TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas

9:00 a.m. Thursday, June 29, 2000

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
DAVID M. LANEY

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant, Engineering Operations

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:07 a.m., and I would like to call the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. I would like to welcome you to our June 29 meeting; it's a pleasure to have you here today.

I will note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 9:32 a.m. on June 21 of the year 2000.

Before we get started, I believe the Public Information Office has a presentation to make. Eloise.

MS. LUNDGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Eloise Lundgren from the Public Information Office, and actually, Mr. Laney, we've been in collusion with sort of a surprise for you. While you served as chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, you constantly challenged --

MR. LANEY: Are you sure you want to do this?

(General laughter.)

MS. LUNDGREN: Yes, sir, I really do. You constantly challenged us to think of our interaction with the public as a multi-party, multi-issue negotiation; you encouraged us to engage in open and honest communication with the public at all times; you were always accessible to the Public Information Office and always willing to talk to reporters, no matter where you were or what time it was. We owe you a great debt of thanks for your commitment to the TxDOT Public Information Program.

Your unique ability to articulate key issues and your willingness to serve as our lead spokesman saved the day on more than one occasion. Your outstanding leadership abilities bring to mind an old Irish fable my mother told me a long time ago. It seems the Irish believe that a leprechaun kisses each baby when it is born and if the kiss, for example is on the brow, the child is destined to be intellectual; if the kiss is on the eyes, a great beauty; if it's on the fingers, then a great artist.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not in a position to reveal where the leprechaun kissed Mr. Laney --

(General laughter.)

MS. LUNDGREN: -- but the end result, I think, is he was one heck of a transportation commissioner, and on behalf of all the public information officers across the state, Mr. Laney, we have something for you. It is a special color print of the front page of Transportation News when you announced that you were stepping down as chairman, and we'd like to present that to you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.

(Applause and pause for photos.)

MR. JOHNSON: David, I'd like to add that that is richly deserved, and I've said this before, not only does this commission but this state owes you a deep debt of gratitude for your service for the past five-plus years, and we're not going to let you out of here. Don't think this is a retirement.

MR. LANEY: If I can add one thing just so there's no public speculation about where the leprechaun kissed me, the leprechaun kissed me on my tires.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Eloise, thank you.

We have two delegations scheduled this morning to share with us a couple of projects before we get to our regular business.

SMITH COUNTY

City of Tyler

(Mayor Kevin Eltife, Sen. David Cain, Rep. Bob Glaze, Judge Larry Craig, Dale Moran)

MR. JOHNSON: The first delegation is from the City of Tyler. I would like to call on Mayor Kevin Eltife to lead the discussion on Loop 49. Mr. Mayor, welcome.

MAYOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Johnson, Commission Members Laney and Nichols, and Executive Director Heald, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I'm Kevin Eltife, mayor of the City of Tyler since 1996 and member of the city council since 1991.

We are here to request two items. One, construction funds for a southeast section of the proposed Loop 49. This section runs east from US 69 south of Tyler to FM 756. It is two miles in length and the initial construction estimate is $9.1 million. Secondly, Priority 2 status for Loop 49 West and designation as a US 69 relief route on the National Highway System.

At this time, I would like to invite a couple of our state legislators who are present to come forward and make a few comments. Senator David Cain.

SENATOR CAIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commission members. It's a pleasure to be here with you, and I thought I was going to be called much later in the program, so I'll be real brief.

But if you would allow me just one second, as a matter of privilege, to add my voice to those who were already heard this morning to thank you, former chairman, Commissioner Laney, for the great service that you've given the state of Texas. I've never been accused of being a leprechaun, so I don't know exactly either about that story, the truth of it or where, indeed, the kiss may have been, but I can tell you that the folks in Texas and the mobility of Texas has been greatly enhanced under your watch, and we appreciate it very, very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, David.

SENATOR CAIN: It's a pleasure to appear before you again today, along with this very distinguished group of individuals from Smith County and East Texas, to talk to you about a project that's very near and dear to us: that's the Loop 49 project.

It's very exciting for us to finally see the project, or part of it, coming to fruition with construction set to begin in a year or two or whenever it is on the first section which is from US Highway 69 to State Highway 155. I believe you're about to be presented with the big picture aspects of Loop 49, including evidence of explosive growth and development in the region and much needed enhancements and safety, efficiency and connectivity which we'll see in the future with a completed Loop 49.

While some stages of the loop, specifically the northeast section, are a little further off -- I might add that section is in my district -- are a little further off in the future, today we're anxious and ready to move forward on a significant portion of the loop. Specifically we're requesting Priority 1 status for the section between US Highway 69 and FM 756.

The City of Tyler and Smith County, as you know, have already illustrated a local commitment by pledging $900,000 in local match in addition to the traditional 10 percent local match. Of course, they've already pledged a significant amount to the first section of Loop 49 approved for building back in November. I think these pledges show a high level of commitment to this project and I hope they make the commission's job of allocating limited funds around the state just a little bit easier.

Secondly, in addition to that section, we're also requesting that the west section of the loop from State Highway 155 to I-20 be moved to Priority 2 status, allowing the acquisition of right of way and construction plans.

Naturally, this project is supported by a wide array of folks which you're going to hear from so I'm not going to elaborate on who those are, but let me just tell you that myself and the delegation from Smith County are very much behind this project, and anything you can do will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MAYOR ELTIFE: Next, Representative Bob Glaze.

MR. GLAZE: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, executive director, senator, mayor, and those distinguished leaders from Tyler and Smith County, thank you for being here and thank you for allowing us to speak a moment.

I'd like to digress just a little bit from Loop 49 for just a minute and say to you that one of the things that is most concerning to me as a state legislator is the reception that I and my constituency receive when they contact a state agency, and sometimes I even advise executive directors to pick up the telephone and call one of their district officers to hear what I hear and what a constituent hears when we talk to a state agency or call for help or information.

I'd like to say at this point, having said that, that you have one of the most outstanding district facilities, coordinators, information packages, and above all, people of courtesy in our district that I have ever worked with at a state agency. This is very helpful to me, it's helpful to my constituency, and we appreciate it.

As you can see, we're very much concerned about Loop 49. It's extremely important not only to Smith County but the entire northeastern section of Texas, including Oklahoma and Louisiana. It's a very important component of the transportation system.

Now, having been the last eight years on the Appropriations Committee, I know how you're funded, I know where your dollars are, and I know your problems and your need for prioritization, so I want to say that I have every confidence in your judgement that you will give this project the kind of priority that it deserves and the people that are in this room and in that area, the kind of representation and support that they deserve.

So I appreciate very much what you do, what you have done in the past, and what we expect of you in the future, and thank you for allowing me to be here in this delegation. Thank you.

MAYOR ELTIFE: Thank you, senator; thank you, representative. We appreciate both of you very much.

We also have letters of support from Senator Ratliff and Senator Nixon, Representative Alexander, Representative Berman and Representative Staples that we will pass on to the commission.

The Tyler Smith County outer loop, now called 49, was conceived in the late '60s by local chamber of commerce and elected officials. After a delegation appearance in Austin, the development of the loop around Tyler was authorized in 1985 by the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Commission. In '93 we were informed the loop project could not be funded through normal programs available to the TxDOT Tyler District. This was due to the passage of the ISTEA in December '91 and limitations imposed on TxDOT by the 72nd Legislature.

In March '93, Smith County Judge Larry Craig and I were part of a delegation that appeared in front of this commission to request additional authorization to develop Loop 49. That authorization was granted in June of that year and route environmental studies began.

In '96 the technically preferred route for the southern section was announced; in November of '98, the final environmental impact statement was approved by the Federal Highway Administration with issuance of the record of decision; in April '99 a delegation from Tyler came before the commission to request funding for the first 5.5-mile section of Loop 49; last November you approved $14.4 million for Phase 1 of this project. I'm pleased to report to you that the project is well on its way for construction to begin in 2003 or earlier.

Tyler's economy is one of the strongest in Texas. We have set records in new construction, residential sales and retail sales for the past four years. The Tyler Metropolitan Statistical Area had the highest growth in sales and use tax during the fourth quarter of '99 among all MSAs in Texas. While this growth and prosperity has made us a very desirable city to live in, it has also brought some challenges.

The current city council views traffic and transportation as one of the top priorities for city funds. The city has been working with Tyler District Engineer Mary Owen and her staff to initiate and complete as many projects as we can to alleviate our traffic congestion problems.

Several road projects were completed this year: the 2.8-mile widening of Loop 323 on the southwest side of the city from six travel lanes with a raised median; the 1.7-mile widening to four lanes of Old Jacksonville Road to Loop 323; the 2.4-mile extension of Grande Boulevard from Old Jacksonville Road West to State Highway 155 has provided a much needed east-west arterial route on the most congested area of our city.

Within the next three years, the City of Tyler will extend Grande Boulevard two miles east to Farm-to-Market 756 at a cost of $8.5 million, paid for by the city. Later this year, Loop 323 East will be expanded from four travel lanes to six with a raised median to increase traffic flow on that side of the city.

The City of Tyler is partnering with TxDOT on the implementation of access management strategies with construction of raised medians on the most congested sections of Loop 323 South and US 69 within the city limits. These medians will also be landscaped to continue to complement our beautiful city.

In '95 the citizens of Tyler passed a half-cent sales tax for infrastructure improvements. To date, we as a city have spent or committed $17 million on traffic and transportation projects from this fund. We will continue to do everything possible to provide a safe and efficient transportation system for our rapidly growing urban area.

