Loading...
03-01-2007 r� 1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 2 March 1, 2007 3 4 Following are minutes from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on 5 Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N. 6 Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Bartholomew (RoadRUNNER Transit) 9 Terry Coker (Las Cruces Public Schools) 10 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 11 Karmela Espinoza (proxy for Dan Soriano — CLC Public 12 Works) 13 David Bollschweilei (proxy for Rich MacRorie— NMSU) 14 Steve Decker (Town of Mesilla) 15 Jean Hinsley (proxy for Henry Magallenez) 16 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 17 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 18 19 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 20 Tim Sanders (BLM) 21 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 22 Jon Czerniak (Dona Ana County) 23 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 24 Richard MacRorie (NMSU) 25 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 26 27 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 28 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 29 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 30 Catherine Duarte (CLC — Public Works) 31 Dianne Wax (CLC — Recording Secretary) 32 33 PUBLIC: Klaus Wittern 34 35 I. CALL TO ORDER 36 37 Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. 38 39 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 41 A. November 2, 2006 42 43 Mike Bartholomew asked for a motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 2006. 44 Loretta Reyes motioned to approve the minutes. 45 Terry Coker seconded the motion. 46 ALL IN FAVOR. 1 1 2 B. February 1, 2007 3 4 Mike Bartholomew asked for a motion to approve the minutes of February 1, 2007. 5 Loretta Reyes motioned to approve the minutes. 6 Terry Coker seconded the motion. 7 ALL IN FAVOR. 8 9 III. ACTION ITEMS 10 11 A. TIP Amendment— Coordinated service plan 12 13 Removed from the agenda. 14 15 B. TIP Rating System 16 17 Every two years, the MPO is required to rate projects in the Transportation 18 Improvement Program (TIP) under SAFETEA-LU and MPO policies. The TIP Rating 19 System is designed to objectively rank unfunded transportation construction projects. 20 In a continuing effort to make sure that each project is ranked objectively, staff 21 recommends removal of two ranking categories: Estimated Cost and Posted Speed. 22 Staff feels that these categories unfairly bias projects simply because they cost more 23 money or are on a high speed roadway, instead of looking at whether the project 24 actually improves the transportation system. These items have been combined with 25 other general project information in an expanded narrative, including a vicinity map. 26 Points for the narrative will be assigned based on completeness of information. 27 28 The SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill outlined more emphasis on identifying and solving 29 safety issues in the transportation network. Another significant change involves the way 30 we assign points for crashes with and without fatalities. We will overlay crash data in 31 GIS on our thoroughfare layer to pinpoint problem areas. When projects are proposed 32 in these areas, we will work with the appropriate entity to make sure that improvements 33 are made to the site that may improve conditions affecting the site. Also, this 34 information can be used to study high crash sites, determine the source of the problem, 35 and develop a project to address unsafe conditions. 36 37 A few other minor changes to the Rating System involve awarding additional points to 38 projects that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee reviewed and 39 prioritized and removing the subjective questions at the end of the application regarding 40 reducing air and noise pollution. 41 42 Andy Hume gave a brief presentation. 43 44 Proposed changes on the TIP Project Application and TIP Point Allocation Chart. 45 • Larger narrative on the TIP project application 46 • Submit a vicinity map 2 AWN 1 Project justification from the citizen or entity as to why the project is important 2 • Point allocation 3 • Questions 20 & 21 removed from application 4 5 Andy stated that MPO staff will no longer be leading the discussion of the projects 6 because it puts MPO staff in an unfair position of trying to support one entity over 7 another entity in justifying a project for a particular entity but it also puts a lot of 8 undue strain on staff to be fully engrossed in all the details of the project to be able 9 to answer questions whether of the Advisory Committee's or of the Policy 10 Committee. Starting immediately the entity who is proposing the project will be in 11 charge of making the presentation. If the entity chooses not to attend the Advisory 12 Committee meetings, the TAC has the option of withholding the entity's points that 13 are under that particular entity's discretion. 14 15 Mike asked for a motion for recommendation to the Policy Committee. 16 Terry Coker motioned to approve the TIP Rating System and recommend to the 17 Policy Committee. 18 Steve Decker seconded the motion. 19 ALL IN FAVOR. 20 21 C. 07-08 UPWP 22 23 The purpose of the UPWP is to outline intermodal transportation planning activities, 24 within a financially constrained budget, to be conducted within the Las Cruces MPO 25 Planning Area for the period of July, 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Highlights from the 26 latest UPWP include: development of a new citizen advisory committee; continued work 27 on the South Central RTD; Safe Routes to School; Pedestrian Plan; and an update of 28 the Public Involvement Plan. We have listed the agencies that will be instrumental in 29 assisting us with our planning activities and approximate time periods to complete work 30 products. 