Loading...
05/12/2021 MPO PC 1 MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 POLICY COMMITTEE 3 4 The following are minutes for the meeting of the Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning 5 Organization (MPO) Policy Committee which was held May 12, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. via 6 Zoom. 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nora Barraza (Town of Mesilla) (arrived 1:12) 9 Trent Doolittle (NMDOT) 10 Councilor Johana Bencomo 11 Trustee Veronica Garcia (Town of Mesilla) 12 Trustee Stephanie Johnson-Burick (Town of Mesilla) 13 Commissioner Manuel Sanchez (DAC) 14 Councilor Gill Sorg (CLC) 15 Councilor Gabriel Vasquez (CLC) 16 17 MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Susana Chaparro (DAC) 18 Commissioner Diana Murillo-Trujillo (DAC) 19 20 STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Wray (MPO staff) 21 Dominic Loya (MPO staff) 22 Michael McAdams (MPO staff) 23 24 OTHERS PRESENT: 25 26 1. CALL TO ORDER (1:00 PM) 27 28 Vasquez: We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Thank you all so 29 much for being here. Let's go ahead and start with the approval ... well 30 actually Andrew if you'd call roll first that'd be great. Thank you. 31 32 Wray: Yes Mr. Chair. I will do so. Just give me one second to bring up my roster. 33 Mayor Barraza. Councilor Bencomo. 34 35 Bencomo: Yes. 36 37 Wray: Commissioner Chaparro. 38 39 Wray: Mr. Doolittle. 40 41 Doolittle: Present. 42 43 Wray: Trustee Garcia. 44 45 Garcia: Present. 46 1 1 Wray: Trustee Johnson-Burick. 2 3 J-Burick: Present. 4 5 Wray: Commissioner Trujillo. Councilor Sorg. 6 7 Sorg: Yes. Here. 8 9 Wray: Mr. Chair. We do have a quorum. 10 11 Vasquez: Okay. Thank you Andrew. And then we'll be holding regular votes for all of 12 our items, including the approval of the agenda and minutes. Been getting 13 some questions from folks around the Open Meetings Act and consent 14 voting. So I just want to stay on the safe side. That might take us a little bit 15 longer, but want to make sure we're all good. 16 17 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 18 19 Vasquez: With that, let's go ahead and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. 20 21 ALL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 22 23 3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY 24 25 Vasquez: At this time does any committee member have any known or perceived 26 conflict of interest with any item on the agenda? Okay, I'm seeing some 27 heads nod no. 28 29 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 30 31 Vasquez: Okay. We'll move on then to public comments. Are there any members of 32 the public that would like to provide public comment at this time? 33 34 Wray: Mr. Chair. I did not receive any public comment related to this meeting. 35 36 Vasquez: Thank you Andrew. I did not either. And if no other committee members 37 did either, then we'll move forward. 38 39 40 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 41 42 Vasquez: We'll move now to item six, approval of the minutes for our last meeting 43 April 14, 2021 . Can I get ... 44 45 Wray: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Sanchez in the chat just notified me that I skipped 46 over his name in the calling of the roll. I apologize Commissioner. And I do 2 1 want to note for the record that Commissioner Sanchez is present here with 2 us. 3 4 Sanchez: Thank you Andrew. I apologize. Thank you Mr. Chair. 5 6 Vasquez: No problem. Thank you Commissioner. Okay, we'll continue with the 7 approval of the minutes. Can I get a motion and a second to approve the 8 minutes please? 9 10 J-Burick: So moved. 11 12 Garcia: Second it. 13 14 Vasquez: Thank you. Andrew, can you call the vote? 15 16 Wray: Mr. Chair. Point of order. We have skipped over the approval of the 17 agenda. 18 19 Vasquez: Apologize for that. Can we rearrange the agenda items? Or no I guess we 20 need to approve the agenda first. Okay. 21 22 Wray: We should probably have the motion on the minutes withdrawn and then do 23 a motion for the agenda first, and then go back to the minutes. 24 25 J-Burick: Chair. I rescind my motion to approve the minutes. 26 27 Vasquez: Thank you. 28 29 Sanchez: I'll move approval of the agenda. 30 31 Garcia: And I'll go ahead and second that motion. 32 33 Vasquez: Thank you Trustee Garcia. Okay Andrew if you call the vote now, please. 34 35 Wray: Yes Mr. Chair. Mayor Barraza have you joined us? Councilor Bencomo. 36 37 Bencomo: Yes. 38 39 Wray: Commissioner Chaparro. Mr. Doolittle. 40 41 Doolittle: Yes. 42 43 Wray: Trustee Garcia. 44 45 Garcia: Yes. 46 3 1 Wray: Trustee Johnson-Burick. 2 3 J-Burick: Yes. 4 5 Wray: Commissioner Sanchez. 6 7 Sanchez: Yes. 8 9 Wray: Commissioner Trujillo. Councilor Sorg. 10 11 Sorg: Yes. 12 13 Wray: Mr. Chair. 14 15 Vasquez: Yes. 16 17 Wray: Mr. Chair. The motion passes. 18 19 Vasquez: Okay great. Thank you so much Andrew. And it looks like Mayor Barraza 20 s with us now. I believe I see her logged on. 21 22 Barraza: Yes I am. Thank you. 23 24 Vasquez: Great. Welcome Mayor. 25 26 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 28 6.1 April 14, 2021 29 30 Vasquez: Okay, we'll move on to the approval of the minutes now. Sorry about 31 skipping the agenda there. Can I get a bus motion and a second? 32 33 J-Burick: So moved. 34 35 Vasquez: Thank you. Can I get a second? 36 37 Sanchez: I'll second. 38 39 Vasquez: Thank you. Andrew, will you call the vote? 40 41 Wray: Yes Mr. Chair. Mayor Barraza. 42 43 Barraza: Yes. 44 45 Wray: Councilor Bencomo. 46 4 1 Bencomo: Yes. 2 3 Wray: Commissioner Chaparro. Mr. Doolittle. 4 5 Doolittle: Yes. 6 7 Wray: Trustee Garcia. 8 9 Garcia: Yes. 10 11 Wray: Trustee Johnson-Burick. 12 13 J-Burick: Yes. 14 15 Wray: Commissioner Sanchez. 16 17 Sanchez: Yes. 18 19 Wray: Commissioner Trujillo. Councilor Sorg. 20 21 Sorg: Yes. 22 23 Wray: Mr. Chair. 24 25 Vasquez: Yes. 26 27 Wray: Mr. Chair. The motion passes. 28 29 Vasquez: Thank you Andrew. 30 31 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 32 33 7.1 2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program Presentation 34 35 Vasquez: We'll move down to discussion items, item 7.1 2022-2027 Transportation 36 Improvement Program presentation. Go ahead Andrew. 37 38 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like at this time to introduce Mr. Dominic Loya 39 who is going to give this presentation. 40 41 Loya: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the Policy Committee. So today 42 we'll be discussing the upcoming 2022-2027 draft Transportation 43 Improvement Program. So on this upcoming TIP there is one new project, 44 which will be a transit project which is TL00150 for software upgrades. 45 There are 14 rollover projects. Those include some of the transit projects, 46 stuff like the University Avenue multimodal project, the Elks Drive multiuse 5 1 trail, and the Las Cruces Lateral multiuse trail. There was one project that 2 NMDOT asked us to go ahead and update and that was 371. They asked 3 us to remove some money from it so that it could go other places. And that 4 was a bridge preservation project. 5 6 So we opened the draft TIP for public comment on April 20th. On May 18th 7 it will be a BPAC action item. On June 3rd it'll be a TAC action item. And 8 then we will close the public comment on May 28th. And then on June 9th 9 it will be a Policy Committee action item for your approval. And it will go 10 into effect on October 1st of this year. Any comments or questions? 11 12 Sorg: Mr. Chair. 13 14 Vasquez: Yes, go ahead Councilor Sorg. 15 16 Sorg: Could we have a little better description on what these projects are? Go 17 back to the list. 18 19 Loya: Yes sir Councilor Sorg, Mr. Chair. They are in your packet on page 20, 21, 20 and 22. So the transit projects are just the assistance revenue rolling stock 21 capital equipment operations maintenance center, and the funds for rolling 22 stock, so the standard transit ones that we see all the time. And then we 23 have, so University Avenue multimodal project is the walking path from Main 24 Street to Avenida de Mesilla with the improvements on the drainage. So 25 that's the Elks Drive multiuse trail is a county project. It is out, I believe it 26 begins right next to Columbia Elementary and goes from there. And then 27 the Las Cruces Lateral multiuse trail was a project that is from the 28 convention center, along the Las Cruces Lateral to somewhere around 29 where Las Cruces Lateral crosses Main Street. 30 31 Sorg: Thank you. 32 33 Vasquez: Thank you Dominic. Are there any other questions or comments for 34 Dominic? Okay, seeing none. Dominic, if that's the end of your 35 presentation, we can move on. 36 37 Loya: Yes sir. That's the end of my presentation. 38 39 Vasquez: Okay, great. Thank you. 40 41 7.2 Picacho Hills Study Area 42 43 Vasquez: Let's move on then to item 7.2, the Picacho Hills Study Area presentation. 44 Andrew or Dominic, go ahead. 