Loading...
07-21-15I MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 The following are minutes for the meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 5 Advisory Committee of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 6 which was held July 21, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. in Commission Chambers at Dona Ana 7 County Government Building, 845 Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: George Pearson, Chair (City of Las Cruces Citizen Rep) 10 James Nunez (City of Las Cruces Rep) 11 Jolene Herrera (NMDOT Rep) 12 Ashleigh Curry (Town of Mesilla Citizen Rep) 13 Albert Casillas (DAC Rep) 14 Andrew Bencomo (Pedestrian Community Rep) 15 Jamie Lakey (NMSU - Proxy) 16 17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Duane Bentley (Bicycle Community Rep) 18 Mark Leisher (DAC Citizen Rep) 19 Karen Rishel (Bicycling Community Bicycle Rep) 20 David Shearer (NMSU - Environmental Safety) 21 Lance Shepan (Town of Mesilla Rep) 22 23 STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Wray (MPO) 24 Michael McAdams (MPO) 25 Sharon Nebbia (MPO) 26 27 OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Paz - Molzen Corbin 28 Wyatt Kartchner - Molzen Corbin 29 Denise Weston - Bohannan Huston 30 Tandy Freel - Bohannan Huston 31 Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC 32 33 1. CALL TO ORDER (5:05 p.m.) 34 35 Pearson: I'll call this, the Mesilla Valley MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Advisory 36 Committee to order. First order of business then, well let's have an 37 introduction for everybody that's on, so we make sure we've got 38 somebody that's, couple of new members or a proxy. We'll start at the 39 end. 40 41 Bencomo: Andrew Bencomo. 42 43 Nunez: James Nunez, City of Las Cruces. 44 45 Curry: Ashleigh Curry, Citizen Representative, Town of Mesilla. 46 I Herrera: Jolene Herrera, NMDOT. 2 3 Lakey: Jamie Lakey, NMSU. 4 5 Pearson: And George Pearson, Chair and citizen of Las Cruces, City of Las Cruces 6 Citizen Representative. 7 8 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 9 10 Pearson: Approval of the agenda is next. Are there any changes for the agenda? 11 Hearing none, I'll hear a motion to approve the agenda as presented. 12 13 Bencomo: So moved. 14 15 Curry: I second. 16 17 Pearson: Mr. Bencomo. 18 19 Curry: Ashleigh Curry. 20 21 Pearson: Seconds. All in favor, "aye." 22 23 MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 24 25 Pearson: Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes. 26 27 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 28 29 3.1 May 19, 2014 30 31 Pearson: Next is approval of the minutes. Do we have some discussion on 32 approval of the minutes? 33 34 Curry: I have one thing that I just noted, thank you, I have one thing that I noted 35 just in the members present and members absent. We didn't have Lance 36 Shepan, members absent and we had others present. We had Andrew 37 Bencomo twice. He's listed as members present and others present. 38 39 Bencomo: Was it my evil twin too. 40 41 Curry: Duplicate people. 42 43 Bencomo: We also want to correct, I don't remember Scott being here and ... 44 45 Pearson: No. 46 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Bencomo: And I don't, I'm pretty sure I'm not proxy anymore. I'm the City Rep. Pearson: Yeah that would've been the question, I think he was, well it's a matter of the staff, MPO staff should know if he was appointed or not by that time. Wray: No. He was a full member at that point. Pearson: Okay. Wray: That's an error. Pearson: So we need to correct that. Strike Scott. Also strike from member absent Carlos Coontz. He was, he had actually resigned by then and was replaced and it shows the replacement is present, Mr. Bencomo. Okay so did we get all, all these changes? So we have, Mr. Nunez needs to not be a proxy but just the City of Las Cruces Rep and strike Scott Farnham from members present. Strike Carlos Coontz as, from members absent and add ... Curry: Lance Shepan. Pearson: Shepan from Town of Mesilla as members absent. Are there any, any other discussion on the minutes? Curry: And then other, others present strike Andrew Bencomo. Pearson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Nunez: I'll make the motion. Curry: And I'll second it. Pearson: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Pearson: Any opposed? And the minutes are approved. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Pearson: We have our County Representative has joined us now for the record. And next item is public comment. Do we have any members of the public that wish to comment at this point? Seeing none. 1 5. ACTION ITEMS 2 3 5.1 Recommend Approval of the Amendments to the 2016-2021 4 Transportation Improvement Program 5 6 Pearson: We'll move on to Action Items. We have a TIP recommendation. 7 8 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask the Committee to turn to page 29. 9 There are a number of TIP amendments being requested by NMDOT and 10 1 want to clarify at this point that these amendments are for the 2016-2021 11 TIP that was approved by the Policy Committee at their last meeting so 12 this is not the TIP that we are currently in right now. This is the TIP that 13 starts in October. 14 First off we have an amendment to LCO0110 which is the El 15 Camino Real at Dona Ana School Road interchange and there's an 16 additional $42,746 for that project. LCO0240 is a shoulder -widening 17 project, additional $350,000 for preliminary engineering in FY '16 and '17. 18 LCO0250 is the University Avenue and Triviz project that we discussed at 19 some length during the run-up to the MTP. There's an additional $1.2 20 million going into Fiscal Year 2016 for preliminary engineering. Then 21 LC00270, this is a new project for US-70 for a capacity and safety study. 22 And then on the next page, page 30, 1100820 is the new project for the 23 West Mesa Road and I do want to ask Jolene for clarification. Is this kind 24 of a resurrection of the, of the project that was voted off the TIP last year? 25 26 Herrera: Yes it is. This is the exact same TIP amendment that we had asked for 27 last year that the Policy Committee did not approve. So it's, it's the same 28 thing. 29 30 Wray: And those are the amendments being requested and I'll stand now for any 31 questions. 32 33 Pearson: So on the last one the West Mesa Road, that's just a placeholder, there's 34 no funding identified at this point? 35 36 Wray: The funding is on page, on page 31. It's the last project listed on that 37 page. 38 39 Herrera: Mr. Chair if I could add some clarification to that. The funding that we're 40 requesting now is for the Phase 1 C and 1 D portion so there is no 41 construction funding set aside yet. 42 43 Pearson: So that's just planning and ... 44 45 Herrera: Right. This is for preliminary design and things. 46 4 I Pearson: Environmental studies. 2 3 Herrera: Yes. 4 5 Curry: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera, may I ask a quick question. Is that the bypass, the 6 truck bypass road that would be going from Santa Teresa up to 1-10, is 7 that what that is? 8 9 Herrera: Yes. 10 11 Curry: Okay. Great. Thanks. 12 13 Pearson: Anybody else have any comments on this? Hearing none I'll hear a 14 motion to accept as presented. 15 16 Curry: I'll make a motion to accept as presented. 17 18 Lakey: I'll second. 19 20 Pearson: Jamie? 21 22 Lakey: Yeah. Jamie Lakey. 23 24 Pearson: Having a motion and a second. All in favor, "aye." 25 26 MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 27 28 Pearson: Any opposed? So that item is passed. 29 30 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 31 32 6.1 Presentation on the Valley Drive Improvement Project 33 34 Pearson: So now we're into Discussion Items. First up is a presentation on Valley 35 Drive improvement project. 36 37 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. At this time I'd like to turn the floor over to the staff 38 of Molzen Corbin. They will be giving this presentation. 39 40 Wyatt Kartchner gave his presentation. 41 42 Pearson: Go ahead. 43 44 Bencomo: Mr. Chair, I have several questions, some of them may be questions 45 cause I'm new to this group and I'm a little ignorant for certain things so on 5 I the statistics he had for accidents, were those vehicle to vehicle accidents 2 only or did they include bicyclists being hit, pedestrians? 3 4 Kartchner: It was any kind of accident that ... 5 6 Bencomo: Any kind. 7 8 Kartchner: Yes sir. 9 10 Bencomo: Okay. 11 12 Kartchner: Any kind of accident that had a police report filed. 13 14 Bencomo: Okay. Well that seemed pretty low for that number of years. I was, I'm 15 surprised. 16 17 Paz: That's how, how the officers code that accident is what's being pooled as 18 a, as a vehicular accident so it's, it's highly dependent on the, on how that, 19 that's coded and the data is given to us by the State. You may know that 20 there was a bicycle death on that corridor ... 21 22 Bencomo: Correct. 23 24 Paz: Within the last three to four years and so it was, either the nature of the 25 accident didn't show up on a police report but we're mindful of that 26 because you know we are here and we do understand that that was a, a 27 condition that existed on the corridor that through our design, through our 28 lighting that we're trying to make this a safer corridor but it, what Wyatt 29 reported was what was actually archived and retrieved from the State 30 Police and the, the official records. 31 32 Bencomo: Thank you. Yeah, I was wondering about that because I, 1 had thought it 33 was in that section where that bicycle death occurred. 34 35 Paz: Yes. 36 37 Bencomo: But I wasn't positive. 38 39 Paz: It was near Hadley, near the Hadley area in that, in that response. You 40 know there was a number of issues along with that accident that it may 41 have been just coded differently but ... 42 43 Bencomo: Okay. 44 45 Paz: We, we were mindful of that and are aware of that. 46 6 1 Bencomo: Thank you. And then this kind of doesn't have anything to do with 2 bicycle/pedestrian but I just had a question so for Fire Station Number 3 3 cause in my previous life that was part of my, so signalization for that 4 station, there's currently signals there. Is that going to be kept there or 5 those gonna be done away with? Curious. 6 7 Kartchner: We've met with the fire station and their main concern was for that access 8 across the median that they have now. 9 10 Bencomo: Correct. 11 12 Kartchner: That was also a concern of AMR who is also along the corridor, is they 13 have to go down south on Valley Drive and turn around and so they 14 wanted access to North Valley Drive just by a median cut so as far as, 1 15 don't know, is there a signal there? 16 17 Paz: No there's not a preemptive signal. 18 19 Kartchner: No there's not, no. 20 21 Paz: It's, it's, I'm sorry. It was, there's not a preemptive signal there now so 22 that's something that we'll consider in the design phase of the project, 23 whether there needs to be some, some warning signals that are attached 24 to that and, and so those, those are elements that need to be worked 25 through as we move forward in the project. If you look at that Amador 26 Proximo plan that was just unveiled by the City of Las Cruces, that fire 27 station goes away so, and they're going to design a new one or 28 somewhere in the vicinity but it is no longer going to be situated there so 29 that, that's an evolving discussion that we'll be going through as that 30 moves along. 