Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, June 28, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:05 a.m., and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order.

For the record, public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 4:10 p.m. on June 20, 2001.

Before we get started, I'd like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have any comments that they would like to make at this time. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I would just like to welcome all of you here. Quite obviously, a lot of you have come a long ways, taken a lot of time out of your day in the interest of your community. We appreciate the effort that you make, and we'll listen very intently to your presentations. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Two observations that I wanted to offer. One is in late May or early June, as most of you -- probably all of you well know, the Houston/Harris County area were hit with considerable rain. Tropical Storm Allison was -- reeked havoc over the area. And I hope Gary Trietsch is in the audience. I know he's going to be here for the first presentation.

But the TxDOT staff and the Houston District and all the employees did yeomen's work in dealing with the effects of more water than I think most of them have seen in their lifetime and ever care to see again. And I just wanted to congratulate them for a job extremely well done in extremely difficult circumstances.

Secondly, I think it's in the public domain now that the executive director, our friend, colleague, Wes Heald, has announced that he is retiring at the end of this fiscal year. I think, without question, his service to this department and this state have been exemplary, and we're going to figure out appropriate ways to say thank you.

But, Wes, wanted you to know, first opportunity in a public forum like this, how appreciative I think the commission is and this entire state is for your service to TxDOT over the years that you've served as executive director.

We have a very full agenda this morning. We have three delegations. After each delegation's appearance, we'll have a short recess in order to allow people to enter and exit the meeting hall.

CITY OF BAYTOWN

(Mayor Pete Alfaro, Rep. Joe Crabb.)

MR. JOHNSON: The first delegation comes from the good city of Baytown, and I would like to call on the mayor of Baytown, Mayor Pete Alfaro, to begin the presentation. Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR ALFARO: Thank you very much, and good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson. On behalf of the City of Baytown, the Baytown Chamber of Commerce, and the citizens of Baytown/East Harris County area, we want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the area transportation needs.

We'd also like to thank you and your predecessors for the foresight and vision which has resulted in the completion of other transportation projects, including the Fred Hartman Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel and the completion of the most critical portion of Highway 146, or the Old Loop 201.

These two transportation projects have significantly changed the face of our community. In addition, we appreciate your support of the current construction phase of Spur 330 Project, which started in May of 1998 and is scheduled for completion later this fall.

I would also like to go ahead and express our -- my appreciation, the City of Baytown appreciation for the support of Mr. Gary Trietsch, the Houston District engineer, and his staff in helping preparing for this presentation.

Before discussing our request for funding to complete Spur 330 Project, I would like to acknowledge the presence today of approximately 40 business and other community leaders from the Baytown/East Harris County area that are in attendance today to show the community's consensus for the request to be made. I would like them at this time to please stand.

Thank you very much.

This -- most of these leaders left with me at five o'clock this morning from Baytown, Texas, and we're here for this -- about 20 minutes, and then we return to Baytown. Great dedication, I think you will agree with me.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence later of Harris County Judge Robert Eckels that will be here. Representative Joe Crabb is here, and Alan Clark, HGAC transportation planning manager was supposed to be here. Representative Crabb and Judge Eckels, as I said, will be addressing you, the commission.

Today I plan to cover the following topics: the purpose of the presentation, the overview of the community, the Spur 330 Project, and the project summary.

Under the purpose of the presentation, let me acknowledge up front that this is my third time before this commission concerning this project. In November of '92, I came here asking you, on behalf of the City of Baytown and the Chamber of Commerce, to complete Loop 201 and the Decker Spur 3 project to be consistent with the opening of Fred Hartman Bridge, which at that time was scheduled in '94. As you know, Fred Hartman Bridge was opened in September of '95. There's a lot of work to be done in Loop 201.

In '96, November of '96, we came here, I addressed you to work with you to try to phase -- have a phase approach in completing Decker Project. You have helped us. You have started that work, as I indicated.

Today, the purpose of this presentation is to request that the Texas Transportation Commission expedite the funding and construction of the main lanes of Spur 330 Project from Fairway Drive to Interstate 10.

I wanted to point out here on my -- is it on now? -- I want to make sure that we're together. You've got it -- you should have that map in your notebook, but I just want to show you that here's where we started out, and here's Fairway Drive where we stop and where the funds right now will end. And we still need the rest of this to continue.

Without the completion of this last phase of main lanes and three bridges over major intersections, undue safety hazards on the citizens and motoring public will continue to increase.

Baytown's traffic flow is being impacted by the opening of the Fred Hartman Bridge, completion of State Highway 146, and the development of the Bayland Marina, the expansion of the Port of Houston Authority Terminal and the expanding residential development. The completion of the two-lane frontage roads on Spur 330 by this fall are just not enough to provide a safe and efficient traffic flow through the corridor.

As we go into the community overview, I want to recognize that Chairman Johnson knows where Baytown is, but just a quick review for the other two commissioners that may not know. The city of Baytown is situated on the north side of Galveston Bay and on the east side of San Jacinto River, Houston Ship Channel. Houston lies about 20 miles west of the community, and Galveston Island is located within 45-minute drive to the south.

The city's primarily located in eastern Harris County, with a small portion of the city in western Chambers County. There are approximately 70,000 residents in Baytown that occupy an area of over 34 square miles. This land area does not include several major industrial districts such as Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Phillips, Bayer, and the Cedar Crossing, which are located adjacent to the city.

Interstate 10 traverses the northern edge of the community, linking it with downtown Houston and other major urban areas east and west. Access to the South Houston and Galveston, Texas, city areas is provided via State Highway 146 which runs from southwest corner to the northeast corner of the community and crosses the Houston Ship Channel via the Fred Hartman Bridge.

Baytown serves as a critical access corridor during tropical and hurricane events. The Fred Hartman Bridge serves as a hurricane evacuation route for areas south of the Houston Ship Channel from as far as Galveston. Some of the areas that are included is Pasadena, Texas City, Kemah, Seabrook, Clear Lake, La Porte, and Galveston.

Also, the thing that we wanted just again to remind you that the evacuees move quickly northward and eastward and bypass the Houston metropolitan area and save about 30 to 40 miles.

Baytown's economy is dominated by the petrochemical industry. Over 75 percent of the area major employers are directly associated with the petrochemical industry. A significant amount of traffic using Spur 330 corridor is large trucks carrying hazardous materials to and from the petrochemical industry and trucks carrying containers to the Barber's Cut terminal of the Port of Houston Authority.

The completion of the main lanes of Spur 330 Project will improve the safety and efficient passage for these large vehicles, as well as passenger vehicles through this highly developed area.

Spur 330 or -- now let me talk about the project. Spur 330/Decker Drive, as it also is referred, is one of the primary entrances into Baytown. It begins at the interchange of Interstate 10 and extends approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection of 146. The current construction, as I mentioned to you -- try again -- the project started from Interstate 10 and goes all the way to 146. The existing construction project, as I mentioned, will go here and then into Fairway, the main lanes. The frontage roads will be completed all the way to Interstate 10.

And what is left, then, is beyond Fairway we have a major intersection, as you can tell, coming here. There's Fairway. Then, of course, we have the Baker Road and we have then the railroad tracks, and then we have Bayway Drive before we hit Interstate 10. There's a very quick overview of the project there.

The requested funding will involve the construction of the remaining 2.8-mile, six-lane freeway from Fairway Drive to Interstate 10. A total of three bridges will be needed to be constructed at the grade separations at the intersections with the major arteries: number one at Baker Road, number two the railroad crossing at Wade Road, and number three the Bayway Drive.

TxDOT-estimated cost to complete the six main lanes of the Spur 330 Project is $25.8 million. Now, based on Chairman Johnson and District Engineer Gary Trietsch's suggestions, local matching funds should be available to ensure that the work continues on this project. The city council of Baytown has approved the participation with TxDOT and is considering $2.5 million. HGAC has approved $3 million to supplement the city's portion.

Just wanted to just quickly review. Of the five signal light intersections that we have, the three major ones will still be there. The 1993-to-'95 data said we had an average of about 140 accidents. The 1999 to 2000, that average has gone up to 160. 70 percent of these accidents are major. The highest number of these accidents occur at the intersection of Baker Road and Bayway Drive, which are the two intersections that we do not have currently funded.

The Baytown community requests that action be taken to expedite the funding for the completion of the Spur 330 Project. The five primary reasons for this request are: number one, the readiness for construction. The project plans for the project are essentially complete. There will be no right of way and utility adjustment costs. Nothing is holding up this project except funding.

The increase in traffic, especially hazardous material transport traffic, across the Fred Hartman Bridge. As you might -- some of you may remember, prior to the Fred Hartman Bridge, we had a tunnel there. That tunnel was a barrier to large trucks. Now, with the Fred Hartman Bridge, we do have these trucks that come over.

In 1996, the projected traffic flow across Fred Hartman Bridge for 2001 was estimated at 45,000 vehicles daily. The latest traffic count taken in April 2001 indicates that the traffic count has increased to 65- to 75,000 vehicles daily, which includes about 20 percent of the truck traffic.

On Decker Drive, there are 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day now. Back in '95, per TxDOT's estimate, they thought that by the year 2005 we would have about 39,000 vehicles, and we are essentially there already now.

Then it follows, then, number three, that as a result of the increased automobile and truck traffic, there is an increased risk of serious accidents and public safety problem associated with the partially completed existing roadways and bridges. As I mentioned before, this thoroughfare is an integral part of a hurricane evacuation route.

Number five, the project cost may be reduced for the final phase by avoiding dismantling of on-site equipment and incurring remobilization costs at a later date. I know you have limited funds and you have many requests, but I -- as soon as the funds are available, Mr. Gary Trietsch, Houston District engineer of TxDOT, is ready to complete the project.

The conclusion: The completion of Spur 330 Project will provide a safe traffic corridor and reliable hurricane evacuation route through Baytown. It will enhance the area economic development potential, which will improve the socioeconomic environment. Completion of this project will improve the health and safety and welfare of the motorists and residents of the area.

As I mentioned to you before, this is my third time before this commission concerning this project. In 1959, the Baytown City Council approved an agreement with TxDOT to construct Loop 201 and Spur 330. A lot has been accomplished. I am confident that you will do whatever you can to help us.

Also, I believe that you share my desire that after 40-plus years, we will not need to discuss this project again. We thank you for listening to us, and we are ready to provide local funds, about $5.5 million, and any additional information you need.

Would you like to have the questions now, or would you like to have the next speaker talk? Whatever the pleasure of the commission.

MR. JOHNSON: Why don't we have the next speaker, who I assume is Rep. Crabb. Is that --

MAYOR ALFARO: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Great. Welcome.

REP. CRABB: Thank you for having me. Y'all start at a civilized hour. You're not on a break like we are over at the House where we start so late in the afternoon and stuff. That's good.

I have about a 30-minute presentation, but I'm going to cut it real short and just tell you this. The city of Baytown deserves for you to complete this project, and I hope you will. Thank you.

MAYOR ALFARO: Our next speaker, Harris County Judge Eckels, who was flying in to -- and he was -- he thought that he would make it right as we were completing our presentation, but obviously he hasn't shown up yet, so I don't want to take any more of your time, Chairman.

Do you have any questions or -- we'll be glad to try to address them for you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I didn't have any. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Mayor, there are no questions. It's obviously a very critical project to your community and that area, and it's a worthwhile one. As you know, we do not make decisions during these meetings, but it'll be duly considered, and we appreciate your coming and also the many citizens of Baytown and surrounding areas that have joined you here this morning. Thank you very much.

MAYOR ALFARO: Well, thank you. And on behalf of the citizens of Baytown, we appreciate any support you can give us. And, Commissioner Johnson, we especially appreciate you being up there in Baytown to actually see the project itself. You know exactly what we're talking about. Thank you again very much.

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a five-minute recess to allow some people to leave and some people to find seats.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF COPPERAS COVE

(Fred Harris, Mayor Rodney Nauert, Maj. Gen. George Higgins, Rep. Sid Miller, Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Ralph Gauer for Sen. Troy Fraser)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting in the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation comes to us from Copperas Cove, and I believe that Fred Harris -- is that correct? -- a member of the Copperas Cove City Council, will get us started.

Welcome to you and all your neighbors.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, commissioners. Good morning. Thank you for allowing us this time for the Copperas Cove and the Central Texas region to present our case for your approval for our reliever route.

This is a regional project that not only benefits Copperas Cove but the entire Central Texas region. And to show you our regional support, I would like to introduce several members of the audience today.

And since my back is to them, would you please stand when I call your name.

Ralph Gauer for Sen. Troy Fraser; Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp; Rep. Sid Miller; Coryell County Judge John Hull; Commissioners Cliff Price and Jack Wall; Deputy Command of 3rd Corps in Fort Hood, Maj. Gen. George Higgins; Mayor Fancher, Kempner; Mayor Jack Calvert, Lampasas; Mayor Jouett from Killeen; former mayor of Killeen Fred Latham; and Mayor Rodney Nauert; and mayor pro tem of Copperas Cove, Bradi Diaz; and mayor of Harker Heights, Mary Gauer.

Mr. Ralph Gauer, representing Sen. Troy Fraser, will now make comments to you, sir.

MR. GAUER: Mr. Chairman, good morning, sir, commissioners. On behalf of Sen. Fraser and the residents of Senate District 24, thank you for your leadership, and for the many things you have done and are doing for the great state of Texas.

Today you're being asked to fund the 190 reliever route, which would ease the flow of traffic to, from, in, out, and around the city of Copperas Cove. This project has been developed in close coordination with TxDOT staff and, as you've just seen, has earned the support of municipalities, county courthouses, civic organizations, and businesses throughout the region.

We believe the Copperas Cove reliever route will: help reduce the immediate crisis of local traffic flow; link Central Texas along 190 from I-35 on the east through Nolanville, Harker Heights, Killeen, Copperas Cove, Lampasas from I-35 to Highways 281 and 183 on the west, and will directly support the intermodal opportunities associated with the opening of the Robert Gray Joint-Use Commercial Airport in Killeen in the spring of 2004.

In a nutshell, we believe the project is good for the Cove, it's good for Central Texas, and in a real sense it's just great for the great state of Texas. The senator has asked that I convey his sincere appreciation to each of you for all that you do, and respectfully request that the commission fully support this agenda item. Thank you, gentlemen.

And I will be followed by Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp.

REP. HUPP: Good morning. Somebody just asked me if my remarks were going to be as long as Rep. Crabb's. I missed that, but I understand his took, what, 30 seconds? See if we can beat it.

I want to thank you for allowing me a few minutes to speak to you this morning on this important proposal. I believe that my friends from Copperas Cove are going to give you an excellent presentation, and I don't want to take up a lot of your time, so I will be pretty brief.

What I will tell you is that I'm obviously very familiar with the traffic problems in that area. I live in Lampasas County, which neighbors it, and I had a business in Copperas Cove, which is in Coryell County, for about 15 years. So I have seen -- while as a resident in that area, I have seen our little farming and military community just grow by leaps and bounds, which is great, obviously, but just as we've seen here in Austin, the transportation facilities or roads just simply haven't kept up with it.

And I know that our community will never be able to reach its full potential until it has adequate roadways. I will tell you that this is a major concern of both Rep. Miller, Sen. Troy Fraser, myself, and all of the constituents that you see here. And I believe that it's pretty amazing to see this many people from the surrounding areas come in to support what's a relatively small project. It's that important to the surrounding communities as well.

As it was said before or will be said again in the presentation which you're about to hear, this region has been one of the fastest-growing areas in the state. We need this reliever route desperately. And without it, I fear that our community will lose valuable economic opportunities, and I think it will have a negative effect on the readiness and efficiency of Fort Hood, which I believe will be spoken to as well.

In closing, I want to thank the commission for their time and commitment to the transportation needs of our state. I also want to thank everyone from Copperas Cove for all of their hard work on this issue. This is an important proposal that has the support of everyone that you see here and everyone that is represented by the folks that you see here in Bell, Burnet, Lampasas counties, as well as Coryell.

And I hope that you will agree with us that this reliever route is needed for the betterment of the community, as well as the state. And again, I thank you all very much for your time.

REP. MILLER: Good morning. It's good to be with you this morning. We appreciate the time you are allowing us to give our presentation this morning. I'm the elected state representative, Sid Miller, from -- I represent Coryell County. And I'm here to represent my support and the community support for US 190 reliever route.

You know, we've been -- the community's been looking forward to this project for some 20-odd years, and the community believes it's time to move forward with it. And they're committed to it, and I think you'll see in the testimony that's going to be presented here this morning just how committed this community is to moving this project forward.

Even though it's a reliever route around Copperas Cove, and Copperas Cove is only a city of approximately 24- or 25,000, it is a regional project. It has far more reaching aspects to it to the community than just that city. With Fort Hood and the surrounding counties, that's an east-west corridor across the state through there. So we have a lot of congestion going right through the heart of Copperas Cove, which really causes some safety concerns that we're all aware of, and we hope that the reliever route certainly would eliminate some of those.

Also, Suzanna mentioned that it would be an asset to Fort Hood, should we need to have rapid deployment. And the chosen route now is to go down 195. But should we deploy to the west, this would certainly enhance the deployment capabilities of our military personnel, should they go to the west or decide on an alternate route down 281 to go to the coast that way.

There is another aspect that increased transportation and -- increased traffic, rather, is going to be enhanced with -- when we get in full swing with the joint-use airport there, the civilian-military Robert Gray Airfield. And once it gets in full swing, I think we'll see a lot of people coming to that airport facility. So we're going to need even more relief from that I 90 pass-through at Copperas Cove.

What -- my office is requesting that we move up in priority on this project. We believe the time is now, especially with the airport and the needs of Fort Hood and the local community. And also, we are asking you to go ahead and commit the funding for this project.

This community -- my office has not received one correspondence in opposition to this, and I think that's very unique. Most of the time, when you're looping a city, you'll have a lot of opposition from -- but apparently the whole community is behind this project, from merchants to citizens to the city staff to the military personnel. And I think you need to take that into consideration.

So much is this community behind this project that they're willing to put up some funds to help move it forward at a more rapid pace. I believe if you'll look -- and you probably have a packet -- that you're getting a commitment of about $6-1/2 million from that community towards this project that they're willing to put in to it from the city and from the counties and from the military base.

Now, you know, we're -- our citizens are going to get an income tax refund from the Government of about $300. But what that translates to is -- the city of 24,000, that means that's about everybody's tax rebate going towards this -- or income tax refund going towards this project. So I think that's significant, if you want to put it in those terms. So you have a small amount of people contributing a lot of money to the project.

So we're just here to ask your favorable consideration to move us up in priority. We're ready. The community's ready for this project, and we'd like for you to commit the funding. Thank you.

MAYOR NAUERT: Good morning. I'm Rodney Nauert, Mayor of Copperas Cove. I want to thank the commission this morning for taking time to meet with our delegation.

The people of Copperas Cove know that the commission is faced with enormous challenges in meeting the state's demand for highway infrastructure. But as you have heard today, the traffic congestion we have had in the past and present in Copperas Cove is going from delays and driver frustration to what I believe to be true citizen safety in Copperas Cove.

Copperas Cove and the entire Killeen-Temple MSA is experiencing phenomenal growth. And with the new Killeen regional airport coming on line, this growth will only come faster, and traffic congestion will only grow, and traffic flow will only deteriorate more.

Copperas Cove 190 reliever route is not only the city issue; it's a regional one. We have terrific support from all our surrounding cities, our city mayors, our city officials. We're real proud of that commitment from those surrounding cities.

When the reliever route is completed, you will be able to drive from 281 in Lampasas, to our west, to I-35 Temple-Belton, to our east, and never have to stop at a single stoplight. And with that, commerce on the 190 corridor will grow even faster.

Now, from the citizens of Copperas Cove and the city council of Copperas Cove, I want to thank y'all for all your consideration and help in this project. Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: Commissioners, before I introduce the video, I'd like everybody who's here to represent the reliever route from Copperas Cove and the surrounding communities to stand, please.

MR. JOHNSON: It's the whole town.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARRIS: We tried.

MR. JOHNSON: Safety in numbers. You know what I mean?

MR. HARRIS: Thank y'all.

We have a video for you to see. And they say if a picture's worth a thousand words, this video ought to be worth 5,000. So we like it, and we hope you do.

(Whereupon, a videotape was run.)

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, commissioners.

Maj. Gen. George Higgins, the deputy commander of Fort Hood and 3rd Corps will make remarks right now.

MAJ. GEN. HIGGINS: Good morning, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning, and I bring you greetings from the 42,000 soldiers and the over-100,000 dependents and retirees who live in the Fort Hood area.

Some -- as you saw from the video, some 11,000 of those soldiers and their dependents and retirees live in Copperas Cove, our neighbor to the west. Those 11,000 citizens commute daily between Copperas Cove and Fort Hood, in some cases, as many as three times a day, because as you know, we take PT in the morning about 6:30, and they've got to drive back and get cleaned up. So they make enormous use of Highway 190.

From the standpoint of the fact that about one-third of the population of Copperas Cove are soldiers and families and retirees of military dependents, the route between Fort Hood and Copperas Cove is enormously important. They use it an awful lot. It's a quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and their families. It would do an awful lot if the reliever route were put in place there.

I think the second point I'd leave you with is that a number of convoys move east and west from Fort Hood and to Fort Hood to Highway 281 and down to Camp Bullis, out to Bryan and Brownwood. We train out west. And the reliever route would assist greatly in reducing congestion through the city of Copperas Cove. In fact, as you know, oversized military vehicles are a real challenge. So the reliever route to the south would help us a lot in that regard.

And I think the final point I'd leave you with this morning is the fact, first, that Fort Hood is locally called The Great Place. Now it's called The Great Place for any number of reasons: 342 square miles of training area, the largest military installation in the western world, the Army's premier power projection platform for strategic deployment.

But I think the most important reason it's called The Great Place and regarded as such by the folks that live at Fort Hood and the surrounding area is that we are -- we've got wonderfully good neighbors all around us. And our good neighbors in Copperas Cove do many, many things for our soldiers and their families.

When our soldiers deploy worldwide, the citizens of Copperas Cove close ranks on our families and take care of them. We respond by programs like Military School Coalition, Adopt-a-School Program.

And finally, you know, talking about it's one thing, but there's this saying in the Army, "Hoo-ah." Well, I happen to believe in "Do-ah." And Fort Hood has transferred 140 acres to help facilitate the right of way and bypass for the reliever route. We think it's that important. And we're awfully glad to be really great neighbors.

And we would appreciate enormously your positive consideration for moving this up on the priority. It would mean an awful lot to all of us in the region. Many, many thanks, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: I was going to say something myself, but they told me I couldn't talk because we don't have enough time. So I'll just say, Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Thank you for this time. Thank you for listening.

Additionally, we in Central Texas region thank you for your graciousness that you have already provided $4.4 million into this project for engineering and internal expenses. We really appreciate your generosity. And I extend an invitation to all of you to visit our fair city. You will be getting an official invitation soon.

Again, thank you, and God bless you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions, just comment. Appreciate the presentation. Obviously a lot of people came in this morning. The -- and it was nice at the reception last night, visiting with some of y'all on a one-on-one basis. I think that was real helpful.

I noticed in your presentation you did touch on the airport, improvements in the terminal and stuff. And I think there may be an underestimate of what the impact of that may be for commercial air traffic in that area, not only freight but passenger traffic. And you've got a half-million people in that end that are going to be pooling and working in and out of that airport. So I think that's also a part.

But just thank you for your presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I didn't have a chance to visit with Rep. Crabb, because I didn't think of it in time. One of things I've been doing, Representative -- talking to Rep. Miller and to Mr. Fraser's staff person, as each delegation's come through, I've taken a moment to point out that there are a lot of important things that state government does. We educate kids -- or we finance educating kids. We finance caring for the sick, in housing the elderly. We finance higher education for adults, and we build highways.

There's nothing more important or less important about building highways, but I have an observation for you as a former member. Of everything that state government does that you have to decide about spending your money on or allocating your taxpayers' money towards, this is the one department and the one function that you physically can look at the money and look at the product and know that the money and the product are matched up.

It's harder to look at ten-year-old child and say, Did the local school district do their job? It's harder to look at an elderly person who can't communicate and say, Are we really caring for that person? It's harder to know if my college-paid education 34 years ago was a good investment.

But it's not hard to look at the 90 cents out of every dollar that you give us to spend, to see where it goes. It goes to this and to Baytown, and it'll go to Ports to Plains, and it'll go to, you know, one of a thousand projects.

And my point is to ask you ahead of time -- not two years from now, but now -- to remember, we're going to -- we will be asking you for some significant things in 2003. And when we come to ask you and if it requires a hard decision on your part, a decision that I've had to make in my past, and I know how hard it is, I want you to stop, when that time comes, and think, you know, there isn't any secret about building highways. There is no magic about the 190 reliever and Spur 330 and Ports to Plains and paralleling 35 and paralleling 10 and building the state's infrastructure.