45 6 1 Loya: Mr. Chair. I will be presenting this as well. As you know basically after last 2 year after we completed the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Policy 3 Committee asked us to look into the Picacho Hills area. So this is just the 4 initial report after speaking with the governmental entities in the area. So 5 as I said for the process, we begin with the MTP. This is where we had the, 6 because of National Monument, Engler which was supposed to extend out 7 to the airport and Arroyo Road we're both no longer able to do that because 8 the national monument is no go zone. So there was also from the county, 9 they expressed interest in having a study done because there's interest 10 from the community in a second entrance into the Picacho Hills area being 11 done. And then the third factor in this is the Las Cruces International Airport 12 being a regional feature, is the reason why we are doing this. 13 14 So during this process we spoke with the City. In the City we spoke with 15 Public Works, we spoke with Economic Development, and Community 16 Development. In the county we spoke with the county engineering and the 17 county community development. And we spoke with NMDOT. We spoke 18 with Elephant Butte Irrigation District. We also spoke with the BLM. These 19 are all the major stakeholders in the area. So during this process basically 20 three alternatives were discussed. A fourth one was found when we were 21 doing the research to put together the report. So the four alternatives were 22 Boling Lane, Vista del Cerro, Anthem, and Barcelona Ridge. So Boling 23 Lane is the one that was added during the research of this. Vista del Cerro 24 and Anthem are both already on the future thoroughfares plan, as is 25 Barcelona Ridge. But Barcelona Ridge was brought to us by the airport 26 administrator, Mr. Andy Hume. He was one of the suggested this one, 27 which we discussed with all the relevant entities. 28 29 And then the last thing we'll be talking about is the next steps for this. So 30 this is the study area. The study area is outlined in blue. It runs basically 31 from the west side of the Las Cruces International Airport down 1-10, down 32 Highway 70 to Roadrunner lane. It runs just slightly north of Southwind 33 Road, then cuts straight across so that it is where the Engler extension is 34 supposed to go through, and then runs along the National Monument as the 35 last boundary. 36 37 So here what we're seeing this is an elevation map. So as you can see 38 down by the river it is fairly flat. Each one of these color bands between the 39 one end to the other end where it changes colors represents 18 feet of 40 change. So we can see in some areas the color bands are really close 41 together, these are areas that are really steep. We can see some areas it's 42 more spread out so these are more gradual. 43 44 So the first alternative is Boling Lane connecting to Quesenberry Lane. 45 Some of the advantages of it, it's the shortest distance to cover. Some of 46 the disadvantages are it does cross an arroyo, it's across private property, 7 1 Quesenberry Lane in that area is a dirt road, so it would have to be paved. 2 So those are just some of the things. So this is at the end of Boling Lane. 3 As you can see this is where the arroyo is and where that telephone pole 4 is, is where Quesenberry Lane is. So while it is fairly flat, it is across what 5 is a flood zone. It is in the flood rate insurance maps. So this is considered 6 a flood zone. This is Quesenberry Lane, as you can see it's not very wide. 7 It basically follows the telephone poles. Down there it's a dirt road. So it's 8 something that would have to be looked at for right-of-way. So this is the 9 options that were already on the MTP. This is Vista del Cerro extending out 10 basically to somewhere where Engler would connect into Shalem Colony. 11 So this is a slightly longer route. It does have some advantages already on 12 the future thoroughfares map. It does cut across basically what our largest, 13 they are private property but their largest spaces of private property and can 14 follow what is already an easement that is already granted. It looks like 15 there's an electoral easement and a road that follows those lines. 16 17 So this is what the area looks like out there. As you can see there are some 18 flat areas. There are some steep areas. So there's a little bit of issue with 19 grade. So this is actually at the end of Vista del Cerro which you're looking 20 at is up from what is the kind of an arroyo. It's not classified as such though. 21 There are no flood rate insurance maps in this area, but it is clearly a 22 waterway for conveying water. That while at the top of that is exactly where 23 Vista del Cerro ends. And this is looking out across to where the power line 24 easement is, it's actually behind that hill that you see right there in front of 25 you. But this like I said is all across private property. 26 27 So this is the straightest of the routes. This is at the end of Anthem. Again, 28 this is also on the future thoroughfares map, it's a little bit shorter than the 29 Vista del Cerro. It does have though its own issues, there's a lot of 30 topography in this area, the elevation changes tend to be severe. It also 31 does cross as you can see another arroyo. So these are kind of the 32 elevation changes I was talking about. As you can see, in some places it 33 changes 30 to 40 feet rather quickly. And it goes all the way across so it's 34 some fairly rough areas out there. So this is looking at the end where 35 Anthem is, as you can see this is just probably about half a mile away from 36 the end of Anthem, so you can kind of see the difference in the topography 37 out there. As you can see there's some that it does flatten out a little bit, 38 but there's quite a few hills. 39 40 So this is on Highway 70 just looking across the entire area where it would 41 be. If you look slightly right of center there's a pole out there, that is the cell 42 tower. And this will be important because we'll see it later. But as you can 43 see there are quite a few bit of elevation change and that's placed, but this 44 is on the highway 70 side. You can see quite a bit of elevation, so this would 45 be one that would require a lot of engineering. 46 8 1 So this is the end of Barcelona Bridge to Box Canyon. So this was 2 something that was brought up by the airport administrator. So there are a 3 few advantages here, one, this is across BLM land, but not monument land. 4 It's the same thing with Anthem, it is across BLM land. This also does cross 5 jurisdictions; it goes from the county to the City. So there are basically 6 challenges there. And this is also the longest route by far. It does have 7 some advantages though as you see here, along that line it tends to be a 8 little bit, the grade tends to be a little more gradual. And once you get up 9 on top of the mesa it is fairly flat. So there are advantages there for that. 10 So this is the cell tower I was talking about, this is the end of Barcelona 11 Ridge. As you can see the difference in elevation just from Barcelona Ridge 12 to where the cell tower is. So this is a little bit further down the road. As 13 you can see there is quite a bit of topography but it's more gradual in this 14 area. Plus there are areas that are flatter. So this is basically along that 15 alignment as well, as you can see out here it does get a little flatter 16 depending on what direction the actual route chosen to go. This is 17 alongside what is drainage so it can be used as an advantage or it can also 18 end up a disadvantage depending on how much water does go through 19 there. So this is out by the National Monument. This is actually at the end 20 of Box Canyon. And this is somewhere around where the end of Barcelona 21 Ridge would be, that fence does demarcate the National Monument. And 22 as I said you can see it does flatten out once we get up here. 23 24 So this is Box Canyon Road. As you can see, it's fairly flat. It does cross 25 one major drainage. But even with the dirt road the incline is not as much 26 as in some of the other areas, it's fairly easy to traverse. 27 28 So the next steps for this, we're going to put it on a hiatus for now, because 29 of the current situation with COVID-19 because we feel that for a public 30 engagement process to be effective, we need to get everybody in the same 31 room so they can talk about it. Basically, these are not the only options 32 available, these are just four that we've explored so far. So all options are 33 on the table. Those were just what we explored with the public entities. In 34 a public engagement process we were hoping to have one later this year 35 where we can actually meet in person, as I said, and actually discuss with 36 the public with as many of the people in the area about this and to get their 37 feelings on it and to have a good idea of what direction the public would like 38 this to go. 39 40 Then our final steps after we have a public engagement hearing, we will 41 bring this to the committee's and back to the Policy Committee to give our 42 final recommendations on it, and then it will be from there turn it over to the 43 county to see what they would like to do with it and what direction they would 44 like to go. I'll now stand for any questions. 