31 32 Bencomo: Okay. Yeah cause maybe since I left it was taken down but there are 33 signals for that fire station. They're not constantly used but they were 34 accessed from inside the station and they could be turned on and off as 35 they responded. But anyway that kind of is that subject. Question about 36 the, the pervious concrete: How well does that work? Cause I'm thinking 37 to myself it takes probably a while to drain through that. I don't know how 38 it all works, I've never seen it but the way we get rains around here, 1 39 mean they just dump and then they're done. Will it handle that? 40 41 Kartchner: Right. Yes. We actually did some tests out on this strip out here that's at 42 Dona Ana County. We did an ASTM test which basically you set a 12- 43 inch diameter cylinder on that and then you fill that with water and you 44 determine how quickly that infiltrates. And we found through that pervious 45 concrete that's out here that was poured as a test strip without any really 46 QA/QC or, that it drained over 108 inches per hour. 7 1 2 Bencomo: Wow. 3 4 Kartchner: And so on that project that we're doing in Peralta we found that it can 5 handle two 100-year storms back to back. So if we get a hundred -year 6 storm today and then tomorrow we get another one it would handle it 7 without any issues where ... 8 9 Bencomo: Interesting. 10 11 Kartchner: Your typical storm drain system your ponds would be full after one storm, 12 one 100-year storm so. 13 14 Bencomo: Right. 15 16 Paz: And also as Wyatt mentioned earlier it requires maintenance. You know 17 the, you know the, the short story's when we first tested that, that test 18 section that's out here was, had, had not been maintained in seven years 19 since it was poured and it had about this much sand that covered it which 20 wouldn't be typical of what we have in sandstorms around here. It's on the 21 east face of a wall so the, the sand blows over and it just lands and it 22 plugged every pore. Our first run of that test was zero. It didn't drain at all 23 and then we took a ShopVac and vacuumed it out and then it was 108 24 inches per hour so it does require maintenance. It requires a vacuum, a 25 sweeper with a vacuum attachment to go over there two or three times a 26 year and, and, and extract that sand and that sediment that would, you 27 would, it, you know clog it up with tires and with mud and, and such and 28 such but all pavement requires maintenance and that would be an 29 element. Here in the city they have the equipment. They have the 30 sweepers with the vacuum attachments on it so that was, that was a 31 consideration in that. 32 33 Curry: May I, may I add a question along that line as well? My concern, I think it 34 was Option C had the pervious concrete on the bike path and my thought 35 is when you have drainage you have all the sort of road crud for lack of 36 you know better term that comes onto the road when it rains and then 37 that's, you'll, A you've got the water and obviously it's draining well but 38 you've also got all of the debris that washes with rainwater and drainage 39 going along and how that would work? I, 1 mean to me as a cyclist I think 1 40 would choose not to be on that bike path after a rainstorm until it's been 41 cleaned. 42 43 Paz: Yeah, the, what we've, what we've recommended in Peralta where, where 44 it's now under construction for that particular project was similar to how 45 they operate the SWIP plans where after a one -inch rainstorm then the, 46 the equipment would be out there maintaining the facility like they do the, N. I the sedimentation facilities under a SWIP program so we kind of use that 2 as our benchmark for the maintenance. The surface itself, on that other 3 project the landscape architect for the DOT, Bill Hutchinson he, he actually 4 vetted that through the bicycle community up there and they were, they 5 had driven on other test sections and found it to be an adequate surface 6 for, for the, for the, even the narrow -tire bicyclists. 7 8 Curry: Okay. Thank you. 9 10 Bencomo: Let's try again, just one more and these two kind of go together. The, the 11 view where you had the raised median or the bike path was raised, 1 12 actually, and, and, and I've, have a question about that. Is it, seems like 13 we always separate the pedestrian and the bicycle and we have two 14 separate places for them and could they not work together, why don't we 15 do that especially in a road, I mean we have lots of space on Valley Drive 16 it appears because of the easements that were given over time but to 17 combine those together. I, 1 like the idea of a raised area for pedestrian or 18 bicycle. In this day and age and it's just gonna get worse, people are 19 looking at their phones, they're staring at screens that are in their fancy 20 new cars, drifting off the road and that's when people get hit. It's, it's great 21 to have a bike lane with a separation there painted on the ground but 22 that's not going to stop a car necessarily from, from doing that when 23 people aren't paying attention to what they're doing so I, 1 like the idea of, 24 of the raised areas for whether it's pedestrian or bicyclists, a little 25 separation. And curiosity maybe somebody on the Committee can explain 26 this to me or maybe you guys can; why do we always separate bicycle 27 and pedestrian? I realize they're two modes, different modes of travel but 28 could work together and possibly save space by doing some of that too, 29 and modifying. 30 31 Kartchner: I think there's a couple of reasons. There's different variations of 32 bicyclists. There's your family that's out there with their kids that's going to 33 be wanting to be basically on the sidewalk or in a shared path and then 34 there's your commuter bicyclists or your bicyclists that ride on the 35 interstate when it's allowed and they would be in the travel lane if possible 36 and so the on -street bicycle lanes kind of cater more towards the, I'm 37 gonna say hardcore bicyclists for no, lack of a better term in that it gets 38 them as close to the driving lane as possible but it gives them a safe place 39 so that, Valley Drive has a speed limit of 45 miles an hour and so people 40 are really zooming along so it gives them a safe place to, to ride. 41 42 Bencomo: Okay. Thank you. 43 44 Curry: Mr. Bencomo, may, maybe I can add, I think, were you thinking 45 something along the lines of the Triviz trail and along Triviz there are bike 9 I lanes but there's also a multiuse path that people can use both, is that 2 what you have in mind? 3 4 Bencomo: Something like that. I, 1 mean obviously the Triviz path to me is, is slightly 5 narrow for use of both and when I run there, cause I'm a runner a lot of 6 times I'll have a bicycle come up real quick behind me and then, "On your 7 left!" and they startle you. They're too close when they say that. 8 9 Curry: Right. I, yeah. 10 11 Bencomo: I don't know which way to go but ... 12 13 Curry: And as I'm the one that's yelling at you, "On your left," I would say that 14 should answer the question of why not to put bicycles and pedestrians on 15 the same path for that, you know for that reason and I think as, as Wyatt 16 had said that different speeds of the use of the shared road make it a little 17 bit tricky. Somebody's out walking the dog and they've got a leash and 18 you come along on a bicycle and the dog runs out in front of you. I think 19 it's a really good idea no matter the speed of the bicycle to have, if it's 20 possible and there's space to have separated bike and pedestrians. I'm, 21 I'm particularly a fan of separating if, if space and money allows. 22 23 Bencomo: Correct and while I, 1 don't disagree with the, the, the separation I'm 24 talking about like a complete separation: Here's the sidewalk over here, 25 now we need space for the bike lane. Can they be combined in some way 26 and still keep them a little separate? I think part of the trail in Albuquerque 27 along the river is that way. They have on one side two lanes with dotted 28 line down the center and then they have space on the other side still and 29 you can kind of use both so just some thoughts. But specifically I do like 30 the idea of having some kind of raised protection between roadways and 31 whether it's walkers or bikers or whoever, just like I said people are totally 32 not paying attention on a lot of times, even with the new laws no texting 33 and driving, everybody still does it. 34 35 Kartchner: It's worse, yeah. Seems like it's worse. 36 37 Bencomo: Yeah. 38 39 Curry: I'd like to just add a, an, another thought and this is not necessarily 40 particular to this presentation although I think it is inclusive of, of it, I, you 41 know what I'm really noticing coming back, I was just in Europe this 42 summer and noticing even just in you know smaller towns, there's a really 43 consistent look for how bicycles and pedestrians interact around the whole 44 city and I feel like we have so many different ways of doing it. We have a 45 bike path and then we have a shared road and then we have this and it's 46 all choppy in bits and parts and like half -mile, mile long segments. There's 10 I a road diet where we have inlay in back roads and there's another one we 2 have a multiuse path and I wonder if we have kind of a cohesive city plan 3 for how biking should look so that it's not, you know every time we have a 4 little bit of funding we're looking at how this next half mile or this mile can 5 work but as a whole what do we want, as a city, as a county, what do we 6 want the whole thing to look like and working just in general towards that 7 as a whole. I mean I look at the funding we just spent from Safe Routes to 8 School to improve between Hadley and McFie on, on Valley Drive and you 9 know we just put a, a chunk of money into building sidewalks and things 10 like that and then realizing that that probably you know really quickly will 11 be dug up and, and replaced with something else whereas if there was 12 some kind of greater plan and, and maybe there is one in place, of what 13 overall we should have it look like, it would also maybe even address the, 14 you know the conflict that you guys have obviously put a ton of work into 15 doing all this research and then the Amador Proximo coming along and 16 saying, "Hey how about not that? How about something completely 17 different?" So yeah I mean just as, as a general, I'm looking at, I mean 18 but we're looking at everything piecemeal month by month or year by year, 19 chunk of money by chunk of money. What's our overall goal and plan in 20 Las Cruces and Dona Ana County? It's, I'm not necessarily asking you 21 that question. 22 23 Kartchner: I was going to say I wish I knew. 24 25 Curry: I just, you know ... 26 27 Pearson: Please answer that. 28 29 Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry. I would offer that that is part of the reason for the 30 BPAC's existence ... 31 32 Pearson: Exactly. 33 34 Wray: Is that very ... 35 36 Pearson: Perfect. 37 38 Wray: Overall vision that those ideas are generated here by this body in addition 39 to others but that is one of the big reasons why the BPAC exists is to 40 create that cycling vision. 41 42 Curry: So, thank you Mr. Wray but what are, what are we doing to achieve that 43 other than you know approving or disapproving as these little projects 44 come in? I mean how are we overall working in that direction to make that 45 a reality? 