METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA

Transcription

1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA P.O. BOX LAS CRUCES NM PHONE (505) FAX (505) LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE POLICY COMMITTEE AGENDA The following is the Agenda for a meeting of the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to be held July 11, 2007, at 5:00 p.m., in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, Las Cruces New Mexico. Meeting packets are available on the Las Cruces MPO website at The Las Cruces MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The Las Cruces MPO will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the Las Cruces MPO at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling (voice) or (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers list above. Este documento está disponible en español llamando al teléfono del Departmento de Desarrollo de la Comunidad: (Voz) o (TTY). 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the consent agenda and those indicated by an asterisk (*) will be voted on by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Policy Committee member may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the committee. 3. * REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.1 April 11, May 9, NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Resolution 07-06: A Resolution amending the Long Range Transportation Plan: Accepting the Recommendations of the Fairacres Study Area. 4.2 Resolution 07-07: A Resolution Amending the LCMPO TIP for FY The TIP Approval and Amendment Process Includes the Programming and Funding of Projects Related To Highway, Transit and Aviation Within the Las Cruces MPO Area. 5. STATUS REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION 5.1 MRCOG and Mid-Region Regional Transit District (Bruce Rizzieri, MRCOG) 5.2 Committee Training- Policy Board Duties 5.3 Transportation Plan amendments to achieve compliance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 5.4 NMDOT news and update 5.5 Development review 5.6 Policy Committee Special Meeting August PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT PUBLISH: JULY 1, 2007

2 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Policy Committee (PC) meeting held on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at the Mesilla Town Hall, 2231 Avenida de Mesilla, Mesilla, New Mexico. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner D. Kent Evans (Chair, Dona Ana County) Councillor Steven Trowbridge (City of Las Cruces) Councillor Gil Jones (City of Las Cruces) Councillor Dolores Archuleta (City of Las Cruces) Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) Trustee Les Williamson (Town of Mesilla) Trustee John Nelson (Town of Mesilla) Commissioner Karen Perez (Dona Ana County) Commissioner William McCamley (Dona Ana County) Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) Bonnie Ennis (CLC Community Development) Vincent Banegas (CLC Community Development) Frank Guzman (NMDOT) Joseph De La Rosa (NMDOT) Al Dominguez (NMDOT) Anna Mae Evans Meeting was called to order at 5:25 p.m. Chair Trowbridge asked for a roll call to establish quorum. Murphy: Commissioner Perez. Perez: Present. Murphy: Commissioner Evans. Evans: Present. Murphy: Mayor Cadena. Cadena: Here. 1

3 Murphy: Councillor Archuleta. Archuleta: Here. Murphy: Trustee Williamson. Williamson: Here. Murphy: Councillor Jones. Jones: Here. Murphy: Councillor Trowbridge. Trowbridge: Here. II. CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the consent agenda and those indicated by an asterisk (*) will be voted on by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Policy Committee member may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the Committee. III. *REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 10, 2007 Trowbridge: Are there any additions to the minutes? Or corrections? Murphy: Just a reminder that everyone speak loudly, we ve got some little microphones, make sure your picked up. Trowbridge: Thank you for that reminder. Are there any additions to the minutes or corrections? Evans: Move approval. (Someone seconded didn t state name) Trowbridge: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. All: Aye. PASS. IV. NEW BUSINESS *A. Resolution 07-02: A Resolution Adopting the LCMPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY

4 Trowbridge: Mr. Murphy can you tell us about the consent agenda. There is just one item with Resolution A that stays on. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Chair, there is just one item (inaudible) did not stay on. This was not approved at the TAC last week. We had some concerns about brought to us by NMDOT concerning things along the way, particularly FHWA scrutiny over the budget tables they wanted to have more detail and a couple of the work items they wanted more detail. So what staff is planning on doing is pulling that from the agenda today and coming back to the TAC and the Policy Committee in May with the revisions. Mr. De La Rosa from the Department of Transportation, may wish to give a little background on this. Trowbridge: This is just discussing whether or not Resolution A: should be removed now. Murphy: Well, at this point it should be removed from the Consent Agenda and then at the point when it comes on the agenda we ll discuss the reason for that. Archuleta: Mr. Chairman, I move that we remove Resolution from the Consent Agenda. Cadena: Second. Trowbridge: All in favor, say aye. All: Aye. Trowbridge: Do you want to add to why we have to take off or make it the State folks here, that are here, do they need to address it. Murphy: I believe they would was going to be the Resolution adopting the MPO s UPWP annual work program that specifies all activities that MPO staff has done for the ongoing upcoming fiscal year. We are requested to make some changes in that document, particularly along the (inaudible) more detail on the budget table and how much work times is going to be spent with each project. We have (inaudible). We are anticipating a mixture of federal planning funds and also State Regional Transit District funds and the DOT and MPO staff need to have more oversight over on how those funds are utilized within the MPO area and we have a chance to have a more strict accounting of those funds. Trowbridge: Alright (inaudible), do you need a motion to postpone to date specific? Murphy: Yes. 3

5 Trowbridge: Which date would you prefer? Murphy: May 9 th. Cadena: So moved. Evans: Second. Trowbridge: Movement second to postpone Resolution to the next Policy Committee meeting on May 9 th. All those in favor say AYE. All: Aye. Trowbridge: Okay, is there anything to add. Murphy: I (inaudible) the Department of Transportation wishes to address the Committee. Trowbridge: Mr. de La Rosa. de La Rosa: Joseph de La Rosa, New Mexico Department of Transportation, District 1 Planner. Mr. Chairman and the Committee, as Tom indicated we received a draft copy of the UPWP a while back and what we did is we drafted a letter dated March 25, 2007 that essentially instructed Mr. Murphy identifying various concerns and some issues that we had with the UPWP as proposed. Unfortunately, between the time that letter went out and the last TAC meeting, there wasn t enough time to really go over the changes that were made. They did address, for the most part, all of the issues in the letter by task (inaudible) and we were looking for a little more information and a little more detail and communicated that at the TAC meeting last week and as resolved we will be working in the future (inaudible) to have all of the changes made to the UPWP so we can ultimately improve that (inaudible). One of our recommendations is also not to have it on the consent agenda next time, that actually spent a lot to time going over the UPWP. This is probably one of the single most important documents that the MPO has and that it s going to set the course for the oncoming year, including what Federal PL funds should be spend on these (inaudible) activities. One of the things that Mr. Murphy mentioned is federal accountability. Well, as you know the SAFETEA-LU legislation that was passed 2005 and signed into law, which is our federal highway bill, has seen some changes that are going to be implemented by July 1, 2007 to basically have a SAFETEA-LU compliant document. In order to accomplish that, there are some things that need to happened and some changes that are going to be made. One of these letters in SAFETEA-LU stresses accountability and to implement that the FHWA 4

6 has been working with us to look at all of the MPO s State wide and there are some issues across the board that we are going to address and that means without much further detail, I will just conclude saying we need to, I think, at some point see that everyone is familiar with what will be happening in the upcoming year and the Regional Transit District has just been formed here in this area which will be a critical component of planning in this area is going to be addressed because that is something that is State funded and it s a State program. It doesn t utilize any Federal funds so there needs to be that distinction between the efforts of the MPO and (inaudible). I guess I ll leave it at that. If you have any questions at this time. Trowbridge: Any questions? Okay, so noted. Thank you. de La Rosa: Thank you. Trowbridge: The MPO TAC meets last Thursday usually before our meetings at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. Second item on the agenda is Resolution That s postponed? No action needed? B. Resolution 07-03: A Resolution Adopting Amendments to the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Rating System. POSTPONED Murphy: Mr. Chair, yes, it s postponed. (inaudible) Trowbridge: We go to item C. Resolution Mr. Murphy. C. Resolution 07-04: A Resolution Approving and Adopting the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2008 FY The TIP approval and amendment process includes the programming and funding of projects related to highway, transit and aviation with the Las Cruces MPO area. Hume: Actually, I m going to go with that Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, good evening. I m going to spend a little bit on this item and so I m going to spend a little bit of time going over some of the details of the Transportation Improvement Program because like the UPWP, it is one of the key documents that the MPO staff works on and has a tremendous impact on the projects. Actually getting things off of the Transportation Plan and on to the ground, and so I m going to be spending a little bit of time discussing this. First of all, I would like to point your attention to the action form. Three years ago the Department of Transportation along with the MPO s and RPO s decided to go to a bi-annual TIP cycle and so our previous TIP was in 2006 to 2011 cycle and as of September 30 th of this year that cycle will be over. So in preparation for all of the review that not 5

7 only this Body has but then going on to the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and also the Transportation Committee of the DOT, we need to be working on it today so that by October 1 st of 2007, this new TIP takes effect and so we have crossed all our t s and dotted all our i s. As always the TIP is a six year program. In the past and it s possible if DOT staff can direct me right, I think this slight change. In the past the first three years have been mandated to be fiscally constraint and I think now it s first four years. Trowbridge: What does that mean? Hume: What that means is the targets, the numbers that sent to the different districts, say 25 million dollars, just as a number. All the projects that the district is going to undertake have to fit within 25 million dollars and if that and if that number goes up, that s nice, they can have their projects. If it goes it down then that means they have to take a project and either shift funds or shift projects around to make it fit within that 25 million dollars. Jones: Mr. Chairman. Trowbridge: Mr. Jones. Jones: I think what your saying, correct me if I m wrong, is basically it s too prevent adding points to a project that may or may not ever get done. Is that correct, is that sort of the (inaudible). Hume: That s correct. Jones: And then your referring to as the action plan, this document that s labeled at the bottom? Hume: No, I m speaking for now (inaudible) the form that s the first page in that section of the packet. Jones: Thank you. Hume: So that s a change and I believe that change happened with SAFETEA- LU, am I correct, okay. So all of us are still trying to kind of wrap our brains around the changes that have been enacted by SAFETEA-LU. That s one of the reasons why the UPWP is being postponed, has also had an affect on the way the transportation group has programmed (inaudible). The last two years are what are called the out years. They do not have to necessarily to fiscally constraint, although it is preferred that they have some basis in reality. Just to let this Committee know, on a regular basis, usually every four to six weeks, I meet with Joseph de La Rosa to review the State wide TIP and compare it to our TIP to make sure 6

8 that the two are constantly in sync, because if something happens that a project tries to move forward and it s is not on our TIP, the DOT can loose funding or at best, have the project halted and at worst, loose funding for that project, so we re constantly in communication on changes, whether large or small to make sure they are sync. As noted, in your narrative here, the Technical Advisory Committee has already reviewed this and has given their recommendation for approval on this. However, there is one change from past years, from past cycles to this cycle. In the past we have had unfunded projects on the TIP. Basically, what we have done is we have identified some projects through the MPO process that we feel are important but we haven t found the funding yet to put it into one of the fiscally constrained years and so we kind of leave them hanging out there a little bit. There are two reasons why you will not find those in this list this time. Number one is with our new Transportation Plan we need to make sure that any projects that are proposed either from the MPO bodies or from our jurisdictions match up with what is in the Transportation Plan. If they are not in the Transportation Plan, they can t be in the TIP and that has always been the case with any of the (inaudible) legislation. The second reason is that some of our projects became a bit outdated, especially in scoping of the project and cost estimates and so instead of carrying forward old projects that are essentially kind of stale, what we are doing is we are leaving them off of tonight s approval and moving forward as we need to with the active projects and we are going to come back later with some well defined, well scoped projects that have good cost estimates and we will bring those forward for this Committee s consideration. A third issue that affects us is the TIP rating system. We have been in discussion with the DOT and amongst MPO staff in a way to make the TIP rating system a little more effective. Number two more clearer and number three, have something that everyone can understand. When we talk about ADT and crash statistics and things like that, a lot of people don t understand it. Also, we are trying to re-tool the rating system so that (inaudible). If there aren t any questions on anything I ve gone over from the action form, I d like to switch over to the TIP itself and cover a couple of key items. Cadena: Mr. Chair. Trowbridge: Yes. Cadena: How does this relate to GRIP 2 or GRIP 3? For instance, GRIP 2, I know this year everything went to the Spaceport road; however, there are some streets on there that we (inaudible) generally with NMDOT and whomever, Highway 359, Calle de Norte was on that list. Does it need to get on the TIP somehow? We are going to work to get some matching funds from Mesilla. What has to happen there? Does it relate or is it something that we don t need to worry about at this point? 7

9 Hume: That s an excellent question. Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, I d like to address that question. As far as I know and correct me if I m wrong, there is no such thing as GRIP 3 yet. Maybe there might never be. The first issue of GRIP we will get into in just a little bit because that is in the TIP right now. You are mostly correct about GRIP 2. I d like to (inaudible) a couple of issues. The first is that the needs for our (inaudible) the funding as typically happens, so any projects that were designated to be on State roadways were removed from consideration for GRIP 2. Therefore, NM 359 was removed from consideration. Not everything in our area went to the Spaceport. There were a couple of other projects that were funded the County and from the City. Now that kind of puts Mesilla at a bit of a disadvantage because most of your major roads are New Mexico highways, so where the next step that we are going to take is those projects that were submitted for GRIP 2 funding are going to be some of the first projects that we look at under the new rating system for inclusion in unfunded projects in our TIP. Does that answer your question? Cadena: Yes. Hume: Okay. Perez: I have one. It is my understanding that there is pot of money as far as having County roads funded under the GRIP 2. There is a pot of money for whoever s project ready first, so jump on it. Now if that s the Spaceport, then they get the pot of money and there was very little left over once that $10 million was theirs. So the County roads that were proposed other than the one at Upham. Hume: Did I miss something? Because I thought there were a City and a County (inaudible). (Everyone speaking at once) Hume: But this is good news, I mean, I want.. Perez: Well, it s important, because if we know we need to jump in with a local match or we do need to somehow be project ready. That would be a good thing to know now or get on another priority list. De La Rosa: Mr. Chair, Joseph de La Rosa, NMDOT. I guess the first thing I d like to just address on in general terms is what Andy was saying about trying to get the projects that aren t funded into the TIP but in the two unfunded years, that is the benefit of having the additional two years is you have the 8

10 four years of projects that you already have the funds for and then you have basically and then the two averages (inaudible). *Due to the poor quality of the recording the remaining minutes are summary. The rest of the discussion for Resolution and the remainder of the meeting is on tape, but of poor quality. Jones: Motioned to approve Resolution Williamson: Second. Hume: Called role. ALL IN FAVOR. V. STATUS REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION Staff gave status reports and updates on the topics listed below. A. Fairacres B. North and South Valley Study Areas C. Development Review VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Chair person 9

11 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Policy Committee (PC) meeting held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at City Council Chamber, 200 N. Church St., Las Cruces, New Mexico. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor Steven Trowbridge (Chair - City of Las Cruces) Councillor Gil Jones (City of Las Cruces) Councillor Dolores Archuleta (City of Las Cruces) Trustee Les Williamson (Town of Mesilla) Trustee John Nelson (Town of Mesilla) Commissioner Karen Perez (Dona Ana County) Commissioner William McCamley (Dona Ana County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner D. Kent Evans (Dona Ana County) Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) STAFF PRESENT: Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) Dianne Wax (CLC Community Development) OTHERS PRESENT: Klaus Wittern Greg White Joseph de La Rosa Julie Walker Ray Mathew Mayor Mattiace I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. Trowbridge: I m not sure if we have a quorum Mr. Murphy. Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have, I count five of you insight and three different jurisdictions. Trowbridge: In that case, I ll call the meeting to order. But just to make it official, if we could have roll call. Murphy: Trustee Williamson. Williamson: Here. Murphy: Trustee Nelson. 1

