Loading...
11-01-18 TAC1 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 MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The following are minutes for the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which was held November 1, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. in the City of Las Cruces Council Chambers, 700 N. Main, Las Cruces, New Mexico. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Bartholomew (CLC Transit) Sean Barham (LCPS) Michael Garza (DAC Flood Commission) Soo Gyu Lee (CLC) Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) Harold Love (NMDOT) Rene Molina (DAC Eng.) Larry Shannon (Town of Mesilla) Tony Trevino (CLC Public Works) Jennifer Yoder (CLC) MEMBERS ABSENT: David Armijo (SCRTD) Bill Childress (BLM) Dale Harrell (NMSU) Luis Marmolejo (DAC Planning) Hector Tarrazas, (CLC) STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Wray (MPO Staff) Michael McAdams (MPO Staff) Debra Fuller (MPO) OTHERS PRESENT: Cathy Mathews (CLC) Ashleigh Curry Todd Gregory (Las Cruces Public Schools) Tony Trevino (CLC) Albert Casillas (DAC) Larry Nichols (CLC) Steve Pacheco (CLC) Ceci Vasconcellos (CLC) Michelle Belone (CLC) Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER (4:00 PM) Love: Okay we're going to call to order the November 1, 2018 meeting of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. We'll start with a roll call to my far right. 1 2 I Yoder: Jennifer Yoder with the City of Las Cruces. 2 3 Shannon: Larry Shannon, Town of Mesilla. 4 5 Lee: Soo Gyu Lee, City of Las Cruces. 6 7 Molina: Rene Molina, Dona Ana County. 8 9 Herrera: Jolene Herrera, NMDOT. 10 11 Garza: Michael Garza, Dona Ana County Flood Commission. 12 13 Bartholomew: Mike Bartholomew, City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit. 14 15 Barham: Sean Barham, Las Cruces Public Schools. 16 17 Love: And I'm Harold Love, New Mexico DOT, and also Chairman of the 18 Technical Advisory Committee. 19 20 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21 22 Love: Next item number two approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion to 23 approve. 24 25 Garza: Motion to approve. 26 27 Bartholomew: Second. 28 29 Love: Approved and seconded. All in favor. 30 31 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 32 33 Love: Motion carries. 34 35 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 37 3.1 October 4, 2018 38 39 Love: Next item, approval of the minutes. Looking for a motion to approve. 40 41 Shannon: Motion to approve. 42 43 Bartholomew: Second. 44 45 Love: All in favor. 46 2 3 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 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Approved. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Love: Item number four, public comments. Not seeing any. 5. ACTION ITEMS 5.1 FFY 2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program Amendments Love: Then we will move on to item number five, action items, 5.1, the 2018- 2023 Transportation Improvement Program Amendments. MPO staff. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Wray: Actually I have a question for Mr. Bartholomew on that. I note on the page 21 there we have 19 appearing before 18, is that flipped in the table? Bartholomew: I believe it's, I think it's correct, it's just that these are Fiscal Year '18 and Fiscal Year '19 funds that we're going to apportion or obligate in this fiscal year and I think I just put '19 first for some reason on that. Wray: Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Bartholomew. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Wray: Was it the build grant or was it the other one that the City applied for? Bartholomew: This was a build grant. Wray: Okay. The build grant that the City received to construct ... Bartholomew: Excuse me. This was a State of Good Repair. We haven't heard on the build. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Love: I have a question. Is the system expanding or are you maintaining currently what you have? Bartholomew: As part of our short-range transit plan one of the implementation parts was to expand hours of service into the evening, then we're planning on expanding service in January, the weekdays, till 10:30 p.m. Currently ends at 7:00 p.m. Short-range plan does have future plans to add Sunday 3 4 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 service and longer hours on Saturday as well but we're waiting for that to be funded. Love: And we're looking to take action on this, correct? Wray: Yes Mr. Chair. Love: So I'm looking for a motion to approve these program improvements with transit. Bartholomew: I'll move that we approve with removing the project PL00150 from consideration. Herrera: I second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion approved as amended. 5.2 Transportation Alternatives Program and Recreational Trails Program Application Recommendations Love: Next item, 5.2, Transportation Alternatives Program and Rec Trails Program Application Recommendations. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We have four applications that have been submitted by our member jurisdictions for consideration of submission to NMDOT for funding. The first one is the Las Cruces Public Schools for the Safe Routes to School Coordinator. Second one is the City of Las Cruces for the so called Walnut Street Improvement Project. The third one is the City of Las Cruces for the Las Cruces Lateral and Multiuse Trail Project. And the last one is from Dona Ana County for the Elks Drive Connectivity project. I believe we have Las Cruces Public Schools staff here, not sure whether Ms. Curry or Mr. Gregory are going to speak, looks like Ms. Curry will be speaking about this item. Curry: Thank you Mr. Wray and Members of the Committee. I'm Ashleigh Curry the Safe Routes to School Coordinator. This grant application is a continuation of what we've been doing since 2008 here in the community. We're involved in all of the elementary public schools doing walking school buses and encouraging kids to walk and ride their bikes to school. And this grant just proposes that we continue that. We are basically asking for the same amount of funding that we've asked in the past with a small 4 5 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 increase in stuff, so the incentive items, we're just asked for a small increase because at many more schools than we were in previous years. So I will happily answer any questions anybody has. Love: I have a question. How many schools do you currently have participating? Curry: We have all 25 schools participate on some level. So all of them participated in International Walk to School Day. We have 18 that have a weekly walking school buses, and we have four that have monthly walking school buses currently. Education is offered to all of the schools and third grade level at the current time. Love: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Bartholomew: I don't have a question for the Las Cruces Public Schools, again just a reminder, maybe a clarification for Mr. Wray, we're hearing these presentations and we're going to be making recommendations, is this just going to be recommended as a package or are we going to be asked to rank or rate or? Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bartholomew. This is going to be recommended effectively as a package, although if for whatever reason the TAC declines to recommend one of the projects, that project will still go to the Policy Committee for their consideration of approval, it'll just go with the caveat that the TAC did not recommend that particular project. Bartholomew: And how much funds are available in this program in the state? Herrera: I can answer that Mr. Chair. So through the transportation alternatives program which Safe Routes to School used to be a stand alone, now it's not, it's just kind of rolled into the larger program. It's about $6.1 million per year statewide. Bartholomew: Okay. Thank you. Love: Any other questions? Mr. Wray I think we'll listen through all of them before we vote. Wray: Very good Mr. Chair. Thank you. The next project is the Walnut Street Improvement Project, and Mr. Trevino is going to present on that. Trevino: Good afternoon Chair, Members of the TAC. So what we are submitting for the NMDOT Transportation Alternatives Program is a bicycle/ pedestrian, well I guess I don't know why I'm going over this with you guys, you guys know what the TAP program is, it's the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It's a breakdown of 85.44% from the DOT and 5 6 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 14.56% from the city. I'm sorry. I put a presentation together and I probably shouldn't have. Here's the vicinity map for the project. As you can see the starting point for us is on Walnut at the intersection of Hadley. This is going to be at the tie-in point to where the City of Las Cruces got some MAP funding for the same kind of improvements to Walnut, but those ones go from Lohman to Hadley, so this'll extend that current MAP grant that we have. We will go north to Spruce; as we hit Spruce, jump onto Kilmer, east to Poplar, north on Evelyn, and west on Madrid all the way to Solano. What these are going to consist of on Walnut it's going to have a buffered bike lane which is going to be a mill and overlay also. Kilmer, Poplar, and Evelyn are going to be mainly striping projects and Madrid will actually be an overlay and striping project. These are the project scopes for the buffered bike lane. These are all taken from the Active Transportation Plan that was just approved by Community Development about two weeks ago I believe. So what this does, it kind of makes one of the corridors that has been identified as part of the ATP as one of their main focus points for the corridors. We have Walnut which is a buffered bike lane. We have Madrid from Evelyn to Solano to be a buffered bike lane. Evelyn from Poplar to Madrid is going to be just a bike lane. Bike boulevards will be on Kilmer and Poplar and shared bike lane will be on Kilmer and Poplar also. So those would be the shared lane markings and the bike boulevard just kind of indicate what a bike boulevard is. We'll have those sharrows and the markings throughout those. The cost of the project is as shown, $1.17 million for the entire project, so it's a $999,648 from the DOT and $170,352 from the City. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. I've got the cost estimate available. I've got the cross sections for Walnut. Anything you guys want to know. Herrera: Mr. Chair. I have a question. Thanks Tony for the presentation. I guess my question is for the mill and inlay, are you including the cost for the entire street, for the whole? Trevino: Chair, Jolene. Yes. So what it is, we broke it down for our previous meeting so the mill and overlay for the drive lanes is separated out from the mill and overlay for the actual bike lanes. So those are two different bid items along Walnut and Madrid. Herrera: Okay. Trevino: So if it doesn't go for the full reward we can subtract those out by the line item that's shown. Herrera: Okay. Perfect. I need to look at the paperwork again just to make sure that that is very clear in there just in case. Okay. Yes. In the description though because I think anybody who's looking at this, think of it this way, 6 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 it's probably going to mostly be planners in the room, so when you show me this I'm like, "I don't care. I'm just going to read the words." Sorry but I'm not going to really look through this. So just make sure I guess that it's very clear in your wording that just the City will pay for the driving lanes separate. Trevino: Yes, calls out driving lane co -milling and bike lane co -milling. It's on there, line items and quantities. Herrera: Okay. Perfect. Great. Thanks. Trevino: If there's any questions just give me a shout. Herrera: That should be all. Thank you. Love: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. The next project that we have on the list is also from the City of Las Cruces. It is the Las Cruces Lateral Multiuse trail project. We have Ms. Mathews here to speak on that. Mathews: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm Cathy Mathews, the Landscape Architect with the City of Las Cruces. And the project we're proposing for the RTP grant is a multiuse path along the Las Cruces lateral, part of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District system from University Avenue near the Convention Center, along the lateral to approximately the intersection of Main Street and Idaho or Avenida de Mesilla. And it would be a shared use path, likely paved in with asphalt plus the crossings, those street crossings that that ditch crosses, and the idea is to provide an off road facility for bicycles and pedestrians. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Love: Any questions? Bartholomew: Did you have a map of that too? Mathews: I apologize Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. I do not have a presentation, but it's a length of the lateral about 2.9 miles between the Convention Center on University near El Paseo, along El Paseo for a short distance and then behind/to the southwest of Las Cruces High School and then continuing on along private properties to the intersection of Main Street and Avenida de Mesilla. Molina: Chair. I've got a question. Love: Yes. 7 8 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 Molina: Thank you. So the question I have is what are you all looking at anticipating at the crossing for example at University and is that included in the cost? Mathews: Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. We did not include the cost of a midblock crossing, a HAWK or something like that, so we did not include the cost in here. So since the Convention Center is at a signalized intersection, likely folks would be crossing University at the intersection, the existing signalized intersection, then they would have to go down, they would have to turn west on the City sidewalk, maybe, I apologize I don't know, maybe a 100 yards, 200 yards, then they could turn on to the pathway and access the trail at that point, signage is included as part of that. Molina: Thank you. Love: And does this connection, does it connect to an existing trail system that's already in place? Mathews: Mr. Chair. On the university's side, there is no existing pathway yet, however the portion of the trail that we're considering is on the MPO proposed bicycle and pedestrian route plan. And at the north end it will connect to improvements made on Main Street as part of that project that's going on to make that more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, so the shared use path that we're proposing will connect with that soon to be existing pathway. Herrera: Mr. Chair. I have a question. At the BPAC Committee I asked about a letter from EBID, were you able to get that letter and put it in the application? Mathews: Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. EBID is probably not going to provide us with a letter, however there is an existing Memorandum of Understanding and so I will include that. Herrera: Okay. Mathews: And also I have started the application for a Right of Use of EBID facilities and I will include that application as well. Herrera: Perfect. Thanks. Mathews: Thank you. Love: Anything else? I 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 Mathews: Thank you very much. Wray: Lastly Mr. Chair we have the Dona Ana County Elks Drive connectivity project. We have Mr. Albert Casillas from Dona Ana County to speak on that. Casillas: Good afternoon Chair, Members