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Wray: Not to sound trite but we invite the consultants for the Valley Drive project to come speak to you and you offer your opinions to them. But I mean literally that's, that, that is part and parcel of why we invited Molzen Corbin to this meeting was for you to offer the, the vision as it were, what you would like to see, what you would not like to see and admittedly while it would be nice to be able to do a nice one day consistent project that reality is, that's never going to be a situation that'll happen so we have to approach things ... Curry: But see I, I'm sorry to interrupt but I think that that's, I think that's a, that's a bad attitude to have, to say that it'll never happen. I mean I think that there, there are places all around the world that it is consistently happening because they have a broader plan and I think we need to somehow figure out how to get that broader plan so that every little piece of the puzzle goes together into, into one big look. You know, and again I'm sorry I may be you know sidelining your guys' presentation and I don't mean to do it but I'm just trying to look at the big puzzle, the big jigsaw puzzle. I mean I feel like we, every time we come we put together three pieces of a puzzle and three pieces of a puzzle and three pieces of a puzzle and then we realize that the puzzle, actually all the pieces don't belong to the same puzzle you know and so we've got all these patches of how biking and walking and pedestrian access looks in the city and the county so. Wray: Mr. Chair, Ms. Curry, I, 1 didn't exactly misspeak but I guess miscommunicated. I wasn't necessarily speaking of the overall plan because that, the MTP is the overall plan. That's what, that's, that's where the MPO puts its opinions overall so that's, that's why we went through the MPO or the MTP process over the past two years ... Curry: Sure. Wray: Getting that together. I, 1 was speaking more of the implementation side of it where it has to be for funding reasons done a bit at a time. Curry: Sure. Sure. Pearson: We've got the Transit 2040 which gives the overriding vision of what should happen but at a lower level even I think the City doesn't have a bicycle plan that says, "This is where we expect to be able to do things in the next two, five, or ten years," and maybe that's something that we could talk to City staff about and see if, I mean do you agree with that or not. Is that a ... Wray: I'm not in a position to offer ... 12 1 Pearson: Right, I mean as far as ... 2 3 Wray: An opinion on that one. 4 5 Pearson: But the City does not have a separate bicycle plan. They just rely on 6 what's in the Transit 2040. 7 8 Wray: That's correct. 9 10 Pearson: So maybe that's something that we could recommend to the Policy 11 Committee that the City looks at having their own bicycle plan for 12 implementation. 13 14 Wray: Could be done. 15 16 Bencomo: Mr., Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. I think we're, we're sidelining their presentation. 17 18 Pearson: Right. I... 19 20 Bencomo: What I do, I agree with you 100% Ms. Curry, 100% 1 think it sounds to me 21 like the BPAC needs to have for lack of a better term maybe a work 22 session and we need to figure out with, amongst ourselves, we're a 23 recommending body so maybe we need to get together and make those 24 recommendations and come up with plans and ideas that you have from 25 other countries, other states and then when we come forward, then talk to 26 professionals like this that know, "Well, that'd be great to do that but that 27 really won't work," or ... 28 29 Curry: Right. 30 31 Bencomo: "It's going cost this much," and so ... 32 33 Curry: Right. I agree and I'm sorry to sideline the, the presentation. It wasn't my 34 intention at all but I do, I agree a work session might be a good thing. 35 36 Bencomo: Yeah. 37 38 Curry: Yes. Okay. Thank you. 39 40 Pearson: Well and, and I ... 41 42 Nunez: If I, if I could interject and jump on that too, I think and maybe you can help 43 me too Jerry, is the design guidelines and standards so I'm not sure 44 what's in there. I'm going over them I know, I know that some of the road 45 sections that we meet, but, then that goes all the way to the level of City 13 Council approval so we go through a review of those occasionally, every 2 so many years. So help me out on that Jerry. 3 4 Paz: Right. There's City standards that have you know various pedestrian and, 5 and bicycle facilities that are built within the City design guidelines but the 6 other thing that makes it problematic or, or opportunistic however you look 7 at it, every segment of road is unique. 8 9 Curry: Absolutely, yeah. 10 11 Paz: You know this, this segment, I mean we just finished the North Valley from 12 Picacho to the city limits. There was no right-of-way without taking out 32 13 businesses and so that plan to implement full pedestrian and bicycle 14 access was just kind of stuck for 14 years because nobody really wanted 15 to bite the bullet and say, "We're going to take these businesses out of 16 business and, and push them away." And so the decision was made, 17 "We're going to cram everything we can into the right-of-way that's there 18 rather than lose the money and have it go somewhere else." So it, it was 19 just, it was just stalemated for 14 years until it got unstuck and so you 20 have a shared lane. That's all that was you know physical at that time. 21 And then now we have 250 foot of right-of-way, there's just all kinds of 22 room so now the ideas can be a little bit more generous. So every 23 segment of road does get unique treatment based on just what you have 24 and what ... 25 26 Curry: Yeah. 27 28 Paz: Able to work with. From Hadley to Picacho it is very narrow so this side, 29 frontage road or any linear park or any, all that has to go away. We're 30 going to have to squeeze it more down to something that's manageable. 31 32 Pearson: And there might not even be room for the buffering for the bike lanes then. 33 34 Paz: Right. So we'll, we'll, you know we might have to, you know I like the idea 35 of the 11-foot lanes cause that does give us more room for, for both 36 pedestrian and, and bicycle access and, and so you're just kind of fitting it 37 within there ... 38 39 Curry: Sure. 40 41 Paz: And you're trying to make it work. It just so happened that this was a lot of 42 right-of-way in this segment and said, "Hey let's think about a linear park, 43 pond concept or," that, that wouldn't have come up on another job 44 because it just didn't lend itself to that. 45 46 Nunez: Mr. Chair, I have a few questions. 14 1 2 Pearson: Yes. 3 4 Nunez: And I don't know whoever else does but I've only got a few. I think I can 5 get through them pretty quick. I had written down also the impervious 6 concrete, or not impervious, pervious. 7 8 Paz: Impervious won't work. 9 10 Nunez: So the, so the, so you addressed that pretty much. And then too I'm, I'm 11 not sure which direction cause you've shown us a number of sections of 12 road here, different designs and I would think that in some of these I would 13 be worried that you could get to those and get the equipment to clean it is, 14 but I saw some of the, the, the, the raised sections and some of the trees 15 et cetera. So anyway that was a little bit of concern. 16 17 Paz: Well, shouldn't even have gone off on the pervious concrete because it 18 was not recommended in the end. It was, the City did not want it. They 19 didn't want the maintenance, they didn't want the hassle. They felt like 20 Burn Lake was there and it, it's available, it's close enough to where we 21 could take advantage of it and, and so that need kind of went away and so 22 it was, it's, it's not a part of the project. We kind of got excited about it but 23 it's not going to happen. 24 25 Nunez: Okay. Thanks for addressing that. 26 27 Paz: Yeah. 28 29 Nunez: I thought I heard a rumor or something like that. The, so to that end you 30 also, when I was looking and I was counting up some of your numbers on 31 your road section you mentioned this already too where it chokes down 32 but this looks like about 150 on some of your sections, is that correct or 33 corridors, okay. So whenever you mentioned with the right-of-way and 34 obtaining additional right-of-way did you mean for the drainage to get to 35 the, to the, right-of-way to get drainage out or I didn't know what you 36 meant by obtaining additional right-of-way. 37 38 Kartchner: It was more of an "if it was necessary." We don't believe it is necessary. 39 There may be a corner or two maybe that in order to get the, the turn lane 40 in in an intersection or something we may need just a sliver but as far as 41 overall there's, shouldn't be any really right-of-way impacts. 42 43 Nunez: Very good. Okay the next item is some of the comments and you 44 mentioned you talked to a number of businesses and other people. Did 45 you have any comments that stand out, if you can give me a couple, some 46 feedback that you liked or worries or anything? 15 1 2 Kartchner: I think the biggest worry from the business owners was construction time, 3 impact that it's going to have on them during construction, how long 4 construction's going to take. One of the things that they brought up was 5 phasing the project. They suggested building it from, in chunks so 6 basically use Amador as your halfway mark so everything south of 7 Amador, build it, be done, walk away and then build everything north of 8 Amador as another, either a separate project or phase the project such 9 that it didn't inconvenience everybody at the, at the same time. 10 11 Paz: And, and you know they're all watching North Main Street and they're just 12 like, "We're going to go out of business if that happens here." So they're, 13 they're kind of looking at other projects that are struggling and they're 14 thinking that, and it, and in all reality it, you know it's a roll of the dice 15 which contractor gets it and how they execute the project so it's, you know 16 that's clearly on their mind as an issue that they brought up. The other 17 thing is that through our web -based live streaming video and 18 Facebook/Twitter comment opportunities we, we, on our first public 19 meeting we reached out and touched about 250 people that were, that 20 were counted through that public meeting. If we get like 30 people at 21 public meeting we all like high -five each other and say, "Hey this was a 22 great meeting!" We're disappointed in the second meeting. We touched 23 about 80 people and we thought, "Oh, what happened?" But then when 24 you think 80 people it was still a good response and, and using a more of 25 a interactive people could participate at home and just call in or Facebook 26 a question and, and we were able to answer that live so I think it was, it, it, 27 we did reach out and have some success in that. 28 29 Nunez: Okay thanks. I was just involved in a project at NMSU where we moved 30 the fuel tanks and we ended up getting, having to remove additional soil 31 and a little bit additional cost that I didn't foresee so whenever you 32 mentioned all these gas stations and the tanks and stuff. Do you foresee 33 or is that part of the project, any environmental issues, or if you'd kind of 34 address that? 35 36 Kartchner: We actually are doing borings this week. Our geotechnical engineer's 37 doing pavement borings, but at the request of the environmental engineer 38 it's also going to look for those hazardous materials within those borings to 39 see, see what's out there. And so we kind of relocated some of those 40 borings to be in those areas. 41 42 Nunez: All right. Thanks. And then let's see ... 43 44 Pearson: Let's just follow up on that quickly. It's got to be the case if you got it, like 45 a gas station that had a leak that the leak extended into the public right-of- 46 way and that's where you're concerned, is that right? 