Loading...
10-04-18 TACI MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 The following are minutes for the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the 5 Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which was held October 4, 6 2018 at 4:00 p.m. in the City of Las Cruces Council Chambers, 700 N. Main, Las 7 Cruces, New Mexico. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Armijo (SCRTD) 10 Mike Bartholomew (CLC Transit) 11 Sean Barham (LCPS) 12 Bill Childress (BLM) 13 Michael Garza (DAC Flood Commission) (arrived 4:08) 14 Soo Gyu Lee (CLC) 15 Bud Geng proxy Dale Harrell (NMSU) 16 Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) 17 Harold Love (NMDOT) 18 Larry Shannon (Town of Mesilla) 19 20 MEMBERS ABSENT: Rene Molina (DAC Eng.) 21 Luis Marmolejo (DAC Planning) 22 Hector Tarrazas, (CLC) 23 Tony Trevino (CLC Public Works) 24 Jennifer Yoder (CLC) 25 26 STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Wray (MPO Staff) 27 Michael McAdams (MPO Staff) 28 Debra Fuller (MPO) 29 30 OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Secretary 31 32 1. CALL TO ORDER (4:00 PM) 33 34 Love: Well go ahead and call to order the October 4, 2018 meeting of the Mesilla 35 Valley MPO Technical Advisory Committee. Let's start with a roll call to 36 my far right. 37 38 Lee: Soo Gyu Lee, City of Las Cruces. 39 40 Geng: Bud Geng, NMSU. 41 42 Shannon: Larry Shannon, Town of Mesilla. 43 44 Barham: Sean Barham, Las Cruces Public Schools. 45 46 Bartholomew: Mike Bartholomew, City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit. 1 2 Armijo: Good afternoon. David Armijo, the South Central Regional Transit District. 3 4 Herrera: Jolene Herrera, NMDOT planning. 5 6 Childress: Bill Childress, Bureau of Land Management. 7 8 Love: And I'm Harold Love, New Mexico DOT. And I'm the Chairman of the 9 Committee. 10 11 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 12 13 Love: We move on to item number two approval of the agenda. Everybody get a 14 chance to review it. And I'm looking for a motion to approve. 15 16 Shannon: Make a motion to approve. 17 18 Bartholomew: I'll second. 19 20 Love: All in favor. 21 22 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 23 24 Love: Any opposed? The agenda is approved. 25 26 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 28 3.1 August 30, 2018 29 30 Love: Moving on to item number three, approval of the minutes. Looking for a 31 motion. 32 33 Armijo: Move approval. 34 35 Childress: Second. 36 37 Love: All in favor. 38 39 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 40 41 Love: Motion is approved. 42 43 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 44 45 Love: Item number four, public comment. Seeing none. 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 5. ACTION ITEMS 5.1 MTP Amendment of Removal of Segments form Truck Route Map Love: We'll move on to the action items, 5.1 the MTP Amendment of Removal of Segments of the Truck Route Map. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Love: Any comments? Shannon: Yes, I have one. When you say truck prohibited, do you mean all trucks, delivery trucks that sort of thing or just thru trucks? Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Shannon. That is at the discretion I understand of the traffic engineer. There's an ordinance by the City that gives the traffic engineer that authority and it depends on how the regulation is written. For Mesquite, I believe that all trucks are prohibited since that is a residential area. I am not sure about the northern portions of Alameda because there are businesses that exist at the northern end of that. I don't know if Mr. Lee wishes to chime in further, but it depends on the facility in question as to what might or might not be prohibited. Love: Any other comments? Lee: I don't have any comment, but if you have any question then I will answer you because I don't know about the prohibited route on the Alameda and right now the traffic engineer is not here so I am not able to answer. Shannon: I was just wondering whether it's just commercial trucks or if we're talking private trucks, moving vans, U-Hauls that sort of thing? Lee: As Andrew mentioned it depends on the street so I have to read through the code, but in general if any truck wider than 12 foot and in height, I believe is 12 feet and then length is 40 feet and the weight, the gross weight and the axel weight, but unfortunately I cannot remember exactly what the requirement is. So it doesn't matter the delivery truck or semi, but depends on their truck load if it is beyond or over the size or over the weight then we're going to restrict that. Lee: Any other comments? Bartholomew: I know this was answered I think when we had it in discussion last time, this doesn't really, you said it's not truck prohibited and it doesn't apply to transit buses either right? Q 1 2 Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bartholomew. No, buses are in a separate category from 3 trucks for the purposes of that ordinance, but the intension was never to 4 prohibit trucks or buses from these streets. 5 6 Bartholomew: Okay because Melendres in particular we have a route along that whole 7 stretch, two routes. 