TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas

9:00 a.m. Thursday, November 16, 2000 Regular Meeting

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ROBERT L. NICHOLS, Acting Chair
DAVID M. LANEY

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. NICHOLS: I declare this meeting open in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings law. All items in the agenda were posted with the Secretary of State's office at 8:57, November 8.

Anyone who is here who wants to talk on an item on the agenda, please fill out a yellow card if you have not filled one out. If anyone wants to speak on a subject that is not on the agenda, we will listen to you at the end of the meeting; please fill out a blue card. Comments on items on the agenda we try to keep to three minutes, and I certainly want to welcome all of you here today.

David, do you have any comments that you'd like to make?

MR. LANEY: No. I'm sure I'll have some during the meeting, but I know some of you have traveled a good distance to be here, and I appreciate it, and probably dealt with some traffic on I-35, but I doubt that.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Glad to have you here; look forward to the presentations. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Chairman Johnson is not here today; he asked me to chair the meeting. For those of you who are wondering what type of parliamentary procedure we follow, we'll be following Roberts Rules of Order today.

(General laughter.)

ERATH COUNTY

(Mark Kloster, Sen. David Sibley)

MR. NICHOLS: Our first item really is the delegation from Erath County, and I'd ask you to state your name for the record on the mike.

MR. KLOSTER: Good morning. My name is Mark Kloster, and I'm part of the Dublin delegation to talk to you today about the Dublin loop and some plans we've got in Dublin. I'd like to first thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today.

Our delegation, as I said, is from Dublin, Texas, population 3,250. We're located 70 miles southwest of Fort Worth in Erath County. Two years ago a delegation from Dublin appeared before this commission to ask for your help, and you gave us even more than we asked for.

As you know, Highway 377-67 cuts through the heart of Dublin on a northeast-southwest route and intersects with Highway 6, which runs roughly east and west. According to TxDOT, the average daily traffic count on Highway 6 east of Dublin is 6,000, 15 percent of which is truck traffic. Meanwhile, more than 11,000 vehicles are coming through Dublin on Highway 377-67 each day, and 8 percent of that number is trucks.

It is not uncommon for trucks to be backed up so far at the downtown intersection of Highway 377-67 and 6 that it takes several traffic light changes for them to get through. It is not uncommon either that many of those vehicles which are turning must back up and try again to negotiate the turn.

One of the reasons our truck traffic is so heavy is a dual-edged sword. Erath County is the largest milk-producing county in the state; the industry which directly and indirectly forms the cornerstone of our economy is also the one which accounts for much of the truck traffic. Raw milk must be transported to processing plants out of the county, and commodities must be brought here for the needs of the dairy industry.

Another dual-edged sword: Universal Blanchers, Incorporated, on Highway 6 just west of Dublin has entered into an agreement with Hershey's Chocolates to furnish no less than 20 million pounds of roasted peanuts per year. By terms of that contract, that amount could double. All of these peanuts are coming to Dublin by truck. A little quick math tells us that while the contract with Hershey's is good for our economy, the 500 additional trucks it puts on our highways will intensify the existing truck congestion.

In the two-block area surrounding the intersection of Highway 377-67 and Highway 6 you will find: the city hall, the fire department, more than three dozen businesses, the public library, our historic grist mill, two museums, a railroad, our community gathering place known as "The Corner Lot", and the oldest Dr Pepper bottling plant in the world.

When we met with you two years ago, we asked for -- no, we begged for a Highway 377-67 relief route which would reduce the daily onslaught of milk trucks, feed trucks, heavy equipment haulers, and mobile home movers away from the downtown intersection and away from our residential areas, businesses, medical clinics, schools and churches. We were concerned -- no, we were worried about what the heavy truck traffic was doing to business, to the safety of our residents, and our infrastructure.

There was no way to safely park on our downtown streets; there was no way to route hazardous materials away from our citizens, and there was no way to prevent the wear and tear on our city streets which was caused by the heavy trucks. You understood our problem, and you agreed that we needed a relief route, and you prioritized the Highway 377-67 loop so that it could become a reality in 2003. You also gave us a beautiful 11-mile, four-lane divided highway, which has made it safer and more efficient to travel between Dublin and Stephenville.

While we were here asking for a 377-67 relief route, you also heard a group of opponents who feared that the loop would kill the downtown. Following their presentation, a former member of your commission, Anne Wynne, told the Dublin delegation that we would control our destiny to an extent if the loop were constructed.

Mrs. Wynne pointed out that we would have several years to develop a plan to draw our target audience off of the relief route and into our downtown area, while allowing the truck drivers who dreaded coming through downtown a way to avoid doing so. She pointed out that many communities have actually prospered because of relief routes which reduce drive-through congestion in their downtown areas.

We took Mrs. Wynne's comments to heart, and we made a pledge to the opposition group that we would work with them to market the downtown area to our target audience. We assured them that the day would come when they would be glad the relief route had become a reality, because Dublin business would thrive. They were probably skeptical at that point, but we don't believe they are today.

The first thing we did was to organize a group of what we call visionaries to develop a plan for the downtown, analyzing what we need and how to get it. The obvious answer was to build on what we already have: tourism and historic preservation. With the Dr Pepper bottling plant and its adjacent museum as the cornerstone, Dublin museums have much to offer when you consider that Dublin is the home of golf legend Ben Hogan, of Congressional Medal of Honor winner Colonel George Davis, country and western singer Johnny Duncan, five-time all around world champion cowboy Harry Tompkins, and world championship rodeo which attracted Gene Autry and Roy Rogers and has made its way to Madison Square Gardens. We even promote our more-imagined-than-real Irish heritage once a year.

As our downtown vision began to take shape, we realized that the Texas Department of Transportation would continue to play a key role in our future. We asked for and were awarded grants totaling $1.1 million for construction of a river walk which would link our downtown attractions together and restore our old grist mill into a visitors' center. Both projects are in the works and are fully committed to having them completed before the scheduled completion of the Highway 377-67 relief route.

Almost immediately after the grant recipients were announced, we began to see exactly what Mrs. Wynne was referring to. People got caught up in the vision. Abandoned buildings in our downtown area were purchased for renovation; others were being transformed by their owners. Suddenly there was a new restaurant, a new gift shop, a new crafts mall, two new antique stores. The Economic Development Corporation established a program which provides incentives for downtown businesses to dress up their store fronts, and we're getting ready for the company.

So why are we here? You probably don't have many groups who come to say just thank you, but that's one of the reasons we're here, because you encouraged us to be proactive, not reactive, and you encouraged us to look down the road where we want to be 10, 15, 20 years from now.

When the relief route is complete, the problem of downtown congestion will be reduced, because much of the heavy truck traffic that comes through Dublin on Highway 377-67 will be routed away from downtown, but even then we will face the problem of the east and west traffic on Highway 6 through that same downtown intersection, because they cannot access the loop any other way.

The inconvenience and danger presented by the Highway 6 congestion is at least as bad as that of Highway 377 for several reasons. All our emergency services, ambulance, fire and police, are based in downtown Dublin. Everything to the east of downtown, including the new high school, is separated from these emergency services by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad. There's no way for an ambulance or fire truck to reach the eastern part of Dublin without crossing the train tracks, and a $2 million grant for railroad improvements is expected to increase train traffic in our community.

The railroad problem is twofold: separation of emergency services from the eastern part of town, and intensified congestion, which two or three times a day each day backs up traffic toward the downtown intersection of 377 and Highway 6.

We recently met with TxDOT officials in Fort Worth to discuss the long-term plans for Highway 6 between I-35 and I-20, particularly that part which runs through Erath County. We were told that even Priority 1 projects on Highway 6 were some 10 or so years away and Erath County is not on the priority list at this time.

In June of this year, at the request of State Representative Jim Keffer of Eastland, Erath County commissioners adopted a resolution urging the Highway Commission to prioritize development of Highway 6 from Interstate 45 to Interstate 20.

Obviously, as part of the master plan for Dublin, we want to begin working on the development of a Highway 6 relief route. We will never be able to reclaim our downtown for our residents and visitors until traffic congestion in general and truck traffic specifically have been reduced.

At the TxDOT meeting in Fort Worth we were also told that a possible short-term solution would be to make Highway 6 one way through downtown and to make Elm Street, the first street south of Highway 6, one way the other direction. That concept, while it may appear a relatively inexpensive short-term solution, would spell disaster for what we're trying to do in Dublin.

Here's why. Elm Street is one of our community's beautiful old brick streets; it runs in front of the Dr Pepper Company, the soon-to-be-restored grist mill visitors' center, our historical park, through the heart of the area which we are now developing as a historic district, and through the river walk. We are building our vision around the downtown's historic appeal, which would drastically be reduced by making Elm Street a major thoroughfare.

To put heavy commuter traffic on that street, especially the many 18-wheelers and wide loads which currently must come through Dublin, would destroy what you encouraged us to do when we asked for the Highway 377 relief route, and more importantly, it won't eliminate the problem, because it won't deliver traffic effectively and safely through Dublin.

