Loading...
05/03/2012 r .A v 1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING 3 4 Following are the minutes from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting 5 held on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 4 00 p m at Dona Ana Commission Chambers, 845 6 Motel Boulevard, Las Cruces, New Mexico 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Luis Marmolejo (DAC) 9 Mike Bartholomew (CLC Transit) 10 Louis Grijalva (CLC Public Works) 11 Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) 12 Gene Paulk (proxy for Harold Love - NMDOT) 13 Greg Walke (NMSU) 14 Henry K. Corneles (DAC Engineering) 15 Larry Altamirano (LCPS) 16 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 17 David Wallace (proxy for Bill Childress — BLM) 18 19 MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Childress (BLM) 20 Debbie Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 21 Harold Love (NMDOT) 22 John Gwynne (DA Flood Commission) 23 Dan Soriano (CLC Public Works) 24 Jesus Morales (EBID) 25 26 STAFF PRESENT Tom Murphy (MPO staff) 27 Duane Hoskins (MPO staff) 28 Andrew Wray (MPO staff) 29 30 1 CALL TO ORDER 31 32 Meeting was called to order at 4 00 p m Roll call was taken and quorum was 33 established 34 35 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA— No changes to the agenda 36 37 3 PUBLIC COMMENT— No public comment. 38 39 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 41 41 April 5, 2012 42 43 Greg Walke motioned to approve the minutes 44 Michael Bartholomew seconded the motion 45 ALL IN FAVOR, motion passes, vote 10 — 0 46 1 Y - 1 2 5 DISCUSSION ITEMS 3 4 51 MPO Management Plan Development (RFI 11-12-414) 5 6 The LCMPO derives its funding from an annual allocation of planning funds from the 7 Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration In April 2011 8 the LCMPO had received a Special Obligation from the FHWA totaling approximately 9 $94,000, in conjunction with a previous unspent Special Obligation and the required 10 local match of funds there is an opportunity to have nearly $200,000 in programming 11 authority additional to that of the normal operation of the MPO 12 13 The preliminary options available for these funds include 14 15 1) Fund planning phases of TIP un-funded list; 16 2) Fund corridor or sub-area studies via contractors, 17 3) Contract for development of Management Plans as described in the Metropolitan 18 Transportation Plan (MTP) Transport 2040 19 20 A Request for Information (RFI) was issued for the management plans provided in the 21 MTP (Option 3) in January of this year with one response, the discussion at this meeting 22 will focus on which of the management plans laid out in the MTP would be best to 23 pursue if selected for the expenditure of available funds 24 25 Tom Murphy gave a presentation 26 27 Mike Bartholomew asked if the pricing for each of the modules was separate or not 28 included 29 30 Tom Murphy responded there was not a pricing for the modules at this time He stated 31 there were some similar costs that the consultant referenced in their proposals but staff 32 didn't have a distinct costing aspect and that is one of the things that Mr Telles with the 33 City is investigating, whether the proposal can be sole sourced or has to go out for RFP 34 35 Mike Bartholomew asked if the pricing on that particular module would be within the 36 budget staff had 37 38 Tom responded that the module would come within the budget that staff has and he 39 would like to see what is leftover prior to moving onto the next management plan 40 41 Luis Marmolejo asked Tom to explain further `special obligation' on page 3 42 43 Tom Murphy stated that `special obligation' was a disbursement of planning funds from 44 the NMDOT, Santa Fe office, which staff was not expecting, so it was hard to plan for 45 spending it and that it is why it is being done through this Resolution It was originally 46 not part of the MPO annual programmed amount. 2 r -a 1 2 Luis Marmolejo asked about the bid process 3 4 Greg Walke asked if the public involvement innovation was a plan 5 6 Tom replied that it was a plan 7 8 Greg Walke asked if the public involvement innovation plan applies to the other four 9 plans He asked if it was a plan on how to innovatively involve the public in the other 10 four plans 11 12 Tom replied that the public involvement innovation plan would be to help develop and 13 strengthen the public participation plan and to involve the public in the metropolitan 14 planning process, which would be inclusive in developing the other plans 15 16 Someone asked about the asset management section of the plan that refers to the City 17 of Las Cruces, isn't the asset management plan for the entire MPO? 18 19 Tom responded that was correct and if staff pursued that plan, then staff would advise 20 Bohanon Huston that the asset management plan is for the entire MPO area 21 22 Luis Marmolejo expressed his concern about not going out for an RFP and going with 23 just the one bid that was submitted 24 25 Tom stated that an RFP is still an option and staff can get feedback from the Policy 26 Committee in terms of how to proceed Tom stated that staff would come back next 27 month with the UPWP amendment. 