There's no secret about it. There's no magic. There's no partisan divide. We either build for now and the future or we don't. And that requires us exercising good wisdom, the staff exercising good judgment. But none of that's possible without the elected body exercising partnership. And this is the way it is.

It's a very simplistic -- it's the simplest part of state government. I don't know any other way to put it. Give me a dollar, and I'll spend at least 90 cents putting some asphalt somewhere or concrete.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to probably echo the remarks of both my colleagues, one, for your hospitality last night. We appreciate it greatly. It's a special treat to get to know the people who are affected by the decisions we make.

As Ric has referred to, infrastructure is so vitally important to the economic vitality and the quality of life of this wonderful state, and it's a complex, diverse issue. The needs and challenges are huge, and they are different.

It's wonderful to see Rep. Hupp and Miller. Maj. Gen. Higgins, I cannot express to you what a great resource and neighbor and friend Fort Hood is not only for Central Texas but for this wonderful state. And for all the friends and neighbors from Copperas Cove and the surrounding areas, it's great to have you here.

As I mentioned before, we do not make decisions at these meetings, but we appreciate the message that you have brought to us, and it will be placed in the consideration file.

I see Richard Skopik here, the very capable Waco district engineer. And he does an incredible job for all of the Waco District. And we'll consult with him and others, and hopefully at some point in time, if all the lines cross at the same time, we'll be able to do projects like this, and this one in particular.

We will take a brief recess of five minutes to allow our good friends from Copperas Cove to exit and our next delegation to get seated.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF WACO

(Mayor Linda Ethridge, Cmmr. Lester Gibson, Scott Felton.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation has made the trip down Interstate 35 from Waco, and at certain times of the day that is no small feat.

I would like to call upon the good mayor of Waco, Mayor Linda Ethridge, who I believe is heading the delegation. Welcome. We're glad that you're here, and hopefully nobody's out stuck on I-35 trying to get here.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: No. I think everyone -- well, almost everyone got here safely. We have someone, I think, lost in Austin, but we will find them before we return.

Good morning. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to talk with you about this very needed project in our community. And thank you for the investment in planning money that you have already put into it.

We would like to handle our presentation in the following way. We have a short video that we would like to show you, and then Mr. Scott Felton will speak. He is representing business interests on this issue. And then County Commissioner Lester Gibson will speak, and then I would like to make some closing remarks.

But for now, I would like to direct your attention to the video.

(Whereupon, a videotape was run.)

MR. FELTON: Chairman John Johnson, members of the commission, good morning. I'm Scott Felton, president of Wells Fargo Bank in Waco and currently serving as treasurer of Downtown Waco, Incorporated, board of directors, a nonprofit economic development corporation committed to the rejuvenation of the Central Business District and responsible for the management of the Public Improvement District in Waco.

Additionally, Downtown Waco, Incorporated, is the City of Waco's development contractor for the Brazos River Corridor, a 12.5-mile stretch of the Brazos River running through the heart of the Central Business District.

As a representative of a major business in downtown Waco, as well as officer of an organization committed to the economic development within our city, we are supportive of Loop 574, which will provide a direct connection to downtown Waco and Interstate 35 from State Highway 6. The connection offers a linkage from the Business District to Waco's regional airport, eliminating current access challenges to downtown Waco from Highway 6.

We believe the increased maintenance and beautification of Martin Luther King Drive will further assure the development of the east side of the river and the heart of the Public Improvement District.

The inclusion of five exiting roads into Business State Highway 6 will enhance opportunities for the driving public to navigate through Waco's metropolitan area, while introducing new development opportunities throughout the corridor.

We urge your support for this commitment and resources which will enhance public access through the center of Waco's Business District to the regional airport.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Downtown Waco, Incorporated, and the interests of downtown businesses, which fully recognize and appreciate the potential of positive impact that Loop 574 will have. Thank you very much.

MR. GIBSON: Chairman Johnson and the other commissioners, good morning. I want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present to you a proposal that has been top priority in McLennan County for a number of years.

I am county commissioner of Precinct 2 in which the scope of the project is within my county commissioner precinct. Also I was a former Waco city councilman for two years in 1989 to 1990. I've been a county commissioner for two years, so I understand that length of the project in regards to its priority. I supported it when I was a city councilman, and I support it also as county commissioner of Precinct 2.

Our Commissioner's Court is also supportive of the project Loop 574. We have made prior commitments, financial commitments, of the county to improve State Highway 6, along with the great help that we get from TxDOT in that particular area.

Recently we completed phase one of a project of Highway 6, widened it to a four-lane, and that was from Falls County to State Highway 1860, and we're in the second phase of doing -- of completing the project from 1860 to 164 on State Highway 6. The county did commit $190,000 in the first project for right of way, and we also committed $63,000 in the second project.

Long before my time, someone -- our leaders had the vision to hook from Highway 164 into the city limits of Waco, and this particular project, if approved, would basically open up a lot of opportunities within the city of Waco, McLennan County, and specifically within my particular precinct district.

We know that there are approximately 19,000 to 20,000 vehicular traffic on State Highway 6 that comes in to the city of Waco on a daily basis. With the proposed 574, it would basically give the -- our travelers the opportunity to view the beauty of Waco and McLennan County.

Also, in my district, we have what we call the East Waco Community, which is an historically disadvantaged community, and this particular project will open up a wide range of opportunities in regards to economic development because of the traveling. It would put it more closer to Waco in regards to accessibility to I-35, and this would open up a realm of opportunities.

I stand before you today to support it, and I know that our court supports this particular project, and I encourage you to approve it. Thank you.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: You've already heard many of the good reasons why we want this project: the improved accessibility to our downtown area. And I would add to that that it also would be a very good link to the Cameron Park Zoo, the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame, the Texas Sports Hall of Fame, the Dr. Pepper Museum, Baylor's Governor Bill and Vera Daniel Historic Village, the emerging mammoth site, and Lake Waco.

So we -- this would be a wonderful pathway to key destinations in our community. So improved accessibility is key for us. Eliminating some of the confusion -- if you recall that maze that you saw in the video, that's a place where bewildered travelers go and decide, I can't get there from here. And it would really add a lot of efficiency and convenience to the driving public.

Because we think this is a very important project, I want to just quickly summarize what the City of Waco is willing to do and what we would like to contribute to this project in order to enhance its possibilities. One is the swap of ownership of roadways, which was alluded to in the video, which would have the net effect would be that you would have five miles less of roadway to be responsible for and maintain. And we would be pleased to undertake that swap and those responsibilities.

The City of Waco, in this proposal, will be responsible for 100 percent of the right of way acquisition and utility relocation. So we have the roadway swap, right of way acquisition, utility relocation. And in addition to that, we are planning to contribute $500,000 to this project.

It is also our understanding that the Waco District would contribute $500,000 from the district discretionary fund. So we believe that this is a good project, not only from sound transportation planning, but it is also a very good project in terms of good leveraging of public dollars by combining these three different revenue streams.

The other thing that I would promise you from the city of Waco is that we would say nice things about you everywhere we go.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: This project is very desired by our community. There's been discussion about it, really, for the last 15 years or so. I know of no opposition to this project over that long period of discussion. And in fact, there is very strong support.

You've already heard from County Commissioner Gibson and Mr. Felton representing business interests. You also, I believe, have letters of support from at least presently State Sen. David Sibley and support from Rep. Kip Averitt, and Rep. Jim Dunnam is also supporting this project.

And today we do have a representative with us from David Ogden's office. If you would stand up and say your name.

MS. BRITTON: My name is Tiffany Britton, and I'm the chief of staff for Sen. Ogden who is very supportive of the project.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you. We also have several folks with us representing chambers of commerce, Downtown Waco Development, which is also the Public Improvement District in our community. And the Brazos River Corridor, where this roadway would go, is one of the number-one -- the development and redevelopment of that corridor is a number-one priority of our community and our city council.

Also with us today is one of my colleagues on the council, Toni Herbert, if you would stand. And I would like to ask all of the people who came down with us, if you would please rise and look impressive.

Thank you.

I also want to single out for special recognition Dick Fletcher, who is here representing the City of Robinson. And he is the current chair of our MPO, and they are in very strong support of this project.

There are many reasons to do this project. I know that you all have -- always have more demand and more need than you have funds, but we respectfully request that you fund this project and allow it to go forward. And I would hope that you would do that for our community and meet this need.

I also want to tell you that we really do appreciate the very fine working relationship that we have with the district office, and we have found them to be very good partners on a number of issues. And we really do appreciate the leadership in that office and the way that your department interacts with us on any number of issues.

People who have been my predecessors in this job for many years back tell me it was not always so. And I don't care to probe that, but we do appreciate the good working relationships that exist. And I would be remiss not to mention that, and particularly want to thank Richard Skopik, who is here today, for his role in sustaining that good relationship.

Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, we would be happy to try to respond to them. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I can't tell you how wonderfully crafted and couched many of the things that you said were, not the least of which is the mention of the word "partnerships." I think so much of what we face in this state in infrastructure challenges must be dealt with through partnerships of local governmental entities and the Department of Transportation.

And Richard Skopik's presence and attitude is exemplified across all 25 of our districts, and we want to work with the locals in meeting the needs and challenges that they have.

I was also touched by the thought that -- how pleased my mother would be if she knew that if we approved something that somebody would think highly of us.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you once again for a marvelous presentation. We'll take a short recess so that you can get back up I-35 before rush hour starts and make it home in a timely fashion.

We'll recess and reconvene in five minutes. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Let me remind everyone that if you plan to address the commission, we'll need you to sign up at the registration table. We have a staff in the lobby who will be able to assist you.

If it's an agenda item that you would like to comment on, that we would ask that you fill out a yellow card. And if it is not an agenda item, we'll take your comments during our open comment period at the end of the meeting. And for that, we would ask that you would fill out a blue card.

When your name is called, you will be allowed three minutes, and please remember to state your name for the record.

We will now proceed with our agenda, and we will proceed with the approval of the minutes of our commission meeting in May. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

The next agenda item is a resolution to send to the family of Larry Burney. And if I may, I would like to read that resolution:

"Whereas, Larry Burney was fatally injured while performing his duties as an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation, and whereas Mr. Burney had served the Austin District of the Texas Department of Transportation for nearly five years in a loyal and efficient manner, and whereas Mr. Burney had earned the respect and friendship of his fellow employees in the Llano maintenance section, and whereas it is the desire of the Texas Department of Transportation to honor his memory, now therefore be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission does hereby extend sincere sympathy to the relatives of Larry Burney and that this resolution be sent to his family. Signed this 28th day of June 2001."

I'll pass it to my fellow commissioners for execution and a motion to --

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is a report on the Transportation Work Group. There's a little bit of a history -- if I didn't skip something. Pardon me.

A little bit of history on this agenda item. Late last year, I formed a work group consisting of 16 Texans, some elected officials, some transportation experts, to look at transportation as a whole in this great state and the many challenges that it faces and to compress a lot of these challenges into key goals, which are meaningful and measurable to the users of the system.

These 16 people, using resources from the Texas Transportation Institute and the Center for Transportation Research, in particular, Dennis Christiansen from TTI and Mike Walton from CTR have done a superb job. They met many times over the last four-plus months in discussing and organizing. And today, Carroll Robinson, who was one of the members of that commission -- he's a city councilman from Houston -- will present a draft of the report.

Please be reminded that this is a draft. We expect to receive comments and would actually welcome any comments that anyone might have, and probably at our next meeting, we'll have the draft in final form.

Carroll, thank you for your work on this effort. I also notice Mayor Windy Sitton from Lubbock, who is a member of the group. And I don't know if anybody else present was on that group, but my thanks and the thanks of everyone involved with this process to each of you for coming out with what I believe to be a very meaningful report, which will be extremely useful.

The purpose of this, one, is to listen to people's concerns, but also to tie this into the Texas Transportation Plan, which will be a 25-year plan for state transportation needs, which will be completed towards the end of this year.

Councilman Robinson, thank you so much for coming, and welcome.

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say good morning to you, Commissioner Nichols, Williamson, and to Executive Director Heald. I appreciate your opening comments.

Commissioner Nichols, I'm going to do something, because every time I see you someplace in the state you have a prop, so I brought a prop this morning.

And what I love the most, for all the folks in the audience, is the cover of our prop, which talks to Texas Transportation … Road, Modes and System … Connecting You to the World. And I just want to point out that Texas is a continent, and we'll let the rest of the world connect to us, and we'll have a couple of international bridges down in South Texas and the like.

Mr. Chairman, I think Mayor Sitton and I would agree with you; we would be highly disappointed if we do not receive a lot of critical commentary on this report and critical in the positive sense of things that may have been left out. We tried to synthesize down to five big ideas, five goals, and we would hope people would say, Those are five good goals, but there are additional goals that we ought to pursue, and we start and continue an ongoing dialog.

I not only want to thank Chairman Johnson, you, for having the courage to appoint what was a freewheeling group of individuals who came together to share our ideas and thoughts, and the TxDOT staff for letting us come in and be not only critical but constructive relative to TxDOT, but more importantly for the overall issue of transportation in this state.

I know the governor is on the road in that other area of the state that we kind of like every now and then, because I'm parochial from Houston, and we don't want them to have all the money. But he's up there that's doing something that's really positive for the state.

This past session, I think TxDOT really provided a lot of leadership on bringing people together to look at transportation on a statewide issue, and this task force is a continuation.

And Governor Perry, who deserves a lot of credit for putting this on the public policy agenda, will be signing the Mobility Bond Fund, which we'll have on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment, and a toll equity bill. And I think those are two important pieces of legislation, and they're going to move our state down the road for continued progress and good work.

As I've said, a lot of what we did couldn't have been done without the staff from TxDOT. And as you go through the report, not only for the members of the commission and the public, you'll see all 16 members of the work group listed, and you'll also see in each of the subareas, the five goal areas, the technical expertise, the individual from the TxDOT staff who helped us come up with what we see as the overarching benefit of this report, the five goals -- and I'll talk to each of those in a second -- and the partnership efforts, because if you take anything away from this report, it's synthesized down to this: TxDOT ought to be the facilitator, and we ought to be working in partnership, because even if you took all the money that the legislature gave to TxDOT, or if we had the ultimate budget that TxDOT needed, TxDOT in and of itself couldn't do transportation all alone in the state of Texas.

And it's going to require partnerships between the state, in terms of TxDOT, local elected officials, local governments, and the federal government working together in that partnership.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to read for the record the names of the members of the group, and it was chaired by yourself. We had Dennis Christiansen from Texas A&M; Dr. C. Michael Walton; Betty Armstrong, former county commissioner; Charlie Ball; Carlos Benavides; Tim Brown; Joe Graff; Joe Krier, from down in San Antonio with the chamber; Michael Morris; Katie Nees; Mary Owen; Carol Rawson; myself; Armadeo Saenz; and Mayor Sitton.

And I know, Mayor, you always had your able and trusted assistant, and you see I've been tagged, because Ports to Plains and the Texas Trunk System, which are going to be talked about here today, were two of the examples of the partnerships that we thought should be a road map, if you will, to the kind of things that could be done.

In the report, you'll see some of the things that TxDOT, as an agency, is doing across the state. You'll also see examples of what, in partnership with local government and counties, TxDOT has been able to do to move us forward in the area of transportation.

Chairman Johnson, when you gave us the charge, you said you wanted us to look at Texas transportation challenges in developing solutions to help the commission build a new vision for Texas with clear goals. At the meetings, I used to tell them, every time we started a conversation, that my mother had to understand what we were talking about, because if she couldn't, it wouldn't make a difference to what we were trying to do.

And I think my mother understands. I didn't send her the 50-page email, but I did call her up and just make sure she was going to be okay moving around the state, and said you guys are doing okay.

And our five goals were: reliable mobility, improved safety, a reasonable systems preservation, faster project delivery, and making sure the system as we developed it contributed to economic vitality.

And I think when you look through the report and look at the partnership efforts going on and that can be done, you'll see that this report is a great starting point.

The report, Mr. Chairman, as I said, in final summary of this -- it's a starting point and not an end. And that was never the intention of the report. The overriding theme of the report is partnership. TxDOT can't do it all, nor can it do it all alone, and that there's got to be follow-up and oversight.

And one of the most important things, I think, for my mama, is that if TxDOT in this state would come forward every year with some kind of annual state of transportation report, so the public and all the members of the legislature and transportation stakeholders can get a snapshot of where we are in time as we make progress toward the overall goal that we see as what the transportation system for our state ought to look like in the future.

I want to close by reading something to you, and it's a part of your letter, Mr. Chairman, out of the report:

"The working group members met almost monthly, conducted a detailed survey of metropolitan planning organization, county judges, and legislative officials, and deliberated a wide array of views. This report is the result of their efforts.

"I believe it serves two purposes. First, it is a future transportation blueprint for the governor, elected and public officials at all levels, business leaders, and drivers throughout our great state.

"Second, it is also a major component of a forthcoming Texas Transportation Plan that will build on the recommendations for Texas' future for transportation.

"The report contains the five goals which we've talked about. It talks about the visions. It talks about the need for action and partnership, and it talks about accountability, something that we all agree on. And it lays out what TxDOT and all of us can do together, and it makes this point clearly: that the financial resources have to be a part of this process, and it's going to take those at the state level in combination with that at the local level."

And I would offer this in closing for all of us members of the working group, and I think you will agree with me and all the members. We are so proud to have been a part of this effort. And we thank the commissioners and Chairman Johnson for having the courage to bring all 16 of us together and let us speak our mind freely and to put this report into place.

We started out as friends of transportation, and in the end -- I think I can say this for all 16 of us -- we have become much stronger supporters of this agency and the employees, and we are much more committed to doing all that it takes for us working together in partnership to build the kind of transportation system that will carry our state not only through the 21st century but into the centuries ahead, to make sure we do all we can for Texans and the people who live here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Mayor, and to all the members of the work group.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Councilman Robinson. Any questions or comments, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Those were very kind and eloquent words. I appreciate that.

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: And I basically look forward to the presentation -- the report, but particularly want to thank all the individuals who volunteered the time to go work on this thing. I know they put a lot of heart and soul into it and their energies, and it's greatly appreciated, and they should be recognized for that. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Carroll, all I can say is I hope the report is as good as your presentation was. But my heartfelt thanks to you and Mayor Sitton and to everyone who served on the committee, but also the numerous resources that assisted in the deliberations and in the final report itself, or actually the draft report.

We'll move along to the next item on the agenda, and the second report deals with the improvement plans for Interstate 35 through the Waco District.

As you are all aware, I-35 is one of the state's major NAFTA thoroughfares, and we've asked Waco District Engineer Richard Skopik to give us a report on what is planned along this very busy and major route through his district.

Richard, welcome, and thank you for being here.

MR. SKOPIK: Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and good morning to you, as well as commission members Nichols and Williamson. On behalf of the Waco District, we want to thank you for inviting us to provide you an update on perhaps what we feel is the largest ever transportation improvement project in the history of the Waco District, and that's being the expansion and reconstruction of I-35 through our district.

But before I proceed, I'd like to just introduce to you some of the members of my staff with me here today. To my left, immediate left, Russell Lenz, deputy district engineer; to my right, Mr. John Obr, our director of our I-35 project office; and then continuing on this next row, Ken Roberts, our public information officer; Mr. Reggie Richardson, director of Transportation Planning and Development; Richard Brown, our newest area engineer from the Gatesville area; area engineer John Jasek covering the Waco area; and our senior area engineer from Belton, Jim Cowan.

This presentation will hopefully provide you a brief look at some of the existing conditions and what's being proposed, projected cost at this point, time schedule, funding status, and future considerations.

First, I want to just take you quickly through some existing conditions, not that none of you are aware of these, but maybe it will kind of put things a little bit in perspective and where we're headed with this.

The I-35 corridor through the Waco District consists of three segments. The first segment is 94 miles long. It starts at the bottom of the screen at the Williamson County line and continues north through Bell, Falls, McLennan, and Hill counties, to the I-35E and W split, east and west split, north of Hillsboro. At that point, the two remaining segments within the district consist of 25 miles -- or approximately 20 miles of I-35W and approximately 9 miles of I-35E, where we touch the Fort Worth District and the Dallas District respectively.

This report is going to focus on this most southern segment, the 94-mile segment, and the work to provide a minimum six-lane freeway in the most rapid manner possible. The majority of the 94-mile segment is a rural, four-lane, divided freeway with two-way frontage roads, as shown in red.

Portions of the highway through the cities of Belton, a part of Temple, and most of the Waco area have an urban six-lane freeway with one-way frontage roads depicted in black.

Other conditions that you might need to kind of keep in mind through this 94-mile segment is right of way widths generally range from 250 to 275 feet, as compared to 400 to 450 feet typically seen on most rural freeways in Texas.

Average daily traffic as of our latest counts -- official counts, that is, of 1999 -- range from 41- to 53,000 in the rural areas and 51- to 83,000 in the urban areas.

I might just add also that the average daily traffic is projected to increase by 50 to 100 percent in the next 20 years. This is in keeping with history. Since basically the 1950s, traffic counts have doubled every 20 years through this part of the corridor.

Trucks account for 25 to 30 percent of the overall traffic, and truck traffic has increased 10 to 12 percent since NAFTA, according to the most recent studies that we have.

Many portions of I-35 in the 94-mile segment were originally constructed as US 81 during the mid- to late 1950s. As you can see from this photo, it's very evident throughout this segment that the facility's operating at capacity with the increasing demands. And particularly, our busiest time on the freeway corridor is really the weekend, starting about Friday afternoon and continuing through Sunday evening.

Truck volume increases continue to rise, particularly since the passage of NAFTA. The need to accommodate these vehicles in the redesign of this corridor is not only essential but expected in some form by the traveling public. The potential for car-truck crashes is on the rise and raises the most concern not only to myself but Central Texans that use this corridor daily.

Looking back to the 1950s when the corridor was originally designed, minimal right of way was acquired. Design minimums of that era were allowed, and the roadways that still exist in most areas, as depicted here with this picture in Troy, generally has narrow medians, concrete slopes in these medians, slip ramps, and bridges with restrictive clearances both horizontally and vertically.

Adding capacity by widening simply to the inside towards the median that other districts along the corridor have utilized will not work along most of this segment due to the narrow conditions. For this reason, there is a need for substantial additional right of way and major reconstruction in order to just add two lanes.

Let's talk a little bit about the proposed -- what we've got proposed. All existing four-lane sections --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that the same bridge we were looking at three frames back?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. SKOPIK: The only thing that's kind of been added there since the 1950s is a center concrete median barrier and some texturing on the shoulder that we just did. But everything else is pretty much like it was.

All existing four-lane sections will be expanded to accommodate six lanes except for sections through Temple and at Hillsboro near the I-35 split. Due to the capacity needs in Temple and operational issues at Hillsboro really related to the I-35 split, these areas will be expanded initially to eight lanes, as shown in black.

All four-lane sections being expanded to six lanes, which are really shown, I guess, in bold red, will have provisions for a special-use area to allow for future mobility needs. Likewise, existing six-lane sections in Belton, Temple, and Waco will be expanded to eight lanes, and that's shown there in green. And where possible, we'll also have similar provisions in these areas to allow for a special-use area in the future.

I would also like to note that construction will include a 12-foot outside shoulder in lieu of the usual 10 foot to enhance safety, also provide for traffic handling during maintenance operations, traffic handling during emergency incidents, and for future use as a possible travel lane.

One of the big issues is we've got more than 200 bridges that will need to be replaced just on this 94-mile segment. The controlling factor of most highway construction projects is the completion of bridge structures. I think that can kind of be evident if you drive any direction on I-35 from Austin, you're going to see that the roadway work is -- proceeds along and maybe, in fact, is basically complete, yet the bridge work is still ongoing and really holding up the project.

This has been a big concern of mine from the word go, and so with the cooperation of the Bridge Division -- and Mary Lou Ralls and Ronnie Medlock are here -- we just can't say how much we appreciate what they're doing to work with us to develop what we are calling a totally precast bridge system. And I just couldn't help myself telling you just a little bit about it.

It's really a first, or will be a first for Texas. We're building really on a very successfully used precast bent-cap system that was developed and used on the Pierce Elevated Project in Houston. And what we're planning to do is take this one step further.

It's anticipated that our system will not only expedite construction but will significantly enhance work-zone safety by completing a bridge in a matter of days and weeks instead of the typical weeks and months.

The concept at this point, in a kind of simplistic form -- and we kind of sometime refer to this as kind of our Tinkertoy deal -- is the concept consists of a typical foundation, such as drill concrete shafts, as you see here in the picture in the lower portion of the slide, that supports a precast bent structure having a center open core. The precast bent structure is cast off site in advance of foundation construction. And the precast bent once erected is then filled with concrete.

In essence, the precast bent structure serves as a form for the remaining concrete placed on site to connect the foundation and precast bent. Simultaneously, the remaining portion of the total bridge structure -- that being what we call the superstructure -- can also be constructed or will be constructed off site in segments.

Shown here is a steel-box girder with a top slab being cast with connectors shown along the edges in order to join the segments once they are hoisted into place out in the field at the location of the new bridge.