A relief route east of Dublin High School that would intersect with Highway 377-67 on the north side of Dublin would remove much of the truck and other drive-through traffic without creating new problems.

In summary, we ask two things: first, that you consider the development of a Highway 6 relief route to link with the 377-67 loop to the north of Dublin; and second, that you abandon all plans, however tentative they may be, to develop one-way thoroughfares which would be a deterrent to the development of our downtown commercial and historic district.

And again, we thank you for your assistance in raising the priority of the Highway 377-67 relief route and your encouragement to develop a long-range plan which will make us successful in developing our downtown area. Thank you for your time.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have some other people?

MR. KLOSTER: This is it, unless Senator Sibley would like to say a few words. Thank you.

SENATOR SIBLEY: Chairman, commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to appear in support of Dublin's request. Last year I had a unique opportunity. The opportunity was to appear at the new Dublin High School, which is unusual in that part of the country, because the community came together and passed a bond issue, and they have a beautiful new high school, but the occasion was they were inducting ten new Eagle Scouts at one time from one troop, and it was an extraordinary experience, an extraordinary sense of community. And I think that's what you're seeing today, is the extraordinary sense of community that Dublin has.

I believe that if we're able to do this and accommodate them for this request, I don't believe they're going to have a whole lot more requests from the highway department, because that essentially will take care of the problems that they have. We've been looking for alternate routes. I for one have been trying to promote Highway 6 as a ports-to-plain highway going from Lubbock and Abilene all the way down to Houston and the Gulf Coast in that manner, through Waco, College Station, and of course, 377 going north and south.

I think it's important to try to preserve the sense of community they have. I've been talking about community; I've not talked about safety and other issues that I think you certainly know about there. So let me just say that I'm here wholeheartedly to support the request of Dublin for the alternate route. Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

David, do you have anything?

MR. LANEY: I appreciate the presentation. It was a nice history of what's happened over the last few years there, and it was nice to be reminded of the prior visit you had with us while Anne was still on the commission. I'm glad to see what's happened.

I like the project; hopefully we can get something done. That's my comment. Thanks.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. You are aware that the commission does not take action on a presentation from a delegation, but I'd like to also compliment you on your presentation. What you were told by Anne Wynne is exactly right: Your community does have a huge impact on what does happen as it relates to the department of transportation, and you all pulling together and working in a cooperative spirit to come up with something the entire community can support together is extremely important in the process, and I think you have done a good job of presenting that today.

MR. LANEY: One other thing, I'll take at face value Senator Sibley's statement that this would be the last project you ever ask for.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Is there anyone else related to the Dublin delegation? Okay. Then I think we'll declare a five-minute recess and then we'll reconvene at about 9:20.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: We'll reconvene this meeting and go to the minutes of the previous meeting, number 2, approval of minutes, October 26 regular meeting of the transportation commission. Motion?

MR. LANEY: I move that we adopt the minutes.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

Wes, do you want to carry us through the rest of the agenda items?

MR. HEALD: Thank you. Our next item is item number 3, our annual report on the Grand Parkway Association, and Al Luedecke will present this to you.

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

Department rules pertaining to transportation corporations require that a corporation make an annual report to the commission on its current condition, status of projects, and activities undertaken during the preceding 12 months. We're very pleased today to have Ms. Diane Schenke, director of the association for the Grand Parkway, here today to give you this report.

MS. SCHENKE: Good morning. I am Diane Schenke and I also have with me David Gornet, the assistant director, and hopefully we can cover this in relatively short order, although we've got so much going on that we're open to any questions you may have, of course.

I thought we could start off by reviewing the overall project status and where we are on each of them. The first segment, the one that is built and open now in Fort Bend County, extends from I-10 West to US 59 South. That was opened in 1994, and Fort Bend County passed bond money just last week for $2 million to do design work at two major intersections on that particular leg of the Grand Parkway.

The second section, that I know is near and dear to Commissioner Nichols' heart, is in the Baytown area, hooks up with the Fred Hartman Bridge and goes to I-10 East. The first piece of that is scheduled for letting in September 2001. Right now we are busy on two tasks: one is to turn over the donated land to the department, and our schedule has that slated for April of 2001; the other activity is that we've recently filed a Corps of Engineers permit for the entire I-2 project, and the mitigation that we have proposed is in connection with the Nature Conservancy. We'll be enhancing and restoring some wetlands that are near their Atwater Prairie Chicken Preserve.

The third piece that we'll mention just briefly is Segments A and B on the southeast side of the loop, and until a week ago we had nothing going on, but Galveston County last week passed a $1.3 million bond issue that was specifically identified for the Grand Parkway to begin environmental and engineering studies on the part from I-45 west towards 288.

The final area that's not active at this point is on the northeast side of town, and we've got no studies under way and no plan to start those.

The study that is very active right now is the one that just came on the screen, connects US 59 South with State Highway 288. We're going to walk you through that process in some detail about where we've been and what we've done over the last year, but suffice it to say we've finished the draft environmental impact statement and we'll be issuing the final environmental impact statement during this next calendar year.

We'll come back to E, F and G. Again, I know that's a project near and dear to several of your hearts, but I thought we would go through C in some detail since it's been very active this year.

This is a quick summary of the progress of the project beginning back in March of '98 and taking us through this summer. I think the most important lesson from this particular slide is the amount of public involvement and agency and stakeholder involvement we've had as the process has moved forward.

Just this summer we have had the meetings that you see highlighted here, and the ones I would particularly like to draw to your attention are the HGAC, TPC approval there on October 20; that was a unanimous approval of the major investment study portion of the draft environmental impact statement. We also had, as you can see at the top of the list, formal public hearings at two locations at two ends of Segment C in June. And we have also had a recent meeting with the US EPA about their comment letter, and we'll talk more about some of the details they raised.

As you can see, we had a huge number of comments, and I know many of you personally received some of these letters. We had approximately 2,200 comments in the June time frame. The vast majority of those, as you can see, addressed the issues related to Brazos Bend State Park, and we break these generally into three separate categories.

The first category that is highlighted for you are alignment-specific issues; the second category are -- for lack of a better term -- regional issues, and these are the ones that the EPA primarily focused on. The final category are what we call general concerns, and while they'll be addressed in detail in the final EIS, most of our meetings and attention have focused on the first two categories, and I want to walk you through how we've resolved some of these issues.

First and most importantly, I think, was concern about the Brazos Bend State Park. You remember that we came so close to the Brazos Bend State Park in large part because we found an eagle's nest that required us to move the alignment. After the response about the concern on Brazos Bend State Park, we had a series of meetings which were highlighted in one of the earlier slides, with the county officials, the resource agencies, Federal Highways, and TxDOT to come up with an alignment that would be further away from the park, a little bit closer to the eagle's nest but located in such a location that it would be far enough to let the eagles continue to thrive.

The two red outer alignments were the ones that were presented in the draft EIS; the one on the top that the arrow is on right now, we discarded almost immediately because of impacts to wetlands where it crosses Rabbs Bayou right there where the arrow is located. The red alignment that's to the south there went within about a half mile of Brazos Bend State Park which you see outlined in green.

The preferred route that we presented to the public on Tuesday night is the dark blue line. It comes at the closest about a mile and a half from Brazos Bend State Park and almost three miles from the observatory that's located within the park.

I would like to say that on these alignment-specific issues, the reactions we had on Tuesday night this week at our workshops on the alignments was generally positive. We've still got some questions to resolve, and I'll talk about those in a minute.

Other alignment-specific issues we dealt with -- and this would be on the east end of the Route C close to where it comes into 288 -- we had people from Iowa Colony saying they preferred a more southern joining at 288, because they wanted it to stay away from their community. We also had some requests to straighten the alignment so it wasn't so markedly curved, and again, the changes, the straightening of the curves happened about where the arrow is near the Darrington Unit, and you can see that we've suggested the southern alignment that comes in south of Iowa Colony. Generally people commented positively on those changes.

The final alignment-specific issues relate to the western or northern end of the alignment near US 59. At our June hearings we had very strong support of going down Crabb River Road, and that is the one that we suggested at our hearings on Tuesday night, and David is outlining that for you right now.

The issues that came up on Tuesday night that we still need to deal with were expressed by residents that are now close to some of the realignments. One of the communities is very close to US 59, and the other community is a little bit further down on the road, but we will meet with representatives of both of those communities and the local county. Fortunately, we've got some flexibility, in that the changes they're requesting don't pose environmental problems, but they certainly will increase the cost of the alignment.

So to summarize on the alignment-specific issues, I think we made a great deal of progress between June and October, and the commenting public generally agreed with us.

We still have other issues to deal with; these are the regional issues. One of the comments raised by the EPA and the Sierra Club and other commentators is that the Grand Parkway causes urban sprawl. We've done several things to try to respond to this.

One of the most significant is that we convened an expert panel of people in Fort Bend County and Brazoria County from, for instance, the county engineer's office, county judge's office, people that are out there making decisions on buying school properties and other development issues, to talk with us about what this would look like if the Grand Parkway were not put in, what the land use differences would be 20 years from now.