12 Nelson. Here. Murphy: Councillor Archuleta. Archuleta: Here. Murphy: Commissioner McCamley. McCamley: Here. Murphy: Chair Trowbridge. Trowbridge: Here. There are no minutes for this particular meeting. We re just going to go straight to new business. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we had a short time between the last meeting and we had a little problem with the recording equipment of the minutes, but we will have those available next meeting. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 07-05: A Resolution adopting the LCMPO Annual Self- Certification for the FHWA and FTA. Murphy: The first item on the agenda is Resolution It s a Resolution adopting the Las Cruces MPO s annual self-certification for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Staff has a quick presentation. The Annual Self-Certification Resolution is a statement by this Board that the MPO is carrying out the planning processing and addressing the major issues that are facing the area is in your packet material. We answer several questions for the certification. 1) what process procedures are you using to self-certify the planning process and we do this through the annual resolution. We also go into further detail of the transit provider for the area, NMDOT and several other stakeholder agencies represented on the Technical Advisory Committee. These included the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State University and Las Cruces Public Schools. We have not established any additional criteria for ourselves beyond the requirements of Federal law. Archuleta: Mr. Chairman, did we lose a quorum? Trowbridge: If we could just pause for a moment. Murphy: Okay, we ll pause. 2

13 Murphy: I think we ve reestablished quorum with backup. Trowbridge: Proceed Mr. Murphy and for the record we are joined the honorable chair lady of the County Commission, Ms. Karen Perez. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To continue we additional certify our public comment. As you know we have public comment opportunity at every MPO meeting. The Policy meeting, the Technical Advisory Committee meeting and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting, and we also encourage comment on our website through the MPO newsletter and through correspondence and we document the self-certification process through this resolution that is before you now. (INAUDIBLE) Once supporting documentation information is provided to the MPO Policy Board when the self-certification is approved. Approved through resolution attachments, through this list of questions and a statement of no lawsuits or complaints alleging discrimination filed with the MPO. How is the annual self-certification provided to Federal agencies? We provided as a separate resolution starting last year. Prior years to that the MPO officers submitted it as a page in the UPWP, but recently it s been requested to be as a Policy Committee action and then, does the MPO have processes, procedures, guidelines in their polices that address Title VI, ADIDBA, DBE lobbying and other regulatory requirements. Our public involvement plan mandates that certain meetings are held in familiar neighborhood settings that are accessible to persons with disabilities and hope more citizens would be comfortable participating in the process. Support information provided to the Policy Committee at the time action details the steps taken during the planning process. You recall, when we adopt resolutions that have gone down through the public process, we detail the steps that we have taken with the public and then furthermore the agenda s minutes packets are maintained by our fiscal agent, the City of Las Cruces. All documents are available on the City website and located at the MPO office, and then as their continuity and consistency between the annual self-certification and tri-annual Federal certification, at this point Las Cruces is not over 200,000 population and we don t have a tri-annual population though later in this meeting we will go over addressing the anticipation that we will be over 200,000. This handles our annual self-certification and what we are looking is approval of the resolution so we can have the Chair sign the self-certification document and forward it to NMDOT, FHWA, and FTA. Trowbridge: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. As a matter of record, the question is posed and the answers are part of our packet as well. Questions and comments from members? Questions and comments from anybody in the public on this resolution? McCamley: Mr. Chairman. 3

14 Trowbridge: Commissioner. McCamley: I move that we approve Resolution as presented. Archuleta: I second. Trowbridge: Commissioner McCamley motioned and Councillor Archuleta seconded. Poll. Murphy: Trustee Williamson. Williamson: Aye. Murphy: Commissioner Perez. Perez: Aye. Murphy: Councillor Jones. Jones: Aye. Murphy: Trustee Nelson. Nelson. Yes. Murphy: Councillor Archuleta. Archuleta: Yes. Murphy: Commissioner McCamley. McCamley: Aye. Murphy: Chair Trowbridge. Trowbridge: Yes. B. Resolution 07-02: A Resolution adopting the LCMPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY Trowbridge: Moving onto the second item on the agenda is under New Business, Item B. Resolution Mr. Murphy. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Resolution which was tabled from last month s meeting is a resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 4

15 Area Unified Planning Work Program for the upcoming Fiscal Year 07/08. The MPO s UPWP reflects our local planning priorities and here is a detailed list of the studies and tasks to be performed by MPO staff. The UPWP covers one fiscal year from July 1 through June 30 th. We have in the document in your packets, again it identifies the funding sources for each work task that staff will work on. It s our basis for our planning contract with NMDOT utilizing both planning funds and transit funds known as FTA We have schedules for completion of task. Other responsible agencies that will be working and partnering with the MPO in conducting the tasks and a preamble descriptive element of each task. The UPWP is broken into five areas: 1) program support and administration, within that is updating and maintenance of our policy manual and by-laws; 2) is the conduction of committee meetings and in this year s UPWP we are going to be taking additional focus on training. As you will notice the last item in the discussion items for today s agenda is committee training and that is a new item that we are bringing on board through consultation with the DOT as how to improve the planning process for the MPO and also in the program support administration we will be doing an update of our Public Involvement Plan. We will actually be doing two updates in the near future: first, we will have a series of amendments to the Public Involvement Plan in July. The purpose is to bring us into compliance with the SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill at the Federal level and, then also since it s our third year cycle, to review the Public Involvement Plan. Later on in the year we ll be conducting some public outreaches. What kind of improvement or changes that we need to take with Public Involvement Plan in general; the second area that the UPWP is framed in is General Development and Comprehensive Planning, within in this area is our Coverage Count Program. We are expanding the Traffic Count Program to correspond with the new MPO boundaries. Part of the funding in that will include acquiring of new traffic counters as we are going to be counting more segments and the work product that comes out of this that most people are familiar with is our traffic count map. We are working on population and land use data collection. We will be utilizing some of our staff time and some of our coop staff to assemble master plan information to incorporate into the Transportation Plan and our on-going GSI data development is also included. The third section of the UPWP is long range transportation planning. Major focuses within in this area is the travel demand forecasting. That s our travel model. We are in the process of converting from our old ME2 model to one that is developed in a software VISSUM. We are jointly developing with NMDOT and the El Paso MPO with an eye toward developing a multi-regional travel demand model. Once this travel model is in place, we will utilizing conduct analysis of things like added roadways, new interchanges on the interstate, and the reconfiguration of the I-25, I-10 interchange. We are also updating our functional classification system map. We are analyzing the data collected on the 5

16 roadways to see if the roadways still fall in their arterial collector (principle arterial, minor arterial, and collector status) and we anticipate some changes on that map. Also, another major portion is the Transportation Plan update. Primary on this work focus is to bring the Transportation Plan into SAFETEA-LU compliance. There are several steps that we are going to need to take. 1) I eluded to earlier with the Public Involvement Plan; 2) there are sections that we will need to add to the Transportation Plan, most notably adding safety and security as distinct objectives within the plan. Once we are complete with the SAFETEA-LU compliance, we ll be looking to complete our pedestrian element and the north and south study areas as well as other smaller study areas that we have been working on and the final item on that would be in conjunction with RoadRUNNER Transit working on their long range transit plan that came about as their work on the Transit Strategic Plan which MPO staff aided RoadRUNNER in this current fiscal year. Jones: Mr. Chairman. Trowbridge: Yes. Jones: If I could, Mr. Murphy, as I read this, I m trying to remember my questions last night. I did a poor job of jotting them down. With regard to the Transit Plan, a lot of that work is already done is it not with the Nelson Nygaard Study and then the Action Plan of the Transit System? Murphy: Mr. Chair, Councillor Jones, as I understand it the Nelson Nygaard Plan was kind of the short mid-range plan to develop the new routing system. Subsequently, the Transit Strategic Plan was developed this past year and one of the needs they identified out of that is to come up with a long range plan for the Transit System. I am not sure about RoadRUNNER s time table for doing that but we are committing our assistance to them for this plan. Jones: And so what I understand is those two studies didn t fulfill this commitment here, but what really what s targeted is a longer range plan then what we had dealt with the Nelson Nygaard Study and the other plan that we did. Murphy: Yes and this is a recommendation that comes out of those plans. Jones: Thank you very much. Trowbridge: Trustee Nelson. Nelson: I noticed in here you have, it s section 3.4.2, where you are talking about North/South Dona Ana County Study Areas, so given that there is a lot of activity going on in the area especially on the east mesa with the 6

17 discussions of Presidio, at what point does something like that which would be a major impact get into our long range plan? Murphy: Mr. Chair, Trustee Nelson, the east area has been an area that the region has focused it s growth at least since 1994 and it s been represented on the Thoroughfare Plan for along time. We actually did implement an extensive network in that area with the 2005 Transportation Plan and we would hope that the proposed development would then conform to our Transportation Plan that anticipated the growth in the area. Nelson: And so there is no impact on Highway 70 or the major road coming into town, I forget which road that is. Murphy: Mr. Chair, Trustee Nelson, that additional roadway is Lohman Avenue and I would say certainly there will be an affect, particularly in the short term. If this all goes forward and one of the things that our policy recommends that we advocate is the tie with land use and transportation planning, but potential development like would build out and develop. There would be development of jobs and services within that area and then you would have some of that travel contained within the development area and not everyone would have to cross I-25 in order to conduct their business. Yes, certainly there would be an impact in the short term but I think through the careful planning of the City staff there will be a balance of jobs and houses out there to minimize the travel needed. Nelson: Okay. Trowbridge: Were you complete with your presentation? Murphy: I have two more sections to run through. The fourth item in the UPWP is the short range transportation planning. This is immediate projects, primary on that list the GRIP I-10 corridor that NMDOT is currently working on and we will providing this Committee with updates on this as we get them, actually I believe will be pretty much every meeting. We are also working on updating our transportation systems or ITS development. Another requirement of SAFETEA-LU is that we update our ITS architecture to be in compliance with that, and then we are continuing focusing on safety conscious planning. We will be wrapping up our safe routes to school pilot project and continuing bicycle safety, transit and pedestrian safety projects. The final section for the UPWP is the implementation section. In this we have included our local assistance whereby we do review plans submitted to the City and the County s ETZ. Our transit assistance, we have a staff member that assists with the Transit Advisory Board for RoadRUNNER Transit. We are working on design standards and I think I probably want to pause on this one and maybe defer to Councillor Archuleta and Trustee Nelson as they attended 7

18 a web workshop that MPO hosted on complete streets. One of the things we will be working on is trying to implement the concept of complete streets for our jurisdictions to have better looking, better planned developments and I ll pause here if either Committee member wishes to.. Nelson: Mr. Chairman. Trowbridge: Please. Nelson: Yeah, I was kind of impressed with that presentation on complete streets and I guess what I was looking for was a little more definition. The question was, should we put a little more definition in our requirement to the staff relative to those kinds of design standards and I notice that you put training on complete streets at the end of this packet and I m not sure everybody here knows about that, but that s the subject I wanted to raise. Archuleta: Mr. Chairman, and I found that extremely interesting as well and I agree with you. Trowbridge: Mr. Murphy, maybe you can give us some feedback to the Committee on the subject Design Standards and what some of the options are. What we need to consider. Murphy: The subject Design Standards is we are working with mainly the County currently on modifying their design standards to really look at the roads in context of all users, pedestrians, bicycles, transit users, and MPO staff has been meeting with an ad hoc committee convened by the County Planning and Zoning Commission to redesign those and one of the things that we ve informally kind of brought in is the concept of complete streets. One of the things that we would really like some direction from this Committee and I think a good time would be after we ve been able to present a more detailed complete streets training is to kind of get the feeling whether this is something that you would like staff to pursue with your governments. Trowbridge: Would there be a timeline? Could you suggest Murphy: I think we could come up with a timeline when we come back with the training. Right now at this point I ve not thought of establishing one. Trowbridge: Is that amenable to the Committee. Jones: Yes, it is to me, Mr. Chairman. Others: Yes. 8

19 Trowbridge: We ll go that way. Murphy: I ve been told that your voices aren t carrying to the back of the room so you need to speak directly into the microphones and a little bit loudly. Thanks. And then the final work program in the implementation section is the transportation improvement plan and as you recall we adopted the TIP at last month s meeting so the major work item we will be working on developing a TIP application guide to put out our jurisdictions to help guide them through the TIP application process, and I want to skip a couple of slides, I don t know this escaped my mind but under Long Range Transportation Planning the MPO is continuing a role within the regional transit district formation. We had the regional transit district certified at the State Transportation Commission Meeting in November and we ve convened one board meeting which Councillor Jones was elected the Chair of the Board and we are working on developing the RTD Service Plan. The MPO s involvement and I need to really clearly spell that the eyes are on us on how much involvement that we have on this. Currently, the transit district does not really have staff and so the MPO is in cooperation with the SCCOG, we are both stepping up to temporarily provide that staff until such time. McCamley: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Who on the SCCOG is the staff from there? Murphy: Bill Loomis and Delbert Fransinet McCamley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Trowbridge: I think there will be some leadership changes scheduled at the beginning of July and that is something that we will need to be aware of. Murphy: I guess in the interim and for the development of those plans, we are going to be walking a tight line between utilizing State funds for the RTD and then our normal Federal funds for all other MPO functions, and we are going to keep a close eye on that as the boundaries for the MPO and the RTD are distinct and we need to be especially mindful how much work we put on there and to whom we re billed. And skipping back to the end of the UPWP, the TAC recommended approval at the May 3 rd hearing and staff is asking for approval from this Body. Trowbridge: Let me just ask, is this the appropriate time if you could just summarize or make a, we had a meeting on April 25 th, I want to thank, Commissioner Evans attended, Mayor Cadena, Vice Chair Trustee Nelson. I recognize several of the folks here, the liaisons from the DOT and I know that we have a letter coming down summarizing that meeting, but if you could in a 9

20 way of informing the Committee the jest of that. I think you ve touched upon several of the notable aspects but if you could put it in perspective. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, a meeting was held on April 25 th with MPO staff. All the Policy Board members were invited, Mayor Mattiace, the Federal Highway Administration, and the NMDOT were represented at that meeting, and the subject of the meeting was Improving the MPO Planning Process. Vital concerns were raised about the potential conflict of interest with staffs involvement in both the RTD and the MPO planning function, so out of that we been asked to certainly be distinct about the difference in the function, boundaries, and the funding of the RTD and the MPO. It pretty much touched on all of those except for the function aspect. The function, where the RTD differs from the MPO in function is the RTD s role is to provide transit services and the MPO is a planning entity and we need to be careful not to cross the line and start doing too much operation implementation. At this point, I think we have alleviated some of the concerns by pointing out that it is an interim part and we are just on board until their plan is adopted. Once the their plan is adopted, the RTD will need to function on its own. Trowbridge: I would concur with that estimate of the purpose of the meeting and it was to learn from the mistakes that have occurred else where in the State. This was sort of a preventive way of recognizing that we are going to go a different level of MPO, a different category, a new set of rules, and so I was grateful for State and Federal folks that came down to alert us to that and I think we got a lot of work done. Mr. de La Rosa held forth on that. I think maybe in the next packet a more formal summary can be given to the Policy Committee members, because I think some of the implications are long term, but how things will have to be formalized and some amendments and reforms, if you want to characterize them that way, will have to be made. Murphy: Right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, there are some long range implications. I guess additionally part of the aforementioned training came about from this meeting. To have one last point on the RTD before I continue on, it s been requested that we coordinate a meeting with the mid-region transit administrative agent and the mid-region transit staff and I have contacted Bruce Rizzieri of the mid-region COG to give a presentation at the Policy Committee s July meeting and we ll be inviting the transit district board of director s to attend that as well and what his presentation is going is to go is the institutional arrangement that they have between their COG, their staff and their functions and the coordination with the MPO. Also, from that meeting, a location study is going to be paid for by NMDOT. They are going to look at the proper location for that MPO to be housed. We have, with the 2010 census, there is a possibility that the MPO area will be over 200,000 people, which would qualify us as a transportation management 10