Lastly, the next-to-last step is really the superstructure segments, or these units, are hoisted into place on top of the precast bent structures. The segments are then connected really with a closure pour that's kind of kind of depicted with that white dashed line there between those two units.

The next two slides really kind of depict the completed structure showing a couple ideas in terms of aesthetics or appearance that we're currently looking at that work in this kind of system.

Other improvements throughout the corridor will include continuous concrete median barriers to improve safety, as kind of depicted here. And this is the most recent slide of really our newest rehabbed segment through the city -- or through a portion of the city of Waco near Loop 340 and Valley Mills Drive.

Other improvements, as well as the concrete median barriers, will be upgraded access ramps meeting current design standards, relocated frontage roads made continuous throughout the corridor and converted to one-way operation.

Aesthetic treatments in terms of cost-effective structural enhancements, as depicted by this retaining wall section under construction in Hillsboro, will also be included.

Rural ITS technologies will be employed through the use of dynamic message signs to assist with operating the freeway corridor more efficiently while under construction and upon completion as well. We plan to have these signs in place at key locations throughout the corridor prior to beginning the majority of the main-lane construction, the idea being really to allow us to do a better job in managing construction and keeping the public better informed of major incidents.

What about the cost? Here's the numbers. The cost of reconstructing this 94-mile segment is currently estimated at $1.47 billion with a projected ten to twelve years to complete. Right of way acquisition and utility adjustments are estimated right now to add basically another 100- to $200 million to the overall project cost. Approximately 2,000 parcels of right of way are estimated to be involved as well.

This 94-mile segment is currently authorized -- and that's kind of depicted on the screen as well -- for development under Category 1, High Priority Interstate Corridors, and Category 3A, National Highway or NHS Mobility.

Currently Category 1 is funded at approximately $40 million per year, and the portion of the project authorized under Category 3A must compete statewide with other high priority needs throughout the state.

The district continues to seek every opportunity for other funding options, such as the National Corridors Planning and Development Program authorized under TEA-21, as well as Federal Bridge Replacement Programs and Federal Safety Programs.

Priority 1 projects -- those projects that are currently authorized for construction are shown on really this slide and the next one. The blue dots indicate the three projects we currently have under way in the Waco and Hillsboro areas. The red dots indicate projects we anticipate proceeding to construction over the next 12 to 24 months.

Our initial plan has been to find every possible location where work or some portion could be performed while we proceed with the lengthy planning and right of way process. The work shown will consist primarily of bridge replacements throughout the corridor, indicated by, really, the smaller red dots, as well as main-lane widening in Hillsboro and Waco areas and some major interchange reconstruction primarily at Loop 340 on the south side of Waco.

This table shows all of the Priority 1 project authorized at this point based upon current funding levels. Although construction funds have been sufficient to this point, once additional right of way has been acquired for various portions of the project, the need for significantly more construction funds will be necessary in order to meet the schedule outlined earlier.

A little bit about future thoughts. The Waco District as part of the plan to have provisions in our design, as I mentioned earlier, that will allow for future and trade and public demands in terms of capacity to the year 2025. At the national level -- and I know most of you are familiar with this -- the recently completed I-35 trade corridor study from Mexico to Canada indicates that as many as eight lanes in the rural areas and as many ten lanes in the urban areas of Belton, Temple, and Waco will be needed to satisfy year 2025 projections.

Even with the district's proposed expansion plan, developing alternatives for addressing the continued growth along these corridors is vital to the region and this state. Interest among public officials in the region continues to gain in terms of us looking beyond 2025.

Alternatives to further expansion of I-35, whether it be a parallel roadway or some other mode of transportation or both, are all being discussed. The feasibility of extending State Highway 130 to the north, as was shown on an earlier slide, has been drawing the most attention up to this point.

In closing, our I-35 project office has developed a Web site, as shown above, that provides the updated information about ongoing planning activities pertaining to the corridor. You should soon be seeing signs along the highway similar to this one that's kind of shown there that we hope will be our goal to further convey to the public what is all going on to improve transportation along I-35.

I guess with this said, I just want to reiterate that the Waco District is firmly committed to finding innovative ways to obtain a minimum six-lane freeway in the most expedient manner possible on this segment. In so doing, we certainly want to continue to solicit any and all ideas to ensure that this happens, because it is a challenge, let me tell you.

And I hope this information has proven to be beneficial. I know it's quick. And I invite you to stop by anytime in Waco to obtain the latest happenings, and we'll certainly go and visit and find John and his staff, and we'll try to get a little more information as it develops, because it's happening very quickly. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please, go ahead. I have a few.

MR. NICHOLS: The -- when you were talking about the future considerations, where you were showing going up to ten lanes, fourteen lanes, and so on, my question is, on what you have laid out for the additional lanes to be constructed now with the replacement of bridges, at additional right of way, will the right of way that we acquire over the next few years to do this allow for the additional lanes to be added later? Same thing with the bridges?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir. It will allow addition of one more lane in each direction, in most cases --

MR. NICHOLS: In addition. One more lane in addition to what we're --

MR. SKOPIK: In addition to either the six in the rural areas or in addition to the eight that we're planning in the urban areas. So right now our plan is for $1.47 billion is essentially to get you a six-lane freeway in the rural areas and an eight-lane freeway in the three urban areas.

MR. NICHOLS: And we'll have enough right of way to add an additional lane in each direction.

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely.

MR. NICHOLS: And the bridges that are being planned, which -- I saw Mary Lou back there -- it's very clever on the bridge idea -- but those bridges will be constructed so that we don't have to replace those when we add those other lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, John.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Kind of following on what Mr. Nichols asked, then, for about -- I read $1.6 billion? Did I misread it?

MR. SKOPIK: That's correct. I was mentioning construction, but when you add the right of way along with the construction, you're looking at about 1.6.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So for $1.6 billion over what period of time, start to finish, if no disruptions?

MR. SKOPIK: Ten to twelve years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's say twelve years --

MR. SKOPIK: Twelve years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- to be conservative. So for $1.6 billion over 12 years, for a 94-mile stretch --

MR. SKOPIK: Ninety-four.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- we would have six continuous lanes, expanding to eight through the urban areas --

MR. SKOPIK: Through the urban, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- with the capacity to go to eight continuous lanes, expanding to ten for some additional cost, whatever that is.

MR. SKOPIK: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What -- I'm going to ask you a lot of questions.

MR. SKOPIK: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If you don't know the answers, that's fine. And even if you give me a wrong answer and have to come back and correct it, that's okay too. You know, no one's grilling you here. We're partners working on solving a problem.

About what would you guess the cost per mile for the $1.6 billion over 12 years, the cost-per-new-lane mile is? Would it be logical for me just to take the 94 and divide into the billion-six?

MR. SKOPIK: That would be an average, but the way we're really looking at it, at this point, the urban area construction is certainly a lot more expensive. And I think our latest numbers is about $20 million a mile for the urban areas. The rural areas -- I guess you could take what's remaining off that. You figure your urban areas, the mileage you have, and rate that at $20 million a mile, and then what's left, you can divide that mileage to get what we're averaging on the rural areas, because the rural areas, it varies so much.

Even in a rural area we have some what I'm going to call urban-type conditions at some of these little communities like the city of Troy and Salado, where it's going to be the cost of urban construction for maybe a mile or two, and then when we get outside of that, maybe we'll settle back down to a 10- or $12-million-a-mile cost. So --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So the --

MR. SKOPIK: -- I could get that for you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- of the 94 miles -- you've got good staff behind you -- about how many miles of that is going to be urban miles?

MR. OBR: Urban miles be, I'd say, between 30 and 40.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's say 35 is an average. Let's say 34 to make the numbers look good. So that's 60 rural miles and 34 urban miles. The 34 urban miles, it may be $20 million a mile. Sixty rural miles, it may be $2 million a mile, $3 million a mile?

MR. SKOPIK: No. It's going to be more than that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It looks like it might be about $5 million a mile.

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, how much the rural areas would be on average, once you figure that. I lost my math here. Let me think.

MR. OBR: The rural areas, we just had a two-mile section that's in the northern Waco area that was just six-lane freeway with two bridge structures in it, and it was at $10 million a mile.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. OBR: So, essentially, we're taking that six-lane freeway section forward through the rural areas, so it's going to cost us at least $10 million a mile in the rural area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Member Nichols, I do have several questions, and please feel free to interrupt or relieve me for a moment while I collect my thoughts. It won't bother me a bit.

Now, if the commission called you tomorrow and said, Give us a firm price to build a six-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate two rail corridors and with no access road -- we just want to get from point A to point B, 30 miles away from the closest city. Go out -- we'll use my hometown as an example. Go west of Weatherford 30 miles and build a six-lane road from that spot 82 miles north to the Red River.

Based on your experience and without trying to, you know, slice it too thinly, about what would the cost per mile be? Six lanes, median wide enough for two railroads, no frontage road; just six lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: And you're talking about an area that would be predominantly rural for the entire length --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The whole length of the deal.

MR. SKOPIK: -- because you'd be --

MR. WILLIAMSON: No cities.

MR. SKOPIK: You wouldn't be going through any cities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And no rebuilds, no following existing routes. Just --

MR. SKOPIK: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- go out there to Graford, Texas, and build to the Red River. About.

MR. SKOPIK: I think we're going to still be in the 8- to $10-million-a-mile range.

MR. WILLIAMSON: For six lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: For six lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Now, tell me -- talk to me about time. How much time would it take to build that 82 miles under those conditions versus 82 miles under the conditions you've taken so much time to outline to us today through these urban areas?

MR. OBR: If I could comment just on the fact that the State Highway 130 experience -- that's the issue that we're going to run up against, the planning that it takes to do an environmental impact statement on a new-location corridor is, I believe, from what I understand, it took ten years to plan that corridor to go around Austin. And what you're trying to do is -- the comment we're hearing from the public in our 18 public meetings we've had on the interstate corridor is, Move them trucks somewhere else.

Well, as soon as you start pointing to where else you're going to put them, you're going to run into the same opposition there. They, in no way, shape, or form, planned on moving their housing or their homes out into the country to have another interstate corridor go through it, when you've got one through Central Texas now.

And we did a bypass route value engineering study for the city of Troy two weeks ago, and it was a new location route without frontage roads, about a little over three miles in length, just to get around Troy without the cost of going through Troy. And it was -- those three miles, in comparison, it was a 50 percent higher cost for those three miles to bypass the city of Troy than it was to stay within the city of Troy, because you're still having to acquire homes; you're still having to buy the right of way. You've have to relocate utilities or utility corridors that don't exist --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but I'm not -- I didn't ask you about a bypass, and I'm not interested in a bypass.

MR. OBR: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to know how quick you'd build this six-lane road in comparison to how quick you're going to build this same 82 miles on this existing corridor, just build.

MR. OBR: Construction time --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Drive the first stake.

MR. OBR: Be the same, in my opinion, because you're rebuilding an entire freeway where it is on the existing I-35 corridor and relocating that corridor to somewhere else. You've still got the same pavement time frames, the same bridge time frames. The same components are going to go into the new corridor that are going to the existing corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we could -- in my example, you could build that 82 miles from Graford to Red River just as fast as you could rebuild the interior of existing -- an existing urban corridor like the 35 corridor.

MR. OBR: Maybe even a little quicker, because you have to phase the existing corridor, because you've got those 10-, 15,000 semis per day out there that you're having to keep moving while you're rebuilding the existing corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So I could conclude that certainly it would take no more time. It should take about the same time, and maybe take a little less time.

MR. SKOPIK: I would agree with that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Going back to the -- by the way, my compliments on your presentation. You laid out for me exactly what I expected, and I thank you.

If you went 30 miles east of the existing Interstate 35 and built a parallel highway, would the need to replace some or all of these 200 bridges be diminished? In other words, if the commission said to you, We don't want to expand 35; we don't want to keep investing money in the same mess; we want to parallel it, and we want you to rethink then what 35 looks like going through Waco, would there be any of those bridges that you currently have scheduled to replace not necessarily need to be replaced as a result of that decision?

MR. SKOPIK: Oh, on the current route. Okay. If there was no expansion necessary, certainly a good many of the bridges need to be replaced, because of their age and condition.

And I guess another assumption that would have to be made is if we built this other corridor, what kind of traffic could we continue to have on the existing corridor? The same level, including trucks, you know, what -- because one thing that's really -- and I don't mean to deviate from answering your question, but that's really tough to answer without kind of making a lot of assumptions here about what's the existing corridor; how's it going to function; is it going to be more of a regional/local thing, and the local -- I mean, and the, I guess, through-the-region traffic is going to head on this new route?

Because if we have still a considerable amount of trucks, particularly, carrying goods and services, that's where these bridges are really taking a beating. They're already 40-plus years old. More and more of them are qualifying more and more for these Federal Bridge Replacement Funds, and that's what I alluded to, so that's going to help us a little bit.

I think at this point, to answer your question, I'd have to say that still 50 percent or more, but at least 50 percent of the structures that we plan to replace -- and right now we say we've got about 200 -- is that right? -- I would say that over the next ten years, we need to replace at least 100 of them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So at least half would have to be replaced, but somewhere between and half and probably a quarter we wouldn't have to spend the money replacing those bridges.

MR. SKOPIK: At some point, we would, but it'd be over a longer time frame.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not immediately.

MR. SKOPIK: Maybe over -- that would occur over the next 20 years, perhaps, rather than the next ten.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Going back to one of Mr. Nichols' questions on the right of way matter going through, particularly, the urban areas. You estimated the cost of that right of way and you conveyed to the commission that the purchase of that right of way using those costs would allow us to expand ultimately to an eight-lane/ten-lane. When you did that, would there be any access road left through the urban areas?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes. We -- in what our proposal had -- is here outlined today, it still retains access or frontage roads throughout the corridor as they exist today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So the urban --

MR. SKOPIK: They're just relocated.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You relocate, you mean you --

MR. SKOPIK: They're moved out further away so that we have room on the interior to do the expansion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. So when you move them out further away, are we going to have to buy a few buildings?

MR. SKOPIK: There could be some businesses or residential properties involved. That's one thing we're looking at real hard, to minimize that impact. And that's why those numbers are so variable right now from 100- to $200 million in terms of the cost and, you know, approximate parcels, because ideally what we're trying to do is some areas we'll be widening on both sides, or gaining additional right of way on both sides, to minimize that impact.

In some areas, we're able to move completely on to acquiring this right of way, or at least we think we can, all to one side and miss most of the improvements. So we're only taking land. So it's kind of a balance of the engineering issues, in terms of curvature, and design requirements, versus trying to minimize that impact on that right of way or the improvements that are out there and the businesses, particularly, to keep the cost down as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No more questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience.

MR. JOHNSON: Let me interject one thing. On our calculations per mile, very simply, if there are -- we assume 90 miles and we assume 30 of those miles are urban, and they cost $20 million per mile, that's $600 million, which would leave $900 million for the other 60 miles at $15 million a mile for the rural.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Interesting.

MR. JOHNSON: That's very simple -- it's very inexact, but it's very simple.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I need to yield, Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question and a comment. On the traffic volume, it said in the rural areas on 35, it was roughly 40- to 50,000 vehicles a day, and in the urban areas, I think it said 50- to 60-, in that range.

MR. SKOPIK: 50- to 80-plus.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. If -- thinking in terms of the through traffic -- in other words, as you enter the county, the traffic is trying to go all the way north to flow through there and get on out, as opposed to the traffic that's beginning or ending in that area. What percent of that traffic would that be, the through traffic? Is that --

MR. SKOPIK: Of those number --

MR. NICHOLS: -- 10,000 a day or is it 20,000 a day?

MR. SKOPIK: That's local or that's through?

MR. NICHOLS: That's through, just trying to get through there.

MR. SKOPIK: Oh. The through numbers are, I would say, much higher than that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: 70 or 80 percent, wasn't it?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, because really -- and I kind of like to look at it, if you take the extreme ends of -- or really take the Williamson-Bell county line, you know, you're basically -- that's a transition zone, pretty much rural. And you're either going to Austin or to the south, or you're coming north either to the Waco area or Temple-Belton area, or you're going, you know, out of state or to the DFW area.

But that's a pretty good number, I think, that I'm going to call just not local traffic. And that number, at the district line, is running about between 40- and 45,000. And you could take off some for local, but I still say I think it's -- like Ric said, we're probably looking at 80 percent or more of that traffic is through traffic.

MR. NICHOLS: Of the -- what you would call the rural.

MR. SKOPIK: Of that rural number.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Okay.

MR. SKOPIK: And likewise, at the split, the split's a good example. The numbers are pretty similar at the split as they are at the Bell-Williamson county line where people leave the Hillsboro area and are either going to Dallas or Fort Worth. And those numbers, when you add what's on I-35E and what's on I-35W, if I remember this right, we're running in the 45,000 ADT range when you add the two splits.

MR. NICHOLS: So it would be reasonable kind of working off what Williamson was talking about, if a parallel corridor was built at a reasonable proximity, just outside the edge of the populated areas, and successfully connected on each end, north and south, it would be a reasonable assumption that a big -- 30,000 or so of these vehicles a day possibly would move over just to get out of that congested area.

MR. SKOPIK: I'd say 70, 80 percent would be a good number --

MR. NICHOLS: Which would --

MR. SKOPIK: -- at this point --

MR. NICHOLS: -- drop that volume --

MR. SKOPIK: -- without really looking at [indiscernible] odd lane. I understand.

MR. NICHOLS: That was my question.

MR. SKOPIK: I didn't really think about that today, but I'll certainly go back and check myself.

MR. NICHOLS: That was my question.

MR. SKOPIK: That's something we need to do.

MR. NICHOLS: And then my comment is, I think you've done very well. This is your first presentation before the commission that I can recall -- I may be wrong -- since I've been on, and I hear a lot of very nice things about you coming from your district, from the work that you do. And to come up to the podium expecting to make a presentation and then get hit with this many questions is a pretty good shock. So, hat's off to you.

MR. SKOPIK: I love talking about it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a few more things. The last few questions I got will probably call for your opinion, but I think the commission respects the opinion of its district engineers. You're out there; you deal with the problems every day. There's no reason for you to have not formed an opinion about the best way to do things.

In your opinion, if the commission at some point in the future made the decision to slow down or perhaps even stop its expansion or rebuild of this 94 miles and instead said, Go east 30 miles and build new, would that offer temporary relief to the current flow of traffic you were having to fight through the reconstruction projects that you've got going on?

I'm not complaining about it. I mean, I drive through it twice a week. Y'all do a great job of routing traffic. If you could get everybody to slow down to 55 miles an hour, it'd be better.

But if you said -- if the commission said, you know, Finish what you're doing now, but don't start any more; instead, go east and build new -- is it your opinion that the existing traffic flow on 35 would then have some relief from the disruption of the construction projects?

MR. SKOPIK: Certainly they're going to have relief if they've got an alternative facility. Like a brand-new one would -- like you've envisioned that's got --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But I'm talking about like right now, whenever I -- for example, we were all slowing down to -- or we should be slowing down to 55 through Hillsboro. Well, I guess it actually starts out at Hillsboro and goes all the way past.

MR. SKOPIK: Actually does.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And so if the commission said, Let's don't do any more construction from a year from now forward, and instead let's take that money and go east and parallel, so all of a sudden you wouldn't have construction going on on 35 anymore -- is it reasonable to expect the flow of traffic on 35 at that time -- waiting for the new highway to be built, would there be less disruption than there is now?

MR. SKOPIK: Certainly there's going to be less localized disruption. But I really don't think -- I think there's some other issues that are out there.

We -- to build a project as you've described, just thinking about the time frame that's going to have to take place before you're going to have usable segments to -- you know, I know you couldn't expect to get the 94-mile segment done before you open to traffic, but you'd have to have some reasonable-length segments at some -- with some connection points or something. I'm trying to envision how that would work.

But you've got to get some traffic over there. And in the meantime, my concern is this existing corridor. We're keeping it pieced together. It's worn out.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there's some projects that have to be done -- in other words, there's some work we're going to have to do on 35 whether we built a --

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- parallel or not.

MR. SKOPIK: We are going to have to replace the pavement throughout most of that 94 miles. It has to be done. We're operating -- some of that pavement, a good portion of that is US 81. It was never -- we didn't have the chance that some of the other districts -- where they built a brand-new interstate. You know, it was eight-inch concrete pavement, but it was brand new.

But we've taken an old highway years ago and just kind of said, You're I-35. And we built some interchanges, bridge overpasses, and it became a freeway. And I just -- I don't want to lead you to believe that there wouldn't be a sizable investment necessary.

And keep in mind that pavement cost generally, it's been my experience, constitute approximately 50 percent of the total cost of any highway project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there -- to your knowledge, is there a HAZMAT route around the Temple-Killeen-Belton area?

MR. SKOPIK: There is -- for the Temple area, they do have a loop, and they do have it designated, if I remember right. In fact, we've got signs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if I enter -- for example, if I enter the southernmost edge of that urban area --

MR. SKOPIK: The Belton area?

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- and I have hazardous material, am I in urban environment for a while until I have to make that loop?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, you are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And what about Waco? Same thing?

MR. SKOPIK: Waco, yes. You're in a little better shape, but you're still -- that loop brings you back into areas that are really developing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if, for example, I wanted to look at 20 years or 30 years from now, as we're doing on Ports to Plains here in a little while, if I ever get off of the this jag, if I wanted to look at the urban environment from San Antonio to Denton, and if I wanted to say that that stretch of urban Texas is not unlike the -- Mr. Chairman, help me here; you travel on the East Coast -- perhaps New York City to Philadelphia corridor perhaps? That's about the same length? No? Maybe longer --

MR. JOHNSON: No. That's shorter.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if I wanted to look at that and say --

MR. JOHNSON: Boston to Philadelphia.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- Boston to Philadelphia -- say 60 percent of our citizens either now live or will live 40 miles either side of that strip of road, and guess what, we've got hazardous material going in and out of those urban areas all the time. That would be an accurate statement, would it not?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir. That should be a concern.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know this is out of your district, but based upon your experience in the profession, will this similar circumstance, set of questions, or set of problems have to be dealt with when the day comes for us to either parallel Interstate 10 or build Interstate -- the mythical Interstate 69 to Houston? Is it going to be much different, the problems we're going to face on that project and the problems we face on 35?

MR. SKOPIK: I can speak pretty well for Interstate 10. And I don't know if there's some fellow district engineers in here that cover I-10, but most of  I-10 has an adequate amount of right of way throughout most of the corridor. I'm thinking more of once you get outside of Houston headed toward the Yoakum District and then really -- and, of course, you have some problems when you get to the San Antonio area, but then once you leave that and go west towards El Paso -- in fact, some areas that you do not have frontage roads.

And so the issues are quite a bit different on the I-10 corridor for the most part, except for those major urban areas, than they are in what we're dealing with, because the situation you have -- and that's what I described earlier -- the right of way corridor that generally exists on those freeway sections is even more than what we're looking to buy and ultimately have. We're looking to get to about 350 feet wide, and that'll -- be a little variation from that, depending on terrain and that kind of thing, but generally, typically 350. We're striving to get to that.

And really, you look at the I-10 corridor -- you look at the I-35 corridor just in the Austin District, just south of my district, that corridor is 400 to 450 feet wide. So you can do a lot of things with those things. So I think the problems are not -- they're certainly different from what we're dealing with.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you for your presentation, both prepared and on the fly.

MR. SKOPIK: Thank you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Richard, thank you. It's an excellent presentation. Very informative.

Wes, I believe I can turn over the meeting to you now. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. I also would like to thank Richard and his staff. We charged Richard about two-and-a-half years ago to develop a plan for the expansion of I-35 just for the simple reason that we didn't feel like that we could not focus on at least two more lanes in the very near future, and with the understanding that we need to provide for -- at least the room for additional lanes at some future time.

And, Richard, you've done a marvelous job, you and your staff and your special project office that you set up.

And, Ric, I think it'd really be good if you could stop in Waco sometime and spend about two hours with these guys, and I think they will shock you with what a good handle they have on things.

And I can speak more freely than I could just a few months ago. I don't want you to even consider either/or. Let's do both.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's -- I think you're right.

MR. HEALD: All right. Moving to Agenda Item Number 5, Dave Fulton, under the agenda item Aviation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If we parallel 35, there won't be any room left for aviation.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes, commissioners. My name is David Fulton. I'm director of the Aviation Division. Agenda Item 5 is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for 20 airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all the projects shown in the Exhibit A is approximately $7.6 million: $4.8 million federal; $1.8 million state; and $1 million in local funding.

A public hearing was held on June 4 of this year. No comments were received. Our division would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I noticed there were a lot of the automated weather-observing systems. Is this a new program to get a lot of these installed in airports?

MR. FULTON: It is not. It's a program that was begun by FAA years ago, and they put in several units, and the National Weather Service put in several units. It's a highly desired program, because it is a safety program, and it fits well with this new non-primary entitlement, whereby right now 100 airports in the state receive dedicated funding up to $150,000.

