Loading...
12-06-18 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 December 6, 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) Dale Harrell (NMSU) Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) Harold Love (NMDOT) Rene Molina (DAC Eng.) Larry Shannon (Town of Mesilla) Jennifer Yoder (CLC) MEMBERS ABSENT: David Armijo (SCRTD) Bill Childress (BLM) Luis Marmolejo (DAC Planning) Hector Tarrazas, (CLC) Tony Trevino (CLC Public Works) STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Wray (MPO Staff) Michael McAdams (MPO Staff) Valerie Sherman (MPO) OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Nichols, (CLC Community Development) Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER (4:00 PM) Love: Okay we'll go ahead and get started. Call to order the meeting of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee for December 6, 2018. We'll start with the roll call starting on my far right. Shannon: Larry Shannon, Town of Mesilla. Lee: Soo Gyu Lee, City of Las Cruces. Molina: Rene Molina, Doha Ana County. Yoder: Jennifer Yoder, City of Las Cruces. 1 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 Barham: Sean Barham, Las Cruces Public Schools. Herrera: Jolene Herrera, NMDOT. Garza: Michael Garza, Dona Ana County Flood Commission. Bartholomew: Mike Bartholomew, City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit. Love: And I'm Harold Love, New Mexico DOT. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Love: Move on to item number two, approval of the agenda, looking for a motion. Garza: Motion to approve. Bartholomew: Second. Love: Motion and second all in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.1 November 1, 2018 Love: Move on to item number three, approval of the minutes. Bartholomew: Mr. Chair I have just a couple of minor typo corrections in the minutes. I think it's Minutes page 10, but packet page 11, line 21 the word "lose" should be "lost", "Going to get lost in a small packet." Wray: What line is that on? Bartholomew: Twenty-one. And line 23 on Minutes page 15, 1 guess packet page 16, there is a reference to "trams" is all in lower case, but actually it was referring to the acronym "TrAMS" so it's all caps except the "r" is lower case the way FTA does it. That was it. Love: Okay looking for a motion to approve with the corrections. Garza: So moved. Bartholomew: Second. 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 Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion passes. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Love: Moving on to item number four, public comment. Seeing none. 5. ACTION ITEMS 5.1 IFFY 2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program Amendments Love: We'll move on to item number five, Action Items starting with our Transportation Improvement Program Amendments. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Love: Any questions? Seeing none. Looking for a motion to approve. Bartholomew: I move we recommend this TIP Amendment to the Policy Committee. Garza: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love: Motion passes. 5.2 Recommendation to the Policy Committee Endorsing an Application to NMDOT for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Non - Mandatory Open Call for Projects Love: Moving on to item 5.2., recommendation to the Policy Committee endorsing an application to NMDOT for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Non -Mandatory Open Call for Projects. ANDREW WRAY GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. SOO GYU LEE GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. Love: Any questions? Looking for a motion to approve. 3 I Bartholomew: I'll recommend to the Policy Committee the endorsement of the 2 application from the City for the C-MAQ Non -Mandatory Open Call for 3 Projects. 4 5 Garza: Second. 6 7 Love: All in favor. 8 9 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 10 11 Love: Motion passes. 12 13 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 14 15 6.1 MVMPO Safety Presentation 16 17 Love: Moving on to item number six, discussion items, Mesilla Valley MPO 18 Safety Presentation. 19 20 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. Dr. McAdams will be presenting on this item. 21 22 MICHAEL MCADAMS GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. 23 24 Bartholomew: I have a question just as how you might look at data as we progress with 25 all this advancing technology so, you see a lot more vehicles, more and 26 more vehicles are having at least semi -automated or fully -automated 27 features to help prevent crashes, is there going to be a way to maybe 28 correlate that with the data? 29 30 McAdams: I think that since AV Technology is in its infancy I think we're going to see 31 hopefully more of that and I know I was in a vehicle recently where 32 actually it braked when you got closer to a car. I think those things really 33 increase, but I think also it would be if we could have some kind of control 34 of vehicles too as they interact in our intersections. And I'm expecting the 35 AV will have a dramatic increase, but again, it's not an over -night thing. It 36 will be very gradual and they're predicting that will be a major factor in 37 decreasing collisions. 