45 9 1 Vasquez: Thank you Dominic. Do we have any questions or comments from 2 members of the committee? 3 4 Barraza: Mr. Chair. 5 6 Vasquez: Yes, Mayor, go ahead. 7 8 Barraza: What is the, from what, approximately what is the length of this trail that 9 we're talking about? It ranges from how far to how far? 10 11 Loya: So depending on what option would be used, the shortest is probably about 12 three quarters of a mile, to the longest is three and a half miles I believe. 13 14 Barraza: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 15 16 Vasquez: Thank you Mayor. Are there other questions or comments at this time? 17 Okay, seeing none. Thank you Dominic. Appreciate that presentation. 18 Look forward to hearing what the public has to say. I think you have some 19 pretty rugged terrain there to figure out what the best connectivity and best 20 route is. So I'll be eager to find out what the public thinks and get this back 21 before the committee. 22 23 7.3 Intersection Safety Study 24 25 Vasquez: With that let's move on then to our next discussion item, which is item 7.3 26 Intersection Safety Study. Andrew or Dominic, go ahead. 27 28 Loya: Mr. Chair. This will be presented by Dr. Michael McAdams. 29 30 McAdams: Yes, I'm here. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am 31 pleased to do the intersection report. There's also a report inside your 32 packet which should detail more detail if you'd like and I'm always ready to 33 answer questions. 34 35 These two intersections, one Lohmann Avenue and Walton Street, and 36 Triviz and Missouri were picked out by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 37 Committee as critical intersections. Lohman and Walton is a very familiar 38 intersection to most of you and you see that Lohman has three travel lanes, 39 two turning lanes, Walton has two turning lanes and one travel lane. There 40 are major generators there, Walmart, McDonald's, sprouts, Big Lots, etc. in 41 this area. The bus stop near McDonald's is one of the most, the highest 42 used bus stop in the RoadRUNNER system. So there is a lot of pedestrian 43 traffic in his area as well. And also one more comment is that many bus 44 patrons have a little bit of hesitancy in crossing this very busy intersection. 45 There have been three crashes and we see pedestrian crashes, some more 46 injuries and other just minor crashes. One was where a person in the south 10 1 part of your picture was turning, hit a pedestrian as they were crossing north 2 on Lohman. Another one was crossing actually south on Lohman, was hit 3 by person in the crosswalk as they were making a left. The other person 4 was going north, hit by a person going in the turn lane. So these are all 5 very, these are typical type of crashes. And I'd like to present some 6 alternatives too. 7 8 These are potential alternatives, they're not, there is a whole toolbox you 9 can look at but these are some things you can do; pedestrian refuges; filled 10 out curbs at intersection; no turn on red for vehicles with pedestrians only 11 allowed signal; longer wait time for a walk type of pedestrian, particularly 12 those with mobility difficulties; passive pedestrian detection monitoring of 13 pedestrian movement via microwave, infrared, radar, pressure mat sensor 14 technology; leading pedestrian signalization intervals recommended two to 15 three seconds before the green light for motorist; distinctive crossings; 16 signage making vehicles aware of pedestrian; raised crosswalk; and a 17 roundabout with pedestrian priorities. 18 19 So here's some more, we're going to talk in detail about some of the minor 20 detail about some of the recommendations for pedestrian. Here's one with 21 a pedestrian refuge on a non-signalized intersection but could also be 22 applied for signalized as well, and this is for a person can go halfway and 23 wait for the oncoming traffic and you notice there are distinctive crossings 24 walk, we'll talk about later, and also distinctive markings for the pedestrian 25 refuge. Curb extensions tend to slow down cars as they're making a turn. 26 That means that they can see the pedestrian instead of the pedestrian 27 walking out in front of them. And you'll notice this is for one with parking but 28 this could also be applied to those intersections that do not have parking on 29 the road. (inaudible) striping is a larger striping, this one in the picture 30 actually has some texture on it. It had been found through studies that 31 people have more attention or motorists have more attention if they see 32 these wide stripes and they can be also colored but that's by I guess 33 according to MUTC regulations to be an option. 34 35 Raised crosswalks is a way to slow traffic but also to make an intersection 36 more distinctive. So people notice, motorists particularly notice the 37 intersection. In this intersection you notice the intersections is all white to 38 really bring out the aspect of the intersection entering the intersection. 39 These are brick crosswalks, but it also would be a raised crosswalk as well. 40 A roundabout with pedestrian combination, there is, you would think it would 41 help pedestrian but actually it's more dangerous to pedestrians at 42 roundabouts. You see areas of accommodation here with the crosswalks 43 which were raise again with brick offset from the intersection. And they're 44 also signage as well to make people aware of pedestrians at the 45 intersection. 46 11 1 The other intersections selected by the BPAC was Missouri Avenue and 2 South Triviz. Again a high crash rate. Missouri and Triviz almost have the 3 same traffic believe it or not, are entering traffic as Walton and Lohman. 4 And it's a very busy intersection. Triviz has one through lane, two turning 5 lanes. Missouri has two travel lanes and two turning lanes and there is a, if 6 you notice there is a multiuse paths on the right hand side and also 7 sidewalks as well, and pedestrian signals or pedestrian activated signals. If 8 you notice some of the same tendencies that happened are occurred and 9 Lohmann and Walton are apparent here too. There is a person who was a 10 motorist who was making a right turn lane, he had bicycles that were 11 crossing. There is one where the bicycle was crossing at the crosswalk and 12 was hit by a person going left, and the other one on the west end side was 13 actually a motorized scooter. And a person was hit because the motorist 14 could not see the motorized scooter. Here are some bicycle 15 recommendations and one would be bicycle signals; only bicycle phases; a 16 bike box; bicycle multiuse trail underpass; leading or protected signalization 17 for bicycles; protective barriers for bicycles; no turn on red for bikes with 18 bicycle allowed to travel on red; separation of bike/pedestrian crossings and 19 roundabouts with bicycle priorities. Here is example of a bicycle signal you 20 notice there is the green for go for the bicycles, and then red and that the 21 same eye level you see for bicycle, that could also be placed on the signal 22 itself. A bicycle or multiuse path underpass is a really radical solution which 23 probably is not warranted with this site but it completely eliminates any 24 conflict with vehicles. A bike box or green bike box with a green bike lane 25 is a way for the bicycles to have a head start to get in the intersection, also 26 gives them more protection as well and makes motorists notice bicyclists as 27 well. 28 29 To protect the intersection is probably the ultimate solution and maybe could 30 be applied at an intersection, but could be applied to other places too. As 31 you can see the bicycle is a refuge or barrier on all four corners with an 32 island. There are distinctive markings. The bicycle timing can also be for 33 bicycles only, actually the bicycle could go inside the intersection, make a 34 U-turn etc. in this kind of situation with allowed signalization. So this is the 35 ultimate, this has been done several places in the United States and in 36 Europe. 37 38 A roundabout and bicycle combination, this is actually from the Netherlands, 39 which is considered like the mecca for bicycle movement and bicycle 40 accommodation. And the bicycle path is all the way around the roundabout. 41 Again there is problem with the bicycles also be more endangered at a 42 roundabout than other situation. It does traffic calm. But according to 43 literature there is not enough data to really say it protects bicyclists more 44 than other intersections. 