Some of the amounts are very low, like 60-, $80,000, so the program fits financially quite well. It's a highly desired program, and it's a program that provides and enhances safety. So that's the reason it's become so popular. Quite frankly, it fits in this new entitlement program quite well.

MR. NICHOLS: That's why there's a number.

I move.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, David.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 6, we have three minute orders under the item of Public Transportation.

Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey from the Public Transportation Division. Item 6(a) is a minor adjustment in the elderly and disabled program of projects from the El Paso District. Had an agency drop out. They had already identified priority replacements, so that is the recommendation before you this morning. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: 6(b) is the intercity bus program, which is -- these are federal funds under the Rural Formula Program of 15 percent set-aside according to federal law. We issued an RFP and got a number of 17 proposals. We're recommending six to you this morning, totaling just over $600,000 in federal funds, which is the available balance. And we recommend approval of these projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot, when you mention available balance, is that the available balance for the rest of the year?

MS. MASSEY: Yes, until October 1. We were not anticipating -- we didn't want to get too far out, get into the 2002.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: And Item (c), we're asking -- recommending your approval of toll credits for the City of Galveston. They received federal discretionary grants that do not come through the department, and they've requested toll credits to use as match on these projects to extend their trolley -- rail trolley system to UT Medical Branch and to also help with their Livable Communities Initiative to improve the streetscape and make better passenger terminal facilities connecting these systems and to buy some buses. We recommend approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One question.

MR. JOHNSON: Question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Margot, it's my understanding that part of this package is to purchase buses.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are these buses powered by diesel?

MS. MASSEY: No, sir. It's my understanding they're electric buses. Galveston is the only city in the state at present to be using electric buses, and they've had a good experience with them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we are using state resources to help one of our communities purchase energy-efficient and environmentally safe buses.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that's wonderful.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: The issue of toll credits -- do toll credits have an expiration? Do they --

MS. MASSEY: No, sir. Once the account is established, you know, based on previous private investments, that balance remains available for, I believe, well -- it's not in danger of lapsing.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you have a fix on the balance, our toll credit balance, that we have?

MS. MASSEY: I think Finance probably has a closer fix on it. I think we're, in terms of obligations, probably still we have a balance over $100 million.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Margot.

Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(Chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Under administrative rules, we have one minute order for your consideration, Rules for Proposed Adoption, Item 7(a).

Robert Wilson.

MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Robert Wilson. I'm the director of the Design Division, and the minute order I'm presenting to you this morning is for proposed rules change to Title 43, Section 15.52 of the Texas Administrative Code.

The proposed amendments are to allow more flexibility for approval of a local entity, being a city or a county, to either perform construction or projects with their own forces or to let and manage a construction contract. Under proposed amendments, the projects off the state highway system, local entities could be approved to construct a project with their own forces or let and manage a construction contract. And this would be expanded to included off-system bridges.

For projects on the state highway system, excluding freeway main lanes, local entities could be approved to let and manage a contract or construct with their own forces if they're paying at least 50 percent of the cost of the project.

In all cases, local entities would have to comply with all state and federal regulation standards and specifications, and TxDOT would review the plans, concur and award the contract, and approve any change orders.

These amendments, if you approve the minute order, would be published for comment by the public and be brought back to you at a later date for final adoption, and staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have -- it's not so much a question as comment, Mr. Chairman. I notice that for whatever reason, we've attracted a little bit of public exposure at this meeting, and those of you who are in the business of writing about our meetings, I hope you'll take note of this. This is a significant cultural change for the Texas Department of Transportation.

And I think the commission, if we're going to approve, and I guess we are, and particularly the senior staff, is to be -- we are to be self-congratulatory and complimented on taking the concept of partnership, which you talked about earlier and which is reflected in your document, to the next level.

We are, in effect, saying to local governments across the state, We're not just partners in word; we're now partners in deed. We're extending to you the ability to help yourself solve your problems using our expertise and your local entrepreneurial spirit. And I think this is wonderful thing that you've taken us to, Mr. Chairman. This is good stuff. This is what state government should be doing.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Nichols has moved. Do you second?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(Chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Robert.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 8, and we've got several speakers on this first on, 8(a), Transportation Planning, Al Luedecke.

MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, commissioners, my name is Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

As you will recall, a Texas Highway Trunk system was planned as a rural network of four-lane-or-better, divided roadways that includes and complements the interstate system in Texas. Selection criteria for highways on the trunk system were codified in the Texas Administrative Code under Section 15.40 through 15.42 back in 1990.

The commission also ordered the periodic review and updates of the trunk system as conditions and population dynamics changed. Last year, the Texas Department held meetings throughout the state to obtain input on possible criteria additions. After reviewing and analyzing the current criteria and public comments, the department concluded that two additional criteria were needed.

In August of 2000, the commission adopted amendments to Section 15.42 to give consideration to closing gaps in the trunk system and providing system connectivity. These additional criteria allow the commission to amend the trunk system to provide more statewide coverage and more directional opportunities to meet the new demands placed on the statewide system by the growing economy and NAFTA.

Based on the new criteria, the trunk system was reviewed, and it's been determined that 506 total miles should be added to the existing state system. The department also determined that 24 miles of the system on FM 305 from US 385 to US 190, and US 190 from FM 305 to Interstate 10 should be removed, and US 67 from 385 to Interstate 10 should be added.

There's local support for this modification, because it provides more direct trade corridor connection to the international crossing that will be developing at Presidio.

The minute order presented for your consideration adopts the proposed changes to the trunk system and authorizes the executive director to incorporate these routes, as shown in Exhibit A, into the trunk system. And staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: We have several people who have requested to speak on Item 8(a). First of all is Woody Gossom, Jr., who is the county judge from Wichita County.

Judge, welcome.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you, sir. Good day. It's our pleasure to be here. And just to tell you how excited we are about the designation of 281, we drove it yesterday morning early to get down here and visit with some of you all and to talk about this.

Today I have with me -- and I'd like for them to stand -- I realize the room is crowded -- we have a number of people from the Wichita Falls area that are supporting Mr. Luedecke's proposal that to bring forward, as you're planning, to add US 281 from San Antonio to Stephenville as part of the trunk system.

We agree with you so much, we want to go a little farther. Usually we say we agree somewhat, up to a point, but we're going beyond that point. We want to bring it all the way to I-44.

I would like for the members from Wichita Falls and Wichita County area to please stand and wave at you all.

It's a fair trip down here. I've driven that road -- in the 20 years I was in the National Guard, I drove that back and forth from Wichita Falls to Camp Mabry, and it's the better choice of a way to go because of the conditions on Interstate 35.

We tell you it's the right choice, and we're interested in you looking at bringing it the full distance. We think that it's key. It's a predisposition for people to use trunk route systems. And right now there's a perception -- and you all recognize part of that -- many people take 35, but the traffic has picked up on US 281 to the point we've seen an increase in what's going on to Oklahoma City. And we think we're a natural tie to come through to I-44 and to take that traffic north and east.

The other thing in the information we've sent you earlier, we meet all eleven criteria that you have stated for the roads you want to have on the trunk system. The next thing, we think that it should be part of the North American Trade Corridor.

There was a man that said, Go west, young man. We think that corridor ought to be to the west of 35. We'd like for you to consider that.

We want you to also decide now. We know that many of you have said that you think that it's a natural thing to look at US 281 being part of that trunk system and that in the future it could go on to tie in to I-44. You all are the planners now that have that vision. We want you to put it in place, to add it there and make that system complete, and then we'll deal with our supporters to work to get the funding later.

Because we have several speakers and you all have a long meeting, I want to give some things to you. One is a packet that has letters of endorsement from Washington, D.C., to Bexar County, San Antonio. We even got their brand-new judge on board with us saying it's a good idea to go all the way to I-44.

But more important, I want to show you some significance. I want to present something to each of you. I want to show you that tie is significant, because in the center of that tie, tying this together, is Wichita Falls, Texas.

That's kind of a semiretirement --

(General laughter.)

JUDGE GOSSOM: I've noticed a lot of other pretty ties, but that one has Wichita Falls in the middle of it. It's interesting.

We appreciate your time. I will pass to Rep. Farabee, I think is our next speaker in order.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome, Representative.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you very much. It's good to be here. It's good to be home too. I bet y'all are kind of happy that we're home too. Anyway, thank you very much. My name is David Farabee, and I represent the 69th Legislative District, which would encompass Wichita Falls, Burkburnett, and Iowa Park.

Now, two of those communities would be part of this process for sure. Burkburnett is definitely part of I-44, and we feel like would benefit greatly, as is Wichita Falls, as Judge Gossom has pointed out.

I did a quick calculation of the amount of miles that I've traversed over the last legislative session, the last five months, and it's right about 11,000 miles. And at the very beginning of the session, I found myself taking 35, but toward the end of the session, out of disgust, I found myself not taking 35, because I never knew what was going to happen to my time schedule whenever it was my turn to meet I-35 off 287 near Fort Worth, or I never knew what was going to happen whenever the two parts of 35 came together in Hillsboro, if I would be stopped for 30 minutes, or you'd get there and there'd be nothing really that you were stopped for.

So we feel like for those reasons and other reasons that it's necessary to connect 281 to I-44 and to include the portion of 281 from Stephenville on to Wichita Falls in the planning process.

Please don't confuse this as a member of the legislature addressing this who doesn't understand the funding issues. I do. I really do. And I'm not asking for the funding. What I'm asking for is the planning to be included, the planning phase to include that portion of 281 from Stephenville on to Wichita Falls, because one day, one day, we may need that. And if those plans aren't in place, then we'll just have to wait a little longer. But I believe the time is now.

And I do appreciate your funding of other projects across the entire state. My constituents continuously tell me how wonderful our Texas roadways are compared to other states, and for that I thank you.

And for this time that I've had to testify before you I thank you also. Please include that portion from Stephenville to Wichita Falls in the planning portion.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Next speaker is representing Sen. Tom Haywood, and that's Todd Gallaher.

MR. GALLAHER: My name is Todd Gallaher. I serve as chief of staff for Sen. Tom Haywood, and he asked me to come down here and, first, thank y'all for your service to the commission; and secondly, to express his strong support of this portion of 281 being added to the trunk system; and further asked me to emphasize that, as David -- Rep. Farabee said, put it in the planning now and come see him about the funding in two years on the Finance Committee, and we'll start working that process as soon as possible.

But again, just wanted to express his strong support of that -- this extension at this time through Wichita Falls. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is C.W. Muehlberger.

MR. MUEHLBERGER: Good morning, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be before you again. You know, the last several years coming down here, well, you can sure see the growth of interest in highways and in this committee here today. It's wonderful to see that, because it is -- I know in my case, I was a retail merchant for many years in Wichita Falls. My folks started a business back in 1930, and I took a part of it in 1950 and worked at it for about 45 years. So it's long enough to get close to it.

And in those years, well, I had a very interesting part to take care of transportation needs for Wichita Falls. And we have had -- of course, we're a typical little town that had originally the highway that came right through the downtown part. We had to move it gently, so that the people all understood and we held together. But over the period of years, I've noticed that you've got to grow; you've got to let those highways move. And that's kind of where we are.

But I had not intended to say very much this morning, but because I have worked at it, I appreciate the recognition I had recently on the Road Hand, and I appreciate further the opportunity to work with you. We -- in my case, I feel like that this last segment of 183 to go all the way to Wichita Falls is so important.

You folks that are here seated in your chairs know and realize the significance, and they are very aware of all the problems and things that are there. My fear, if you let it delay five years, there'll be changes in the people, personnel, not only in staff but in some cases in the committee here. And I'd like to see us go ahead and get our approval at this time to a Class A approval, with no intent of doing anything at this time; just to have the designation so we're ready to go for the future.

I'll turn it back over now to Leo Lane.

MR. JOHNSON: Leo Lane is the chairman of the Wichita Falls Board of Commerce and Industry.

MR. LANE: Morning, gentlemen. We think we have the answer for your I-35 problems. I'm going to just touch for a moment on the eleven criteria, very briefly just highlight some of the issues that -- and some of the statistics that support this parallel corridor.

In maximizing the use of existing four-lane, divided highways, 29 percent of the 309 miles is already four-lane divided. This provides better utilization of existing four-lane roadways than all other but one of the proposed additions to the trunk system.

This section operates -- and I'm talking about the section between Stephenville and Wichita Falls -- currently operates at 24 percent of capacity, while I-35 is obviously at about 108 percent of capacity.

In minimizing circuitous indirect routing, US 281 provides a very direct route, the most ports of entry in Oklahoma City, and a connection to major routes to the northeast. It also precludes traffic from congested areas in Austin and Central Texas and obviously the DFW Metroplex.

The ability for 281 to serve as this relief route to congested area is invaluable and should be fully utilized. This also provides some relief to their air-quality issues as we move this traffic further to the west.

In connecting with principal roadways from adjacent states, US 281 connects directly to I-44 at Wichita Falls and thus to Oklahoma City. It is the only proposed addition that connects interstate highway or other major traffic corridor as part of the trunk system.

In criteria 4, connecting with the principal deep-water ports or channels of 40 feet or more, US 281 connects directly to Port of Brownsville, Port Isabel, Port of Corpus Christi indirectly, and also as we add to this map here, you can see it connects directly to Port of Chicago and the deep-water ports in Lake Michigan.

In connecting with principal Mexican ports of entry, US 281 has direct connection to two Mexican ports of entry and convenient access to three others.

In serving significant military and other national security installations, US 281 directly serves Fort Sill, Shepphard Air Force Base, and Lackland Air Force Base, and convenient access to Fort Hood for movement to the north. It also serves several National Guard posts in the route, as well as they're using it when traveling to Fort Hood and other training activities.

In serving tourism, that is a beautiful drive down 281. It cuts through the heart of Texas and provides access to a number of Texas trails, state parks, historic sites, and various other recreation activities such as Texas Hill Country and Highland Lakes. And surprisingly, it is approximately 25 percent of the Texas state parks and historic sites are within 50 miles of 281.

In comprising major truck routes, truck movements over the past five years have increased by 32 percent in this section of 281 north of Stephenville. A significant portion of the increase can be attributed to the desire of truck drivers to bypass the congested metroplex area.

Sixteen and a half percent of all NAFTA truck traffic generated in the Valley travels north of Dallas to the metroplex to Oklahoma City, and you can see how direct a route that would be going -- bypassing the metroplex, again, going to Oklahoma City. That represents about 10,000 trucks a day. And again, that would relieve the truck traffic off of I-35.

In the area concerns which are within 25 miles of cities less than 10,000 population or greater, we certainly have Marble Falls, Lampasas, Stephenville, Mineral Wells, and Wichita Falls as part of that north-south trunk route.

And in closing gaps to existing system, we're just asking for that one last gap right there to close up and tie to I-44, and that gap -- that designation will certainly close that gap and provide that corridor for northbound traffic.

In providing system connectivity, US 281 provides access for the border ports with minimum congestion to the heartland interstate system and provides connection to all east-west interstate routes and a significant number of east-west trunk facilities.

And that was my illustration of how we meet those eleven points of criteria for a trunk designation. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker claims to be retired.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Arnold W. Oliver.

MR. OLIVER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, good to see you there. I offer my congratulations to your appointment. It's been a long time since you and I faced each other across the dais. And I will say that in opposition to some of your prior proclamations in the legislature, I always figured you were a Road Hand at heart, so I'm glad to see you here.

(General laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: But I do appreciate your help in the legislature when I was with TxDOT. So -- and today, you know, I've been really excited about this whole meeting so far, because nearly every delegation except Baytown has really made the point, I think, that we're trying to make for US 281.

By the way, US 281 is only 45 miles from downtown Fort Worth and only about 20-some miles from Weatherford to the west. It goes through rather unpopulated country. In fact, one of our proponents has stated that if you're going to look at a parallel route to Interstate 35, you ought to build it where they sell right of way by the acre and not by the square foot. And so we certainly concur with that.

And in trying to convince your colleagues on the commission of the viability of US 281, and in talking with the TxDOT Transportation Planning people, who used to be my employees, it's been a tough sell, because every time I talk to them, they tell me, Arnold, the only two people advocating 281 is you and Wes Heald, to which I modestly reply that that ought to be significant enough.

(General laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: But they don't seem to see it that way. But truly, we really feel like since the development of the trunk system in 1990, when NAFTA was only a proposal at that time and was not enacted, that the priorities, the traffic patterns have changed significantly in that ten years, especially as it relates to Interstate 35.

And I'm sitting here listening to Richard make a very, very excellent presentation about the needs in Waco. One-point-seven billion dollars to add two lanes to 94 miles of highway. US 281 now currently is an improved two-lane highway with improved shoulders all the way from San Antonio to Wichita Falls. And we think it could be easily expanded to meet trunk system criteria for a considerable less amount than what we're talking about on some of the other improvements.

I might just interject that, of course, it's been seven years since I've been with the department, but back then, in answer to your question, Richard, in my day and time, in 1993, we usually used a rule of thumb for a new mile of rural interstate to be 3.5 to $4 million a mile, depending upon the topography. So we feel like improvements could be made to 281 at significantly less cost than they could be building a parallel freeway in the Interstate 35 corridor.

Al Luedecke, the Transportation Planning director, mentioned that two criteria have been added to the trunk system, one of which was closing gaps in the system and system connectivity. You're probably aware that US 281 from San Antonio to Wichita Falls is not currently on the National Highway System. We feel that the importance now and the coming importance of US 281 will make it necessary in the future to come up with another priority funding system which logically would be the National Highway System.

I know the Federal Highway Administration enough to know that if you go to them to add 281 from San Antonio to Stephenville to the National Highway System, they're going to look at the overall national system, and my contention is you'll have a better chance of getting National Highway System designation if you can show that this connects San Antonio to Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.

So I think the material you've been given makes a good case. We would consider -- we would ask your consideration in studying that. We feel like this is a good project.

Wes and I are engineers, as are two of our commissioners, trained to think in logical terms. And to us, this has all the logic in the world behind it, and we would garner your consideration.

So it's not always that we've had engineers, two engineers, on the commission. Lawyers have been notoriously vacant in logical thinking, so --

(General laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: -- we're please to have two of our own now on the commission. We just beg your indulgence in adding this section from Stephenville to Wichita Falls to the trunk system.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: I just have an observation. We may trained to think logically, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we do.

MR. OLIVER: Oh. When politics gets involved, logic goes out the window. I know that much. I learned that.

Thank you very much for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Next speaker is Rep. Sid Miller. Is he still here from Stephenville?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Ray Sparks, the mayor from Hamilton?

MAYOR SPARKS: Good afternoon.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MAYOR SPARKS: My name is Ray Sparks. I'm the mayor of the city of Hamilton. Hamilton is a city of about 3,000 population located on US Highway 281 about halfway between Lampasas and Stephenville at its intersection with State Highway 36.

I'm here today also as the president of the US Highway 281 Corridor Coalition. The coalition is a cooperative effort of the communities on or adjacent to US Highway 281. Our goals are to promote the people's highway as it passes through scenic and historic rural Texas.

The coalition's membership includes more than 150 cities, counties, chambers of commerce, local businesses, and interested individuals. We have joined together in an effort to enhance tourism and economic benefits for our respective cities and counties through a cooperative effort to market our location on Highway 281.

The coalition has reviewed the proposed route additions to the Texas Highway Trunk System and enthusiastically supports the addition of US Highway 281 from San Antonio all the way to Wichita Falls to the trunk system.

As we all know, the interstate system in Texas is overcrowded, especially with increased commercial traffic due to NAFTA. As a result, many travelers are searching for safe, logical alternative routes. This is especially true for tourists and winter visitors who migrate in from the north and travel south to the Rio Grande Valley and coastal regions of the state. US Highway 281 is rapidly becoming the major alternative travel route to Interstate 35.

Completion of the Texas Highway Trunk System will no doubt take decades. The population of many cities and counties within the 281 corridor is expected to explode within the next 20 to 30 years. If these projections are even remotely accurate, the population along the 281 corridor could easily increase to 6 million by the year 2030. This is roughly equivalent to the population of the entire state when I was born in 1935, about the same time US Highway 281 was being built.

During my lifetime, I have watched the traffic flow along Highway 281 increase from about one vehicle every 30 minutes or so to the steady stream of vehicles we see today. Yet much of the roadway through Central Texas remains the same as it was in 1940: two lanes wide with few adequate passing lanes.

Much is being said about small towns along the corridor, about their hesitancy and confusion as to how an upgraded highway with loops and bypasses would affect them. In this respect, I cannot honestly speak for Lampasas or Hico or Evant or any of the other small towns along the corridor. But my message to them and my message to you is simply this: I cannot wait to see the day when Highway 281 and Highway 36 bypass downtown Hamilton.

An upgraded Highway 281 will be the engine that drives economic development throughout the corridor. I cannot wait for the day when we no longer have 10,000 vehicles of every kind and configuration passing through Hamilton.

Will we survive? We most certainly will, but only if we begin making survival plans now and only if those plans begin showing up as part of city budgets, county budgets, hospital budgets, school budgets, museum budgets, business and enterprise budgets, all with the common goal of winning.

Every small community along the corridor will be faced with developing such a survival plan. And done right, survival should not be an issue. Then we can all get back to the basics, maintaining quality of life.

Some two years ago, three tractor-trailer trucks were passing through Hamilton. Two of them collided about six blocks west of the square. One was disabled and was able to stop. The other, with no brakes, proceeded on to the intersection of Highway 36 and 281, where it ran the red light and plowed into the side of the third truck that was passing through that intersection. Both of these trucks finally came to a stop about halfway between the intersection and the county courthouse in a big pile of metal.

Nobody was hurt. No other vehicles were involved. I stood there in awe, realizing that with slightly different circumstances, 40 people could easily have been killed that day.

This is what we have to face in Hamilton: 10,000 vehicles every day, an endless stream of trucks transporting everything from bricks to things you don't even want to know about. At times, they seem to swamp the entire square. I have counted up to 27 trucks lined up on Highway 36 trying to get through the traffic lights. Traffic on Highway 281 sometimes will stack up for 15 blocks.

Today we can handle 10,000 vehicles. Tomorrow, I do not believe it possible to expect that number to increase by 50 percent or maybe 75 percent without some relief to the city of Hamilton. And I feel sure that most other cities along the corridor face the same situation.

Everybody in this room today knows we're talking about fixing the plan. The Texas Highway Trunk System is a good plan, but it is an incomplete plan. Now you have an opportunity to correct that through the revisions to the route selection criteria for the trunk system, closing gaps in the existing selected system, and providing system connectivity.

I cannot find a better means of reaching these two goals than by including the entire length of US Highway 281 across the state into the trunk system. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: I have two other cards, one from Max Zimmerman and one from Kristine Olsen. Did they wish to speak on the trunk system or Ports to Plains?

MS. OLSEN: On the trunk, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Max Zimmerman is the president of the SPIRIT/US 54. Welcome from Liberal, Kansas.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, Commissioner Johnson and members. And congratulations on your retirement. We appreciate all you've done too, Mr. Heald.

Yes. I am president of SPIRIT. I'll hold my remarks brief. The hour's getting late, I realize. We encourage your approval of the 90-mile segment in the north, the top of Texas, in the Panhandle on US 54.

US 54 is a major trade corridor, and there are several improvements that have -- and progress that has come just in the last few years on Highway 54. I have enclosed a video for your observation at a future date -- I realize that time doesn't allow it now -- and also a map that gives you the picture, a current picture, of Highway 54 from El Paso to Wichita, where it connects with I-35 and the Bridge of Americas at El Paso, making it a major NAFTA trade corridor.

Some of the highlights: The TEA-21 bill gives US 54 a high-priority corridor status as a key link in the east-west trans-America corridor. The NAFTA legislation certainly encourages the international corridor aspect.

New Mexico has moved US 54 up to number two in priority statewide for their segment from Tucumcari to the Texas state line. Oklahoma is currently constructing four lanes across the Panhandle joining Texas on the other side, and Kansas recently passed a $13.2 billion transportation plan that has substantial work on Highway 54 through Kansas.

So this segment through the Texas Panhandle certainly is a true example of partnership. And I was glad to hear the report from your working group. This is a partnership with other states, a four-state coalition with cities all the way -- cities, counties, and others all the way from El Paso to Kansas City, Missouri, encouraging this corridor to be a four-lane, divided highway through that entire section.

As you can tell from the handout that these improvements are coming quite rapidly really. Our organization, SPIRIT, has been in existence for six years, and we've seen a lot of progress in that six years.

I'm from Liberal, Kansas, and certainly appreciate this Texas hospitality in the continent of Texas. And thank you very much, and we're looking forward to working with you.

And we do appreciate Mark Tomlinson, your engineer at the Amarillo District. He's doing a great job there.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Kristine Olsen, the director of economic development from the city of Stratford.

MS. OLSEN: Yes. My name is Kristine Olsen, and I'm with the Sherman County Economic Development Committee out of Stratford. And I would be remiss in taking this opportunity to say thank you for considering Highway 54 being added to the trunk system. We truly appreciate it. We know opportunities that this highway improvement is going to bring to our community, and we just wanted to say thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Kristine.