All that we have planned will fall short, however, if Loop 49 is not constructed. Approximately 63,000 vehicles every day travel US 69 and State Highway 31 through East Texas. When they get to Tyler, they are forced into a bottleneck. The primary way to get from one side of the city to the other is on Loop 323 which currently averages 47,000 vehicles per day and serves hundreds of businesses, along with providing direct access to four high schools.

The majority of the time, Loop 323 is at or exceeding its designed capacity. Level of service E and F is commonplace on Loop 323. Many local drivers are finding alternative routes to stay off Loop 323, and in the process, are contributing to a congested and dangerous situation on smaller farm-to-market roads in the southern part of the city and county.

As a result, according to statistics recently released by the Texas Department of Public Safety, rural Smith County roads are among the most dangerous in Texas. For the six months of '98, Smith County ranked second statewide in rural traffic fatalities and third in accidents involving injuries. Unfortunately, we have been at the top of the list for total in injury accidents for the last five years.

The numbers in Tyler are not very encouraging either. The increasing congestion has caused Loop 323 to experience accident rates at 86 percent higher than the state average for four or more lane divided roadways. Loop 323 has a 51 percent rate higher than the state average for similar highway systems.

The City of Tyler and the metropolitan planning organization participate in the Northeast Texas Air Working Group. This organization is actively working with TxDOT, TNRCC and the EPA to plan cleaner air in East Texas. The TNRCC has recommended to the governor that Smith County be designated as unclassifiable. We're equally concerned about the loss of highway funding to Smith County but assure you that coordinated efforts are taking place to best secure transportation improvements in East Texas.

Loop 49 is part of our conformity analysis, so constructing this critical roadway is in the Tyler model. Last year the city pledged $1.1 million in Phase 1 construction of Loop 49, the section between US 69 South and State Highway 155, which was matched with $500,000 from Smith County. Together these local funds provided a 10 percent cash match for the 5.5 mile, $16 million project.

This year we are here to tell you the City of Tyler and Smith County have each pledged $450,000 and the City of Whitehouse has pledged $100,000 for a total match of $1 million toward the 9.1 mile section of the loop between US 69 South and Farm to Market 756, Paluxy Drive.

Finally, we are here to request Priority 2 status from the western portion of Loop 49 from State Highway 155 North to I-20 and designation as a US 69 relief route on the National Highway System.

At this time, I would like to introduce Larry Craig, judge of the Smith County Commissioners Court. Judge Craig.

JUDGE CRAIG: Thank you, Mayor, Mr. Chairman, Commission members, Director Heald. It's a pleasure for me to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very, very important project to Tyler, Smith County and all of East Texas, that being the Loop 49 project.

I was elected county judge in Smith County in 1986 and have continued to serve in that capacity, and in serving have continually supported this project. Also with us today, I will introduce some other people not to speak: former county commissioner Bill Wallace is with us and has worked very diligently in this project.

The Smith County Commissioners Court has been in support of this project since its inception, and we've provided $100,000 for planning and committed an additional $300,000 for land acquisition and utilities and $500,000 for construction of the $16 million Phase 1 project. We have very recently pledged an additional $450,000 for the section that we propose today. That totals $1.3 million that Smith County will contribute towards the planning and construction of eight miles of this very, very important project.

This morning I'd like to emphasize the regional significance and support that we have for this project. Tyler, Whitehouse, Smith County, and East Texas have been experiencing tremendous economic and population growth. Over the past four years especially, we've set all-time records for building permits, for retail sales, home sales, and most importantly, new jobs created.

The region has recently become a center for huge multi-state distribution centers such as the Wal Mart distribution center which is a 1.7 million square foot facility in Palestine on US Highway 79; the Lowe's distribution center in Mount Vernon, Texas, a 600,000 square foot facility on Interstate 30; and the Helig Myers in Athens is a 600,000 square foot facility on State Highway 31; and in Longview on Interstate 20, the Neiman Marcus facility which is a 450,000 square foot distribution center; and in Tyler and Lindale and Smith County, the Target distribution center which is a 1.7 million square foot facility on I-20; also on I-20 in Terrell, the Goodyear facility is an 800,000 square foot facility.

Currently our Brookshire's Grocery Company which is headquartered in Tyler and employs over 10,000 people in three states is completing a 350,000 square foot distribution center that will serve its 135 stores throughout its system.

These distribution centers have thousands of employees and have added hundreds, literally hundreds of trucks to our highways every day. In addition, many of the areas major employers are located in the eastern corridor of the proposed Loop 49: air conditioner companies, we have Trane and the Carrier Company. These two organizations employ over 3,000 people and have future plans for much more growth.

The University of Texas at Tyler and the University of Texas Health Center are also located on the east side of Smith County and are in the process of expanding their facilities and their levels of employment.

As we all know and are aware, with economic growth comes population growth, and according to our Comptroller's Office, since 1960 Tyler-Smith County MSA has grown from 86,350 to 171,000 today, and by the year 2020 we're projected to be over 200,000. To handle this growth efficiently, we must keep up with our infrastructure, especially with the movement of people and the goods on our roads and highways through our area.

The segment of Loop 49 we're requesting construction funding for is the two-mile section from US 69 East to Farm-to-Market Road 756 which is known as Paluxy Drive. This is one of the most congested and dangerous areas in Smith County and this makes a major contribution to the grim statistics referred to earlier by Mayor Eltife.

Finally, we strongly support the Texas Trunk System adopted by the Texas Department of Transportation in 1998. One of the top three priorities for funding in that system is to upgrade US 69 from Beaumont through East Texas to Greenville, connecting with US 380 to Decatur, which would bring that north of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. This corridor will serve as a regional relief route and will take pressure off the metropolitan systems in Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

State Highway 31 from Waco through Tyler is also in the Phase 1 Trunk System. Both State Highway 31 and US 69 intersect in the heart of Tyler and Smith County. This potentially can create a bottleneck in the most populous city in East Texas. The investment strategy of the Trunk System will not be successful if increased traffic is not able to bypass Tyler.

Currently we estimate between 12- and 15,000 vehicles per day contribute to the congestion in Tyler while passing through our city on their way to another destination. This will only increase when the new Trunk System is complete and our region's population grows. We therefore request Priority 2 status for Loop 49 which will allow it to be added to the National Highway System on US 69.

In conclusion, I would like to recognize the large delegation of people that we have from our area today, and I would ask them to stand. These are folks not only from Tyler and Smith County but from our entire East Texas region, and as you can see, the Loop 49 project has been a long, long term project for Tyler, Whitehouse and our entire East Texas area.

And as Mayor Eltife said, last year Tyler and Smith County pledged 10 percent of the required construction funding of the $1.6 million toward the first 5.5 mile construction phase of the project. This year, with the help of the City of Whitehouse, our region has committed an additional million dollars for the two-mile section that we're requesting support for today.

We appreciate the hard work of our district engineer and her entire staff. Mary Owen has done an outstanding job in our area and we're proud and appreciate her and her staff.

I'd like to now introduce to you the mayor of the City of Whitehouse, Mayor Moran.

MAYOR MORAN: Thank you, Judge Craig. It's an honor to be here. Chairman Johnson, Commission Members Laney, Nichols, and Executive Director Mr. Heald. I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the Loop 49 East project. My name is Dale Moran and I've been the mayor of the City of Whitehouse since 1996, and from 1994 to '96 I served on the Whitehouse city council.

I stand before you today representing our city council and the 6,500 residents of Whitehouse. The quality of our life and the tranquility of our citizens' lives have been diminished by the accidents, deaths, injuries and even the lost tempers due to the fact that our population's transportation needs have exceeded our highway system capacity, both in our city and on the immediate south side of Tyler. I have personally witnessed four cases of road rage as motorists finally exceeded their tolerance level and just exploded.

Our area's second busiest and dangerous intersection is State Highway 110 running from Whitehouse where it intersects with Tyler's South Loop 323. The proposed Loop 49 east of US Highway 69 would help alleviate this snarling point for all of Whitehouse and Troup commuters traveling north to Tyler and points west and north of the city.

We are currently working with the Texas Department of Transportation district office in Tyler on the expansion of FM 346, one of the most traveled rural facilities in Texas. Close to 10,000 cars per day use this narrow, winding rural road. It is a winding facility, I'll guarantee you -- I have driven it many times -- and it's been the scene of a number of tragic, tragic accidents. During the past four years, in fact, there have been five fatalities on this road just outside Whitehouse, making it one of the most dangerous rural roadways in Texas.

Three miles west of Whitehouse where 346 intersects with FM 756, coming south out of Tyler to the southern Smith County line, FM 756 has a very high traffic volume as well: nearly 4,000 vehicles per day and also a very high accident rate. Both of these rural facilities would experience major relief with the construction of Loop 49. The section of Loop 49 being proposed today would help provide a safer alternate route for local and regional traffic traveling to and from Whitehouse and all of southeastern Smith County.

Now, Whitehouse is located just six miles southeast of Tyler. We have been the fastest growing city in Smith County for the past ten years. Our population has increased 45 percent since 1990, and we have and continue to set records for residential construction. Additionally, our sales tax collections have nearly doubled since 1995.

There are currently seven subdivisions under development within our city limits and three subdivisions adjacent to our city. Just two days ago, the city manager informed me of plans for an additional subdivision being planned by one of our area developers.

Because of the growth and because Troup and Lake Tyler traffic pass through our city, traveling north and west to Tyler, we are experiencing major traffic congestion and many traffic safety challenges. Loop 49 is essential for Whitehouse's future economic development which is a must to support our school district of some 4,000 students.