45 12 1 In summary, you can see there's a lot of different alternatives. So 2 intersection selected shows significant danger to both pedestrians and 3 bicyclists. And this is not just here, this is nationwide. I have to keep on 4 reminding. And it's not a good thing to be known for, but New Mexico is 5 number one per capita pedestrian crashes/fatalities in the nation. We've 6 been that way for about three years. So we have many pedestrian places, 7 well places in Las Cruces are dangerous for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 8 Other intersections in the Las Cruces area so similar problems. The 9 potential alternative need be tailored for the intersection with the (inaudible) 10 engineer. This is just sort of a broad brush. We dealt down a little, or we 11 went down a little bit deeper to see about some of the crash causes. But 12 really to look at these things further we have to look at right-of-way, 13 intersections, signal times, etc. to really get down for the appropriate action 14 for the intersection and make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. I'll now 15 for any questions and I'd be pleased to answer them. 16 17 Vasquez: Thank you Mr. McAdams. Do we have any questions or comments from 18 the committee? 19 20 Barraza: Mr. Chair. I do have a question. 21 22 Vasquez: Yes, go ahead Mayor. 23 24 Vasquez: So I know on Lohman and Walton that is a very busy intersection. Being so 25 close to the interstate, is that one of the reasons why there's such an 26 increase of traffic and the road is so wide. I mean how many lanes is it 27 across if you include all the lanes, eight, nine. 28 29 McAdams: Mr. Chair and Mayor Barraza. It would be two turn lanes and three, yes 30 about seven or eight. It's a very intimidating place for pedestrians and I 31 imagine and also for bicyclists. One of the problems in that area is that 32 there's the interchange and all the intersections that are there does have a 33 tendency to slow down traffic. It is one of the most highest crash areas for 34 the entire City including in motor vehicles. It is treacherous for both 35 motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians. But pedestrians and bicyclists are 36 more vulnerable than say a motorist. So I think that the delay at those 37 intersections are definitely playing into tendency, and it's also because the 38 land use in the area has been concentrated as well. But that's a very good 39 question, Mayor Barraza. 40 41 Barraza: Okay, thank you Mr. McAdams. And then also you know I hate to say it but 42 a lot is educating pedestrians and bicyclists. Because even bicyclists don't 43 adhere to the rules. When there's a red light that means stop, just because 44 there's no traffic doesn't mean you can cross. So a lot is going to be 45 educating bicyclists and pedestrians alike. Thank you. 46 13 1 McAdams: Thank you too. 2 3 Vasquez: Thank you Mayor Barraza. Are there other questions or comments? I see 4 Commissioner Sanchez. Go ahead. 5 6 Sanchez: Thank you Chair Vasquez. I just wanted, I think to along the same vein as 7 Mayor Barraza, I think this intersection, Lohmann and Walton is one that I 8 think we've consistently discussed here on the MPO. And understandably 9 it's given how large it is. So you know I think it'd be interesting to see what 10 else can be done. I know Dr. McAdams had kind of mentioned a few items 11 or a few possible suggestions. But I know that's got to be one of the most, 12 the busiest intersections in the City. I think the one that did surprise me, 13 and I don't know, Dr. McAdams, you mentioned Triviz and Missouri. Is the 14 data you're looking at, is it delayed as we typically look at we're looking 15 behind a couple of years? 16 17 McAdams: Yes, Mr. Chair, Mr. Sanchez. Yes, that is true, it is 2018 data. Always the 18 data is behind because of DOT reporting. But the only recent data we have 19 2019, I haven't started to explore that yet. But that's one of the problems 20 we'll always have. So we can't be up to date. But we do get sometimes 21 reports from police departments as well. But with intersections like that with 22 bicycle and pedestrians and with vehicles, because one time it has a crash 23 one year, may not mean it is the other at the other year, some of this is very 24 sporadic. So there is I agree with you completely. We would like to get very 25 up to date crash data. But that is the nature of the game. So we are sort 26 of looking backwards. But we'd like to improve that. Thank you very much. 27 28 Sanchez: Thank you Dr. McAdams. And the reason I ask is because I know there 29 was the project, the construction that had been going on, particularly in that 30 intersection. And that was kind of my, I was curious whether the data would 31 have reflected that. But it sounds like if it was for 2018 that would have 32 been before the construction project had begun at that overpass. Thank 33 you Dr. McAdams. Thank you Chair Vasquez. 34 35 Vasquez: Thank you Commissioner Sanchez. Councilor Bencomo. 36 37 Bencomo Thank you Chair Vasquez. And thank you for the presentation. This is very 38 good. Thank you. I very much appreciate learning these more technical 39 aspects. I guess my question is sort of what happens now. Now that you've 40 studied these, now you're presenting them to us, what's the next steps? 41 42 McAdams: Mr. Chair, Ms. Bencomo. I think the next step is that the different jurisdiction 43 in this place, the City of Las Cruces has to call upon the Public Works 44 department to see if they can prescribe some improvements, and we'd be 45 glad to work with them. But the MPO is only a recommending body and we 46 are not an implementing body. So we really appreciate when we could 14 1 cooperate with those that do, would be Public Works department. So that's 2 really the next step is for Commissioners and Councilors to talk to Public 3 Works to see what we can do about them. We'd be glad to partner with 4 them to see what we can do about these two intersections and others. 5 6 Bencomo That's good to know. Have you been in contact with Public Works yet? 7 8 McAdams: Yes we have. But we haven't received very much comment on these two 9 situations or any kind of intersection improvements. 10 11 Bencomo Okay, perhaps I will discuss that with Chair Vasquez and we can sort of 12 figure out a way to mention this in our public comments at our next Council 13 meeting. I think it's timely and it's important given the statistics that you 14 have shared with us for sure. Do you have, I'm looking through my packet 15 right now, is there sort of an estimated cost for some of these measures 16 somewhere? 17 18 McAdams: I mean no. Mr. Chairman, Councilor Bencomo. We don't really have a cost 19 because there's a whole range of solutions that can be done for these. And 20 really you have to get down to a very ground level to (inaudible) right-of-way 21 and traffic movements, etc. And so we can choose from these set of 22 recommendations and others to do something to ameliorate the situation, 23 make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. So the cost may be very low 24 from a spectrum from signalization changes, you see a leading life of 25 bicyclists is something very expensive, like the underpass or that's really 26 beyond the pale. But stuff like corners etc. But compared to complete 27 intersection overhauls and bridges, these are very low cost things to do to 28 help improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. And we'd be glad to 29 explore with public works a cost, you know this is alternative to get down to 30 really a comparison project by project. 31 32 Bencomo That makes sense. Thank you. And at the end of the day I think pedestrian 33 safety should be your main priority, right. And I think, yes taking those costs 34 into effect, but at the end of the day this intersection is not pedestrian 35 friendly, it just is not. And I think it's important that we spend the 36 infrastructure and the resources on making sure that we want to live in a 37 walkable City and a bikeable City and you can't put all the responsibility on 38 pedestrians and bicyclists, we have to take some of that responsibility in 39 ensuring their safety. And so I think this is very important so I appreciate 40 the work that you've done on this and bringing it forth. Thank you. 41 42 McAdams: Thank you. I appreciate your emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety. 43 44 Vasquez: Thank you. Thank you Councillor Bencomo. Thank you Mr. McAdams. I 45 believe Mr. Doolittle has his hand raised. Go ahead. 46 15 1 CT Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to expand a little bit on what Mr. 2 McAdams just talked about. So as an engineer I know it's important for you 3 all as our elected officials and representatives to coordinate with your staff. 