And the factors they came up with fall into two categories. One is that there are numerous constraints to development adjacent to some of the area the Grand Parkway Segment C passes through, and we've listed those for you and you'll see them pop up on the map here.

The first is the Brazos River flood plain which is enormous; the second are the parks, the oilfield, the prison unit that you've already heard something about. And those, in essence, constrain a great deal of the development. The purple one that just came up is a proposed mitigation property that the Trust for Public Lands is trying to put together that, as you can see, would hook up with Brazos Bend State Park. We are working with the Trust for Public Lands to incorporate this as part of our mitigation for the few acres of impacts that we will have on wetlands. So that's the first issue.

The second issue is that there are already numerous communities that have started. They're not built out necessarily, but these communities have already started in the general area, they've invested money in building infrastructure, and we would like to show you where those are. But you can see that the conclusion of the expert panel was that this area where there were not constraints would build out with or without the Grand Parkway, and we see in the next 20 years most of the demand for housing being filled by developments that are already under way and those are the ones that are appearing on the screen right now.

Each of these housing developments you can go out and buy a house in, so these are not ones that are platted or planned; they're already under way.

I'm just going to quickly review for you the remaining activities that we've got to do to finish up the environmental work on Segment C. David has highlighted the $7.3 million bonds that were passed last week in Fort Bend County. Part of this money is for the detail design work on the portion of Segment C in Fort Bend County, so as soon as we finish the environmental work, Fort Bend County is ready to get started.

We had two hearings this week presenting the preferred alternative, and I think I've highlighted for you the primary issues. I think we've resolved many of the alignment-specific issues that came up in the June time frame. We are working right now to prepare the final environmental impact statement, and that will be submitted next summer. And we'll have another round of hearings on that, we anticipate, about a year from now. And you see the rest of it is just a wild guess, and you know that probably better than we do.

I would like to move on now to talk about E, F and G, another 52 miles that's in the environmental process. We started the environmental work on this in August of '99, and you can see that that portion traverses two different counties in the Houston area, Harris County and Montgomery County.

We are just concluding the corridor phase of the study and are working right now on starting four individual environmental impact statements. The corridor portion of the study initially identified a study area which is about five miles wide, and then we drew one-mile corridors, which are the lines you see in this particular slide.

We had hearings in February of this year and received a great deal of input, both from public and resource agencies and local county officials. We selected a preferred corridor in June of 2000 and then drew alignments within that preferred corridor. The three alternate alignments you see presented here are within the preferred corridor.

We just finished the workshops on those alignments October 23, 25, and 26. We had three meetings: one that covered the western portion in Segment E, one that covered the Tomball area starting from 290 over to 249 and then 249 to 45, and finally one at Kingwood College that covered the 45 to 59 area.

I would say that most of the comments we got at these public hearings were from citizens in the F-2 area from 249 to 45. Basically, that area is already densely developed, and it is very difficult for us to find a corridor to get through that doesn't impact a substantial number of communities, if not actually taking homes, very close to existing subdivisions.

The major issues, environmental issues that we have to deal with in this area are, of course, wetlands -- which are a problem for any major development in the Houston area; bottomland hardwoods, and this is the northeastern part of that corridor. We have several threatened and endangered species. We have extensive flood plains adjacent to the San Jacinto River; numerous historic structures in the F-2/F-1 area, both historic farms and other homes in the Rosehill and Tomball area.

The existing development, as I've already mentioned, is extensive, and the new development that's occurring right now even sort of takes us aback, and we've been in Houston for many years now. David and I considered it a major advantage that in this last round or workshops we didn't find yet another new development that was going to block one of our alignments.

This is a very rough, tentative schedule on where we are for our remaining activities. As I said, we presented the alignment alternatives about two weeks ago to the public. We anticipate having draft EISs available for review in May of this next year, and we'll be holding public hearings during the summer; have final EISs out in early 2002, with a record of decision by May of 2002.

I know that these benefits are probably in -- preaching to the choir, but this is issues that we are presenting in all of the talks that both David and I give to whether it's the Lions Club or the local homeowners association, and our conviction is that growth is coming to the Houston area. HGAC projects 2-1/2 million people in the next 20 years, and the alternatives are something that looks like the Grand Parkway or something that looks like the I-45 corridor or 1960.

And to highlight those differences, we've got these pictures. This is Highway 6, which started off as a two-lane rural road and has gradually been expanded over time, and this is one likely scenario if the Grand Parkway does not go in. By contrast, this is what the Grand Parkway looks like in the part that's built and operating now on the west side of town.

Again, the plans for the Grand Parkway don't look like -- this is US 59 out southwest of town. You can see the continuous feeder roads and the strip shopping center development. By contrast, this is what the Grand Parkway will be designed to look like with entrance and exit ramps, but we will not have continuous feeder roads and will minimize strip development. And we think a road that looks like this is much preferable to the customary pattern of handling growth in the Houston area.

So with that summary, that is a very quick overview of what we've been up to.

MR. NICHOLS: As usual, you do an excellent job on your presentations. You have just done a remarkable job overall with the Grand Parkway.

MS. SCHENKE: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: There's just incredible obstacles to overcome and pull those communities together and continue moving forward, so I certainly compliment you on it.

David, do you have anything?

MR. LANEY: Diane, I appreciate the presentation, again, and all the work you do on a challenging exercise, long term, needless to say. I very much appreciate the detail with which you responded and presented to us with respect to the response to the urban sprawl issue. It doesn't look like it will be an obstacle, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's a great response to an issue that seems to have all sorts of definitions and is thrown in the way of any sort of road development at all, and so I think the response was very carefully thought out.

MS. SCHENKE: One piece I did not emphasize enough in the overview is the support and amount of work we do with the local TxDOT office, Federal Highways out of Austin, the HGAC. Many of these issues are common to all of us, like the urban sprawl and regional development, and we've worked very closely with them and received a great deal of support from all of those entities in moving forward, so they're good partners.

MR. NICHOLS: Let me ask you one question. I know we've had discussions in the past about keeping the option open through the public hearing process on some of these legs or segments about tolling. Was tolling brought up?

MS. SCHENKE: We get the question often, Commissioner Nichols, and when we respond that this group, the commission, feels that all new capacity should be tolled so that dollars are generated to meet the shortfall between monies available and the list of approved projects, everybody sort of nods. So we get the question often and when we respond that it very well may be a toll road, people sort of shrug and move on.

MR. NICHOLS: But through the environmental process, it is always left open as an option.

MS. SCHENKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Because we don't know what the legislature will or will not let us do on the toll equity issue which will be, probably, a key to that.

MS. SCHENKE: This may be more detail than you want. What we have said is that there's a possibility. We haven't speculated on where the toll plazas would be, what effect that would have on traffic, and our thought is that were we to proceed with tolling, for instance Segment C, after the particulars were worked out, there may need to be a supplemental environmental document to cover the specifics, but we have covered it in a general way, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Diane, appreciate it.

MS. SCHENKE: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item number 4, under Public Transportation, commissioners, we have three minute orders for your consideration. Margot.

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

Item 4(a), we're asking your approval to award just over $100,000 to the Rolling Plains Management Corporation in Crowell. They have an opportunity to purchase a new headquarters facility, an old hospital in Crowell, and the transportation share of that is just over $100,000. And we recommend your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Is there a motion to accept?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: The next item 4(b) is similar, just a little bit more money, $400,000 for The Transit System to purchase a facility in Granbury that would become their headquarters for The Transit System, and we recommend your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Questions or motion?

MR. LANEY: It's an old TxDOT facility. Right?

MS. MASSEY: That's correct.

MR. LANEY: It's a lot more valuable than that, you know, but that's all right. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: Okay. Let's see if we can get three for three today. Item 4(c), there is a federal program, a discretionary program, Job Access and Reverse Commute. They do annual proposals, and we've had a number of awards made to Texas, not as much as we would like, but this is to assist welfare recipients and low-income individuals to pursue employment, provide training, and this fills in the transportation element of this.

One of the recipients this year is the Alamo Area Council of Governments in San Antonio, which is a rural transit district, and they do not have a direct financial relationship with Federal Transit Administration, unlike the others, and have asked if we would serve as the recipient so that they don't have to invest in some computer stuff, and we're more than willing to do that with your approval.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item number 5, under Administrative Rules, we only have one minute order for your consideration, that being under Proposed Adoption, Zane Webb.

MR. WEBB: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Heald. For the record, my name is Zane Webb; I'm with the Maintenance Division.

The minute order before you proposes the adoption of new Section 22.18 concerning public memorial markers on the right of way. It's the policy of the department and the commission to facilitate the use of state highway right of way for certain public purposes that benefit the general public, while being consistent with the safe operation of the state highway system.

Placing markers on state highway right of way to designate the location of fatal motor vehicle accidents may enhance the safety of the traveling public by bringing attention to the dangers of unsafe driving. New Section 22.18 prescribes the process by which the department will install and maintain these memorial markers.