21 area and our planning process requirements will become much more stringent. This study will help decide if the City of Las Cruces is the proper agency to house the MPO or not. They will be putting together a request for proposals to do that scope where it will require a bit of staff time out of MPO staff and we will be bringing back that question to the Board to help hammer out the points for that RFP as well as an amendment to the UPWP. We will have to shift around the hours of the projects that we are working on, so you can anticipate a UPWP amendment here in the near future. Other main points of that meeting had to do with kind of work on the traffic forecast model, which I believe I ve touched on, and then the SAFETEA-LU compliance that we ve done. We ve also some longer term strategies, the aforementioned training, further coordination with FHWA and NMDOT. I think that s about the main points. I think I can pause at this section if Mr. de La Rosa or Mr. Ray Mathew from the DOT would wish to add anything. Trowbridge: Please feel welcome, gentlemen. Mathew: Good evening everyone. My name is Ray Mathew and from the planning division. I ve seen some of your before so at this April 25 th meeting. I just wanted to add on a little bit to what Tom had said. The purpose of the meeting was, Las Cruces is nearing a crossroads in that the growth areas are so high that we re requiring a change in the planning process to make sure the transportation planning funds and the way we plan the infrastructure and the capital improvements through the MPO are the most effective. So in our discussions we had two broad areas, improvements that could be done in the near term and Tom actually covered those. Actually the amended UPWP that you have before tonight reflects a lot of those changes. One of the changes that we asked to have was a breakdown of staff time by the work task and we wanted that for two reasons. We felt there was a need for the MPO to make sure they complied with the Federal planning requirements and also to make sure that there was separation of funding and task between the RTD and the MPO because right now Tom Murphy is interim director for the transit and on the original draft you didn t get that distinction that there was difference between funding and purpose between the RTD and the MPO, so we had kind of a lengthy discussion on that and the UPWP does reflect that separation. The funds are broken out. The RTD is a State created entity and it s being funded with State funds. The MPO is a federally recognized inter-governmental agency and it s funded with federal dollars and there is a longer string of requirements on the use of the federal dollars. The other near term improvements that we talked about were the importance of attending and participating in the quarter study meetings, the DOT lead quarter study meetings, in particular the I-10 corridor study which has the I-10, I-25 interchange and the modeling work that is being done with that, and for the long term, Tom touched on it, is what we call the organization 11

22 and location study. That is a study that we have seen done twice in the State right now, well actually let me back up, Santa Fe is in the process of doing that right now. We have the RFP and we ll be sending a copy of that RFP to the Board so they can look at it. What we want to do is we want to have the Board have input on the RFP and so that is designed together, but the purpose of the study is to examine the current MPO functioning and see if it s best to keep it the way it is. Maybe it should be moved some where else or maybe some other kind of organizational changes need to be considered in lieu of the growth. That study, we expect to have completed within this fiscal year. We will becoming back to you with a draft RFP as initial starting points and changes and we would appreciate the input and direction from your Board on the RFP and how that s crafted before it goes off for funding. The other long term thing was the training, the MPO training, with the new members on the Board and recent new changes in the planning requirements for the MPO, we thought it was best to develop a training schedule for the MPO. Again, this training schedule and the actual content of the courses would be developed in consultation with the MPO Policy Board. In other words, we want to hear from you. What you would like to hear about from us, perhaps we think some of the critical areas are funding the roles and responsibilities of the Boards of the TAC and the Policy Board and things like that. So those are more longer term, but when we say long term we still mean the end of this upcoming fiscal year. So we hope to have the study done and all the training delivered by the end of this upcoming fiscal year and we wanted to compliment the MPO staff in making all the changes. They have addressed our concerns. There is a formal letter, I think that went out, that went out to the Policy Board members about the UPWP comments and they have addressed all those of comments and I know they had to probably burn a few midnight hours and so doing we appreciate their cooperation. If you have any questions. Trowbridge: Let me ask two things: what would you recommend as the best feedback method for us to comment on the RFP? Would you give us a copy of the RFP and then have us all have 30 days to comment on it or would you want a committee, a sub committee? Mathew: I guess we would leave that up to the MPO discretion. We initially, I think we ll be distributing pretty quickly the RFP that Santa Fe actually used and we can also provide a copy with RFP that El Paso used, although they are a large MPO but you would have both RFP s and maybe it s up to the discretion of the Policy Board how they want to structure that. If they want to have like a special sub committee, you know just beyond that or every member wants it. We definitely have walk away, the DOT, feeling that we have the buy in of the total Policy Board on the RFP before it goes out to bid. 12

23 Trowbridge: Alright, I think that along with maybe training subjects, Mr. Murphy can maybe come back to the Policy Committee with options at the next meeting. What can we do? What would work. What sort of traces do we have so the Policy Committee can have a discussion about it and then we could adopt it sometime this summer. Would that time line work? Mathew: Yes, yeah, what we d like to do is the RFP out in the first quarter of the fiscal year, so that would be July, August, September, and then six months to complete the study and then the last three months for adoption review of the recommendations. Trowbridge: Questions any Committee members? Jones: Mr. Chairman, just one. You mentioned, Mr. Mathews, about the corridor study, could you outline or maybe Mr. Murphy can help us. What are the next steps with regard to the corridor study, the I-10/I-25. Where are we on that as a community? On future study so that those of (inaudible) participate or we ll know. Mathew: If you don t mind I d like to defer to Joe De la Rosa, the District 1 planner. Jones: Thank you. de La Rosa: Thank you. Joseph de La Rosa, NMDOT. Mr. Chair, Councillor Jones, we are finalizing the Phase AB report and carrying on the preferred alternatives and we ll going in the next, hopefully, four to six weeks back to a round of public meetings. One of the things that has held us up so far has been the conversion of the ME2 model data into the VISSUM/VISSIM software, moving towards the regional model with El Paso, and so what the FHWA has requested is that now that we have basically compiled a lot of the data and moved forward with various scenarios for improvements on the corridor between here and the Texas state line that we actually go through and model the various proposals. So once that is done we will, once the model is converted we will take the next steps and actually look at those changes and then take them back out to the public before we move forward. But currently the project is scheduled for construction late next year, which would be fiscal year 2009, late calendar year 08, and the I-10/I-25 interchange specifically will need, will probably be the second phase of the project and that will need, again, some more intense modeling efforts from the Las Cruces MPO staff. Jones: Thank you and if I understand right from Mr. Mathews, basically the input from this Committee is to desired throughout that process or an expectation of some participation here, so I assume that we ll see presentations or we ll see some opportunities at some meetings to be able to review those and vote for the phase and I don t know if they are Phase I 13

24 and Phase 2 with the expansion to the Texas line and then, of course, I- 10/I-25 interchange, or both of those, is that correct? de La Rosa: Yes sir and what I would propose at this point is that we have an agenda item at the next Policy Committee meeting and I will have our consultants, Molzen and Corbin and our PDE who is working on this project, Gabriela Contreras Apodaca, attend and provide more detailed information and at that time we should have, again. a better idea of where we are in the model conversion as well as where we are at with the rest of the project; and so we ll summarize the AB report and look at the Phase C report, the future efforts. Jones: Thank you. Trowbridge: Other questions? de La Rosa: Since I m here if you don t mind, I ll continue. The attendance at that meeting that we did have on the 25 th was excellent and we would like to thank those of you that took the time and we understand that everyone couldn t be there because it was short notice and also it s hard to coordinate everyone s schedules, but one of the proposals that came out of that meeting was to have a similar meeting like in the future to kind of discuss the progress that s been made from that meeting onward and also to, again, as we re looking at the training, try and develop an idea of how that is progressing and also as we were discussing that RFP for the organizational location study, to make sure that we have the proper buy in from the Policy Committee, we will be looking for a resolution of support for those efforts; and we will assist the MPO staff in preparing a summary of that meeting to have the next meeting packet, as well as a letter will be coming out shortly to all of you kind of highlighting the outcomes of that meeting. Thank you. Trowbridge: Thank you, and Mr. Murphy just give thought to how future meetings of that (inaudible) could be structured in a way so we would have each representative for each entity or their substitute. We wouldn t have a quorum obviously. I failed to mention that Mayor Mattiace came late but was in attendance. Do you want to continue or is there more? Murphy: That had concluded my presentation and we re asking for recommendation for approval. Trowbridge: Do I a motion to approve. Williamson: I make a motion, Mr. Chair, approval, adoption of Resolution Archuleta: I second. 14

25 Trowbridge: Seconded by Councillor Archuleta. Roll. Murphy: Trustee Williamson. Williamson: Aye. Murphy: Commissioner Perez. Perez: Aye. Murphy: Councillor Jones. Jones: Yes. Murphy: Trustee Nelson. Nelson: Yes. Murphy: Councillor Archuleta. Archuleta: Yes. Murphy: McCamley. McCamley: Aye. Murphy: Chair Trowbridge. Trowbridge: Yes. We come to Section III of the agenda. It s Status Reports/Other Discussion from Tom Murphy. III. STATUS REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION A. Statewide transit update Murphy: Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, I m going to yield the floor to Mr. Greg White from NMDOT and Ms. Julie Walker from Carter Burgess to give you an update on the Statewide Transit Plan. Trowbridge: Statewide Transit Plan. At the Municipal League we often have a discussion about the need for proper signage for toxic routes, routing of toxic and lethal ingredients and components. It s been a concern every since NAFTA kicked in and the explanation we often hear is that this has to be a part of the State Transportation Plan and so if that is or you could 15

26 at some time in your presentation highlight that or give us a little status, it would be appreciated. Thank you. White: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to be here tonight. My name is Greg White. I m a planner with the Transit and Rail Bureau. Regrettably, that issue is not part of this particular planning process; however, I did write down that concern in my notes and I will convey it over to the planning group in the DOT, which has responsibility for signage. The particular area that I m here tonight to address is a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. The plan is a requirement, and I m going to see if I ve got this touch that Tom showed me here. This plan is a requirement of SAFETEA-LU and it is something that we in DOT as primary recipients of grant funding for these programs have taken on. We are working to develop these plans for the largest political subdivision area possible within the State and to integrate data from different municipalities and other entities into the service area. The service area that we re looking at is the Regional Planning Organization area boundaries. As you can see on the slide and I m not going to read these to you because you can read faster than I talk. These are requirements, these plans are requirements for transit providers who do intend to apply for funding to use to obtain that funding and we are working with Carter & Burgess and as Julie Walker will be taking over in a few minutes with your permission. As I mentioned there are several programs that are attached to this particular planning process, 5310, 16 and 17. Plan as shown has three chapters. We are on a fast track and we have developed Chapters 1 and 2 in a draft, fairly complete form. Those will be provided to the MPO by Monday of next week. We are in the last stages of mapping data. I regret not having those with me tonight and truly apologize. We had intended to have those for distribution tonight so you could look at those. The needs assessment is statistically driven and it will lead to the coordination plan strategies to address gaps in services. That is an area that we are going to ask for your help with. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Trowbridge: Which area? White: On the coordination plan strategies. We are actually going to ask for your comment on every stage of the plan, but we will use the input you give us from the first two stages in the planning process to develop the third stage. Trowbridge: Questions from Committee members at this point? White: And the general plan processes are multi-layered and I m going to have Ms. Walker take these slides from here and give you a sense of how the process has developed so far. 16

27 Walker: Good evening, Julie Walker with Carter & Burgess. We are a contractor to the NMDOT Transit and Rail Bureau on this project; and as Mr. White stated, the project is intended to first set up a planning context for figuring out how effectively the needs for eligible program recipients are being met and if you ll forgive a potential redundancy, if you already know this, those program recipients are elderly persons, persons in poverty, zero car households, and I m missing one. Trowbridge: Disabled. Walker: Thank you. Yes and disabled. Thank you very much. I beg your pardon. So the planning context that we established we used census data and effectively layered, stacked, if you will, these different populations in a series of maps to see where are the relative concentrations of these eligible populations versus where is the service. So right now the next few slides that you will see are data intensive and may feel like mental gymnastics but we ll go slowly, and these same maps will be in the packet that you will receive within the week. So here we go, so we mapped, as we mentioned, the census data as you see in the first bullet. We also used NMDOT data as well as data from the area agencies on aging and from the Human Services Department to get a more complete pitch for Medicaid recipients and the services that they are intended to receive as well as the 5307 urban services to get some idea of where a more complete picture of where service is offered. This is an example of what we ve built. First we looked at eligible recipients in terms of a percentage of population. If you think about a typical population, your disabled persons, elderly persons, low income persons are all going to be a proportion or a percentage of your total population and that doesn t change, they will still be a percentage of the population no matter whether the population is small or large. Understanding that New Mexico has a great many areas that are more rural in nature. We started by looking strictly at the percentage of population so that we could get an idea of how prominent the need is no matter how large the population. This is an example of that map and it s reported in an index that is based off a state wide average. We re looking entirely within a New Mexico planning context. We re not imposing a minimum threshold from outside at this point, we re simply saying relative to the State wide average, how does it stack up? Low, medium and high, relative to the average. Low being beneath, high being above. What do you have? And what you see is an average distribution for most of the RPO, and in the MPO area that is called out here, largely within the average with the exception of this spot just west of the I-25 corridor which has a higher than average need in the existing condition. Forecast that to 2025 and you have with the growth rates that were used from the State Wide Multimodal Transportation Plan that was developed by a different firm. We took their growth rates, applied them to the mix of persons and came up with high needs shift and most of 17

28 MPO area, the area that would be of your concern, is looking within the average area. Now that s percent. What this says is here are the needs. This doesn t say how easy it is to serve them. It doesn t talk about the concentration of needs, so that s our next step. What we called transit potential is based on a minimum density. In many transit areas, what they found is that a minimum density of population per square mile is needed in order to run services cost effectively. That minimum density is about one person per acre for para-transit, for these special needs services. What you see is that if you were to apply that standard to most of the RPO it wouldn t make it. For the MPO area, a good deal of it makes it and even exceeds it, so this a contrasting picture. The previous picture said you have very prevalent needs. This picture says you may have prevalent needs, but they are more easily served in some areas than others. The picture doesn t change much in 2025 condition. So now we ve had the contrasting pictures, this next set of maps puts them together and says alright you ve looked at the percentage, you ve looked at just the density, what is the density of these eligible populations, and where are the transit services that are serving them? And what you have here are pie charts that depict the number of vehicles that are serving these populations groups. So where the pie charts are larger, that s more vehicles. Where they re smaller, it s fewer. Within this area you largely have, with a couple of exceptions in the RPO area, it s typically 1 to 2 vehicles per city, which is why the pie charts look very small. But you see here is that the density, the need density is largest, and probably won t surprise you, in your cities. In T or C, Hatch and here in Las Cruces; and where you have, the good news for Las Cruces, is that you have some fixed route transit service for the special needs population who may have some harder time accessing those services. There are just a few JARC, that s Job Access and Reverse Commute vehicles available for service. We point this out because this is the beginnings of the GAP analysis, where are vehicles versus where are the needs and so this is a good jumping off point for saying okay, yeah those needs make sense to us in terms of what we see every day and here s what we would like you, project team, to do about them. So this is where we would like you to be able to start your comments. Thinking about this planning context in terms of where the service is versus where the needs are and what s out there now and what other initiatives you have coming and you obviously do from your UPWP presentation. What do we need to reflect in terms of your priorities for serving these populations. In 2025 the needs just greater in the Las Cruces area for these population groups. So I started on the next steps and that s what we re asking for you to do is take a look at the data when you receive the document and give it a gut check. This makes sense to us. You might want to consider something else, but it is census data and it is DOT data so what we really need you to help us do is help us tell the story. What should happen next and we would prefer to receive your 18