of the Committee. My name's Albert Casillas. I'm filling in for Samuel Paz who is the planner in charge of this project, so most of the questions if there are any I'll probably defer over to Rene Molina. But if you look on page 144 of your packet you do see the 1.15 miles that are being proposed from Columbia Elementary school all the way to Dona Ana Park and that's going to be a multipurpose path that's being proposed. On page 142 you are going to see a commitment from the Board of County Commissioners pretty much guaranteeing that if the award is given that there are going to be funds available to match that. But that's all the information that I have aside from what's included in your packet. Love: I have a question. Are you going to be needing any additional right-of- way, especially near the north end of the path as you get closer to Thorpe Road? Molina: The response to that is we don't anticipate the need for additional right-of- way. We feel that there's adequate space to fit it in. We are looking at some form of a wall but not a wall system, more of a curbing system that will help us with a differential grade. The differential grade is not exceeding more than two feet. But no we didn't anticipate the need for additional right-of-way. Love: Any other questions? Thank you. Now we're looking for a motion to either approve all the applications as a whole or in part. Bartholomew: Mr. Chair. I actually have a question that maybe Ms. Herrera can answer a little bit more on too. So the Las Cruces packet, they're looking at about $1.9 million all together in State funds, so this is going to be competing with everything in the state that's there? Is that correct? Herrera: Yes. So basically it's a statewide competitive process. One thing I can say is that the TAP funds are also broken up by population, so Albuquerque and El Paso get their own direct applications. So none of these applications are competing with Albuquerque and El Paso. Bartholomew: So that's exclusive of essentially Albuquerque and El Paso metropolitan areas. N 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: Right. Yes. So the $6.1 million is for everything else in the state, not Albuquerque and El Paso. Bartholomew: Okay. Do they still anticipate there's probably going to be greater demand than there's available funds? Herrera: Yes, and we see that every year so really it's just a matter of putting together really good applications. This area has been pretty good about getting funding awarded and I've looked through the applications multiple times and so it seems like every time I see them they get better, so I would say that I have seen all of the applications that are going in for the southern half of the state and these ones are really well written. So I'd say they have a pretty good chance. Of course we can't guarantee funding, but especially the Safe Routes to School coordinator one, that one's been funded every year since I started working here and it's really the only successful program in the state right now, so I can say there's a pretty good shot for these. Bartholomew: Okay. Yes, I was just a little concerned when you said that this time they were rolling the Safe Routes to School program in to the whole one, if that's going to get lose as a small project in the mix. Herrera: No it shouldn't. That one kind of stands alone. We don't have a whole lot of demand for Safe Routes to School type projects and really so this one's, I mean it is competing with others, but because it's programatic and not infrastructure, it's a little easier to fund those type of projects. There's not preliminary engineering, there's not plans that go into it. It won't get lost. Bartholomew: Okay. Thank you. Love: Any other questions? Looking for a motion. Bartholomew: I move that we recommend the packet of applications to the Policy Committee. Garza: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion passes. 5.3 Performance Measure 1: Safety Target Recommendation 10 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 Love: Next on the agenda is item 5.3, Performance Measure 1: Safety Target Recommendation. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Shannon: Just had one question. I just want to make sure, are these statewide averages or just averages for our area? Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Shannon. Yes, that's correct, there are the statewide averages that we're discussing, except for the numbers that are specifically called out as being for the Mesilla Valley area. Shannon: Okay. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Bartholomew: I just had a clarification on a non -motorized, so that basically involves a pedestrian or a cyclist that had contact perhaps with a motorized vehicle right? Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Bartholomew. Yes. While I'm sure that there could be some kind of scenario where there is a non -motorized fatality that does not involve a vehicle, most of these numbers are inevitable (inaudible). Bartholomew: But these were people on a motor vehicle. Wray: Well the fatalities are vulnerable users. Yes. Bartholomew: Okay. Thank you. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Love: So this is an action item we're looking for? Wray: Yes Mr. Chair. Love: Looking for a motion to accept the Safety Targets as presented. Bartholomew: I will recommend that the Safety Target recommendations be forwarded to the Policy Committee. Barham: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 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: Motion passes. 5.4 Performance Measure 2: State of Good Repair Target Recommendation Love: 5.4 Performance Measure 2: State of Good Repair. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Herrera: I do have just one comment. Just keep in mind that these numbers are statewide, so this is not for Mesilla Valley MPO specifically. We're on average as the DOT spending about $62 million a year on our interstate pavement, $68 million on non -interstate NHS pavements, and down from here, but that's statewide, so it's not really a whole lot of money. So the projections are for if we keep these numbers flat moving forward for the next four years what does the pavement condition look like. Those are the numbers that we use to set our targets is if we kept funding levels at what this slide says for the next four years, what condition is our pavement going to be in and our bridges. Wray: Thank you Ms. Herrera. ANDREW WRAY CONTINUED HIS PRESENTATION. Herrera: Mr. Chair. If I could just make one slight I guess clarification to what Andrew said. So I also sit on the BPAC Committee and really the only metric that's different from what you're looking at today versus what BPAC recommended is the percentage of bridges on the NHS in poor condition. So it's only that one number that's different. We at the BPAC recommended 12% which is the number that we thought it was at, but after Trent Doolittle, the District 1 Engineer and I worked with the bridge engineers, there were actually some bridges that've been replaced recently that we're still showing in poor condition. So once they took those off the list and showed them in their current good condition it dropped the percentage to 8% which is what we're recommending today at this Committee. And that all just happened on Monday of this week, so that's the only difference. All the rest of them are the same as what BPAC adopted or recommended adopting. Love: Any other questions or comments? If not, looking for a motion to approve. Bartholomew: I move that we recommend State of Good Repair Target statistics/metrics to the Policy Committee. Garza: Second. 12 13 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 Love: All those in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion passes. 5.5 Performance Measure 3: Recommendation Love: 5.5 Performance Measure 3 recommendation. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. System Performance Target System Performance Target Bartholomew: I know Ms. Herrera told me last month but can you remind me what reliable person miles are. Herrera: Actually I didn't because I didn't know and I still don't really know a good way to explain that, I mean it's basically how many times; if you take a trip 10 times how many times can you reach your destination in a reasonable amount of time, but again there's really no definition for what reasonable is. Bartholomew: I'm just suggesting like in our documents and everything if this is something that the public is going to look at too, it might be good to come up with something to define so they have a context. That and the truck reliable. Herrera: 1 100% agree. Unfortunately we haven't received any kind of guidance really from FHWA on this. I think we're all sort of as a nation, all State DOTs, we've kind of been talking to each other and we're all having sort of a hard time interpreting what some of this stuff is supposed to mean. We all have different methodologies for doing things, so we're not even comparing apples to apples across the state line. So I image with maybe the next transportation bill update we'll have more clarification written in, at least that's what we hope. Bartholomew: Okay. Because if I was just a member of the public looking at this I would have no clue what that meant. Herrera: Well and I'm a member of the DOT and I still have no idea. Bartholomew: How those numbers are derived. 13 14 I Herrera: What that really means. So 1 100% understand. We tried our best to 2 make it as sort of user friendly as possible, but some of this stuff is just 3 very complicated and until we really can wrap our brains around it there's 4 no way that we can effectively give it to the public and have them 5 understand just from a sheet of paper. So we're trying. We did our best. 6 7 Bartholomew: Okay. But it's something that has to be said for the requirements. 8 9 Love: Any other comments or questions? Looking for a motion to approve. 10 11 Bartholomew: I move we recommend the System Performance Target Matrix 12 recommendations to the Policy Committee. 13 14 Lee: Second. 15 16 Love: All in favor. 17 18 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 19 20 Love: Motion approved. 21 22 6. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 23 24 6.1 City of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, Town of Mesilla, Las Cruces 25 Public Schools, RoadRUNNER Transit, SCRTD Project Updates 26 27 Love: Move on to item number 6.1, Committee comments. City of Las Cruces. 