Up until the present, we have been a bedroom community of Tyler, but now Whitehouse is experiencing a business and retail boom of its own. We are looking to the future for industrial and manufacturing development. Such will not be possible or happen without the early completion of the Loop 49 east of Highway 69.

The Whitehouse City Council has continuously supported this project with resolutions from the very inception and by public input. Now, with Resolution 439 passed unanimously June 27, just two days ago, our city has pledged $100,000 and this is $100,000 of a $3.9 million budget. This is a very significant contribution of our city, and this is to match the local funds committed by Tyler -- which you've heard about -- and Smith County for this very critical project for our city. We stand firmly with the City of Tyler and Smith County in support of the request before you.

Thank you for hearing this matter. I appreciate the support of the commission for this strategic regional highway facility. At this time, I'll ask Mayor Eltife to conclude. Thank you.

MAYOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Mayor.

We just want to thank the commission for the opportunity to appear before you. We appreciate all the work you do for our state. I also want to echo what Judge Craig said, in that our TxDOT office in Tyler, Mary Owen, Randy Hopmann, and the entire staff, they do an incredible job for us, and we work hand-in-hand as a city and state, and we really appreciate all they do for us. And we'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any.

MR. JOHNSON: That was an excellent presentation. I would like to thank you for the kind words about this department and especially about the Tyler District and the exemplary leadership that Mary Owen provides. Personally I think it's a wonderful partnership that you, the city, and Smith County have exhibited with TxDOT to make East Texas mobility and transportation challenges manageable.

Representative Glaze, thank you so much for your kind words.

I had one question and want to see if my colleagues had a question, and I think I probably ought to direct this to Mary Owen, and that is, on this particular aspect of the loop, when, if everything goes smoothly, could this be let?

MS. OWEN: We're currently on schedule on the last project that you approved for 2003 and we believe this one would be able to be let in the next year, 2004.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

David or Robert, do you have any observations or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions. I just wanted to thank all of you for taking time out of your day to come and make this presentation; it was very good.

MR. LANEY: Let me add to that that we very much appreciate the hospitality last night; it was a great opportunity to meet with you all and I too enjoyed and found very educational the presentation. Thank you.

MAYOR ELTIFE: Thank you very much. We appreciate you.

MR. JOHNSON: As you're aware, we do not make decisions on issues like this, but rest assured that this will be very deeply considered as the year rolls by.

Before we get to our next group, we generally have a slight recess to enable the Loop 49 people to vacate the premises and the next delegation to enter, but I know Senator Cain would like to come forward and discuss an issue that he feels is very important. Generally we do this at the open comment period, but he has business across the street, so Senator Cain, if you would like.

SENATOR CAIN: Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will be very mindful of the time and appreciate very much your courtesies that you've shown me today and right now.

This is an issue, as you and I have talked, that's been very important to me, and I appreciate the ability to be heard. The issue has to do with memorials to those who are killed on our public highways. I believe this to be true that during your public comment period this afternoon, you're going to have several different interested parties that will visit with you about this issue.

I'd really just like to say to you personally a couple of things that I've said on the issue of highway memorials. I sympathize, as I know all of you do, with families who are grieving over the loss of a family member. My position on the issue is that I support a family's ability to recognize their loss of their loved ones along highways as long as it is done in a safe manner to the public.

All along I've encouraged parents’ groups who have contacted me, two of which are Compassionate Friends and Best Hearts, to work with the department toward a safe solution to this issue, and I've been very encouraged by all the reports of the working relationship that's been forged here, and I appreciate the department's demonstrated willingness to hear the parents' viewpoint and to work toward a program that will be safe and will satisfy those needs of these bereaved families.

I would also like to say that I'm here to help reach that solution and will be available any time, any way that I can, if we can be of help.

I want to thank the department, and once again -- and I was somewhat remiss in my first remarks; I had it in there but I didn't say -- to our friend Mary Owen who has worked, meeting with all interested groups, but also agreed to suspend enforcement of the current guidelines until a complete review of this program could be finished. I think that that's gone a long way to show the good faith and the working relationship that you want to have with these interested people, and I'm personally very appreciative of the appropriate sensitive manner in which you've handled this issue.

I understand, as I've said, that you're going to hear from these groups and from other concerned individuals later either this morning or this afternoon. I look forward to hearing about those issues and stand ready with an offer to help in any way that I can.

Thank you very much for taking me out of order.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you so much.

Being new to this job, I have made an egregious error, and that is it's tradition that at the beginning of the meeting that each of the commissioners, if they would like, might raise a point or make a comment or an observation, and I failed to recognize my colleagues.

Robert, a week ago you were a half a world away from here. Do you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: No. My comment was I did want to let everyone know how much we appreciate the time you go to, take away from your day to come down here. Many of us up here have been in the audience at one time or another too, and we understand what you go through, and it is appreciated. Communities don't just happen, they occur and develop because of people who are interested and dedicated, such as you, and welcome here.

MR. JOHNSON: My colleague, Mr. Laney, has pointed out that egregious is a pretty big word for an engineer. David, do you have anything?

MR. LANEY: I'm sure you don't know what it means.

MR. JOHNSON: You're exactly right.

(General laughter.)

MR. LANEY: If that's the most egregious error you make in your tenure as chairman, you've got a long and fruitful chairmanship ahead of you.

I think I'm just glad to have Robert back alive and well and not lunch meat for the local lions. I have really nothing to add, Johnny, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We will stand adjourned briefly for the Tyler delegation to exit and for the next delegation to enter. Thank you so much.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

TARRANT COUNTY

City of Fort Worth and Alliance Roundtable Partnership

(Mayor Kenneth Barr, Jim O'Neil)

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation is here from the City of Fort Worth and the Alliance Roundtable Partnership. We would like to extend you a warm welcome. I'd like to call on Fort Worth Mayor Ken Barr to begin the presentation. Mr. Mayor, welcome.

MAYOR BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am Kenneth Barr and it's my privilege to serve as mayor of the City of Fort Worth, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to be here with you with this delegation today and to discuss with you the proposed extension of State Highway 170.

We, TxDOT and our community, our region have shared many successes during the past decade and many opportunities await not only our region but the state of Texas and the nation as we move into this next century.

First, I want to thank our city's partners in this very important project, and that's the corporate citizens, the corporate residents at Alliance, and our local neighbors, including Mayor Gary Hulsey of the City of Haslet. Mayor Hulsey is here; I'd like to ask him to stand. Mayor, thank you for being here.

I also want to acknowledge and recognize Denton County Judge Kirk Wilson who is with us; Denton County Commissioner Jim Carter, and Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley, who are also here. And I would like to acknowledge my predecessor, twice removed or once removed -- wasn't removed at all, Bob Bolen.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR BARR: Appreciate former Mayor Bolen, who is so much a part of our community, being here with us this morning.

I also want to recognize Jim O'Neil, vice president of property and industrial development for Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Jim will speak with you in a few minutes about intermodalism and international trade and the direct impact the extension of State Highway 170 will have on BNSF's intermodal hub center in Fort Worth.

Before anything else, I'd like to thank the commission and the department for all the support we've received from you in the past. If it were not for your participation in the State Highway 170 project and your commitment to accelerate Phase 1, we wouldn't be here today. Now we're asking that you continue the commitment and help us move forward with the next piece of State Highway 170.

The extension of SH 170 from I-35 west over to US 287 has long been included in all of our local and regional master thoroughfare plans. That includes the North Central Texas Council of Governments' Mobility 2025 long range plan and the City of Fort Worth's comprehensive plan. It is a major part of completing our regional intermodal network and is a key component in our plans to expand and enhance North Texas as the state's premier economic generator and center for international trade.

We've prepared a video presentation that illustrates how important State Highway 170 has been and how the extension is a critical element in the future of the Fort Worth Alliance Airport as a 21st Century international trade development center. You'll see some familiar faces and get a sense of how far we've progressed from the original plans for a simple reliever airport to what is now one of the nation's premier centers for the international and intermodal movement of goods and services.

So first, at this time, we'd like to show you the brief video, and then I'll ask Jim O'Neil with BNSF to share his company's perspectives with you.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

MR. O'NEIL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Jim O'Neil. I'm vice president of property and industrial development for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. I'm here today to talk briefly about how the expansion of State Highway 170 will benefit not only our very important rail facility in Fort Worth but also the entire Fort Worth-Dallas Metroplex.

First, I thought I'd start off by telling you a little bit about the Burlington Northern Santa Fe itself. As you can see from the map, we operate one of the largest rail systems in North America with over 33,500 route miles traversing 28 states and two Canadian provinces. In particular, we have a big impact in the state of Texas that is very important to us, as you can see from the map. We have several border crossings and serve several key ports in the state of Texas.

What we also would like to do is talk a little bit about our operations in Texas. As you can see, we have over 6,800 employees, including about 2,800 in our corporate headquarters at Fort Worth.

Texas is very important to us: it generates over $913 million worth of revenue for us on an annual basis; we have 22 rail yards throughout the state, five intermodal hubs, including our very large one at the Alliance development in Fort Worth; we operate 2,652 miles of track, 1,671 miles of trackage rights that we've gained; and we have strong export markets through the Gulf ports such as Galveston and Houston, and of course our crossings at Mexico at Eagle Pass, El Paso, and Laredo.

The picture you'll see there is one you probably saw on the video before, but that is our facility at Alliance Texas. That's 575 acres of property there. To the right of the slide you'll see our manifest and storage yard. The thing I really want to key in on here, though, is everything from about the center of the slide to the right, that's our intermodal facility that encompasses about 300 acres.