38 39 Bartholomew: I had a second question too, again trying to correlate with some of the 40 activity happening, can we see improvements at certain intersections like 41 up at North Main and Spitz in that area or what's going on in Valley Road 42 are we going to be able to maybe see some effects of maybe safety 43 improvements by those road improvements as well? 44 45 McAdams: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bartholomew. I think that this State is two years in 46 arrears. We only get it a year and two years in arrears, so the next one 2 I will be 2017. Hopefully we'll see improvement in crash reduction. I would 2 think that there would be. If there's not, then the geometric improvements 3 at Three Crosses were ineffectual. And I think now, I think there will be, 4 but I think the real task will be are they reduced significantly. I think with 5 our new standards where there's more emphasis on making sure that 6 intersection and corridors do address safety problems. 7 8 Bartholomew: Thank you. That's all I had. 9 10 Herrera: Mr. Chair. I had a comment on the report in the packet. So it might seem 11 minor given the nature of the report and what it's reporting, but there 12 seems to be inconsistent use of North Main, Main, US-70. So I don't really 13 know where some of these intersections are because there's inconsistent 14 use of those road names throughout the report and the different tables. 15 So maybe when you look at it again, if you can just be consistent with all 16 those and if its US-70 call it US-70 instead of North Main just to make it 17 clear; the City owned portion versus NMDOT owned portion, just because 18 1 think the goal of this report is to give it to the local agencies. Right? To 19 say here are the issues, here are the areas of high -crash rates, we need 20 to look at them, so I think that is important. Thank you. 21 22 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. I agree. Those will be corrected. But the 23 purpose is really not to be an exercise in futility just to satisfy DOT regular 24 (inaudible) to really give this and hopefully to lead to (inaudible) 25 improvements in the future. 26 27 Lee: Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. The first question is did the MPO talk 28 to Las Cruces PD to get some of the information or have some discussion 29 of what the cause or any some the intersections you identified as a lot of 30 the high -crash rate? 31 32 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee. That is really for further studies, like Corridor 33 Intersections. We are given the data by the State, which means its two- 34 years is for looking (inaudible) and also GPS-ing the crashes too. So 35 those are, unfortunately, all though database is very intricate in detail, it 36 doesn't tell too much by the causes. That would have to go through the 37 City of Las Cruces or the Town of Mesilla or the State to look at the cause. 38 1 think that's, the purpose of the report was not to do that, but really give a 39 general indication of crash locations. And I think that we would gladly 40 work with the City or the County or the State and look at the actual causes 41 of that. But I think that's for perhaps another in the MTP we could look at 42 that. I would like that. Or we could have a special corridor study done 43 with a consultant maybe for that, but that's really what Ms. Herrera 44 mentioned that. We want to leave that till we look at different areas where 45 we can make improvements and then also after we make improvements 46 does the situation improve or stay the same. wtl 1 2 Lee: Okay, the follow-up question is do you have any data to specifically 3 identify are there any high -crash rate around the school zone or the school 4 areas? 5 6 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee. No. We just look at, we can actually have every 7 single crash in the County, in our MPO area. And so we can look at really 8 detailed, but we can see, we can concentrate like a buffer around the 9 schools and see if there is any indication about the crash around schools. 10 But as far as I can see, there's not a real, as far as pedestrian collisions, 11 or traffic collisions there's no really indications they're happening around 12 schools per say, but I think it depends on how you slice the data. We'll be 13 glad to look at that if you would like us to. 14 15 Lee: Okay the last question. In your recommendation number five, it says the 16 traffic calming to reduce the crash and the severity. Could you elaborate a 17 little bit about how end up recommend the traffic calming? So it depends 18 on the location, but what you present to us is your main focus on the 19 intersection and the corridor and then if we try to do any traffic calming in 20 the major corridor or the intersection and from my perspective and my 21 experience it's kind of a little difficult to implement. And then also what 22 type of unity the traffic calming you guys have the idea in your mind to 23 help or mitigate some of the issue? 