For background, commissioners, in 1985 legislation allowed Harris County to place memorial markers to alcohol-related deaths on certain roadways including department highway system roadways. The department, to be equitable across the state, developed guidelines for allowing memorials to alcohol-related deaths to be placed on state highway roadways as long as safety concerns were met. These were only guidelines.

Over time, some districts strictly followed the guidelines, allowing an alcohol-related memorial and only alcohol-related memorials. Other districts were more lenient, allowing memorials to any traffic-related accident. Earlier this year a couple of our districts decided to strictly follow the guidelines, raising concerns. At that time, some of the memorials that did not meet the requirements of the guidelines were removed.

Members of the public contacted the department, and a moratorium was placed on removing memorials that were not a safety problem from the right of way. The maintenance division was asked to develop an alternative to the existing guidelines and the proposal sign program that you see before you is the result.

Some individuals and groups that had originally contacted the department were asked to help develop this program. The sign that we've developed would be blue and white, placed near the right of way by TxDOT. It would include the name of the victim and the date of the accident; it would be open to all accident victims except those legally responsible for another victim. The time the sign would remain on the right of way would be 2-1/2 years; the cost to the requester would be $100, which is about one-third of the cost of producing and placing that sign.

That's the overview of the program. I believe, unless the commission has some other questions for me at this time, that there are individuals that would like to speak.

MR. NICHOLS: Before we get into the individual speakers, David, did you have anything?

MR. LANEY: No.

MR. NICHOLS: I think what we'll do before we get into our questions to you is go to our people that have signed up to speak and then defer to what type of questions we might have.

MR. WEBB: Very good.

MR. NICHOLS: We have about eleven people who have signed up to speak for this. We're going to take them in the order, to the best of my knowledge, that they were signed up to speak. The first is Laura Dean-Mooney, state chairperson for MADD.

MS. DEAN-MOONEY: This is the up button. Is that correct? I'm an Aggie; it takes me a few minutes to figure these things out.

MR. LANEY: Aggies designed that.

MS. DEAN-MOONEY: I didn't say I was a graduate of the College of Engineering, however.

(General laughter.)

MS. DEAN-MOONEY: Good morning, Commissioners Laney and Nichols. My name is Laura Dean-Mooney, and I represent the state organization of Mothers Against Drunk Driving as their elected state chairperson, as well as a bereaved victim of a drunk-driving crash. Thank you for giving MADD the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue, as well as giving MADD the opportunity to participate in the discussions leading up to this commission meeting.

This issue of roadside memorial markers is near and dear to MADD's heart and to our mission by providing a highly visible reminder of the dangers of unsafe driving. MADD has been proud and pleased to participate with TxDOT in the memorial marker program for many years. I would like to briefly review with you MADD's position on the changes which the staff has brought before you today.

While MADD is saddened at the possibility of losing the cross-shaped marker program, and we would be very pleased to see this program remain in place, we are not opposed to the shape, size, color and recommended placement of the signs which are now proposed.

With proper publicity, we believe these signs will come to be recognized by the general public as reminders to drive safe and sober. By personalizing the signs with the victim's name, we believe that the public will come to see drunk and unsafe driving as a real threat to everyone who travels Texas highways.

For those signs representing lives lost in drunk-driving crashes, MADD would like to be able to affix a sticker to the metal supporting post that reads "DWI". Since drunk-driving fatalities represent such a large portion of Texas highway deaths, we believe it is extremely important to constantly remind the motoring public of the importance of sober driving.

Essentially, the state organization of MADD has two key concerns with the current proposal. First, we are strongly opposed to the victim family being required to pay a fee of any amount for these signs. This is a highly visible public awareness program that benefits all Texans. The TxDOT public awareness budget is substantial, especially since the transfer of dollars from highway construction due to Texas' failure to pass an open-container law.

MADD is not aware of any other public awareness program funded by TxDOT in which a victim is required to help pay for anything. Many of the families we serve are indigent; a fee of $100 may not seem like much to some of us, but some families are so financially devastated by drunk driving that they cannot even find the money to pay the rent the next month. I can assure you that MADD victim advocates face this scenario on a regular basis.

Our second concern relates to the time limit for the sign placement. MADD feels that the 2-1/2 year time limit is too short. We ask the commission to consider a ten-year time limit. We understand the concern about multiple signs at one location causing a distraction and a hazard; however, in locations where no other memorial markers have been installed, we feel very strongly that markers placed previously should be allowed to remain. We urge the commission to consider creating a re-application process to allow for this.

As a point of information for you the commissioners and the TxDOT staff, DWI victims working with MADD usually do not request that a memorial cross be placed for their loved one, even though the victims are not charged for this service.

We do not believe that our roadways are currently overcrowded with memorial crosses.

In closing, let me again thank you for your careful consideration that you and the TxDOT staff will continue to give this issue. MADD, in particular, would like to acknowledge the time and commitment of staff members Richard Kirby, Joe Graff, Eloise Lundgren, and Zane Webb on the memorial marker program. We look forward to working with you in the upcoming months to create a fair and purposeful rule. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Curtis McDuff.

MR. McDUFF: Good morning. I'm Curtis McDuff.

Some of my remarks may have a sting of sarcasm to them. They're not directed to you personally as an individual but rather, hopefully, to make the point that people have strong emotional feelings about this.

Texas legislation does exist that enables its people the use of a small portion of state property to express their faith in memory of someone, usually a family member, who has died at the location. How can this department take it upon itself to ignore this legislation? What gain does your department realize from doing this: lower operating costs? I don't think so.

Several years back the state spent several hundred thousand dollars to increase driver awareness to drive defensively. These crosses speak just as loudly as your campaign; most of them mark the spot where a drunk driver killed someone. These markers cost the state nothing to erect; they cost the state nothing to maintain or to replace if a tornado should happen to knock them down.

If the placement of these crosses are permitted, why do you seek the increase the emotional pain of the people you serve? Taking into account the existing legislation, how does this action help the state to move forward in the minds of its people that they can trust its agents not to hurt them emotionally or financially?

I am not a person who has placed a marker, but I am a person who is concerned that my state is ignoring, disregarding or disallowing the existing legislation and potentially doing it again concerning other issues that affect me personally, legally or financially. I will not thank you for listening to me; instead, I think that the person or persons who put forth this idea needs to apologize to this board for causing them to have to spend its time to listen to myself and others to remind you that this proposal is contrary to existing legislation.

Respectfully, I am Curtis McDuff, Pasadena, Texas.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much, Mr. McDuff.

Mary Alice Monse.

MS. MONSE: I'm real nervous; this is the first time we've ever had to come and do something like this. Let me first introduce us. I'm Mary Alice Monse and this is Rachel Stephenson, and Karen Miller. We're the wives of the officers that were ambushed in Atascosa County on October 12, 1999.

A short time after the ambush, a friend wanted to do something special for us and our community as a symbol that we all shared the loss and were there for each other. He erected three crosses that measured 30 inches in height and stand 26 feet from Highway 97. These crosses are very important to us for they hold great significance.

When we heard about how TxDOT was going to start removing all memorials that have been placed across Texas, this really concerned us. When we looked into it further, we were told that the memorials that were placed because of drunk drivers would be replaced by a uniform memorial for a fee. A drunk driver did not kill our husbands, and so no replacement memorial would be put to remember the ultimate sacrifice that they paid for the people of Texas.

These crosses are very well maintained. We take turns keeping the area clean and cut, and other people who we don't even know go out and also maintain the area. It is very touching to know that these memorials mean so much to so many people.

But I am sure that you're still wondering how can these crosses play any kind of role in the area that they stand. TxDOT has said that these type of memorials are a distraction to motorists that are passing by and can cause accidents, but the role that they play is very important and not a distraction but a reminder of what can happen when someone acts on violence and what terrible pain that it causes.

If these crosses remind someone who is going home angry with bad intentions, just maybe they'll think twice before hurting someone or acting in violence. And what if an officer that is passing by and sees these crosses and remembers what is out there? Just maybe he will even be more careful of where he or she is going and this awareness will get them home safely; then these memorials have done a great service.

When these memorials were set out there, it was very touching to us, because our community and everyone across the state called us to let us know about how they have felt about what happened in our county, and they are so special to us, as they are to our community and to everyone that knew our husbands. It is real hard for us to come and ask for something that we feel that we should not even have to be asking permission for.

Like I said earlier, when you ask someone to pay to put a memorial out, we're not offered this, because we do not fall into the category that all these other markers are out there for. We are something very different; we are something that stands for something a little more different than the others do, not taking away the importance of what the others do also, but this is something that's important to everyone. So many officers die at the hand of violence, and so many families are left behind to figure out what to do.

They give us comfort, they give our community comfort, and it is so nice when you're driving by to see someone who had taken the time to load a big rider lawnmower on a little trailer to go and mow down just a little piece of that area, because they mean something to everyone. It's real touching when you see this, and it's touching for our kids to know that their fathers aren't forgotten and that people really do stand behind what law enforcement does for us.