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Kartchner: Pearson Yes, yes. That's all. Nunez: Two more real quick. One comment is, is, I did like the, I think our minimum bike width is, dedicated lane is four feet, you have the five so that's nice. And then also the last is when you put up on the screen you had in parentheses 17 signals. Are you saying that you're proposing having 17 or there's existing 17 that you're looking at? Kartchner: We looked at 17 intersections. Nunez: Intersections, okay. Kartchner: Yes. Nunez: Thanks. That's all I had. Paz: And, and only those intersections that currently have signals were the only ones that warranted it going forward so there would no, be no net, new signals. Pearson: Okay. Casillas: Just a quick question. Were there any talks about a, maybe a right-of-way acquisition especially like in that area where this, I guess Valley Drive gets a little bit more, more narrower? Kartchner: We kind of looked at it but Valley Drive in that area, the businesses are, their front door is right at the right-of-way line and so, and the only really way to acquire right-of-way is to take a business. Casillas: Oh. Okay. Paz: Yeah that western store, what, what's concerning is the ADA when we get into the design because it's elevated. The store's high and the street's low and so just getting the, the slopes on the sidewalk is going to be a challenge and that's why we thought of scooting in the narrower lanes and, and narrowing up the roadway section to give us room for ramps and stuff like that. The corner of Picacho as we add that additional lane and Valley Drive we believe will fit within the right-of-way that's there. Curry: Is there a particular rendition of this that's looking like to the most popular right now? Do you have a kind of feel for which is ... 17 I Kartchner: Well the section that's on your screen now is what we recommended 2 3 Curry: So which one is this one, A, B, C, D, E, what of your ... 4 5 Kartchner: G. 6 7 Curry: G, okay, okay. 8 9 Kartchner: Yes ma'am. 10 11 Curry: And that's barring the new addition of this Amador Proximo. 12 13 Kartchner: Yes, ma'am. 14 15 Curry: Okay, so is the Amador Proximo going to slow down this process? How 16 much time do you have to give them to kind of figure out if Amador 17 Proximo's going to add another rendition here to this? 18 19 Kartchner: I don't know how much time that's going to, to take at this point. We're 20 waiting for that direction from the City and the NMDOT as to how they 21 would like to proceed, if they want to pursue it as a viable alternative or if 22 they want us to study it in more detail but we believe there's ways that we 23 can condense the design schedule and still meet the 2017 construction 24 schedule. 25 26 Curry: So is there an expectation from the BPAC that we need to wait to hear 27 from the Amador Proximo to see what their thought of it is, or that you just 28 want a, a, a recommendation from us now or ... 29 30 Paz: I, 1 think it'd be helpful if you chimed in. 31 32 Curry: To which? 33 34 Paz: To whatever you like. I mean I think right now the, the way I'm looking at it 35 is the Amador Proximo, if we carry that from Hadley all the way to Avenida 36 de Mesilla we're adding about $4 million, just real rough numbers. So now 37 the DOT's like, "Okay City pony up some money." But the City's saying, 38 "Well, we're going to take the maintenance over forever." So there's some 39 haggling that's got to happen and that, that road transfer has to occur 40 legally, it has to be beneficial to both parties so that's going to be where 41 the, where the negotiations occur. And so we're kind of like looking for a, 42 a consensus amongst those if, if they're truly wanting to move forward on 43 that. I think the schedule is one thing, it's the cost, and then there's what 44 are the tradeoffs for both, for both sides? Why, put the benefits for the 45 DOT and the benefits for the City in this presentation. There are clear 46 benefits for both sides but it's, it, it added another element of, "Wait a I minute. That's outside of our budget." And so we can phase it. We, 2 we've come up with some ideas on how to kind of build the outside and, 3 and leave a little bit of the inside left undone for a future phase by the City 4 once they own it, if, if the City would like to pursue it within the funding 5 that's available so there's a way to phase it. It just means that those 6 property owners have to be disrupted twice when the second phase goes 7 to construction. So those are elements that the two parties really have to 8 get together and, and give us direction. You know there's, but your, your 9 voice, your, your input in, in how this is, based on your input to date this is 10 what we came up with, the protected or the separated bike lane with the 11 wider, the parkway, this is what was kind of hashed out through our study 12 but if you, if you're looking at the other alternative, voice it. You know ... 13 14 Curry: Well you know my thought just as a BPAC member is just, you know 1 15 don't want to say, "Yay! This is awesome!" which yay this is awesome, 16 but at the same time I mean don't want to have Amador Proximo come 17 and present to us in six months' time and go, "We've got this new idea," 18 but then it's like, "Let's rip out what you guys have just done and do it this 19 way." I mean it seems like that happens all too often here already and so 20 ... 21 22 Pearson: There's not any money to rip out anything. This is a one-shot deal. 23 24 Curry: Well but it, then that's, then, then that's the thing is I kind of feel like 25 maybe we need, I'm not, I, 1 really appreciate that you've you know given 26 us their, their drawings and things like that as well and, and filled us in but 27 you know to some degree I feel like, I mean I think ultimately this is 28 probably you know the direction that I would voice a, a vote for personally 29 but you know kind of also feel like maybe it's good for us to just hear from 30 the Amador Proximo people and meet with them or something and just 31 hear what, what their side is you know as, so that we can give one sort of 32 official, "Yeah we've heard everybody's side," so that they don't come 33 along and say, "Well you didn't really hear from us and you went ahead 34 and approved, you know approved the other one." I don't know. 35 36 Pearson: This project is its own project so you're actually, you're accepting the input 37 from the Amador Proximo process is really what's happening so you're, 38 you're working with this to decide on what the actual project will be. 39 40 Kartchner: Correct. 41 42 Pearson: Right. 43 44 Kartchner: Correct, yeah and ... 45 19 I Pearson: So any opinions we have on whether it should be G or Amador Proximo 2 we should be making right now to you, to, for you to listen to. 4 Kartchner: Sure. 5 6 Paz: That would be, that would be, that would be very appropriate, yeah. 7 8 Bencomo: Mr. Chair. 9 10 Pearson: Yeah, Andrew. 11 12 Bencomo: Quick, quick, for my, for my clarification, so the Amador Proximo would 13 only affect Hadley to Amador, correct? Or, be, because Picacho could 14 not, I mean from Hadley to Picacho could not handle the through lanes 15 and the side ... 16 17 Kartchner: Yes. 18 19 Bencomo: Access roads ... 20 21 Kartchner: Yes, sir. 22 23 Bencomo: And all that so ... 24 25 Kartchner: Correct. 26 27 Nunez: It's really just going to affect that section of it. 28 29 Kartchner: Yes, sir. 30 31 Bencomo: And the rest of it would still be the recommendation of this so far. 32 33 Kartchner: Similar to this, yes. 34 35 Bencomo: So far. 36 37 Kartchner: As we get closer to Picacho some of these things may, some of these 38 elements may have to go away just based, based on the right-of-way. 39 40 Bencomo: Okay. 41 42 Kartchner: So we would start with the parkway and then if we needed to we would 43 take out the, the buffer between the bike lane and the driving lane but the 44 parkway would be the, the first thing that we would take away. 45 46 Bencomo: Okay. 20 1 2 Herrera: Mr. Chair. 3 4 Pearson: Jolene. 5 6 Herrera: I might be slightly biased but going along with what Ashleigh said, if we 7 don't want roads piecemealed together I don't think it's really maybe 8 appropriate to do half of Valley Drive one way with the Amador Proximo 9 and then the rest of it a different way so I like typical Section G and that 10 would be my recommendation. 11 12 Pearson: Go ahead. Okay. Jamie do you want to say something? 13 14 Lakey: Well actually I, 1 like this one that's on the screen right now a lot better 15 than the other one. 16 17 Pearson: Okay. 18 19 Curry: I would say that I like G as well if you want my vote. 20 21 Pearson: Okay. 22 23 Curry: And, and again from seeing what I know about the Amador Proximo this 24 seems like it's a more appropriate fit for the road. 25 26 Pearson: Okay, the main comments that I had have already been addressed. We 27 talked about traffic counts. You only counted vehicles though. You didn't 28 do a pedestrian/bicycle count of any kind? 29 30 Kartchner: No. I don't believe we did. 31 32 Pearson: Okay because that's, I guess that's unfortunate since there are a fair, well 33 anecdotally we see a lot of bicycles on there so it would've been nice to, if 34 there would've been some actual numbers on that but, the speed limit 35 currently on part of the project is 45 miles an hour. I thought I had heard 36 that they were going to reduce that on the entire project. Is that true or 37 not? 38 39 Kartchner: I don't think a decision has been made on that at this point. I would like to 40 reduce the speed limit personally but we've got to make sure that it, it 41 meets all the criteria in order to do that. 42 43 Pearson: Right, because it started as a truck bypass and now it's been, become 44 much more urbanized. 45 46 Kartchner: Correct. 21 1 2 Pearson: So it's really much more of a city roadway than a highway. 3 4 Kartchner: Yes, sir. It is, and that, that would be a reason to decrease the speed and 5 then just safety along the corridor. The traveling speed along the corridor 6 is somewhere around 38 miles an hour and so people already aren't 7 driving 45 for the most part. I mean there's always somebody that's 8 driving 60 but. 9 10 Pearson: The Hadley intersection you talked about some and that seems like it's a, 11 a real problem intersection and also there's a lack of sidewalks along part, 12 part of that that and I don't know that might be, have you checked with, 1 13 don't know how much of that design is part of your responsibility or if the 14 City needs to step in cause especially on the southeast corner where 15 there's that mobile home, or former mobile home, whatever it is now 16 there's a metal fence that goes all the way up to the roadway which looks 17 like it should be, looks like it's encroaching on the City right-of-way where 18 a sidewalk belongs. 19 20 Curry: I, are you talking about on Hadley though as opposed to on Valley? 21 22 Pearson: On Hadley. 23 24 Curry: Are they looking at that, of the side streets as well? 25 26 Kartchner: We, we are not looking at the side streets. We would look at them right 27 around the intersection to make improvements to the intersection itself so 28 if that's within the intersection which I believe it probably ... 29 30 Pearson: It should be. 31 32 Kartchner: Is, we would figure out a way to, to make that work. I know there's lots of 33 encroachments going on along Valley Drive. I mean there's car dealers 34 parked out there, there's businesses ... 35 36 Pearson: Right. You can tell that ... 37 38 Kartchner: That are using it for ... 39 40 Pearson: The car dealers ... 41 42 Kartchner: Parking lots and it's ... 43 44 Pearson: Love that big wide boulevard there. 45 46 Kartchner: Yeah. 22 1 2 Pearson: The drainage facility cause they park out all, all the time but that's clearly 3 in the right-of-way. But this, yeah the Hadley intersection is clearly a 4 problem. You specified 12-foot driving lanes on your typical cross- 5 sections, maybe 11-foot on the left-hand lane and a little bit wider on the 6 right-hand lane depending on what you end up with for the final. Maybe 7 you're, as you get from Hadley to Picacho that might be a consideration, to 8 try to get more room to the bicyclists. 