29 comments within three weeks of receiving the documents. This is where we can be reached with your comments. Any questions? Trowbridge: When would we receive the document? Walker: Within the week. At the latest, Monday or Tuesday of next week. Trowbridge: And so then you would hope to receive comments from us ed or written in another month. Walker: Yes. Trowbridge: Do you have a date, maybe of June 5 th, something like that? Walker: Mr. Chairman, June 5 th sounds like a wonderful date. Trowbridge: We ll be reading the comments and the reports and would the comments come forward independently or do we have to collate them in some form or fashion? Do they have to be verified? Can I ask everybody just to do this independently? Or. Walker: As you wish. They do not have to be collated, we can deal with that on our end. We will also be coming back to speak with the Technical Committee in three weeks, after which time they will have three weeks to respond to the document that they receive as well. So we can do the leg work. Jones: Mr. Chairman. Trowbridge: Mr. Jones. Jones: Ms. Walker, it sounds like then what you are asking for, you want individual comments. Your not looking for comments from this Body, do I understand that correct, as a collective group. Walker: We will take either or both. Jones: Okay, then, my guess is given our schedule, unless the Chairman wishes to schedule another meeting, they will be individual comments, but I defer to him to make that decision and give advice. Trowbridge: I think we can, my own sense is that we could read it ourselves and independently submit comments. I don t know if there is an urgent need to do something in a collative fashion. Other questions from Councillors or members? 19

30 Archuleta: Mr. Chairman. In the packet that you are going to provide to us, you will have telephone numbers, should we have questions, in the packet. Walker: Yes and these numbers apply as well. These are exactly the phone numbers that will also be in the packet. Archuleta: In the packet, okay. So we don t need to copy those down? Walker: No, actually we should probably clarify that the packet will be coming, if I m not mistaken, electronically. So we can make sure to include this information in the body of the to which the packet will be attached. Does that make sense? Archuleta: Thank you. Trowbridge: Other comments or questions? Thank you very much. Look forward to working with you. Mr. Murphy, are we at development review? Murphy: Yes, Mr. Chair. B. Development Review Murphy: Staff has nothing out of this review that we would like to bring to your attention, but if you have any questions over anything I will try to answer but if not, I will get back to you individually with answers tomorrow. Trowbridge: If you would leave that up just for a moment, I ll just follow up and maybe phrase a concern voiced earlier by Trustee Nelson, the Vice Chair, that the grid plan that we have as part of our Thoroughfare Plan for the MPO for the east mesa overlapping the so called Presidio proposal. I guess the question is coming because of our layered zoning there is a range of total population build-out that ranges sometimes from 30 to 85,000 depending on the source and so a lot of folks are wondering what is up with that. How can you have it such a wide range and then how does that fit with your traffic analysis? I guess the question will come back to the MPO is this grid of roads which follows national guidelines for separation of major arterials by one mail and collectors every half mile, how much is that designed to support what is the base population that the network that we adopted and super imposed on that area, what is its range for capacity support? I guess that s really the question, because you could say that perhaps it s designed to support a hundred thousand, but those are the questions that are coming forward from the public and I think that will be routed to the MPO. Do you understand what I mean? Murphy: Mr. Chair, I do think I understand what you mean. It s a difficult question to answer. I think that the answer would come down to really as the MPO, 20

31 as this is annexed into the City we really need to encourage that there is a balance of land use so that trips are short. That there are opportunities to utilize transit trips, walking trips, bicycle trips and not have everything go to an automobile trip that has to cross Telshor and Lohman. Trowbridge: Correct, as density rises you achieve an economy of scale so that people can take a thirty second car ride or a five minute walk so you become self supporting. You don t have to spend 15 or 20 minutes on the road, but I guess the question that is going to come back is the grid that was imposed, that was adopted for that nine square mile area is probably some reference point that the road design with those right-of-way widths is there to support a population of X and so that is what people are kind of giving us the benefit of the doubt and are looking for an objective criteria. Those are the sort of things we hope to see posted on the City s website. If there are comments on development review Murphy: Mr. Hume would like to address that. Hume: Mr. Chair, members of Committee, one thing I would like to say, sometimes doing a direct comparison is very difficult because we re talking about how many people per square mile or per acre could potentially be living in this area and when we talk about how much traffic a particular roadway can handle, we talk about ADT or average annual daily trips and so sometimes it can get a little confusing because we re talking about sort of apples and oranges, although the people are the ones creating the trips. But as a rule of thumb, certain size roadways can handle various size of trips. For example, for collector you looking at probably 10,000 to maybe upwards 18,000 trips per day that a collector segment can handle. So there are some rules of thumb that can be used to sort of gage how things and actually engineers do look at that when they are developing a subdivision that they know, for example, will create 10,000 trips. They know that based on the dwelling units they are going to produce that. Is the roadway network within and around that subdivision going to be able to handle 10,000 trips and they will generate what s called a TIA, a traffic impact analysis, to show that it will or won t and so there are some metrics. They are kind of rules of thumb. They are not hard and fast but that does exist to an extent. Trowbridge: Mr. Jones or Ms. Karen Perez. Perez: The traffic impact analysis though looks at trip generation for that particular subdivision, it still doesn t look at cumulative impact, right? So if you add those 10,000 trips to the 10,000 that we are already making on that road, they are not looking at that, they are looking their trips for their subdivision on a road not in addition to the other trips. 21

32 Hume: Perez: Hume: Perez: Hume: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Perez, what they do with a traffic impact analysis is they look at, they have to take the current traffic counts for a particular area, which would be supplied by the MPO and then they would look at how those additional trips would impact and be distributed amongst the roadways that are already carrying traffic so it would be a cumulative look. What they are not required to do is look and say is somebody else s 10,000 trips that might come on in the subdivision proposed next to me. That would be that individuals or that group s responsibility, so they look at only how their subdivision or their development impacts the cumulative area around and within their development and I hope that was clear as mud. That s sort of clear. I m not sure how accurate it is, but I think it s clear. The last time I looked at traffic impact analysis, again, it was a subdivision on a road not in addition to the traffic all the way on there. That s been kind of a general problem with those traffic impact analysis studies is that they don t look at the cumulative impact. They just look at the trips that they are generating so something to be educated on. We ll add it to the training lesson, maybe you can clarify that for me. Thanks. Well and one other thing if I might respond to that, Mr. Chair, is that I know that when in particular Dan Soriano, the City s traffic engineer, looks at a traffic impact analysis in his office, even if the TIA perhaps does not spell it out, he certainly looks at it because he recognizes that there is a cumulative impact and looks at something, that perhaps not everyone is totally with what s called a level of service and the impact that the subdivision will have on the overall level of service on existing roadways, so that impact is certainly looked at whether it s by the developer or by the agency who is reviewing the document. And that s I think what we were trying to get at with the assurances to people that this MPO plan isn t looking at, because they are used to seeing in the subdivision level they just see these individual traffic impact analysis reports and it is important that people understand that there is somebody some where that s looking at them and kind of adding them all up and looking at that cumulative impact and I agree with Councillor Trowbridge especially when you are looking at an area of that size, it s really important that we communicate that and reassure the public that it is being done. Absolutely and Mr. Chair, if I might for the information for all the Committee members let you know that when the grid was being developed on the east mesa during the 2005 Transportation Plan update, we had a tremendous input from the Technical Advisory Committee including Dan Soriano and others with a great deal of knowledge about traffic management and how to take care of the needs of the citizens from 22

33 a transportation aspect and from their professional input came this grid system and so we really feel confident that the input is solid and that it is going to meet the needs for that proposed, however that proposed development takes place. Trowbridge: Councillor Jones. Jones: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hume you hit upon an important point. Let me make sure I understand it right. This grid that s out there and let s talk about the east mesa because that s the amount of growth we are seeing right now and that s where the City is growing largely, but certainly not the only place. This is some what anticipated at least dating back to the 2005 study that establishes grid and is there any recent developments that are inconsistent with the study? In other words, is there any direction of growth or any rate of growth change or the nature of the growth change that we ve all been hearing about or not hearing about, is there anything in all of that, that you are aware of that s inconsistent with the results of the 2005 study? Hume: Mr. Chair, Councillor Jones, specifically relating and I m assuming your request specifically relates to the east mesa? Jones: Yes, but if you like to elaborate on other areas, I would invite you to do that as well. Hume: Okay, from the perspective of the MPO we reviewed the annexation and master plan proposals for the east mesa that the City has been looking over and also in consultation with a lot of other agencies. Of course that s part of the role that we perform with the MPO. We feel like that network that is being supplied is going to meet the needs for whatever they are proposing in that area with the master plans and so on. The other area that Mr. Murphy touched on, which is part of our study area and is in the UPWP, is the South Valley Study Area and there are some developments going or proposed to go on in that area that we aren t as comfortable with going forward. Of course, it doesn t relate specifically to the City but it relates more to the County and their jurisdiction, but we feel confident that in working the developers and in progressing with our study areas we will achieve the same level of confidence with a proposed roadway network that we have on the east mesa. Jones: Two more questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman. One is please let us know, one is more of a statement than a question, whatever input you need from us to the south. By all means that s important, I know for me and certainly it s the case with those representing the County. Any input we need to provide, please let us know whether in this environment or another, for instance the ETA. The second thing and it is a question. While there is a 23

34 tremendous amount of work done here with the regard to the MPO and the Thoroughfare Plan, there was some other mention about density and the type of land use and things like, there is only so much the MPO can do in those regards. A lot of that, and I m asking to make sure I m correct, a lot of that falls to Community Development or some body like that, is that also the case? Hume: Yes, Mr. Chair, Councillor Jones, first of all to answer your first statement we will absolutely keep the Policy Committee informed on developments as they continue with the North and South Valley Study Areas and I know that specifically Commissioners Butler and Saldana-Caviness, although not on this Board, are being asked to participate since those study areas are specifically within in their districts. To address your question, the preliminary look at the master plan and the annexation requests, those did meet with the corridors that were outlined as we previously mentioned. As specific subdivisions and, of course, this is assuming that the master plan and the annexations get approved by City Council, the specific subdivisions that are then developed and broken out in pieces and brought forward whether it be commercial or residential or office subdivisions, they will, in fact, again receive another layer of review by the Community Development, by the MPO, and at that time if there are some specific needs that we see in cooperation with the City in regard to the roadway network, we will make those recommendations at that time, so there are always multiple levels of review between the time we go from basically a scrub piece of desert to a developed piece of property, there are a lot of reviews that take place. Trowbridge: Right, just to remind where we are on the agenda, it s development review. We usually have some subdivisions coming forward. MPO has to review and so as this area is broken out and subdivided that whole process will repeat itself on the micro level, on a smaller scale. Any other subject questions on that? Let s go to C. NMDOT News. C. NMDOT News Murphy: I think we ve already covered most of the NMDOT News in the UPWP but there is one more item, the GRIP 2, which Mr. Mathew would like to say a few words. Mathew: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board again, if you don t mind I d like to touch upon the discussion that we just heard about the growth and how that fits in and I want to tie into the modeling effort that the MPO is undertaking and to kind of illustrate why they are doing that and why we re actually funding that conversion. When you go through an MTP, a long range plan, what the MPO typically does is they look at the population growth by region and they also look at the land use development patterns, 24

35 they look at zoning and they come up with a cap on what they think the anticipated growth is. Sometimes they will do a low, medium, high projection, but from there they use that as a basis a network which will handle that growth, so the growth assumptions are built into your long range plan basically, and what we re doing right now, what the MPO is doing is they are re-looking, they are converting their model and they are updating it with the latest data on growth and land use and zoning so we have a better, a more accurate idea of what the growth is in those areas. And from there we will take that and use that as inputs into the traffic forecast model and come up with a network which will accommodate that growth and when that is presented to you, it will be presented with the following assumptions, in other words, we will assume this network will handle this level of growth. If it comes any sooner, we will have to revisit it. If it comes later or it s is way off, again, we will have to look at it. So that is how the modeling ties into like your questions about that. That typically isn t handled in a traffic impact study because traffic impact studies are done by typically a developer and so they are just looking at the impacts, you know, for their particular development. It s the role of the MPO through the MTP process and through the modeling update that they look at the cumulative impacts on a network and they consider the large area picture, if you will. So I hope that clarified that point. I want to mention one thing about the meeting summary, we do have a draft letter out to staff. We expect that we will have a formal letter out to the Policy Board, but one point I wanted to make was that we would like to have a follow up meeting about mid-term fiscal year, so probably some time in December and that s something that we agreed to at that meeting that we would have another follow up meeting just to assess a progress, maybe the progress on the RFP and the training and make sure that everyone is in agreement about the status of the MPO and about how we re following with the improvements. My last topic is the GRIP, GRIP 2 actually. As you may be aware, Governor Richardson did sign GRIP 2 legislation and so the difference between GRIP 1 and GRIP 2 is that GRIP 2 is a State sponsored program and it s aimed more at local governments. City of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County have GRIP projects in that legislation. The deadline for applications is May 15 th, so if you have any questions, if any your staff people have any questions on the GRIP 2 application, please contact me. We have a staff person that is handling that in our office, his name is Ben Tapia. I will hook the two of you up. For projection implementation on the GRIP, that s through the district and that s Filiberto Castorena, he s the District 1 technical support engineer, so if you have any questions on the implementation, please contact him. We sent out a summary of questions that we have gotten in the last six months about the GRIP and they were just sent out to Tom late yesterday afternoon, so he will be sending that to, I m sure, Dona Ana County staff people and City staff people. But I just wanted to remind you that one of the biggest questions we ve had is that a disbursement or a reimbursement program, 25

36 the difference is that if it s a disbursement, you get the money up front. If it s a reimbursement, you do the work and then you bill us. It is a reimbursement program so the implementing agency, the County or the City, would be sending us the bills and then we would be processing those and sending payments. Trowbridge: Is that for all the GRIP 2 projects? Mathew: All of GRIP 2, yes. Trowbridge: Mr. Hume, please. Hume: Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, I d like to give you an up to the minute update about GRIP 2. First of all, the Town of Mesilla unfortunately did not receive any projects because all of the projects that were submitted were on State roadways and because of the large volume of projects, all those on State roadways were taken off of the list. What we can do is we can work with you further on identifying those projects and putting them on our TIP and hopefully trying to find funding through other means. The County Commission yesterday heard and approved a resolution approving the GRIP 2 project for Dona Ana County which is the Dripping Springs Tortugas Arroyo area. A redoing of the culverts in that area for the flood mitigation and making sure the roadway doesn t get washed out like it did in last summer s floods. That was approved and my understanding from the Director of Public Works, Jorge Granados, is that should be sent to the DOT either last yesterday or first thing this morning, so it should be on it s way to Santa Fe. McCamley: Mr. Chair, just a quick update, we also approved assisting with some of the planning funds for Berino Road, down south as well, using both of those. Trowbridge: Thank you very much. Hume: And finally for the City of Las Cruces, I wanted to give an update. MPO staff is working with the Public Works department to put together a Council Action Form, a resolution for the project that was identified by the City, which is the intersection of Telshor and Lohman, which is a reconstruction of that intersection and the application will be turned in by the deadline; however, the next Council isn t until May 21 st. That resolution will be on the docket for May 21 st and, I was informed and this in the that I can forward to you later on, because of the compressed time frame they will go ahead and receive the application and then we can go ahead and send the signed resolution as soon as it is done. However, all the entities that have a complete packet by the deadline will get first choice and so they 26