8 9 Wray: Yes. 10 11 Love: Any other comments? So we're looking for a motion to remove these 12 segments of the truck routes from the Truck Route Map. 13 14 Wray: Yes, Mr. Chair. 15 16 Barham: I'll move. 17 18 Bartholomew: I'll second the motion. 19 20 Love: All in favor. 21 22 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 23 24 Love: Motion passed. 25 26 5.2 Mesilla Valley MPO Title VI Plan 27 28 Love: We'll move on to item number 5.2, the Mesilla Valley MPO Title VI Plan 29 30 ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. 31 32 Bartholomew: I just noticed that, are there guidelines from FHWA, has this been 33 reviewed by anybody at FHWA to make ensure it's compliant? 34 35 Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bartholomew. It has been reviewed by NMDOT staff 36 multiple times and there is a stewardship agreement between FHWA and 37 NMDOT which gives NMDOT competency in many of these areas. I don't 38 know if Ms. Herrera wishes to chime in further. 39 40 Herrera: Thank you. The Title VI Plan draft has been reviewed by our ADA 41 Coordinator and Title VI Coordinator at the NMDOT and as Andrew said 42 FHWA passes that authority to us so as soon as it's approved by the 43 Policy Committee hopefully at their meeting next week it will be 44 considered finalized at the DOT. 45 46 Bartholomew: Thank you. .19 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 Love: Any other comments? Looking for a motion. Bartholomew: I'll recommend to the Policy Committee to adopt the Title VI Plan. Herrera: I second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion passes. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6.1 Performance Measure Presentation Love: Move on to item number six discussion item Performance Measure Presentation. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Lee: Mr. Chair. I have a question. Do we have any data specifically for Dona Ana County or the City of Las Cruces? Wray: We do have that data available. We are currently in process of putting together a Crash and Safety Report. We anticipate presenting that to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Advisory Committee at their November meeting and we anticipate presenting it to the TAC and to the Policy Committee at their December meetings. So we will have specific numbers for this MPO area available very soon. Any other questions? ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Armijo: I have a question. So I'm trying to follow this line, the trend line looks good, but why do we think that the projected numbers will fall? What's contributing to that? Wray: The decline in the absolute number of serious injuries combined with the current increase in VMT sort of intersects with each other to bring that number down is the reason why. Herrera: Mr. Chair. If I can maybe add something to that. I think the trend that we're seeing is that even though crashes overall may be going up, cars in general are safer and so people aren't hurt as seriously if they are involved in a crash so that's why the serious injury rate is going down and 11 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 then as Andrew said with VMT going up the trend line is going down so that's one of the things, just the safety of vehicles nowadays is lessening the number of serious injuries. Armijo: I get that, but I also see that the congestion is increasing and VMT which we had hoped had been falling a decade ago is now coming back up. I would question whether or not these numbers will hold. My expectation is whether or not I understand the thing about the injuries and seriousness, but I think most likely the number of accidents will begin to increase relative to the VMT and the congestion, and those are two separate factors. The other factor in this corridor right now is the number of trucks that are coming through the corridor at a substantial increase and now we have more traffic 24/7. So, I hope these numbers come in as good as they are, but I would be concerned given what's actually happening. The trend lines are changing. Herrera: Right. And I guess in response to the number of trucks, that's actually why if you look at number one the total number of fatalities it's increasing is we see because of the increase in large truck traffic. So I mean definitely you made some good points. We set these targets every year. This is only the second year that we've done it so unfortunately we don't have a lot of that kind of back data and reporting that we need to be really sort of on target so it's sort of a moving target right now which is a little bit unfortunate because we are talking about people's lives and injuries. But it's something that we're trying to work through and so we're doing our best. Armijo: It's a challenge. Thank you. Shannon: Just a question. With respect to the number of trucks if I'm not mistaken the West Mesa Highway had been planned to go from Santa Theresa up to about the airport and the main purpose of that was to relieve the amount of truck traffic on the 1-10 corridor. At what point is the plan for the West Mesa Highway? I remember hearing about that about two or three years ago, four years ago, and I haven't heard anything since. Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Shannon. I would have to defer to NMDOT for an update on specific status. Herrera: Thanks Andrew. The study so we went through Phase A/B, which is basically looking at different alternatives, the Phase B is choosing the best alternative and the best alternative at this time is the no build scenario. Because the traffic numbers don't show that it would take enough trucks off of the 1-10 corridor to make it feasible. It's about an $80 million project which in a poor state like ours we just don't have the money to fund that so unless there was a partnership, a public/private partnership of some sort 0 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 we just don't have the resources to fund a project like that. I believe the report, we can make it available, it's public. But if I remember correctly it was only really removing about 500 vehicles or so off of the 1-10 corridor so that's why we're not moving forward with that project at this time. Geng: Would you happen to know when the report was done? Herrera: I believe it was completed I want to say two years ago. Yes, so it's been a couple of years, but they did project traffic out 20 years so it was a horizon year of 2040 and even at that time it wasn't relieving as much congestion off of 1-10 as I think everybody anticipated. Bartholomew: I had a question on the VMTs. Where are they coming from the increase? You mentioned there was a lot more heavy truck traffic, is it across the board or is it mainly attributed to the heavy truck traffic for the increase in the VMTs? Herrera: It's both. Yes, I mean since oil prices have sort of stabilized and gas prices aren't too terribly high right now more people are driving. The truck traffic we're seeing a lot of it in the oil industry area, so it is coming from the border area here, but then also the southeast and the northwest parts of the state are seeing huge increases in heavy truck traffic, and we do a statewide kind of average. Bartholomew: Thank you. Sounds good. Also you have a little typo you need to correct in your slide there on the top. Wray: Thank you, we'll get that done. Appreciate that. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Lee: I have one other question Andrew. Is there any specific reason you did not include any property damage statistics to the safety measure? Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee. That is not part of the federal metric. These are purely federally defined metrics that we're dealing with here and that's not one of the metrics handed down from the feds. Lee: Thank you. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Herrera: Andrew. Sorry if you go back to that slide these numbers are for the entire State. specifically. . I just want to make it clear that So this is not for the MPO area 7 I Wray: Yes, if only. 2 3 Herrera: Thanks. 4 5 Lee: I have another question. Can you go back to the first slide? 6 7 Wray: This one? 8 9 Lee: No, next one. Yes. So what's the definition of good condition and the 10 poor condition, what reference are you guys going to use it or do you have 11 any idea how they determine it's a good condition or a bad condition? 12 13 Wray: That is determined by the NMDOT pavement management section I guess 14 is the correct term for the part of DOT. I apologize I did not include the 15 specifics as to the definition in this particular presentation. I can get those 16 definitions to this committee today if that is desired. I don't know if DOT 17 staff wishes to elaborate further on the specific definitions. 18 19 Herrera: I can try. I'm going to start by saying I am a planner not an engineer, but 20 from what I understand there are three separate metrics for pavement that 21 they are measuring. So it's IRI, percent cracking, and then rutting, so 22 those are the three metrics that they're measuring for all pavements. And 23 so for the NHS the interstate pavements for it to be in good condition, all 24 three have to be considered good. Whatever that threshold is and that 25 data can be made available because I'm not sure right off the top of my 26 head what the threshold is. For it to be in poor condition only one has to 27 be considered poor. For the non -interstate NHS, as long as two are in 28 good condition then it's considered good. Does that hopefully help? 29 30 Lee: Yes, thank you. 31 32 Herrera: Okay. 33 34 ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. 35 36 Bartholomew: I have a just a quick question. What's the definition of reliable person 37 miles? 38 39 Wray: It is the ability of, and I'm trying to remember the exact language off the 40 top of my head, I apologize. It is the ability of a person to be able to travel 41 within a reasonable amount of time to their destination. Jolene's shaking 42 her head, I must be getting a part wrong. 