I thank you all for giving me your time, and I thank you for letting us come to plead our case with you. Hopefully you can understand why these memorial crosses are so important, because we feel that in a very small way, even though our husbands are not here anymore, they are still protecting and serving the people of Atascosa County and Texas. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Marie Selby.

MS. SELBY: Good morning. My name is Marie Selby and I appreciate the time to address the department.

I am deeply concerned about your proposal concerning the placing of public memorial markers. Your opening paragraph of the proposal indicates that the purpose of these markers is to bring attention to the dangers of unsafe driving; however, I believe if you proceed with your proposal to place a state-designed marker at these sites, you will not achieve this intended purpose.

It is my opinion that the use of this generic type of sign will not heighten awareness but will diminish it. It will appear to be just another indicator along the road, just a mile marker, as it will no longer carry the significance of the meaning of death.

The uniqueness of the current markers provide drivers with a reminder that someone died at this location. It also means that someone cared enough to provide a memorial, not just to indicate the point at which one's soul leaves the body, but to provide a reminder that we all need to be alert on the roadways. I do not see how this common marker could every instill those feelings on any passerby; these signs are cold-looking with no feeling at all.

I myself have placed a marker along the side of a highway; it was for my son Brian. I passed that marker on the way from Houston today. It marks the spot at which my son's soul left his body on the morning of January 26; it was placed at the spot where Brian's body came to rest. The officers did not want me to go to the site of the accident, but I needed to know exactly where Brian had lain, and I needed to know exactly what had went on.

My son was 20 years old. The day following his death, he was to take the oath of enlistment for the United States Marines; he was to leave for boot camp the following Monday. He had visited with some friends he attended college with in Brenham and then decided to continue to Austin to see his girlfriend. It was early in the morning and Brian had been up early the previous morning with his physical. He left Brenham in the cold early morning hours and fell asleep behind the wheel less than a half hour later.

The placing of the memorial cross was a labor of love and also acts as part of the grieving process that we are going through. It provides my husband and I with a place to remember our son. We are not from Texas, and we have no family here. My son's final resting place is in Maryland, where both my husband and I are from. We visit his cross often here in Texas.

My husband purchased a motorcycle the week before our son died; he says that motorcycle is his therapy and he often rides the 85 miles one way out to the cross on weekends just to spend some time with Brian.

That cross is not only visited by my husband and I but many of Brian's friends. Many of them travel the road back and forth to Austin frequently. Brian's memorial serves as a constant reminder to them that they are not invincible, that death can come to them just as it came to one of their friends. A generic road marker would not have anywhere near the same effect.

I cannot believe that these memorials can place such a financial burden on the department of transportation, nor do I believe that they can be the distraction or hazard that some propose. Surely some of the outrageous billboards promoting the various gentlemen's clubs are more of a hazard than these. I cannot also believe that the proposed $100 fee could offset the administration and labor of the proposed marker system. I believe the department of transportation will avoid additional costs by allowing the current policy to continue.

In those cases where the memorials are considered hazards, an attempt should be made to contact the responsible person to address the problem. I believe the department would find that this would probably be more the exception than the rule.

Thank you for your time.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Our next person is Wanda, and I can't read your handwriting, Golden Triangle MADD.

MS. GRIMES: It's Wanda Grimes, G-R-I-M-E-S, and I'm speaking to you today not as a member of MADD, but as a mother who has a cross beside the road. I'm here to express total opposition to the removal of the crosses beside the road. I'd like to address some of the reasons.

If my son's cross is removed, I will not be one who pays, or even if it was offered free, a memorial sign beside the road. I have no desire to advertise my son's death on a billboard of any size, shape, form. It is an advertisement to me. The cross is a memorial, but it's a memorial with a message. I ditto everything that I have heard from the previous mother; that is the message of the cross.

The sign, looking at it, looks like a small billboard, and the people that say it is a distraction, they must really be a riot when they go down the road and pass a billboard. This will really blow it, because it will be small, and they'll have to take time to stop to read it.

I do highly protest the $100 fee, any fee whatsoever, for those who choose to have these signs. As you were told, for some people it is a great financial burden. Death is a financial burden. They've lost enough; they don't need to have the state going after their money. And you know, it could be construed, and I have already heard it said that this could be viewed as a for-profit TxDOT project. That's not a good -- doesn't sound good, but I have heard that.

Over the years I personally have had to replace my son's cross five times, vandals. I wonder if under your plan would I now owe you $500, if that happens five times if there were a sign there. That's a very high burden.

I know that MADD recommends that the offender pay when possible. The offender sometimes dies. My son's offender died at the scene; he was 19 years old. Offenders also frequently are -- in our area, part of their probationary or parole sentence is for them to go, under orders of the judge, and place flowers on the crosses, on the roadside crosses, at either the anniversary date or birthdays. So I wonder which would take precedence: the judge's order or TxDOT's rules.

The time period, I object truly to any time period. In six years we have replaced my son's cross, as I said, five times. It's almost become a contest. Whoever is taking it down, I'm not ready to let them win yet; I want it there. And it feels now as if TxDOT is going to come through and let them win the battle over a simple cross.

I've also wondered if perhaps part of the problem may be that it is a religious protest. I recently did a talk show program in our area, and out of the multiple calls I got, I did get two protests, and one was the lady that it was a distraction, and I said the same thing to her: she must be fun to ride behind when she passes a billboard or a sign.

The other was a religious protest, and I did ask her and I'll ask again: this small group of people that already imposes so greatly on our everyday lives are now going to be helped, if they are part of the reason, to impose on the deaths of our loved ones. And I wonder what will be next: the removal of crosses off of the churches that face the roadsides? I have a huge problem with that.

I would just ask you to please not change anything. Everyone who puts a cross there, as you've heard, has a reason for it, but those of us who have specifically followed the state and TxDOT guidelines, I cannot imagine why you would want to take them down. I highly object. I just wish you would totally leave it as it is, leave them alone. If enforcement of the law is a problem, I think advertise the law and let people know what the law is and most people will cooperate under present rules and regulations.

The crosses are there not just as a memorial but as a reminder of everyone's mortality, and I cannot think of a better safety message than a white cross with no words that doesn't interfere with traffic. And I thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Aracely Esparza.

MS. ESPARZA: I have a picture here of my brother and I would like for you to pass the picture, if that's possible.

MR. NICHOLS: Sure.

MS. ESPARZA: At first when I knew about this, I was very upset, but then I got this letter and it says that you want to compromise, and I like that. That means that you are willing to be generous and you want a win-win situation, and I think that would be something good for me and my family.

My mother didn't want to come because she doesn't speak English, and also because she's very angry at the Texas Department of Transportation, because she blames the department for killing my brother. My brother was working and there were no safety precautions taken, and we talked to the district engineer about that, and he explained that the job that my brother was doing was something that had to be done quickly, and then later we discovered that the driver, one of my brother's co-workers, was under the influence of drugs.

So when my mother found out that, she got very upset, and from then on she blamed the Texas Department of Transportation for the death of my brother, but I think that she says that because she's a mother and she cannot reason. I don't see it like that. I came here because I started thinking how can I solve this problem, and I'm thinking that limit that you have of 2-1/2 years, my brother would have liked that, that's a way of making money and he liked money, so he would say that sounds like a good idea.

My idea is this: if you could renew that limit and after the years of the two years and a half if you would say to the people do you want to continue having the memorial there, are you willing to pay another fee. But the thing that bothers me is at the end of the two years and a half the cross will be removed. That is really very painful for me.

Also, when I go home, when I return home, I'm going to try and contact the landowner, and I'm going to ask him if I can use his land, his property, so that I can move the cross to the other side of the fence. It's going to be a lot of work on my part to do that, because I live far away from where this happened, but I'm going to have to do that, because my father has no hope and he said you should not go and talk to these gentlemen, because they're not going to listen to you.

But I'm going to do that; I'm going to go and talk to the owner, and I have his address already and his name, and I'm going to explain to him. And then there's another idea I have so that I can solve this, and that is to go underground, because my brother, since he was a little kid, he worked with dirt, and to go underground and put the cross underneath and then nobody will know that it's there.

My father, when he heard that, he said that it will not be the same thing, but I think it will solve your problem, because it will not be there anymore and nobody will see it.

Then I have another crazy idea that all the man that I said this idea to, they said, That's the craziest idea I've ever heard, and if you do that, I will not help you at all. Only the women that I have talked to have understood me.

And I said, it would take an engineering feat if I could pick up the soil from there but in a big chunk -- and since that road work happened, most of the time it's empty, there are no cars -- I could do that and I could take that piece of land and take it home and then I can fill it up with soil so that we cannot create a big problem for other drivers. But my father said, That's not what I want.

But what I'm trying to find is a solution for my father and also for you all so that everybody can compromise. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR. NICHOLS: I can assure you, we are listening to you very well. Thank you.