37 will take it but hopefully the City will be included in that first round, but there is a possibility it might not be because of that time frame. Jones: Mr. Chairman, again repeat the deadlines if you would Andy. Hume: The deadline for the complete packet which includes the project application and the resolution from the governing body is May 15 th. Jones: Thank you. Trowbridge: And that was Mr. Tapia, if you had questions of pursuing that. Berino just had a large BLM land sale and that why I was hesitating but you would expect growth there. Is that it for NMDOT news? Thank you. We have Committee training, last section. Karen Perez had to leave but she asked for staff to contact her to fill her on what she s missed especially on committee training. D. Committee training Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully we ve already complied with that request from Commission Perez. Dianne has passed a folder containing many of these materials. I believe the CD actually has this PowerPoint on their if in your busy schedules if you can get time to peruse it. You can also go back and cover some of these things. This is a training that FHWA and FTA has complied for new Policy Committee members and in light of all the discussion that has taken place earlier with providing the Policy Board training, this one was relatively quick to get up and to have as the first one. So what this is, is kind of an overview of the MPO process and I ll go ahead and get in to it. In planning for transportation and that s what we do here on the Body. Trowbridge: We re going to loose our quorum. Murphy: Okay, MPO works on developing an intermodal automobiles, Mr. Chair should we just hold this at the next meeting. McCamley: How long is this going to take, Mr. Chair? I mean because we each have these in our packets, right? Trowbridge: Yeah, perhaps we could read and review them and you could give us an update or brief us next meeting. Murphy: We can do that. We did have the materials passed out so you could review them at leisure. Certainly, you can contact any MPO staff member at any time if you have any questions about the material and let s just kind of skip to the...this was in your packet. We want to get an idea of what 27

38 kind of training you want developed for future. We will do this training, obviously, next time but thinking about for September and further, kind of what your next favorite topics are. Whether we go over SAFETEA-LU regulations; complete streets, which we ve touched on briefly earlier; roles in MPO work products. This list is included in your packet. I can , all of you, our condensed PowerPoint if it s not included in the disk in the folder that Dianne passed out. Trowbridge: Okay, let s put this as item for discussion on the next agenda. Murphy: Okay, we ll do that. I understand that the meeting has run pretty long. Trowbridge: Okay, and then just let me allow Mr. Ray Mathew, thank you for being here and keeping us informed and for staff to schedule that kind of meeting that we had on April 25 th, another in December, for evaluating where we are in the progress, Vice Chair Nelson will be chairing that meeting. So I would encourage staff to engage Mr. Nelson and kind of planning on may be setting up milestones, communicating with him, because that will probably take up the next year. Does that sound right? Nelson: Good (inaudible). IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Trowbridge: Any public comments? Very quickly. Excused if necessary. Wittern: Mr. Chairman, members of the MPO, staff and guests from the DOT. I would like to encourage, and I m very encouraged by what I heard here earlier today that there is a more intense planning program anticipated in the near term future, if that s correct, that understanding. But one particular, I would encourage the MPO to pay close attention to and that is the, what is commonly referred to as the North Loop Bypass, I think it is an extremely important element in the future plans, especially in the area on the west side of the river. The east side is relatively accessible today, but I believe there is very, very limited opportunity on the west side of the river because the escarpment is very high. The (inaudible) tract ways is in the way. There is significant environmental impact potential and, of course, Picasso Mountain is in the way, so I believe it is extremely important to, at a very early time, locate a series of potential routes in much narrower scale as it is currently on the map because that one goes through the tract ways and my indication from the BLM is, don t even try. That s just not a very desirable conflict to be resolved. So I would encourage you, especially on the west side, to look at that one. To integrate that one with your west mesa annexation that is forthcoming and in particular to find a route to connect that loop road to the high mesa road, that is high on the Governor s of projects to be concluded and completed and it is coupled to 28

39 another project, in my opinion, that MPO is charged to address and that is the UP has been given all of the elements of relocating the yards from El Paso to the Strauss area and I think all of the parts that the State was asked to provide have been passed in the last legislature, and in my opinion that will additional significant impact on your transportation model as you approach the growth of the City, which appears to be significant. Thank you. Trowbridge: Thank you, Mr. Wittern. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? V. ADJOURNMENT McCamley: So moved, Mr. Chair. Trowbridge: So done. Thank you very much for staying on. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Chair person 29

40 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA P.O. BOX LAS CRUCES NM PHONE (505) FAX (505) LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR THE MEETING OF July 11, 2007 ACTION REQUESTED: A Resolution amending the Long Range Transportation Plan: Accepting the Recommendations of the Fairacres Study Area. SUPPORT INFORMATION: Presentation from Fairacres Public Input Meeting May 23, 2007 Public Comments DISCUSSION: In response to current and proposed development, the Las Cruces MPO studied alignment and rightof-way options for the Fairacres Road area. Overall, three public meetings were held and eleven options were developed and evaluated. Staff presented these options and evaluations at the July 2006 and April 2007 TAC meetings, respectively. The second public meeting held April 4, 2007 allowed the citizens to narrow these 11 options to a final five options. The final public input meeting was held May 23 at Fairacres Elementary School. At this meeting staff presented a set of recommendations that it felt were responsive to the needs and concerns identified through the public input process. The overriding concern was that the residents desired to maintain their rural context. However, they also felt that improvements were required to the roadway and other regional network improvements were needed as growth continues. The set of recommendation consist of three actions that will be necessary over the term of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The first two are near to mid term actions. The third is anticipated to be a long term project that will affect the region beyond the immediate Fairacres area. The recommendations are: 1) Improve Fairacres as a 44 Roadway with three 11 lanes and two 5 shoulders 2) Submit Calle de Norte for TIP review with a recommended cross-section identical to Fairacres that also include bridge reconstruction 3) Explore frontage roads to connect the Jackrabbit Interchange and Motel Interchange. These results were presented to the TAC as a Discussion Item on June 7, The item was again presented at the June 28 TAC meeting and the TAC recommended approval with one change. TAC member Frank Guzman (NMDOT) suggested that a frontage road in the area consider tying in with Amador Avenue west of Motel Blvd. Staff indicated that this level of detail could be considered on a project basis.

41 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2005 TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE FAIRACRES ROAD STUDY. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the 2005 Transportation Plan was approved by the Policy Committee on July 13, 2005; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Transportation Plan specified that North Fairacres Road was designated a Collector and South Fairacres Road designated a Minor Arterial; and WHEREAS, development pressures and community concerns prompted the MPO to revisit those classifications; and and WHEREAS, the community has a strong desire to maintain their rural context; WHEREAS, a buildout analysis utilizing current zoning has determined that the anticipated traffic can be accommodated with improvements such as turn lanes, shoulders, and regional circulation improvements; and WHEREAS, regional circulation should be improved through the addition of frontage roads to the Interstate; and WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed this amendment at their July 5, 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Policy Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the MPO for this Resolution to be APPROVED.

42 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization: (I) THAT the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Plan's Major Thoroughfare Plan is amended to designate Roadrunner Parkway between Engler Road and Sandhill Road as a Collector. (II) THAT the alignment for said segment of Roadrunner Parkway shall be as shown in Exhibit A. (III) THAT MPO staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 11th day of July, ATTEST: Recording Secretary Moved by: _ Seconded by: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Chair Trowbridge VOTE: Chair Trowbridge: Vice-Chair Nelson: Councilor Archuleta: Councilor Jones: Commissioner Evans: Commissioner McCamley: Commissioner Perez: Trustee Williamson: Mayor Cadena City Attorney

43 Fairacres Right-of-Way and Alignment Study Area May 23, 2007 In response to development: MPO study area Alignment and ROW options Fairacres Study Area Background Public Input Meetings: Wednesday, May 24, 2006: Discussion and creation of options Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) April 4, 2007: Discussion of eleven (11) options based on input MPO provided analysis Attendees selected their top five (5) options TODAY: Review Top Five options Fairacres Study Area Discuss options strengths and weaknesses Formulation of final recommendation to send to the MPO committees for discussion Analysis from Public Input Estimated Project Cost Project Implementation Process Potential Timeline Right Of Way Acquisition Geographic Information Systems and Mapping Context Sensitive Solutions Complete Streets Top Five Options 1. I-10 Frontage Roads (21 Votes) 2. Levee Road (21 Votes) 3. Fairacres Road as 40 Cross Section (20 Votes) 4. Fairacres Road as Major Thoroughfare (11 Votes) 5. I-10 Interchange at Fairacres Road (11 Votes) 1

44 Analysis from Public Input Improvements needed on Fairacres Narrow travel lanes No shoulders Vehicular conflicts (bicycles, farm equipment, other motorists) Poor drainage Improvements needed to regional circulation Calle de Norte (was submitted by Mesilla for GRIP2 funding) and Picacho; only east-west routes Bosque Park access Near Term Options 1. I-10 Frontage Roads (21 Votes) 2. Levee Road (21 Votes) 3. Fairacres Road as Cross Section (20 Votes) 4. Fairacres Road as Major Thoroughfare (11 Votes) 5. I-10 Interchange at Fairacres Road (11 Votes) Option #3 44 Cross Section (20 votes) Top Five Options REBUILD IN EXISTING ROW: Option #3 (20 Votes) Cross-Section: 44 ; 3 lanes with shoulders Top Five Options REBUILD IN EXISTING ROW: Option #3 (20 Votes) Option #4 Major Thoroughfare (11 votes) Timeline: Cost: ROW: Strengths: Weaknesses: 5-10 years ~ $2.2M No additional ROW required Improves existing infrastructure; Reduces current vehicular conflicts; Sensitive to current context May only handle up to 18,000 AADT 2

45 Top Five Options Top Five Options North Fairacres ROW BUILD PER MTP: Option #4 (11 Votes) BUILD PER MTP: Option #4 (11 Votes) Cross-Section: 85 N Fairacres & 100 S Fairacres; 5 lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks Timeline: 5-15 years Cost: ~ $3.4M 85 ROW ROW: Strengths: Weaknesses: 45 N Fairaces & 60 S Fairacres Improves existing infrastructure and future Level of Service ROW Acquisition; Not sensitive to rural context 44 ROW North Fairacres ROW South Fairacres ROW South Fairacres ROW 85 ROW 44 ROW 100 ROW 100 ROW 44 ROW 44 ROW 3

46 Long Term Regional 1. I-10 Frontage Roads (21 Votes) 2. Levee Road (21 Votes) 3. Fairacres Road as 40 Cross Section (20 Votes) 4. Fairacres Road as Major Thoroughfare (11 Votes) 5. I-10 Interchange at Fairacres Road (11 Votes) Option #1 Frontage Roads (21 votes) FRONTAGE ROADS: Cross-Section: Timeline: Option #1 (21 Votes) 1 way both sides (2 lanes & bike lane) years Cost: ~ $16M ROW: Strengths: Weaknesses: Top Five Options Within I-10 ROW Provides W/E connection; Regional circulation Process with NM DOT and 2 40 Decks; Construct retaining walls (added expense) FRONTAGE ROADS: Top Five Options Option #1 (21 Votes) I-10 Right of Way Option #2 Levee Road (21 votes) 4

47 LEVEE ROAD: Cross-Section: Top Five Options Option #2 (21 Votes) 2-3 lane with bike lane LEVEE ROAD: Top Five Options Option #2 (21 Votes) Option #5 I-10 Interchange (11 votes) Timeline: 5-10 years Cost: ~ $1.8M (Roadway only); Does not include potential levee reconstruction ROW: Need IBWC approval for roadway Strengths: Provides north-south alternative; Diffuse traffic patterns Weaknesses: Legal and engineering issues; Clearance of I-10 Five Top Options I-10 INTERCHANGE: Option #5 (11 Votes) Cross-Section: Timeline: Cost: ROW: Strengths: Weaknesses: Diamond Interchange years ~ $5.7M Determined by NM Department of Transportation Regional circulation; Access to area via Highway Lengthy 8 step FHWA process; approval not certain Five Top Options I-10 INTERCHANGE: Option #11 (11 Votes) Funding Opportunities and Challenges Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project development and funding through County Match requirements for TIP funding Bond Project Fairacres built with funds from a bond Create a Impact Fee District to repay bond Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project submittal through MPO Review and prioritization by MPO Committees Seek funding in cooperation with NMDOT 5

48 Staff Recommendations 3 Phase Approach Upgrade Fairacres (20 votes) 44 Roadway with three 11 lanes and two 5 shoulders Submit Calle de Norte for TIP review Recommend same cross-section as Fairacres Include bridge reconstruction Explore frontage roads to connect Jackrabbit Interchange, Motel Interchange (21 votes) Next Steps Discuss recommendations June 7, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) June 19, 2007 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) June 28, 2007 TAC; Recommendation to Policy Committee July 11, 2007 Policy Committee decision Submit comments to MPO staff via website or comment form until May 31, Questions/Discussion Thank You for Your Attendance and Participation Please leave your written comments before you leave! Send your comments via mail PO Box 20000, Las Cruces, NM, Send your comments via tmurphy@las-cruces.org ahume@las-cruces.org cthomas@las-cruces.org Send your comments via the MPO website 6

49 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA P.O. BOX LAS CRUCES NM PHONE (505) FAX (505) LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR THE MEETING OF July 11, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Review and recommendation Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amendments ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommendation to the MPO Policy Committee. SUPPORT INFORMATION: Transportation Improvement Program Proposed amendments for Transportation Improvement Program DISCUSSION: On April 11, 2007, the MPO Policy Committee approved the Transportation Improvement Program. Based on projects that have received federal funding or are regionally significant, MPO staff finds it necessary to suggest a few TIP amendments as outlined in the Support Information. The amendments include funds shifting within the GRIP I-10 projects, listed as G18A2, G18A3, and G18A4. Also, G18A4 is now being funded through a Congressional Earmark, rather than GRIP sources. Increased funding was applied to projects LCMPO-TH and Finally, LCMPO-TH has been pushed out of the 4- year TIP. A new fiscal year for that project has not been determined.

