The village has partnered with the Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) and contracted with the engineering firm Pennington and Associates to conduct the corridor study. After several months of input and research, the team is ready to present its next set of findings at an open house on Tuesday.

This is second open house for the corridor study and it will be held from 4 to 8 p.m. on Jan. 26 at the Los Lunas Transit Center next to the Rail Runner Station at the corner of N.M. 314 and Courthouse Road.

While the members of the project management team, or steering committee, feel that the process they have been following to decide whether a second east-west roadway, complete with a bridge crossing the river, has been open and transparent, some county residents aren't so sure.

Deb Christensen, a member of the newly formed El Cerro Neighborhood Association, which represents about 115 households in that area, says she and others in her geographic area are feeling like their voices aren't being heard. Christensen is concerned that the corridors south of Los Lunas being studied, if ultimately selected as the final solution, will do little to alleviate traffic in the village and merely dump extra traffic into her rural neighborhood on El Cerro Loop.

"We contend that Los Lunas has not done enough to solve its own problem," Christensen said. "It encouraged businesses along Main Street, there are schools and restaurants. Some simple stoplight engineering could make a huge difference."

Pam McKenzie is a member of the Historic Tomé Neighborhood Association and remembers well the efforts 10 years ago to build a bridge across the river.

"I think a lot of frustration for people is the numbers driving this come from big developers," McKenzie said. "The attitude build it and they will come. Have they even looked at the vacancy rate on these proposed developments? How much building has there actually been? How many families have really moved in? And those impacted ultimately have no voice."

Both women sit on the citizen's advisory committee (CAC) for the corridor study. "The charter the CAC was given was to improve traffic movement on Highway 6," McKenzie said. "Then find there are two goals. The second goal is to improve access to developed and developing parts of the county."

McKenzie also expressed dissatisfaction at what she feels is little or possible lack of accurate communication between the CAC and the steering committee, which is made up of representatives from the county, the four municipalities, MRCOG, the state department of transportation and the federal highway administration.

"Dave (Pennington) and Loretta (Tollefson) come talk to us, the advisory committee, and we are supposed to take that information back to our groups and bring them feedback," she said. "Then they meet with the steering committee. I'm not sure what is being passed on."

The CAC has also suggested using intelligent traffic design and better management of school traffic, McKenzie said,; instead there is a push south. She feels the suggestions are being ignored.

"They are saying there won't be no new traffic it's just going to be redistributed," Christensen said. "But why are people going to travel south to go north?"

Both say there are still numerous questions to be answered such as do the plans for a road include how it will cross Middle Rio Grande Conservancy irrigation ditches and what kind of interface will the potential new road have with N.M. 47.

"Is the traffic on 47 going to have to stop at this other road," McKenzie asked. "People are feeling sandbagged. We've been asked to participate and then we get this. Ten years ago they said at-grade crossings wouldn't work, but now they say they say they will?"

Christensen and McKenzie say during this process neither the county's mobility plan nor its comprehensive land use plan have been mentioned or considered. "The steering committee have winnowed down the choices," McKenzie said. "There is a lack of transparency."

Christensen said the opinions on the project vary somewhat within the new neighborhood association.

"There are some who are very firmly 'no build.' And there are some who are willing to entertain some of the compromises from the mobility plan — like smaller, low impact bridges," she said. "There is a lot of anger because we feel we are unheard and unrepresented."

McKenzie recalled the first time this project came up, the response from the community was 'no bridge, no how, no where.'

"This time it is a bit different but there are still questions," she said. "The association generously asked me to attend their meetings and speak about my experiences 10 years ago. From what I've seen, the members are still getting information and forming their opinions."

And that is what Loretta Tollefson, special project manager for MRCOG, and Dave Pennington of Pennington and Associates are hoping will happen at the upcoming open house. Tollefson said the open house on Tuesday will follow the same format that the first open house did last August, with large scale maps and information boards with people available to answer questions and a slide show presentation continuously running during the four hour event.