MS. ESPARZA: And I'm sorry that my parents feel like that, but it's because they're full of anger, and when people are angry, sometimes they do not reason and they're at that moment. And even though it has been five years, they still think that it happened yesterday. Thank you for your attention.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

Andy Olquin, Texas City, Texas.

MR. OLQUIN: First of all, I just want to say good morning. That's my aunt there, and this affects me in my heart, you know. I mean, I just want to let you guys know you shouldn't change anything that's working. If it's working, why fix it?

The two-year limit I think is ridiculous, because the pain doesn't go away in two years. I mean, it stays with the person. And the crosses, I don't think that it's a hindrance to the driving of people; it's a warning. People see that and they see that something happened; it makes them drive safer. It does call attention to the cross or whatever it is that's there, but it's a warning, you know, you need to be careful when you drive.

And like the lady said before, the little sign, people don't obey the signs. If they did that, I mean, they'd obey the speed limits. I mean, the sign isn't as much an impact as the crosses; people see the cross, they know what it means. A new sign I think is just a waste of money.

You know, what can I do? I just want to be heard and speak my part and maybe I can make a difference. That's all I want to say. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

Bonnie Garza.

MS. GARZA: Good morning. My name is Bonnie Garza; I'm from Brownsville, Texas, down in Cameron County. I am here with them, too.

Placing a memorial on the side of the road is a form of respect for the person that has been killed there. It takes a very special person or on the part of the family to put a memorial, and it's a form of respect from the family to the person; it's like a present.

My uncle was a special man. My grandparents never went to school, but my uncle became an engineer and he later earned an MBA. He was our hero, he was always studying and trying to make things better for us. He wanted to have his own engineering business, and he was a man of action; he was honest; he went for it.

I personally, and sometimes my aunt and my cousin, travel from Brownsville to Zapata to keep up the place, tidy it up, replace bows or whatever, and it's a nice thing when people drive by and honk and say Hi or whatever. It's nice.

My mother, my brother and I would like for you guys to respect our cross. It's a cross; it's not doing any harm. He worked for eleven years as an engineer for you all; we never asked anything from the Texas Department of Transportation, but now we are asking for you to make some provisions to respect my uncle's cross. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

June Hatfield.

MS. HATFIELD: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the commission this morning. I would like to thank Richard Kirby and the rest of TxDOT officials for their hard work, cooperation, and sensitivity, especially Senator Cain and his staff for their genuine support towards a positive resolution that will preserve the rights of all Texans.

My name is June Hatfield. I am co-founder and executive director of Rob's Pyramid and the chapter leader of the Compassionate Friends of Tyler. Both non-profit agencies provide support and guidance to the bereaved of east Texas.

The unanimous response I have received from the bereaved individuals I represent wanted me to voice their request that the cross be continued as the marker for roadside fatalities. Although they are aware of the special issues of church and state, they would like the commissioners to look at other states that have faced this same issue, such as Montana which successfully kept the cross.

Rob's Pyramid agrees with the concerns of our members; however, if the issue cannot be resolved using the cross, then we are in support of the use of the proposed sign. As for the overall proposal, we find that the department of transportation did an outstanding job to preserve the rights of Texans, all Texans.

Our other concern is the 2-1/2 year time limit; we just do not feel that that is long enough. For some, you can't really place a time on that.

In closing, I would like to state that this proposal does not lean towards the interests of any one special interest group. Thank you for your time.

MR. NICHOLS: Robert Hatfield, were you going to also speak?

MR. HATFIELD: Good morning. I'm Robert Hatfield. I'm also a co-founder and board member of Rob's Pyramid and a member of the Compassionate Friends of Tyler.

Our primary concern is the support of families who have experienced the loss of a child or spouse or sibling. We do all that we can to ensure that each one of our members learn to cope with the worst tragedy of their lives. This is why we chose to get involved in the roadside marker issue and take a stand for the grieving families of east Texas.

We understand the need for remembrance. Two of our four children have died, our 17-1/2 year-old son as a result of being a victim of negligent driving in 1997. We also understand the need for safer highways, not only from drunk or drugged drivers but from irresponsible drivers in general. While drunk driving accounts for a staggering 30 percent of traffic deaths in the state of Texas, unsafe driving accounts for the remaining 70 percent.

The proposal that is in front of the commission today is an important step towards the remedy of a very difficult situation. It states that the state of Texas will not discriminate between a victim of drunken driving and a victim of unsafe driving; it states that the state of Texas will not place judgement on any individual without due process, and will respect the rights of victims by allowing the victims' families to decide whether or not the at-fault driver deserves a marker.

This is not to say that this proposal is the perfect remedy; indeed, there may not be one. I do feel, however, that the 2-1/2 year time limit is simply not enough. It has been three years since my son's death, and it still seems like yesterday. I have only learned to effectively deal with my grief within the last year but it will never go away as my love for him will never go away.

I commend the department for working diligently and in cooperation with our organization as well as others within the state in the development of this proposal, and I also commend Senator Cain and his staff for their unwavering assistance with all parties involved.

With my noted objection of the 2-1/2 year time limit, I would like to say that I support the adoption of this proposal in front of the commission. Thank you for your time and consideration.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

Bryan Poole.

MR. POOLE: Good morning. Coming from Houston in horrible weather and horrible traffic, I almost didn't make it. I called everybody up here and finally got my grandson to register me so I could speak.

On January 21, 1983, my oldest son was killed by a drunk driver. Other people have spoken of five years and two years you don't get over this. It's been 18 years. The funeral procession went right through the intersection where my son was killed. At that time I told my wife -- we were both riding -- my wife Virgie and I, we were both riding in a funeral car behind the hearse, and I said, I'm going to mark this spot in some form or fashion to let people know what happened.

Soon after that, I had to go to the Philippines to work, and my wife and I went to the U.S. war memorial in the Philippines where there's 20,000 crosses. We measured one, and when I came home, I got my father, who was a wood craftsman approaching 80 years old, to make me a cross. He did.

The June 1983 issue of People Magazine, that is my son's cross, with the same dimensions as the U.S. war memorial crosses, and when I get through here, you may want to arrest me. I have been responsible for 200 crosses installed in the state of Texas; I make them myself, all to this dimension. They stayed that dimension until about a year ago when the department of transportation, for some reason, came out and changed the dimensions that they would accept.

I did not want to go along with it, because mine was based on a historic monument in the Philippines for the U.S. people who had died in the war, but I went along with it and I changed my dimensions ever so slightly. I think it was six inches less in the vertical and three inches less in the width, and drill a hole three inches above the portion that went into the ground so they would break away, and they're made out of wolmanized pine and they would break away in an accident. This cross has been replaced three times, because once by vandalism and twice by subsequent accidents at this intersection in Houston.

The people now have to pay $27.50 to get a cross; $17.50 of that is to the engraver who has given me a deal much less than normal for this cause. I now have to charge $10 for the piece of wood that I take to make it. Now, everything else, the painting, the running, and all that business, I do myself and I do it in my spare time, because I still have to work.

To take these crosses up is a sacrilege. As you've seen here today, they mean a tremendous amount to people who have lost someone, and I hope none of you people in front of me here have had to face something like that. You don't get over it. It's been 18 years, and as you can see, I can fall apart like a cheap suitcase even thinking about it. You do not get over this.

To see a white cross is a sign of death. A white cross is not a religious symbol; a crucifix is a religious symbol. A white cross was used to kill people who had offended the state. Over 2,000 years ago, that's how they killed them, they put them on a cross and killed them that way. And so I maintain a white cross is a sign of death. Any time somebody sees a white cross, they say somebody died, somebody was killed there.

To replace this with a cold, metal plaque on a metal post -- I bet it doesn't have a breakaway provision on it in case somebody runs into it. But to put that up, you are going to cause more deaths that you will be responsible for, because the people do not have to read the plaques on a white cross; they see the cross, they know what happened. Here you put up a sign to be read; people will slow down to read it. And you've been on our freeways and you know what can happen if you slow down in a line of traffic to see something off the side of the road, to read it. That's a horrible situation.

We have one intersection in Houston where there are seven crosses; seven members of one family were killed there. And my son says I'd like to see the man from DOT that has to go out there and take those up. I don't think he would sleep at night doing that.

I am continuously getting calls to replace crosses that have been destroyed by accidents or by highway development and things like that, and we still replace them. And I'll tell you this, $27.50 is not very much money, but many people who want a cross cannot afford $27.50 to get one, but they get one anyway.

You want to spend our money, $300 to build these plaques to last 2-1/2 years and charge the members of families who had somebody killed at that location $100. They can't afford $100; that's a lot of money to a tremendous number of people; they cannot afford $100. You will do away completely with the memorial system for people who are killed on our highways.

Now, I suggest, since you mandated that we change the sizes of the cross a little over a year ago, restrict crosses put up to be that size, white and design and measurements. If they're not up, they shouldn't stay up, but you have to publicize this. That would be a lot cheaper than having to pay $300 to make these cold, hard plaques.