9 10 Kartchner: Okay. One of the reasons, just so you know we left with kind of the wider 11 lanes is there's, there's the mobile home sales that are along the corridor 12 and so they bring in those really wide homes. It's a lot of farm traffic along 13 Valley Drive still and then there's a pretty high percentage of truck traffic 14 along Valley Drive so by, right now since there is no curb and gutter they 15 can kind of get on the shoulder and drive the tractors especially and so 16 that was kind of the, the thought in our heads when we laid these out, was 17 we need to maintain as much room as possible but as we approach 18 Picacho I, 1 think that's a good idea. 19 20 Pearson: And on your public participation this was clearly a new approach in this 21 end of the state. Is that a new approach statewide or is, they tried project, 22 things like this in other parts of the state? 23 24 Kartchner: As far as I know it is the first project that the NMDOT has done in this 25 format. 26 27 Pearson: Okay. 28 29 Kartchner: I know we were kind of the guinea pigs so ... 30 31 Pearson: Okay. Cause I was ... 32 33 Kartchner: Trial by fire. 34 35 Pearson: I was going to ask about the participation and Jerry answered that with 36 250 people participating. I assume you did some web counts and things 37 to try to figure out ... 38 39 Kartchner: Yes, sir. We could tell how many people were viewing the, the webcast 40 and then based on the number of calls they, CLC Channel 20 said there's 41 an estimation of the number of viewers. 42 43 Pearson: Okay. 44 45 Kartchner: And then we can also go to Facebook and see how many viewers there 46 are there. Our website also counts the, the traffic that's on the website 23 I and the different IP addresses so it's not just me going to make sure that 2 the ... 3 4 Pearson: And ... 5 6 Kartchner: Guy put something on the website. 7 8 Pearson: Having the meetings, the video on the web has helpful, I used that myself, 9 myself as your meeting actually conflicted with an NMDOT, the long-range 10 transportation plan meeting and so I was able to come to your meeting, 11 mostly during the question and answer period and then I found out that 1 12 really didn't miss much. 13 14 Kartchner: Yeah. 15 16 Pearson: And it really filled in things. 17 18 Kartchner: Yeah that was our, kind of our goal was to, I mean we do these meetings 19 and we do all this time but if you're not there you miss it and you don't 20 have any chance of hearing that information and so we found that when 21 the City has meetings and they talk about our website that our traffic on 22 our website goes up. We also find that our views of the YouTube videos 23 of the meetings go up as well and then we can see that directly with our, 24 our comments. There's times that we can see a spike in our comments 25 that we get. 26 27 Pearson: Okay. And of course with the bicycle facilities, the conflict points are the 28 intersections so I'm sure your, whichever cross-section you end up with 29 the intersections you'll have to take special care with as to whether there's 30 a right turn lane, bicycle lane going straight through, or whatever so ... 31 32 Kartchner: Correct, yeah. 33 34 Pearson: 1, 1 think it's too early to see those designs yet but I would hope that we 35 can see those at some point. 36 37 Kartchner: Okay. We have them preliminarily laid out. It's basically your standard, 38 the bike lane continues through and then there's the right lane is added to 39 the right side ... 40 41 Pearson: Okay. 42 43 Kartchner: Of the bicycle lane standard to what you ... 44 24 I Pearson: Are they, probably, some of the intersections like off of Amador or Avenida 2 de Mesilla I don't know that you have the right-of-way for that treatment 3 going eastbound. 4 5 Kartchner: We did, I think. 6 7 Pearson: Okay good. 8 9 Kartchner: We could ... 10 11 Paz: We, and it, and it will follow the federal highway guidelines for, for the 12 facility. 13 14 Pearson: Right, yeah so it should be obvious to however, if you have to take the 15 lane or if you have a separate bike lane. 16 17 Paz: And, and just that, that federal guideline is a kind of a minimum standards 18 nationwide. 19 20 Pearson: Right. 21 22 Paz: So that any, when you see bike lanes in Colorado they should look very 23 similar to here. 24 25 Pearson: Right. Yeah that's MUTCD and such and FHWA and Federal Highway 26 System did just come out with some protected bike lane guidelines. 1 27 guess I, if I had my choice I would love to see protected bike lanes along 28 Valley with appropriate treatment at the intersections so I think I would 29 favor more of the ideas presented by the Amador Proximo. Of the other 30 cross -sections that you showed, G is clearly the, the preferred. 31 32 Kartchner: Okay. 33 34 Curry: I have, I have one last, is this thing, there you go. Sorry. I have just one 35 last comment or suggestion. There's a school crossing at Hadley. There 36 are a lot of kids that come from a neighborhood that's on the west side 37 and they cross over at that intersection and I'd just like to see you know if 38 in those plans, and I know this is a really tiny little detail but if there's the 39 radar feedback "Your Speed Is" flashing thing, we've done that in other 40 areas and found it to be incredibly effective to have that, so if it could be 41 noted that that could go into the plans to have the school zone, and I don't 42 know if that's even within what you're doing but if we could have that radar 43 feedback I know that it's really a big problem with the crossing guards 44 there with those cars going really fast while the kids are coming back and 45 forth to school. 46 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Kartchner: Okay, yeah. Curry: So that would be a really awesome adduction. Kartchner: Okay. We can ... Pearson: It can be as many as 200 students during some of the events so. Curry: Yeah. We have, we have a Safe Routes to School, a meeting location that's behind the SaveMart and they all cross over at that intersection and that's a weekly event and then on the big, the big special event days as George said there can be a, a huge number and bicycles and things like that so just some additional protection for the school would be really awesome. Kartchner: Okay. Curry: Thank you. Pearson: Well thank you for coming and I think we'll go on to our next item so we have time for them. Kartchner: Okay. Thank you all. Pearson: And please keep us informed. 6.2 Presentation on the University Avenue Study Corridor Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to now present Denise Weston from Bohannan Huston who's going to discuss the University Boulevard corridor study. Denise Weston gave her presentation. Wray: Yes. Weston: Yes. So and then we'll go back out to the public in the fall. So with that I'll take questions but I'd like to go back and kind of sit on these two alternatives if that's helpful to you and that is why I gave you the handout as well so. Curry: Thank you. I've got, jumping with questions. No, I, no I, 1 just wanted to ask of those six people were any of them cyclists that showed up to the meeting? 26 I Weston: I don't know that any of them clearly identified themselves as cyclists. No, 2 1 can't say that. 3 4 Curry: Oh, okay. 5 6 Weston: They, they weren't wearing cycling clothing so. 7 8 Curry: Cause to me, to me those B and C options are the least biker friendly of all 9 of them but I'm just wondering, I mean first of all the question is I mean I 10 think this is just getting a general idea and then if this project does get 11 funded down the road we're not really tied into these renditions. Is that 12 true or are we somewhat tied into, you guys made these choices so this is 13 what you get? 14 15 Weston: Well I think at this phase of the project you're never tied in concretely but 1 16 certainly think that aligning with the input received at this point of the 17 project in going forward will make everything move more efficiently and 18 effectively. Jolene do you, yeah. 19 20 Curry: Okay. 21 22 Weston: So ... 23 24 Curry: So, so you know my thought would be, I mean even just a little bit of, of 25 wiggling with what you have I mean I'm looking at I mean I, 1 get what 26 they're saying in the neighborhood of "Let's just get something so that we 27 have nothing," but you know again, not coming back with ... 28 29 Weston: And I might have simplified that too okay. 30 31 Curry: No, no, no, I, I, I'm, and I am too. But to just, you know coming back in ten 32 years' time going, "Gosh wouldn't it nice if we had bike lanes? Let's see 33 how we can you know do this, down the road." Let's do it once and do it 34 well would, you know would be what I would push for. But I mean I'm 35 looking at Section C. Could we, you know we've got seven feet worth of 36 buffer. Can we make it 51.5 feet and even just put four foot for shoulders 37 that could be used as bike lanes for example, so that we, I mean I know 38 that ideally we'd have five-foot bike lanes but can we go a foot, at least 39 something that we don't even have to call it a bike lane but we could call it 40 a shoulder, I mean if we're really limited on space okay. 41 42 Weston: Absolutely. And I ... 43 44 Curry: Something along those lines. 45 27 I Weston: And in some places we could give you the five feet. It's just a matter of 2 understanding and signing it well enough that people understand at some 3 locations they may have to do a little bit of this. 4 5 Curry: A little bit of pinching in and out. Absolutely. You know and I would say 6 the same if you're looking at the Cadillac version, Section F. Yeah, 65.5 7 may be really optimistic in many locations. Can we take out the five-foot 8 you know or the seven -foot worth of buffer if you have five-foot bike lanes? 9 Can you take out some of the buffer and make that then something more 10 11 manageable in the 53 range? 12 Weston: As long as we maintain that vertical barrier and if everyone's comfortable 13 and they understand that you're going to have a curb there. 14 15 Curry: Right. 16 17 Weston: Then we can pinch down that buffer. Absolutely. 18 19 Curry: And I'm just trying to think I mean I, I, 1 understand the value of buffers for 20 sure but at the same time we don't necessarily have the luxury of space 21 that we do on Valley. 22 23 Weston: Right. 24 25 Curry: So you know the other thought and I'm sure you did a, a fabulous job, I'm 26 sorry I wasn't at the meeting, I was out of town but I'd be happy to try to 27 get more people, that's my neighborhood. I'd be more than happy to try to 28 get more than six people to show up to a meeting and so if there's another 29 opportunity to do that and I'm just thinking there's so many people, there's 30 not a possibility to be in that neighborhood at any time of day or night and 31 not find walkers out walking dogs and things. So is it possible even just to 32 get a yard sign type of thing and say "meeting about you know putting 33 pedestrian and bike facilities on University Avenue" I mean is it possible to 34 stick a sign in ... 35 36 Weston: Yes. Absolutely. And we did. 37 38 Curry: In somebody's driveway, you can stick it in mine. 39 40 Weston: We did. 41 42 Curry: You know, and just say "Show up on this date for this meeting." Cause 1 43 think you'd have more interest if you know the, the people ... 44 45 Weston: Absolutely. 