelines. 24 Due to the size of the final draft document, staff requests that you view this through the 25 MPO website at: http://lcmpoweb.las-cruces.o[g/committees/TAC%20packet.asp 26 MPO Staff will ask for a recommendation from the TAC at their next meeting, November 27 1, 2007. Staff will present the updated architecture to the Policy Committee for approval 28 at their meeting scheduled for November 7, 2007. 29 Andy stated the Regional Architecture is 160 pages and can be viewed on the MPO 30 website. Andy recommended that each entity review their own sections. 31 32 MPO staff expressed appreciation and a significant debt of gratitude to the NMDOT for 33 funding this process. The ITS Bureau funded the update of the Regional Architecture to 34 the tune of about $25,000. Appreciation was also extended to everyone who 35 participated up to this point. ConSysTec is the consultant that the State has been 36 working with and ConSysTec spearheaded the entire document. 37 38 4.4 LC MPO Location, Organization, Membership, and Structure Study 39 40 The New Mexico Department of Transportation is seeking a Contractor to provide 41 professional services to conduct a Study of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning 42 current location, organizational structure, membership, operations, composition, 43 agreements, and the fiscal agent designation. 44 6 I The NMDOT wishes to have Policy Committee concurrence on the scope of the RFP. 2 The TAC is requested to review and comment on the scope prior to it being presented 3 to the Policy Committee. 4 5 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. Tom stated that this was a first review for the 6 TAC. It would be brought back to TAC as an action item at the November meeting and 7 then to the Policy Committee in November. 8 9 Ray Mathew gave a brief presentation. 10 11 Terry Coker commented on the paragraph proceeding Part 3B, Importance to the 12 consideration of the political relationship. Terry stated that there were a couple of other 13 determiners around here, but didn't know if it was important or not. He stated NMSU 14 and LCPS are governed by the State and its permitting system and all of the 15 development and infrastructure are run through the State agencies and then there is 16 WSMR and NASA and they have their own system too. Terry stated that any 17 comprehensive review that Mr. Mathew was talking about ought to include NMSU, 18 LCPS, WSMR and NASA, at least a brief stop, and inquire as to what is going on in 19 their issues so that NMDOT could get a more comprehensive picture of what NMDOT is 20 trying to develop. 21 22 The Committee was in agreement with adding the named agencies. 23 24 Loretta Reyes stated that Mr. Mathew referred to the Las Cruces MPO Policy Board on 25 page 10. It should be Las Cruces MPO Policy Committee. Also, under Part 313-C, she 26 asked if he was going to add the Technical Advisory Committee and Las Cruces MPO 27 Policy Committee. 28 29 Loretta stated that on page 9, paragraph beginning with the word 'decision', toward the 30 end of the paragraph it states 'the TAC consists of....' and it makes a list and Loretta 31 wanted to know if those were all the representatives on the Board. She said it stated 32 State, County, and City staff members, but there is also the Town of Mesilla and Tim 33 Sanders from BLM, they are also members of the TAC. She stated that it should be a 34 complete list of entities. 35 36 Frank Guzman asked what was the anticipated completion date? And when would a 37 contractor be hired? 38 39 Ray Mathew stated the optimal schedule was mid-November by the Policy Committee. 40 He stated it would take a minimum of 30 days through the legal and contractual process 41 in Santa Fe, in that case, they are looking at December when an advertisement would 42 be published. 43 44 Henry K. Corneles asked who would be on the selection committee. 45 46 Ray Mathew replied that had not been determined yet. 7 1 2 4.5 Development Review 3 4 Development review process information was included in Committee members packets 5 for their review. 6 7 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NONE 8 9 6. ADJOURNMENT 10 11 Loretta Reyes motioned to adjourn. 12 Dan Soriano seconded the motion. 13 14 Meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. 15 16 17 18 Ch r 19 8