On that facility we have 2,000 truck processing spots, we have five overhead cranes, and that facility last year in 1999 handled 413,000 lifts of containers and trailers. That mans 413,000 containers and trailers moving out of that facility throughout the year. We expect that in the year 2000 that's going to increase to 450,000 lifts. So you can see how important it is for us to have improved access to I-35 corridor, Loop 820 and I-30 to deliver our general merchandise throughout the Metroplex.

In addition to that complex, we also have an automotive handling facility which lies just to the southwest. That facility handles 140,000 automobiles a year and the transport carriers will definitely benefit from the improved access and the expansion of the 170 corridor.

I think it's important to point out how things such as improvement to the highway and our ability to improve our efficiency helps our operating ratio, and what I really want to hone in on is right before merger or prior to merger, our operating ratio on the railroad was about 84.4; if you see it today in 1999, it's 75.4; and we're going to even lower that further in the following years. That nine point drop in our operating ratio is worth about $820 million based on our last year's revenues of about $9.1 billion.

Capital spending. It goes without saying that to make that improvement in our operating ratios, we had to make some dramatic changes in the way we operate. We had to purchase locomotives, we had to improve our existing facilities and we had to expand some of our existing facilities throughout our system, and we've spent well over $10 billion since our merger in 1995. We've spent about $115 million on our facility at Alliance.

But I think probably most important, and the one that we really like to concentrate on and feel most proud about, is our ability to reduce train accidents per train miles. As you can see, right at merger we were running about 3.98 train accidents per million train miles -- that was the peak. Since then we've dropped about 32 percent to last year's total of about 2.72.

Let's talk a little bit about NAFTA, because it's so important to the state of Texas and it's very important to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and I want to tell you a couple of things about what we're doing to capitalize on the growth of NAFTA. The first thing up there, grain shuttle programs, we now have added some grain shuttle trains that move from points in the midwest, Kansas and Nebraska, to southern Mexico points. These are 110-car grain trains that have a 12-day turnaround. We move them into Monterrey and other areas in Mexico.

Intermodal service. We've just added a new intermodal service train that moves from hubs on our system down to southern Mexico, to Monterrey, Mexico City, and others; we're going to see that increase in the future. By the way, all these intermodal trains will be staged at our Alliance facility in North Texas.

And it goes without saying that capital investments were a key to making all of this happen, and with NAFTA, we're going to have to continue that spending to improve some of the crossings at the border.

NAFTA issues. Obviously, one of the big things for us is to simplify the border crossing process. Documentation and car cleaning, that will all happen in the future and it's very important to us. But I think one of the important points of this slide is the infrastructure savings of rail versus truck. As you'll see up there, shipping via rail gets trucks off publicly supported highways and onto privately financed and maintained infrastructure like our rail lines moving down to the borders and to the Gulf.

And we've seen a dramatic increase in our ability to handle NAFTA business. As you can see, in 1997 we were running about 80,000 carloads a year; since that time, year 1999 it's increased to 120,000 units per year; and with the addition of grain trains and intermodal trains, that's going to increase dramatically over the next few years.

As you can see, again, back to the daily volume on cars moving on the railroad to Mexico, we were averaging in January around 250 cars a day; if you look at us today, January 2000, we're up to well over 550 carloads per day.

Looking ahead to 2025, I think probably the biggest point here is our intermodal business. As we talked about before, we expect to handle about 450,000 lifts at that facility this year at Alliance Texas. If you look out the next ten years, we expect over the next five years that that business will increase at a rate of about 8 percent annually; after five years, we expect the business to increase at a level of about 4 percent annually, so that means a dramatic increase. We're going to have to improve the capacity at that facility, and of course, access to and from I-35 will become a key to us being successful at that facility.

We talk about Mexico -- we've talked about adding the shuttle trains; we've already done that; we're going to add more shuttle trains, we're going to continue to grow our intermodal business into Mexico, and that will be a big part of our business here in Texas.

Along with that comes service innovations. We'll be looking at moving perishables between here and Mexico on new trailers, new engines, and other innovative ways to move freight. A key to this is improved transit times and reliability. Obviously, it's very important for us to move our trailers in and out of that facility at Alliance quickly and get them to the final user, and improved access will help that greatly.

Capacity and congested areas. Obviously, we think Dallas-Fort Worth is going to continue to grow. We're going to add on to our facility at Alliance as we need to to handle that capacity. Reducing interchanges is something that we can do through intermodalism. Improved asset utilization, obviously the quicker we turn around that trailer, the quicker we turn around that 110-car grain train shuttle improves the utilization of that asset. And of course, a big key in the future is simplified ordering and billing through the internet and e-commerce, and we're going to do all those things.

In closing, I'd just like to say it's very important for us and I think for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex that we see the expansion of 170 go on in the future. Thank you very much.

MAYOR BARR: I think with the information Jim has given you, you can understand that the first phase of State Highway 170 has facilitated a tremendous amount of development and jobs all around the Fort Worth Alliance Airport, beginning ten years ago with BNSF and then with the American Airlines maintenance base.

Let me say to the members of the commission that if you have not visited the Alliance area recently, we'd like to invite you to come back and take a look. It is phenomenal, it is exciting, and you can see the momentum is there and it is going to continue.

We've recently completed a study that's in your briefing book that illustrates the economic impact over the last ten years from the airport and the surrounding complex. Let me just hit a couple of numbers out of it -- and they were in the video -- but this area currently has over 17,000 full-time jobs -- that's 17,000 new jobs for Texas created in the past decade. In that same ten years, $10 billion in economic impact has been generated for the state, and in the next decade we estimate an additional $38 billion making a total of $49 billion by the year 2010.

In conclusion, let me just say that more and more we see the future of Fort Worth -- and I think that's the future of Texas as well -- tied to international trade. The City of Fort Worth is committed to expanding the Fort Worth Alliance Airport and the supporting international trade facilities located there. We have a great success story at Alliance and with your help, it is going to get even better, and that's good for all of Texas.

Specifically, today we are asking the commission to authorize the extension of State Highway 170. We are also asking that you authorize the City of Fort Worth to work with TxDOT, with the City of Haslet, with Tarrant County, and with our private sector partners to initiate the schematic and environmental study process so that we can identify the 170 corridor and begin preserving the necessary right of way.

This concludes our formal presentation. I would like to introduce Nancy Fleming who is chief of staff for Senator Jane Nelson. Senator Nelson couldn't be here and we appreciate Ms. Fleming being here with us this morning. Thank you very much.

MS. FLEMING: Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Laney, and Commissioner Nichols. My name is Nancy Fleming and I appreciate the opportunity to address you on behalf of Senator Nelson who is currently out of the country.

As you know, Senator Nelson has been actively involved in efforts to improve the transportation infrastructure in the Metroplex area for many, many years and has appeared before you to secure commitments to complete key arteries in the Metroplex and would be here today if she could.

You should have in your briefing materials a letter from Senator Nelson outlining the importance of this funding request, and as has been described, the Alliance Airport is an emerging leading international trade center. State Highway 170 is a vital link, not only to the area highways, the DFW Airport, the rail and freight operations in the area, and it would create tremendous economic benefits for the area to have the highway extended as has been requested.

So on behalf of Senator Nelson, I would ask that you give this request favorable consideration. Thank you.

MAYOR BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all. We'll be glad to respond to any questions the members of the commission might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

David or Robert, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have no questions. I spent some time with a pretty good crew yesterday and they answered most of my questions. I appreciate that.

MR. JOHNSON: David?

MR. LANEY: I don't have any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question for Mr. O'Neil, and this probably isn't the right forum, but since clean air is a topic that is very important to this commission and department, as it is to the entire state, what is the railroad doing in terms of, one, dealing with the Clean Air Act and working with TNRCC for their plans?

MR. O’NEIL: Obviously, I think, and probably should have touched on it in my presentation a little bit, we feel like we are much more efficient from an air quality standpoint when we move those trailers, containers, shuttle trains of grain, general merchandise over the rail. The new engines are much more efficient as far as pollution control devices and other things, and we feel the more trucks and trailers that we can get on that train and move down to Mexico or other points throughout the midwest has much less impact on the environment than obviously every truck that moves up and down I-35 on the NAFTA corridor.

But we have researched it. I don't have the exact data on the improvements we've made, but I can tell you that we've purchased a lot of new engines and these are fuel efficient engines and also contain a lot of pollution control devices to protect the environment.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

If there are no other questions, I would like to remind you that we don't make decisions on matters like this currently, but please be assured that in the future UTPs, this will be a very important project, and that was a very impressive presentation.

We will take a short recess in order to allow the Alliance-Hillwood-Fort Worth-Tarrant County group to dismiss themselves, and then we'll reconvene. Thank you so very much.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

P R O C E E D I N G S (RESUMED)

MR. JOHNSON: I will now reconvene this meeting and we will proceed with our regular agenda.

I would like to remind anyone here who wants to address the commission to fill out a card at the registration table. If you want to comment on an agenda item, please fill out a yellow card, and if it is not an agenda item, we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting, and for that we would ask that you fill out a blue card. Each speaker, regardless of the color of the card, will be allowed three minutes.

We will now proceed with the approval of the minutes of our commission briefing and regular meeting in May.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Wes, I will now turn it over to you for the regular part of our agenda.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll move on with our regular business portion of our meeting. Agenda item 3(a)(b)(c) and (d), Public Transportation, and Margot will present those to you.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey of the Public Transportation Division.