4 But just keep in mind that something like this would require some sort of 5 study, some sort of more detailed analysis. What Mr. McAdams just shared 6 is just a very general discussion. There is some data analysis, for instance 7 the crashes, but a roundabout you're going to need to look at right-of-way. 8 When you start looking at signal timing, for some of those other activities 9 that he mentioned, what does that do to the adjacent intersections and 10 backing up vehicular traffic. So I agree with the Councilor that pedestrian 11 safety needs to be a priority. But for us as a department, for instance, 12 signing is very cheap. It's very easy to put in. It provides some public 13 awareness and education, the average person is sitting in the car to watch 14 for pedestrians, those kinds of things, flashing lights. So just keep in mind 15 when you approach your Public Works employees and staff it's probably 16 more comprehensive than just implementing these measures. There really 17 needs to be an analysis to make sure that it's not affecting traffic adjacent 18 to. The mayor talked about the interstate. So those kinds of things. I only 19 bring that up because as an engineer it's not as easy as putting in a sign. 20 It's not something that takes place overnight. So I just wanted to share that 21 with you all that it may take a little bit longer than some of us would expect. 22 So thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. 23 24 Vasquez: Thank you Mr. Doolittle. Again thank you Dr. McAdams. Yes, both of these 25 intersections are in my district. I think we've talked about both of these in 26 the past. And we I think even discuss the potential for an overhead 27 pedestrian bridge at one point on Lohman and Walton. And so I do have a 28 request, Mr. Wray and Mr. McAdams, if you don't mind sending this 29 PowerPoint presentation, to myself and Councilor Bencomo with notes 30 about what was discussed today, maybe just a couple of short bullet points. 31 I would like to get a meeting on the books with our Public Works director, 32 with you Mr. Wray and Mr. McAdams to discuss moving forward with 33 recommendations for prioritizing a pedestrian safety project that Mr. 34 Doolittle as you mentioned is in line also with controlling vehicular traffic. 35 But I think in addition to the safety issues that are present here, you have 36 two major retail centers, Big Lots and Walmart, as well as that McDonald's, 37 which is heavily frequented, that I'm just going to go out in the limb and say 38 that are frequented right by folks who typically need obviously cheap goods 39 or items that are affordable. And the folks that are crossing right between 40 this bus stop or between McDonald's or the Walmart oftentimes may be in 41 the category of not having vehicular transportation, right. And so they can't 42 afford to be a vehicle on the road, or they choose not to. But it's important 43 that we provide, especially that segment of the population, with a dignified 44 pedestrian walkway that is safe, that doesn't make them feel unwelcome in 45 this particular intersection. Because I have seen it many times where you 46 cross this super long intersection and you just get stared down by all those 16 1 cars because there's just this societal or cultural thing that we have where 2 people in cars look down at pedestrians, right, especially if you're with a 3 stroller and you got kids and people start questioning your life choices. It's 4 a whole thing that just does not contribute to the quality of life and psyche 5 that we want to create for all of our residents. And so beyond the public 6 safety piece on this for me, it's also an issue of dignity. And so I think we 7 have to make sure that we do something at this intersection in particular, 8 but also at Triviz and Missouri where we do have that running path that is 9 also heavily used by folks who are on bicycles,jogging, with pets, and other 10 types of activities. With that said, Andrew, if we can get that e-mail out. 11 12 Wray: Before we move on from this item if I could add two other things. MPO staff 13 is going to be giving a presentation on these items to the Board of County 14 Commissioners on May 25th, and then at the City Council work session on 15 June 28th. So just everybody be aware that your jurisdictional governing 16 bodies are going to be hearing more of this in the immediate future. 17 18 Vasquez: Thank you Andrew. I appreciate that and appreciate getting that e-mail so 19 we can make sure that at least our Public Works department knows that 20 Councilor Bencomo and myself are looped into this conversation. Councilor 21 Sorg I think your hand is raised. Or are you telling me to stop in the name 22 of love? I don't know. 23 24 Sorg: No. Good call though. I like that. No, I'd like to be included too. But 25 discussion of Walton and Lohman intersection, and the comment that 26 somebody brought up the fact that why are there so many problems with 27 that intersection for pedestrians, etc. And Dr. McAdams did mention 28 something about zoning. I couldn't help but come to mind to compare 29 another intersection in the City that is just about as busy as this one, and 30 that is at Elks and Main Street. The traffic there at Main Street there is pretty 31 heavy. And, okay what's the difference? Maybe we don't have as many 32 pedestrian accidents there. I don't know. It's something that that you'll have 33 to tell me staff. But the difference is that there isn't nearly as many 34 businesses at Elks and Triviz I should say, both at Main Street than there is 35 at Walton. Which comes to mind to me that shows that we have built this 36 City in which we concentrate all commercial in certain locations in the City 37 by zoning. And this is something we want to for planning in the future we 38 want to try to avoid that and so we have a more mixed use zoning in places 39 like these intersections are near. So it's a good lesson for all of us to learn 40 that. We don't want to concentrate all the commercial retail in certain areas. 41 But that doesn't mean we can't make the intersection safe for gosh sakes. 42 Yes. We need to do something there to make them safer. I walk across, 43 actually I don't do Walton and Lohman so much. I'm sure I did it once in my 44 life. But I have crossed Main Street at Elks and I know exactly what you're 45 talking about Chairman Vasquez. They do look down on you. I hide my 17 1 eyes from them. I'm crossing this street. I've got a walk sign. So I've got 2 it. Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. 3 4 Vasquez: Thank you Councilor Sorg. Mayor Barraza. 5 6 Barraza: I just want to add one more thing that we haven't really discussed is 7 especially on the intersection of Lohman and Walton is the homelessness 8 that occurs in those corners that they do run across the cars if someone's 9 giving a donation or something that they'll dash in front of vehicles also, 10 wherever they can get that donation. So I don't know how we're going to 11 make those corners safe for the homelessness problem that we're 12 encountering in the City. But I I'm definitely very concerned with Lohman 13 and Walton, but also Missouri and Triviz as that is more a college, I see it 14 more college students exercising and walking and riding their bicycles and 15 their scooters and their skateboards all across that intersection. So thank 16 you Mr. Chair. 17 18 Vasquez: Thank you Mayor Barraza. Okay. If there's no other comments or 19 questions, we'll go ahead and move on. 20 21 7.4 Transportation Project Fund Presentation 22 23 Vasquez: Let's go ahead and move on to item number 7.4 the Transportation Project 24 Fund presentation. Andrew, go ahead. 25 26 Wray: Dominic Loya will be presenting on this item. 27 28 Vasquez: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead Dominic. 29 30 Loya: Thank you Mr. Chair. Good afternoon again ladies and gentlemen of the 31 Policy Committee. So today we'll be talking about the Transportation 32 Project Fund. This was formerly known as the Local Government 33 Transportation Projects Fund. This is done by the state legislature. So they 34 are bringing this forward. The funding period opened basically right at the 35 end of April. So we're going to go ahead and it's going to be a very 36 abbreviated process for this. So the types of eligible projects are 37 environmental and other studies, planning projects, design projects, 38 construction and acquisitions of rights-of-way for specific transportation 39 infrastructure. So these are the five categories that will be considered for 40 this fund. So in the application process, a corporate letter is required, it 41 needs to have an overview of the project. If there's an intent to apply for a 42 hardship waiver for waiving of the match, what the timeframe of the project 43 is, the verification that the funding to complete the work, and then a project 44 category. So there are two project categories. One is locally owned rights- 45 of-way that do not include federal funds. So no federal funds can be 18 1 included with it. The other one is NMDOT owned or national highway 2 system route. 