46 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Curry: Who are actually out walking and biking see those signs. Weston: We can do that. We did post a lot of places. We put up a fair amount of flyers but I do think that also it will help when school's in session. Curry: Yeah. Weston: And we can actually work through the school system. Curry: Yeah. Weston: And get some outreach in that .. Curry: Yeah. Weston: Scenario as well. Curry: Yeah. I mean I think it's all, it's all super exciting but again, you know I'm sorry that only six people turned out in the neighborhood so I mean I feel like we can do better than that. So you know "we" meaning people from the neighborhood. Weston: It's okay. Curry: You know. Weston: I gave up balancing my self-esteem on the number of people that come to public meetings a long time ago so I'm good. So, Jerry don't laugh. Curry: You know and I, 1 think so just one more thing and then I will let somebody else have a turn. But I mean my thought is that there are so many pedestrians in that neighborhood that having pedestrian facilities on both sides of the roads would be a priority for, in my thought because I don't, I wouldn't want to only have it on the south side because then we are excluding Zia and the pedestrian access to Zia but at the same time if you only have it on the north side you're creating a situation where people will have to be crossing and I think you'll have a lot of people walking their dogs and crossing over to the north side from Mesilla Park and creating more of a hazard on the road with pedestrians trying to access the multiuse path. Weston: Yes, we have talked about that and that is exactly one of the concerns with that and if we did just have pedestrians on one side we would have to have some very strategically located crossings where we funneled people to go across the roadway so. 29 I Curry: Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. 2 3 Weston: Thank you. 4 5 Pearson: Go ahead. 6 7 Nunez: You just addressed something about the both sides but here I, I've worked 8 with a bunch of bosses for years giving them all of you guys' ideas and 9 everything else but when I give them this many options they get confused 10 so, and this is just a suggestion or actually maybe it confused me. The, 11 the point I guess I, to get to the point is my real question is, can you look 12 at the roadway, do you know if there's an existing storm through there or is 13 it all surface drain? Do you guys know? 14 15 Weston: It's all surface. 16 17 Nunez: Okay, surface. So when I looked at the section my first gut was that I did 18 like Section D but I thought to myself that you could drain off to the one 19 side without the vertical difference. In other words surface drain, no curb 20 on the one side to the left of this drawing. 21 22 Weston: Are you, did you say D or B? 23 24 Nunez: D as in dog. 25 26 Weston: D, okay. Thank you. 27 28 Nunez: But that was my first preference but now in looking back here to circle in 29 again is that it would be nice to know if you're actually going to have some 30 additional right-of-way, if you are going to have it from the EBID so that 31 kind of narrows your options too, right. 32 33 Weston: It does. Absolutely. 34 35 Nunez: So if you can answer that quickly or it ... 36 37 Weston: We can't answer that quickly because like ... 38 39 Nunez: Cause of the EBID. 40 41 Weston: We're way at the beginning ... 42 43 Nunez: Oh, okay. Got you. 44 45 Weston: Of this project but I think that what we can do to allow for that opportunity, 46 as we finish this report we can have two, I mean easily two or three 30 I options still on the table and one of them can be "If we get EBID right-of- 2 way this is the, the option that, that we would recommend. If we don't get 3 EBID right-of-way this is the option we will carry forward." And that gives 4 everybody in the room and all the agencies at the table the opportunity to 5 take it to the next phase without missing that. 6 7 Nunez: You jumped to where I was headed so ... 8 9 Weston: Okay. Sorry. 10 11 Nunez: And, and that's good because, still my point is, is that well if you're going 12 to have the narrow width, if, if you're not then you are back to these 13 designs and then, then B becomes more of an option with where I see you 14 have ... 15 16 Weston: Right. 17 18 Nunez: The 40-foot right-of-way and again I do like if, if you are going to have the 19 40-foot and then the one side maybe you can have sort of one drain and if 20 you can raise the people, the pedestrians and the bicycles it would be 21 safer so that's why I like Option B if that's the case, even though it doesn't 22 address your wanting people on, on both sides or ability to have a, a path 23 on both sides that's raised. So any rate, yeah you, with the design phase 24 and where you're this is, I, 1 see what you're dealing with. 25 26 Weston: And it's really important that when we have to make severe cuts and have 27 very limited facilities that we know what your priorities are. It's a lot easier 28 for us if we get the EBID right-of-way and we can offer you more options, 29 you know so. 30 31 Nunez: All right. Thanks. 32 33 Bencomo: Mr. Chair. So on going back to the, I mean you don't have to flip back 34 there but to the graph, the, the map where you showed the right-of-way 35 widths and all that. Those are best case scenarios if you get everything 36 you want or is that like without EBID ... 37 38 Weston: That's without EBID. That's existing right-of-way. 39 40 Bencomo: Okay. So let's say best case scenario, you've got everything you need 41 from EBID and everybody else is cooperative and we all sing Kum Ba Ya, 42 what is the narrowest point on that roadway going to be? 43 44 Weston: I'm not sure I can answer that. Tandy can you answer that? 45 46 Freel: SPEAKING BUT NOT AT THE MICROPHONE. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Weston: Because even in some locations it's still 40 feet, right? Yeah. Bencomo: Best case scenario, everybody cooperates. Weston: Because, yeah. Bencomo: Forty -feet. Weston: Cause on that western edge there by Mesilla it's 40 feet cause it's all privately owned, yeah. Bencomo: No, not what, when I said ... Weston: But I mean that doesn't mean you can't ... Bencomo: When I said best case scenario I mean everybody cooperates and gives up what they need to give up so we're still going to be, at some point our maximum will be 40 feet. Weston: Unless they ... Bencomo: In some areas. Weston: Buy private property. That's an option too. I mean they can actually buy private property but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about EBID, using the EBID so. Bencomo: I'm talking about EBID, anybody else that's affected there else, Las Cruces Public Schools has a school there. I, I'm just curious cause we're looking at a section here like says 50.5 feet but if 40's going to be the max then we're going to have to make those adjustments in there. Weston: Except we have discussed with the project team and with the agencies involved on this particular corridor that we're probably going to have multiple typical sections so that we can take advantage of that wider width in certain locations. Bencomo: Okay. Weston: So we're not proposing and, and we can do it but we're not actually proposing one own, you know just one specific typical section. Bencomo: So it would adjust with the size, okay. Weston: Exactly. 32 1 2 Bencomo: Okay. And then so I, 1 think it's important, I think it's really important in 3 some way to have some kind of multiuse path on here and part of the 4 reason I say that is because that is the, that is a connecting loop for the 5 loop around the city. When we ride it or run it we do Triviz, University, and 6 then you're kind of making your way along Valley and Main and crossing 7 and then hoping nobody gets too close to you in a car and then when you 8 get to Mesilla you kind of do Calle Norte which also needs work, hopefully 9 we'll get that in the future, down to La Llorona and so that is a good 10 connecting piece. 11 12 Weston: Okay. 13 14 Bencomo: And so I, 1 love, I like the multiuse path look whether it has a sidewalk next 15 to it or not. I, I, 1 like the way that works. And then I'll, also I think 16 whatever option is chosen if there could be that vertical raised ... 17 18 Weston: Okay. 19 20 Bencomo: Protection because once again I go back to what I said earlier, people 21 looking at their phones, looking at things in their car, drifting off the road. 22 It's just not, it's not good. There needs to be some raised protection for 23 bicyclists or pedestrians but of course I do understand the more 24 competitive bicyclists who are going to probably want to be on the 25 roadway to do those type of things so. And then just a comment, your 26 idea of the ditch and using those for multiuse paths, I think that's where we 27 need to go in the future but that's just my comments for generally speaking 28 the entire city pedestrian and bicycle, I mean their ditches are everywhere 29 in the City and outside the city in the county and are perfect I think 30 connections for all this so, but that's beyond what you're doing so thank 31 you. 32 33 Weston: Well, no it's important actually. That's really helpful input so we can keep 34 pushing that forward as well. 35 36 Bencomo: Thank you. 37 38 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I would say that definitely the multiuse trail aspect of it is going 39 to be important cause, Denise I think you said that you know even if we 40 don't pick a typical section out of here, if we identify the elements that are 41 important ... 42 43 Weston: Right. Exactly. 44 45 Herrera: Well I think multiuse trail is probably good because if you think about 46 some of the users of that area, a lot of them are children and so if there's a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 child on a bike you probably want at least some separation from the roadway so that they can feel safer, so parents will feel safer. I think that that's a really important element however we can fit that in. Weston: Thank you. Pearson: Okay. Any other Committee members? Casillas: Well my comments was just that EBID's a really important, they're going to be an important player on this one so hopefully they're, they're on board with this project and we can get that extra right-of-way. Just a comment. Pearson: Okay. So if EBID right-of-way means burying the ditch, right? Weston: It does, yes. Pearson: Okay. So they're ... Weston: And they were okay with that. It's just we're going to end up being a cost issue. Pearson: Okay. Weston: And there are some elevation concerns obviously but things that we can work around. Pearson: Okay. Yeah, the, the B and C selections, I guess I'll just flat-out say I hate them. Weston: Okay. Pearson: I think it's really a need that we have in -road bicycle facilities even if it's a four -foot shoulder. Weston: Okay. Pearson: Right now there's a six-inch shoulder there and I have to use that roadway. I use that in order to come to this facility. I actually used it coming here today. Every week when I go help with Safe Routes to School in Mesilla I use that roadway to get to my place of work so while I, so Section D is the one that I would mostly look at and where possible Section F because I also agree with multiuse. It is in that corridor that's been identified for the loop trail. I do, I would love you to have in the plan that we need to move that loop trail to an outer location. Weston: Oh. 34 1 2 Pearson: The ... 3 4 Curry: What is that? What's the loop trail? 5 6 Pearson: La Llorona ... 7 8 Curry: Oh yeah, yeah. 9 10 Pearson: All Triviz and it's currently identified come all the way down University. 11 NMDOT's looking at it some point putting Triviz underneath University and 12 that's in the next five years? 13 14 Herrera: That's in the next five years, yes. 15 16 Pearson: So there's an opportunity to extend the Triviz trail through the university 17 and come out someplace on the other side of the university. 18 19 Weston: So further south. 20 21 Pearson: And then come south someplace there. 22 23 Weston: Okay. 24 25 Pearson: And that would allow us to have a true multiuse trail in that location 26 because it's not, University Avenue itself in the city limits, probably not 27 going to be able to fit a multiuse trail on there. 28 29 Weston: Right, okay. 30 31 Pearson: It'd be, I think we'll be lucky if we get four -foot bicycle lanes and reduce 32 the speed limit to 25 miles an hour sometime in the next 20 years. 