"This format actually enables us to talk to a lot more people and get more information," Tollefson said. "We get a lot of good information talking one-on-one with people. I think it's less intimidating than asking questions in front of a large group."

The format also allows for more people to attend. Tollefson said people can stop by the open house any time between 4 and 8 p.m. to view the information, ask questions and leave feedback.

This will be the second of probably eight public meetings, Tollefson said. And while the public comment period is slated to officially end on Feb. 12, she said it never really ends.

"We never shut off the comment conduit," she said.

Pennington noted that while the CAC is not a decision making board, neither is the steering committee.

"They represent the perspective and interests of each entity. We use them as a sounding board, ask them, are we headed in the right direction," Pennington said.

No build is still an option and so is improving N.M. 6 to make it more efficient, Tollefson said.

According to a draft alignment map, the two corridors being recommended for further study are south of Los Lunas and Highway 6 in the vicinity of Morris Road and Miller Road. The Morris Road alignment would connect to Highway 47 between the north and south ends of El Cerro Loop. The Miller alignment is shown to cross the river and connect with the two-lane highway south of South El Cerro Loop.

While those two alignments are recommended for further consideration, Tollefson said there is definitely no end product.

"We are constantly modifying the different options," she said. "That is why it is so important for people to come Tuesday and give feedback."

Pennington said after every CAC meeting, a summary report is prepared and given to the committee for its approval.

"After that, the report is given to the members of the steering committee. If the two committees want to meet directly, that's fine," he said. Pennington added that members of the steering committee are encouraged to attend the CAC meetings.

Tollefson said there have been some questions as to whether the steering committee meetings were in violation of the state's Open Meetings Act.

"The opinion from COG's legal counsel is that this is not a decision-making body and it is not a decision-making body of the local governments," she said. Tollefson said the agency would be conferring with the attorney general's office on the matter.

The final decision on just what will be the best solution to the traffic problems on N.M. 6 ultimately needs to come from consensus from the village and the county, the entities Pennington calls the two largest stakeholders in this project.

With the recommendation that the two northern corridors be removed from the study, Pennington is anticipating that Peralta, while still interested in the project, will have fewer concerns. The initial corridor study proposed two potential roadway corridors that crossed the river and came into western Peralta, something residents in the area sharply objected to.

"We have suggested the village (of Los Lunas) and the county have a joint study session and discuss the findings as two governmental bodies to exchange information," Pennington said.

If the decision to build a roadway is made, the first step is to design the road, Tollefson said.

"Then whoever is the lead agency on the project — that could be the county, Los Lunas or the Department of Transportation — we would encourage them to begin buying the right-of-way needed for the road," she said. "Doing that gives the public a sense of security instead of asking people who are in the alignment to sit on land they can't do anything with. That is a horrible position to put people in and we don't want that."

Funding is the big question, Tollefson said, and people have pointed out that right now the economy might not be in good enough shape to fund the project. She agreed, saying it is inappropriate to go look for money now when they are unsure what the solution is.

"Our hope is that by the time we come up with the preferred alternative, the economy will have rebounded to the point where we can look to the future and get a good idea of the cost," she said. "Then the lead agency can go forward looking for funds. Right now, it's just premature."

Tollefson estimated the corridor study would last for the rest of the calendar year and it would be well into next year before the federal paperwork on things such as the environmental impact is completed.

"We could start looking for money in late 2011 or early 2012. At the most optimistic, it will be about five years before there's a shovel in the ground," she said.

"The process we should do and are required to do is very slow. There are numerous places for public input. Some people may want to only give their opinion on the project once and be done, but as we get information and input we make changes based on that. This is very much an evolving thing."

Pennington added that each time a milestone was reached, there would be a chance for public input.

Funding for the corridor study came through GRIP II with a matching portion from the village itself for a total was a little over $2 million.

Tollefson said it was her understanding that approximately half of that money has been allocated to the corridor study and the remainder is being held back for the design work.