28 29 Yoder: City of Las Cruces has no comments at this time. 30 31 Love: Dona Ana County. 32 33 Molina: Thank you. I just would like to report on two projects that have been 34 reported on multiple times here. First one is Soledad Canyon. We are 35 actually out to bid now. Bids close on the 26th of November and we'll 36 make an award soon after, with construction start anticipated for January 37 2019. 38 1 don't recall the project number, Dona Ana School Road and El 39 Camino Real, we are actually almost there after seven years nearly. We 40 are hoping to be out to bid within two months. Project will take 60 days 41 once we are in construction. And that will close it out. That's all I have. 42 Thank you very much. 43 44 Love: Town of Mesilla. 45 46 Shannon: I don't have anything at this time. 14 15 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: Las Cruces Public Schools. Barham: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to highlight the good work that our Safe Routes to School Coordinator's doing. Ms. Curry hosted our International Walk to School event at Mesilla Park on October 11th. It was a huge success. We had a massive turnout, 244 kids walked to school that day and 112 adults walks with them. We even diverted the bus stop so that the children who normally ride the bus to school could participate in the event. So it was a lot of fun. And then finally just a pitch for our Facebook site for Safe Routes to School if you guys don't already follow that, it's a wonderful way to follow the good work that Ms. Curry and her staff are doing that this Committee is very much a part of. Thank you. Love: RoadRUNNER Transit. Bartholomew: I don't have too much to update from what I provided last month. We're still putting our grants together now for the electric bus, for our new operations and maintenance center with the State of Good Repair funds we got, so we've got a couple of big huge projects and we're kind developing all of our words to go into the grant project application. We're just kind of waiting for trams now to open up so we can submit all of that. I just also wanted to invite anybody that's interested to try out our RoadRUNNER Transit system on Election Day, next Tuesday. We're offering fare free all day on our transit service and we're also offering fare free on Veteran's Day holiday which is November 12th. Love: South Central RTD. Not present. 6.2 NMDOT Projects Update Love: New Mexico DOT. Herrera: Thank you Mr. Chair. We just have two projects. The big one is Valley Drive. Construction is moving along. We got a lot of the City utilities done in that first kind of phase and so I think we're looking at paving here in the next month or so, just be mindful that it's still a long project so watch out when you're driving around there, there's a lot of equipment and traffic. And the other project that we have going on is 1-10, we're doing some guardrail replacement. Right now there might be intermittent lane closures, but we'll always have at least one lane open to traffic. So just be aware of orange barrels on 1-10 as we do a little bit of guardrail replacement there. The university project, the bid date has moved out to December, so we're looking to open bids in December for that one. Hoping to have 15 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 construction started in May, I think after the school semester ends. And that's going to be probably a little bit over a year if I remember right for that project. So it's going to be a big one. It's $42 million and so just I guess we'll keep you updated on when construction's going to start exactly. 6.3 MPO Staff Projects Update Love: MPO staff comments. Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We are very pleased to announce that we have our first four dates for the upcoming MTP public input process. Our kickoff meeting is going to November 29th, 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Bank of the West lobby. Then we have a following one on December 3rd, again 4:30 to 7:30 at Sage Cafe. Then December 10th 4:30 to 7:30 at the Radium Springs Community Center. And then December 13th 4:30 to 7:30 at the Vado/Del Cerro Community Center. We have been going through a process of sitting down and talking to our member jurisdictions in the lead up to this first round of public involvement, kind of gage where our judgements are and where they see themselves going over the next five, 10, 15 years. We have not quite finished that process yet. We still have a couple of entities that we would like to speak with before the public involvement, but we cordially extend the invitation to all of you to attend these meetings and speak to us. And of course we will be engaging with the TAC throughout this process. I anticipate some actual discussion items related to the MTP update coming before the TAC in January. That concludes MPO updates. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Love: Move on to item number seven, public comment. Seeing none. 8. ADJOURNMENT (5:04 PM) Love: Looking for a motion to adjourn. Herrera: So moved. Bartholomew: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: We are adjourned. 16 17 4 Chairperson 17 18