3 4 So the cover letter is the first thing and that was just went into the cover 5 letter. You also have to put the category that it's in the category of the 6 project, the project feasibility form, there's a 5% match. They'll need a map 7 to the location, and then a letter of support from the owners of the project 8 right-of-way if it is not owned by the local entity. So if it's NMDOT owned, 9 and a local entity wants to do a project on it, they have to speak with 10 NMDOT and have a letter of support from NMDOT. 11 12 So as I said this is going to be a very abbreviated process. It is due to 13 NMDOT on June 15th. So unfortunately because of that we can only accept 14 projects till June 4th so that we have time to review them. And the only 15 committee we will be able to bring them to is June 9th. June 9th to the 16 Policy Committee as an action item. Because of this basically in the 17 overview letter, these are for projects that are ready to go right now for this. 18 They are looking at hopefully keeping this going. But this year is a year 19 where they have quite a bit of money, and they're looking for a lot of 20 projects. I will now stand for comments or questions. 21 22 Vasquez: Thank you Dominic. Are there any comments or questions? Councilor 23 Sorg, do you still have your hand up? 24 25 Sorg: I didn't have my hand up. But I do have to say something. 26 27 Vasquez: Great. Go ahead. 28 29 Sorg: Dominic, do we have projects that are listed already and we can choose 30 from? 31 32 Loya: We have not received any projects at this point. 33 34 Sorg: So there's nothing in the MPO that would fit this then that we been talking 35 about in the past? 36 37 Loya: None of the projects Councilor that I know of with would fit this. 38 39 Sorg: What about our intersection ones we talked about just now? 40 41 Loya: Those are something that would qualify because there are study. So that 42 would have to be put together by one of the Public Works departments at 43 whichever entity was looking to do it. That's something that could be done. 44 So in this case, unless there was a project already ready to go with the 45 engineering already done on it, for construction looking for funding, then 46 you could put in for funding for it. But they did leave fairly wide berth for 19 1 being able to do something on a project. Also, which I didn't put in the slide, 2 if it's a project is phased and going into the next phase of a project, that 3 could also be applied for funding for that project, as long as it has no federal 4 funds in it. 5 6 Sorg: Okay. Thank you. 7 8 Vasquez: Thank you Councilor Sorg. Other questions or comments from the 9 committee? Mr. Doolittle, go ahead. 10 11 Doolittle: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to, Councilor Sorg kind of touched on it. 12 I just wanted to reiterate that it does help if it has been vetted through the 13 MPO process. So that my understanding is they're going to do very similar 14 to what they did with the last funding opportunity is they are going to have 15 each district engineer and district staff review all of the applications from 16 their municipalities, and then we then would provide either an e-mail or 17 vocal support of the projects that we recommend. And that can be based 18 on phasing, that can be based on previous history with that municipality to 19 determine whether they're effectively using the money that we're giving 20 them, whether it's appropriately managed, those kinds of things. But I will 21 say that it is extremely helpful and it allows us to be more supportive if it has 22 been vetted through the MPO process, and that it's a priority for the region, 23 not just for that specific municipality. So it'd be the same thing with anybody 24 that's in an RPO, for instance. So just keep that in mind. Continue to 25 communicate with Andrew and his staff. But it does need to be shovel 26 ready, and I want to reinforce that it can be any process in project 27 development, it does not have to be construction. So you talked about a 28 study phase for the intersections, that's possible but keep in mind you only 29 have a month to get that ready to go. And that would include RFP 30 information, those kinds of things but it can be any phase of a project 31 development or construction. Thank you Mr. Chair. 32 33 Wray: Mr. Chair. If I can have a follow up to Mr. Doolittle's comment that I need to 34 give to the Policy Committee. What Mr. Doolittle said is correct. 35 Unfortunately, and we didn't say this in the presentation, we should have, 36 due to a change in the way that an NMDOT is interpreting the 37 Transportation Project Fund law, projects that already have federal funding 38 in them are not eligible for TPF funding. And it seems like the interpretation 39 from DOT is going to be not eligible at all. So in light of that, because MPO 40 specializes in federalized projects, by and large that's what we do, we don't 41 really do non federalize projects, there's not going to be any projects that 42 have really been vetted by MPO staff that are going to be eligible for this 43 particular call for projects. I apologize to the committee. I am going to 44 editorialize just a little bit, the MPO's around the state of New Mexico, were 45 not very pleased with how this call for projects rollout went forward. We did 46 send up several letters of protest. And this is going to be an ongoing item 20 1 of discussion and hopefully negotiation and working out a better process for 2 years to come. I know that we're going to be talking about it at the MPO 3 quarterly next month. So hopefully this year will be an aberration, and next 4 year we'll have a smoother and more regularized process that will be more 5 utilitarian for our member jurisdictions to be able to access and utilize this 6 funding going forward. 7 8 Doolittle: Mr. Chair. Can I just add a little bit to that? 9 10 Vasquez: Yes of course. Go ahead Trent. 11 12 Doolittle: Thank you Mr. Chair. So I agree with Andrew in his statement that it's a 13 very accelerated schedule, some of the things that we're requiring this year 14 I don't expect to be the norm. Part of that is the timeline that was given to 15 us by our legislative officials when it came to that funding category to get 16 that money spent and on the road as quickly as we can this year. I think 17 once we get through this process the future years won't be as restrictive. 18 19 I have a follow up question for Andrew regarding projects vetted through the 20 MPO that have federal funding. We as a department have projects that are 21 programmed with federal funding. But this year for instance we received 22 some House Bill 2 money, and I'll talk about that a little bit when I have my 23 presentation. But we received House Bill 2 money and we now are in the 24 process of de-obligating the federal portion to fully fund that with House Bill 25 2 money. So I guess Andrew I have a question. If the region and the MPO 26 has a priority project that's currently obligated with partial or all federal 27 funding, would there be an opportunity to change that should the 28 municipality elect to move forward with an application for this transportation 29 fund? 30 31 Wray: Mr. Chair, Mr. Doolittle. I hadn't thought about that. So you'll have to bear 32 with me for just a second as I kind of turn that over in my mind. The initial 33 problem that I could potentially see with that, and I don't know that it would 34 necessarily be a prohibitive problem, but in order to de-obligate a project 35 we would need to do a TIP amendment I believe, which in this instance for 36 this year's call for projects, we are now not going to have time for. At least 37 that's my just off the cuff interpretation. Now, it might be possible, and this 38 is actually something that the general office in Santa Fe, because I know 39 it's a different, the part of NMDOT that we usually interact with is the transit 40 and rail section and planning. And this is being handled by a completely 41 different branch of NMDOT that we do not engage with any really great 42 degree of regularity. So the general office would have to probably be the 43 ones that would weigh in on that in the final analysis as to whether that 44 would be allowable or not. But I think in principle it would be if the de- 45 obligation could take place. My concern is more of a practical one of I don't 21 1 know that that de-obligation could take place in time. If that's answering 2 your question. 3 4 Doolittle: It is. Mr. Chair and Andrew. I agree with you. We have the same type of 5 problems when we have to amend our STIP, because our Transportation 6 Commission only allows us to do that every quarter and fiscal year funding 7 constraints. I only bring that up because we've done that, especially with 8 future year funding and that's just something kind of thinking outside the box 9 for our partners in the MPO to maybe consider if that's their only shelf ready 10 project is one that's currently federally funded, maybe we try to fund it with 11 state and move that money somewhere else. Just something to think about. 12 Just trying to encourage us to think outside the box so that we can get as 13 much money of that down here as we can. Thank you Mr. Chair. 