The first item is the award of some federal discretionary funds. What we propose to do is use these federal funds to extend our Capital Replacement program, go a little bit further down our rural priority list, and award just over $900,000 to four rural transit districts to replace vehicles, and we recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: No questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Margot. Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: The second item, you'll recall that we had recommended that our annual public transportation conference be managed by the Texas Transit Association, and they did, in fact, present the first conference under their management in March in Dallas. It was a great success, and we want to continue this relationship. It works very well for both the department and the transit industry, and we recommend approval of an award of $50,000 in state and federal planning funds to help the association carry out this important activity.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: The next item, the first mention, I believe, of toll credits in this forum, probably something that we will talk about more in the future. Federal law allows us to receive credit for private infrastructure investments by toll authorities and use that as soft match on federal capital projects.

What we are requesting here is your authorization to use this as a method of finance on some of our federal capital discretionary projects. This is not approving specific projects, because those projects are brought to you for contract approval; this is merely authorization to use toll credits as a method of finance on certain public transportation projects.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LANEY: Margot, when those projects are brought to us, will you identify them as toll credit? I mean, we'll understand that this is part of that.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

The final item, we had issued a request for proposals for intercity bus projects and got an excellent response from various sectors of the industry and are recommending the largest ever award on this program. We have, as you'll see in Exhibit A, an excellent mix of projects, and we're actually proposing program funds that we anticipate federal funds being awarded under guaranteed levels in FY 2001, just because we have such a great group of projects and we'd like to go ahead and have those ready to go to contact as soon as we get our federal appropriation, and we recommend your approval of these projects.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot, thank you. Obviously a lot is going on in public transportation and it is a very important and vital area that this department deals with. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item number 4, Aviation. We have one minute order for your consideration, and Dave Fulton will explain it.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes. My name is Dave Fulton; I’m the director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

Item 4 is a minute order containing a request for funding approval for seven airport construction projects and a request for an increase in funding for a previously approved project at the Starr County Airport.

The Starr County Airport project was originally approved by the commission on August 31 of 1995. Due to the time delay in getting the project underway, together with a change in scope increasing the runway extension from 800 feet to 1,200 feet, the estimated cost increase for the project is $520,000.

Four of the projects are programmed to be funded with federal and local funding, the other four state and local funding. Total estimated cost on Exhibit A is approximately $9 million: approximately $6.3- federal, $1.9- state, and $900,000 in local funding.

A public hearing was held on June 12 of this year; no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order and would attempt to answer any questions you might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: No questions.

MR. NICHOLS: No questions. So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, David.

MR. HEALD: Item number 5, Administrative Rules, and we have several minute orders for your consideration, the first being 5(a)(1) under rules for Proposed Adoption, and Richard Monroe will handle this.

MR. MONROE: Good morning. My name is Richard Monroe; I'm general counsel for the department.

To begin with, we request a minute order allowing us to publish revised appellate rules. When these rules were first implemented, there was no statewide system for appealing administrative decisions by agencies. We now have the State Office of Administrative Hearings, and what we are going to do in this revision is strip out a lot of the verbiage that is no longer necessary and streamline the rules to comport with the new system. We would ask approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Richard will also handle, under Administrative Rules, the next two items. Now, we're starting Final Adoption rules, and that being 5(b)(1) and 5(b)(2). Richard.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

By this minute order you would approve adoption of the revised rules that we published for comment. This is to bring our advisory committee rules in line with the latest state statutes and also to harmonize the rules between the various advisory committees. It would also drop, as you can see in your advisory page there, certain advisory committees which are no longer needed because public input is otherwise available. I would ask that you approve this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Finally, by the next minute order you will approve the adoption of revisions to our Public Information Act rules, sometimes still known as the Open Records Act. In the latest legislature, the statutes applicable to that act were changed considerably and these rules will bring us into compliance with the latest statutory enactments by the legislature. I would urge that this minute order be approved.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: Yes. What did you say it used to be called?

MR. MONROE: Open Records Act.

MR. LANEY: I thought you said something else. Excuse me. No comments.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. MONROE: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Additional rules for final adoption, Item 5(b)(3), Diana Isabel.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning, commissioners, chairman. I'm Diana Isabel, director of the Human Resources Division.

We have a minute order for final adoption concerning employee training and education. The original proposed amendments were submitted to you in March. During the formal review comment, no comments were received, so we recommend approval and final adoption of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MS. ISABEL: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item 5(b)(4), Jennifer Soldano.

MS. SOLDANO: Good morning. I'm Jennifer Soldano, director of the Contract Services Office.

This minute order adopts 9.1 concerning claims for purchase contracts. Government Code Chapter 2260 provides a resolution process for certain contract claims against the state. That chapter applies to purchase contracts of the department under the State Purchasing and General Services Act.

The new section provides that a vendor may file a claim within 180 days after the date of the event giving rise to the claim; it provides a process for informal negotiations which might include non-binding mediation. This section requires the department to make a final offer; it authorizes the vendor to petition for an administrative hearing if the vendor so wishes.

The commission proposed these rules in March and the rules were published in the April 14 edition of the Texas Register. There were no comments. We recommend adoption.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: No. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: That same item 5(b)(4), the (b) portion of it, Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav, the director of the Construction Division.

Item 5(b)(4)(b) is for the final adoption for the repeal of Sections 9.50 through 9.59 and new Sections 9.50 through 9.57 concerning the Business Opportunity Programs. These rules outline the policy of the department to provide assistance to disadvantaged businesses, DBEs, historically underutilized businesses, HUBs, and small business enterprises, SBEs.

As specified in these rules, the department will maintain three distinct programs. First, the DBE program which applies to all department contracts funded in whole or in part with federal funds through the U.S. DOT. The program is written to comply with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26. Changes to the rules for the DBE program consist primarily of reorganization of the sections.

Second, the HUB program applies to all department contracts relating to building, professional services, aviation, public transportation, private consultant services, and purchases funded entirely with state and local funds. The rules are written in compliance with Transportation Code Section 201.702, and to be consistent to the extent possible with the Government Code Chapter 2161.

And third, the SBE program applies to all department highway construction and maintenance contracts funded entirely with state and local funds. This program continues the department's policy to assist DBEs and HUBs along with small businesses in gaining contract opportunities.

The new sections are proposed for final adoption without changes to the text published in the April 14, 2000 Texas Register. Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions? Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item 5(b)(5) under Chapter 15, Transportation Planning and Programming, Robert Wilson.

MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Robert Wilson, director of the Design Division.

The minute order I'm bringing to you this morning is for amending rules in Title 43, Chapter 15, Section 15.56 of the Texas Administrative Code. The amendments will allow district engineers to approve local entity financing of a service project if it is less than $300,000.

It will also allow the executive director, deputy executive director, or assistant executive director to approve local financing of an approved transportation project or a service project that is over $300,000. However, if any local entity wishes to have their portion reimbursed by TxDOT, those projects will continue to be brought to the commission for approval.

These proposed rules were brought to you and you approved Minute Order 108141 on March 30 of 2000. They were advertised in the Texas Register and no comments were received. Staff would recommend your approval of this minute order and adopting these rules as final.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item 5(b)(6), Chapter 17, Vehicle Titles and Registration, David Linzey.

MR. LINZEY: Good morning, commissioners. David Linzey with the Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

Today we have three sets of administrative rules, three separate minute orders. The first implements two legislative amendments, Section 17.3 Certificates of Title. The first broadens the ability of motor vehicle owners to enter into rights of survivorship, agreement for transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle.

The second amendment clarifies the amount of time a lienholder has to deliver a release of lien to the vehicle owner after it's been discharged.

And then thirdly, we just had to clean up to improve grammar and clarity and eliminate some rules that were already clear in the Transportation Code.

We had no comments on these published rules. We recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LINZEY: The second is Section 17.22, Motor Vehicle Registration. Again, we're implementing legislative amendments. The first allows for a change in vehicle registration renewal month if a vehicle is renewed late for a valid reason. The second amendment changed the grace period for expiration of vehicle registration from five days to five working days.

The third amendment permitted military personnel to operate a vehicle for up to 90 days after returning to Texas from a military assignment overseas. And then fourth, we're clarifying our department's authority to cancel or not issue plates that have objectionable numbering or phrases on those license plates. And we're doing the same cleanup in these rules that we did with the previous set.

We recommend adoption of this minute order. We had no comments to the published rules.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LINZEY: Thirdly, Section 17.24, Disabled Person License Plates and Placards.

We're implementing two legislative amendments. The first provides that certain institutions, facilities and residential retirement communities may obtain disabled personal license plates and parking placards for display on their vans and buses used by their residents.

The second amendment allows physicians licensed to practice medicine in states adjacent to Texas to sign the applications for disabled license plates and parking placards for those customers.

And then thirdly, we're doing cleanup in these rules where the language is clear in the Transportation Code.

We had no comments to these published rules and we recommend that you adopt and approve the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, David.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, David.

Agenda item 5(b)(7), Use of State Property. Again, this is the last rule for final adoption. Zane Webb will introduce that, and also he'll handle 5(c) under Rule Review.

MR. WEBB: Thank you, Wes. For the record, I'm Zane Webb, director of the Maintenance Division.

The minute order you have before you concerns Section 22.16. Section 22.16 authorizes, by permit, encroachments into the right of way by signs that are attached to buildings located adjacent to but off of the right of way. The permit must be approved by the Maintenance Division. This amendment to Section 22.16 allows the Maintenance Division to consider the historical significance of the building when considering whether or not to issue the permit.

No comments were received; I recommend approval.