Any observations or questions of Al on Item 8(a)?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Al, tell me in nonengineering terms --

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- why did the -- why could we not just plot 281 from the home of the greatest football program in Texas this last ten years to Wichita Falls?

MR. LUEDECKE: We had been watching 281 for a number of years. Traffic has stayed relatively stable. As I-35 congestion has increased in recent times, there has been a -- not so much an increase in traffic on 281 as the concentration of trucks, the percentage of trucks is increasing.

We had originally thought to take it up to 290, which was the next intersection of the trunk system, which would have fit the criteria very nicely. But with the idea that that traffic may have been going on to Dallas-Fort Worth as a final destination, to move either to that area or going to the northeast where the vast majority of the NAFTA traffic is going presently, we took it on to 377, which would have brought it on in to have access to the metropolitan area.

To go above that, again, the volumes were low, and we were thinking that in future years, as we develop either 130 or expand 35 or another alternative, whatever it could happen to be, that would be the time to go back and look at this segment from Stephenville north to Wichita Falls to see if it was time to go ahead and incorporate that into this arena with the premise that the traffic might ultimately want to go on to Oklahoma City and take I-40 on to the west.

We also would hope to, within the next year or so, have our commodity flow model set up and calibrated and Beta tested so that we could actually test some of these wonderful theories that us planners like to sit around and contemplate.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, would it be an accurate assumption on my part that traffic on 281 immediately north of San Antonio has increased, or is it not the case; it's just a case that the character's changed?

MR. LUEDECKE: Well, it's twofold. There is -- there appears to be additional truck traffic, which is probably not associated with the volume of traffic immediately north of San Antonio. That's a prime development corridor, and it is expanding at great speed, and the district has also begun plans to expand that roadway for those reasons, for congestion reasons, not necessarily trunk-system-related reasons. You get up above Val Verde, Twin Sisters, it goes back to its rural component.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So the answer would be we have criteria we use upon which we make these decisions.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the criteria that we used for that section from Stephenville to Wichita Falls is the same criteria that we used from San Antonio to Johnson City to Lampasas to Stephenville. And using that criteria, the department could not be justified in recommending to the commission that the trunk system go all the way to Wichita Falls.

MR. LUEDECKE: The commission could designate that at any time they want to. Our reason for not putting it in there, it's really hard to classify it as a gap. One hundred twenty-two miles is a pretty serious gap. The gap criteria was for the 10-, 15-, 30-mile segments that may have gotten cut off, some of which are examples in the map, the exhibit that you have there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you, would it have made any difference in your conclusions if former director -- were you engineer director -- was it still engineer director when you were around?

MR. OLIVER: Both.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You were both. Okay. I thought the transition was in there someplace. When Mr. Oliver -- would it have made a difference if Mr. Oliver had walked in here and said, I have in my hand a signed and binding commitment from 500 landowners to give you the right of way if you'll extend this to Wichita Falls -- would that have changed our model at all?

MR. LUEDECKE: It would have changed --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I give you 1,000 foot right of way.

MR. LUEDECKE: It would have changed my model considerably. Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To the good.

MR. LUEDECKE: Oh, yes. And this is part of the reason we didn't want to extend it also, is that with this now, with that addition on there, we would have roughly 65 years' worth of program to build out at current funding levels. That doesn't mean we wouldn't expand funding levels in the future, and we're not trying to be a naysayer or put it down. We just didn't want to over-promise and under-deliver.

But with that provision, that would represent a tremendous boost to that particular aspect of it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman -- I mean, don't leave, Al -- would it be appropriate in whatever our decision is today to ask the staff to not revisit this decision but perhaps rethink from Stephenville to Wichita Falls predicated on the assumption that all of the county judges from that point in those two points are going to form a coalition and maybe go out and see if they can't put together contributed right of way? Would it be inappropriate to ask the staff to do something like that?

MR. JOHNSON: I think it would be appropriate. The challenge, I think, is which comes first, the coalition to develop the wherewithal to deliver the right of way or ask the staff to make the agreement. And I think they sort of have to merge at the same time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So maybe what's appropriate is for us to acknowledge the -- those who wish it to be extended to Wichita Falls, that we've heard what they've said, to acknowledge to staff that we appreciate their objective analysis and to ask those who are interested in the Wes Heald International Highway to go to our back room and form a coalition and get to work and get back to us quick. And then at that point, our staff will start rethinking it.

MR. JOHNSON: I think that would be fine.

Robert, do you see any --

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, I don't see any problem with somebody going back and reevaluating and restudying and things like that. We -- the commission has the authority to add, as Al said a while ago, segments at any time.

I think what the department and the commission had established back in 1989, 1990 was that they tried to put together through a criteria a set of routes that seemed the most logical, at the time, development into a four-lane divided.

And then they also said that each four or five years, they would come back and reevaluate if there were any segments that needed to be added or any segments that needed to be removed or any new criteria. That is what we're doing right now.

This department did hold statewide hearings, what, five different areas around the state this past year? And in that recommendation, there's some -- a couple criteria added, and for the first time, a major section of 281 is to be considered for our vote today. Two eighty-one isn't on it now. This puts a major, major portion of 281 on it. So I think that is a huge step for the people who are supporting a 281 all the way.

But right now the gap there is not from Stephenville to Wichita Falls; it's from San Antonio to Wichita Falls. This would eliminate about two-thirds of that space. I think it's a huge step forward in a possible parallel development corridor to 35.

So yes, go back, evaluate, and look at ways to come up with a different recommendation, but for a set of statewide hearings and a recommendation and a posted thing to accept this minute order or not accept this minute order or change it, I would certainly support that. But I would also like us to approve at least the recommendations that we do have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not suggesting otherwise at all. I just -- we made -- over the last couple months, we made a significant commitment to underdeveloped parts of the state that suggests that we're investing in our future. And I'm sitting here looking at this map and thinking about how we swing the new proposed -- the new, under-discussion 130 underneath Fort Worth and bring it over Wichita Falls. I might like that idea better.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: But perhaps we should encourage Mr. Oliver to come out of retirement and head up the coalition, put together a right of way route for us from Stephenville to Wichita Falls, and we can revisit maybe much quicker than anyone thought. I'm personally interested in doing that.

MR. JOHNSON: That would be a good plan of action.

I have an observation, and that is one of -- two observations. First one is one of expectation. Wes mentioned yesterday when routes or segments are added to the trunk system there is an expectation that something immediately is going to happen. And that is not the case, because we have a funding crisis.

We have, in the last few years, doubled the amount of funds spent yearly on our trunk system -- went from $75 million to $150 million a year. And as Al referenced earlier, we have between 60 and 65 years' worth of projects in the trunk system that, if we approve what's being presented today, at the assumption of, one, no inflation, and two, $150 million expenditures a year, this does not include any expenditures for bypasses, which sort of are the next assumption after the trunk system.

So you can see this is an enormous challenge, both logistically engineering and certainly financially. So this level of expectation needs to be put in to proper reference, that some of these things are going to occur a lot later than we wish, but we're hopeful that with prudent planning and spending and increased funding that they can be done.

So, Ric, I think your suggestion is a good one.

And, Robert, I assume that you would make the motion to accept the --

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. JOHNSON: -- proposal of staff on the trunk system.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept the recommendation as made.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll second it.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. The next item -- well, first let me say, certainly we'll do that. I guess the concern I would have is we recently, on the first phase, removed the local participation on right of way, and we did that because we said this is too much of a burden on the counties, the program is going to be accelerated too much, it's going to be too much of a burden on the counties, and we felt like the only way we could drive this program and drive it in a timely manner is to remove that local burden.

So this will give us three different scenarios: one that we're not requiring the locals to pay any; it will give us a situation where we've got 90-10, unless we continue that on no local participation on the next phase of the trunk line which will be a future commission decision; then we've got that third scenario which will be 100 percent local.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but let me tell you what I compared it to. I've thought about this a lot. Believe it or not, I did read your letter and I did read all the information that was sent, and I'm familiar with the area, it's my backyard. But I recall the local water co-op came to our street two years ago and they said, We're extending the lateral to two miles north of you; there aren't enough homes out in your part of the country to extend it any further; we can't come to you, but if you're interested in either helping us get a right of way across this particular person's property or paying part of the cost, we'll go ahead and bring the water to your house.

My viewpoint is -- and Honorable and his group would disagree, that's okay -- there is a set of criteria we follow, I'm learning, in an engineering manner in this department for everything that reaches a logical conclusion, and unfortunately, at this moment in time, based on that criteria, department employees cannot recommend to the commission nor can the commission, I think, legitimately overrule, taking the trunk system designation past where it's at. That's just like that guy calling and saying we can't bring you a waterline, but if you'll do this, that changes our economics and maybe we can.

So I understand what you're saying. You like consistency and you like fairness, and I appreciate that, and I say once again it's not too late for you to back out; you could spend two more years at this department with us if you wanted to, but that's okay. I mean, if those folks want to go up there and tell the -- I know half those landowners between here and there -- tell them to give them right of way, well, let them do that. I feel bad about it. I can't; he's got control of the chair.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you get your water?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. We passed; we decided well water would work for another couple of years. But I had the chance -- that was the point, I had the chance to do that if I wanted to.

MR. LUEDECKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe Arnold had one comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's volunteering to head up this coalition.

MR. JOHNSON: He's feeling pretty frisky now, and I'm beginning to understand how you could feel that way, Arnold.

(General laughter.)

MR. OLIVER: Well, I agree with everything you say, Commissioner Williamson, however, I just want to point out one thing to you. What we're asking for is not funding, we're asking for designation which gets it on a higher priority system for funding. But we can't come in to you with donated right of way until the federal process has been met for alignment, environmental studies, and all this kind of stuff, and you can't do that until you get it on the map and say: This is the importance that we place to this highway. So we can't come in next month if we had 5,000 acres to donate to you and donate it to you until it's on the planning process and we've met all the federal regulations.

So all we're asking for is, say, hey, the department recognizes that this is another route. And I might just add that as far as we're concerned, this thing not only surpasses the stated criteria for the trunk system, it's transcended those. It now is becoming more important as a reliever route to Interstate 35 than probably any other segment that you have on the trunk system in the entire state of Texas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your comments.

MR. HEALD: Moving on to the next item, and I'd like to say we're deferring this item, but I think Randy would probably explode if I did.

MR. LUEDECKE: I would too, Wes.

(General laughter.)

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 8(b). At the May 31, 2001, Transportation Commission meeting, Jim Randall reported to you the findings presented in the Ports to Plains feasibility study.

As you may recall, the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century designated the Ports to Plains corridor as one of the 43 high-priority corridors in the United States. High Priority Corridor 38 was described as the Ports to Plains corridor, from the Mexican Border via I-27 to Denver, Colorado. The purpose of the feasibility study was to determine the impacts and feasibility of a four-lane highway between the Texas-Mexico border and Denver via the existing 27 corridor between Amarillo and Lubbock.

Four states participated in the study: Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The study analyzed in detail two corridors north of Amarillo and three corridors south of Lubbock; however, none of the corridors were found to be feasible from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Department staff recommended the corridor identified as S-7B in the study be designated as the official Ports to Plains corridor. The corridor follows US 287 from Dumas south to San Angelo, US 77 from San Angelo south to US 83, and US 83 on to Laredo. The commission directed staff to include State Highway 349 from Lamesa to Midland and State Highway 158 from Midland to Sterling City in the corridor description. This corridor is shown in Exhibit A that's attached to the minute order.

The minute order before you accepts the findings of the Ports to Plains study and designates the corridor shown in Exhibit A as the Ports to Plains corridor in Texas, and we recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have several who have indicated an interest in speaking on this agenda item. I have a card from Senator Robert Duncan. Welcome, Senator Duncan.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you. I'm sorry I don't have as good a taste in ties as you do, Mr. Chairman; I do but I couldn't find it, I don't know what the problem is.

I don't have a lot to say; I've said a lot before. I want to say thank you to the commission for listening and to the staff for their hard work and listening to the issues and I know that this has been a long ongoing project but I think one that shows that all of us can work together, and I really appreciate your consideration and appreciate your adopting the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Representative Carl Isett.

SENATOR DUNCAN: He had to leave but he asked that he be recognized as part of the delegation.

MR. JOHNSON: He was here earlier.

Representing the mayor of Acuna, Jorge Ortiz. Welcome.

MR. ORTIZ: Thank you very much.

The Acuna-Del Rio community has traditionally been known as the Amistad Border, the Friendship Border, and today, honoring this long-lived tradition, we come before this committee to support the Ports to Plains project.

In the name of Jose Llado Ramon, mayor of Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila, Mexico, we are here secure in the knowledge that you share our intentions, concerns and purpose, along with a vision for the future of a better social, economic, and cultural environment. These were also the objectives of Canada, United States, and Mexico when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1993.

The North American region today is, without a doubt, one of the most active trade zones in the world. The sharing of a common trade corridor, the Ports to Plains highway, is of great importance. The new route would link the three countries; it originates in Canada from three different points; they meet in Colorado and continue on through Mexico City through three borders: Acuna-Del Rio, Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras, Laredo-Nuevo Laredo.

Ports to Plains is undoubtedly the shortest natural route to unite three countries. Just like the path of the Monarch Butterfly, it will be a further symbol of the prosperity, unity, and friendship that this trade corridor will bring. Our mayor has taken the liberty, at least symbolically, to rename Ports to Plains the Monarch Butterfly Route -- symbolically.

Considering the growth of traffic between Acuna and Del Rio, Ports to Plains will multiply the number of operations, vehicles, goods and services transported through our region. When looking at the impact that Ports to Plains will have on our region, our mayor, along with Dora Alcala, mayor of Del Rio, Texas, have brought about an increased effort to build a second international bridge. This project normally takes several years, especially in Mexico, but with the committee authorization of this corridor, the time for this second bridge project to develop will be greatly reduced, and we guarantee that.

In the meantime, the Coahuila state government has taken action to improve its highway systems, from Allenda to Ciudad Acuna. The first step is to build a divided highway from Allenda to Zaragosa, and the second to continue from Zaragosa to Acuna. This project will provide a four-lane highway system from our border all the way to Mexico City.

We can also add that to alleviate congestion in our current international bridge, in the meantime, the state and local governments are working together to create an alternate access route that will reroute international trade traffic away from the downtown area of our city.

We cannot emphasize enough -- and I've said this before -- the impact that this project will have on our side of the border. The project that will be resolved today will give extra incentive to our border community to work hard at the federal, state, and local levels to create the necessary infrastructure for an international project such as this.

As for the community of Acuna, you have our deepest gratitude for making us part of this project. It has united us in a single vision with our neighbors to the north and will only bring good things to our Amistad Border. Muchas gracias.

MR. JOHNSON: Senor Ortiz, we're very grateful that you're here and I think that's indicative that this is indeed an international corridor, and we are glad that you came to share those words with us and it was a pleasure meeting you last night.

MR. ORTIZ: Thank you very much, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Mayor Dora Alcala, the mayor of the City of Del Rio. Welcome, Madame Mayor.

MAYOR ALCALA: Good afternoon. Buenas tardes. It's a pleasure to be here again, and I must report to you that I had a wonderful experience driving down I-35 for two reasons: I was prepared and I knew the drill.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ALCALA: I am here on behalf of the beautiful of Del Rio, Texas, the best of the border, as I informed you the last time, and also known as the Queen City of the Rio Grande.

I can only echo the remarks that were made by Jorge Ortiz, who is here on behalf of presidente municipal of Ciudad Acuna, because we have worked together diligently on many, many projects. As I mentioned before, Del Rio is unique; it's unique because it's a border town, it's a border town on the border with our sister city of Ciudad Acuna.

Our population in the city of Del Rio is 34,000 but when you look at the population of Ciudad Acuna -- which is growing by leaps and bounds as we speak -- we go to almost 200,000. We cross the border going over; we cross the border coming back. NAFTA is very important to our community; it's been very important to our country, of course, and to Mexico; it's brought a lot of trade, a lot of economic development.

Ciudad Acuna boasts the second largest number of maquiladoras along the border, and of course, with that comes the traffic. That's why we are so, so thankful for the vision and the leadership that you have in looking at the impact the Ports to Plains will have on the border communities, especially in Ciudad Acuna. Sure it's going to increase the safety, time savings, quality of life, the environment, but most important, it's going to make our vision so much better of the second international bridge. We have held back in making the decision where we would like to build this bridge based on the decision of the Ports to Plains. Hopefully, we can move smartly with that.

The mayor before me said that nice things would be said of all of you throughout her community. Well, let me tell you, this is now an international impact. Internationally people will say wonderful things of these commissioners who had the vision and the leadership to see that the Ports to Plains came through the border of Del Rio and Acuna.

We have hundreds of Winter Texas that visit Del Rio and they were so excited when I told them about the Ports to Plains and the impact that it would have on their traveling from up north. They, too, wanted to sign letters, and they did, and cards and let you know that it impacts the entire country. So when you think of all the wonderful people that are going to say wonderful things about the commissioners, we're talking about Mexico, we're talking about the entire country of the United States, all the Winter Texas, and not to mention the wonderful people of the city of Del Rio.

Muchas gracias. Thank you so much for your leadership and your vision, and we all will be moving forward, as we say in Del Rio, Texas, vamos adelante. Muchas gracias.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you so much.

Tommy Arnwine from the great town of Sonora, Texas.

MR. ARNWINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor for me. I am Tommy Arnwine and I have the honor of being on the board of the Ports to Plains Coalition and I also have the privilege of representing Sutton County and Sonora as a city, and I'd like to ask all of those that came with me from Sonora to stand up at this time. The last count I had was ten. Now, I may not have the same number as Baytown, but I think percentagewise, I may have it.

(General laughter.)

MR. ARNWINE: Everyone is talking about the impact that Ports to Plains will have, and I think it will be evolving over many years. We'll see a lot of things happen that we all expect, and I think we're going to see some things that probably none of us have thought of that will come about over the years. It's a great benefit not only to us as communities that are on the route, but also to communities that are parasitic to the route that will be feeding their economies off of that route; a lot of things are going to happen. We're looking forward to it.

I like the way the map views now; Sonora is a crossroads in West Texas and it looks good to us, I can guarantee you that.

Sonorans are a group of people that when it comes down to things that need to be done, they roll up their sleeves and they get out there and they do it, and we are currently working with TxDOT personnel to work on our reliever route for the Ports to Plains issue. And I'd like to thank Walter McCullough and John Dewitt from your San Angelo office and Hilario Rodarte -- from Sonora now -- for their help. They have just been outstanding; they represent you well.

We thank you for your time and your forward vision on this effort.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

The mayor of Sonora, JoAnn Hernandez.

MAYOR HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon. I am JoAnn Hernandez, the mayor of Sonora, and also vice president of the Bank and Trust.

As mayor, and on behalf of the citizens of Sonora, I would like to thank you for your foresight and planning vision and leadership. The citizens of Sonora continue to support Ports to Plains and will continue to work on a reliever route for our city. Our frequent use of Highway 277 to San Angelo and to Del Rio is just one of the many reasons for our supporting completing existing highways that require four lanes to make them safer.

On a personal note, two weeks ago my 16-year-old was traveling to San Angelo with our family to have a birthday celebration for myself, and being a two-lane highway, we were going north, two cars were heading south. She had a choice of either a head-on collision or end up on the bar ditch -- which that's what she did. And I thank God we had no injuries and I am here with my husband to let you know that we are in support of the Ports to Plains corridor. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

Randy Neugebauer, chairman of Ports to Plains.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is he? Have we seen him before?

MR. NICHOLS: Never heard of him.

MR. NEUGEBAUER: Good morning.

MR. JOHNSON: Between Randy and Gaynelle, I think they have a reserved seat.

(General laughter.)

MR. NEUGEBAUER: And of course in Lubbock we're screwing all our chairs down because we've got Bobby in town and we don't want him throwing any of them. If I want him to know I said that, I'll let you know.

MR. JOHNSON: Should we strike that from the minutes?

(General laughter.)

MR. NEUGEBAUER: Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Executive Director Heald, good morning to you. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm going to be short; I think the mayors before me have spoken. Mayor Sitton asked me to give her expression of support and thanks also.

We’re looking forward with anticipation for this vote that's fixing to happen in just a few minutes, hopefully, and we have a number of board members and elected officials and other folks that did not have an opportunity or chose not to speak to be better stewards of your time, and so I'd just like for the Ports to Plains delegation please just to stand. Thank you.

Their presence here this morning is really for two reasons. One is to express to you their concern and their desire to see your vision about another corridor in Texas go forward. They, like you, know that transportation in the linchpin of the development of any community, of any country; you only have to look to the airports, the seaports, the railroads, the interstates that have been developed in the past and see what a tremendous impact that they had on the communities that lie along those.

And so we're here today just to say thank you and to also encourage your support for this very important corridor. We believe that this is going to be one of the highlights of your tenure on this commission; I think it's very forward-thinking. I know that in the scheme of things we have a lot of issues that we are behind on, but if we spend all of our time trying to catch up on the things we're behind on and we don't plan for the future, we always are going to be behind; and so I think your vision, your foresight of this is to be commended.

And with that, I would just say thank you and thank you for the time to present to you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Randy.

Any questions or discussion on this agenda item? I guess there's no motion -- is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: And a second?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

Al, before we go on, Judge Robert Eckels --

(Applause.)

MR. JOHNSON: -- Judge Robert Eckels from Harris County is here, and he tried, obviously in vain, to get here -- he was abroad or he was traveling internationally yesterday -- and wanted to speak representing the Baytown group, and Robert, I told you I'd get you a round of applause when I introduced you.

JUDGE ECKELS: I wish I had that from the reception at home. I knew it was not for me, but I do congratulate those folks. I spent many years in the legislature working on that Ports to Plains project with now Commissioner Williamson and others. Yesterday I was out of the country, was visiting with President Fox in Mexico, Vicente Fox. I expect after those conversations and meetings that we will have nothing but increased traffic from Mexico coming through these routes; these routes will be as critical as many others.

One of the areas, though, that will continue to grow is the Port of Houston. We are here in support of the 330 corridor. The Port of Houston will continue to have lots of commercial traffic coming through there, increased container routes. The commercial value of the passenger vehicles on this route alone would probably, through economic terms, justify its approval.

More importantly, though, is the recent experiences from Tropical Storm Allison. We had $5 billion in damage in the Houston region; we had over 36 inches of rain in 18 hours in some parts of Harris County. This was modeled by our local emergency management office as part of a study we've done on hurricane impacts on our community, but the frightening thing with Allison was it was not in conjunction with a hurricane, it was a tropical storm; we did not have the strong surge of the high wind. 330 is also a critical part of the hurricane evacuation route plan for northern Galveston and Harris County, southern Harris, and incidental benefits for Chambers County as well.

So I'm just here, again, in support of that project, not so much as county judge of Harris County -- although very much in favor of that -- but I appear today more as the chairman of the Transportation Policy Council and the priority it is for the eight-county region which all of us represented today.

So I apologize for not being here this morning at the first flight but I appreciate your bearing with me and letting me come in on this time and put in my word for that corridor.

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly no apology is needed. You've come a long way, and we're grateful that you made the effort because it is an important project.

JUDGE ECKELS: You've got many items on your agenda; unless there's questions, I'll leave it at that.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have a question, I just had a comment. I just wanted to take the time to thank you for not only the work that you do on transportation in the Harris County area, but you've helped us quite a bit with transportation ideas statewide, and your support on that has been real important to us.

JUDGE ECKELS: I appreciate that, Commissioner. I look forward to working with all of you on those issues as we come up. The problems we have in Houston are not unique. I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you for the work of Gary Trietsch. Every time I come I always tell you how great Gary has been. When we talk about working together with TxDOT and the things we're doing, we've got a lot of problems looking for creative solutions, and he's been somebody who has worked very well with us, and again I'll thank you for that. He gives me some ideas that we can show other members of the legislature on some of those things that you talked about, commissioners. So thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Prior to proceeding to item 8(c), I think we'll take a brief recess. Five-minute recess. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. I believe, Al, that we're on item 8(c).

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir. Once again for the record, I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

The Houston District, the Brazoria County Commissioners Court, and the Grand Parkway Association recognize the importance of preserving the corridor of the parkway from State Highway 288 east to the Galveston County line, a distance of about 16.2 miles. The association is responsible for providing major investment studies for preliminary engineering, environmental studies, drainage studies, and the complete plans, specifications, and estimates for the final design of this segment.

In order to preserve this highway corridor with multimodal capabilities, these studies and plans need to be developed before the anticipated rural and local development begins to reduce the options for the local corridor. I understand development has really expanded in this area. However, local contributions alone will not fund the entire cost of developing this 16.2-mile segment.

Because Brazoria County believes this segment of the parkway from State Highway 35 east to the Galveston County line is especially important to their mobility and economic development, the county has agreed to contribute up to $882,000 for this portion of the study costs if this segment is developed as a conventionally funded road. However, this tender minute order, should the entire 16.2-mile segment from State Highway 288 east to the Galveston County line be developed as a toll road, the county would not be obligated to pay the department.