14 15 Wray: Mr. Chair. What I will do is I will reach out to NMDOT general office with 16 that specific question. I don't believe that the obligation process was any 17 part of the FAQs that were sent out. I don't think that question came up. 18 So I will follow up, I will send an inquiry to the general office and ask them 19 what their opinion about that is. Again, I mean, I think if nothing else this 20 will hopefully be useful for future years for this type of thing. I don't think it's 21 going to be practical to be able to implement this year just because we've 22 got two and a half weeks before we have to have any projects in for STIP 23 but I will follow up on this. 24 25 Vasquez: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Doolittle. Thank you Andrew. Okay, seeing no 26 other questions or comments. We'll move one. 27 28 Sorg: Just a quick. 29 30 Vasquez: Yes. 31 32 Sorg: Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. 33 34 Vasquez: Go ahead Councilor. 35 36 Sorg: Andrew, can you send a copy of that letter from NMDOT as an attachment 37 in an e-mail, please? 38 39 Wray: I will rescind the letter and FAQ sheet around to the Policy Committee at 40 the same time as I send around the PowerPoint tomorrow. 41 42 Sorg: Okay. Thank you. 43 44 Vasquez: Thank you Andrew. Thank you Councilor. 45 46 7.5 Joint Powers Agreement Re-Negotiation Update 22 1 2 Vasquez: We'll move on now to item 7.5, the Joint Powers Agreement renegotiation 3 update. Go ahead Andrew. 4 5 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. I am currently in active conversations with CLC legal 6 about the draft version of the JPA. I have as of yet not received their formal 7 response. So I'm not able to comment. And in fact I really don't know what 8 their formal response is. I can kind of guess from a couple of questions 9 they've asked, but I don't know, so I'm just going to err on the side of caution 10 and not say anything. That response from the City of Las Cruces I'm 11 expecting literally at any time. When I have that I will immediately get in 12 touch with the JPA subcommittee, let them know what the City's response 13 is. And we will go on from there. So hopefully we're going to be making 14 some steps forward again here in the very near future. And that concludes 15 my presentation. 16 17 Vasquez: Thank you Andrew. Any questions or comments for Andrew on that? Okay, 18 seeing none, 19 20 7.6 NM DOT Update 21 22 Vasquez: Let's move on to item 7.6, NMDOT update. Mr. Doolittle. 23 24 Doolittle: Thank you Mr. Chair. Brief updates on our current ongoing projects. The 25 University/I-25 project, if you've driven through there they have made a 26 huge amount of progress just in the past month. We've set the girders over 27 1-25 for the eastbound University projects. They've done the deck 28 placement. So that bridge is in the process of being finalized. We're 29 supposed to set girders over the Triviz bridge in the next couple of weeks. 30 Actually I think they were setting those this week. We had a little bit of delay 31 getting those delivered. But I think those were actually set yesterday and 32 today. So they'll start the deck placement on the bridge over the Triviz. And 33 then once they get that done, you'll start to see some work underneath those 34 bridges tying in the two existing roundabouts. Once that happens you'll start 35 to see how the flow of traffic is actually going to work once those start tying 36 in. We're still expecting a late summer or early fall completion date. We're 37 currently negotiating time with the contractor because we had some delays 38 because of COVID shutdown, those kinds of things, nothing on the fault of 39 the department or the contractor at this point, it's just one of those 40 consequences of the pandemic that we're experiencing. 41 42 The other one I wanted to touch on briefly is the New Mexico 404/1-10 43 project, that's the Anthony Gap. We haven't been at it very long, but that 44 contractor's working well to get the new bridges put in. I'll provide you all 45 updates as we move forward, mostly for traffic changes. That interchange 23 1 will never be closed, but we'll shift the detours around a little bit. But that 2 that project's still about a year out before we get finished with that one. 3 4 And then the other one that's just a little bit outside of the MPO area that I 5 wanted you all to be aware of. If you've traveled 1-25 between Rincon and 6 Hatch, you'll notice there that the soils move around a lot and it gets really 7 wavy and rough. We kind of have a joke here at the department that we 8 call it the Rincon rapids, just because it just moves around a lot. We have 9 a reconstruction project to stabilize those soils and do basically full 10 reconstruction of that stretch of 1-25. That project is scheduled to start June 11 1st. We've been under suspension while we've been waiting for materials 12 to come in. So you'll start to see a little bit of construction out there, again 13 outside the MPO area but extremely important for our freight and 14 commuters that travel that 1-25 corridor. 15 16 And then the last one I wanted to touch on not project but funding update. 17 I had a meeting with executive staff to include the secretary last week to 18 finalize our House Bill 2 projects and our bonding capacity projects. So 19 ultimately through House Bill 2 District 1 received $23 million of extra 20 money. We're going to do a little bit of upgrade to our facilities internally. 21 We're going to do a study on US 60 in Socorro. That's the road that runs 22 from Socorro to Magdalena, to widen that out near the rodeo and soccer 23 complex. Anybody who's been to San Antonio on 1-25 just south of Socorro, 24 that interchange is extremely unsafe. We're going to do a study there. 25 26 The other one, mayor, Mayor Barraza this is one that you continue to 27 communicate with me about is our 1-10 corridor. So we're going to do a 28 deep mill and inlay on 1-10 just east of Lordsburg. We're going to 10 miles 29 of that for about $16 million. That one we're actually expediting the design; 30 I mean the advertisement and that will bid in June. So you'll see 31 construction out there sometime in the fall. 32 33 And then through our bonding capacity, we have three projects. The only 34 one that's in this area is 1-25, milepost 14 of the 24. So that's just north of 35 Radium Springs for about 10 miles. Anybody that's driven out there 36 recognizes the payment's falling apart. I really want to compliment Senator 37 Steinborn and Representative Small, that's been on their radar for a long 38 time and we're finally getting the money to do that. That's $12 million. 39 40 And then we've got two projects on 1-10, again one in the Lordsburg area, 41 just west of Lordsburg, and then one just west of Deming. The bonding 42 capacity money that District 1 is receiving is $38.3 million. So to put that in 43 perspective, our normal annual STIP for all of construction for District 1 is 44 about $30 million. We're going to double that, actually triple that over the 45 course of the next year to 18 months. So very, very productive and 46 successful session for the department and District 1. But you're going to 24 1 see a lot of work on our interstate corridors with these two funding 2 categories. With that, Mr. Chair, I don't think I have anything else. But I'm 3 certainly happy to answer any questions you all may have. 4 5 Vasquez: Thank you Mr. Doolittle. Mayor Barraza go ahead. 6 7 Barraza: Thank you Mr. Chair. Andrew, thank you so much for working 1-10 for the 8 Easter holiday. We went to Arizona and I'm like there's some work done. 9 But dang part of it is just pretty bad around the Lordsburg area. So I'm very 10 happy to hear that. Thank you. And then I just wanted to see if you could 11 put it on your work orders on Avenida de Mesilla Highway 28 and 292, that 12 really needs to be painted, the arrow, you know turning left to 292 is 13 completely faded, and the pedestrian crossing over, all that needs to be 14 repainted. 15 16 Doolittle: Okay thank you. Thank you. 17 18 Barraza: No thank you. I appreciate it. And then I continue getting those updates on 19 the University Avenue project. I am just so excited about that project. I only 20 have one question. Are the utilities going to go underground, there, all those 21 poles are there? Are they scheduled to go underground or are they leaving 22 them there? 23 24 Doolittle: Mayor Barraza. At this point I don't know. I haven't been involved in the 25 actual plan reviews. I will try to get an answer for you. 26 27 Barraza: Okay. I appreciate it. And then when you have some time when we can 28 schedule a discussion regarding those school flashers on 28. 29 30 Doolittle: Yes ma'am. That's one of those things that with COVID it just completely 31 fell off my radar. But I agree with you, we need to make a commitment as 32 a community to get that resolved before school starts back up in August. 