33 34 Curry: But the, the, the thought is I mean just sort of imagining things it's possible 35 that we could come down somewhere through University/Union and then 36 even along Main Street there's quite a lot of right of, there's quite a lot of 37 right-of-way I would think south of University on Main Street that could 38 then connect the multiuse trail along this corridor that we're talking about. 39 40 Pearson: I think that's something this Committee needs to look at as part of the trail 41 priority plan and identify a corridor that can be used cause I think there is 42 an EBID drainage facility that can be easily used. You had a map that 43 identified something. 44 45 Weston: Right. 46 35 I Pearson: So I'd love that that be incorporated into the plan as a possibility. 2 3 Weston: Okay. 4 5 Pearson: And that we have in -road bicycle facilities and use the multiuse where we 6 have the capability so on Section D you show as a sidewalk, maybe have 7 an eight -foot sidewalk there instead of the buffer and, and expand that 8 where possible. 9 10 Curry: Then you're basically looking at Section E. 11 12 Pearson: No. 13 14 Curry: No. 15 16 Pearson: Cause there's only one way ... 17 18 Weston: Section ... 19 20 Pearson: Section E only has one way bicycle facility. 21 22 Weston: Right. 23 24 Pearson: Needs to have two-way bicycle facility. 25 26 Weston: And Section D. 27 28 Pearson: And section D and F. 29 30 Weston: Could, yeah. 31 32 Pearson: So that's my thoughts. 33 34 Weston: Okay. Great. 35 36 Pearson: Oh and on the public input, I had kind of heard about the meeting. I think 37 it was Councilor Pedroza mentioned it at City Council but I couldn't find 38 any details about it so I didn't attend. I looked at the City website, couldn't 39 find anything so, and I didn't get a press release so I don't know how that, 40 1 don't know how your press releases worked so ... 41 42 Weston: Okay. 43 44 Pearson: Something, some, some improvement there is needed. Otherwise 1 45 would've been number seven. 46 36 I Weston: In your bicycle clothes. 2 3 Pearson: I am in my bicycle clothes. 4 5 Wray: Mr. Chair. We did have it on the MPO portion of the website. 6 7 Pearson: Okay, well I missed that. 8 9 Weston: It was on the Town of Mesilla's website as well. 10 11 Pearson: Yeah and I think I, 1 tried to do a search. 12 13 Weston: But you know it, it happens. 14 15 Pearson: Yeah. 16 17 Weston: It totally happens, we'll just ... 18 19 Pearson: I think I tried to do a search on the City website and didn't pick the right 20 keyword. 21 22 Weston: Right, so. 23 24 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I believe our PIO, our District One PIO also sent it out. 25 26 Weston: She did. 27 28 Herrera: Too. 29 30 Pearson: Yeah, I think there is the issue that the MPO doesn't, is no longer able to 31 forward NMDOT ... 32 33 Wray: That's correct. 34 35 Pearson: So that's probably why I missed it. Any other comments? 36 37 Weston: Any other questions? 38 39 Pearson: No. Thank you. 40 41 Weston: Thank you. 42 43 Pearson: I think that was very informative and looking forward to that. 44 45 46 37 1 7. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 2 3 7.1 MPO Staff update: SRTP update, Missouri Study Corridor update 4 5 Pearson: So now we have ten minutes. 6 7 Wray: Mr. Chair. Just for logistical purposes I'm going to do the staff update 8 slightly out of order. Bohannan Huston is the, regarding the Missouri 9 study corridor project Bohannan Huston is also the consultant on that. We 10 have identified August 6th as a staff working group or project group kickoff 11 meeting. We'll be having our first public meeting regarding the Missouri 12 project sometime in the not too distant future beyond that date. We don't 13 have any specifics at this time. 14 15 Pearson: Okay. Just remind me, is that extending Missouri up to Sonoma Ranch? 16 17 Wray: We're looking at all available options, all the way from give up all ambition 18 of extending it to all the way out to Sonoma Ranch. 19 20 Pearson: But that's the, that's the area of the study. 21 22 Wray: Yes. That's the area of the study but all, I, I'm, I'm emphasizing to 23 everyone all options are on the table. We're not committed to any one 24 particular outcome. With that I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Michael 25 McAdams to give a brief update about the short-range transit plan update. 26 27 Michael McAdams began his presentation. 28 29 Pearson: So just to clarify this is transit, RoadRUNNER transit. 30 31 McAdams: This is the, this is the, yes. This is the RoadRUNNER. This is the short 32 range, it's not dealing with the RTD, only the RoadRUNNER. 33 34 Michael McAdams gave his presentation. 35 36 Pearson: Looks like we're happy. 37 38 McAdams: Okay. Thank you. 39 40 Wray: And one final MPO staff note and this is a very happy one but the Policy 41 Committee approved the MTP at their most recent meeting and we have 42 the copies bound and ready to be handed out so come see me when the 43 meeting is done and you'll get your copy. We have one for, for everyone. 44 At this time I guess we're ready to turn it over to the local project updates. 45 46 38 1 7.2 Local Projects update 2 3 Pearson: Okay. We'll start at the end. County. 4 5 Casillas: I have Robert Armijo here from Engineering. If you guys have any 6 questions about the Baylor Canyon Road and Dripping Springs Road or 7 want to (inaudible) Board of County Commissioners this is the man to talk 8 to right now. What happened there was a, so Baylor Canyon didn't get 9 accepted. Dripping Springs did. 10 11 Armijo: Mr. Chair can I clarify that? 12 13 Pearson: Yes. 14 15 Armijo: Excuse me. Good evening Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Robert 16 Armijo, County Engineer for Dona Ana County. Quick update on the 17 Baylor Canyon/Dripping Springs project. As you may be aware the Board 18 of County Commissioners accepted Alternative B from the environmental 19 assessment that was conducted by BLM and FHWA and the, the Alternate 20 B project includes paving of Dripping Springs Road but not paving Baylor 21 Canyon Road. Baylor Canyon Road will still be brought up to basically 22 base coarse so the full design will happen but it's not going to be paved so 23 wanted to ... 24 25 Pearson: For the extent that the project was designed to wherever that private 26 section is, whatever the length was originally proposed that would've been 27 graded there. 28 29 Armijo: Correct. Yeah the, the original, well Alternative A would have included 30 paving of Baylor Canyon/Dripping Springs Road beginning at the end of 31 pavement on Dripping Springs Road to the beginning of pavement on 32 Baylor Canyon Road if that makes sense, so the whole corridor would've 33 been paved but they chose Alternative B which includes not paving Baylor 34 Canyon Road. 35 And another, just a quick update on flat projects, we are also going 36 to be submitting an application to FHWA for the Soledad Canyon Road 37 project and that would include bike lanes and the whole corridor project 38 through there so, of course no guarantees that we will get the project but 39 we're, we're ... 40 41 Pearson: Right. That's kind of where I was going to ask ... 42 43 Armijo: We're hoping. 44 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Pearson: If with the alternatives for Baylor Canyon/Dripping Springs that's going to be less money so maybe more money available or is that the way since the federal lands highway works, that's just too bad. Armijo: Yeah. According to Tom Pudo from FHWA it doesn't work that way. 11 goes back and then you know they can reuse it, put it back into a pool you know but you never know with Congress. Pearson: Well we can apply because of that facility at the top of Soledad Canyon is a federal facility. Is that true? Armijo: That is correct Mr. Chair. Pearson: Okay. So that's the County's intent to try to get some of those monies? Armijo: Correct. Pearson: Okay. Good. Armijo: Okay. Herrera: Mr. Chair. Pearson: Yes. Herrera: I had a question. Didn't the County receive some funding through capital outlay for Soledad Canyon as well? Armijo: Right. We used that funding for the corridor study ... Herrera: Okay. Armijo: For the roadway. Bohannan Huston is the one that conducted that and they, we had several meetings about that and so the, I believe I also talked to you, you fine folks here about that project so we're going to be moving forward with those recommendations on that flat project. Herrera: Okay. And I thought I saw that you got some funding this year, maybe I'm mistaken for Soledad Canyon as well through capital outlay. Armijo: I, there may have been some additional funding. I'd have to double-check but it's nowhere near enough to complete the whole project. I think it was just a couple of hundred thousand dollars if that. Herrera: Yeah. That's 40 I Armijo: I'd have to ... 2 3 Herrera: Why I was curious about ... 4 5 Armijo: Right. 6 7 Herrera: What, what it's for. 8 9 Armijo: Right. I, I'd have to verify that and we could possibly use that as a match 10 or, so I'll have to take a look at that and verify the numbers. 11 12 Herrera: Okay. Thank you. 13 14 Armijo: Anything else? 15 16 Pearson: Thank you. 17 18 Armijo: Thank you all very much. 19 20 Pearson: That was very informative. 21 22 Herrera: Actually Mr. Chair. Can we ask the County for an update on the Dona 23 Ana School/Camino Real intersection? 24 25 Armijo: Gosh, I can't give you an update right now at this time Mr. Chair, ma'am. 1 26 know we're stuck with, with right-of-way issues and there was another 27 issue that came up but I can ask Mr. Molina, Rene Molina's the project 28 manager for that to ... 29 30 Herrera: Okay. 31 32 Armijo: Attend your next meeting and give you an update on that but ... 33 34 Herrera: Okay. 35 36 Armijo: But we are moving forward with it, it's going slowly because of the issues 37 that we've run into. 38 39 Herrera: Okay, 40 41 Armijo: Okay? 42 43 Herrera: No that's fine. If I know that Rene's the project manager I can just ... 44 45 Armijo: Okay. 46 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Herrera: Contact him. Thank you. Armijo: Sure. Curry: Actually while we're on that topic do you mind if I just ask, in that project, the Dona Ana School Road project are there any proposals for pedestrian or bike facilities at that, in that area? I know that it's a big concern for Dona Ana Elementary School. Armijo: No ma'am. There, there are no, other than the, the, the roadway itself there are no additional facilities for pedestrian/bicyclists. Curry: Okay. Thank you. Armijo: Okay. Thank you. Pearson: Anything else? Armijo: Thank you very much. Pearson: Thank you. Curry: Oh, is it raining? Wray: I do believe it is. Pearson: So now we have to wait here till 8:00 before we can leave. Wray: I, I'll leave. Pearson: Well some of us were brave on our bicycles. Wray: Thunder too. Pearson: City do you have, or do you have some more from the County or no? Nunez: Yes, I've got a long list here, let's see if we can get through this, various phases, we have some things in design and construction. Let me start out with what you had asked for in an e-mail Mr. Chair. You had asked about the, the La Llorona project and the Las Cruces Dam path. Pearson: Yes. Nunez: So, those are going well. The La Llorona is, the pre -construction meeting was, is tomorrow and it's, should start around August 3rd. 42 I Pearson: Okay. Very good. 2 3 Nunez: And then the, that is, let's see that, extends the pervious concrete right to 4 the, I think it's the Las Cruces outfall channel. 5 6 Pearson: Yes. 7 8 Nunez: And then the other one is the Las Cruces Dam. The design is complete 9 and it should start in the winter of 2015, somewhere around 3.2 miles. 10 When I asked the project manager if that was a 5k, he said no. It's various 11 paths branched out, I guess. I haven't seen the designs. And then let's 12 see ... 