24 25 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee. I don't have exact, but I think that one thing we look at 26 presentation on pedestrians having a really square intersection, strict not 27 have a turn lane or (inaudible) traffic and we know that for a fact that 28 decreasing speed by traffic calming chicanes will reduce speed which will 29 reduce severity. So I think that will be, again I'd be foolish to say there's 30 one size fits all again, but it would depend on the corridor or the 31 intersection. Where the traffic calming is appropriate or not, that's just one 32 of several tactics to be used. 33 34 Lee: Okay Mr. Chair. I have one more question. 35 36 McAdams: Okay. 37 38 Lee: Your study of the intersection and the corridor which is the 39 recommendation three, is there any funding available to use for this kind 40 of study? Because if you voted on the each the local jurisdictions like the 41 City or County or even NMDOT, they may not be able to identify the 42 additional funding to do it because the average cost of a traffic study at 43 one intersection alone it could be $50,000 to $100,000 it depends on the 44 unit complexity. So if you want, let's say the City wants to do several 45 intersections to the study then we need about $300,000 to maybe worse IJ I case maybe $500,000 the extra money we needed. That's the reason 1 2 want to ask you, is there any funding available? 3 4 McAdams: Mr. Lee. I would defer to Ms. Herrera about that because we don't know 5 of any funding available. 6 7 Herrera: There is a category of federal funding called the Highway Safety 8 Improvement Program so that funds specifically safety projects. Right 9 now we have a back log of safety projects on the books that we've kind of 10 had for quite some time. We've been working through some issues, but 11 that type of funding is available or it will be available once we kind of get 12 through our backlog; to do things like road safety assessments, so on 13 corridors and at specific intersections. So my recommendation I think 14 would be that we need to figure out I think how to prioritize some of these 15 because obviously we can't do everything all at once and so if there's a 16 way to put up some kind of priority on some of these intersections or 17 corridors that's at least one way that we can maybe start moving them 18 forward. But again, that's one source of funding and it's available for all 19 entities and the NMDOT Statewide. So there is quite a bit of competition. 20 The other thing I'll tell you as far as traffic calming and some of the 21 recommendations on Michael's list is in the State Highway Safety Plan 22 there are some approved counter measures for things like traffic calming 23 and other things I'm sure you've seen some of those. So maybe more 24 discussion on that could help this report also. Because I don't think that 25 they're bad recommendations, but I think without some of the backup 26 documentation we don't really know what the intent is I think. 27 28 Lee: Mr. Chair. Can I add a little bit more comment? You know the two 29 prioritize recommendations from my perspective the MPO staff better give 30 us a more prioritize this recommendation instead of you give us the seven 31 different recommendations. I understand that there are specific reasons 32 you guys to not prioritize it, but in terms of the efficiency from my 33 perspective give us the prioritized list based on the available funds or 34 based on the MPO's experience so far. I believe it's going to help. 35 36 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lee. I think that's beyond the capacity of the staff to do that 37 stuff. I think it may be addressed in the MTP, because we have very 38 limited staff and that would probably take the majority of my time for about 39 three or four months maybe. 40 41 Herrera: Mr. Chair. If I can just follow-up on that. I definitely understand that that's 42 an ominous task, but I think if we want to get any of this moved forward, 43 it's going to need to happen. So if it's being addressed through the MTP 44 it's going to be addressed by staff because staff is doing the MTP update 45 so I mean I think that it doesn't have to fall 100% on staff. I think you can 46 bring some recommendations back to the Committees and have us look at 7 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 some things and get input from the jurisdictions, but I definitely think, all of these are important, but we need to figure out how to prioritize, otherwise nothing's going to move forward. McAdams: Mr. Chair, Ms. Herrera. I agree. I think one way we put our priorities thought was using if persons have been killed or severe that would automatically weight it and that would be a good way to prioritize. I think that's a good suggestion. Love: Any other comments? 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: We'll move on to item number seven committee and staff comments. 