28 29 Mike Bartholomew stated that he did support the asset management recommendation 30 Mike asked if there was a possibility that there weren't as many bids because bidders 31 don't want to tip their hand on what their pricing is in an informational manner 32 33 Tom responded that is possible and that is a strong reason to proceed with an RFP 34 35 5.2 MPO Joint Committee Meeting Summary 36 37 The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is the transportation 38 planning entity for the Urbanized Area of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is required to 39 meet the transportation planning mandates of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 40 Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 41 42 The MPO develops and maintains the Transportation improvement Program (TIP) The 43 TIP is the 4-year list of funded projects scheduled to be designed and built in the MPO 44 area to meet the transportation mandates of SAFETEA-LU 45 3 1 The joint meeting was conducted on April 12, 2012 and consisted of representatives 2 from all MPO committees (Policy, TAC, and BPFAC) The topics covered were how the 3 TIP application addresses transportation projects and the format in which the 4 application addresses those projects 5 6 Duane Hoskins gave a brief presentation 7 8 Meeting notes and summary from the Joint Meeting on April 12, 2012 on the 9 Transportation Improvement Program Application 10 11 Documented TIP Concerns and Suggestions 12 • Add transit oriented factors to the safety and security section of the application 13 • Separate applications for road and non-road projects 14 • Existing environment may not allow for multi-modal scoring 15 • Project phase and funding be considered for scoring (Planning phases, construction 16 phases, etc ) 17 • Specific funding for certain projects ought to be considered (FTA, Interstate Highway 18 funds, PL, etc ) 19 • More specific right-of-way availability examination to include all owners of ROW, 20 consider prescriptions on lands, cultural significance, etc. 21 22 TIP Application Format 23 • There is a focus (in the scoring methodology) on road projects New construction of 24 roads will likely always score higher than a pedestrian safety or transit project. 25 • The points that are attributed to each category ought to reflect the amount of 26 required documentation 27 . Application should consider qualitative and quantitative data. Project that maybe 28 good project and data doesn't exist ought not to be thrown out. 29 • Better integrate federal planning principles (that direct our MTP) 30 • More emphasis placed on safety and security category 31 . Projects ought to target populations and have that reflected in the score 32 • More emphasis placed on identifying state/local match to federal funds and be a 33 consideration in ranking 34 • Combine safety and multimodal to remedy the multimodal issues with built-out 35 areas 36 • Attribute fewer points to the presentation section of the application 37 • Eliminate the presentation section of the application 38 39 Someone asked how the Committee proceeds from here 40 41 Duane Hoskins stated the whole premise of the meeting was to throw everything out on 42 the table, find what works and then create a framework of how to fit as many of these 43 suggestions and concerns in as possible He stated that some were counter to one 44 another so staff would review those but, in general, staff was trying to accommodate 45 everyone's concerns as much as possible, then staff is hoping to have another joint 46 work session to start placing these recommendations in the TIP application process 4 1 2 Someone asked if there were any limitations from the feds or the State as far as what 3 needed to be on the applications or what should not be on them, or can staff/committee 4 pretty much do anything they want? 5 6 Duane responded the TIP process is laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 7 but projects rated are more or less up to the MPO and its committees The MPO 8 function is to determine the projects that ought to be happening in the MPO area and 9 where to put the funds 10 11 Tom Murphy stated there are certain minimums that are spelled out in the federal 12 regulations, however, there is nothing that prohibits a region to establish criteria above 13 and beyond those minimums He stated that this process is to find out what the 14 criterion for our region is 15 16 Mike Bartholomew stated he supported MPO staff pursing more meetings like the work 17 session Mike suggested possibly taking a look at what other MPO's are doing and their 18 evaluation processes and discuss as a committee 19 20 Duane stated he has already taken the first step by speaking with Dave Panella, 21 MRCOG, and has obtained their TIP information which included a booklet that goes with 22 their TIP application 23 24 6 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 25 26 Tom Murphy announced that staff is hosting a roundabout webinar at City Council 27 Chambers on Friday, May 3, 2012 at 10 a m 28 29 Jolene Herrera provided construction updates 30 1-10/1-25 Interchange — the groundbreaking was April 26th at midnight — project is 31 underway, should take about one year to complete Cholla Road (the portion 32 under 1-25) is closed and will be closed for approximately three months There 33 are lane restrictions on Las Alturas, Stern, 1-25 and 1-10 and these will be in 34 place for the duration of the project. 35 Pile driving for fly-over ramps taking place 36 Construction is going seven days a week/22 hours a day Please be careful 37 when driving through the area 38 39 John Knopp brought up the bottleneck where three lanes abruptly drop to one lane and 40 how dangerous it is 41 42 Jolene stated she would bring that concern to the project manager's attention 43 44 Gene Paulk stated that the Engler Road project is approximately three weeks ahead of 45 schedule, possibility of completion in October The Motel Boulevard bridges are well 5 1 underway and on schedule Avenida de/esillaa will be started next fiscal 2 year 3 4 David Wallace introduced himself as new Assistant District Manager for the BLM, 5 Multiple Resources, and is filling in as proxy for Bill Childress 6 7 7 PUBLIC COMMENT - No public comment. 8 9 8 ADJOURNMENT 10 11 Meeting adjourned at 4 42 p m 12 13 Mike Bartholomew motioned to adjourn 14 Jolene He a seconded the motion 15 ALL I AVO 16 17 18 19 Chair 20 21 22 23 6 A