13 14 Pearson: So that's on the east side of the dam, is that right? 15 16 Nunez: Yes. We have a pavement replacement on Roadrunner Parkway from 17 Santa Domingo to Tiffany. We've done some of that and that's by 18 Veterans' Park up there, the, we're doing, we did some sidewalk ADA 19 improvements. And then we are waiting for material on the midblock 20 crossing there at the Veterans' Park, it should be done in a couple months. 21 22 Pearson: But you're not moving any curb and, curb and gutter on Roadrunner. It's 23 still the same roadway width. Is that true? 24 25 Nunez: I believe what I heard the project manager tell me was is that we did 26 improve some of the sidewalk while we did the roadway there. 27 28 Pearson: Cause, yeah the concern, Roadrunner's high speed and tougher bicyclists 29 so ... 30 31 Nunez: Right. 32 33 Pearson: If they're, if we can increase, if there's any chance to change that I think 34 long-term there was talk about narrowing the medians and offering the 35 bicycle lane but I think that's a major construction project rather than, 1 36 think what you're doing now is just a, or a resurfacing or a preservation 37 project. 38 39 Nunez: That's right. That's right. I will wrote, write that down and ask him. Then 40 the other is, let's see here Elks Drive where we have that in design and 1 41 mentioned this last time, we will have a four -foot, no six -foot -wide bike 42 lines there so now we're extending that down to Reina and Hatfield kind of 43 by the, Engler. So we'll have two lanes in each direction, north and south 44 plus the bike lanes. Then I have Cutler Overlay, El Paseo by Las Cruces 45 High School. I heard that we have these new HAWK Midblock signaling 46 which I'm not familiar with. Those things are going to be interesting. They 43 1 got yellow flashers and they're going to be red flashing so those are going 2 up here within the month I believe is ... 3 4 Curry: They're up. 5 6 Nunez: They, are they up, but are they actually working? 7 8 Curry: I don't know that, I don't know that they're working but their actual, the 9 poles and the lights are in. I don't know if they're connected. 10 11 Nunez: And we'll probably have more of those in the community here so just see 12 how those operate, maybe potentially on University is what I'm thinking in 13 the near future. Okay and then Locust from Missouri to Rentfrow, 1 14 mentioned that one also. We have the resurfacing there and that already 15 has, we'll keep what's there, the bike lanes, shared, is, have we, yeah 1 16 believe you said it was a shared lane or do you, it's pretty wide through 17 there. 18 19 Pearson: No Locust is a bike lane ... 20 21 Nunez: Bike lane. 22 23 Pearson: To Missouri. From University to Missouri. 24 25 Nunez: Right. 26 27 Pearson: There's a bike lane there. 28 29 Nunez: Okay. Then, let's see my other sheet here. Out for bid is Sixth Street, 30 that's going from Parker north and that's a, we're doing ADA ramps and 31 pedestrian improvements there. In design is West Hadley, Alameda to 32 Water. This will be a full recon, ramps, roadway. We are in construction 33 on Amador ADA, McSwain to Archuleta, improvement both sides, broken 34 concrete, sidewalks and drive pads and curb returns. And then we're 35 almost done with Sonoma Ranch by new, a new safety complex Camino 36 Coyote. We've put, we're putting in the other half, the four lanes. So 37 that's my list. Thanks. 38 39 Pearson: Thank you. 40 41 7.3 NMDOT Projects update 42 43 Pearson: So now I think we're at NMDOT. 44 45 Herrera: Mr. Chair. North Main as you all know and everybody already kind of 46 talked about is behind schedule. We had the end date scheduled for July 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 15th. That obviously did not happen so the new deadline that we're looking at is the end of September to have everything done. There've been a lot of issues on that project so just bear with us. Missouri is looking good. It's looking very good. They're moving really quickly on it. The contractor has told us that they intend to be done by the end of this calendar year which is way sooner than their contract runs out so they're moving right along on that one. Additionally we have the Union and Ramp E bridges, that's going on right now too and I believe, I'm going to have to double-check this so if I'm wrong I'll send you an e-mail but I believe I heard that the end date on that one will also be December in preparation for a pavement preservation project that we'll be doing on 1-10 from the Jackrabbit interchange to the I- 10/1-25 interchange so that'll take care of some of the pavement now that all the bridges on that section are done. And then a smaller project that we have is NM478. They're doing a, a maintenance project there but because it is a, a heavily used bike facility they did use the smaller chips to make the road smoother and then they are doing the shoulders as well and I went and drove it on Friday on my way back from El Paso and it looks really good. Curry: Where, what section is that? Herrera: It's actually from milepost 0 to 21 so it's, it's the whole road. Curry: Great. Herrera: And that's all I have that's under construction now. Are there any questions? Pearson: I had a question about the long-range transportation plan if you know what's happening there. I saw some, there was public comment or something and I think it was brought up to the State Transportation Commission but they're not actually adopting it or, what can you tell, do you know anything about that? Herrera: I haven't heard a formal brief on it yet but what I do know is that all of the public comments received were presented to the Commission. They didn't, you know we didn't go one by one over everything but in the package they received every single public comment that, that we received on it. I know that they wanted to look at some of those comments and think about possibly tweaking parts of the plan so it has not been adopted yet but it, it looks like it will be adopted by the Transportation Commission in August. Pearson: Okay so it still will be adopted by the Transportation Commission, it's ... 45 1 Herrera: Yes. 2 3 Pearson: Okay that was, that was the part that wasn't clear to me. 4 5 Herrera: Oh. Yes. Definitely. 6 7 Pearson: Okay. So I guess we're on to final comments for Committee Members. 8 Any Committee Member have a comment in general? Let's see that was 9 my one question. The other question I have I guess is for staff is member 10 attendance. We have one Committee Member that we haven't seen for 11 quite some time. I sent her an e-mail. I didn't hear back from her today 12 but that was just today, but I have had, I've been asked if there's an 13 opening so maybe if staff can ask her if she intends to continue if ... 14 15 Wray: I ... 16 17 Pearson: If you can get a resignation that might work better than anything else or if 18 at our next meeting maybe we should look at maybe ... 19 20 Wray: Staff will proceed. We'll send an e-mail and if, depending on the response 21 there may be an item on next month's agenda but we'll be in consultation 22 with you Mr. Chair about that. 23 24 Pearson: Okay, good. If there is a resignation I think we could probably move pretty 25 quickly through the Policy Committee to get a, a replacement. 26 27 Wray: We, we would have to do that. 28 29 Pearson: But not in time ... 30 31 Wray: Depending on the ... 32 33 Pearson: For our next meeting. 34 35 Wray: Depending on the nature of, of the particular position and I, 1 don't recall 36 off the top of my head but it is a citizen position of some sort so we would 37 need to do at least a, an open call for applications of some duration ... 38 39 Pearson: Yeah. Right. 40 41 Wray: Before but ... 42 43 Pearson: Yeah. Okay. So our next meeting is August 18th and then the following 44 meeting is October 20th. That one's marked as a TIP one so I guess you 45 will decide at some point. 46 46 I Wray: We, we normally do hold the October meeting regardless of if ... 2 3 Pearson: Okay. 4 5 Wray: There are any amendments because ... 6 7 Pearson: Okay. Cause that is, it's the last one. 8 9 Wray: It is the last one of the year. There is an issue this year and I will mention 10 it now. The, the November Policy Committee meeting is not being held 11 this year because it coincides with Veterans' Day so we will not be 12 processing TIP amendments that particular cycle, and we had the consent 13 of DOT when we did that but staff believes it's still important to have that 14 meeting because it is the last one until January so we fully anticipate 15 being here. 16 17 Pearson: Okay. And for our next meeting I had asked Marc South who is the City 18 person that does bicycle things to talk about bicycle friendly community 19 application or the award for bronze. We received a report from the 20 League of American Cyclists so hopefully that can be part of our packet, 21 part of the presentation. And there was also a presentation, a community 22 survey and I'd be particularly interested in the part that relates to bicycle 23 trails and seemed like there was a lot of interest or support from the public 24 for having those types of things so that might fit in. We might need, it 25 might be appropriate for us to decide to reorder the priorities and maybe 26 even try to suggest TAP projects for the different entities since the, the 27 City didn't apply for any of the TAP projects this last cycle. 28 29 Wray: I have spoken to Mr. South and he intends to be here so he will be on the 30 agenda. We, he would be the most appropriate person actually to be 31 speaking about the community survey as well so we may have two items 32 with him or just one big City of Las Cruces update. I guess we'll leave that 33 to your ... 34 35 Pearson: Okay. 36 37 Wray: Discretion in our later conversations setting up the agenda. 38 39 Pearson: Okay. 40 41 Bencomo: Mr. Chair. 42 43 Pearson: Yes. 44 45 Bencomo: I, I'm sorry, I was slow when you asked a while ago about questions from 46 Committee Members. So I, 1 do have a question. We, I had brought it up 47 I earlier and said maybe we need to have a work session. How, how do we 2 go about doing that? Is there a process for that? Can we do that? And 1 3 think we need to do that. 4 5 Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bencomo. We, there's, there's no particularly formal 6 process per se other than the Committee expressing a desire to have one. 7 1 will say that it would be entirely possible to combine a meeting, an on the 8 record meeting that has business, close that meeting, conclude it, and 9 then have the work session immediately afterward. I don't know given the, 10 the, the lateness of the, the meetings of necessity whether that would 11 necessarily be a good idea but the problem that we have run into 12 historically with having work sessions at a different time of day is many of 13 you individuals have jobs and cannot attend so. 14 15 Pearson: Right. Yeah, I think the topics that you want to talk about will lead directly 16 into or from the bicycle friendly community discussion so I think, I don't 17 know that we necessarily need a work session then but after we have that 18 discussion I think we can decide where we should go. So I, 1 don't want to 19 call a work session now but I want, we can think about that for the next 20 meeting as part of that bicycle friendly community discussion because we 21 would like to encourage the City to move forward. Okay. Anybody else? 22 23 8. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 24 25 9. ADJOURNMENT (7:12 p.m.) 26 27 Pearson: I'll listen to a motion to adjourn then. 28 29 Curry: I'll make a motion to adjourn. 30 31 Herrera: I second. 32 33 Pearson: We have a motion and a second. We're adjourned. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Chairperson 41 42 48