Loading...
02-01-2007 1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 2 February 1, 2007 3 4 Following are minutes from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on 5 Thursday, February 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 Richard MacRorie (NMSU) 11 Frank Guzman (NMDOT) 12 Karmela Espinoza (proxy for Dan Soriano — CLC Public Works) 13 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 14 Matt Craddock (proxy for Tim Sanders-BLM) 15 16 MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Magallenez (EBID) 17 Tim Sanders (BLM) 18 Robert Armijo (DAC Engineering) 19 Orlando V. Fierro (DAC Flood Commission) 20 Steve Decker (Town of Mesilla) 21 Jon Czerniak (Dona Ana County) 22 Loretta Reyes (CLC Public Works) 23 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 24 25 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 26 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 27 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 28 Dianne Wax (CLC— Recording Secretary) 29 30 OTHERS PRESENT: Joseph De La Rosa (NMDOT) 31 32 33 1. CALL TO ORDER 34 35 Meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. 36 37 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 2, 2006 38 39 Minutes were not included in packet for approval. 40 41 III. ACTION ITEMS — Election of Officers 42 43 Mike Bartholomew asked for nominations for Chair. 44 Terry Coker nominated Dan Soriano. 45 Karmela Espinoza respectfully declined on Dan's behalf. 46 Frank Guzman nominated Mike Bartholomew 1 1 Terry Coker seconded the nomination. 2 All in favor. 3 4 Mike asked for nominations for Vice Chair. 5 Mike nominated Rich MacRorie. 6 Terry Coker seconded the nomination 7 All in favor. 8 9 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 10 11 A. TIP Rating System 12 13 Every two years, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization is required to rate 14 projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) under SAFETEA-LU and MPO 15 policies. The TIP Rating System is designed to objectively rank unfunded transportation 16 construction projects. A change to the Rating System awards additional points to projects that 17 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee reviewed and prioritized. In a 18 continuing effort to make sure that each project is ranked objectively, staff recommends 19 removal of two ranking categories: Estimated Cost and Posted Speed. Staff feels that these 20 categories unfairly bias projects simply because they cost more money or are on a high speed 21 roadway, instead of looking at whether the project actually improves the transportation system. 22 23 The SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill outlined more emphasis on identifying and solving safety 24 issues in the transportation network. Another significant change involves the way we assign 25 points for crashes with and without fatalities. We will overlay crash data in GIS on our 26 thoroughfare layer to pinpoint problem areas. When projects are proposed in these areas, we 27 will work with the appropriate entity to make sure that improvements are made to the site that 28 may improve conditions affecting the site. Also, this information can be used to study high 29 crash sites, determine the source of the problem, and develop a project to address unsafe 30 conditions. 31 32 Andy gave a brief presentation. Discussion followed. 33 34 Terry Coker asked staff if it would be possible to get a report of accidents differentiating motor 35 vehicle accidents from motorcycle accidents. 36 37 Andy stated he would look into the matter and send a response via email or report back at the 38 next meeting. 39 40 Joseph De La Rosa stated that he appreciated the work that the MPO is doing by trying to 41 make this process as objective as possible. He stated that he was mystified by the exact 42 format of the MPO's TIP application in that it doesn't seem to do a good job in explaining why a 43 project is warranted even though it provides isolated, individual criteria to be ranked. Joseph 44 stated there is no place for why the project is a project of importance other than the basis of 45 criteria. Joseph stated he would like to see a section that is preliminary the project information, 46 which is the top portion of the current application, expanded to have a narrative (identification 2 I of what the issue is, what kind of project it is going to be, and what it hopes to address). He 2 suggested a check box that indicates the project (ex. safety project) and emphasizes school 3 safety for example, or it's a bridge project, in other words some sort of identification by project 4 type and then define the purpose. Then based on that explanation have each of the criteria 5 apply. He also suggested stating the type of route (ex. truck route, hazardous route, etc), and 6 stating what type of planning documents are involved. He also stated that cost benefit analysis 7 would be appropriate in terms of the #1 safety project. 8 9 Joseph stated that MPO staff has done a great job of trying to measure why a project would be 10 ranked as opposed to just assigning arbitrarily. 11 12 Andy stated MPO staff would like to bring this back in a final draft format for Committee 13 approval at the March meeting. 14 15 B. North and South Study area update 16 17 Starting October 26th, 2006 the Las Cruces MPO had several meetings with County Planning, 18 County Engineering, and the Flood Commission to discuss the North and South Boundary 19 Study Areas and possible thoroughfare locations and alignments. The MPO also received 20 input from the County DRC. The results of these meetings and several thoroughfare options 21 identified will be presented. 22 23 Tom Murphy stated that the MPO has expanded it's planning boundaries beyond the Las 24 Cruces ETZ area with the adoption of the 2005 Transportation Plan. 25 26 Caeri Thomas gave a brief presentation. She stated the expansion of the MPO boundaries 27 includes areas outside the ETZ in the County and the MPO is reviewing transportation needs 28 and the creation of a thoroughfare plan. The thoroughfare issues would include classifications, 29 right-of-way widths, locations and other transit issues such as what pedestrian and bicycle 30 facilities people may want in the area. 31 32 Caeri stated the MPO staff would like comments on options and input on where public 33 meetings might be held in locations in the southern boundary. 