Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Commission Room
Dewitt Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2483

9:00 a.m. Thursday, October 25, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MIKE BEHRENS, Executive Director
BOB JACKSON, Deputy General Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant, Engineering Operations
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:04 a.m. and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here this morning.

Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 9:28 a.m. on October 17.

Before we get into our delegation portion of the meeting, I'd like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have anything they would like to say. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to welcome you. Particularly, I know a number of you have come a long way to be here this morning to present the interests of your community, and we appreciate that very much. I don't know if you got up real early and came over or came over late last night, but your efforts are greatly appreciated. And with that, I'll just pass it on.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad you're here. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Before we move into phase one of the meeting, I want to ask Phyllis Chandler and Sallie Burk -- I see that they're here -- and if Mary Ann Griss is within earshot of this, I would like for them to come forward. I want to embarrass them very briefly.

If you're not aware, these three ladies serve as the administrative assistants for the three of us, and believe me, we could not possibly get done much of what we get done if it weren't for the very hard work and dedicated efforts of Phyllis Chandler and Sallie Burk and Mary Ann Griss.

And as you probably are aware, the burden that falls upon them during the legislative session is even more important. It's the first five months of the year in the odd-numbered years and this was an odd-numbered year, and so from January to May, they probably put in 16- to 20-hour days often.

And we have a small token of gratitude for the work that you ladies have done, and I'm sorry that Mary Ann -- I guess I'll have to embarrass her at a future meeting, but Sallie and Phyllis, if you would come forward. What these things say is it's presented to Phyllis Chandler, Sallie Burk and to Mary Ann Griss -- Mary Ann, would you please come up --

For outstanding performance during the 77th Session of the Texas Legislature, the year 2001. Ladies, thank you.

(Applause.)

ABILENE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

(Judge Lee Hamilton, Col. John Daly, Rep. Bob Hunter, Blake Woodall, Judge Victor Carillo)

MR. JOHNSON: Our first delegation this morning comes from Abilene and Taylor County, and I believe that Lee Hamilton will get us started. Lee, welcome.

JUDGE HAMILTON: Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, and Director Behrens. Thank you very much for allowing the Abilene delegation to appear before you today. I am Lee Hamilton, judge of the 104th District court in Abilene. You're probably wondering why a district judge is addressing the Transportation Commission. Until recently I was the Taylor County judge and chairman of the Abilene MPO, both for about a ten-year period. I'm honored and pleased to present this proposal to you today because it was developed largely during my tenure as MPO board chairman.

Other members of our delegation are -- and let me ask my delegation to stand, and if you would, give a little wave to the commission when I call your name -- Taylor County Judge Victor Carillo; State Representative Bob Hunter; Blake Woodall with Senator Troy Fraser's office; Colonel John Daly who is commander of the 7th Support Group at Dyess Air Force Base; Bill Senter, former but long-time chairman of the transportation committee of the Abilene Chamber of Commerce; Ross Jones, the current chairman of the transportation committee; Robert Allen who is the Abilene MPO director of transportation and planning.

And also providing technical support to us and here to answer any technical questions that you might have are: Abilene District Engineer Bill Hale; staff members Blair Hanie who is director of Transportation Planning and Development, Joe Clark who is a planner, David Seago, area engineer, and Mary Beth Kilgore, Public Relations director.

I thank you. Be seated.

I'll be followed by Colonel Daly, Representative Hunter, Mr. Woodall and Judge Carillo will be our closer, and it's my understanding that when our legislators talk, that time doesn't count against us. Is that correct? She's nodding up and down. That's very good.

MR. JOHNSON: I think it counts double.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But fortunately, you've got one that gets to the point.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE HAMILTON: I'm very pleased to bring before you a project that exemplifies the best spirit of the 3-C transportation planning process, the 3-C process being, of course, comprehensive, continuous, and cooperative planning.

The project represents comprehensive planning in that all aspects of transportation planning are taken into account: cars, trucks, railroads, hazardous materials transported by both truck and rail, public safety both on and off the transportation system, environmental and historical issues, economic and financial issues, long-range land use and development, environmental justice issues, and even military security issues.

The proposal is part of a continuing program of cooperation between the Abilene community, the State of Texas and the federal government to maintain and improve the operations and missions of Dyess Air Force Base for the security of our nation and the economic and social vitality of our state and our local community. Dyess Air Force Base is the largest employer in the Abilene area and the majority of its employees live off base, integrated with the Abilene community. This effort includes a continuing program of transportation projects to improve access to Dyess Air Force Base as part of an integrated transportation system that serves the community and the region.

Our proposal is also part of a truly cooperative effort involving numerous entities.

The project proposal was developed cooperatively by professional staff of the Abilene MPO, the City of Abilene, the City of Tye, the TxDOT Abilene area office, the TxDOT Abilene District office, the Abilene Chamber of Commerce, and Dyess Air Force Base. The project proposal has been approved and recommended by the leadership of all these groups and other community leaders as well.

This particular project arose out of the public participation processes during development of the Abilene Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the year 2000 through the year 2025. The civil engineer for Dyess Air Force Base, Mr. Floyd Ball, who is now retired, brought a transportation problem to the attention of the MPO. Dyess Air Force Base was and is facing the potential of changing the primary fuel delivery to the base from a pipeline-based delivery system to a truck-delivery system. The fuel pipeline to the base connects to only one vendor, so the change could occur suddenly at any time that the fuel procurement is rebid.

As the home to the nation's primary contingent of B-1 Bomber long-range heavy bombers and a substantial contingent of C-130 cargo aircraft, Dyess uses a tremendous amount of fuel. The primary tank farm for fuel shortage is located a short distance inside the north gate of Dyess. The road system providing access to the north gate was not designed or constructed to carry heavy vehicle traffic, however, and the most direct routes pose major concerns for transportation of hazardous materials such as jet fuel.

We were extremely concerned, therefore, to learn that trucks carrying hazardous materials, including classified cargos, were already using these roads, not only for deliveries to Dyess but also to use Dyess as a safe-haven stopover for long hauls passing through Abilene on Interstate 20.

Mr. Ball proposed a project that would improve a route along the shortest distance between the north gate and Interstate 20. This particular route, however, would have used local roads which were not classified for federal aid and much of which went through the small city of Tye. With no real possibility of local funding and since the route would cause hazardous chemicals to be transported through a very small city, that proposal was not found to be feasible and could not be included in the metropolitan transportation plan.

The Abilene MPO transportation policy board's concern about the problem was and continues to be great, however. The board directed that a study be undertaken to identify all possible methods to address the issues and return to the board with a recommendation. The Abilene District office offered to provide a trained staff facilitator to organize the study and a focus group was formed, made up of professional staff of the various entities that I have previously mentioned.

Many alternatives were considered and measured against all appropriate factors. A central issue of the study was the transportation of hazardous materials by heavy vehicles, so safety both on and off the road was a paramount concern. A group of the most feasible alternatives were identified and objectively scored. One alternative clearly stood out as the most feasible, most efficient and safest solution.

This proposed solution involves combining a set of projects already identified as long-term mobility and rehabilitation needs, linking them together operationally and enhancing their safety features and design load capacity. This proposal addresses not only the need to provide hazardous materials access to Dyess in the safest manner, it will also improve overall base traffic operations and security, improve the safety of hazardous materials transportation for the entire region, provide improved linkages and access to a major new industrial park, and improve operational accessibility and safety for the new TxDOT Abilene area offices and Taylor County maintenance yards.

The project that we propose to you today consists of three major parts that are linked by existing portions of FM 3438. At this time let me call your attention to a visual to orient you to the entire area. If you'll look at your screens, to your right of course is the city of Abilene, and then the city of Tye over to the left, and then Dyess Air Force Base to the south.

Also, something that I want to emphasize about this particular visual, there's a five-mile stretch between Abilene and Tye where there's a railroad track that runs parallel to Business 20. For this entire five miles, there's no separated grade crossing along the railroad tracks, and of course, that's the area over which these heavy trucks carrying hazardous chemicals must somehow pass.

Looking at the next visual which shows a slightly smaller area, you again see the -- well, emphasizing the location of Dyess Air Force Base and the proximity to the three proposed suggested subprojects. One thing also that I want to call your attention to on the very bottom of the visual, you'll see privatized housing that is planned to come online in Abilene in a year or so, I believe. When that happens, we will have even more traffic coming into Dyess.

This third visual will allow us to concentrate on the three subprojects that I'm proposing. Subproject number 1, being pointed to at the top of the screen there, is to construct access ramps to allow trucks to enter and exit Interstate 20 at FM 3438. What you know as a diamond interchange would be created and existing frontage roads would be improved to carry heavy truck traffic. The estimated cost of subproject number 1 is $2 million.