50 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LCMPO TIP FOR FY THE TIP APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT PROCESS INCLUDES THE PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING OF PROJECTS RELATED TO HIGHWAY, TRANSIT AND AVIATION WITHIN THE LAS CRUCES MPO AREA. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for the planning and financial reporting of all federal and/or state funded transportation projects within the MPO s Urbanized Area for the specified fiscal years; and WHEREAS, preparation of a financially constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a requirement of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT); and WHEREAS, the FY TIP was approved by the Policy Committee on April 11, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City of Las Cruces has changed their Airport CIP and has now asked the Las Cruces MPO to amend the TIP correspondingly; and WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed this amendment at their June 28, 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Policy Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the MPO for this Resolution to be APPROVED. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces

51 Metropolitan Planning Organization: (I) THAT the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization s Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program is amended as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part of this resolution. (II) THAT MPO staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 11th day of July, APPROVED: ATTEST: Recording Secretary Moved by: Seconded by: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Chair Trowbridge VOTE: Chair Trowbridge: Vice-Chair Nelson: Councillor Jones: Councillor Archuleta: Commissioner Perez: Commissioner Evans: Commissioner McCamley: Mayor Cadena Trustee Nelson Trustee Williamson City Attorney

52 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FY 2008 to BY YEAR - July 2007 AMENDMENT LCMPO # NMSHTD # Mode Beg. Milepoint Length (mi) Lead Agency Priority Rank: Roadway/Location Termini Work Description Year (FFY) Total Funding Federal Share State Share Local Share Funding Source Contingencies LCMPO-TH G18A2 TH - Highway NMDOT I-10 MP I-10 RECONSTRUCTION 2008 $29,000, $0.00 $29,000, $0.00 IM/NH/GRIP N/A LCMPO-TH TH - Highway NMDOT ITS ITS HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT 2008 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 UNFUNDED LCMPO-TH G18A3 TH - Highway NMDOT I-10 MP I-10 RECONSTRUCTION 2009 $8,000, $0.00 $8,000, $0.00 IM/NH/GRIP N/A LCMPO-TH D1089 TH - Highway DAC ROAD B-036 (SAVANNAH ROAD).55 MI W OF NM MP 19.2 BR 7703 OVER WESTSIDE CANAL; BR 7890 OVER ARREY IRRI 2009 $420, $336, $84, $0.00 BR-OFF SYSTEM LCMPO-TH G18A4 TH - Highway NMDOT I-10 MP 144 TO I-10 RECONSTRUCTION 2010 $12,545, $12,545, $0.00 $0.00 CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK N/A LCMPO-TH TH - Highway NMDOT - DIST 1 I-10 MOTEL INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION 2011 $7,006, $6,490, $515, $0.00 IM/BR N/A LCMPO-TH TH - Highway NMDOT - DIST 1 I-10 NM28 BRIDGE REHAB 2011 $4,081, $3,780, $300, $0.00 IM/BR N/A Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Page 1 of 2

53 LCMPO # NMSHTD # Mode Beg. Milepoint Length (mi) Lead Agency Priority Rank: Roadway/Location Termini Work Description Year (FFY) Total Funding Federal Share State Share Local Share Funding Source Contingencies LCMPO-TH D1028 TH - Highway 0 9 NMDOT I-25 MP 0-9 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION; UNDERPASS AT ENGLER 2011 $3,000, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IM LCMPO-TH TH - Highway N/A NMDOT - DIST 1 I-10 BRIDGES 7264/7265, 7266/7267 BRIDGE REHAB TBD $7,300, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IM/BR Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Page 2 of 2

54 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA P.O. BOX LAS CRUCES NM PHONE (505) FAX (505) AGENDA ITEM: Committee Training LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION FORM FOR THE MEETING OF July 11, 2007 ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of the MPO structure and future training SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1. PowerPoint presentation DISCUSSION: In an effort to educate new Policy Committee members in regards to the MPO, our structure, and processes and also to provide a refresher for returning members, the MPO staff is giving a brief overview of the Las Cruces MPO By-laws. MPO staff would like to ensure we are providing the Policy Committee with a complete picture of the functions and purpose of an MPO in regional planning. Discussions with some Committee members and NMDOT staff have indicated that regular training topics would aid in accomplishing this objective.

55 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING LAS CRUCES, DOÑA ANA, AND MESILLA P.O. BOX LAS CRUCES NM PHONE (505) FAX (505) LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION FORM FOR THE MEETING OF July 11, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Transportation Plan amendments to achieve compliance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of the Plan amendments SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1. SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis 2. Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU Compliance document DISCUSSION: The Las Cruces MPO adopted its 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) on July 13, The U.S. Congress adopted and the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on August 10, Recent FHWA guidance on the new transportation bill requires that the MPO update its LRTP to bring into conformance with SAFETEA-LU. The public comment period was opened at the TAC meeting held on May 3, At that time, staff received comments from TAC members and DOT staff. MPO staff met with Ray Matthew and Joseph de la Rosa, from NMDOT, to further review, refine, and expand the proposed amendments. The amendments presented today reflect the comments to date. Most of the proposed amendments will fall into the Intermodal Element. This is the only element in the LRTP that is set up to handle issues that affect all transportation modes. MPO staff expects that the development of the LRTP will take a more comprehensive look at all of the issues affecting transportation and frame the Plan around these rather than focusing on individual modes. Also, updates of the Transportation Improvement Program Application and Public Involvement Plan, as outlined in the Unified Planning Work Program, will continue to focus on important issues identified in SAFETEA-LU. These amendments are being presented for Policy Committee member review and comment. Staff continues to update based on comments received from all sources.

56 Statutory Planning and Programming Requirements UPDATE CYCLES SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (All updates must be completed by July 2007) Potential SAFETEA-LU "Closing the Gap" Steps Develop an approvable TIP with projects/project phases covering four years Steps for Las Cruces MPO Develop 2008 TIP with 4 "in years" and at least 2 "out years" depending on DOT framework; should stay as 6 year STIP Timeline TIP adopted conforms to SAFETEA-LU METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FACTORS - Safety Amend MTP for safety goals, objectives, and policies Amend UPWP for safety Amend TIP Application for safety issues "Safety is component of project selection" New objective: Safety; Maybe place in Intermodal Element; Maybe place in each element ITS Coordination and Communication Include Model training "Projects are evaluated with safety in mind." Already ask for available accident and fatality data; Restructure application into sections, including safety MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under open public comment period; anticipated adoption by Policy Committee July UPWP adopted May Policy Committee conforms to SAFETEA-LU Work is progressing on updating application; anticipated completion Sept 07 Policy Committee. METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FACTORS - Security Amend MTP for security goals, objectives and policies New objective: Security; Maybe place in Intermodal Element; Maybe place in each element OEM Coordination Policy Policy RE: Emergency Plan review and comment Reference transit security plan in narrative Develop narrative and policy RE: HC routes MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under open public comment period; anticipated adoption by Policy Committee July 11 ITS Coordination and Communication Amend UPWP for security Address all security gaps in MPO docs 0708 UPWP adopted May Policy Committee conforms to SAFETEA-LU METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FACTORS - Land Use and Trasportation Planning Amend MTP Narrative explaining subdivision and construction plan review Narrative explaining local government assistance with comprehensive plans and zoning ordinance updates MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under public comment period; anticipate adoption by Policy Committee July 11 Amend UPWP Update with above activities 0708 UPWP adopted May Policy Committee conforms to SAFETEA-LU FISCAL CONSTRAINT Amend MTP Update Financial Plan with new DOT targets ENVIRONMENTAL MTIGATION ACTIVITIES Amend MTP Discuss environmentally sensitive areas Farmland Preservation Context sensitive solutions Consult with NMDOT amennd MTP Sept 12 MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under public comment period; anticipate adoption by Policy Committee July 11 CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION PUBLIC TRANSIT ELEMENT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Amend PIP Amend MTP Amend MTP Explicit statement: Provide MPO docs for review and offer opportunity to comment Use VISSIM to simulate driver behavior Who is doing Transit-Human Services Trans. Plan? Coordinate public and private transit? Policy RE: Maintenance and management of current system considers O&M caosts as vital part of program (includes Transit) PC is committed to maintaining and managing current system Costs for maintenance are developed by lead agency responsible for the facility Estimates are based on lane miles, not including reconstruction; Reconstruction is a capital project Amendment to include explicit statement to be presented at June 28 TAC; 45 day comment period; adoption projected September Policy Committee (September 12) MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under public comment period; anticipate adoption by Policy Committee July 11 MTP amendments presented at April TAC; currently under public comment period; anticipate adoption by Policy Committee July 11

57 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LAS CRUCES DOÑA ANA COUNTY MESILLA Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU Compliance Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 1

58 INTRODUCTION...5 SAFETY...6 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...6 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...6 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...6 THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT - FUTURE NEEDS...6 INTERMODAL ELEMENT... 7 INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN LRTP TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...8 BICYCLE ELEMENT... 8 AVIATION/AEROSPACE ELEMENT... 8 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT... 8 RAIL ELEMENT... 8 SECURITY...9 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...9 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...9 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...9 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTERMODAL ELEMENT CONSISTENCY OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN WITH PLANNED GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS...11 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...11 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...11 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...11 INTERMODAL ELEMENT CURRENT ISSUES INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN LRTP TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...12 AVIATION/AEROSPACE ELEMENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN...13 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...13 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...13 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...13 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CURRENT ISSUES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ANNUAL LISTING OF PROJECTS...14 Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 2

59 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...14 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...14 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...14 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ACTIVITIES...15 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...15 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...15 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...15 INTERMODAL ELEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT - FUTURE NEEDS INTERMODAL ELEMENT CURRENT ISSUES INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN LRTP TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...16 INTERMODAL ELEMENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION...18 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...18 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...18 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...18 INTERMODAL ELEMENT - MPO STATEMENT AND 2010 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CURRENT ISSUES TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES/OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES...21 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...21 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...21 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...21 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) APPLICATION AND RANKING THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT - FUTURE NEEDS THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT - MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN LRTP TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...22 THOROUGHFARE ELEMENT INTERESTED PARTIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN...24 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...24 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...24 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...24 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN (PIP) VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN...25 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...25 Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 3

60 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...25 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...25 INTERMODAL ELEMENT VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES PUBLICATION OF THE PLAN...26 SAFETEA-LU REGULATION(S)...26 KEY CHANGES BETWEEN ISTEA/TEA-21 AND SAFETEA-LU...26 LAS CRUCES MPO STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS REGULATIONS:...26 Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 4

61 INTRODUCTION On August 10, 2005 the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU is the successor to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) of The adoption of SAFETEA-LU, among other changes, has led to an increased awareness of safety and security as separate sections and as they relate to transportation planning, and infrastructure operation and maintenance. MPO staff has worked with the New Mexico Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration during the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) amendments. The narrative and policy improvements reflect the MPO s dedication to planning a safe and secure transportation system for residents, employers, and visitors to the MPO area. Staff has integrated most of these improvements in the Intermodal Element because it is the only element which covers topics germane to every mode. These amendments are meant to be a stop-gap solution in order to attain and maintain basic SAFETEA-LU compliance. Many of the proposed policies will require new processes or amendments to existing MPO processes. As these processes evolve, they will continue to be documented in the LRTP, Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). MPO staff has also explored the best practices of other MPO s who are effectively addressing SAFETEA-LU regulations. The Las Cruces MPO, in response to the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 23 CFR , Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 30, February 14, 2007, Rules and Regulations Phase in of New Requirements has carefully reviewed its planning process and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. A process to determine the extent, and if necessary, steps required to address each SAFETEA-LU compliant issue was completed by the Las Cruces MPO staff and MPO Policy Committee. These and future amendments to the 2005 MPO Transportation Plan are being proposed under the auspices of a SAFETEA-LU Compliant Long Range Transportation Plan. On, by Resolution, the following activities have been addressed by the Las Cruces MPO Policy Committee. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 5

62 SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) SAFETY 23 CFR (a)(2): Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. 23 CFR (h): The metropolitan transportation planning process should be consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as specified in 23 USC 148, and other transit safety and security planning and review processes, plans, and programs as appropriate. 23 CFR (h): The metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects for the MPO contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan required under 23 USC 1487, as well as safeguards the personal security of all motorized and nonmotorized users. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU added a new stand-alone factor, increase safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. TEA-21 combined safety and security under one element. SAFETEA-LU also states that the transportation planning process should be consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). In New Mexico, this plan is called the Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan (CTSP). Prior to SAFETEA-LU the CTSP was not required by the states. With the inception of the regulation it will ensure coordination between the CTSP and the metropolitan planning process. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: The MPO is ensuring that Safety and Security are addresses as two distinct areas. The majority of the updates will be included in the Intermodal Element of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). New Mexico s CTSP includes goals to emphasize that collaboration among the many different transportation and safety-related organizations and groups is essential to achieve the ultimate result, which is a reduction in traffic injuries and fatalities. In addition, according to the State of New Mexico safety representative, analyses were and should be data driven, such as utilizing crash data for analyses, and focused on the 4Es (engineering, enforcement, education and emergency services), as well as include management and operations issues. The Las Cruces MPO suggests that a 5 th E, evaluation, also be a part of this process. Thoroughfare Element - Future Needs Safety is an essential part of the roadway network planning. The MPO is creating a geo-database of local and regional crash data in order to develop strategies to improve safety on our roadways. Through consultation with the Traffic Safety Bureau and the Division of Government Research in Albuquerque, the MPO is acquiring GIS Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 6

63 compatible data to use in our analyses. This data has already begun to be organized in a fashion that will allow the MPO to investigate safety issues for all modes, and be able to provide a particular focus on problem intersections. Using GIS, the MPO can analyze the data and assess areas of high priority for safety improvements in future projects. Data from the Las Cruces Police Department (LCPD) has been acquired as well. Part of increasing safety is providing facilities for all modes of transportation and improving traveling conditions for children walking to school, the elderly, disabled, and motorists driving in work zones. The MPO has already worked with local schools and the City of Las Cruces to create a Safe Routes to School pilot project that resulted in roadway and crossing improvements. The MPO continues to coordinate with local entities, organizations, and the general public to improve safety conditions for all modes during all stages of projects, including planning, design and construction. We also work with enforcement agencies to promote public awareness. The MPO is also actively involved in coordinating with the LCPD to increase awareness for roadway regulations that affect pedestrians, bicyclists and automobile drivers. In order to ensure recognition and compliance with the CTSP the MPO has included, in the TIP Application and Evaluation, specific measures for evaluating current bicycle and pedestrian safety, and assessing of the need for increased safety in certain areas. In addition, the MPO has recently prioritized its bicycle facility projects and is updating the Pedestrian Element of the LRTP to create a list of high priority pedestrian facility projects. With the ability for the RoadRUNNER buses to accommodate bicycles, with racks for two bikes on all their vehicles, the bicycle network becomes more integrated as an essential part of the transportation network. The transit system is incomplete without modes that reach transit stops, and this means connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The MPO will continue to promote the development of projects that support investment in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities through coordination with the State, Transit agencies, local entities, relevant organizations, and the public. Intermodal Element Objective 3 Establish procedures that ensure all transportation projects are evaluated to maintain and improve the safety of the entire transportation system. 3.1 The MPO will modify the TIP ranking system to advance projects that correct safety deficiencies. 3.2 Promote a safe transportation system by coordinating MPO project proposals and work products with the: RoadRUNNER transit safety initiatives outlined in the Transit Stratetgic Plan DOT s Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan Other applicable transportation safety plans Development of ITS projects and concepts. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 7

64 3.3 The MPO will review and comment on regional safety plans. 3.4 The MPO will gather crash data for motorized as well as non-motorized users and compile statistics and analyses of these data for projects, study areas, and establishing priorities. Information Currently in LRTP to Address Regulations: Bicycle Element Objective 5: Establish bicycle awareness campaigns and safety programs that promote the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation (Includes Policies ) Section on Bicycle Facility Priorities that includes prioritized roadways and facilities in need of signs and/or paint. Section on System Connectivity and Safety Concerns. Section on Bicycle Accidents. Aviation/Aerospace Element Policy 2.5: Expand instrument approach capabilities as needed to remove current limitations and further safe and efficient operations of the airport. Public Transportation Element Policy 3.3: Improve pedestrian facilities and street lighting that front or service public transportation routes. Policy 3.7: Consider transit pull-off areas, based upon passenger counts and studies of embarkments, along major thoroughfares on which fixed-routes exist to improve safety of passenger boarding and to decrease the impedance upon through-moving traffic. Rail Element Objective 3: Address safety concerns and support the implementation of safety enhancements in which rail service traverses other mode facilities. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 8

65 SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) SECURITY 23 CFR (a)(3): Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. 23 CFR (h): The metropolitan transportation planning process should be consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as specified in 23 USC 148, and other transit safety and security planning and review processes, plans, and programs as appropriate 23 CFR (h): The metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects for the MPO contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan required under 23 USC 1487, as well as and safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU added a new stand-alone factor, increase security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. TEA-21 combined safety and security as one element. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: The MPO is ensuring that Safety and Security are two distinct areas addressed. The majority of the updates will be included in the Intermodal Element of the LRTP. The Las Cruces MPO currently addresses security issues through the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). The Las Cruces MPO area has several pieces of transportation infrastructure that are important to national security. These include: Interstate Highway 10 (west-east route); Interstate Highway 25 (north-south route); U.S. Highway 70; the Las Cruces International Airport; and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line. The major roadways connect the Las Cruces MPO area to national and international facilities, such as, the Santa Teresa Port of Entry, Foreign Trade Zones located at the Las Cruces and Santa Teresa Airport, White Sands Missile Range, NASA, El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, and the future Spaceport. Recent natural events, such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, have also focused attention on the need for evacuation of the general population. In Doña Ana County, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) takes the lead in coordinating disaster mitigation, incident management, and other safety and security issues facing the area. The LEPC is a coalition of first-responders, law enforcement agencies, health-care providers, and other interested groups. The LEPC consults with the MPO and thus RoadRUNNER transit in evacuation route identification and incident management planning. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 9