7.1 City of Las Cruces. Yoder: The City of Las Cruces has nothing at this time. Love: Dona Ana County. Molina: I have pretty good news, in my opinion. We bid Soledad Canyon and we have an apparent low -bidder. We now have a pre -concept for December 18th and we will roll into construction early January. But that's what I have. Thank you. Love: Town of Mesilla. Shannon: Town of Mesilla has nothing at this time. Love: Las Cruces Public Schools. Barham: Thank you Mr. Chair. We continue with our weekly walk to school events through Safe Routes to School. And I know that this coming Wednesday at Sonoma Elementary, they'll be walking to school and hot cocoa will be waiting for them, and you're all invited to that. So if you would like to come, let me know and I'll meet you there. That's all. Love: RoadRUNNER Transit. Bartholomew: Really nothing different than last time. We're still planning on our service expansion where we'll extend weekday hours of service from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. We're probably not going to be able to start it quite as early as we wanted. We were planning in January. We're having difficulties hiring E I drivers. We're having to hire to fill the new positions, plus we've had some 2 turnover with existing staff, so that's kind of been the limiting factor, but 3 right now we're looking at still doing it in late February or early March. For 4 the Electric Bus Project, we hope to have a RFP out on the street in early 5 January for project management for the project manager, we'll help 6 develop the specs for the electric buses and do the coordination for the 7 infrastructure with El Paso Electric. That's all I have. 8 9 Love: South Central RTD is not in attendance. 10 11 7.2 NMDOT Projects Update 12 13 Love: Let's move on to NMDOT Project Updates. 14 15 Herrera: Thank you Mr. Chair. I don't have a specific update from the Project 16 Manager for Valley Drive, but that project is still under construction in case 17 you haven't been by there lately. It's going to be for quite some time, so 18 be careful while you're out there. 19 20 Bartholomew: I had a question. You're supposed to open bids this month for was it 21 University? 22 23 Herrera: That's a good question. Yes. We were supposed to open bids this month 24 for University, however we are having some issues with funding at the 25 Federal level so we're not able to that this month. We're hoping that it's 26 only pushed back for a month, but it's looking more like February/March at 27 this point in time. 28 29 Bartholomew: So that means actual construction will be pushed back? 30 31 Herrera: Will be pushed back, yes, about six months after the actual bid openings. 32 So I mean unfortunately we just keep moving that timeline down. 33 34 Bartholomew: Okay, thank you. 35 36 7.3 MPO Staff Projects Update 37 38 Love: MPO Staff Update. 39 40 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. We're currently in the middle of our first round of 41 public meetings for the Public Input Phase for the Metropolitan 42 Transportation Plan Update. We've had two meetings so far. We have 43 two yet to come. Staff is moderately pleased with the attendance that we 44 have had at both of these meetings so far. Both of the meetings have had 45 increased attendance from the final meetings in the Public Comment 46 Phase for the current MTP, the 2015 MTP, so staff is very pleased about 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 that. Next meeting we have is this coming Monday. It's going to be at Radium Springs and then that will be followed by a meeting a week from today on Thursday. That will be down at the Vado Del Cerro Community Center. That is our final scheduled public meeting that we have before the conclusion of 2018. We will have some more public meetings after the start of 2019 and we will also start our efforts of attending some of the jurisdictional meetings of our member agencies etc. etc. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT Love: Item number eight, public comment. Herrera: Mr. Chair. Sorry. I'm not a member of the public, but I have a question for RoadRUNNER Transit actually and South Central RTD whose not here. What is happening with that joint plan that the two of you were going to undertake? Bartholomew: Basically, based on direction that we've gotten from the City administration, we're going to move forward the City separately, but coordinated with the RTD. But we're not going to do a joint plan as I was talking about before where we would have a single contractor that we would have our contractors do the two plans. And I've been trying to get some more feedback from Dave Harris at the DOT about you know whether it's how they would split it or would they actually give us a little more if we, and still, haven't heard back from him yet. 9. ADJOURNMENT (5:42 PM) Love: And I think we're to item number nine adjournment. Looking for a motion. Bartholomew: I move we adjourn. Garza: Second. Love: All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Love We are adjourned. 10