Two little insignificant people, my wife and I, when my son was killed by a drunk driver, we didn't realize we were fighters, but we are; we don't give up. If you look in the law books, you can see a case of El Chico Corporation versus Poole. The state -- what's your biggest law group in the state?

MR. LANEY: Attorney general?

MR. POOLE: No. The group.

MR. NICHOLS: Largest law firm?

MR. POOLE: No. The group. In the state here.

MR. NICHOLS: Supreme Court?

MR. POOLE: Supreme Court passed on this nine to nothing that we had a right; we made law, and they gave us the right to sue the people who had served 16 drinks in less than a two-hour period to the one that killed my son. He had a scratch on his chin; that's all he had. And from that, Texas became a dram shop state. I assume everybody understands what that is; that is to hold liquor purveyors, alcohol purveyors responsible for injuries or death to innocent parties caused by drunken customers.

And if you recall back a number of years ago, approximately ten, I think, restaurants began to offer rides home for people who had too much to drink; they offered to take their keys, call them a cab. I think in Houston we had a tipsy toll which AAA put in where they'd get a wrecker out to haul you home.

I think you have a hornet's nest by the tail if you want to start taking up the crosses. A bereaved family can get awfully mean and fight. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much, Mr. Poole.

Is there anyone here who did not fill out a card who would like to speak on this issue? There is someone. You did not fill out a card but you would like to speak? Why don't you come on forward and then give your name to the speaker, and then fill out a card in a few minutes. You can stand right there; you can fill out a card later. Why don't you go ahead and just give us your name.

MR. HAWS: My name is Charlie Haws; I am the grandson of Bryan Poole that just spoke. I didn't have very much to say, but I just wanted to make one point that the crosses are very meaningful.

I'm a student at Southwest Texas State University, and anybody in all of my friends that I talk to, I talk to any one of them and I say, You know the crosses on the side of the road? They say yes. I say: Okay, my grandfather builds those. Everybody knows what they mean, and being a teenager nowadays and growing up, drinking and all that sort of partying is a very big deal and everybody does it; it's inevitable, I guess.

And for someone to drive by and see a cross and know what the meaning is, it's a big impact, especially whenever I can say to someone: My grandfather builds those; he was the first one to build one, he put it there, and the uncle that I never knew, he was the one that died; that was the reason for it. Even people that don't have anything to do with it, have no idea what happened, they drive by, they know what it means, it causes awareness.

And that's about it. Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

We very much appreciate those of you who came to speak on this issue. We realize it is a very sensitive issue, very emotional to most involved. Actually, I feel like we apologize, almost, for bringing the emotions out on some of these very sensitive things that have occurred in the past, but I can assure you that the commission has listened to each of you individually and appreciates the comments that you have to make.

David?

MR. LANEY: Thank you, Robert. I too want to express my appreciation for those of you who had comments, either before this meeting in writing or during this meeting, and I know there will be some comments probably that follow as well. It's difficult to come up and publicly address issues as sensitive as that.

Issues that remain subject to serious question, including the time limit, including the form, including the cost, and they go on and on, we have wrestled with as well. And someone said, I think, that it may not be a perfect answer, and if a perfect answer is an answer that satisfies everybody on all these points, there is no perfect answer, I can assure you.

But we all recognize the sobering impact of seeing some sort of signal on the side of the road that someone has died there, and there is no question in my judgement, and I don't think in anybody's up here, that there's value to that. How we ultimately move forward on this I think remains to be seen, but I think it's been very, very valuable to hear the input of those of you who have had something to say this morning.

To all of you, let me just say on behalf of the commission, our deepest sympathies and our great appreciation for your willingness to express your own thoughts about issues that as much as we'd like to say we can put ourselves in your shoes, we cannot. So it's been very valuable. Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to suggest at this time that we do not even approve the proposed rules. I appreciate the staff's work on this. I know it is a very sensitive issue. I'm going to suggest that we take some of the information that was shared with us today, some of the letters that have come in on the issue with ideas -- I know I've received a number of calls and e-mails and letters and things of that nature -- that we ask the staff to go back and study the issue some more.

MR. WEBB: Very good.

MR. LANEY: I'll make that motion. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second it. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: In the meantime, there still is a moratorium on the removal of crosses, unless there is an imminent safety situation, in which case I would hope that the district people involved would work closely with that family, only in the cases of imminent safety.

We're going to take another about a four- or five-minute recess to give everybody time to leave that would like to leave. Everyone is welcome to stay, of course.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. NICHOLS: We're going to reconvene. Wes, do you want to go to the next item?

MR. HEALD: As I stated earlier, that was the only rule that we had for your consideration, and we'll move into item number 6. Under Transportation Planning, we have two minute orders. Al Luedecke.

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, Wes. I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming.

The minute order we bring to you today authorizes the executive director to negotiate and enter into agreements necessary to acquire abandoned Union Pacific Railroad right of way adjacent to State Highway 146 in Harris and Galveston Counties.

The Union Pacific Railroad has notified the department that it's considering placing on the market for sale a variable width strip of right of way that runs parallel to State Highway 146 from seven-tenths of a mile south of Red Bluff Road in Seabrook to 1.7 miles south of Dickinson Bayou in Texas City. The abandoned railroad right of way is approximately 10-1/2 miles long.

The department is currently studying the expansion and reconstruction of a 24-mile segment of State Highway 146 from Fairmont Parkway in LaPorte to Interstate Highway 45 in Texas City. The department has examined the railroad right of way and determined that it's technically and economically feasible to use it in the expansion of State Highway 146.

The proposed minute order is contingent upon the Union Pacific Railroad providing the right of way free of any encumbrances in compliance with all requirements of state and federal law applicable to this acquisition. Subject to these contingencies, the executive director will be authorized to expend funds for the purchase for all or part of the right of way, including the necessary appraisal, title investigations, and other actions necessary to acquire fee simple title to the railroad right of way.

We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: I've got a question. Is this just authorization with an unlimited expenditure authority?

MR. LUEDECKE: No, sir. All this would do is authorize us to go to the negotiation stage.

MR. LANEY: So it comes back to us with a price tag?

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir, absolutely.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries. I used to drive that route all the time.

MR. LANEY: When you were an engineer?

MR. NICHOLS: When I was trying to be an engineer.

(General laughter.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 6(b), I bring you the first quarterly program for disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff's recommended adjustments to each of them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. There are seven projects in four counties and the reduction in participation for these projects is $4,956,798.

We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: This has worked out fairly smoothly, once you put this into place, this program.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And I commend you. I know in the beginning everybody was real concerned about how it would work, but it seems to be it worked quite well.

MR. LUEDECKE: We've had some personnel changes in this area, but even that's gone very smoothly. We've handled it very quickly.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Al.

Agenda item number 7, under Turnpike Authority, approval of some funding for right of way or portions of right of way in Travis and Williamson counties. Phillip Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, commissioners, Wes and Helen. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell and I'm the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

Is that a little loud, Wes?

MR. HEALD: I was just going to tell you to lower it down so we can see you.

MR. LANEY: Actually raise it up.

(General laughter.)

MR. RUSSELL: Let me get it a little higher here, Wes, because such a tall guy that I am.

Under item 7, the minute order under item 7 would provide for funding for the acquisition of right of way on Loop 1. As you all know, Loop 1 is the first element of our Central Texas Turnpike project. The environmental clearance for that element was achieved earlier this year; the detailed construction plan is almost complete, and over the past couple of months we've spent a fair amount of time performing some preliminary right of way duties.

If this minute order is approved by the commission today and accepted by the local entities, it will essentially provide $34 million from the department, with a cap of $40 million, with the remainder of the right of way funding coming from those local entities. So we would request your approval of that minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Just for clarity, I had seen, obviously, a number of drafts on this minute order and I feel quite sure I'm looking at the latest draft, but some of the key elements of what I believe to be the latest draft are that: it's estimated to be, the TxDOT portion, $34 million but not to exceed $40-; that we're looking at 50 percent of the right of way, including utility movement; that it's to be repaid with initial bond financing, assuming it is a toll road, and it's also contingent on the governing bodies in the area agreeing to participate with their 50 percent. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: That is correct. The language should exactly pair up with those earlier project-specific minute orders.

MR. LANEY: I understand -- just to continue on your questions -- that none of this right of way expenditure would be reimbursable. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: Some of it could be, depending on what the ultimate formula is, depending on whether it's under the main lanes or outside the main lanes.

MR. LANEY: I thought it was all frontage roads.

MR. RUSSELL: I think it will depend on what the ultimate design, what the ultimate arrangement is. I believe the minute order suggests that we'll sit down with the department at some point and work out the details of the agreement.

MR. LANEY: On a bigger question, Phil, I'm not nearly as current as you or Robert or others are anymore with the overall price tag for the total Central Texas toll project, all the elements of it, but it seems to be moving on us a little bit, and the direction, as always, is up. And I'm a little concerned that we're going to need to limit or at least string out the projects.