Subproject number 2, being pointed to there -- incidentally, which we consider the highest priority of our subprojects -- would be the replacement of an existing at-grade rail crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad and a partial interchange between FM 3438 and Business 20 with a combined full interchange and railroad grade separation. There was a lot of transportation terminology in that sentence which I know that you all understand, but in lay terms, I would describe subproject number 2 as constructing an overpass which would allow heavy trucks carrying hazardous chemicals to go over Business 20 and the railroad tracks running parallel to Business 20.

The project is essential to separate the expected flow of large trucks and hazardous materials freight on FM 3438 from the existing large flow of hazardous materials that travel by rail on the railroad tracks.

To give you an idea of the danger or likelihood of truck-train collisions at this intersection, train crossings have increased from seven per day in 1990 to 25 per day today. Also, approximately 700 trucks enter Dyess daily. The estimated cost of project number 2 is $10 million.

Subproject number 3, being pointed to there, the final portion of the overall project, designed especially for improved access to the Dyess north gate, is the reconstruction of Military Drive from the Dyess entrance to FM 3438 as a roadway suitable for carrying a substantial flow of heavy trucks. Also, traffic signals would be added at the intersection of FM 3438 at Military Drive. The estimated cost for subproject number 3 is $3 million.

The overall project cost is $15 million. We are here before you today because we have been unable to identify a means to fund this project in a reasonable, timely manner with existing sources of local and district funds. The project will have regional, statewide, and nationwide benefits; the project will enable loads of hazardous materials passing through the Abilene area to be routed away from the most heavily populated and congested parts of Abilene; and the project will significantly reduce the danger of collision between road traffic and rail traffic.

Colonel Daly will now describe in more detail the impact on Dyess Air Force Base which is an essential national military base and a significant economic asset to Texas. For all of these reasons, we believe that this project deserves special funding consideration in the near term and ask that you allocate Strategic Priority funds for this purpose.

Colonel Daly will follow me; next on the program will be Representative Hunter, and then Blake Woodall, and County Judge Victor Carillo will close our presentation. Colonel Daly.

COL. DALY: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to come before the commission today and speak in support of these necessary roadway projects. As the commander of the 7th Support Group at Dyess Air Force Base, I'm responsible for the overall maintenance, security, communications, and quality of life programs for our military community, a community comprised of over 5,000 active duty members, 6,500 dependents, and 500 Air Force civilian employees who live, work, and play at Dyess every day.

In many ways the base is like a small city. Daily we work with many of the same issues that the mayor of any municipality of similar size would have to work. For that reason I'm often referred to as the "mayor" of Dyess Air Force Base. Of course, I don't have to worry about being reelected, just reassigned.

Let me begin by making it clear the proposed projects are very important to Dyess. The viability, condition and number of alternative accesses and approaches to the base play a significant role in our mission's success. While flying and fixing airplanes is the most important thing that we do, that mission is not possible without the daily delivery of vital supplies, and these deliveries run the gambit from the delivery of vital aircraft spare parts, construction materials, logistical supplies, fuel, ammunition, to food and staple goods for the base exchange and the commissary and our dining facilities, and of course the daily delivery of mail.

Not only are deliveries important to the base, we also must ship off the base daily aircraft parts to repair facilities and we must get rid of wastes, refuse, and recyclables. Depending on the daily activity level of the base, shipments on and off the base can range up to several hundred trucks a day.

From a military perspective, truck deliveries offer a special challenge in terms of security, safety, and sufficiency. Trucks present a special challenge as each must be checked and verified. This effort and concern has taken on a new heightened awareness since September 11. While our terrorist foe has expanded their repertoire of delivery methods, we still must be prepared to counter their tendency toward the capability of using large truck bombs.

For some time now Dyess has desired to segregate those truck deliveries to the north gate, or what we also call our Tye gate, to provide a remote location to search and provide an added level of safety for our other 15,000-plus customers who transit our base gate every day. In fact, since September 11, we have already directed all our deliveries to the Tye gate or the north gate to provide just such capability and a remote location to search.

If I may also point out, if you look at Dyess, the north gate is near the industrial side of the base and that's why we favor putting those industrial-type deliveries in the area and not to have to transit our administrative or residential sides.

While this diversion of deliveries to the Tye gate has been successful over the past month and a half, the condition of the Military Drive we believe to be insufficient to support both the number and size of trucks over the long term that must use the north gate and the Tye gate. For that reason, we at Dyess support the expeditious approval and completion of Military Drive.

As you examine the various approaches to Dyess, it becomes evidently clear that easy and unimpeded access to the base of Interstate 20, one of the main arteries, currently does not exist. The new interchange, as proposed, along with the overpass, will provide routing not blocked by the main railroad line that parallels Business Route 20, nor expose residential areas like along 7th Street to high-risk cargos. We believe the merits of those two phases make good sense and will better support the current activities of Dyess and the future mission expansion if so decided.

In closing, let me say the completion of these projects will allow Dyess to fulfill its goal of permanently segregating deliveries of large truck traffic to the Tye or north gate. In so doing, we can make significant improvements in security, safety, and sufficiency of access to the base. Thank you very much.

MR. HUNTER: Good morning, Chairman Johnson and Commission Nichols and my long-standing friend Commissioner Williamson, and Mr. Behrens. We're delighted to be here this morning.

We're here this morning to talk to you about a very critical need in our state. Having just recently returned from a Homeland Security meeting, a national meeting in Washington, it was very obvious to all of us at that meeting that it was going to be up to every state, working with each of our cities across this great land, to secure our nation in so many, many ways of need, and this morning we want to talk to you about one of the special needs in our state.

I was pleased to hear the report once again, as we have reviewed it in Abilene, from Judge Hamilton who did such a great job, and certainly Colonel Daley and our friends at Dyess who mean so much to us in Abilene and West Texas as well as this great state, and I'm here this morning, as I know Mr. Williamson knows, of the State-Federal-International Relations Committee, and in this regard we have military veterans affairs activities in our committee and many of the things that affect our state, working with other legislators and of course our national Congress.

And I'm also here as a member from the House representing the House of the Texas Strategic Military Planning Commission which I've served on for a number of years now. And then particularly as the state representative from Abilene and Taylor County which includes the city of Tye and which includes, of course, Dyess Air Force Base.

But I'm just greatly pleased to be here with this fine delegation this morning, made up of our finest citizens and certainly several of our elected officials to tell you this morning that I've studied these plans and I've reviewed them, of course, with our folks both at the city level and at the Abilene Metropolitan Planning Organization level, and I'm pleased that this is being presented to you in a very detailed way to let you know how critical this need is.

It's my hope that you will give your utmost consideration to this request for funding which is being outlined this morning for our Dyess Air Force Base north gate proposal. I think it's strategic to our efforts to make our military bases in Texas the most viable and secure as we possibly can as we face future rounds of base closures in our nation and in keeping with the legislation we passed this last legislative session in this regard.

The strategic mission of Dyess Air Force Base, well known, of course, especially to Commissioner Williamson, in Abilene is in our nation's forefront once again as we face the enormous challenge of ending terrorism in our world and those serving in such a terrific way at Dyess Air Force Base answering the needs of our nation at this critical time.

I believe we must accelerate our plans to secure a new heavy vehicle and hazardous material access route to and from this vitally important military base in our state, and I appreciate so much getting to be here this morning to talk to you about that need and hope that you will give it your very best consideration because of its critical nature. Thanks so much.

MR. WOODALL: Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, and Executive Director Behrens, good morning. My name is Blake Woodall and I'm with Senator Troy Fraser's Abilene district office. The senator is out of the city today but he asked that I be allowed to read a brief statement on the issue of TxDOT's support to the City of Abilene and its need to improve and secure the movement of fuel, ordinance and other hazardous materials onto the Dyess Air Force Base with a more developed and accessible north entrance.

Senator Fraser's statement reads as follows:

"Dyess Air Force Base has a proud and lengthy history, not just with the United States Air Force but also with the City of Abilene and the State of Texas. This base has long been a flagship installation for the bomber and airlift squadrons of our nation's Air Force, and I see nothing in the future that would alter that vision or reduce that role. As you may know, B-1 Lancers from Dyess are participating in Operation Enduring Freedom even now as we meet.

"I believe military bases such as Dyess are businesses, businesses that need to be supported just as we would want to support growth and development in any other segment of our state's economy. In the 77th Legislative Session, the Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installations, on which I serve, produced three bills specifically emphasizing the need to support, protect and improve military bases in Texas. All three bills passed both houses without a dissenting vote.

"As a part of those legislative actions, we ask the Texas Department of Transportation to work with our military bases, examine local circumstances, and address needed improvements to defense transportation infrastructure.

"Data compiled by Abilene leaders, Dyess officials, and TxDOT district staff indicate a need for a more developed and accessible north entrance to Dyess Air Force Base. This upgraded entrance will provide a safe and secure route for fuel, ordinance, and other hazardous materials necessary for the operation of this base. This request for a safe and secure north entrance appeared to have been well documented before the horrific acts of September 11; now six weeks later, the need is more clearly apparent and this request could not be more timely.