Due to the urgency of identifying the corridor, staff believes it's in the department's interest to fund the cost of the major investment study, environmental studies, preliminary engineering studies, plans, specifications, and estimates for the final design for the portion of the segment from State Highway 288 east to 35 in an amount not to exceed $7,056,000. The department will also fund the cost of the drainage study in an amount not to exceed $411,000, and all department participation in the project is contingent upon the association's consideration and its preliminary studies on the alternative of developing the entire 16.2-mile segment as a toll road.

The minute order you have before you is a tender offer to Brazoria County and the Grand Parkway Association that addresses the funding responsibilities for the county and the association and the department. If you concur and the county and the association accepts the minute order, the executive director will be authorized to proceed with the agreements and the project development activities. We recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LUEDECKE: Item 8(d). This proposed minute order establishes a policy that all relief routes on any state highway system roadway be full, controlled access by designation. It also establishes the policy for limiting the construction of frontage roads and interchanges on newly designated controlled access highways in Texas.

Currently new location relief routes are designed to function as conduits through populated areas without adversely impacting through traffic or local traffic. Since the focus of relief routes is mobility rather than access, sound engineering practice dictates that relief routes should be designated with as few access points as feasible. It's been a long-established policy that all relief routes in the Texas Trunk System are designated as controlled access facilities; however, this minute order proposes that all new locations of relief routes through the state highway system, including trunk system relief routes, be designated as full controlled access facilities to assure that the function of the relief route is secured well into the future.

The department also has a long-standing practice of providing frontage roads on controlled access highways. New controlled access highways are intended to provide the efficient movement of people and goods. This minute order proposes to establish a policy to limit frontage roads and interchanges wherever possible along newly designated controlled access highways.

By limiting the number of interchanges, ramps, and frontage roads, the existing and future through traffic will move more effectively and efficiently because the numerous points of conflict will be prevented.

On this type of facility, industrial and local developments tend to occur on the adjacent network rather than along the frontage roads.

Title 43 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 15.4 outlines the policy for constructing frontage roads on controlled access freeways during and after the planning stage. Although this minute order does not change the rules of the Texas Administrative Code, it clarifies their use and provides for review and possible modification of the existing rules as necessary to better define the policy.

If you concur, this policy will apply to projects in long-range project status and whenever possible to projects being developed under the Priority 2 status. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, observations?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll so move, and also, at the bottom it says we will review and possibly modify, as necessary, 15.54, I would encourage us to do that in as short a period of time as reasonable.

MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, and it will mate up nicely with the minute order that's due to follow from Mr. Wilson.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, sir.

MR. HEALD: Item 8(e), a similar minute order pertaining to the same thing, or the indirect result of that, by Robert Wilson.

MR. WILSON: Good afternoon. I am Robert Wilson; I am the director of the Design Division.

The minute order I'm bringing to you this afternoon is a policy statement that complements the minute order you just passed regarding construction of frontage roads. The policy stated in this minute order will encourage the construction of other segments of local roadways to provide access and/or circulation in lieu of building frontage roads.

In building new controlled access facilities, there are situations where the local road system may be severed or parcels of property may become landlocked. This policy will encourage the development of new local road segments to address these situations. TxDOT will work with local officials to design and construct feasible alternatives that may be less costly and provide equal or better overall operation to the transportation system.

Upon identification of such alternates, the proposed solutions would be brought to the commission in each case to authorize TxDOT to participate in implementing those solutions beneficial to the state highway system. These would be returned to the local entity for maintenance and operation upon completion of construction. Staff would recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll move that we adopt this, but also request that in the future we try to use -- it's got the word "efficacious" in here twice that I would encourage our legal department, or whoever wrote this, to try to use words that the public could understand.

MR. HEALD: Or the executive director can understand.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Nichols, I don't know which one of our great staff came up with the word, but I guess it's just a difference between rural east and rural north. I told my administrative assistant it was great to start seeing words that brought such clarity to our ordinances. I understood exactly what he was saying; perhaps there's a middle ground.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, out of curiosity, I guess we're all aware -- certainly the staff must be aware -- those last two votes and what we decided to do marks a pretty significant change in how the department intends to use access. I'm pretty amazed by it.

MR. JOHNSON: I hope that people realize it, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not to be taken lightly.

MR. HEALD: I could tell you it's huge; it's probably one of the biggest decisions that we've made a long time, in my opinion, because Mr. Greer's philosophy was connectivity, frontage roads connecting cities, and I think he had visions of 200-mile-long cities stretching out from across the state of Texas. Limiting access is huge and it's going to have major positive results, I believe, over a period of time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think the thing that struck me as a former member, we can expect to be deluged over the next year about this because the members view frontage roads and access roads as part of the political milieu of the state, and we'll just all have to -- and I know we're all prepared to firm and just say we can't do this anymore.

MR. HEALD: Moving on to Traffic Operations, agenda item number 9, we have two minute orders, and Carlos Lopez will handle both of these.

MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez; I'm director of TxDOT's Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you seeks approval for the FY 2002 Highway Safety Plan. This plan attempts to reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes by funding various enforcement, training, and education efforts. The FY ‘02 Highway Safety Plan contains a total budget of approximately $75 million which will fund approximately 461 traffic safety projects.

These projects cover various program areas such as occupant protection, police traffic services and speed control, DWI and DUI countermeasures, traffic records, and roadway safety. This plan also includes funding for the continued development of an improved crash records information system. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Would you say this is the most efficacious way to approach this subject?

MR. LOPEZ: What does that word mean?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I'll move we accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. LOPEZ: The next item, the minute order before you approves a non-radioactive hazardous materials route designation plan for Bexar County. Federal regulations require each state to designate a routing agency for reviewing and approving non-radioactive hazardous materials routes; under state law, TxDOT is that state agency. State law also requires cities over 750,000 in population to develop hazardous materials routes and to submit them to the commission for approval.

The City of San Antonio initiated the route development process and conducted an extensive public involvement effort but was unable to gain unanimous approval from all impacted jurisdictions. Therefore, in accordance with our established procedures, and at the request of the City of San Antonio, TxDOT assumed responsibility for completion of the designation process.

The proposed route plan is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations and designates the most appropriate routes in the area as hazardous materials routes. And if you look at the map there in front of you, what it mainly tries to do is totally limit HAZMAT cargo in the downtown area that's indicated by the red. This area has numerous elevated freeway sections, tight ramps, and it was through the local public participation process that folks felt this would be a good thing to do in any proposed plan.

It also designates 410, the loop around it, as the main HAZMAT route, and designates major highways coming into the county as the route for the hazardous material cargo to use. What this will also do is channel this traffic to these particular roads. Hazardous materials cargo can ride on any road in San Antonio at this particular point in time; those trucks are out there today on all these roads. So by designating these routes, it will also help strategic planning efforts in order to respond to spills in a much more efficient manner.

And finally, by designating this Loop 410 as the HAZMAT route, it would not be unlike other major urban cities in Texas that have their loops as hazardous materials routes, such as IH 610 in Houston, IH 635 in Dallas, and IH 820 in Fort Worth. We'd recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, we have several speakers, but before we do, you mentioned the phrase "impacted jurisdictions." How many impacted jurisdictions are there that were polled or cast for or against?

MR. LOPEZ: There were two tiers of notification actually: the cities that the route would actually go through; and then we also notified any community within a 25-mile radius of any point on the route for at least notification for them to concur. There were seven jurisdictions that had through designation; we were able to get concurrence from six of them, one did not concur.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

As I mentioned, we have several speakers on this agenda item. David Seyfarth is the mayor of Castle Hills. Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR SEYFARTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to object to the proposed plan. If you'll look at the map, you'll see where IH 410 divides the city of Castle Hills in half, and on either side of 410, both eastbound and westbound, we have numerous residential homes, we have two mega churches and one elementary school with a population of over 500 children from the ages of 5 to 11. These all abut the access roads.

I just feel that there's got to be another way that they reroute this traffic especially with the ongoing construction on Loop 410. Over 200,000 vehicles traverse this area every day and that's just an accident waiting to happen. I would ask the commission to delay approving this plan until after the 410 construction is completed. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Councilman Place 1 of Castle Hills, Joseph Rodriguez.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commission members, Mr. Chairman. My name is Joe Rodriguez and I'm a council member for the City of Castle Hills.

I come before you today and request you oppose the hazardous materials route through Castle Hills. Our city is right in the middle of this proposed hazardous materials route; residents and school children will be affected; evacuation of school children and the elderly is a concern; my residence is within a stone's throw of Loop 410 and I have three young children. This issue concerns our residents greatly.

Please do not waver on this issue. All options for this proposed route have not been exhausted. I assisted in presenting many residents' signatures opposing the hazardous materials route through Castle Hills; I personally assisted in obtaining signatures and the response from the residents has been overwhelmingly against the HAZMAT route through Castle Hills.

I ask again, commission members, to oppose the hazardous materials route through Castle Hills. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Bob Anderson from Castle Hills.

MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to hand you some materials here first. The one item on the left there that you've got are a series of letters between myself and TxDOT personnel and the attorney general about access to records regarding this report. I'm not going to speak on that because I don't want to spend my time on it; one of our other residents, Bob Weddington, president of the homeowners association, is going to talk about that because he had quite a bit of discussions with the attorney general's office, with Carlos Lopez, the director of Traffic Operations, and others.

I would like to refer briefly. There are three articles that came from the Express News here, and I think it's interesting that the information that was contained in these three articles is not in the report before you. All the information was obtained from the highway department for these articles.

First of all, there is an article called "Traffic Hot Spots" which deals with the number of accidents during the year 1999, the latest year for which statistics were available, and that's this one here, and you'll notice the cluster of accidents right there at Castle Hills. By the way, Castle Hills is a community, if you can envision a baseball diamond and you could envision a line drawn between first base, the pitcher's mound and third base, that would be the 410 bisecting the community.

Over 70 percent of the homes, residential homes in Castle Hills are within the minimum evacuation distance in the case of a hazardous materials spill; over 70 percent of the homes would have to be evacuated within one-half mile. One of the reasons why there's such a protest from Castle Hills and not from other communities is that no other community is exposed to the extent that our community is.

In addition to the 4,200 residents in our community, there are 8,500 school-age kids from K through 13 who would be in the evacuation area in the case of a spill. We are just like a downtown -- that is in the case of a downtown spill in San Antonio, we would match the kind of evacuation that would have to be made.

Now, this 1999 article -- which everybody in Castle Hills has seen, a lot of people in San Antonio have seen -- shows this cluster the highest-rated number of accidents. All of them out of the eleven top spots, five of them cluster right there where Castle Hills is located.

To give you a better perspective on that, there is another article -- this is dated June 3, 2001, a more recent article -- and it shows the places where the largest number of accidents have occurred over the last four years. Again, none of this information is in front of you in the report that you have. You have statistics -- and I'm reminded of Mark Twain's famous remark about statistics: "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians" -- the statistics talk about accident rates, and of course, that is a fact, it's partially scientific, but that has to be combined with density or volume of traffic; it also has to be looked at in terms of the data that makes up the statistic.

In the case of Castle Hills, I've handed you some additional raw data -- instead of statistical data, raw data. These are the accidents that occurred on the 410 main lanes -- not on the access roads -- on the 1.3 miles of 410 that passes through Castle Hills for the last four years, all the accidents that have occurred, the dates of those accidents, and also January and February of this year.

This is the raw data, not the statistics; it is impressive to see how many actual accidents are occurring on that roadway, that three-lane roadway -- which, by the way, there is an additional article -- I only handed you three articles from the Express News -- which shows average daily traffic volumes at different locations in the city. The highest is the one that passes through Castle Hills: 209,000 vehicles daily.

I think it's extremely important for you to take a look at data, to look at information. And by the way, the information has been arranged in a way to support the argument of the proponents. Of course they would do that; they want to look good, they don't want to look bad, but they haven't given you information that is critical to your making a decision about how risky and how dangerous this decision would be to the 4,200 residents and 8,500 school children in the city of Castle Hills.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I can't let that statement go unchallenged. I appreciate this man is a citizen of the state and a taxpayer and I want to sit and listen to everything he has to say, but, sir, you need to count your statements in terms of it's my opinion that.

MR. ANDERSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I can't just let you say the things that you've said.

MR. ANDERSON: I have a bias, sir, I will admit to having a bias, I come here with a bias, I make no bones about my bias. I don't come here representing the fire department in San Antonio or the city council in San Antonio, or any of the other communities; I come here representing people, 1,400 of whom signed a petition opposing this route through their backyard.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm very sensitive to that. All I'm saying is I've got a letter here -- I won't read it into the record but it's very offensive to me, and you made a statement that's an opinion and not a fact, and I just wish for our record if you would just say "It's my opinion."

MR. ANDERSON: It is my opinion, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate that; that's all I ask, and I would ask that of anyone.

MR. ANDERSON: And the letter you have there is probably the letter to Carlos Lopez who, by the way -- and again, I've sat here all day and listened to all the praise that's been heaped on the Department of Transportation and on the commissioners here, and perhaps that praise is well deserved, but occasionally the department and others do things which don't deserve praise. I don't believe I should come here praising someone who has refused to give me information that I made a written Texas Open Records request for on March 13 of this year and for which there's an attorney general's opinion attached which says that the document, when completed, is not exempted from Open Records Act disclosure.

The letter that I wrote -- as Carlos Lopez himself called it, a "nasty-gram", and you have a copy of it there, sir -- was a letter that I faxed to him the day that they finally allowed us, on Tuesday of this week, to take a look at the report that's before you today. I requested this information, all or part of it, on the 13th of March; I was able to finally look at it on Tuesday of this week.

I don't believe that there's anything contained in this report or in the progress of this report through the various state agencies, the public safety or the other departments of TxDOT, that prohibited us, we citizens, from looking at what was going on, yet we were denied that. It's a matter of record.

And you may take offense at what happened. You can read the letters there from the attorney general, you can read the letters from Ms. Mullinex the attorney, the associate counsel, from TxDOT to me -- it's all there, I gave it to you all if you'd like to read it -- and I would say that there has been a breach of the responsibility of the state agency doing highways to provide public information.

This report is replete with sign-up sheets, records of meetings where there has been all kinds of public input, yet when I simply made a request in March, that request was not granted until two days ago.

As I said, I didn't want to come here and talk about that; I prefer to talk about the public safety issues. These, which you do not have in your packet, in my opinion are important because this is the information the public is getting in the newspaper. The public is not going to get the two three-ring binders full of statistics, maps and so forth that's being put out by TxDOT, that's just simply impossible, but they are getting this information. And by the way, newspapers do dumb it down, they do bring the information to a level where the average citizen can understand what's going on, and the average citizen in our area looks at this, sees that the most dangerous area for hazardous materials -- or for that matter, for driving -- is right adjacent to our community.

And I only want to say in completion of my remarks here that this whole thing is bad enough but it is compounded by the construction that has just started in April of this year which will be going on to widen the 410 through the Castle Hills area. This is going to cause tremendous increase in the potential for a disaster occurring in our community.

And I understand that perhaps if it occurred in San Antonio it would be disaster, but it wouldn't be 50 percent of that community. People are people, every life is as valuable as any other life, but we have to look at this in a proportionate way. We're a small community, we don't have state senators and representatives and judges and people praising free trade coming up here representing us, we're just ordinary people who live in a community and our lives are as valuable to us as free trade, as access and commercial development of the 281 corridor, or any of the other issues that have come before this commission today.

And we would beg your indulgence. If I've been opinionated, if I've been biased, I admit to those opinions and I admit to those biases, and I don't and I never have had to apologize for being interested in the self-interest and the community interest of the community in which I live. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Lesley Wenger. I hope I have not tortured your name too much.

MS. WENGER: Thank you very much, commissioners. Again, while I'm not a fan as so many speakers here today have been of TxDOT, I am a big fan of the Texas Constitution, and I find in reading it that the Texas Constitution surpasses the United States Constitution in some sections regarding the rights granted to citizens to petition and criticize their government. So I hope you will appreciate that I'm taking the opportunity to avail myself of those rights today.

I was interested, having been here the whole morning, to hear that you're concerned, Mr. Commissioner Williamson, about hazardous materials going through the I-35 in the Waco area. It has already has been stated, as you heard, that there are some problems in the San Antonio area; we, of course, in Castle Hills feel that there's more than some problems.

I was asked by a member of the press here today why it was only Castle Hills that was objecting. Perhaps that's because we are a city and we have a lot of organized citizens and because the politics in San Antonio have pretty much shut a lot of the citizens who are in fact opposed to it out and they don't feel that they have anywhere to go.

But this hazardous materials route doesn't just affect Castle Hills, as the people in TxDOT have tended to say on television. We are not the people who create the traffic nor the accidents because there are only 4,200 of us and obviously we're not the ones that are packing the freeway.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That makes sense.

MS. WENGER: This route goes by the San Antonio airport, it goes by North Star Mall. Castle Hills today is the center of San Antonio; it is no longer the downtown, we are the center, whether we like it or not.

What particularly concerned me was that we have been meeting and discussing this with lots of people for some time and last year we had a meeting with our excellent representative Frank Cort in his office, John Kelly who is the chief engineer, as you know, from TxDOT was there, and actually we were meeting on another subject but the question of what was happening with the HAZMAT report came up because we'd been asking for it for some time.

At that time, Mr. Kelly said that the trucks -- he agreed that with all the construction -- nobody knows what the situation on the 410 is going to be once the construction is completed and the highway is widened; perhaps it will be safer then, but we don't know that, and that's at least six years off. Mr. Kelly said, It's true the trucks should probably use an alternate route during the construction phase. Well, if you designate this route now, then all the trucks using any other route will be cited, and I think that's something that you need to consider because they don't have a choice. So not only are you playing with people's lives, but now you're going to go and people who are empowered to do that are going to start citing truckers who have no other choice.

So I think you need to consider all of these things. There's some very serious issues here: people's lives, people's health is at stake. When we made our presentations, we had a great many citizens because we had more time -- as we didn't have this time -- came down to the Alamodome to testify, and we have amongst the homes there, we have within 200 yards -- or feet, I think it is -- of the 410 an apartment building that houses elderly people with 300 residents and nobody has any idea how they would evacuate those people in the event of a spill.

I was on the 10 freeway the day that the spill occurred at the Fine Silver curve and we were a mile away and my eyes were burning for a full week afterward, I had respiratory problems for something like a month afterward. I just hate to think what would happen to children and elderly people who would be a lot closer, and as Mr. Anderson pointed out, we have so many residents, 70 percent of our residents would be at risk.

So I really hope you will consider all of this in your decision today. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Bob Weddington, president of the homeowners’ association of Castle Hills.

MR. WEDDINGTON: Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to an issue which I believe to be one of the most serious mistakes this commission could make if it approves the HAZMAT route on Loop 410 in Bexar County.

You know, life is a precious item and I took note of item 3 where you extended sympathy to one of the families of one of your own, and I join in that sentiment.

I live one block away from Loop 410 but I'm not concerned about myself, my main concern is what has been referred to previously of the 8,500 students that are within a one-mile radius of this short segment of Loop 410 that passes through Castle Hills. My even more concern is the 500 students plus their faculty that are right on the access of Loop 410 and Honeysuckle Lane, Castle Hills Elementary School.

Gentlemen, this is a serious issue here that we're dealing with, and it's an issue that should be decided on the basis of safety of the public and not on political pressure, and when I say political pressure, I'm saying the City of San Antonio versus the City of Castle Hills.

Someone, very eloquently, early on in the presentation said that when politics gets involved, logic goes out the window. I believe that an alternate route should be considered until such time that the current construction on Loop 410 is complete, and hopefully the high accident rate will be reduced. I strongly urge that you consider the most valuable and precious asset the state of Texas has, our children and grandchildren and that you will disapprove this route through Loop 410 and Bexar County. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Marcy Meffert, mayor of Leon Valley.

MAYOR MEFFERT: Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. I'm Marcy Meffert and I'm the mayor of Leon Valley and also last year I was the chairman of the Greater Bexar County Council of Cities which is a group of 22 suburban cities along with San Antonio.

I'm here with our Leon Valley fire chief Walton Daugherty, and our assistant fire chief Doug Meckel, to support the Bexar County plan for hazardous materials transport. For the record, Leon Valley also has Loop 410, the hazardous materials route, going through it, and it also has a local-delivery-only route which is State Highway 16, so we are affected by the decision that you make. Also, our city council has passed a resolution supporting this plan, just like almost all of the other city councils in the Bexar County Council of Cities.

We participated in the original analysis of the route and the plans that were organized by Chief Worley of the San Antonio Fire Department from the beginning, and we felt that our input and our suggestions were honored and adopted. So Leon Valley feels that while this proposal may not be the ideal or a perfect plan, it is the plan that we have. It complies with federal and state rules and regulations and it allows commerce to proceed.

What we would like you to do and would want to encourage you to do is to fund better HAZMAT traps on all roadways, especially those which are over the Edwards Aquifer, and to do more funding of more investigative research that would encourage new technology that would better protect our citizens and the aquifer. We also hope that TxDOT will fund and encourage training for our HAZMAT teams who have mutual aid agreements with the City of San Antonio and all the other suburban cities around.

We also urge prompt approval of this plan so that the signs and the safeguards can be installed and that local governments can pass the enforcement ordinances that we need so that we can better protect our citizens and the Edwards Aquifer.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk in support of the Bexar County plan. As I said, it may not be ideal, it may not be perfect, but it is the plan that we have and it does enable us to start protecting our citizens and the aquifer. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Carl Mixson.

MR. MIXSON: Good afternoon. My name is Carl Mixson and I've served as the Bexar County fire marshal and emergency management coordinator since 1984. In that capacity, I have been on-scene coordinator on several transportational HAZMAT incidents. I've also served as chairman of the Bexar County Local Emergency Planning Committee which deals specifically with hazardous materials.

The local emergency planning committee of Bexar County represents all of Bexar County, including all of the cities within Bexar County. The local emergency planning committee has been a forum for evaluating this proposed hazardous materials routing plan and has been doing this for a number of years.

The proposed route represents a comprehensive and a collaborative effort. Bexar County Commissioners Court passed a resolution supporting this proposed route. It is fair to the citizens in Bexar County and it is fair to commerce.

Bexar County Local Emergency Planning Committee members support this proposed plan and I urge that you pass this plan. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Could I ask you a question? Were you part of the procedure or involved in the procedure for the selection and recommendation of this route for HAZMAT routing?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: My question is what other potential routes were considered and what advantages or strengths did the 410 solution have or what disadvantages did it not have that affected the choice to recommend it as opposed to the alternatives that were considered?

MR. MIXSON: One of the things we looked at was the Highway 1604 route where it actually goes over the recharge zone, and you can see it's in the blue area there on your map. That's the other logical area; however, the problem with that is it does go over a recharge zone where the hazardous materials would have direct access into the Edwards Aquifer.

MR. JOHNSON: Is the Edwards Aquifer the local water supply?

MR. MIXSON: Yes. It is the only local water supply. Now, the other thing, though, is when we had public hearings on this, we had a lot of concerned citizens speaking against any kind of transportation of hazardous materials over the recharge zone, and so that's one of the primary reasons we wanted to make sure we stayed away from that to protect that water source.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you feel like the process and evolution of a proposal was a very open process and fairly conducted?

MR. MIXSON: Yes. It's been on our agenda for the local emergency-planning committee probably for the last six or so years. Chief Steve Worley has availed himself to speak to any and every group; we've had open forums to discuss this plan over the years, and it's been a process where inputs have been received and then modifications, where warranted, were made in the proposed plan. So it's been very open; it's been a process that is amenable to those that have vested interests.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Could you give me one or two or three examples of what's a hazardous material as defined in the Act?

MR. MIXSON: Something such as anhydrous ammonia, propane.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Whoa. I'm going to write these down because I'm going to ask somebody else some questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Efficacious.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Propane?

MR. MIXSON: Propane.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What else?

MR. MIXSON: Gasoline and even diesel fuel.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What else?

MR. MIXSON: Now I'm running out of --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Radioactive material?

MR. MIXSON: This is a non-radioactive hazardous materials plan, so therefore, it's not included in that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Class 3 wastes, any kind of biomedical wastes?

MR. MIXSON: You're going to have those type, yes. Anything that technically is going to be placarded, if you will, with a hazardous materials placard would be considered a hazardous material.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So biomedical wastes from the U.T. San Antonio Medical School?

MR. MIXSON: Could be, yes, depending on what they're carrying. But also, Wal-Mart would have hazardous materials with the gasoline.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What about material from any military installation in the San Antonio area, other than radioactive?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Bombs, explosives?

MR. MIXSON: Well, any type of explosive, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now going back to Mr. Nichols' questions, the opponents of the proposal seem to suggest that there are alternatives. I heard Mr. Nichols ask you or I heard the Chairman ask you if you had considered the alternatives. Looking at the map, if I understand where the city of Castle Hills is, there seems to be no alternative to using at least part of 410. How would one route around Castle Hills? I'm not familiar with the city of San Antonio.