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WEBB: The second minute order you have before you concerns Section 10.13. Section 10.13 of the General Appropriations Act of 2000-2002 requires that state agencies re-adopt their rules and prior to re-adoption determine that the necessity for each rule continues to exist. The listed sections of the Administrative Code have been reviewed by the Maintenance Division and by general counsel. The reason for each of the rules continues to exist. I recommend approval of the minute order and re-adoption of the rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Zane.

MR. WEBB: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Commissioners, agenda item number 6, Traffic Operations, Carlos will speak on that, but first of all, this item is to discuss eliminating the use of non-reflective ceramic traffic buttons for simulating lane lines, and it was an item that was requested to be placed on the agenda. Mr. William Galerston is here to address the commission, and I would want to remind you that this is only a discussion and no action can be taken today.

MR. GALERSTON: My name is Bill Galerston. Gentlemen, I appreciate your allowing me to speak. I'm here with Mason Lapham from Traffic Supply, Inc.

We were here last month to bring to your attention this situation involving TxDOT's recent manual revision changing the 40-year practice in the state of Texas away from using ceramic road markers to making it where ceramic road markers would no longer be allowed or approved for use for permanent road markings, and that a preference has been stated specifically within the manual revisions for the use of thermoplastic markings.

This was something that came about quite suddenly, it was adopted and approved by TxDOT on May 4 of this year. Prior to that time, there had been no indications in the industry that such changes were being considered. I'm here before you to ask the question why. What is the rush? Why is there a sudden need for change?

As you can see from my handout and from the document here, the ceramics have been in use in the state of Texas for 40-plus years. We're aware of no studies done by the Texas Transportation Institute or the Federal Highway Administration, or any others that revealed that there's a problem with the use of ceramics on the roadways.

Further, as far as we are aware, none of the ceramic manufacturers have ever received any complaints with regards to the ceramics, with regards to safety or, for that matter, with regards to maintenance. Maintenance is an issue that will be addressed a little bit further in a moment.

One issue that has been raised in the justification for the change is retro-reflectivity standards that are believed to be adopted sometime in the future to go into effect sometime possibly around 2010 requiring the striping to have retro-reflectivity. Well, the retro-reflectivity standard is not in effect; it hasn't even been adopted; there's no indication exactly what will be required. As I'll address in a moment, retro-reflectivity with regards to markers and buttons is something that can be achieved and it is something that is being offered as we speak in terms of buttons.

Further, there's no studies showing that any of the complaints which are now being raised with regards to the ceramic markers are actually solved by the use of thermoplastics. We're aware of no TTI studies or Federal Highway Administration studies between the two that say conclusively that thermoplastic will solve these problems. To the contrary, we believe that the adoption of an exclusive use of thermoplastic on the permanent markings will actually create problems for TxDOT on the highways, in that there will be insufficient equipment and materials to mark the roads and that there's no justification, as shown here, to go forward with this change to have a stated preference for thermoplastic and disallowing the usage.

There's no reason to take a very valuable useful tool out of the district engineers' tool bags for handling the marking and the striping of the highways to move to an exclusive use of thermoplastic.

Finally, there's been no public opinion studies. In California, it was once a trial balloon or an unwarranted comment by one of their Cal-Tran officials stating that they're considering the disallowance and discontinuing the use of buttons on their roadways. This was picked up by the local media, it was published; they had protests, they had a public outcry against the discontinued use of the buttons. Buttons are something that the public is used to, they're familiar with, they expect to see them, particularly in the urban areas.

I don't believe that there's any reason or indication why TxDOT should go forward without at least seeing what the public opinions show with regard to the use of ceramics versus thermoplastics. There is thermoplastic, and here I'm talking about the high profile, the rigid thermoplastics. There are some test deck -- I believe there's a test deck on I-35 North here in Austin. I suggest that you take an opportunity to drive it and see what the impact, see what the feel is. I think you'll find that it's substantially different from that which is provided by four-inch buttons.

Also, there's little evidence and quite a bit to the contrary that indicates that this will last. The high profile rigid thermoplastic is believed to wear down in 12 to 18 months, then providing absolutely only reflectivity.

With regards to reflectivity and the rumble effect that can be achieved, there are buttons out there that could be used that would provide both the reflectivity that seems to be a TxDOT concern and the rumble effect which we believe is a public policy issue and a concern to the public.

We've been provided with two primary reasons for the change, and they are highlighted by TxDOT in the manual. They describe the reflectivity which I've already touched upon and will not go back over, and the maintenance problems. Well, maintenance problems are problems that can be solved. One, maintenance problems had never been addressed or presented to the ceramic manufacturers, so it is only recently that we've had an opportunity to meet with and talk to the adhesive people and already we've provided some feedback to TxDOT on this issue.

The problem is something that was recently highlighted by the investigative reporters in Houston who found the use of substandard defective markers on Highway 288. They were presented in boxes that appeared to have TxDOT approved stamps on them. The investigator in question was able to go forward and determine that the boxes had been camouflaged, that the stamp was in all likelihood counterfeit, and that these were being put down.

According to the reporter on the videotape that he showed, you could actually see visible cracks in the markers that were being applied. These are certainly not up to standards that TxDOT has required. One of the ways that we can improve the maintenance on the use of ceramic markers is assuring that only TxDOT approved markers are placed and that they are properly placed.

Another problem that we have with the maintenance of markers is the road preparation. You gentlemen all have extensive experience and you know that a lot of times the contractors do not take the time or the expense to properly prepare the roads. Often times they try to substitute merely brushing or sweeping the area where power washing would be more appropriate, and these are the factors that go into it. It's not necessarily a situation that is involved with the markers.

Also, unless you assure that the roads are properly prepared prior to the placement of thermoplastic, you will have the same type of failures. Merely changing the preferred marker will not solve this problem.

Another issue that has been raised, and I don't know what the answer is and I don't know that TxDOT knows the answer to it, and another reason why we ask why the rush, is what about the equipment. We're stating that there is a stated preference for uniformity throughout the regions, throughout the districts to use thermoplastic, but I have been advised that it's highly unlikely that there's sufficient equipment or material in the state of Texas to meet the current marking needs and that there will be a delay in the finalization of projects waiting for the thermoplastic trucks to become available so they can move into the projects and whatnot.

We're not aware of any study that has been done that shows that there's adequate resources out there to support this sudden change. Again, it's our position that it has not been properly thought out, evaluated and presented to the commission for its adoption.

Finally, only recently have we suddenly been told that there's a safety concern related to ceramic markers. We're unaware of what the concerns are; we're not aware of any studies that indicate that the use of ceramic markers are unsafe, that they pose any significant health risks to the traveling public. We ask that to the extent that there's such and justification exists, we ask that those be presented.

But in conclusion, we ask that the Manual Revision 001 be repealed, that the decision to make a dedicated move from the 40-year history of use of ceramic markers be reconsidered, that there be public debate and consideration of this to allow the public, who have reasonable expectations based upon their experience with use of the ceramic markers, they need to be advised of the change so they can adapt to the new materials. Thank you.

Any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Galerston.

Two thoughts come to mind. One is my impression is that the reason that this has come before the commission is primarily a safety issue. The reflectivity is a primary concern and represents a safety issue which we think is an improvement.

Secondly, I think, as you noted, for a transition from one type of marker to another takes time and this is not something that is going to happen overnight. So the buttons will be continued to be used in projects as are being done now and when we're capable of using the reflective markers, then there will be a transition period. This is just not a cut-and-dried stop one thing and then start another.

Given those two issues, we'll take into consideration the points that you've made, and as Mr. Heald said, we cannot take any action today, but we'll certainly take your points into consideration. And I would ask my colleagues, Mr. Laney or Mr. Nichols, if they have any observations on the matter.

MR. NICHOLS: If I may ask a question. I think we had a presentation you made last month.

MR. GALERSTON: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: So you've had time to study it, and I think one of the questions I asked last month had to do with what other states do you sell these buttons to that we're considering obsoleting from our specs in substantial volumes.

MR. GALERSTON: I appreciate you bringing that up, and in light of the time, actually it was in my conclusion that I didn't get to. Actually, all the southern states and the western states, I have determined that Arizona, Nevada, California, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama.

MR. LAPHAM: Primarily the larger southern states, they love the button. Our California office, they addressed this --

MR. LANEY: Introduce yourself, please.

MR. LAPHAM: I'm sorry. Mason Lapham with Traffic Supply Company in Eagle Lake.

The ceramic button is what keeps Traffic Supply and Apex running; it's a very strong marker for the Apex Company. As far as us, we are in the process of expanding into other states with this particular button. It was to my surprise that Texas is going the other direction.

MR. GALERSTON: It's approved for use currently in Louisiana, Arkansas.

MR. LAPHAM: Florida is very large with it, California; Nevada area is a big use of it, and certainly the other southern states, our SAASHTO states. They get together through the NETPET program and they are working on accepting this product.

MR. NICHOLS: Is this the reflective or the non-reflective?

MR. LAPHAM: The one in question is the non-reflective.

MR. NICHOLS: So you're selling substantial quantities to these other states?

MR. GALERSTON: Currently the percentage would be 80 percent of our sales is in the state of Texas.

MR. NICHOLS: Eight?

MR. GALERSTON: Eighty percent of the ceramic markers is in the state of Texas.

MR. NICHOLS: So 20 percent of your sales is divided among all the rest of those states.

MR. LAPHAM: Among the eastern coast or the Gulf states. The highways in the other states are minimal, minute compared to Texas. And again, many of the Gulf states, they don't have the resources, they don't have a materials and test division such as TxDOT has, so when you travel to the other states, you'll see markers, you'll see buttons, but not as effective as TxDOT uses.