31 32 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. Tom noted the changes to the amended 07-08 33 UPWP: 34 35 • Page 7, added the meetings of the Board of Directors of the South Central 36 Regional Transit District as a work program under program support and 37 administration. 38 • Citizens Advisory Committee — will be amended, dropped or the Committee 39 formed dependent on budgetary funding for staff. 40 • Page 12, added Work Item 3.6 41 42 Mike Bartholomew asked a question regarding the Citizens Advisory Committee, Mr. De 43 La Rosa had suggested an option of adding citizens to the MPO TAC instead of 44 forming a Citizen's Advisory Committee, was this option still being considered? 45 3 I Tom Murphy replied that the option could still be considered. Staff has concerns about 2 increasing the size of the TAC due to possible problems with quorum, also the TAC is 3 the form for technical advice to the Policy Committee whereas the citizens would be 4 giving advice of a different nature and staff feels that both committees could be used to 5 give opinions to the Policy Committee. The option is still open for discussion. Tom 6 stated his preference would be to have a separate committee rather than add members 7 to the TAC. 8 9 Mike asked for a motion for recommendation to the Policy Committee. 10 Loretta Reyes motioned to recommend to the Policy Committee. 11 Terry Coker seconded the motion. 12 ALL IN FAVOR. 13 14 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 15 16 A. Transportation Plan Amendment — Proposed Classification and 17 Alignment Amendments 18 19 Through the Development Review process issues arise regarding alignments and 20 classifications that need to be adjusted. The constrained list generally contains items 21 that were purely overlooked and need to be added as they are areas of the City of Las 22 Cruces that are already subdivided and built out. The changes in alignments are 23 generally due to topographic conditions that dictate a realignment of the roadways. 24 Changes in classification, upgrades or downgrades, are thoroughly evaluated before 25 being proposed and generally arise out of constraints or future needs. 26 27 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 28 29 Proposed Amendments to the Manor Thoroughfare Plan 30 31 The following issues have been discovered during the course of development 32 review. Most would constitute minor amendments that do not require a public 33 hearing. 34 35 Downgrades 36 Mars west of Del Rey 37 Will likely never function as a Collector 38 Downgraded from Collector to Major Local 39 40 Paseo de Onate 41 Will likely never function as a Collector, not intended to connect to 42 Sonoma Ranch 43 Downgraded from Collector to Major Local 44 45 Sunland between Rinconada and Settler's Pass 46 Topographic feature 4 1 Downgraded from Collector to Major Local 2 3 Engler between Camino Real and Dona Ana Drain 4 Continuity to a Major Intersection 5 Principal Arterial to Minor Arterial 6 7 Lopez Rd 8 From Minor Arterial to Collector up to EI Camino Real 9 From Minor Arterial to Major Local East of EI Camino Real 10 11 Upgrades 12 Bataan Memorial 13 From Collector to Minor Arterial (ROW exists) 14 15 Weisner Road (to Limited Access Highway with more than 120' ROW) 16 200' ROW to be used as By-Pass 17 18 North Frontage Rd on 1-10? 19 20 Alignments 21 Sandhill and Tecolote 22 Align so they converge properly 23 24 Peachtree and Settler's Pass 25 Topographic conditions 26 27 Dragonfly at Settler's Pass 28 Topographic conditions 29 30 31 Collector between Northrise and Cuatro Jitas 32 Topographic conditions 33 34 ROW Constraints 35 N Main 36 Triviz 37 S Main along RR ROW(80') 38 E Hadley 39 Morningstar 40 S Telshor (90' at intersection w/ University) 41 Church Street 42 Las Cruces Avenue 43 Griggs 44 Madrid 45 46 5 1 2 3 B. Fairacres Study Plan 4 5 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. 6 7 A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. at Fairacres 8 Elementary School 9 10 Frank Guzman stated he wanted entered into record that bulleted items on the 11 Interstate Justification Report are very difficult to pass with the Federal Highway 12 Administration. 13 14 Frank Guzman stated that anything to do with a break in access control, which 1-10 is a 15 facility, then BIGR's need to be analyzed and submitted for the appropriate approvals 16 for the Federal Highway Administration. 17 18 C. Development Review 19 20 A list of approved/denied subdivision reviews along with a map of the areas has been 21 included in packets. 22 23 Mike Bartholomew asked if a number reference could be added to the map referencing 24 the circles that indicate subdivisions. 25 26 Tom Murphy stated that would be possible. 27 28 Terry Coker stated that the map was invaluable information. 29 30 Frank Guzman concurred with Terry Coker and thanked MPO staff for their assistance 31 in providing clarity to the Development Review list. 32 33 Orlando Fierro asked staff to clarify the approved cases by MPO and not just by City 34 and County Planning or ETZ subdivisions because as a subdivision is reviewed it may 35 be approved but the subdivision may never get constructed, or it could die, or it could be 36 a shelf document. Also indicate whether or not it complies with the MPO Thoroughfare 37 Plan. 38 39 D. Committee/Staff Comments - None 40 41 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 42 43 VI. ADJOURNMENT 44 45 Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 46 6 1 2 3 Al L 4 Chair 5 6 7 r; 7