43 44 Herrera: No, it's not that, it's just, yes that's right. But we don't really have a 45 definition I guess is the real answer because what's considered a 46 reasonable amount of time right, so, I mean there's definitions somewhere 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 but they use all of these sort of subjective words so that's the best we can do. Bartholomew: I have never heard that term before so I wasn't sure what it meant. Herrera: I think FHWA made it up. No, just kidding. They didn't. But it is written into the law, so somebody knows what it means somewhere just not me. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Lee: I have a general comment. I believe the proponents target is more focused on the vehicle movement. You know we better be balanced to look at the different measure to measure for the safety and other proponents for the pedestrian and the transportation for like a transit and any other, So I believe this is a to focus on the vehicle movements, but I wanted to share my impression. Love: Any other questions? 7. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 7.1 City of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, Town of Mesilla, Las Cruces Public Schools, RoadRUNNER Transit, SCRTD Project Updates Love: If not we'll move on to item number seven, committee and staff comments. City of Las Cruces. Lee: I have no comments at this time. Love: Dona Ana County, I don't think they're present. Garza: We don't have anything to update at this time. Love: Town of Mesilla. Shannon: I have no comment at this time. Love: Las Cruces Public School Schools Barham: Yes, thanks. Just a couple of things to update you all on. Our grant funding which we use for our Safe Routes to Schools, you guys helped us with the TAP Application and that's rolling along nicely. We also secured our DHO, our Department of Health Grant for that, so it looks like everything is going to roll along for another year. And along those lines, the week of October 10th is international, I don't know if it's international, I may have just typed it up even more, Global Walk to School Day, so that's Z 1 coming up. We have several events at our elementary schools throughout 2 that week. Our spotlight this year is going to be the walk to school at 3 Mesilla Park Elementary School on the 11th. We'll be meeting at the 4 Frank O'Brien Papen Center at 7:30 in the morning and walking to the 5 school and you're all welcome to join us. 6 7 Love: RoadRUNNER Transit, 8 9 Barham: I was on vacation a couple of weeks ago and I got very pleasant news that 10 we got $11 million to build an operations and maintenance center and it 11 kind of blew me away, but I heard about it. I think it's one of the larger 12 grants, at least federal grants that the City has gotten. That was a very 13 pleasant surprise. Our full request was for about a $20.1 million project 14 with $16.1 million from FTA. And then of course you have to provide a 15 scaled project as well and that was about $15.5 million with a little over 16 $12 million from FTA. This was through the Bus and Bus Facilities 17 Section 5339 program and that was actually, we actually submitted two 18 grants for this facility project and the first one was the build grant, which 19 we haven't heard from yet, and this was more of our backup if we didn't 20 get the build grant. So if we get a little more from the build grant that 21 would even be like frosting on the cake I think if we get that. 22 We did get our required transit asset management plan signed off 23 by the City Management just under the wire, but it was done. And I guess 24 we'll have to be working a little bit with the MPO as well because I was 25 talking with Gail Lyssy from Region VI FTA and she was saying yes, the 26 FTA really hasn't done a good job of getting the word out about what the 27 planning element of the Transit Asset Management Plan relative to the 28 MPO so there is going to be a webinar coming up here at the end of the 29 month, so hopefully we will learn a little bit more what we have to do to 30 meet requirements there. 31 32 Armijo: I'll close it up. For SCRTD actually a smaller scale working with 33 RoadRUNNER, we did pick up a grant, I don't think we reported this last 34 month did we? The $100,000 for the short and long-range plan so 35 anyway that's moving right along. We got that through our board last 36 week and it's coming to the City Council I guess in a couple of weeks from 37 now, the 15th I believe. So that's a really good project and it's something 38 we'll be looking forward to working together on. I know Michael McAdams 39 has been doing the heavy lift so far carrying us all on the RFP so, we'll be 40 working closely together on that one and it does bode pretty well. We just 41 finished this week with our second full year and now SCRTD is actually 42 reporting NTD ridership not just for the rural but also for the urban areas of 43 Cruces and El Paso which has added new work for us to deal with. But 44 more important to that is that we just closed the year about 30,000 rides, 45 so our ridership was up 61 % year over year. So we're moving along pretty 46 well with a small operation. So we're hoping to grow that operation now 10 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 that we've moved into our facility in Anthony and we're doing much more work out there. We did add another bus to the fleet so we now have nine buses to the fleet and we'll be