MR. MIXSON: They would actually have to use a surface street to go around the city.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have a pointer, something I can point with?

MR. LOPEZ: I don't have anything long; I can show you on the map.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, go up there to Castle Hills. Is that Castle Hills?

MR. LOPEZ: That's Castle Hills right there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. What's that road to the right of it that goes down? What's that right there?

MR. LOPEZ: There's 281 that goes right through it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I feel powerful now.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's 281?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you could come down 281 and then I guess you could go out this way and you'd be going around Castle Hills. Is that correct?

MR. LOPEZ: You'd have to go through the downtown Y to make that maneuver, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, is that the only other way to get around Castle Hills?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. ANDERSON: There's another way; it's right on the map.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There's a witness that's at the dais.

MR. ANDERSON: If you don't want to hear it, that’s fine.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sir, we have a procedure; we have to follow the procedure.

MR. ANDERSON: They're not going to tell you what the other route is.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Anderson, I'll ask you in a moment.

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.

MR. MIXSON: The only route that was a usable route in our evaluation that we looked at and were able to consider as far as the rules, the federal rules as well as the need for transporting through traffic, was 410 was well as the 1604. I apologize if I'm omitting a highway; I'm not aware of what former Mayor Anderson is referring to.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you repeat that?

MR. MIXSON: The 410, which is the one that's proposed, as well as the 1604 one that goes over the recharge zone, those are the two that we looked at for through transportation of hazardous materials. Now, understanding that this does not prohibit the local delivery of hazardous materials, only the through transportation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Going back to my questions -- and there may be another witness in the audience that wants to come up and tell us about a different alternative -- but it seems to me that one way to get around there is this way. To your knowledge, are there any schools located adjacent to those routes?

MR. MIXSON: I don't feel comfortable to speak on that; perhaps former Mayor Anderson would be better prepared to speak on that. To be quite direct, this entire route goes by schools. We've worked with school districts. When you take 410 in its entirety -- that's why I say it's fair to the citizens because it is -- you know, we only have a certain amount of limiting that we can do on where hazardous materials goes across our county.

It would be easy for us to say we'd rather they just stop at the borders of Bexar County and go around Bexar County and leave our community alone, but they have to do commerce, they have to be able to do that, and so in reviewing the options for commerce as well as the rules that allow local communities to regulate where they travel, this is the fairest route and taking into consideration --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't mean to interrupt you, I don't want a repeat of the testimony, I just have a couple of specific questions. One of my question was what is hazardous materials, is it still what I thought it was six years ago when I was in the legislature. And my second question was specifically is the route I asked you about -- I'm most concerned about this business about schools and kids, I'm more concerned about it probably than anything else -- the question I asked you was to your knowledge would that route go by schools and you don't know. Perhaps someone can.

MR. MIXSON: Yes, and I'm not real sure on what route you're referring to, sir, and I apologize.

MR. LOPEZ: [Inaudible] 35 [inaudible] I-10.

MR. MIXSON: And the problem you run into, that is one of the areas we looked at for prohibiting downtown transportation of hazardous materials because of the elevated decks of the expressways there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But you can't answer the question about whether or not 281 and then back out --

MR. MIXSON: Well, there's hospitals there, sir, there's schools, there are jails.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there are children on that route.

MR. MIXSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one other question for you and then I'll yield until we have a chance to ask somebody else something. Is it the case now, to your knowledge, that trucks that carry all of these commodities that you listed for me are trucks that are operating on 410 now that do that?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are they also operating on 281?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are they operating on all the other highway routes in San Antonio?

MR. MIXSON: Yes, sir, they are.

MR. JOHNSON: Including 1604?

MR. MIXSON: Including 1604.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And so with the adoption of any HAZMAT plan, whether it's this plan or another one, the effect of that will be to force HAZMAT into a known corridor except for one-way delivery. Is that the case?

MR. MIXSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In other words, by adopting some HAZMAT route, whatever it is, we are, in effect, removing most HAZMAT transport across 1604, as an example.

MR. MIXSON: That's true, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or down 281.

MR. MIXSON: Yes. The only prohibited area will be the red area which is the elevated highways downtown.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I'm through, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I wanted to let Mr. Anderson respond on the issue of an alternative.

MR. ANDERSON: The alternative we've discussed is eliminating North Loop 410 from the route until the construction is completed. We haven't even said remove it completely forever and ever; we said when all the construction is going on. That would mean the trucks coming down to 35 would continue down to 35 to Highway 90 or would go south. Do you see Highway 90 that cuts right across? That's the highway that comes in from -- see where it says 10 coming in from the east? Okay, that's Highway 90. If you go to the east, Highway 90 turns to 10; that goes to Houston. And then the 35 comes down from the north down to that point. Now go west on 90 -- go a little bit further -- right, on 90; go over to the 410, up to the 10.

We're talking not about eliminating North Loop 410 for hazardous materials for through traffic but to detour while the construction is going on, and that has been the thing that we have been trying to say over and over again is to detour the traffic for the time certain when that construction is going on.

The other thing that's most important and hasn't been discussed here is that hazardous material includes a class of chemicals that are used in industry, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid was the occasion of the spill down on the Fine Silver curve. You had the hydrochloric acid spilled here in Austin. These are the kinds of chemicals that cause real serious problems to people.

Now, on the issue of school children, if you'll come down the 35 on the east side all the way down coming from Austin all the way down to Highway 90, there are no schools there; that's industrial, those are industrial buildings that go back almost a mile from the roadway. Now, on Highway 90, I don't know if there are any schools; I haven't been on Highway 90. On the west side of the 410, that has a huge buffer of commercial buildings and malls going back, extending back a quarter of a mile to three-eighths of a mile in all directions, and there are no schools along that section of the roadway.

The schools are on the North Loop 410 section; that's where the schools are; that's where the airport is. What we're simply asking is delay designating that section between the 10 and the 35 on North Loop 410 as a through route for hazardous materials until the construction is complete, that's all we're asking.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have a question?

MR. NICHOLS: You have more people?

MR. JOHNSON: The next speaker is Gabriel Perez, Bexar County director of public works.

MR. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen, for allowing us an opportunity to speak.

If you'd like I'd add some more information to the gentleman who just spoke about the presence of schools along 90 and 410. I'm aware that there are more schools than were conveyed in the area we just discussed, but I'll let you ask that question if you'd like.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you just say there are a number of schools on that?

MR. PEREZ: Yes, sir, probably 20. In this area right here along 410, there are schools that front along the frontage road here at this location. Along the Highway 90 corridor that we spoke about a minute, as you come down 35, there are some schools in this area here which include elementary schools as well as a high school at this location, Burbank High School. When you get down 410 in this area, there are middle schools along this area, Pat Neff Middle School which is part of the North Side Independent School District exists there. And those are the ones that come to my mind at this moment, but there are schools in the area.

Basically, the only comment that I agreed with is along 35 there is an industrial corridor so you don't have a lot of schools with the exception that there are schools along the other I-10/90/410 corridors that were just addressed a minute ago.

Anyway, now I'll get to my comments. As indicated, I'm Gabriel Perez; I'm the executive director of Infrastructure Services for Bexar County and I'm here today representing the Bexar County Commissioners Court at their request.

Not only as the governing body for the unincorporated area, but also as a partner with the several groups who this effort was coordinated with, as Mr. Lopez indicated, there are some 54 cities within the area, both within Bexar County and outside of Bexar County who this effort was coordinated with through a series of meetings and conversations and exchange of information.

Together with a large majority of these groups, as well as a major partner in the city of San Antonio, obviously the program was to seek support and approval on a HAZMAT route before you today. My comments today are intended to address the key positive points for this plan for the area-wide partnership and agreement that has been fostered among the groups as well as some of the people who have spoken today.

The plan as presented, the commissioners court feels that it's been developed considering key factors to include protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the area, to improve the quality of life by designating identified routes, assigning them, and focusing our efforts of our HAZMAT responses in those areas, protecting environment and critical resources of the areas -- as it was explained, on 1604 the only water source for the city of San Antonio being the Edwards Aquifer -- and utilizing the current infrastructure in place, the major routing that's in place to provide for designated routes.

The goals and points, as outlined, focus on achieving an optimal HAZMAT route plan with the support of many of the affected entities and citizens, as many as possible that have agreed to it. As I said a minute ago, the recognition of these routes allows for the focus of resources -- as was explained by Mr. Mixson who is the fire marshal of Bexar County -- to focus the resources for incident responses.

Through a series of public meetings for input and based on the information gathered, Bexar County Commissioners Court are in agreement that this plan represents and achieves these goals for the overall community and provides their unanimous support for the plan being considered today.

I'd like to take a quick moment to read the Bexar County Commissioners Court resolution that was passed that basically provides for this support.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What was the vote?

MR. PEREZ: It was unanimous, five votes.

"State of Texas, County of Bexar, Resolution Supporting the Proposed Non-radioactive Hazardous Materials Route Affecting Bexar County.

"Now, therefore, be resolved by the Commissioners Court of Bexar County that the County of Bexar supports and urges the Texas Department of Transportation to approve a proposed non-radioactive hazardous materials route affecting the county, thereafter enabling local adoption and enforcement of the route by order to preserve and protect the health, safety and property of the residents of Bexar County, a copy of which proposed route in its present format is attached as Exhibit A.

"Passed and approved the 15th day of February 2000 by: Cyndi Taylor Krier, Bexar County Judge; Robert Tejeda, Commissioner Precinct 1; Paul Elizondo, Commissioner Precinct 2; Lyle Larson, Commissioner Precinct 3; and Tommy Adkisson, Commissioner Precinct 4. All voted unanimously in favor of supporting this route."

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this board. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

MR. JOHNSON: Ed Fanick.

MR. FANICK: Texas Highway Commissioners, fellow taxpayers, my name is Ed Fanick. I am the Bexar County Local Emergency Planning Commission Hazardous Routing chairman. I am an environmentalist; I'm not an extremist. We must find ways to live with, direct, supervise hazardous materials before they can become a problem in our lives.

The San Antonio HAZMAT route has been in the works since the 1980s. Every time the route has proceeded and been approved, the goal posts were moved -- that is, the rules were changed and required revision to meet new regulations. Finally the route you are asked to approve has met all the federal, state, and local requirements. We ask this route be approved.

We understand a group of concerned citizens oppose the route. We live in a very complex society; we all want the good life; along with this good life comes hazardous products. Our opponents can say I'm insensitive to their concerns; yet I became involved and I'm spending my personal retirement money to make a difference.

I'd like to use the community I live in as an example of our complex society that surrounds the so-called good life. In 1990 we woke up with a fuel storage distribution plant being built within 1,500 feet of a minority school. This is the map and the school is right over here. We have a coke refinery, we have Exxon, Texaco, Valero, Old Gulf fuel plants and the transportation is all around us. Our leaders did not even give us the courtesy of notifying us that this plant was to be built. Oh, yes, we complained, but the plant was approved and built by all the current regulations; we're living with this plant today. The Texas Observer printed our story.

Does this mean the opponents of the hazardous route would stop buying gasoline for their automobiles to support opposition to this plant because it was not in their community or did not affect their property? I wonder. Then I looked to the new high school built immediately adjacent to and downhill from a large water tower. You say a water tower is a hazard? Under critical scenario, what do you do to purify water? Chlorine gas. Gentlemen, this water tower is up here, the fire department is there, the municipal building is there, and the new school is right there.

Has this been researched for the safety of the children? Surely they would not stop drinking water from this tower. Our HAZMAT route is like the acronym BANANAS, build or bus absolutely nothing anywhere near any one site.

The San Antonio HAZMAT route is a well thought-out and prepared document by the San Antonio Fire Department. It was researched and the route planned using the existing highways and trying to direct traffic through our city. Is it better to have no route and allow the truckers to use the state, federal, and local highways at the truckers' discretion, or is it better to direct this traffic on known and supervised routes?

Commissioners, NAFTA trucks are coming, beware, let's prepare, and provide them a supervised route. This is not an easy decision before you today. Without the route, it's just another sad case of BANANAS. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Steven Worley, deputy fire chief, City of San Antonio.

CHIEF WORLEY: Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Williamson. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

First of all, my name is Steven T. Worley, deputy fire chief, San Antonio Fire Department, representing the City of San Antonio. Fire Chief Robert Ojeda sends his regrets that he couldn't be here today; he had to make a master plan presentation to our city council today.

Jurisdictions representing over 99 percent of the population of Bexar County have given their formal approval for this plan; jurisdictions representing over 99 percent of the through traffic route have given their approval for the plan; and the City of San Antonio urges you to approve the plan today.

This plan was developed with extensive public input that guided the creation of the goals and objectives. Part of the goals and objectives was to try to eliminate the threat of the use of HAZMAT traffic using the elevated lanes and the lanes underneath the elevated lanes in and near the downtown area. Since those became the community's goals and objectives, then we had to look at what routes would meet the city's goals and objectives.

There's been discussion about what alternative routes were considered. The Highway 90 coming across San Antonio was considered as an east-west or an east-northwest alternative or as a southeast-northwest alternative, northeast-southwest alternative; all of that was built in. It happens that the risk using the Highway 90 option is so much higher than what the current route is that you can't use it.

The federal regulations require that an alternate route must be significantly safer than the current route or else you can't use it; if the current route is the same or more risk, then you have to stick with the current route. Industry tells us that Loop 410 is the current route. All of this information is in the books that have been provided to you.

Another alternative route that was considered was Loop 1604. 1604 from the northeast corner near Randolph Air Force Base, south across the bottom and up the west side to Bandera Road is a two-lane rural road. It's inappropriate to take highly hazardous materials and pass those trucks across, take them off interstate freeways and put them across two-lane rural roads where you have stop signs, you don't have the emergency response capabilities that you have in the city of San Antonio. It would be highly inappropriate for the City of San Antonio to try to push its HAZMAT traffic into these areas.

Loop 410 is an interstate highway and it is appropriate to bring the traffic in from the major highways and have them loop around in whatever direction they need to go. The hydrofluoric acid spill that occurred in Junction a while back, the truck came from Houston, hit I-10, went south and west and north across the southern part of San Antonio. Those trucks, those tank vehicles that carry the very nasty hazardous materials, such as the hydrofluoric acid, avoid North Loop 410, but if you have a Yellow Freight truck that's got one box of something in their 18-wheeler of furniture and whatever else they might have and they're required to be placarded and they're going from Comal County to Kerrville, they would have to use 410.

North Loop 410 may be appropriate for that use, and to try to send them south on 410, either across 90 or south around the whole loop of 410, would be such an extreme increase in the risk to population and an increase in mileage that it wouldn't meet the federal guidelines.

When a question comes up about the amount of through traffic that traverses Loop 410, the through HAZMAT traffic -- that's what the green part on the map is about -- we don't really know. We'd have to stop every truck and ask them, Where are you going, Where are you coming from, to determine what is the amount of traffic that comes through. Research has identified that Loop 410 is indeed the current route, and that's the entire loop. To use any other alternative would require that alternative, as I said earlier, to be significantly safer.

By having this plan, if there are any vehicles that are using Loop 1604 -- let's say they're coming from Medina County in the west, coming in 90, taking 410 north to 281, going to Blanco County -- that truck today may be using 1604 and what he's doing is exposing our Edwards Aquifer recharge zone where there's sinkholes near the highway that if the hazardous material were to spill into it could go directly into our water supply. It wouldn't have to sift through hundreds of feet of material; you're talking a pipeline to our water supply.

So it's possible that some of those trucks would then go to 90 and have to go either left or right when they hit 410 and they may traverse areas that they don't currently traverse, but in my opinion, from talking to the people in the industry, 1604 is not a highly used route for through traffic, it's primarily used for local delivery.

The pictures I handed out to you, I wanted to give you an idea of what happens when -- much damage there is when a fuel tanker carrying 8-, 9,000 gallons of gasoline or diesel is hit by a school bus. This happened in Natalia in February. In the picture in slide 2 you can see where the rollers are working, and that's where the truck was backing up into the driveway; the tanks were off to the left of that picture, and that truck was going to unload all this fuel and was hit by a bus broadside. Note the plastic dripping from the sign above the gas prices and then the plastic dripping from the overhead over the gas pumps.

On the next slide it shows that where the accident occurred, where the highway is being restored, it shows that 150 feet away is the front door of that store, and you can see that plastic dripping. Fifty feet away from that site, looking to where the tanks are, you see that there's signs that are hanging down and those signs were partially melted.

The view to the east is the way the wind was blowing and you can see an arrow pointing to a trailer and there's a plastic skirting underneath it. Then the next slide is a close-up of that showing that 164 feet away and 196 feet away the plastic skirting was melted. And the house to the left of that, the blinds were warped and the side window of the red car next to that window was damaged, and that was 150 feet away.

And this is from the worst possible case, a T-bone, a bus into a tanker, you know, whereas on a highway situation you more typically have a rollover and not a horrific incident like this.

On the elevated lanes we have that truck go over the side. That would be even worse, I think, than the T-bone, and it's very possible it would fall right on a house; the houses are that close to the freeway. And there are schools extremely close to the freeway in that area and areas all over San Antonio.

Earlier there was mention that the half-mile impact distance which is a radius around the route that was evaluated for the population exposure, that was the impact distance required by the law, it is not an evacuation distance. Evacuation areas are determined by the product that's spilled, the amount that's spilled, the wind direction, the terrain.

I've addressed at a number of hearings the issue about the clusters of vehicle accidents and there's been news articles about it. The research that I've done from those people who have supplied that information for the articles, they tell me that those were at intersections, it could be at Loop 410 and San Pedro, but on San Pedro; it could be the entrance ramp, it could be the exit ramp, it's not main-lane accidents.

And any analysis that's done regarding accident rates has to be done for the entire analysis area this same way. What we did was we used the guidelines that were allowed to be used by the federal regulations.

And as far as the alternate route, if someone coming in IH-35 to the south wanted to avoid going North Loop 410 because of construction, you can just take North Loop 410 all the way around and go out the other way. You know, he doesn't have to go across North Loop 410 if what they're carrying they feel they don't want to get involved in a construction area. They won't be cited for that, that would be an approved route.

As far as evacuation issues, when we had our hydrochloric acid spill on December 8 and 9, 1999, we evacuated 7,000 students alone, in addition to numerous thousands of other people in that area, and there was a school just on the inside south of IH-35 right there by the accident, Fox Tech High School. The downtown area was immediately south of that; Baptist Memorial Hospital has a facility that is right up against the highway; we have other hospitals and jails in that immediate area. Those facilities required defend-in-place, not evacuation.

It's our opinion that we don't want to have these hazardous materials in areas where you could have a catastrophic over-the-rail incident right next to a hospital, not far from a jail, and have a situation where it may be even impossible to defend people in place.

Anyway, I urge your approval. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Daniel Whealan, councilman, Universal City.

MR. WHEALAN: Good afternoon. I'm Daniel Whealan. When my people got off the boat, they knew how to spell their name, and we pronounce it Waylon, like Waylon Jennings, only I don't sing well.

I'd like to talk this morning just briefly to the fact that in addition to being a councilman in Universal City, I'm also on the TML board of directors for Region 7, so I would speak for some of the other cities in our area which they asked me to do today, and that would be the ones like Cibolo, Schertz, Garden Ridge, Live Oak, Universal City, this sort of thing.

We have all participated in this plan, and our fire chief, for example, in our city wants to assure you that he would approve the plan as it exists and as the routes go. We would also point out that we, too, are split. Universal City is split by Texas 218 which is Pat Booker Road which leads right into Randolph Air Force Base, so we also get the hazardous cargoes moving in and out; and we're also split by 1604 because that comes by and it comes by Randolph Air Force Base, gets some of the traffic there.

So we are not unique and we don't think that some of the other cities that think they are unique because the highways transverse them, we have the same thing, Selma has splits, so does Live Oak on Toepperwein. So all in all, we share the same concerns as the other towns and we think that having participated in the thing, this major plan that was made up by our major suburb San Antonio, we feel that we would recommend that you approve this plan. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have any comments? That's the last speaker.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the last of the speakers?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Ric's not here; he left at a good time, didn't he.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I had a couple of questions. The first one was to our district engineer, Mr. Kelly. On the construction going on in the Castle Hills area, I heard the terms "six years"; it's going to be under construction for six years in that area, or is it 410 in general?

MR. KELLY: Commissioner Nichols, I'll be happy to respond. My name is John Kelly; I'm the district engineer for San Antonio, for the record.

That particular contract is underway, just began in April, and I suspect that the particular construction contract right through Castle Hills will be completed in about three years, possibly less -- the contractor is moving pretty fast.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I guess now my questions are to Carlos. Get you back on the hot spot again. Having come up through municipal government myself -- particularly to the people of Castle Hills -- I don't like being put in a position where I have to make a decision on somebody's community, but that's the position that we are in. Obviously, you've got right now the worst of all possible cases, from what I can see. Your hazardous wastes can flow through that entire area in any route they want to; there is no restriction. Is that correct?

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And that is, in effect, what is occurring, although I would think most through traffic would flow through on the most convenient routes, but you've got the worst of all possible worlds at this current position, and it's always better when you can have a community or an area or region resolve these type issues amongst themselves. And I would say that I am firmly convinced that an effort has been made, first by the communities themselves and then by the state through some of your public hearings, and that with one exception there seems to be a great unanimous support from these entities for this proposed route.

No one likes hazardous wastes going through their backyard or their front yard or by their school, no one. It would be nice if -- someone spoke earlier, I don't know who it was, you would almost want to exempt it from the entire county but then it would be on the other county, and so on and so on, and that's just not the world we live in. The world we live in is today those materials can flow anywhere they want which is the worst situation that you've got.

The best situation that we can do today with what we've got is to restrict those routes for the hazardous materials to the ones that are more easily identifiable, that in the long run would be better controlled, and by isolating those at least to those routes, then the emergency management people can be better prepared to take care of those situations and minimize the potential for the hazardous spills over the aquifer -- which you're open to right now -- and in the downtown areas and many of these other areas.

And based on that, I'm going to move that we do accept the current proposed route designations for the non-radioactive hazardous materials.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, do you have any questions or comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, questions for Carlos. In your experience in this world, are there other counties in Texas that have hazardous materials designated routes?

MR. LOPEZ: Similar to this?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Which cities would those be: Houston?

MR. LOPEZ: Houston.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or Harris County, I guess.

MR. LOPEZ: Harris County. IH 610 is a HAZMAT route through the Houston area; IH 635 and parts of IH 20 on the south side of Dallas for Dallas County; and Interstate Highway 820 for Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do those routes pass by schools?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, and bisect towns and have high traffic.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So this isn't the only situation where that occurs?

MR. LOPEZ: This would not be unlike the other major cities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You've been listening the last few months to our discussions about State Highway 130; we've already approved 130 from, I guess, Seguin to Georgetown. If we were to approve, at some point in the future, an extension or an addition to 130 -- I'm not suggesting we're going to do that, but if we were -- that went around the south side, the far south side, and if we were to take to reality an idea that I've heard District Engineer Kelly speak about, perhaps taking 10 around the north side, what difficulty would the commission have in redesignating the HAZMAT route away from 410?

MR. LOPEZ: At that point the same kind of process that was followed to make this particular recommendation would be done then, and depending on how the highway system looked at that point in time, if that turned out to be a less risky route, then that would probably be the right thing to do at that particular point in time.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, is that process begun locally?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. All these processes are begun locally.

MR. JOHNSON: For a reconsideration of routing?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, that's exactly right, they're all begun at the local level. Again, as I mentioned before, the reason why we're dealing with this right now is because they could not get unanimous approval in this particular effort.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One other question, Carlos. Is hazardous material transported north and south on Interstate 35?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it does cross a portion of the aquifer now, hazardous material does cross a portion of the aquifer now?

MR. LOPEZ: On 35, if the aquifer does extend across 35, it would; I'm not sure if it extends.

MR. JOHNSON: I-10 West or 281 North.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So 10 West, either place. And any other route, as far as you know, the main objections would be urban density, and the thing I'm concerned about, school children.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other route proposed, according to the testimony, would bring this hazardous materials next to a school someplace.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. Virtually any route you choose in this area would have that type of risk involved. That would be one of the things that we'd look at in alternatives, but then there's also the part of the commerce and the economy of the folks using those routes. Continuity is a big thing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but that doesn't bother me. I understand, Carlos, but I'm not nearly as concerned as I am the urban density and the school children issue.

MR. LOPEZ: In all the analyses that we saw, the population risk and the places that it would be going by would have been just as great or greater than the route we're picking today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And right now all of this hazardous material that will be forced to a known area is traveling in some way across most highways in Bexar County.

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I reluctantly second, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have an observation, and it's more a process. I have great sympathy for the residents of Castle Hills and I understand perfectly the plight that they've been placed in. As Commissioner Nichols said, nobody wants to have part of their neighborhood be established as a hazardous materials route, but these things do have to happen. This process began locally, it was locally driven, local decision, and I find no reason that we should object to the determination that basically was locally provided. Therefore, I'll call for a vote. It's been moved and seconded, and all in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Commissioners, moving on, in agenda item number 10 we have one SIB loan for your consideration. I believe it's a final approval, and Thomas Doebner will present it.