"I strongly urge you to consider this important project. Thank you. Troy Fraser, State Senator."

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is Abilene still in his district?

MR. WOODALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Isn't his district in every one of the damn plans that are floating around out there?

MR. WOODALL: No, sir, not every plan, but the plan that I think will hold, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

JUDGE CARILLO: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good morning. Mr. Behrens. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the entire delegation. My name is Victor Carillo; I am the recently appointed Taylor County judge, been in office since September 17. I'm also the new chairman of the Abilene Metropolitan Planning Organization, and until resigning recently to accept the appointment as Taylor County judge, I was a member of the Abilene City Council.

My comments today will be brief; there's really very little to add to what Judge Hamilton, Colonel Daly, Representative Hunter and Blake Woodall have so eloquently presented. What is crystal clear to me, as a relative newcomer to this project, is this has been and continues to be a truly cooperative team effort that has been thoroughly researched and planned and it represents the dedicated efforts of many people who know this to be a critically important project for this area.

What I'm here to do, on behalf of the MPO and the Taylor County Commissioners Court, and to a certain extent, the Abilene City Council, is to pledge our continuing and ongoing support for this project. We stand ready to work in whatever capacity is required to ensure that this much-needed project is brought to fruition and becomes a reality.

I spoke with our mayor, Grady Barr, Tuesday and he asked me to relay the following information to you. First, he regrets that he could not be here in person; he would have been here in person with us but for the fact that the city council is meeting, in fact, as we meet here today on some pressing matters. Though he's not here, he asked that I convey his strong support for this project as the chief elected municipal official.

He stressed the importance to Dyess and the importance to the city noting that these improvements would have the added benefit of improved access to a major new industrial park of importance to economic development in the Abilene community. And regarding the local match component of this project, the mayor specifically said that when the time comes, the money will be there.

As a recent member of the Abilene City Council, I'm very familiar with the general sentiment of my former colleagues and again also assure this body that they too strongly support this project.

The mayor, on a side note, also asked me to mention that he's very excited about the prospect of this commission meeting in Abilene next spring and he looks forward to your visit. I think we're working on that as we speak.

Commissioners, community support for this project is clearly evident. As a further expression of that community support, we have with us here today Mr. Ross Jones and Mr. Bill Senter who, together with Judge Hamilton who spoke earlier, are Texas Road Hands who have been honored for their work advancing the progress of transportation efforts in their communities. As you know, this is the highest honor bestowed by TxDOT to non-TxDOT employees and we're honored that they're here to show their support also. These men are long time proponents and advocates of smart transportation planning and projects and are here to pledge continued support for this key project.

In conclusion, this project is much needed and will have widespread benefit to the City of Abilene, Taylor County, Dyess Air Force Base, and indeed, the entire region. If approved, these improvements will be truly synergistic -- that is, their combined benefits to all the constituent players working together as a team with the state will far exceed that which we could hope to accomplish working individually or separately.

We believe this is one of those rare win-win projects where the total effect of our combined action will be much greater than the sum of our individual actions. And by supporting this project, we believe you have an opportunity, not only to enhance transportation efficiency but also increase public safety and assist our military efforts all at once.

We thank you for hearing us out today. We strongly urge your favorable consideration of all three elements of our request before you today. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any questions, Robert or Ric?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a couple of questions. One of you said there were 700 trucks a day and then I think you said several hundred. Is it 700?

COL. DALY: Seven hundred.

JUDGE HAMILTON: The latest count that we obtained was 700 trucks coming into Dyess on a daily basis, and that count was obtained fairly recently. I'm looking for Bill.

MR. HALE: What we have on that, there were 300 vehicles a day prior to 9/11, September 11, and after that it's increased to 700 vehicles a day, and that's trucks.

MR. NICHOLS: Seven hundred. But you still receive the fuel by pipeline but very shortly you could be receiving your fuel by truck. How many trucks a day would that be of just fuel?

MR. HALE: They don't have the calculation for that right now. What they do, though, at times they take fuel off the base at this time through that side. They come in by pipeline now, even at this time; they also remove it by trucks at times, take it off base.

COL. DALY: One of the things I mentioned was sufficiency and maybe another way to say that is viable alternate routes. You know, if you look at Dyess and it's fenced off, it's an island within a city, so your access to the gate right now is through the main gate; that's the most viable gate that we have, obviously, in terms of good road conditions and so forth. This provides us an alternate route, and the through truck traffic, in terms of fuel deliveries, that's again alternatives. Right now I have only the capability to bring fuel on base via pipeline. I can use trucks but then that road will not support, I think, in the long term, heavy truck traffic that would -- the number of trucks that would probably be delivering fuel.

MR. NICHOLS: Would the fuel trucks be coming across the intersection with the railroad track?

COL. DALY: Again, access to the main artery, if you consider Interstate 20 a main artery, I think you have alternates of either routing through Tye or routing down through Winters Freeway which from Winters Freeway then the road signs now will bring you down through 7th Street which is right through a main residential area.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay, thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: You were born out there, weren't you?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm ready for a vote.

I learned how to shoot rabbits right there at the end of Military Drive at the north gate.

JUDGE HAMILTON: If you don't mind, I could point out a real graphic example of the dangerous situation that we currently have. When a truck carrying jet fuel is coming down 3438 approaching those railroad tracks, if a vehicle is parked at that current stop sign on the other side of the railroad tracks and that truck carrying the fuel has to stop behind the vehicle, the back of the truck carrying the jet fuel is sitting on the railroad tracks. That's how dangerous the current situation really is.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question for Bill Hale. The three components to this request, from a timeliness standpoint or a timing standpoint, the three components would lay out how quickly? Are they ready to go?

MR. HALE: It would take about three years, I guess, to get something going on the thing.

MR. JOHNSON: It looks like maybe one or two might be more immediate, but in terms of the ability to get everything done, the most complex looks like the overpass or the grade separation.

MR. HALE: The frontage roads would be the quickest; we could take care of the frontage roads and put the ramps up there at that time. The ones across the bridge would take the most time.

MR. JOHNSON: And your estimation of the bridge is what in duration, how many years from now?

MR. HALE: About three years.

MR. JOHNSON: To commence?

MR. HALE: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Anything else?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I'm just laughing because it make take three years to know what our frontage road policy ends up being.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: Obviously we don't make decisions on the spot relative to the appearance of delegations, but we do appreciate your coming, and this has been very informative to the commission and we appreciate the effort that you have made.

I did want to pass along how we are looking forward to being in Abilene in April, and Mayor Barr has extended a gracious invitation for the commission to meet, and we look forward to that. You might tell him if the commission is able to meet in Abilene, I don't see why council couldn't meet here. You can tell him his absence was noted.

MR. TURNER: Of course, we'll be sure to tell him that.

MR. JOHNSON: Gus, did you have anything you wanted to add?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: There being no additions, we'll take a very short recess to let our good friends from Abilene and Taylor County to get back to the business of the day, and let our next delegation be seated. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CAMERON COUNTY

(Rep. Rene Oliveira, Judge Gilberto Hinojosa, Henry Gonzalez, Raul Besteiro, John Hudson)

MR. JOHNSON: Our next delegation has come quite a distance to join us this morning and we're glad that they've done so. We would like to welcome the fine folks from Cameron County, and Judge Gilberto Hinojosa will start the presentation. Am I correct in that regard?

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Well, actually I'm going to defer to our State Representative Rene Oliveira to begin the presentation.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I noticed him back there, so we'll defer.

Welcome, Representative, we're glad that you're here.

MR. OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, friends, the three of you.

I've got to first start this with thanking you for everything you've done for us in Cameron County, particularly after the tragedy we went through with the causeway collapse.

Mike, I think you called me that Saturday trying to track me down after we called you. Your response, your effort hasn't gone unnoticed by me or Senator Lucio or Representative Solis. We are extraordinarily, sincerely grateful.

I'd be very remiss if I didn't thank another hero in Amadeo. I don't know if he gets overtime pay, but if he does, I'm afraid to see the bill because he had to be working 70, 80, 90 hours a week sometimes. And you have done a lot of smart things and great things for Texas, but stealing him from us I'm not sure was one of them, but we applaud him as he moves up and does bigger and better things.

Good morning to you and I'm very happy to be here with my delegation, with my county judge, my city commissioner Henry Gonzalez, who also happens to be my uncle, and my friends from the port, Raul Besteiro, and my port commissioner who went to high school with me, so we have a real family group with you here, Roy de los Santos.

I wanted to start off with, I guess, really putting this in perspective. This is going to be, if the good people in my district are foolish enough to send me back -- it's going to be my tenth term in the legislature. I've only appeared before this body once before, so if that gives you any sense of import and how important I believe this project is, I hope it does because it means a lot to me.

