Citizens’ Task Force for
Open Space Preservation
openspaces@zianet.com
Tom Murphy
Las Cruces MPO
PO Box 20000
Las Cruces, NM 88004
May 11, 2005
Dear Mr. Murphy:
The steering committee of the Citizens’ Task Force for Open Space Preservation thanks you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 2005 Transportation Plan and would like to offer the following comments on the draft.
Proposed Trail System. We have been supportive of the Proposed Trail System since it was first adopted in March 2002, and we continue to view it as a critical element of long-range transportation planning for our region. We have several suggestions about how to better integrate the Proposed Trail System with the rest of the Transportation Plan as well as other suggestions about the content of the Proposed Trail System.
a. In general, it appears that the Proposed Trail System could be better integrated with the document describing the Transportation Plan. Unlike the other large maps that are part of the overall plan, there is no specific reference to the trail system within the document. Listed below are some of the sections where reference to the Proposed Trail System could easily be incorporated.
· In the Analysis section under the Evaluation and Data Analysis section of the Bicycle Element (second-to-the-last paragraph), there is some discussion of the desirability of locating multi-use paths on right-of-ways that are independent of roadways. This would be a natural place to make reference to the Proposed Trail System, perhaps by citing the irrigation facilities’ potential as a significant off-road option for bicyclists.
· The new Pedestrian Element would also be an appropriate place to mention the Proposed Trail Plan; for instance, the trails would be an ideal component of the Safe Routes to School program, as they could provide walking (or bicycling) routes to schools that would keep children away from vehicular traffic.
· One of the Proposed Trail Plan’s strengths is its potential value for pedestrians, and we are pleased that the 2005 Transportation Plan includes the new Pedestrian Element. Again, to make sure the Pedestrian Element (and by extension, the Proposed Trail Plan) is fully integrated with the rest of the Transportation Plan, we would also encourage the MPO to incorporate references to pedestrians wherever possible. For instance, Policy 2.3 of the Intermodal Element and Policy 3.2 of the Public Transportation Element could both be enhanced by the addition of pedestrians.
· The Implementation Element currently makes no reference to trails. Given the discussion of the Triviz and La Llorona Trail extensions in the Bicycle Element, this would seem to be a good opportunity to build on the success of those two trails, perhaps by identifying the further extension of the river trail and the development of the connection between those two trails (the route along the Las Cruces Dam Outfall Channel) as obvious next steps; the trails that would enhance Downtown Revitalization efforts and improvements at Burn Lake also seem like logical priorities at this time. Based on steps the City of Las Cruces is taking, we assume that protection of necessary right-of-ways and the development of the arroyo trails will become a standard part of the development review process and that their prioritization in the Implementation Element is unnecessary.
b. We are pleased to see many additions to the 2005 version of the Proposed Trail System, including additional routes along irrigation canals, the addition of major arroyos north of Highway 70 and along the West Mesa Escarpment, and the new north-south route along the powerline right-of-way on the East Mesa. The extension of the trail along the main stem of the Alameda Arroyo east of the Alameda Dam is also an important improvement. Because the protected open spaces in outlying areas (such as the BLM lands at the base of the Organ Mountains) are valid destinations for transportation planning, we will continue to request that the trail along at least one stem of each major arroyo reach all the way to those protected lands. Since the Pedestrian Element appears to still be a work in progress, we suggest that the discussion of the process that will be used to further develop that Element include collaborating with community groups to identify appropriate trail corridors to reach recreational destinations in the MPO planning area.
Major Thoroughfare Plan. We fully support Policy 2.1 of the Intermodal Element, which calls for a sensitivity to the natural environment, and we would like to see more evidence of this policy’s application to the Major Thoroughfare Plan.
a. East of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, the mapped future roadways are mapped as a straight-line grid, based on the desired intervals between roadways. While this is obviously an efficient way to lay out approximate street locations well ahead of development, it can have unfortunate effects over the long-term because these parallel alignments become the default, assumed road location. Instead of looking at the entire length of a roadway and asking what route makes the most sense from both an engineering and environmental perspective, the detailed, site-specific planning gets done in chunks. Given the incremental build-out of major arterials and the piece-meal planning that occurs (a half-mile or mile at a time, as opposed to thinking about the full length of a given roadway), we may be missing opportunities to locate roadways in places that minimize both engineering challenges and environmental impacts (such as avoiding major arroyos entirely for east-west routes and crossing arroyos at relatively narrow locations for north-south routes). We would prefer to see a regional long-term plan for a future roadway network that respects and conforms to the natural topography; it might cost more in the short-term, but it could easily reduce engineering and infrastructure costs in the future.
b. Unfortunately, because of the potential release of the eastern half of Section 27 along the Alameda Arroyo, we have been forced to do some small-scale planning of our own, and we offer the following suggested realignment of Mesa Grande Drive. In its current alignment along the eastern edge of Section 27, Mesa Grande will destroy an important historic site, the Pat Garrett murder site (marker placed by Jarvis Garrett). The murder site also happens to be adjacent to a very steep hillside, which would appear to offer a serious engineering challenge. One possible re-alignment (see rough sketch on attached map and aerial photo) would cross Alameda Arroyo west of the current alignment and wrap the roadway around the toe of the hill south of the murder site. We have based this suggested realignment on the importance of protecting the murder site and the hillside that overlooks it; we have not thought about other alignments that might make more sense from a regional perspective (ie: looking at the best route for the entire length of Mesa Grande), but we would obviously encourage the MPO to look at the entire length of Mesa Grande at this time to identify the specific alignment that makes the most sense for the entire length of the roadway.
Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance in the development of the 2005 Transportation Plan.
Sincerely,
Nancy Stotz
For the CTF Steering Committee
521-8087
Enc: Map, aerial photo
CC: Tom Schuster
Andy Hume