MR. DOEBNER: My name is Thomas Doebner with the Finance Division. Before I get to agenda item 10, I'd like to answer a question that I believe Commissioner Johnson asked this morning to Margot Massey; you asked about the balance of the toll credits. The balance before action today was $136.4 million; we have used about $12 million for highways and about $5.2 million for transit prior to today.

MR. JOHNSON: And the balance is?

MR. DOEBNER: $136.4 million. And I believe another question was does that expire, and the answer is no. Once it's established with the federal government, we maintain it.

Back on agenda item number 10, this is a minute order for final approval of a SIB loan to the Town of Anthony for just under $400,000. After extensive negotiations, we have reached an agreement to recommend 4 percent over a term of 12 years with the first three years being a little bit lower payment than the last nine years. And the Finance Division, even though is outside of the boundary of our normal guidelines, this is an economically disadvantaged county, El Paso County, and we do recommend it.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Item number 11, Phillip Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Not many people left now. For the record, I am Phillip Russell, and good afternoon; I'm the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

The minute order before you deals with the environmental review process for State Highway 130. As you all know, State Highway 130 is the proposed highway which extends from I-35 in the State Highway 195 area north of Georgetown down to I-10 in the Seguin area. In May of 1998 the Transportation Commission requested the TTA to study and plan for the development of State Highway 130 as a proposed turnpike project. As part of the study and planning for State Highway 130, the authority has continued the environmental review process according to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Transportation Code, and the rules of the authority.

A public hearing was held on the night of February 10, 2000, to receive input on the draft environmental impact statement. After considering this public input, as well as other relevant information, the authority prepared a final environmental impact statement which was subsequently approved by the Federal Highway Administration on April 4 of this year. The Federal Highway Administration approved the final record of decision on the 5th of this month.

The Transportation Code, under Section 161.103, provides that the commission must approve each environmental review for a potential turnpike project prior to commencement of construction. This minute order approves the environmental review for State Highway 130 undertaken by the authority. Staff recommends approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I'd like to compliment you for the work that you've done and the efficacious handling of the environmental hearings and stuff like that. It really is, it's a big deal. I know this is a major undertaking and hat's off to you.

MR. RUSSELL: Thanks, Mr. Nichols. Obviously it goes without saying, it's not a one-man show; there's a cast of many that are really doing the heavy lifting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. HEALD: Contracts, Thomas Bohuslav.

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

Item 12(a)(1) is for the consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on June 5 and 6, 2001, whose engineers' estimate are $300,000 or more. We had five projects and staff recommends award of all the projects in the exhibit.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 12(a)(2) is for the consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on June 5 and 6, 2001, as shown on Exhibit A. We had 95 contracts; we have three projects we recommend for rejection.

The first project is in Dallas County, Job Number 3213. On that project we just had one bidder and they came in about 111 percent over the engineer's estimate. We might have been a little bit low on our estimate but not that much; we'd like to go back and relet it and try to solicit more competition for that project

The second project recommended for rejection is a project in Harrison County, Project Number 3215. We had four bidders on the project, the low bidder was $58,000 on an estimate of $128,000; they were a lot less than what our estimate was. The contractor did send us a letter telling us they made an error. Our normal process in this would be to go ahead and award the project; however, in this case, because the project is less than $100,000 there is no performance bond requirement, and therefore, the contractor could execute the contract and then escape any penalty in regard to bid guarantee. So therefore, to expedite reletting of the project, we recommend that we reject the project and go back and rebid it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Question.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, my understanding of what you just said, Thomas, is that the contract bid is less than $100,000.

MR. BOHUSLAV: The contract bid, that's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And because the bid is less than $100,000, the bidder can walk away from the contract suffering no penalty.

MR. BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But only because it's less than $100,000.

MR. BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And does the department have a policy regarding not doing business with people who walk away from their contracts?

MR. BOHUSLAV: If a contractor defaults from a contract, would we allow them to come back and rebid it?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, and let me reword the question.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We would not allow them to come back and rebid the project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That project, but we would let them bid on other projects.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, we would allow them to bid on others.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do other states allow contractors to submit bids and then back out and then continue to bid on other projects, or is there any uniformity in the country? I mean, I posed this question to you privately and I now pose it to you publicly for a reason, and that's to establish perhaps that we need to discuss this.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I can't speak to every state, but I do know that they do allow contractors, some states do allow contractors to come back and bid other work if they default on a project, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Executive Director, that makes no sense to me that we offer services and good payment from the state of Texas for products and services and a person is allowed to propose on that and then decide that the proposal is too cheap and can turn around and walk away without any kind of -- in the private sector, or at least in the oil and gas business -- I don't know about the other parts of the private sector -- if a man or a woman did that to you, you wouldn't use them again, period. If you would propose and then be accepted and then back away for no reason because it doesn't cost anything, you wouldn't be allowed to bid on any more projects.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I would enter that there's a difference between the bid guarantee and the performance bond requirements in other states, so I can't exactly compare what we do here to other states.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, and I am not being critical -- I want to be clear I'm not being critical of you or the department -- I'm probably being critical of the commission, if nothing else, because we're the ones who make the rules -- it just seems illogical to me that you would say to the world, Bid on my project, let me bid too low and decide I didn't like that, sign the contract, and then walk away and it doesn't cost me anything. That's all.

MR. JOHNSON: Surely we need a mechanism whereby if we have certainly companies or individuals that are repeat offenders -- I mean, we need to learn from these situations and not repeat mistakes -- of a situation where you have a series of these that we would have a mechanism not to accept their bid or do something to eliminate them from the bid pool. I mean, you don't continually do that and not learn from the experience. You know, the expression: Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me -- and I think there's a lot of wisdom to that.

MR. BOHUSLAV: If it's your wish, we would propose some options to you for the rewrite of the rules for the past session activities that we had.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'd certainly like to see some options.

MR. JOHNSON: I think we ought to study the issues because, I mean, that's just sound business practice.

MR. NICHOLS: Is this on the Evans Brothers bid?

MR. JOHNSON: No. This is just the generalization of people who basically just breach a contract, just walk from it because there's no penalty.

MR. BOHUSLAV: We do have rules that address if we receive a bid guarantee and it's not made good, then we do have rules that address that. We don't allow them to bid the project again unless the bid guarantee is made good, but not if they walk away from a contract after they execute it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that seems to me like an almost non-penalty because what you're -- if I understand that rule correctly, I can take this project, bid it, win it, walk away from it, no penalty because I can just turn around and bid this project and it's okay. You just wouldn't let me rebid this project but you'd let me bid on this one. And all I'm saying is, again, in the private energy world, if you bid-delay a man's pipeline or drill a woman's well and you walk away from that one, you don't get to bid on the next pipeline or the next well, you need to find something else to do in life. That's all. I'd like to see some alternatives, although I do understand the dollar differentiation.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Okay. The last project we recommend for rejection is in Lubbock County and that project is well over the percentage, I believe it's 3,000 percent over the estimate. The contractor made an error in their bid and we only received one bid on that project. It's Project Number 3250.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions noted.

MR. JOHNSON: We have a speaker on contract awards, Keith Coulter and John Schnake who are the legal counsel and president for John Reed & Company.

MR. SCHNAKE: I'm John Schnake; I'm president of John Reed & Company in Houston, and I'm representing John Reed & Company today with regard to a Project Control Number 027-16-113 which bid on the 6th. Keith Coulter is my attorney who has helped me with this issue.

The bid proposal we submitted had a serious error in it: the labor for about half the contract was inadvertently omitted or deleted from the spreadsheet which we used to develop the bid for this project, the bid proposal for this project.

We communicated this to the -- I actually called the district construction engineer in Houston shortly after it bid. I went back and looked at my bid proposal estimate and determined what happened, why I was so much lower than everybody else.

We're here to request that the commission not award us this contract to John Reed & Company as this proposal does not represent our intent with regard to the scope of work defined by this contract. If this contract is awarded to John Reed & Company, we will not be able to perform this work because it does not have -- we don't have the resources to make up that shortfall. It was an inadvertent mistake on our part.

We do not think the state should award this contract to John Reed & Company as it is clear there's a problem with this proposal and to award it to us would be to try to take advantage of that error which we made in good faith, but it is in our proposal. And although we would have to default on the execution of the contract, we would not be defaulting on the actual contract itself. As opposed to the item you just talked to before where the contract was under $100,000 where they didn't have to have a payment and performance bond, on this contract, when I execute the contract, I would have to have a payment and performance bond to secure the contract for the state, and I will not be able to get that knowing that this error in our bid proposal exists.

Keith has some additional information on this matter, but we stand prepared to provide you any further information you request with regard to this matter. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, we might want to ask you some questions.

MR. SCHNAKE: I'm ready.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you done work for the state?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes, we've done some work for the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This particular contract represents pretty much the norm of what you've done in the past?

MR. SCHNAKE: No. Well, I've worked in highway construction when I was in high school in the summers and during engineering school and I did some work with Brown & Root and engineering in the petrochemical business until '98, and then in September '98 --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But this contract is about the scope and the size of the other things you've been doing for the department?

MR. SCHNAKE: It's on the large side.

MR. WILLIAMSON: On the large side?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would this have been the largest proposal you've ever made?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes -- no, it's not.

MR. JOHNSON: By what factor on the large side: Is it twice or four or five times?

MR. SCHNAKE: Oh, no. I bid another project the day before which is probably how I made this error because this project originally came out in March for the April letting and I did my analysis on the labor and equipment to perform this contract actually in March and it was pulled from that letting, and then I bid three projects with the state in May and then in June this one came back out. But I had bid a job on Tuesday, the Airport Boulevard in Houston which was $4 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you win it?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Is that a State contract or city?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes. It's one of the ones he recommended for approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you got any others that are pending for approval?

MR. SCHNAKE: No, just these two. The estimate, obviously it's a serious mistake, but if this job had just come out in May for the June letting, along with the Airport Boulevard, I couldn't have bid them both because they'd take too much time that we didn't have, so trying to bid it after doing much of the estimate in March, I think, is --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, what's your relationship to this company, do you own it?

MR. SCHNAKE: I own all of it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You own all of it.

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's called John Reed? And what's your name?

MR. SCHNAKE: John Schnake, John Reed Schnake.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, I got you now.

MR. SCHNAKE: I don't have my last name on there for a reason.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I didn't mean to set you up, but you were the guy I was talking about here -- I mean not you personally.

MR. SCHNAKE: I could tell the context. It's very different than the one he was referring to where the contractor can walk, because I can't walk from -- I understand very well once that contract is bonded, you can't default and you can't do any of the work, as far as I know -- not that I would want to. If you default, you default because you can't perform anything.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what penalty are you going to pay if you won't sign the contract because you can't get the performance bond, so what do you give up?

MR. SCHNAKE: Well, that's the question, that's the big -- if the contract is awarded, I believe I give up the bid guarantee.

MR. JOHNSON: Which is how much?

MR. SCHNAKE: It's $90,000.

MR. NICHOLS: What do you think the bid guarantee check is for on a contract?

MR. SCHNAKE: It states in the contract as to only have people who are serious about bidding the work to bid it.

MR. NICHOLS: Right.

MR. SCHNAKE: No frivolous proposals.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, so the people are real serious, and everyone knows there's a lot of work that goes into these. I mean, we've got a number of other contractors, very qualified also, who wanted this job very bad who put a lot of time and effort and resources into working on this bid, and all of this is sealed and closed and then at the bid opening it's all opened up, so now everybody gets to see what everybody bid, so all their hands are exposed.

And you know, you made an error, it was a big error, and I empathize or feel for you -- I used to bid on a lot of stuff myself in my business and I'd win some, lose some, and I'd screw some up -- but these other guys didn't do anything wrong, yet they're going to suffer a serious consequence for the time and energy put out that their bids are exposed and they would have been good bids, somebody would have been.

But now if you default, we have to go to the expense to readvertise, to go through this whole thing, to re-analyze and all these other bidders have had their hands exposed. Plus, the citizens who are waiting on the project, everything gets delayed because of that error, so it's just a pretty costly thing all the way around. It's a shame, I mean, it's very unfortunate.

MR. JOHNSON: Are you presently doing or have you done work for the state?

MR. SCHNAKE: Yes, I've done --

MR. JOHNSON: Besides the two contracts we have here.

MR. SCHNAKE:  -- seven or eight different contracts. I have one currently which is almost complete on 610, the North Loop, between Yale and Ella, just west of Ella.

MR. JOHNSON: I noticed the contract that you apparently did not, hopefully, err on that you were the low bid is on Farm to Market 521?

MR. SCHNAKE: No. Airport Boulevard.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's from 521 to 288.

MR. SCHNAKE: Oh, that's right, to State Highway 288.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions of Mr. Schnake?

Mr. Coulter.

MR. COULTER: I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be mechanisms to discourage bidders from submitting bids that they haven't entered into in good faith and haven't given sufficient thought to, only to withdraw them when they find out that they wish they'd been a little less low but still low -- in other words, to have second thoughts about whether they could have made a little more profit or whether this is too little. In this room I'm sure cases like that have been heard, some of the members may have heard cases like that.

This, I think, is a case that is unique from most of the matters of this nature that have come before this commission, and previously the Highway Commission, for four reasons. The things that make Mr. Schnake's error unique are, number one, that it was a clerical error rather than an error in judgment. He didn't misjudge the quantity of units or the unit price.

The department has been provided with the take-off sheets where he actually figured out labor and had 55 weeks of labor included. Somehow the spreadsheet that accumulated all his numbers for a few of the bid items had a zero instead of a 55 and that resulted into a transposition onto his bid sheet that was $1.5 million low on a $3.9 million bid that should have been about a $5.5 million bid.

There is case law from the Austin Court of Appeals -- where this case would go if we're not able to get it resolved if, in fact, the job is awarded and there is a default -- and also from the Texas Supreme Court that says that if a bidder makes a good faith error such that to force them to do the job would be unconscionable, and without gross or willful negligence and that the state has not been prejudiced, then they should be allowed to rescind that offer. And that's exactly what John Reed & Company is doing.

I understand that there are some people that are under the impression that John didn't notice the error until after someone from the DOT called him. Truth is he called the Houston director, Mr. Gaskin -- engineer, rather, district engineer -- the afternoon of the bidding. The following day he had a call from someone in the Austin office and had also intended to call someone in the Austin office at Mr. Gaskin’s recommendation. But the point is he reacted so quickly that the state has suffered no prejudice; the state has not suffered any more than if the bid had never been submitted.

And if the bid doesn't reflect the true intent of the bidder, according to these cases -- and I'm guessing that this is Mr. Monroe, general counsel; I'd be curious to see if he agrees with me on that; I think he may have briefed you -- I don't want to talk about the law, though, I want to talk about the other three reasons why this is unique.

MR. JOHNSON: One observation and that is I believe that the state has been damaged in that there's been a delay, and as Mr. Nichols said, obviously the other bidders have been damaged because they've been exposed, so I take a little bit of issue to one of your statements.

MR. COULTER: I understand that. The state probably has had --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Johnson, in that regard, speaks for all three of us. And kind of like I got on the other fellow earlier, I don't want the record to reflect that we don't take issue with you.

MR. COULTER: Understood, and let me point out that, yes, if the state has suffered some damages, just as the law says that a bidder can rescind, I believe the law also says that the amount of the loss should be compensated, but it's not $90,000. The delay on a two-year project to replace 25-year-old bridge rails, a delays of two months really doesn't cost the state anything that's quantifiable. The cost of reletting the job, as I understand it, is the cost of readvertising the bid with next month's bid ads and obviously there's some administrative costs -- we accept that.

The problem is, and one of the reasons why the $90,000 figure in this case is so unique, is that it really is a penalty, and the legislature and the commission's own rules say that the deposit, the proposal guarantee should not be a penalty, it should be an estimate of what the likely damages are. It's certainly not $90,000. The $90,000, if forfeited here, really is punitive in that John Reed & Company, their net worth in the last year was only about double that; their prequalified bidding capacity is only about four times that. So that is a shot that could be a fatal shot -- you know, any time you get shot, you don't know if you're going to live or die -- but it's a serious hit to his company and could affect his ability to bid competitively.

The magnitude of the error is also something, I think, in this case that's significant. It's not just that he wants a better deal, it's that financially he cannot complete this job at the bid price. He could complete it and make a profit at the price that he should have bid it at, but he cannot complete the job: a) because he would take a loss that would put his company out of business; and b) he can't get bonded because his bonding company knows about the error. So the point is even if he wanted to perform this job, he can't at the bid price; it can't be done at that price.

That leads to your question about what about these other bidders. The commission has options, and I think that's the fourth thing that makes this a little unique is the commission's rules in the Texas Administrative Code have evolved somewhat in the last five years, and I've seen some changes even in the last two years, that impose some slightly different rules than what I think some folks are used to talking about. And again, I'd ask Mr. Monroe to tell me if I'm misconstruing this, but the commission's rules allow rejection of an unbalanced bid and they also allow you to go to the next lower bidder, so you could go to the next lower bidder and the state is damaged no more than if this erroneous bid had never been submitted.

I've had discussions with people about what is an unbalanced bid, and a lot of people think of it as what I think in the construction business they call front-loading -- they put all their costs in the line items that would be completed first so they can get their money. But the Administrative Code actually defines it to include a variance in the lump sum -- in fact, the Texas Transportation Code, the statute that enables all of us to be here, says that the department is to look at extreme variations from the department's estimate.

We were 25 percent below the engineer's estimate; we were 43 percent below the next lower estimate. But furthermore, the regulations that this commission has adopted say that a bid will be rejected if it is mathematically and materially unbalanced, and those terms are specifically defined to mean something different than just front-loading the job. They say that a mathematically unbalanced job is one in which either the lump sum or a line item does not reflect the reasonable amount of cost, profit, and overhead. If you look at this $3.9 million bid and you look at the state engineer's estimate of approximately $5.2 million, and you can also look at Mr. Schnake's estimate of costs that he actually prepared on the day that he wrote to the -- actually he wrote his letter the day after, he wrote a letter asking to withdraw his bid -- it's around that range. So we've got him losing a considerable amount of money. So number one, this is a mathematically unbalanced bid.

The second test is whether it's materially unbalanced and the definition of that is whether there's reasonable doubt about whether awarding the bid will result in a lowest ultimate cost to the state. One thing I'll throw out, only in passing, is that I suspect that there's some doubts among legal counsel on both sides about whether it's an efficient, efficacious use of the state's resources --

(General laughter.)

MR. COULTER:  -- to engage in the claims process or even in litigation, regardless of who wins or loses, when you know you're awarding a bid that can't be performed. The question I would have is what is the purpose in awarding a bid in which the error was made in good faith and which you know that the contractor can't perform the job. You know that you're going to have to go to the next lower bid or scrap all the bids. Which leads to the more pertinent point, and that is the next low bidder was $600,000 higher. I'd say that there is reasonable doubt about whether it is cheaper to award this bid because if you award this, there's going to be a default, you're going to have to do a reletting. It may be that you get lower prices the next time but there's certainly a reasonable doubt.

What I've not mentioned because I think it would probably bore you is that I think the case law that says that there is not a contract because of a remedial mistake is very sound, and it says that you don't have a contract when there's a good faith mistake like this one. So we're not talking about someone that has made a contractual obligation and dishonored it, we're talking about someone that's made an honest mistake.

And frankly, I believe that the Code's rules do provide for debarment of a contractor who repeatedly shows that they've been acting in bad faith in submitting bids or dishonoring their contracts, but for the four reasons I mentioned, that's not the case here. The department should not penalize a contractor when the commission and the state's rules say that what you should do is exact a measure of damages the state has incurred -- whatever that measure may be -- but not penalize the contractor and not impose a liquidated damages sum that results in a penalty.

If he's willing, I have a thought that it might be helpful to hear from the general counsel for the department because I'd be curious and I'm hoping the commission would be curious to find out whether he agrees or disagrees with me on some of the legal issues. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, Mr. Coulter, I don't think this is an appropriate forum for the exchange of legal ideas, although I appreciate the thought.

Any questions or comments to Mr. Coulter?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, one of the two previous speakers indicated that Mr. Schnake called the Houston engineer before we opened the bids up. Are you aware of that?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I believe he said he called them in the afternoon and we opened the bids at one o'clock; I don't know what time he called him and I was not aware that he had called the district.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you're not aware of having been notified prior to the bids being opened?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I am not, that is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And what's the department's -- you had a good discussion earlier with me about the department's will-settle policy on difficulties with contracts less than $100,000. What is the department's will-settle policy on contracts in excess of $100,000?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Consistently, if they're within reason, if they're not over the bid too much, if the commission wants to award it based solely on the price, that we would award the contract and send it to the contractor for execution.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we have a history of: a) having required a contractor to carry through with a bad bid?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or b) taking their whatever the thing is called?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. The bid guarantee, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we have a class of people that have been treated a certain way in the past.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the only questions I have.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. SCHNAKE: Can I say one thing?

MR. JOHNSON: One thing.

MR. SCHNAKE: I called the district office, it was after the bids were opened; I didn't know what to do. When I said I called them before they called me, it was after the bids had opened, it was not prior to the opening of bids.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks. I was just trying to clarify that.

MR. JOHNSON: Any discussion? We'll entertain a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept the recommendations of the Construction Division.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Routine minute orders, and I'll handle that again, as usual, and I'm going to skip the trivia this time unless you have any questions.

Speed Zones, this being 13(a), establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways.

Thirteen(b) revise load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.

Under 13(c) Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease, starting off with 13(c)(1) in Bexar County, the minute order provides for the sale of three tracts of surplus right of way to the abutting landowners on State Highway 211.

In Cherokee County, the minute order provides for the sale of a .006 acre tract of surplus right of way on US 79.

And the next one we're going to defer; there's some concern about release of surplus right of way, and I've asked Jay Nelson the district engineer to give us a report on commitments that were made so we can study all of the 20 corridor before we come back with a minute order for your consideration.

Then moving on to 13(c)(5), this minute order provides for the sale of the state's interest in a 1.19-acre tract of surplus right of way, Dallas County on I-30 and US 67.

Did I skip the Childress one?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think so.

MR. HEALD: The district engineer would not like that. Okay, back to 13(c)(3), this minute order provides for the sale of a 2.066-acre surplus maintenance site and improvements to the City of Childress, and this is a part of the old district office building there, and that's based on appraised value.

Now going to item number (6) under 13(c), Guadalupe County, this minute order provides for the removal of a .185-acre tract of right of way from the state highway system on Business State Highway 123 in Seguin.

In Lee County, this minute order provides for the removal of a 3.234 acres of right of way from the state highway system on Old State Highway 20.

The next one, being item (8), this came before you last month and we deferred it till we got some more information and a different price structure. In Tarrant County, this minute order provides for the sale of a 13.58-acre surplus maintenance site off of State Highway 183 in Fort Worth.

13(c)(9), this minute order provides for the sale of a .073-acre tract of surplus right of way on US 281/287, Wichita Falls.

Item 13(d) request for eminent domain proceedings on noncontrolled and controlled access highways.

And Mr. Chairman, that ends the routine minute orders.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: We're not asking for an executive session and we have no cards for people speaking in the open comment period.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Monroe, I would assume that when we submit our agenda to the Secretary of State's Office that in Section 14 under Executive Session that we might add the word and the executive director" for the months of July and August so that as things arise with the selection of Mr. Heald's successor that we be able to have an executive session on that matter.

MR. MONROE: Right, we will do that.

MR. NICHOLS: Do we need to add anything else to cover -- if the executive director felt like he needed to talk to us about any personnel matter in executive session, would we just put the word "personnel" or do you have to specify the actual category of the person that you're discussing?

MR. MONROE: I shall try to address that in an efficacious manner, Commissioner.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But will you be loquacious in doing so?

(General laughter.)

MR. MONROE: Attorneys are not necessarily logical but we are extremely well-read. It depends -- how's that for a lawyer's answer -- but in fact, it does. As a matter of fact, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled on that in the Cox case. In the case of something affecting the executive director's job, you should list it specifically because that is an important enough job that the public should know about it. Obviously you get down to what are we going to pay our lowest-level employees; that is not an appropriate thing to be talked about in executive session, and somewhere in there there is a middle ground where "personnel matters" will suffice, and somewhere up there where we would have to name the specific matter or the specific job.

As far as the Supreme Court's direction right now, all we have to do is name the executive director if indeed the executive session will touch on that particular matter. So therefore, based on that guidance, I would say the only thing we have to list specifically would be "executive director"; anything else would be fair game under the "personnel" heading.

MR. JOHNSON: You understand what he said?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Most of that was plain English and I got it.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. If there is no further business before the commission, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: Moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Please note for the record, it is 3:17 p.m. and this meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: June 28, 2001

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 239 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Sunny L. Peer before the Texas Department of Transportation.

___________7/05/01
(Transcriber) (Date)

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