This is a project that really dates back 30 years when I was in high school and had a full head of hair. In the '70s we were talking about moving these railroad tracks and trying to make Brownsville safer, ease congestion, bridge traffic congestion even back then it being an issue, a greater one now, and now I think that here in the Year of our Lord 2001 I stand before you giving you a plan that I think saves you money, it seems like we took way too long.

At the same time, this needed, frankly, this kind of study and it needed this time to get all the groups together because we have before you an absolutely unanimous delegation from all the government entities in Cameron County, and that is rare, as you all know. We have approached you in prior years on a regional basis and asked for regional support for things, but we haven't always when it got down to our own cities and communities and counties, and we're here before you to ask that.

I guess looking at it as being chairman of Ways and Means and having been on Appropriations and sitting on Legislative Budget Board and worrying about money -- as you all are always worried about as well -- I bring you something and our delegation brings you something here that saves you money. The original project -- and you'll hear more detail from the experts and the judge and Commissioner Gonzalez and Commissioner de los Santos and others who know more about this than I do and the detail of it -- but my understanding is the original proposal -- and you've already allocated for two overpasses -- would have cost about $42 million and this proposal is going to be half of that, and half of that for all of the other governmental stakeholders, the federal government and elsewhere.

And I think when we look at not having to do all of these additional overpasses and move our railyards and rail work outside reminds me a little bit of what happened when my mother would come home and say: Look, honey, I bought you a dress and I saved you a lot of money; it was half price. Well, that's not really an appropriate analogy, because here we are saving the money and we're saving real dollars now and I think it's important to our state and it's very important to our communities that are struggling locally in doing this.

And I only recently endorsed this by the way; I had been waiting to get more information. The most important part and the thing that swung me over the top was the fact that we have absolute coordination with Mexico. Governor Tomas Yarrington and our sister city Matamoros are all on the same page with us on this. This is, as in some instances that we've had in the past, where you build a bridge to nowhere, where we do all this work on our side and our counterparts in Mexico do nothing because they can't afford it or otherwise.

Actually, they are going to be very much involved. There have been 62 meetings to coordinate this project with various U.S. and Mexican agencies. The people that I'm supporting there today have worked with Union Pacific Railroad and the Transportacion Federale Villarilla Mexicana which is the railroad agency for Mexico, and they are all on board this as well.

A lot still has to be done but it's an exciting project, it's an issue of public safety, it's an issue of congestion, and it's an issue of saving money. With that, I would like to thank you very much. Senator Lucio could not be here, he was in Arlington. He asked me to say on his behalf his enthusiastic support; his aide Steve Rosales is here. I'm taking up his time and talked twice as long. And also, Chairman Jim Solis has sent a letter, I understand, but I'm not sure it made your file this morning, so we have a unanimous Cameron County delegation here.

You will hear a little bit of opposition, and I appreciate the opposition's concerns, but this is one where it has been said in movies and other things: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Thank you very much and I hope you will look kindly and favorably on this project. I think it is one we can all be very proud of and help what I think is the largest and best city on the border of our great state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to want to ask him a couple of things, but they're only tangentially related to this. Is that now or at the end?

MR. JOHNSON: While he's at the podium, you might as well.

MR. OLIVEIRA: I'll be glad to try to answer any questions, Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman, I have a question about two matters that are only tangentially related to the proposal that's in front of us, and I am deeply respectful of not putting a member of the legislature in a difficult position, but there may be a couple of things that we have to start thinking about very seriously in about 12 days, and it would help us in our thinking if we sort of knew where legislative leadership regionally might be.

Proposition 15, if passed, would put on the table the possibility of a regional mobility authority of infinite definition. For example, from Brownsville extending up the Rio Grande to Laredo, it would be possible for those counties to come to the commission and say for the purpose of promoting tourism and our ports and our growing industrial base with the Republic of Mexico, we would like to form a regional mobility authority and take responsibility for more of the transportation systems within the area that affect mostly us and also keep the revenues to improve our own transportation grid.

There's always competition between areas -- heck, there's competition between Weatherford and Fort Worth -- I understand that. But what would be your sense if the commission sent a message to Brownsville and Pharr, McAllen, Harlingen, Rio Grande City, Laredo, that we would like to see a mobility authority that large? Is it your sense that the communities could put together a regional governance package that might make that work?

MR. OLIVEIRA: It's my strong sense that we could. Before we had for decades, and at least certainly when I started in the legislature in ‘81, we all had a Fright-night-football mentality that we can't let Pharr beat Brownsville, we can't let Harlingen beat San Benito, those kinds of things. I think that is part of the past. Are there remnants of it? Yes.

I think the key for us will be in which counties and what parts. The biggest problem I've seen -- and I hope this doesn't cut into our time because I know I've got a lot of nervous people behind me that want to talk -- the biggest part that I've seen, the biggest problem, I guess, is what counties and what do you compose the region of. We run into it in health and human services, we run into it in education. What is Region I? Should we be linked with Corpus Christi?

For too long our complaint has been too many people in Austin and most in Washington thought San Antonio was the southernmost part of Texas and we've had a hard time overcoming that, and there's a sense of bitterness and resentment about that and not recognizing that there are really millions of people south of San Antonio that are affected by what happens.

So I think if the regions are put together in a way that the regions feel together, like the Rio Grande Valley does now, and it may very well be Laredo could be an important component of that. We've worked very closely with the Border Infrastructure Coalition that you all have helped address many of those border needs. So I think the seeds are definitely planted and I think there would be support for that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So conceivably one of the best steps the commission could take would be to say, basically, to the citizens: We won't define for you what those borders are; would you please sit down and together try to figure out what's best for that authority yourself and tell us.

MR. OLIVEIRA: I think we can rise to that challenge, and frankly, Commissioner Williamson, my old friend, we have to. With meager resources and $5 billion shortfalls next session -- which may be more; I've been meeting with LBB staff and the comptroller the last week and yesterday, it may be worse -- so we're going to have to be looking regionally and be getting every penny out of every dollar that we can.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The second matter I wish to ask you about, another portion of Proposition 15 authorizes the commission to participate with either private sector or public sector or a combination in creating toll equity transportation corridors. I have reason to believe that there's a group of private sector companies that if Proposition 15 passes will probably bring to the commission a proposal to design, build and operate a complete transportation corridor, not just asphalt and concrete but rail as well, perhaps beginning in Brownsville and following generally the I-69 route all the way to Houston.

What would be the southernmost South Texas response to a proposal of that magnitude?

MR. OLIVEIRA: I think that one we'd have to study more and see how it helps us. There's also, besides the resentment, historical resentment or sense of benign neglect that may have existed historically from the state and Washington, there would be a concern that if we're not stakeholders and players in this and if this is just going to be something to take care of large urban areas, then we'd have to feel why should we get involved. So if we can know that we will be part of this and that these same options in terms of these kind of authorities and tolls, pikes and others will be there for us, as has been discussed, for example on -- not to start another controversy -- the second potential causeway. We have to feel we're part of that, and when you feel you're part of it, you're willing to ante up and do what you have to do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So probably the local response would be well, to the extent that it benefits us and we're part of the whole benefit package, then we're prepared to think about it.

MR. OLIVEIRA: I think that's the fairest response. I don't want to sound petty, but when I look at it, my job is not just taking care of my district, it's taking care of our whole great state, and I think when we're doing that we have to sacrifice. It's just our area feels that it's sacrificed so much more than any other area of the state over and over and over. So if we can feel we're, again, stakeholders in that, I think you'd see enthusiastic involvement.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you taking the time to visit with me about this.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a comment; I'll save my questions till the rest of the presentation. My comment is I just want to publicly thank you for all the work you did for us during the sessions. I know I got myself in a pretty good pinch before and you stood tall and helped us, and very much appreciate what you've done for transportation.

MR. OLIVEIRA: Thank you. I learned a long time ago you don't forget your friends. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Judge, welcome.

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.

Before I begin my presentation, I just want to quickly echo the comments of Representative Oliveira with respect to your staff down in the Valley at the time of the causeway accident. I was there about three o'clock in the morning. Amadeo was there; Beh was there; a lot of your people were there. They not only helped deal with an emergency situation that we were facing that was unparalleled in the history of Cameron County and South Texas, but they put themselves at risk in doing this.

You know, some of your engineers were on the bridge when it collapsed the second time around; your divers were in the water checking these columns for safety at great risk to themselves; your road crews were putting together ramps and so forth. I mean, everybody did yeoman's work and you need to be very proud of them. We are proud of them and we very much appreciate the leadership that they've shown in our community and they've made a big difference.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would like to introduce our Cameron County delegation. If you could stand up. They've made this trip to Austin to discuss this most important issue with you.