ordering another bus this week, so that'll bring it to ten this year. We started with five two years ago with the State money so we're moving right along. We just need more operating funds so we can run more service trips so you know that's how you carry more people, but with that it looks like we had a good year. Thank you. 7.2 NMDOT Projects Update Love: DOT updates Herrera: Thanks Mr. Chair. We only have one, well we have two construction projects, only one in the direct MPO area. It's Valley Drive and so I'm sure you're all aware that that's happening. Work is ongoing. The update that I have from our construction office is work is scheduled to begin at the southwest quadrant of the Valley and Picacho Intersection next week so look for maybe a slight shift in traffic control on that. Otherwise, we are on time for that project for sometime next year. I want to say, I don't remember, December, January something like that. So it's still going to be a while, but we are doing our best to make sure that traffic flows through there and that we address any business owners that come to us with any sort of issues. And then the other project that we have going on on 1-10 is some guardrail replacement, well there's lane closures on that but we're not closing the interstate or anything. We're not crazy like TXDOT, so just watch out for some traffic control on Interstate 10, sort of it's a big work area we don't really know where they're moving but just be wary along the 1-10 corridor that there could be some work out there. As far as the University Project, we did get the funds obligated finally for that one so we're looking to go out to bid late November, early December on that project. We're looking at starting construction in probably April, we might try to move that to May, till after the school semester ends. But we'll coordinate that and we'll make sure that we coordinate with RoadRUNNER Transit on all that as well. And that's all I have. Lee: I have a question Love: Go ahead. Lee: Mr. Chair. Do you have any update for the study on North Main between the Solano and 1-25? Herrera: Are you talking about for the study? 11 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 Lee: Yes, study. Herrera: So, I'm pretty sure the Phase A/B is in the final signature phase so it should be done soon if not now. So I can check on that and make sure that you get a copy of it. Love: Any other questions? 7.3 MPO Staff Projects Update Love: We'll move on to MPO staff update. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We do have a couple. The TAP and RTP open call for projects period for this MPO closed this past Friday. We have four that we will be bringing to the BPAC later this month and then to this Committee in November. So the November meeting is looking like it's going to be pretty meaty, so everyone please plan to be here. Also, we do have an open call for projects through us from NMDOT for a non - mandatory CMAC money. We do have one jurisdiction that has expressed interest and has scheduled their project feasibility meeting. Any other jurisdiction that has an interest in that call for projects, now is the time you need to get that project feasibility meeting scheduled. You're running out of time. So the deadline for MPOs to turn that in is the end of December, so we have to get that done, we have to get that through our Advisory Committees and to a Policy Committee in December so you're running out of time. I believe the deadline to get something into staff is November 1st, something like that. So you're running out of time if you have any interest in that. What was the other thing? I think that was it. Thank you Mr. Chair. Bartholomew: You should add here that at least interim acting MPO Officer Wray: So I am lead to believe, but there seems to be some paperwork problems. Bartholomew: What's the normal process for permanently filling that position? Wray: I can't comment on that. Mr. Murphy was the incumbent of that position for fourteen years, so at this point I would have to say that whatever process was used then it was in a very different era. Bartholomew: There is no normal. Wray: There is no normal. I will say that I have as of this point not received any sort of direction, updates, anything from anybody about what that process may look like. 12 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 Bartholomew: Thank you. Wary: I guess I should add that according to the JPA that establishes this MPO, the Policy Committee must be consulted in the hiring of the MPO Officer position. The Policy Committee is scheduled to review a resolution and take action on a resolution next week, concurring with the City of Las Cruces and their decision to appoint me as acting MPO Officer and ultimately I believe that at the very least when the permanent replacement is selected the Policy Committee will then be asked to do another concurrence resolution. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT Love: Public comments. Seeing none. 9. ADJOURNMENT (4:51 PM) Love: Looking for a motion to adjourn. Bartholomew: I move we adjourn. Herrera: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: We are adjourned. CKairperson 13