33 34 Barraza: I agree. Okay. Thank you. 35 36 Doolittle: And Mayor, just so you know, my staff is currently in the process, actually I 37 think the invite came out today. We do have a coordination meeting with 38 the Town of Mesilla, I think it's next week or maybe the following. But 39 anyway we'll have our annual coordination meeting with you and your staff 40 here pretty quick. 41 42 Barraza: Fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you for all that you all do and the 43 Department of Transportation Trent. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair thank 44 you. 45 25 1 Vasquez: Thank you Mayor. Thank you again Mr. Doolittle. Not seeing any other 2 further comments or questions. 3 4 8. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 5 6 Vasquez: So we'll move on now to committee members update. Do any members of 7 the committee have an update at this time or other staff comments? 8 Andrew. 9 10 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. 11 12 Barraza: Mr. Chair. 13 14 Wray: No, I'll defer to Mayor Barraza. 15 16 Barraza: No, I just want to say, Mr. Chair. I'm so heartbroken that I read about you 17 and Councilor Sorg not running for reelection. I want you to know I'm very 18 heartbroken about that. 19 20 Vasquez: Well Mayor thank you. I appreciate that. But you won't see the last of me 21 at least. Councilor Sorg is going to move to Bermuda and play golf and 22 study the crabs or something down there on the beach, but I'll still be 23 around. 24 25 Barraza: Well I know I have your direct personal (inaudible) so I'll know how to get a 26 hold of you. But it just breaks my heart to know that you're not running for 27 reelection, you and Councilor Sorg both. 28 29 Sorg: Thank you Mayor. I appreciate that a lot. 30 31 Barraza: We've been on committees together for so long Councilor Sorg that you will 32 definitely be missed. 33 34 Sorg: Thank you. 35 36 Vasquez: Thank you for that Mayor. You still got to stick with us for a couple months 37 so not so fast. But thank you. I appreciate the sentiment Mayor. Trent, did 38 you have another comment? 39 40 Doolittle: Just one comment for Councilor Sorg. I think Councilor Sorg on your bucket 41 list before you leave, should be transferring US 70/Picacho to the City. 42 43 Sorg: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. The City does not want that. 44 45 Doolittle: Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate you allowing me to humor Councilor 46 Sorg. 26 1 2 Vasquez: No problem. Thank you Trent. Andrew, go ahead. 3 4 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. For MPO staff I've got three updates that I need to 5 inform the committee of. First and by far most important is with the consent 6 of Chair Vazquez we are going to be resuming in person meetings for all 7 the MPO committees. This is going to start with next week's BPAC meeting 8 and then proceeding on from there. We will be continuing forward with in 9 person meetings for all of the committee's unless there's a new public health 10 order that re-restricts our ability to meet in person. With the current 11 thresholds that the state government has set, we're able to have all of our 12 committee members together and still have room available for members of 13 the public to attend and still be within compliance of the public health orders. 14 So we felt that it was time to go ahead and make that transition. That being 15 said, virtual participation both for committee members and for members of 16 the public will still be available. I mean it's always been the case that 17 members of the public can e-mail staff before or after the meetings to 18 express public comment, that's still going to be available. Our committee 19 meetings are still all going to be live streamed, so the members of the public 20 can watch it live and submit comments during that time if they feel more 21 comfortable. Also members of our committees will still be able to do virtual 22 participation if they feel more comfortable in doing so. But again I want to 23 emphasize the June Policy Committee meeting will be in person at Dona 24 Ana County at 1:00 p.m., I don't have a calendar in front of me, but at the 25 second Wednesday of the month. Does anybody have any questions about 26 that before I move on to the next update? 27 28 Sorg: Well, so what you're trying to say is that we're Policy, we're not quite a board 29 yet, we're still committee right? 30 31 Wray: The name change hasn't gone through yet. No. 32 33 Sorg: Yes. Okay. But the JPA. So next month, the committee will meet in person, 34 is that what you're trying to say, our committee here? 35 36 Wray: Yes. Councilor Sorg. 37 38 Sorg: That'll be in the county government building. 39 40 Wray: Yes. Yes, it will be at the county. 41 42 Sorg: Okay. All right. 43 44 Vasquez: For anyone who wishes to still participate via the WebEx forum, they're still 45 free to do that. But if you would like to participate in person, I think that 46 would be just fine. Thank you Councilor. Andrew go ahead. 27 1 2 Wray: Thank you Mr. Chair. 3 4 Doolittle: Mr. Chair. I'm sorry Mr. Chair. Can I just make one comment on that 5 concerning me? 6 7 Vasquez: Yes. 8 9 Doolittle: So at this point in time, even though the governor's restrictions seem to be 10 allowing additional things we as State DOT employees have certain 11 restrictions. So I'll certainly keep in touch with you and with Andrew. But 12 that may be one of those that even though I feel comfortable, I may not have 13 a choice but to participate virtually just based on guidance from the 14 secretary's office. 15 16 Vasquez: No problem Trent. Thank you for letting us know in advance. 17 18 Wray: All right Mr. Chair, thank you. The next thing that I want to update everybody 19 on is the currently ongoing Transportation Alternative Program, 20 Recreational Trails Program and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program 21 call for projects that is currently ongoing that was announced by the state 22 earlier this month. The applications are due to MPO staff on August 27th. 23 And we will be giving more in depth presentations to all of our committees 24 next month. So be watching for that. But thankfully we have a much greater 25 time to be able to work with our member jurisdictions to get the applications 26 put together so I'm expecting we're going to get a number from our member 27 jurisdictions for TAP, RTP, and CMAQ. 28 29 And then the last item that I need to update is I'm very pleased to report that 30 the MPO associate planner position has finally been posted. It closes on 31 May 21st, so we will I assure you be moving as quickly on that to get 32 interviews set up and completed as we are possibly able to do. Given the 33 experience of the past several months I'm not going to give an ETA as to 34 when I hope the new person will be on board, just to say that we're going to 35 move as quickly as we possibly can to get the position filled and finally get 36 whole again. So that concludes my presentation for staff updates. 37 38 Vasquez: Okay. Thank you Andrew. 39 40 9. PUBLIC COMMENT 41 42 Vasquez: Have we received any public comment since we started our meeting as far 43 as you know Andre?, 44 45 Wray: Mr. Chair. I have not. 46 28 1 10. ADJOURNMENT (2:35 PM) 2 3 Vasquez: Okay. And I will go ahead and take a motion and a second to adjourn. 4 5 Sanchez: I'll move for adjournment. 6 7 J-Burick: Second. 8 9 Sorg: Second. 10 11 Vasquez: Dang, not so fast everybody. Thank you. I believe that was Commissioner 12 Sanchez and I think I heard Trustee Johnson-Burick the loudest. We'll have 13 her with the second. And Andrew if you could please call that vote as well. 14 Thank you. 15 16 Wray: Yes, Mr. Chair. Mayor Barraza. 17 18 Barraza: Yes. 19 20 Wray: Councilor Bencomo. 21 22 Bencomo Yes. 23 24 Wray: Mr. Doolittle. 25 26 Doolittle: Yes, 27 28 Wray: Trustee Garcia. Trustee Johnson-Burick. 29 30 J-Burick: Yes. 31 32 Wray: Commissioner Sanchez. 33 34 Sanchez: Yes. 35 36 Wray: Councilor Sorg. 37 38 Sorg: Yes. 39 40 Wray: Mr. Chair. 41 42 Vasquez: Yes. 43 44 Wray: Mr. Chair. The Motion passes. We are adjourned. 45 46 Vasquez: Thank you all. We'll see you next month. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chairperson u MPO Policy Committee Public Sign In 6/9/2021 *Add to Master Name Organization Email Address Mailing List? (Y or N) s --; -1—Zr wel✓1 �C iNNO1✓V rve /cm r C�Gc� N Kteas 'tcc 1)—(CD7..) < C Lx _ 0b1.1 l(/ 0 E ct S- C rk c c r.a ray 5 +/a ? , mac- 51 CO Q- —U2-1ILL5 . /✓ *Master Mailing list includes receiving a monthly e-newsletter and MPO Committee meeting materials. We do not give your email out to other organizations or for other projects. MPO Policy Committee Session Sign-In June 9, 2021 Member Proxy Signa' e • Gabriel Vasquez, Chair Manuel Sanchez, Vice Chair 4711 Nora Barraza r .6-LG` f DC.lta� ✓_� Johana Bencomo 4 Susana Chaparro Trent Doolittle Veronica S. Garcia \I . Stephanie Johnson-Burick Diana Murillo-Trujillo \ Gill Sorg I /`^2(/f