The last time I was here was to request construction of the US 77/83 and State Highway 48 overpass that serves as an access to our new international bridge, the Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates. I am pleased to report to you that the Veterans International Bridge is carrying 15,000 international vehicles daily, including 1,800 commercial trucks. We no longer have commercial trucks in our central business district, nor does Matamoros, Mexico.

I recently learned that the Texas Department of Transportation was selected as a winner of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association 2001 Globe Award for the US 77/83 Los Tomates Expressway extension. Congratulations, and we thank you for all the support that TxDOT has provided on our most recent international bridge project.

Today we are here again on another international project, a rail bypass project. In March of 2000 we conducted a public hearing to construct the first two of six planned overpasses along the Union Pacific Railroad line through Brownsville. During the public hearing -- which was attended by 300 angry people -- it was evident that we had to explore another alternative. Today we will outline our new alternative plan, our coordination with our local partners in the U.S. and in Mexico and the two railroads.

We have had over 62 meetings, as mentioned by Representative Oliveira, with multiple groups to develop the plan, including our local environmental groups. First of all, this is a local, regional, national and international project in which Cameron County will serve as the project sponsor, teamed with the City of Brownsville and the Port of Brownsville. The UP Railroad has committed in writing to this plan and will participate financially in the plan.

We are here to request your financial, engineering, and construction support in three areas. This includes: the construction of a US 281 overpass over the new rail line that will be constructed; the purchase of the UP Railroad right of way that is to be vacated; and finally, to construct a new four-lane highway that is called the West Loop within the old railroad right of way.

The City of Brownsville is prepared to take over the maintenance responsibility of Central Boulevard and Elizabeth Street in exchange for TxDOT's taking the new four-lane highway into the system.

The rail bypass project involves constructing 5.7 miles of new rail to the west of US 77/83, it involves constructing an overpass on US 281 west of Brownsville, and it involves the construction of a new international rail bridge across the Rio Grande. U.S. costs are estimated to be $9.6 million plus the cost of the vacated right of way. After our third speaker, we will show you slides of the proposed project.

Concurrently, our Mexican partners will construct a new rail bypass in Matamoros, Mexico. Their project involves the construction of 6.6 miles of rail and sharing of the cost of the international bridge and the relocation of their switch yard from downtown Matamoros to this western area. The TFM Railroad which is the Mexican side of the UP or Mexican equivalent of UP in Matamoros has estimated that Mexico's cost will be $19 million.

We have coordinated this plan with the City of Matamoros, the State of Tamaulipas, and the federal government of Mexico. We have been meeting continuously with UP and the TFM Railroad to advance this project.

The rail project in Brownsville will eliminate 15 at-grade rail crossings that carry almost 100,000 vehicles per day. We have had 30 train accidents, including one fatality, along this line in Brownsville since 1990; Cameron County has ranked as high as fourth in the state in auto-train accidents. This is not a statistic that we like to brag about.

The alternative for the construction of these six overpasses over Union Pacific line has been estimated to cost in the range of $43 million and this is six overpasses over seven major roads. The rail bypass plan, at a cost of $19.6 million, is a much better alternative and will be saving future construction dollars for the Texas Department of Transportation.

I would like now to introduce Commissioner Henry Gonzalez to say a few words on behalf of the City of Brownsville.

MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Thank you from the City of Brownsville, Texas' newest All-American City.

As Judge Hinojosa has outlined, we began this project by planning to construct two overpasses in our downtown area at 6th and 7th streets to overpass the Union Pacific Railroad's multiple daily trips to Matamoros. This NAFTA route has seen significant increase in railcars daily and Brownsville is often divided when each rail trip stops at the international border to change crews.

In the year 2000, over 168,000 railcars passed through our downtown area. Areas of west Brownsville are isolated by train blockages and there is only limited and indirect access for our EMS, fire, and police to service this area. The delays and safety issues created by this rail are significant. The existing rail lines go right by our schools, our parks, and our residential areas.

We believe the West Brownsville Bypass Plan before you today will solve these problems and allow us to regroup and redevelop without the hazard of the railroad, yet still maintaining excellent international rail service to Mexico. More significantly, this plan will save the Texas Department of Transportation millions of dollars since you will not have to construct overpasses at Palm Boulevard, Boca Chica Boulevard, FM 802, FM 3248, 6th and 7th Street.

As Judge Hinojosa mentioned, the City of Brownsville is prepared to take over the maintenance responsibility at Central Boulevard and Elizabeth Street.

We believe that by sharing the construction costs for this project, we soften the financial burden to the local community. This is not a toll-generating project where we can pledge revenues to pay for the cost; this is a rebuilding of our public infrastructure and a relocation of the railroad that has been there since the late 1800s.

The City of Brownsville has $2 million in bond funds to pledge to the project. We understand that the Texas Department of Transportation does not provide direct costs for rail projects, so what we have requested from you today are for the indirect costs for supporting this project. We hope that you will join us on this very important project to our community.

We thank you, and now Mr. Raul Besteiro from the Port of Brownsville will be our next speaker for this project. Thank you.

MR. BESTEIRO: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Chairman. I'm very glad to be here today as the executive director of the Port of Brownsville -- probably the biggest executive there is in the state of Texas.

(General laughter.)

MR. BESTEIRO: Here with me today is my chairman, Mr. Roy de los Santos, who is the chairman of our commission, and I'm speaking in support of the West Rail project.

The Port of Brownsville has been involved in the railroad relocation business since the early 1970s when Brownsville was selected as one of the cities in the United States for the federal demonstration project to move rails out of the city of Brownsville in order to construct and reduce the number of street/highway rail grade crossings.

We are completing the last phase of that project with the construction of the Olmito Railyard for the Union Pacific Railroad and the construction of the final rail linkage to the Union Pacific tracks. This is with the help of the Department of Transportation and our great Pharr director that you have stolen from us.

The original railroad relocation plan did not include the relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad track that runs through downtown areas of Brownsville, nor the relocation of the B&M bridge that crosses into Mexico. It includes the construction of overpasses at critical streets and highways.

Following this last phase of our railroad relocation project, the rail tracks will be removed from in front of our federal courthouse and our county courthouse which will be a great relief to them. This plan will greatly assist the rail flow between the Port of Brownsville and Mexico. The Port of Brownsville is currently moving 30,000 railcars annually on this route into Mexico, and we have experienced problems and accidents, delays, derailments near schools, and the traffic congestion that rails cause.

The Port of Brownsville's future plan includes moving railcars, as we are developing plans for deepening our port to 55 feet in order to accommodate large container ships. This would increase our tonnage to quite a bit more than we are at 4 million tons today, and we feel that if we move 100,000 containers, we would have another 50,000 railroad cars that we would be moving.

So we are indeed very proud to be here in support of the local governments of the county and the city and be a partner in this difficult task to develop an international project of this magnitude. It will hopefully support the needs for this development, the future, the cargos and the job enhancement that we need in our area.

We thank you for allowing us to be here and we thank you for this presentation. And now Judge Hinojosa or his representative will put a Power Point presentation on. Thank you so much.

MR. HINOJOSA: What I'd like to do instead is have Mr. John Hudson come up and explain to you, through the power point presentation, how this project works. This is his brainchild, and also Amadeo's brainchild. They were at that angry meeting when this came up and came up with this idea and they've taken off with it, so he'll present his presentation now.

MR. HUDSON: Now you'll get to see some graphics and we'll go through it back all the way to 1972, almost, soon as the train goes through the crossing.

This project, as any international project, involves lots of people and lots of coordination to select a corridor and to implement. Cameron County is well experienced in that and you can see some of the partners that are in this project.

Now, taking you back to 1972, as Mr. B explained, the first phase of this project was from the Port of Brownsville, to build that portion of the rail in the old Southern Pacific rail over on the right. The next project, the light blue, is the North Loop Rail and the Olmito switch yard that is under construction as we talk. This will be completed in approximately nine months.

From that point straight down through the middle of the city was the proposed railroad relocation project and to build seven new overpasses over the Union Pacific rail line. Following the public hearing to try to build the first two of those overpasses downtown, it was obvious we had to continue to look for another alternative. The red shows the proposed 5.7 miles of rail, what we call the West Rail Bypass. It will require also partners in Mexico to construct 6.6 miles of rail in Mexico, and Mexico's portion also includes the relocation of their switch yard.

The individual segments of this project includes crossing US 281. We propose to work with the highway department on requesting that you construct an overpass at US 281. It also requires the construction of a new international rail bridge. The rail bridge is privately owned by the Union Pacific Railroad and the federal government of Mexico. It's a separate corporation and we would totally replace the bridge that was built in 1907 downtown; this would be a new rail bridge shared by the partners.