66 The 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan promotes a well connected transportation network for the purposes of providing direct routes to aid motorized and nonmotorized transportation modes and thereby minimize out of direction travel. A well connected transportation network also aids Security by providing redundant travel path choices that emergency services can utilize in the event that the primary path is not passable. The Las Cruces MPO will actively work to coordinate with the appropriate agencies to determine the best process for promoting a secure transportation system. Public Transportation Element 7) Improve the security of area residents in the event of an emergency evacuation situation by coordinating with local jurisdiction to plan for established evacuation routes and procedures. Coordinate specifically with the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) through participation on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). Policy 1.9: Consult and coordinate with local entities in the utilization of RoadRUNNER transit as part of the implementation of evacuation routes for the City All Hazard plan. Intermodal Element Objective 4 - Security Establish procedures that ensure all transportation projects are evaluated to maintain and improve the security of the entire transportation system. 4.1 The MPO will aid incident management by continuing to promote a well connected transportation network. 4.2 Promote a secure transportation system by coordinating MPO project proposals and work products with: RoadRUNNER Transit Security Plan and implementation of Evacuation Routes and Emergency procedures Las Cruces International Airport Emergency Plan Other applicable transportation security plans Development of ITS projects and concepts Working to develop Hazardous Cargo (HC) routes with NMDOT. 4.3 The MPO will continue to coordinate with the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) through participation on the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). 4.4 The MPO will review and comment on regional security plans. 4.5 The MPO will coordinate with Homeland Security and other security-related organizations to help safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 10

67 CONSISTENCY OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN WITH PLANNED GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (a)(5): Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU expands the environmental factor by adding the phrase promote consistency of the transportation plan and transportation improvements with State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. TEA-21 stated to Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Intermodal Element Current Issues For the integration of land use and transportation planning and planned growth strategies, the MPO staff is actively (review and voting) participating on the Development Review Committees of the City of Las Cruces and the Extra Territorial Zone, and provides consultation on land use plan revisions and adoptions. The MPO supports the City of Las Cruces Economic Development and Revitalization Department and has coordinated specifically in relation to changes in the Las Cruces Downtown transportation network, including Transit, bicycling and walking routes. The MPO will also support the Town of Mesilla in coordinating transportation with the development of cluster subdivisions. The MPO has also reviewed Livability! The Report of the Governor s Task Force on Our Communities, Our Future to determine consistent objectives with our LRTP, and will include some of these issues, such as Transit Oriented Development into the 2010 update. In the MPO area, the region is embarking upon the creation of a new Regional Comprehensive Plan, of which the MPO has taken a part in reviewing and providing comments. In the 2010 LRTP update particular focus will be taken to ensure consistent land use and transportation compatibility to be incorporated into a comprehensive narrative section concerning the Las Cruces MPOs coordinated and compatible approach to the creation of our Thoroughfare network, and the further policies regarding inclusion of non-motorized users in our transportation system. Also included, will be an increase in maps depicting the location of the relevant land uses and socio-demographics that pertain to economic development of the area. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 11

68 Information Currently in LRTP to Address Regulations: Aviation/Aerospace Element Objective 1: Support land use policies that protect the long range viability of the current airport location and its future potential for economic development. Public Transportation Element Objective 6: Support the development of more efficient transit service by improving the connection between transportation and land use. Thoroughfare Element Additional Long Range Considerations section speaks to development in the MPO area. Policy 1.2: The MPO should facilitate right-of-way preservation of planned corridors through the subdivision process through coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, State Land Office, or other agencies, or through other means of preservation as they become available. Objective 2: MPO encourages land uses consistent with the planned transportation system, so that there is no significant reduction of its efficiency. Policy 2.1: MPO encourages the promotion and implementation of comprehensive plan rules and regulations that coordinate land use and transportation planning activities. Policy 2.2: MPO encourages the promotion and implementation of land use policies that support the preservation of rights-of-way to meet existing MPO policy and this plan. Policy 2.7: The MPO should coordinate land use activities and transportation through established review procedures zoning, subdivision, and other land development cases as processed through the City and ETZ. Policy 2.8: MPO staff shall establish criteria for evaluating study corridors and study areas. These criteria may include: Current and proposed adjoining land use Overall transportation system benefits Current and proposed thoroughfare alignments Access control issues Roadway engineering estimates Community concerns and issues Environmental concerns and issues Historical and cultural concerns and interests Safety concerns and issues Other regional impacts. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 12

69 COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (g): Preparation of the coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan, as required by 49 U.S.C 5310, 5316, and 5317, should be coordinated and consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning process. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU The change is to ensure full coordination with the metropolitan planning process. SAFETEA-LU further states that the Coordination Plan does not have to be the MPO s responsibility. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Public Transportation Element Current Issues The Transit Bureau of the New Mexico Department of Transportation is taking the lead on the development of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. This plan is a requirement of SAFETEA-LU legislation for all Section 5310 Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), and Section 5317 New Freedom program recipients. Thus, this plan analyzes the transit services in the South Central RPO, as well as in the Las Cruces MPO, and will further assess the needs and strategies for future transit services in the area. The MPO will continue to coordinate with the NMDOT as they complete this process. The Plan is available on the MPO website for public input. The Plan should be presented to each advisory committee for input prior to Policy Committee consideration. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee is tasked with discussing issues that impact pedestrian needs, including transit. The Technical Advisory Committee will examine the Plan from the standpoint of improving transit access in our MPO area, especially since RoadRUNNER Transit, the local fixed route transit provider, is represented on the committee. Ultimately, our Policy Committee will decide, by resolution, if the plan addresses the needs of the MPO. Public Transportation Element 1.9 Consult and Coordinate with NMDOT in preparation of the Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 13

70 SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) ANNUAL LISTING OF PROJECTS 23 CFR (a): In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year. 23CFR (b): The listing shall be prepared in accordance with (a) and shall include all federally funded projects authorized or revised to increase obligations I the preceding program year, and shall at a minimum include the TIP information under (e)(1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining and available for subsequent years. 23 CFR (a): The MPO, the State(s) and the public transportation operator(s) shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. These responsibilities shall able clearly identified in written agreements among the MPO, the State(s) and the public transportation operator(s) serving the MPA. To the extent possible, a single agreement between all responsible parties should be developed. The written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related to the development of financial plans that support the metropolitan transportation plan ( ) and the metropolitan TIP ( ) and the development of annual listing of obligated projects ( ). Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU Under SAFETEA-LU this section provides interested parties with information so they can identify obligated funds from the previous program year. In TEA-21 projects were not specifically included (pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities). Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Each year the Las Cruces MPO creates a list of completed projects. However, under the new regulations the MPO will work with NMDOT, RoadRUNNER Transit, and Las Cruces International Airport to compile a list of projects for which funds have been obligated. These projects shall include all projects for which federal funds were invested. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 14

71 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ACTIVITIES SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (f)(7): [The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include:] A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs or strategies rather than project level. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU states that metropolitan and statewide transportation plans shall include discussion of environmental mitigation activities. These discussion activities shall be developed with Federal, State, and Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Intermodal Element - Environmental Mitigation and Context Sensitive Solutions 2.5 Environmental mitigation activities will be developed in consultation with Federal, State and tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies. 2.6 MPO will encourage consideration of Context Sensitive Solutions when projects are developed or implemented. Thoroughfare Element - Future Needs As the MPO metropolitan area grows, a part of coordination and environmental stewardship includes close cooperation with State and local land agencies. The MPO will consult with agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation as the thoroughfare system develops and as a part of the 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan update. The MPO will coordinate with protection and preservation agencies as appropriate. Currently, the Las Cruces MPO, for example, consistently shares information with the Bureau of Land Management, and has recently provided both verbal and visual input into the creation of their Regional Management Plan by sharing Geographic Information Systems data and providing assistance in the creation of maps. These maps show BLM plan alternatives in relation to the MPO Thoroughfare plan. As plans evolve, the MPO will continue to coordinate with the Bureau of Land Management and State Land Office to ensure that context sensitive placement, design, and construction, as well as maintenance and operation, of thoroughfares through, and adjacent to, various land uses is approached in a comprehensive manner. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 15

72 Although the Las Cruces MPO is not currently a Transportation Management Area (TMA), the MPO promotes environmental stewardship through non-motorized transportation to alleviate air quality issues in addition to taking initiative in researching alternative fuel technologies, and promoting their implementation when appropriate. Intermodal Element Current Issues Intermodal Management System planning will reduce environmental impact and traffic congestion by providing alternative transportation opportunities (transit, bicycle, and walking) and proper land use integration, thereby reducing dependency on the private automobile for most trips. Reduction of traffic congestion and environmental impact can be accomplished, in part, through the use of the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) and the MPO s travel demand modeling software to analyze the current and future network, and provide for possible alternatives. Intermodal facilities will be identified and coded into the GIS and allow planners to determine the continuity of existing transportation facilities and each facility's service area. Knowing this will provide a better and more efficient use of public funds. Travel demand modeling software will enable an analysis of the use of alternative transportation opportunities in these facility service areas, and show the alleviation of traffic congestion in other areas. Other methods by which the MPO can be a resource to the area jurisdictions and organizations will also be explored. Information Currently in LRTP to Address Regulations: Intermodal Element Objective 2: Encourage the enactment of policies and/or regulations by the local governments that address environmental issues. Public Transportation Element Section on Energy Conservation. Policy 1.8: Explore and analyze emerging technologies or vehicle alternatives with potential to reduce fuel consumption and emissions in a cost effective way. Thoroughfare Element Goal: Achieve a system of thoroughfare corridors that maximize traffic movement, system-wide, and intermodal connectivity, and mitigates vehicular congestion in a cost effective, timely, and environmentally sound manner. Policy 1.6: The locations of the corridors on the Major Thoroughfare Plan are preliminary alignments. The final alignments of the corridors are to be set as development occurs and engineering studies determine the most viable route for the roadway. The final alignments of a roadway may be shifted due to change sin topography of the presence of significant features liked dams and retention ponds. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 16

73 Policy 2.3: MPO encourages intergovernmental coordination of regional land use with transportation planning to help preserve the unique, established character of the Mesilla Valley. Objective 4: Establish Policy for transportation corridors that mitigate traffic congestion Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 17

74 SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION 23 CFR (b): In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs the MPO should consult with agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation (including State and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations or freight movements) or coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent practicable) with such planning activities. In addition, metropolitan transportation pans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other related planning activities within in the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide for the design and delivery for transportation services within the area that are. 23 CFR (3): MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented process (es) that outline roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with other governmental agencies 23 CFR (g): The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for land-use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of the transportation plan. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU requires consultation with non-metropolitan local officials and Tribal governments in the development of the long range transportation plan where TEA-21 required the same no change. SAFETEA-LU requires the MPOs to consult with local/state land use management, natural resources, historic and other agencies in the development of transportation plans whereas TEA-21 did not emphasis this requirement. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: The Las Cruces MPO will continue to improve consultation with partners (State, MPOs, RPOs, and non-metropolitan local officials). In the next LRTP update, the MPO will provide a more detailed analysis and documentation of our coordination process, and will also compare our Thoroughfare Plan with available plans and maps of area land uses designations, such as the wilderness and areas of environmental concern produced by the Bureau of Land Management and other appropriate agencies. The Las Cruces MPO s Public Involvement Plan identifies agencies the MPO currently coordinates with, and that will continue to be consulted on future updates of the MPO Transportation Plan, such as the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 18

75 Intermodal Element - MPO Statement and 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan In an effort to define the vision by which the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization is guided, the Las Cruces MPO has expanded its mission statement to help facilitate consistency of current processes and future updates, specifically the re-organization of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The new mission statement is as follows; The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization promotes safe and cohesive communities through compatible, connected, coordinated transportation and land use planning. The MPO is committed to promoting safe and cohesive communities as its ultimate goal, and intends to do this through compatible, connected, and coordinated actions that involve both the transportation system and the well researched and undeniable link between the transportation system and neighboring land uses. The result of this vision will be further implemented in the update of the 2010 Transportation Plan. This plan will include a more comprehensive look at safety, security, and intermodal issues (with emphasis on non-motorized transportation receiving equal status) in the Las Cruces MPO area. The 2010 LRTP will address a significant flaw in the current Plan. The current LRTP addresses each mode as a separate element, instead of using an intermodal approach. The 2010 Plan will review overarching issues that impact our multi-modal transportation network through the lens of our vision statement. This means that all modes are congruently discussed and promoted using the best possible compatibility, connectivity and coordination in their implementation. This method of organizing the different elements into a comprehensive document will require analyses of all modes simultaneously in aspects of planning, design, policy implementation, operation and maintenance, in addition to safety and security issues. In this way, the MPO staff feels the subjects of safety, security, intermodalism, and consultation and cooperation will best be addressed. In the development of the Las Cruces Long-Range Transportation Plan, MPO staff will seek data and information from the agencies identified in the Participation Plan, including land-use management agencies, and historic preservation, environmental and natural resource planning groups. The agencies will be asked to provide comments on the Plan and Projects. They may provide the Las Cruces MPO with information such as, but not limited to, conservation plans and maps, inventories of natural and historic resources, economic plans, land use plans and maps, etc. The MPO staff will utilize the collected data for future plan development. Socio-economic projections, density projections, and land-use plans will be reviewed. A comparison of proposed projects with the collected information may occur. Already on the MPO s Technical Advisory Committee, in addition to the main jurisdictions, are representatives from the Bureau of Land Management, the Dona Ana County Flood Commission, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, the Las Cruces Public Schools and the New Mexico Department of Transportation. The MPO is encouraging the NMDOT to be an advising member of the Policy Committee as well to further help promote coordination in regional transportation matters. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 19

76 Public Transportation Element Current Issues There are many existing Public, Private, Non-Profit and Human Services Transportation providers in the Las Cruces metropolitan area. The MPO is active in coordinating between these providers. With the recent creation of a Regional Transit District and the future building of an intermodal center by the City of Las Cruces and RoadRUNNER transit, this type of coordination will be continuously improved upon. Other transportation providers in the MPO Boundary Area that will be consulted with, as appropriate, and whose inclusion in the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan include Ben Archer Health Center that provides transportation for TANF recipients to job training sites, and takes clients to their jobs. The South Central Council of Governments that operates a feeder system on a modified fixed route in the Hatch Valley area of northern Doña Ana County that coordinates with services provided by Ben Archer. Also in existence is Saferide Services that operates a non-emergency medical transportation system reimbursed through the Medicaid program; Tresco, Inc. which provides services to individuals with developmental disabilities; Helweg & Farmer Transportation, a company that provides school bus service for the Las Cruces School District; Checker/Yellow Cab, a local taxi service provider, and provider of non-emergency medical transportation for the entire State of New Mexico that is reimbursed by Medicaid. Also available in the area is New Mexico Works, an agency that assists TANF recipients in getting job training and finding jobs through a referral system. The Dona Ana County Health and Human Services Department through the Dona Ana County Health Alliance and the Alliance Access to Care committee is currently working on the acquisition of funding for a county-wide Management Information System (MIS). Issues pertinent to the MPO and local transit agencies include the coordination and access to health and human services that is expected to improve greatly with this system. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 20