MR. GALERSTON: Not to the same standards. In other words, these buttons do not compete in those markets because of the requirements by TxDOT.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: David, did you have anything?

MR. LANEY: I take it your principal concern is suddenness.

MR. GALERSTON: That's correct. Also effectiveness. We also have a question whether or not the move will be effective, but also primarily suddenness. And if I may for just one second answer Mr. Johnson's point. It's still our understanding that this is basically effective immediately. We were given a five-month reprieve and they have pushed back the implementation. As to existing contracts that are going to be executed and projects that are going to be striped in the next five months, they've been instructed not to remove the buttons.

But for all projects that will be let as of October, all projects must call for thermoplastic to the exclusion, and that all projects that are in the process of being engineered and can easily be re-engineered, they're supposed to go back to thermoplastic. It's only for the next five months are they prevented from re-engineering the projects to call for thermoplastic.

MR. JOHNSON: I appreciate that observation, but a contract that's let October 1 actually won't be using the buttons for quite some time.

MR. GALERSTON: That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: Another observation is I think we are constantly looking for ways to improve what we do and certainly when safety is an aspect, and if the reflective button is a better way of doing that, it will be certainly considered and internally studied, and if it turns out, it will be used.

MR. GALERSTON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: David, did you have anything else?

MR. LANEY: If suddenness is the issue, or principal issue -- I know you'd rather see no change at all -- assuming five months represents suddenness to you, what do you think is appropriate?

MR. GALERSTON: I believe in our letter when we requested to be presented as an agenda item, we suggested three years. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration is going to take approximately ten years in the consideration and implementation of its retro-reflectivity requirements. We believe that three years -- we don't know how long it has been considered or studied by TxDOT, of course, because it was quite sudden to us to find out about it, but we believe that 36 months would be a reasonable time to publish a proposed standard, to allow public comment, and also to test the waters as to the public's opinion of ceramics versus -- or reflective buttons even versus the high profile thermoplastic.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

Mr. Galerston, thank you.

MR. GALERSTON: Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Heald.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item 7, under Transportation Planning, three minute orders for your consideration. Al Luedecke.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

7(a) is a minute order that provides for the appointment of a new member to the Grand Parkway Association Board of Directors. Under Section 15.85, Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, the board may nominate a replacement director for a vacancy on the board. The six-year term of Marian J. Robinson has expired and she has decided not to seek reappointment to the board.

In accordance with Section 15.85, the board has nominated a candidate for a first term on the board and has submitted the prescribed documentation for commission review. Based upon the review and consideration of relevant information, as documented and filed with the commission, it appears that the nominee is fully eligible and qualified to serve as a member on the board. Lori Klein Quinn is recommended as the appointee to the board of directors of the Grand Parkway Association for a term to expire in June 2006.

Your approval of this minute order is requested.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. LUEDECKE: Carrying on with 7(b), House Bill 1 of the 76th Legislature, Rider 50 of the appropriations to the Texas Department of Transportation appropriated $6 million in nonconstitutionally dedicated state highway funds to the department to purchase the rail located on rail right of way owned by the department extending from Coleman County and ending at an international border in Presidio, Texas.

The department acquired an interest in this right of way under terms of a grant funding agreement with the South Orient Rural Rail Transportation District and approved by the Texas Transportation Commission on September 30, 1991.

On February 24, 2000, the commission approved Minute Order 108114 which authorized the department to expend $6 million appropriated in Rider 50 and up to $3.5 million in other funds to acquire the leasehold interests, railroad operating easement, and other assets and rights held by the South Orient Railroad Company relating to the South Orient rail line, and to acquire the installed rails, signals, switches, structures and other improvements on the South Orient line from the South Orient Rural Rail Transportation District.

On acquisition of these assets, rights and interests and improvements from the company and the district, the department, as a noncarrier, needs to enter into an agreement with a rail operator to conduct operations over the South Orient line. This may be accomplished through the lease of the South Orient line to the rail operator with the department retaining the residual common carrier obligation on behalf of the State of Texas.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes the department, subject to the consummation of the acquisition of the various assets, rights, interests, and improvements in the South Orient line that are held by the rail company and the district to enter into an agreement with the rail operator for the lease and the continued operation of the South Orient line.

This minute order also authorizes and directs the executive director to negotiate and to enter into agreements necessary to carry out the terms of this order. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. LANEY: Can I make a couple of comments?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. LANEY: I had asked that this minute order be brought forward, although it precedes any real crystallization of the terms of the deal. Jim Randall and Jack Ingram are the principal negotiators on behalf of the department, and Al is involved as well.

This is in anticipation of the potential conclusion of a set of terms acceptable to the department between now and the next commission meeting, and I simply didn't want it to be slowed down. Both of you all certainly will be apprised of the principal terms of these things before anything is finally authorized, but I wanted to make sure you're aware of that.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a comment. I wanted to compliment your staff, Jim Randall, and the work they've done, and I know David has been real involved in it. This has been a very complicated thing but a very important thing, and it looks like you're getting close to having it all come together. So I want to mention that and my hat's off to the work that everybody has done.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I think I've also mentioned in conversation with Jim yesterday what I think is the importance of that common trackage, that small portion. Anyway, I so move.

MR. LUEDECKE: This has been a rather complex set of negotiations, and Jim and his folks have done real good service on it.

MR. JOHNSON: There is a motion. Is there a second?

MR. LANEY: There is a second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Al.

MR. LUEDECKE: On item 7(c), on March 28, 1996, the commission approved Minute Order 106788 which established governing procedures for the approval of construction estimate increases as compared to programmed amounts prior to letting. This minute order also grouped projects by the department's various construction funding categories for consideration and decisions associated with the construction estimate increases.

In order to reflect the name changes and restructuring of the various categories of the department's Unified Transportation Program, the governing procedures established by Minute Order 106788 needed to be revised. The minute order presented for your consideration replaces the previous minute order and addresses new categories established in the most current Unified Transportation Plan. We recommend your approval of this cleanup minute order, if you will.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Al.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Al.

Agenda item number 8, under Turnpike Authority, James Bass will present a minute order for your consideration.

MR. BASS: Good morning. I'm James Bass, director of TxDOT's Finance Division.

Agenda item number 8 is a minute order which seeks your approval for the Texas Turnpike Authority Division to submit an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation for TIFIA assistance for the Central Texas Turnpike project.

The TIFIA program -- which is Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act -- was created by TEA-21 to encourage innovative financing for providing financial assistance in the form of loans, credit lines or credit guarantees to transportation projects of regional or national significance. Staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, observations?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item number 9, a SIB loan for your approval. James.

MR. BASS: This minute order seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Henderson which is located in Rusk County which is an economically disadvantaged county in the amount of $250,000 to fund the relocation of utilities made necessary by the expansion and reconstruction of State Highway 64 within the city.

Interest will accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.3 percent with payments being made over a period of ten years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. LANEY: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, James.

MR. HEALD: Item number 10, Contracts, Thomas Bohuslav.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav and I'm the director of the Construction Division.

Item 10(a)(1) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on June 6 and 7, 2000, whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had eleven projects, 42 bidders -- bids were submitted. Staff recommends award of all projects.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll second it with the comment that I couldn't help but notice that the bids came in about 14 percent under the estimates, a good ratio of people bidding on those. Anyway, I second it. I thought that was great.

MR. JOHNSON: Was your observation maybe our estimating capability is diminishing?

MR. NICHOLS: I would hope that it's due to our efficiency in the -- I don't know.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 10(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on June 6 and 7, 2000. We had 99 projects, with 425 bidders for an average of 4.29 bidders per project. Staff recommends award of all projects attached.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LANEY: Before you leave, let me just ask one question. That number of bidders, bids per project seems to be continuing to rise. What explains that? That's curious to me.

MR. BOHUSLAV: In the past, I did talk to the contracting industry some on that, and it has to do primarily with two things: how busy the industry is out there -- or maybe three things: how busy the industry is out there; how big our letting is -- we have kind of a standard number of bidders out there; and where they are on their payouts for individual construction projects. In other words, if they're over 50 percent complete with a project with their payouts, they're looking for more activity out there. With the good weather that we've had for an extended period of time now, that probably contributes as well.

This is a larger letting, 99 projects, than normal, so I don't think that contributed to the bids per project, but we're maintaining about four, 4-1/2 or so which is better than we've been.

MR. HEALD: Commissioners, I think we also have a pretty good feel that the contracting industry is geared up. They have hired more people and probably leased more equipment and it appears that they've responded rather well to our increased level of funding.

MR. LANEY: Geared up just in time for nonconformity and wetlands.

MR. HEALD: That's right.

Item number 10(b), Carlos Lopez will explain this to you. It's our Information Logo Program and you're going to explain the Agricultural Interest signs also.

MR. LOPEZ: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez and I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you awards a contract for the installation and maintenance of business logo, major shopping area, and major agricultural interest signs statewide. We let this contract last month, because the current logo contract will expire at the end of the year. We received one bid which was from the current logo contractor, Texas Logos.

Texas Logos bid a $700 a year rental fee for a main lane logo, $2,000 a year for a major shopping area sign, and $360 a year for a major agricultural interest sign. When we plugged these rental fees into our engineer's estimate formula, the bid came in about 7-1/2 percent over our estimate. We believe this bid is fair and reasonable.

Now, this work would be accomplished at no cost to TxDOT. Should this contract be awarded, the logo contractors first order of business will be to get major agricultural interest signs up in time for the Christmas season. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. HEALD: Why don't you go ahead and explain the agricultural interest signs, the pressure that we've been under because of prior legislation.