Is the prioritization, sort of driven by the first to become ready for development, the right prioritization in terms of the elements of the overall project -- the last of which would be 130, I presume, the last to get ready, would therefore be the last in line, and would likely be the most susceptible to have to be stretched out because of our limitations on funding. Is that the prioritization sequencing of these things?

MR. RUSSELL: I think it depends, Commissioner Laney. Obviously, from an engineering standpoint, Loop 1 is the first down the pike, and it's ready to go. Actually, from an environmental standpoint, 130 is probably accelerating a little bit; it's moving quite nicely.

I think when you look at it --

MR. LANEY: But it will still be last in line of all the pieces of the Central Texas puzzle, I presume.

MR. RUSSELL: Probably, but environmentally it's really moving very nicely with an eastern alignment decision.

I think when you talk about priorities, when you look at impacts, at least the input I get from the various public, across the street, 130 clearly is the highest priority that I have sensed from any of these elements in the Central Texas project.

I think when you look at how that EDA structure will be set out, you are correct in stating that we'll have the ability to stretch out that construction if need be, and 130 would probably be the element that we would have to stretch out due to the magnitude, the cost, and everything else.

MR. LANEY: I understand that. The question is: Is that the right result? If we in fact deferred Loop 1 and 45 and 183 and focused on 130 in terms of funding, is that a better result? I don't know.

MR. RUSSELL: I don't think so. Of course, our Central Texas plan is achievable, because all four elements need to come on line pretty much contemporaneously so that they feed traffic to one another, and for the overall financial plan to work, we really need to get all four elements on the ground pretty much at the same time.

MR. LANEY: Well, I understand that in theory, but again, the funding may change the meaning of contemporaneously a little bit with respect to some elements of that. It's a question that I don't think you're ready to answer. I don't know if the TTA board has discussed this issue.

MR. NICHOLS: Related to exactly what you're talking about, it ultimately gets into cash flow and what funds are available and when they might be needed. I had a pretty extensive meeting yesterday with Phil and the staff and also with our finance people yesterday, and requested that they take each piece of all four of those projects; the engineering-development costs, the right of way costs, what portion of bonding -- the TIFIA, the toll bonding, and then the state portion -- and lay out in time sequentially where they think, best estimate at this point in time, see where that brick wall is. And until we get that, we won't know.

When do you think you will have that: a week or two weeks?

MR. RUSSELL: I think so, within a couple of weeks. We're trying to get all of our financial team together so that we can have some sort of estimate on what the cash flow looks like.

Again, we're struggling a little bit, because we need the updated MPO transportation plan, traffic plan. We now have that or we're close to it, so our traffic and revenue guys now will utilize that data to come up with the investment grade traffic report. And that investment grade traffic report will really tell us what sort of bonding structure and what the cash flow is going to look like. We can make some assumptions now, but they're just that, they're some pretty basic assumptions.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd expressed basically the same concern yesterday to them, and a lot of it, from my vantage point, we'll start seeing where the problem may exist, if it exists, when we get that. And then if one project or two projects or whatever will have to drag because of the cash flow and the state restrictions, under what basis do we decide which projects go forward. From a business standpoint, some will probably pay for themselves quicker and better; from an overall state perspective, some may have a greater state impact but maybe not as much of a business thing.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Laney, is that where your question is coming from? I guess I'm still struggling to understand.

MR. LANEY: Well, sequencing is being dictated by the appearance of projects in terms of their being ready: first one up sounds like the first one you guys want to run with. That could have an impact on the last one.

MR. RUSSELL: Right.

MR. LANEY: The last one may be more important overall to TTA, to TxDOT, to the state, to the region, and it may be the one deferred if we go basically the route of the first one up is the first one to go. I just want to make sure -- I'm not suggesting that's the case -- I just want to make sure the TTA board has considered it, because ultimately the commission has to consider it in terms of the allocation of its resources. It would be nice if the two were in sync.

I would hate for the TTA board to be ready to roll on 183 or Loop 1 or 45 and we'll get to 130 later, and the commission decides that we better reserve our resources and apply them to 130. If there's a case to be made for the sequencing that you all are approaching, at some point the commission, I think, needs to hear it, sooner rather than later, like December or January.

MR. RUSSELL: Okay.

MR. LANEY: Not that I'm suggesting that the end result will be any different than what you're doing. I just don't know, and now it's complicated by the cash flow issues that Robert has raised.

MR. RUSSELL: I'm not aware of the board jumping into that as far as prioritizing any of those. Thus far, we've tried to work on all four elements just as fast as we could, so I'm not aware of any sort of official prioritization between those four elements.

MR. LANEY: No, I understand, and therefore I think the default is the priority is being dictated by the readiness of the projects, and yet that could have an impact on those last in line, a fairly dramatic impact.

MR. RUSSELL: I think we can probably have some preliminary numbers that Commissioner Nichols was alluding to. I think we can have some preliminary numbers that can at least paint some sort of picture to look at cash flows and disbursements and those sorts of things.

MR. NICHOLS: Need a motion.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: I second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Wes, do you want me to go ahead and raise this up, or just leave it where it is?

MR. HEALD: That's fine.

Item number 8, Contracts, award or rejection of highway contracts, Thomas Bohuslav.

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

Item 8(1) is for the consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on November 9 and 10 of 2000. We had eleven projects, an average of 3.36 bidders per project.

We have one project we recommend for rejection; it's in Cass County, Project Number 4007. That project, we talked to some other prospective bidders -- we only had one bidder on this job -- and they indicated they were interested in bidding this work, but it was too large of a project for them to handle. So the district wants to go back and cut the project size and make two projects out of it, and we'd get more competition and hope to get better prices on the work.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions noted.

MR. NICHOLS: With the exception of that one.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 8(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on November 9 and 10, 2000. We had 77 projects, an average of 4.8 bids per project. Staff recommends award of all projects.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion and second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Under routine minute orders, I will go over those with you. Item number 9, starting with 9(a) Speed Zones, to establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state.

9(b) Load Zones, revise load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

9(c) under Highway Designation, in Denton County on FM 2281, remove a segment of 2281 from the state highway system from Hebron Parkway in Carrollton to the Dallas/Denton County line. I understand the city of Carrollton has suggested that or recommended we do that, and we're not opposed to it, and that would be that they would take over that for construction and maintenance purposes.

Item number 9(d), Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease, first being (d)(1) in Callahan County, State Highway 36, consider the quitclaim of a surplus roadside park to the city, a very small little park at the edge of Cross Plains.

9(d)(2) in Freestone County, FM 80 west of Fairfield, consider the exchange of a surplus right of way for new right of way. And that has to do with -- I believe there's a sketch in there that probably explains that new location on FM 80.

9(d)(3) in Gregg County, Spur 502, from Loop 281 north to US 259 in Longview, consider the acceptance of a land donation. That's a little 15-foot strip for drainage easement.

9(d)(4) in Hood County. This is a different minute order than you accepted; it has to do with the same subject in Hood County, consider the sale of a surplus maintenance site.

9(d)(5) in Lubbock County, FM 400 northwest corner of US 6282 east of Lubbock, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way.

9(d)(6) Tarrant County, Spur 465 at Southwest Boulevard in Benbrook and Fort Worth, consider the sale of a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowners, and that being for the appraised value.

Under 9(e) Donation to the Department, in Bosque County, approve a donation from Chemical Lime Company for a bridge to be constructed for FM 2602, and the lime company is paying for the design and construction of that bridge; we would build approaches. There's a drawing in there that pretty well lays that out.

9(f) Traffic Operations, Chambers County, authorize temporary one-way traffic control on FM 565 to and from the Houston Raceway Park during the National Hot Rod Association events in 2001 through 2003, and that's just allowing contraflow. It would be under the supervision of the district there, and we've done this before.

Under Eminent Domain, item 9(g), request for eminent domain proceedings on non-controlled and controlled access highways, and there's a list there.

That concludes the routine minute orders.

MR. NICHOLS: Do I have a motion to accept the routine minute orders?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Agenda item number 10, we are calling for an executive session and it will be at the back in the executive room.

MR. NICHOLS: So then we'll recess for the executive session and then come back. Do we have an estimated time?

MR. HEALD: Approximately 20 minutes.

MR. NICHOLS: Are the young engineers, are you going to come back? I want to first of all recognize that we have the young engineers from our Lufkin District in the back. All of you hold up your hand. Welcome to the meeting today. I think that's great that you have been here; hope you learned something, and I hope you feel more comfortable about the process.

MR. LANEY: You guys don't look so young.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: We'll recess for the executive session.

MR. HEALD: I think there's been a change; it will be in the delegation room, and I need to make sure that General Counsel and I believe Owen and staff is at the meeting.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following executive session.)

MR. NICHOLS: We're going to reconvene the transportation commission meeting. The executive session ended at 11:50, no action to be taken.

Is there anyone here from the public who wants to -- no comments? Okay. There is no one here; that basically concludes the business. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: The meeting is over.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 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: November 16, 2000

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 88, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                         11/20/00
(Transcriber) (Date)

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