Now, most significant, the initial project to build 6th and 7th Street was to get increased corridor access to Amigoland and the B&M Bridge. The corridor, one owner, 100 feet wide, nine miles of right of away, we are proposing that that be vacated and are requesting TxDOT to purchase that right of way from the Union Pacific in order to build a four-lane roadway to the area that does not have adequate access today.

The goals of the project are listed here: Obviously, elimination of at-grade crossings, eliminate the need to build overpasses, reduce traffic congestion, noise, improve traffic safety, and the caveat is to create the new transportation corridor for vehicles.

These are the locations that have been identified since 1972 in the railroad relocation project and this was left up to the city and TxDOT to build the overpasses. The 6th and 7th Street, we had $7 million, TxDOT had $3.5 million, $3.5 million from the city. That project is put on hold; hopefully we will not have to build that.

Obviously, rail safety in the middle of the downtown area, the derailment. This is right behind a shopping center and next to a school. The truck accidents that happen, we have NAFTA trucking activity, we have the increasing train trips to Mexico at about 11 percent per year in railcar increases.

This was the proposed overpasses: $7 million, 6th and 7th Street, where we conducted the public hearing that had strong opposition -- I say strong opposition; it also had strong support because the area that we're trying to get access to, Regional Mall, 1,600 acres of undeveloped land because of no transportation access to this area.

This is a breakdown of the West Rail cost: $19.6 million. The part that we're asking for participation from TxDOT is US 281, $5 million to build just a straight rail grade separation.

We have a list of funding. Part of the process is to bring in as many partners into this project so no one entity has to pay the large cost. As Commissioner Gonzalez said, with $2 million committed from the city in their bond project that we would redirect from overpasses.

Now, one of the significant items I want to point to is U.S. Department of Transportation, we have been working with Congress to reappropriate that money to begin our environmental study. The UP Railroad, we have a letter of commitment that the railroad will pledge the entire cost of whatever they sell the right of way to TxDOT, they will pledge all of that money back into this project.

The balance that we do not have defined at this point is $5.6 million, and not only are we here to ask you for help, we're also asking Congress to help and whatever Congress can help will soften the blow to the local communities as well as TxDOT. We never know how much money might be allocated to this project.

The project schedule for this project is 42 months, an optimistic schedule, and 42 months begins with the beginning of an environmental assessment. This is the corridor that we have defined, this is north of the World Birding Center, it goes through farmland. An environmental assessment has to evaluate all the issues along there and then the time starts clicking.

We have coordinated this schedule with three various agencies of the government of Mexico, and this includes diplomatic notes, the exchange of a presidential permit, the State of Texas permit for a new international bridge.

In closing, I'll call Judge Hinojosa back up because these are the items that we would like your help and participation for. Thank you.

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Very quickly. In that picture that you had up there of the one derailed car, it was a tanker car that had 17,000 gallons of a highly flammable, highly toxic chemical that derailed about a block away from an elementary school, another block and a half away from a second elementary school, two blocks from a high school, and another two blocks from an intermediate. That's how dangerous the situation is. If that thing would have burst open, a lot of people might have been injured; if it would have blown up, a lot more people would have been injured.

In essence, what we're asking here from TxDOT is a commitment to construct the US 281 overpass and to pay for that which would be the only road that this West Rail Bypass would cover; to purchase a UP right of way that's going to be abandoned once you move the rail tracks to the west so that they can take that money and use it to pay for their share of the construction of this project; and finally, to construct -- because you're going to buy the right of way -- to construct a four-lane highway into the western part of Brownsville, connecting up to the current B&M Bridge, the mall that's there as the West Loop.

We believe these projects are important for the health and safety of the community and the future economic development of Cameron County. And thank you for giving us your time and your attention, and thank you, hopefully, for your support.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, do you have any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Great presentation. I don't have any questions right now. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Very clear and succinct.

MR. JOHNSON: We do appreciate your making the effort. It's been very enlightening, as Robert and Ric have said. It's multimodal which from our sense, I believe, the transportation challenges not only of your area but of this great state need to focus on solutions that have multimodal aspects to them.

My understanding is there are two gentlemen here that wish to speak in opposition, John Herron and David Duncan. Gentlemen, if you will come forward. John Herron, I believe, is with the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, and Mr. Duncan is a property owner in the Brownsville area. Welcome.

MR. HERRON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is John Herron; I'm with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. I was asked to come here and speak today by Mr. Duncan who is here to speak in opposition to the project, but basically he asked me to come and talk and just make you all aware of our World Birding Center project.

I am in charge of the Wildlife Diversity Branch at the Texas Parks and Wildlife and the World Birding Center is part of my responsibilities. Basically what the World Birding Center is, it is a $20 million project, a series of ten visitor education centers and sites that we're constructing in the Valley, one of which is a $5 million facility we're building in the Brownsville area at the Resaca de la Palma property which is now a state park. The proposed corridor for the railroad would, currently from what I understand, abut the northern edge of our property.

One thing I wanted to make sure to mention, too, in regards to the World Birding Center project is this is to some extent a child of both of our agencies. The World Birding Center is an offshoot of a project we did in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation called the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail which was a series of wildlife viewing sites along the Gulf Coast which was funded using ISTEA monies which now is called TEA-21. We saw the success of that, we saw, particularly when we finished the southern portion of that in the Valley area, that there was further potential and we followed up with this concept of the World Birding Center.

The purpose of the center is to bring conservation awareness and additional tourism to the Valley area, and I did bring some handouts describing the project. I don't know what your protocol is as to who I should give these to.

MR. JOHNSON: Pass them up here.

MR. HERRON: And really, in closing I just wanted to make sure you all were aware of this project. We have appreciated the great cooperation we've had with your department as well as with all the officials here in Cameron County. It has been a joint state-community level project and I just wanted to let you know of it, keep this in your mind.

In regards to our role, we're watching closely where this railroad alignment goes because it does abut our property, and really at this point I think what I want to just say is we are watching with great interest as to where the railroad should end up.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, what does that mean: you're watching?

MR. HERRON: Well, our concern is that we do not want to see any proposed realignment -- and I have not seen any final plans -- impact our project at the World Birding Center and we're hoping whatever alignment is selected will minimize whatever impact there would be on local habitat as well, because it is a conservation project. We're not here opposing or supporting the project but I wanted to make sure that as everybody considers the railroad alignment that they do keep in mind that there is another significant project being constructed in the Valley and that there could be potential impacts.

We basically don't want to see our $20 million project bumping into another $19 million project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So is a better way for us to interpret your remarks might be we're concerned that this will have impact on us and let's work together?

MR. HERRON: Absolutely, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because that sends a different message than "we are watching." I don't know what that means.

MR. HERRON: I'm sorry if I misphrased that. We do want to continue to work together, with both Cameron County and the Department of Transportation, and like I said, largely I'm here -- we were not aware of the meeting until Mr. Duncan brought it to my attention; I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of us as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, are you aware or is staff aware of whether or not we have some pending enhancement proposals that affect this area?

MR. JOHNSON: I believe we have one in the current call from the World Birding Center, if I'm not mistaken.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So what would happen if that enhancement project got approved, how would that -- and we subsequently approved in a few months or years or whatever his rail line proposal, are we approving possibly one project now that's just going to be destroyed by another project we would have to approve a year from now?

MR. HERRON: I don't think that's the case at this point, sir. I think, several communities do have individual proposals in for this next round of TEA-21 funding, as well as our agency for the project itself, and as I said before, really what we're trying to do is just make sure you're aware that we do have those. I think these projects can be complementary.

My understanding in regards to the railroad realignment is that we had not yet seen a final plan and that's what I was saying in regards to us "watching" is we want to make sure that whatever the final decision is on this route it does not conflict with the other projects and proposals that we have in, both with your agency and internally.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand now. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: You said that the proposed rail line abuts your property?

MR. HERRON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm looking in my book. Was this what we had up here a while ago, one of these maps? It looked like it was not abutting it; it looked like there was a space between it.

MR. HERRON: The green square that you're looking at there in that property by the lake is our Resaca de la Palma property, and like I said, my understanding --

MR. JOHNSON: Which is how many acres?

MR. HERRON: Twelve hundred acres, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Are you trying to pull that one up? He's going to pull it up. That's not the same map.

MR. HERRON: No, it's not the same map.

MR. NICHOLS: This one actually shows the park.

MR. JOHNSON: The maps that we have shows a little, if you will, on a color basis a yellow space between the birding center and the proposed rail.

MR. HUDSON: I could answer the question. First of all, we're talking about a corridor; we're not talking about alignment. We have had three meetings with the World Birding Center and their director Madge Lindsey, and said the City of Brownsville wants the World Birding Center real strong and are funding money; they also want the rail, and we said both can perfectly coexist, but until we submit the environmental assessment to John for the department to comment on, we've just done early coordination before the environmental assessment.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I thought you were indicating it actually abutted the property.

MR. HUDSON: We both want it.