34 35 Terry Coker stated there is a lot of activity in the Gadsden School District area. They are being 36 forced to zone and locate schools for their Master Plan over the next 5, 10 and 20 years and 37 he suggested contacting the Gadsden School District because it may influence the placing of 38 roads by the MPO and as a side note, initiate a dialogue with the district about the old way of 39 sighting schools versus the new way of sighting schools. He stated transportation issues to 40 schools are a big issue but what has emerged is putting a school on a major road which is a 41 mistake because you limit severely the bicycle and pedestrian traffic, while you need different 42 approaches to a school, the more the better, all four directions is the best to imbed that school 43 within the populated community is the best thing to do. 44 45 Terry suggested contacting Mr. Boyd at the Gadsden administration office to schedule a 46 location for a public meeting in that area. 3 1 2 Mike Bartholomew stated that with the expansion of the MPO that a representative from the 3 Gadsden School District might be a presence on the TAC Board as a permanent position like 4 the Las Cruces School District since the MPO is going to be moving into an area that involves 5 the Gadsden School District as well. 6 7 C. Development Review 8 9 Development review list of approved and denied subdivisions has been included in the packet 10 for Committee review. 11 12 Mike Bartholomew asked if a map or PowerPoint could be provided of locations of subdivisions 13 because from a transit perspective he doesn't know what the impact would be by just looking 14 at a subdivision name. 15 16 Tom Murphy stated that the MPO would look at the possibility of providing a map and/or 17 PowerPoint for review. 18 19 D. 07-08 UPWP 20 21 The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is the transportation planning 22 entity for the Urbanized Area of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is required to meet the 23 transportation planning mandates of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 24 Equity Act- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). In order to accomplish this task, the MPO 25 engages in a process of public review and comment resulting in the annual Unified Planning 26 Work Program which outlines, budgets, and guides planning projects and activities for the 27 upcoming fiscal year. 28 29 Exhibit "A" is the proposed Unified Planning Work Program for July 1, 2007 through June 30, 30 2008. Areas that are significantly different from the 06-07 UPWP are in bold. Staff is 31 requesting direction on the development of this UPWP whether to proposed programs or 32 programs that need to be added. This item will be brought back to the TAC as an action item 33 in March. 34 35 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation. He stated the planning program is due to the NMDOT 36 in Santa Fe by May. He plans to present the program to the TAC in March or April as an 37 action item. 38 39 Tom stated that previously he had discussed the possibility of adding a third committee, one 40 that would be parallel to the TAC but consist of citizens. He is working with the City to 41 establish a budget for clerical support. 42 Joseph De La Rosa commented on the proposed Citizen's Advisory Committee. He 43 suggested that instead of making it it's own committee that staff and the TAC consider 44 expanding the TAC to include a couple of citizens, this way it solidifies the approach and the 45 TAC is able to hear the input and it's one less meeting to attend. He expressed his concern 46 that if the MPO staff met separately with the citizens and then relayed the information to the 4 I TAC that something might be lost in the translation. He stated that there are other Technical 2 Advisory Committees throughout the State of New Mexico as well the EI Paso MPO that have 3 citizen representatives on their technical advisory committees. 4 5 Joseph stated regarding the UPWP format that he would like in the section, MPO 6 administrators, City of Las Cruces, where it talks about what the City of Las Cruces' role as the 7 MPO administrator separated from the part about the MPO duties, page 6. He also stated that 8 he would like to work with MPO staff toward the final UPWP before being sent to Santa Fe so 9 that everyone is in agreement on what the general office and planning is looking for in the 10 upcoming UPWP. 11 12 Mike Bartholomew asked Mr. De La Rosa how are the positions selected for citizen 13 representation on other TAC committees. 14 15 Joseph replied that one way is to have an application process at a public meeting, run a notice 16 in the paper and solicit input. Another way is, if you know someone who already attends 17 meetings or is involved in transportation, ask them to serve on the TAC. At some MPO's the 18 citizen representative is appointed by the Mayor, or the City, the County, or in this case the 19 Town of Mesilla might appoint a representative. Another way is to use the same process for 20 selection as the BPAC uses. 21 22 Terry Coker stated that this really addresses some of the worries when this issue first surfaced 23 about having a separate committee and what that separate committee might bring in terms of 24 either biased special interest groups or general disruptions to the process and having several 25 people sit on the TAC would give the TAC a chance to show the citizen representative what 26 the TAC does and would give the citizen representative a chance to provide input and if they 27 were designated as general representatives for the public then the public could bring them 28 issues and the issues could be presented to the TAC in an integrated rather than a separate 29 sense. 30 31 John Knopp stated that if the TAC does have citizen representatives the meeting time may 32 have to be moved to a later time to accommodate attendance. 33 34 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 35 36 Mike Bartholomew expressed concern regarding attendance at the TAC and asked staff if a 37 letter should be sent to Committee members. Tom Murphy stated that he would print the letter 38 regarding attendance for distribution to Committee members. 39 40 VI. ADJOURNMENT 41 42 Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. 43 44 45 �71�---- 46 Ch irperson 5