77 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES/OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (f)(3): Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods. 23 CFR (f)(6): Design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of funding source, in non-attainment and maintenance areas for conformity determination under the EPA s transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates. 23 CFR (10)(i): For the purpose of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU emphasizes Operations and management strategies in metropolitan transportation plans. This change is to foster good planning practice in order to maximize resources. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Application and Ranking Las Cruces MPO staff is updating the TIP Application and ranking process. The current TIP Application focuses on the project and its individual merits as the basis of ranking. The new TIP Application will broaden the focus of the project being discussed to include the adherence of the project to current plans, and specifically its integration of intermodal elements, and safety and security issues. For example, while we still need to gather specific information about a project, such as where it located and how much it will cost; the new application asks the entity proposing a project to explain how it will integrate with, and improve, the overall transportation network for all modes. Also, as outlined by the SAFETEA-LU legislation, the discussion of a proposed project must include how it will benefit the overall safety and security of the transportation network as separate concerns. The basis for this discussion will include crash data available through the MPO (acquired from New Mexico Division of Government Research and the Traffic Safety Bureau) and the project s fulfillment of safety issues outlined in the DOT s Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan. It is also the goal of MPO staff that the new TIP ranking will readily provide a list of approved safety projects to send to the DOT s Safety Bureau for funding. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 21

78 Thoroughfare Element - Future Needs It is also essential that operation and maintenance costs become an integral part of developing and programming projects in the future. Measures taken to improve operations and maintenance of transportation facilities will help relieve congestion and maximize safety and mobility of people and goods. The MPO is currently updating the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Regional Architecture, originally adopted in Staff is working with the contractor, ConSysTec, to gather stakeholder input and begin looking projects that could be developed in the MPO area. The new Architecture should be adopted by the end of Once the Architecture is in place, stakeholders can begin to develop projects that may address operation and maintenance issues. For example, dynamic message signs can be used to divert traffic in the event of an accident on the interstate. The information about the accident can be relayed to emergency responders, news outlets, and maintenance crews to assist in incident mitigation. Thoroughfare Element - Maintenance and Operation Objective 5 The MPO is committed to planning for the maintenance and management the current transportation system. 5.1 Maintenance and management of current system shall consider operation and maintenance (O&M) costs as vital part of program. 5.2 Maintenance costs are to be developed by the lead agency responsible for the facility. Estimates are to be based on lane miles not including reconstruction. 5.3 Maintenance and operation costs will be considered in developing and programming projects in the TIP and the LRTP. Information Currently in LRTP to Address Regulations: Thoroughfare Element Policy 1.1.C: The MPO will maintain various transportation data for use in corridor planning, management systems, and major investment plans as required by the state and federal government. Annual statistic siwll be reported by the MPO such as traffic counts, traffic growth rate, transit ridership, car and vanpool information, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and other data as may be necessary. Policy 1.7: The MPO will maintain the Travel Demand Model to evaluate the effects of future roadways and reconstructed roadways on the existing transportation network. Objective 2: MPO encourages land uses consistent with the planned transportation system, so that there is no significant reduction of its efficiency. (See subsequent Policies). Policy 3.8: Sidewalk, landscaping, street lighting, and intermodal facility projects should be included in the construction and reconstruction of Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 22

79 thoroughfare projects. Landscaping projects may be completed as a separate enhancement project after the roadway construction is completed. The MPO supports water-wise landscaping. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 23

80 INTERESTED PARTIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (a): The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunity to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. 23 CFR (a)(1): The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for: 23 CFR (e): MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, which may be included in the agreement(s) developed under Section Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU has expanded the definition of interested parties. Therefore requiring interested parties to consult on the participation plan, MPO to publish or make available for public review transportation plans and to hold public meetings at convenient and accessible times and locations. SAFETEA-LU also states that a documented process to outline roles, responsibilities is required. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: Public Involvement Plan (PIP) Las Cruces MPO staff is preparing an update of the Public Involvement Plan to address SAFETEA-LU compliance issues. It is scheduled for discussion and adoption at the Policy Committee meeting on September 12, MPO staff will complete a full update to the Public Involvement Plan in FY Since the development of the current plan in 2003, the MPO has expanded its use of certain public involvement tools in an effort to engage the public more fully. In addition, the MPO website has expanded greatly over the past few years and has proven useful for providing a large amount of information and allowing the public to quickly send us their comments. The use of Open Houses and a modified charrette process has changed the mode of planning in the MPO to a true bottom-up process. The update will also provide an opportunity to reorganize the PIP matrix with new information that should make it an easy-to-understand, quick reference for the public and the MPO s member organizations and local jurisdictions. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 24

81 VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) 23 CFR (a)(1)(iii): [The participation plan shall describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for:] Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation plans. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU TEA-21 employed visualization techniques however SAFETEA-LU requires metropolitan transportation plans to utilize visualization techniques to better facilitate the public s understanding of issues being presented, meaning recognizing the range and capabilities and needs. Therefore, place an emphasis on promoting an improved understanding of transportation plans and programs through employing visualization techniques. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: The Las Cruces MPO utilizes visualization techniques in project development maps, photos, and PowerPoint presentations are employed to illustrate basic information concerning planning and funding activities. The Las Cruces MPO Public Involvement Plan also addresses the visualization techniques that are to be utilized during the 2010 Transportation Plan updates. Intermodal Element Visualization Techniques The MPO has traditionally provided information in a visually-based format. Staff utilizes tables, charts, and graphs to display data and make difficult concepts easier to understand. We employ Geographic Information Systems and aerial photography to create maps of study corridors, trail systems, bicycle routes, and roadway classifications. All of theses visualization techniques are applied liberally throughout our MPO documents and the MPO website. In addition, the MPO has already utilized VISSIM to simulate traffic flows in our analysis of the Myles/Engler study corridor. MPO staff will expand its visualization techniques through the use the VISUM traffic demand modeling software and VISSIM simulation presentations. The software uses differences in line thickness to illustrate changes in traffic volumes throughout the region. This software also contains a micro-simulation component called VISSIM. Staff plans to create more simulations to demonstrate how changes in development patterns or an improved multi-modal, redundant network could impact the travel demands on a neighborhood, community, and/or Safe Route to School. Staff will also continuously work to simplify its documents using visual techniques. Flow charts, tables, and illustrations will be employed in our tasks to help better explain technical terms and transportation planning concepts. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 25

82 SAFETEA-LU Regulation(s) PUBLICATION OF THE PLAN 23 CFR (j): The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or other wise made readily available by the MPO for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web. 23 CFR 316(a): The MPO shall develop and use a document participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways, and bicycle transportation faculties, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. 23 CFR 316(a)(1): The Participation Plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes. Key changes between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU TEA-21 did not require the plan to be electronically accessible. SAFETEA-LU requires the plan to be made available electronically, such as the World Wide Web. This revision provides the public another means of viewing and participating in the transportation planning process. Additionally, SAFETEA-LU requires a documented process providing opportunities for individuals and agencies to participate. Las Cruces MPO Strategies to Address Regulations: The World Wide Web has been an integral part of the Las Cruces MPO s public participation process since On the MPO webpage, the MPO staff provides plans and documents that have been adopted by the MPO Policy Committee, maintains links to meeting packets, and consistently updates times and locations of committee meetings. Public meetings are posted and public comment forms are available to provide immediate feedback. Drafts and final documents are also available in hard copy and on CD, upon request. The Las Cruces MPO will continue to provide information electronically to encourage the public to participate in the transportation planning process. The MPO Master Mailing List has categories designed to specifically target groups with particular interest in bicycle and pedestrian planning. The MPO shall explore opportunities to further engage representatives of the disabled community. Draft MPO SAFETEA LU Compliance 26

83 RECOMMENDED Jurisdiction No. Location Process Submittal Date Comments Lots Acres Density ROW Dedication CLC Bataan Memorial Plat 5/30/2007 ROW dedication for Porter Road Amended Plat of Hess Terrace Replat 6/26/ Cave Creek Subdivision, Phase 3 at Sonoma Ranch South Replat No. 2 Replat 5/30/ Mesa Manor Subdivision, Phase 2 Replat 6/26/2007 Corner lot split for drainage pond area Monte Bello Subdivision Final Plat 6/19/ Utility easement labeled for ped 6 Pueblo De Las Alamedas Alternate Summary 6/19/2007 access Sierra Norte Subdivision -Sonoma 7 Ranch only Construction 6/14/2007 Bike lanes and multi-use path 8 Sonoma Ranch East Alternate Summary 6/8/2007 Lot line vacated Sonoma Ranch East II Construction 6/1/2007 Phase 8 and 9 10 South Fork Subdivision Replat 6/19/ South Fork Subdivision Replat 6/13/2007 Splitting lot for roadway USRS Tract 9D-30, Plat 1 Replat 6/8/ Vulcan Subdivision Replat 6/19/ West Mesa Industrial Park #23, 13 #26, #27 Alternate Summary 6/19/ West Mesa Industrial Park #23, 14 #26, #27 Replat 6/13/ ETZ 15 Desert View Estates Preliminary Plat 6/21/2007 Holman Road ROW acquired. Ped access on drainage easements. Final 16 Inspiration Heights Subdivision Plat/Construction 6/8/ Rancho Don Ray Subdivision TIA 6/21/ Vista Bella Subdivision No thoroughfares in phase 6. 80' major local - Corona Road Final Plat/Construction 6/21/

84 UNRESOLVED Jurisdiction No. Location Process Submittal Date Comments Thoroughfares Monte Bello CLC 5 Subdivision Construction 6/21/2007 Cross sections for roadway and access? A waiver request is required for ROW modification. MPO recommends due to constraints a similar row dedication as parcel to 19 Pat Garrett Subdivision Preliminary Plat 6/21/2007 the west. Brown Ave ETZ Inspiration Heights 16 Subdivision Final Plat/Construction 6/19/2007 No cross section or notes for Holman road Holman road Proposed collector located South of property. Proposed 20 June Acres Addition Preliminary Plat 6/8/2007 Please provide necessary ROW. Collector Rancho Don Ray 17 Subdivision Final Plat (Cluster) 6/21/2007 Please provide ped facilities on local and collector. Please provide bike facility on collector. Recommend 5' striped shoulder. Pajaro 21 Tierra Escondida Preliminary Plat 6/6/2007 Homeowner's within Tierra Escondida should have pedestrian access to and from Sonoma Ranch Blvd, therefore recommend multi-use path to extend on Paseo Del Sonoma. Sonoma Ranch ZONING, ETC. 22 Wildwood Subdivision Construction 6/19/2007 Please provide bike lanes on el centro. Share the road signs on Weisner. Why are there bike lanes on Greasewood (local road)? Weisner and El Centro Jurisdiction No. Process Location Request Comments Submittal Date 825 N. Alameda Recommend entry/access to be located on Van CLC 23 Zone Change Blvd R-2 to O-2 Patten, not Alameda 6/21/ Zone Change East Boutz and Espina O-1 to O-2, variance request to buffer No comments 6/21/ Zone Change Ithaca court east of Roadrunner Parkway R-1a to R2C Will there be connectivity to adjacent school? 6/27/2007

85 Date: June 25, 2007 From: Paul Lindsey 9900 Starfly Rd Las Cruces, NM (505) To: Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (LCMPO) Subj: Request for redesignation of Hondo Road between Brahman and Moongate Roads from proposed collector to local classification. Attachments: (1) Assessor s Parcel Map of area (2) Google Earth satellite photograph of area (3) Traffic Count History for Moongate and Brahman Roads north of El Centro Road 1. Summary: It is requested that Hondo Road between Brahman and Moongate Roads be changed from the designation proposed collector shown on the 2005 Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (LRTP) to the designation local. The justification is based on the current and future density of the area served by Hondo Road, particularly in light of the recent Sierra Norte and Vistas at the Presidio annexations and approved master plans. 2. Background: The area shown in attachments (1) and (2) is zoned ER3M (site-built or mobile homes, minimum 1 acre lot size). Hondo Road is paved with a double-penetration chip-seal surface from Moongate to MacArthur Roads. Moongate and El Centro Roads are paved with asphalt. MacArthur Road is asphalt-paved between El Centro and Hondo Roads, and then is chip-sealed from Hondo Road north to Dragonfly Road. Both Dragonfly and Brahman Roads are county-maintained dirt roads. The one square mile area directly west is NM State Land Office land. ¼ mile east of the subject area is the Brahman Flood Control Channel. The majority of parcels are larger than 1 acre, with one parcel as large as 40 acres. There are a few lots smaller than 1 acre with homes that have been grandfathered, including a few lots that are smaller than the current minimum ¾ acre required by the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) for septic systems. The 2005 LRTP designated: (a) Hondo Road as a proposed collector from Brahman Road 4.5 miles west to a future northward extension of Mesa Road, (b) Moongate and El Centro Roads as a proposed minor arterial, (c) Brahman Road as a minor arterial, and (d) MacArthur Road as a collector. 1

86 3. Discussion: (a) From the LCMPO website, the traffic counts along Moongate and Brahman Roads north of El Centro Road were plotted on attachment (3). The interesting feature is the 50% decrease from 1994 to Since there has not been a mass exodus of residents from the subject area, the only conclusion is that the paving of Luna Vista, MacArthur and El Centro Roads over the last 10 years has provided residents with different preferred routes to and from their homes. The traffic counts along Brahman Road remained almost flat, as Brahman Road has remained a dirt road throughout the entire time period and attracted no additional trips. (b) Using the current ER3M zoning or even changing all the parcels to ER3/4M zoning (3/4 ac minimum), it is impossible to generate enough trips using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 210, Single-Family Detached Housing, methodology to justify any of the minor arterial or collector designations for the roads in this area. (Dragonfly may be a special case, due to the envisioned north bypass.) (c) In a conversation with the MPO Officer in early January 2007, he stated that the assumption used to calculate the future traffic requirements in this area was city density of 6-10 houses per acre. This density is 150% to 250% of the 4 lots per acre density of the recent Inspiration Heights subdivision on Holman Road. In order to substantially increase the housing density in the subject area, two major changes must occur: i. The smaller lots, most with existing structures and residents, must be purchased and then rezoned and subdivided into medium or high density lots. ii. In order to build on the new smaller lots, sewer line must be run to the area. Currently, the nearest gravity connection for sewer is at the intersection of Peachtree Hills and Holman Road, over 4 miles away. While there is a forcedmain sewer line running south on Holman Road from the Inspiration Heights subdivision, it cannot be assumed that the lift station is sized to handle more than the 700 homes in that development. (d) Of greater impact are the recent annexations and zoning and master plan approvals for the Sierra Norte and Vistas at the Presidio subdivisions. i. From the CLC City Council minutes, the anticipated housing units in the Sierra Norte development through Phase III is 6,620 to 16,601 units. ii. Also from the CLC City Council minutes, the anticipated housing units in the Vistas at the Presidio Phases I and II is 30,000 to 44,000 units. Combining these two developments and not including any of the other smaller developments, this results in a possible 36,620 to 50,601 housing units. These two developments alone will more than double the total housing units in Las Cruces. 2

87 4. Conclusions: (a) The density assumption used to designate Hondo Road between Moongate and Brahman Roads as a proposed collector is grossly inflated. While at some point in the future Hondo Road may extend westward across now undeveloped land and may require a four-lane roadway in that area, the residences in the area east of Moongate Road will not generate enough trips to justify that size of pavement eastward from Moongate Road. (b) Given the recent annexations and the impediments to increasing the density in the subject area, it is hard to envision a future where a developer would find it preferable to buy out a large group of established residents and then conduct mass demolition, rather than begin with relatively raw native land. 3

88 Dragonfly Rd Hondo Rd El Centro Rd Moongate Rd MacArthur Rd Brahman Rd Assessor s Parcel Map Attachment (1) 4

89 Dragonfly Rd Hondo Rd El Centro Rd Moongate Rd MacArthur Rd Brahman Rd Google Earth Satellite Photo Attachment (2) 5