MR. LOPEZ: The major agricultural interest part of the contract was actually a law passed in 1997, and it opened the program up to things like Christmas tree farms, wineries, nurseries, pecan farms, things like that that are major agricultural interests that attract tourists to their businesses. We tried to let that contract separately right after the law was passed, but because the market was fairly small and so diverse in the state, we did not get any bidders at the time. So that's why we packaged it with the overall big logo contract and we were able to get a good bid. The legislature has been very, very interested in that particular portion of the contract.

MR. HEALD: And there's been some concern by certain members of the legislature that we hadn't complied with the previous legislation.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Carlos.

MR. HEALD: As usual, under Routine Minute Orders, Item number 11, I'll go until you stop me and we can handle those lump sum.

Starting with 11(a) Speed Zones, establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

11(b) Load Zones, revision of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

11(c) Highway Designation, in Webb County, FM 3464, remove FM 3464 from the state highway system and FM 1472 eastward to two miles east of IH 35.

11(d) under Traffic Operations, in Ellis County, US 287 and US 67 in Midlothian, construct two underpasses to be funded 100 percent by Ellis County Rural Rail Transportation District.

Several under 11(e) Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease. In Blanco County, Old State Highway 20 at US 281, consider the sale of two tracts of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner.

11(e)(2) in Brown County, FM 2524, designate a portion of a tract of land as an uneconomic remainder.

11(e)(3) Collin County, Old State Highway 78 at County Road 1061, consider the removal from the system of a tract of right of way.

11(e)(4) Dallas County, State Highway 161 at Beltline Road in Irving, consider the sale of access rights to the abutting landowner.

11(e)(5) Victoria County, US 77 West side, north of Loop 463 in Victoria, consider the sale of a surplus engineering/maintenance site and improvements to the City of Victoria.

And then 11(f) Eminent Domain Proceedings, request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways, and there's a list for your review.

And Mr. Chairman, that completes that part of our meeting.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a second?

MR. LANEY: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item number 12, we're not asking for an executive session today. And that brings us to the open comment period and we have several people that have signed up to speak.

MR. JOHNSON: Before we begin, let me remind our speakers of a few rules. If you would like to speak, you must have filled out a blue card and we have several, and if there are any others, would you please fill out a blue card and bring it forward. We would also like to remind the speakers that they are allowed three minutes to address the commission.

So far I have five speakers who want to speak on the roadside memorials, and I hope that I get your name right. The first card is Karen Housewright.

MS. HOUSEWRIGHT: I'm Karen Housewright; I’m the state director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

First I wanted to say that MADD for many years has enjoyed working with TxDOT on a number of programs that we think have made the roads safer. One of those programs is the roadside memorials, and MADD worked back in the mid to late '80s on developing some guidelines that allowed memorial markers to be erected at scenes where DWI crashes had taken place and where fatalities had occurred, and I think that the public awareness benefit from these roadside memorials has been wonderful for this state. I only have anecdotal evidence of that, I don't have any official survey information.

I understand that you might be considering revising the guidelines, and I would just ask that MADD be included in those discussions and that whatever the end result is that we still have some kind of roadside memorials for traffic fatalities. I'd hate to see the whole program eliminated, if that's even being considered. That's it.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Jimmy Eisenhower.

MR. EISENHOWER: My name is Jimmy Eisenhower. I represent Best Hearts which is a bereavement group in Van Zandt County, Texas.

We just wanted to come down today and thank Mr. Webb, Mr. Graff, Ms. Sims, and Ms. Owen, also Ms. Housewright that met with us this morning and we think we had a very fruitful discussion. And we'd like the commissioners to know that we'd appreciate any help you all can give on this matter.

Being a bereaved parent, having to deal with this day in and day out is a lot of stress on us, and we'd like to ask y’all’s help in trying to get this situation resolved as soon as possible so that we can get on with our lives and everything too. We believe that TxDOT will work with us and we just appreciate everybody's help. And that's all I have to say. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Susan Harris.

MS. HARRIS: Thank you. I'm Susan Harris and I'm the co-founder of Best Hearts Support Group for bereaved parents. I just want to thank you for listening to us and taking time, and I want to thank Senator Cain's office for his support that he's given to us. We've kept in real close contact with him.

But I really want to talk to you as a parent, and we just want to ask that when you're considering this issue that we're treated fairly, that we don't show partiality to one group or another because this is a sensitive thing, and that our daughters and others are given the same respect as the others are that are killed by drunk drivers.

You know, when policies are made, I'm sure that a lot of peoples' opinions are taken into consideration and I ask that when you do this that you take our feelings and our thoughts into consideration too.

We also think that there has been, from our studies and since we've been talking, a problem with awareness, and we would like to see if there's more people aware of that we need more safety on our roads, not just for drinking and driving but for sharp corners, for being tired, and just making people aware that our roads need to be safer, and it starts with us.

We'd like to just ask that we can come to some sort of agreement between us and TxDOT to compromise. That's what we want to do: we want to work with them and we just don't want to have just our way or their way, we want to kind of come to a compromise, and we ask that we just work together. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

June Hatfield.

MS. HATFIELD: Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Laney, Nichols, and Director Heald. It is an honor to have the opportunity to speak regarding this important issue. I would like to thank Mary Owen of the Tyler office and Tammy Sims of this office for their assistance, along with Senator Cain and Leo Berman and Representative Glaze's office.

My name is June Hatfield. I am heading two non-profit organizations in Tyler for East Texas: one is the Compassionate Friends which helps families through the death of a child; Rob's Pyramid is an organization that supports bereaved family members when a loved one has died. When a death occurs of a loved one, there is so little a loved one can do. Whatever they can do, it's a step further in the healing process.

Texas loses 3,000 loved ones per year through traffic accidents of which 70 percent are due to unsafe driving issues. 3,000 families' lives are shattered and their world is forever changed. You do not get over it; you learn to deal with it one day at a time.

Just as MADD -- and I commend MADD for the hard work that they have done; they have brought down the number of DWIs -- non-DWI grieving families feel just as much a responsibility to take action helping bring down the amount of fatalities on our roadways. It is out of the loss of their loved one as heart-wrenching as that be, if they can save even one life by placing a cross, then their loved one did not die in vain.

I believe that we can work together to reduce the amount of fatalities which have risen at an alarming rate of 30 percent over the last three years, and these studies I did receive directly from TxDOT and confirmed them with the Texas Vital Statistics.

In closing, we are in desperate need of a safety awareness program that not only continues to reduce DWI fatalities but also reduces fatalities from non-DWI accidents. Thank you for your time and your consideration, and I hope that you do look over that proposal and give it some thought, and we are all open to suggestions.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

Robert Hatfield.

MR. HATFIELD: Good morning. My name is Robert Hatfield. I'm vice-chairman and co-founder of Rob's Pyramid in Tyler, and I'm also a group leader of the Compassionate Friends of Tyler.

I appreciate the opportunity provided to address this commission on the issue of roadside crosses in the state of Texas. I understand the concerns of TxDOT officials in keeping the right of way safe for the motoring public. These are viable concerns that need to be addressed in any solutions that may be developed. There's also a need to keep the highways safe. State and local governments can only do so much in maintaining highway safety. It mostly lies in the hands of the motoring public and whether or not they choose to drive responsibly.

Driving while intoxicated, speeding, not wearing your seatbelts, or not having your passengers in your vehicle wear their seatbelts, that is a choice that we all make when we get behind the wheel. We need to do all that we can to ensure that more people make the right choice. We need a safety awareness campaign that includes reality checks.

Perhaps you've heard about the Every 15 Minutes Program. It's a program that is put on I know a lot in North and East Texas, and what it is is a mock vehicle crash in the front of a high school, for instance, and they have mock victims laying down on the pavement. Some have fake blood on them, there's fatalities. Parents are called for the fatality victims; they're made to write an obituary. The police, EMS and hospital staff and fire departments, they all participate.

It's a real reality check for our students, and that's what we do for our kids is make them look at reality, this is really what happens should you drink and then get behind the wheel of a vehicle, and it has been effective.

The crosses on the side of the road are also a reality check. When we drive by and see these crosses, we recognize the fact that someone had died right here and it hits home.

The motoring public needs to understand the consequences for irresponsible driving behaviors. People are injured and lives are lost. Nobody understands this more than a bereaved family. We have received that knock at the door, and we have no choice but to face reality.

My wife and I, with the assistance of bereaved families and members of the public in East Texas have formulated the foundations of a proposal for your review. We urge the commission to seriously consider a form of safety awareness that brings about public attention to the dangers of driving while intoxicated as well as driving unsafely. Thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Are there any other speakers at the open comment session?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to thank each of the speakers and want to assure them that this is a very important subject and issue for not only them but this department and the commission. We are exploring a great many alternatives, paths, solutions to the issue and we will continue to explore them, and we want to work with and receive input from interested people like yourselves.

I would like to ask David or Robert if they have any thoughts on this matter.

MR. NICHOLS: No. I know it's a very sensitive issue and the department is looking at it quite seriously. I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken to come make a presentation. This is quite a detailed report and I've been up here reading it while you were talking, so appreciate it.

MR. JOHNSON: David?

MR. LANEY: No.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to thank everyone. If there is no other business to come before the commission, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. LANEY: So move.

MR. JOHNSON: Please note that it's 11:40 a.m., and the meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: June 29, 2000

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 104, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Pat Alex before the Texas Department of Transportation.

______________06/05/99
(Transcriber) (Date)

On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731