MR. NICHOLS: Sounds like it probably would not actually abut the property.

MR. HERRON: And back to your question, Mr. Nichols, if you're looking at the map there, I believe the difference we're talking about here is there is a small sliver of property immediately adjacent to ours owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service, so collectively, we are doing this project in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it's abutting the complex probably would be a better way of me putting it because these Fish and Wildlife Service properties adjacent to ours, adjacent to the properties the City of Brownsville has purchased as well, is really all one unit as far as visitation to the World Bird Center is. So that yellow buffer you're seeing there is actually the Fish and Wildlife Service's property that's immediately north of ours.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. HERRON: Appreciate the time. Sorry for the little bit of confusion, but again, I very much appreciate you hearing us. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Duncan?

MR. DUNCAN: Good morning.

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning.

MR. DUNCAN: My interest is this is a family interest. About 729 acres that lie west of this Parks and Wildlife refuge, it's actually called Coronado Farm and we hope to make it a Coronado subdivision and maybe Coronado golf club. We plan a subdivision, a first-class subdivision -- some people call it upscale subdivision -- and it's ideally situated for that.

I guess all of you know what a resaca is -- it's an old riverbed -- and it's highly prized by landowners, it makes beautiful home sites, and in this particular case, the rail line, as I will show in a moment -- but I have on here right now a plat or a map of the west side of Brownsville showing the city limits as of October 17 of this year, a few days ago. And this land that I'm pointing to, that's the farm, and as you can see, it lies just west of the Parks and Wildlife refuge, and this property is being recommended for annexation by the City of Brownsville, next Tuesday it's being proposed to be annexed by the City of Brownsville in nine different proposals.

These colored areas, and I'm going to move this down now and you can see up here on the left, that's recently been annexed by the City of Brownsville, and all along Highway US 77 and 83 up to almost the city limits of San Benito has been annexed by the City of Brownsville. Now, these areas down below toward and along Highway 281 -- and I'm told by Gary Ellis at the city that that along 281 is being proposed for annexation as well on Tuesday of next week.

My point is that this area is going to be in the city of Brownsville. It's first reading is next week and we're talking about moving a railroad from downtown Brownsville to another location in Brownsville. And my objection to this is the route it's taking. It could be moved north and west to another area and not impact the city of Brownsville as much as this current proposed route.

I will now want to substitute this. You can see over on this illustration the place where the switching yard is being constructed at this time, and then you move down to US 77/83 and you can see at this point the railroad leaving the underpass that was constructed by TxDOT and the rail line moves across in this path, and it does move adjacent to the wildlife refuge and the state park. Can you see that?

MR. JOHNSON: So that would follow basically the same proposed line to the point that you've gotten.

MR. DUNCAN: That is what Mr. Herron was talking about, that this rail line now is proposed to go right above, right adjacent to the park or wildlife refuge.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. DUNCAN: And then across about 1,500 feet of a strip and then enters Coronado subdivision or what will be Coronado subdivision, and across the subdivision, crossing 1421, and then on down to 281, and then of course on down to the river, and our objection is to the path that that is taking.

Let's pull this down a little further and you'll see this line here is the proposed US 281 connect, and I'm told that Amadeo Saenz, that was his idea; I'm told that by an engineer at Pharr that he liked that idea of moving this up to connect with 511, which this is the connect there at 511 as it leaves US 77/83 going to the port.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What did you just say? You said Amadeo said that to you or you were told?

MR. DUNCAN: No. I'm saying that an engineer in Pharr, Robin Longwell, as a matter of fact, told me that he had suggested that this route be incorporated in the highway system.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, we don't allow statements such as that to be unchallenged, so it may or may not be what Amadeo said.

MR. DUNCAN: Well, okay, I withdraw that then; maybe he didn't say it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're just a little sensitive about our employees being quoted two times removed.

MR. DUNCAN: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. DUNCAN: Nevertheless, this has appeared on many plats and maps put out by the MPO in Brownsville and that was -- again, we have been told that this would carry traffic from the Port of Brownsville to Los Indios Bridge.

Anyway, in a prior rendition of almost the same drawing, that same route as proposed had a rail line right by it coming down the same route, and as far as we're concerned, although it's not as far north or west as we would like, nevertheless, that's something that would be acceptable.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Better than what the proposal is.

MR. DUNCAN: Yes, sir. And it just needs to be moved away from the place that it's now proposed. In listening to the talk made by the proponents, I think at least two of them recited and pointed out with pictures and otherwise the dangers that attend the railroad. I can tell you at one point in my professional life my law firm represented Southern Pacific. I was a partner in the firm that was designated to represent them and I have been on many scenes of accidents and derailments and have witnessed the damage and havoc that a railroad can cause. I think some of their testimony about why it ought to be removed from the city of Brownsville is ample reason why it ought to be moved from the now-proposed route that we see here.

I have been talking yesterday afternoon and this morning with John Wood -- John Hudson who now tells me that maybe we can get together and come to some agreement about finding a corridor that might be better than the present proposed corridor for this railroad. I hope we can do that.

I understand that Cameron County now has proposed a countywide rail study plan, and for whatever reason, this West Rail location is not part of that countywide rail study plan. There seems to be some reason for keeping it out of that, but I suggest to you that perhaps this ought to be part of that countywide study plan.

MR. NICHOLS: Could I ask a question?

MR. DUNCAN: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Your primary concern is the location of the new rail line, not where we're talking about putting the new highway project. Is that correct?

MR. DUNCAN: Well, if where you're putting your overpass is where I understand it's now proposed to be, yes, I am concerned about the location of the overpass because it ought to be further up 281; it ought to be further west than the present proposed location of that overpass.

MR. NICHOLS: Because the actual location of the rail line, we don't do that. I mean, we're involved with the highway part of it.

MR. DUNCAN: Well, I'm asking you to use your influence, and, I think, your influence in making it move. If you don't build your overpass down near San Pedro and move it on up beyond Cavazos, then, of course, that would be a better solution.

Yes, I am asking you to do that. And in fact, I'm not sure that if you put this in the hopper with the study that I guess will take place sometime in the future about the whole rail problem in Cameron County, you wouldn't end up with a bridge at Los Indios, and I think if you move up the US 77/83 to a point beyond where 1421 intersects there at the 77/83, you'll find a lot of open spaces out between there and San Benito that you could direct this rail line down to the river and not impact as many people as this is going to.

I guess in closing I would like to say that our real main concern is the route of this. We think there is ample opportunity to -- or other areas that can be explored, and although this route that we pointed out, or I have my pen on right now, would be satisfactory, I think there are other routes that would be better.

Thank you for your time and your attention.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Any questions of Mr. Duncan?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: We appreciate your taking the time to be here, and also John Herron, thank you for being here.

One observation, and this is a personal one, but my sense is -- and I don't speak for the commission -- decisions like this are best when they originate where they affect the most people, and that's in this case Brownsville, Cameron County area, and my, again, personal view is that unless there is a large gap or an egregious error in either the process or in the decision that comes from the local area, I would have, personally, a great reluctance to intercede or to change that decision.

Now, I also believe that all affected parties hopefully can work together and come up with a solution that might not be 100 percent favored by everyone concerned but there is some good to come out of it for each of the affected parties. So that's just a little bit of personal philosophy and I'm sorry to bore you with it, but nonetheless, we're grateful for your being here and we wish a safe trip back.

We're going to take a short recess before our good friends from Grayson County and Collin County with the next delegation.

MR. OLIVEIRA: Can I add one thing before you close?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, Representative.

MR. OLIVEIRA: Let me make one thing abundantly, perfectly clear. I would not support anything that was adverse to the World Trade Center -- I'm sorry -- the World Birding Center. I'm thinking about my son who is in New York. The other issue you were right when you said it abuts it, it doesn't cross through it, and the plans are, I think, very environmentally sound. We've been looking at that; Parks and Wildlife is partially in the loop and we need to include them more, but we have been working with U.S. Parks and Wildlife and I believe we're going to have substantial environmental support.

The second component is that we can do all we want in planning but our partners in Mexico have to be on board and they're on board with what we've proposed to you. It costs that much more that much further north or west, and our resources are scarce and you can imagine theirs, and that's why I support this plan.

MR. JOHNSON: Good thinking. Thank you. We'll take a short recess.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

GRAYSON AND COLLIN COUNTIES

(Rep. Ron Clark, Rep. Jerry Madden)

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome. We're delighted to welcome our final delegation of the morning, the good people from Grayson and Collin counties, and I believe Representative Ron Clark is going to lead the presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Gosh, Ron, it seems like it was just yesterday.

MR. CLARK: Just yesterday at the back and front mikes, and I've got Jerry Madden, you've heard him here many times too, but we've told him to cut it down this time so you don't have to worry; we didn't want to be here after lunch.

We appreciate very much being here, and since I've got this opportunity, we really appreciate the work that TxDOT does. In fact, I'm afraid of complimenting Bobby Littlefield so much, our area engineer, we're afraid he's going to get promoted and moved away from us. As long as you make him our district engineer, it would be great, if you promote Mr. Freeman, but we are happy with that.

I'm representing the Highway 289 Coalition. We have here today Representative Jerry Madden from District 67, I'm the state representative from District 62 -- Jerry will be speaking a little later. We also have with us Grayson County Judge Horace Groff; and Gene Short is not only Grayson County commission but the MPO policy committee chairman; also Mayor James Thorp from Pottsboro, Mayor Bill Lindsay from Denison; our district engineer Jim Freeman is here, as is our area engineer, Bobby Littlefield; Jeff Christy of the airport board and Jerry Chapman representing the Denison Chamber of Commerce and our airport manager.

Getting into this presentation, one of the key factors I think that should be considered is the growth of the population, and if you consider the area we're talking about, out of Texas' 254 counties, you can see up here this North Texas area comprises only 12 counties but it has almost 25 percent of the population, and the growth of that area is towards the north, up Highway 75/35 and into the Lake Texoma area.

You can see on the highway map there how this is set out with Highway 35 there on the west, Highway 75 on the east, and then Highway 289 going up the center from Frisco up to Highway 56, and there to the airport, as you can see there, a little bit west of Denison. A closeup of that shows, and there in green we can see the extension we're talking about right up there past the airport and up to Pottsboro. There's already construction going on and an improvement of Highway 289 from Frisco up north serving to that area, and the proposed project is a proposal to construct two lanes from Highway 56 on up to Pottsboro, a distance of about eleven miles.

What's the benefit of this going to be to the area, to TxDOT, to Texas? It's going to be, first of all, a reliever to US Highway 75. If you take a look at 75 there, not many people realize this, but up there north at the border between Texas and Oklahoma it actually has more traffic than Highway 35, the NAFTA highway. There's about 30,000 cars a day, the last count there at the border on Highway 75, where there's only about 24,000 on the Highway 35 side.

Additionally, I think this is going to become more important as we have the completion of Highway 82, the east-west corridor there which you can see it is now already past Bonham, it's a little town called Bells; that last segment will be completed in 2002. We will then have an east-west corridor going all the way from Texarkana out west, and the additional burden I think that's going to place on 75 is going to be significant. We're going to have a lot more east-west traffic, people are not going to have to come either down through the Metroplex highways to go from west, or if they want to go west, they don't have to go out on 30 or 20, they can go up 75, hit 82 and go either east or west.

It's going to reduce travel time between the DFW Metroplex, the airports there, the DFW airport and the Love Field Airport up into that North Texas area which, as I pointed out, is growing very, very quickly, 25 percent of the population now. That little town of Frisco had 400 percent growth in the last ten years; Collin County is gaining two new state representatives, it grew so much, to give you an idea of the growth that's coming up there. So feeding in from those airports, again, this can wind up being a reliever.

It will provide a direct access to an airport for Collin County. There's a lot of high tech industry there in Collin County, all through that area, from McKinney to Frisco, up through Collin County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Still?

MR. CLARK: Oh yes, they're still there, and it will get better; I'm confident. But they do not have access to a good industrial airport and this would provide them that. That straight shot from 289 would provide a direct shot up there.

And again, Lake Texoma is one of the big recreational areas for that Metroplex area. The Corps of Engineers estimates 6 million visitors a year to Lake Texoma. The Lake Texoma Association which covers all the areas, not just the Corps of Engineers area, says about 10 million visitors a year, most of them coming out of that area, and you can see that on the weekends how crowded Highway 75 gets and what kind of reliever it would be to have that link directly from the Metroplex up to Pottsboro up to Highway 120 -- which Highway 120, there's already work going on there -- the link up there to Highway 120 would get it straight on up there.

The airport that we're talking about, the airport has a 9,000-foot runway, it can handle up to a Boeing 747. TxDOT has already invested over $3-1/2 million up there for such things as paving the runways, for completing the lighting out there, putting up security fences -- and thank heavens we did that before September 11 -- and they are currently updating the master plan.

To give you an idea of the kind of traffic we have out there at the airport, we have here a KC-135 that came in on an Air Force tour last year. Like I said before, it will handle up to a 747, but this was here last year. Just this last week a Falcon 900 was out there that had landed. We have in the hangars here a Boeing 737 being worked on by one of the companies out there; a DC-9 in another hangar being worked on out there; a DC-7 that was being refurbished -- there's some electronics kind of work going on there -- and you can see in the background very faintly either one or two DC-3s.

There is a lot of large plane traffic out there, it's a large runway, there's a lot going on out there -- it's the third longest runway in North Texas -- and by turning this into an intermodal hub, we have the opportunity -- completing this last piece of road there in the yellow, we see the last little section of Highway 289 that we're talking about. This blue over here is the rail spur that's already in existence, it's being improved now to connect to the Union Pacific Railroad line up in Pottsboro. We've got, of course, the airport facilities right in there; we've got about 165 acres here available for investment. This is already in an activated foreign trade zone, and then the last little segment that we've got left here is this little piece here of 289 that would go into that.

We already have a number of companies showing interest in using an intermodal hub. You can see them coming from Sherman, the Metroplex area, McKinney, Dallas, Addison, Garland, Grand Prairie and as far away as Denver, Colorado, and Marimont, Florida, and you can see the kinds of industries that could be using this: commercial aircraft leasing, manufacturing, maintenance facilities, and so forth. And also the tie-in with the industrial airport use is it would be available for all of those Collin County industries that we have there.

A lot of people don't know it but we also have a TI plant, Raytheon MEMC plant, a new place called Globatech opening right there in Grayson County, and all of these would be available to them also.

This is one project that has universal support in the area. We have resolutions of support from all these cities starting up north there at Denison and Pottsboro, going on down through Sherman, all the various communities there. Representative Madden will talk about the support out of Collin County. And this is unusual for our county, I'll tell you. The idea of Denison and Sherman working together is something you don't often see, given their football relationship, but all of them there are together.

We also have resolutions from the chambers of commerce that are there and other agencies: the economic development corporation, the councils of government, Denison Industrial Foundation, the Grayson County Airport Board, and the United States Department of Interior are all focusing on the support.

But it's easy to talk about support. I mean, that's a piece of paper, a resolution is passed, that costs very, very little. In this case we actually have financial commitment from the county. The feasibility study has been completed and this project is already in TxDOT's long-range plan, but the county went ahead and has committed preliminary engineering, they've already gone ahead and hired Frederic R. Harris, Inc., committed $725,000 for them to complete the design schematic and the environmental assessment. They've already paid $640,000; the county is serious about this.

They've also committed to the right of way map, title search, deed and contract, property acquisition; $275,000 is the estimate on that. The county is also committed to obtain the right of way and pay for displacement costs; that's an estimated cost of $1-1/2 million that they've committed there. And then finally the county is also committed already to utility adjustments at $500,000, with a total commitment from the county already of $3 million. So it's not just resolutions, they're actually coming to you and asking that you partner in this.

The request that we're making of TxDOT, this project will be estimated for two lanes, that 11-mile section, the grade separations at Highway 56, Highway 82, and at the Union Pacific Railway that would be required is $20 million. It's currently a Priority 2 in your plans now; what we're asking is that it be moved up to Priority 1 and then request funding for the project.

If you take a look at what this is going to result, you have a reliever from Highway 75, you have access to an airport for the Collin County area, you have access to Lake Texoma area for the people in the Metroplex, and then you have the final last link, the last little piece that's left in a North Texas intermodal hub system that can have a tremendous benefit to that whole North Texas region.

I'd be glad to answer any questions, and then Representative Madden will be following me.

MR. NICHOLS: When you were showing the pictures of all those airplanes at the airport, I kept looking for a picture of mine on there.

(General laughter.)

MR. CLARK: Well, we were trying not to show too much favoritism there when we did that. But you've flown in there and you know how big that runway really is.

MR. NICHOLS: It's huge. It's an old Air Force base, it's huge.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you need all 9,000 feet?

MR. NICHOLS: I landed on the arrow on the end, I think.

MR. CLARK: After the third or fourth bounce, see, there's still plenty of room.

We appreciate your attention and we would very much appreciate your support for this project.

MR. JOHNSON: Question here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: While we have you here, and even though we know that, God willing and the creek don't rise, you'll be on the federal bench the next time we have an opportunity to talk, and congratulations to you.

MR. CLARK: Well, thank you. Actually they tell me it's so slow, I'm going to be serving the next session before this is through, and I'm not joking. I'm running and I will be in the next session, and I'm hoping that by the summer of 2003 the confirmation process will go through, hoping.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If Proposition 15 passes in a few weeks, I have reason to believe that a consortium of private companies might present an idea to the commission to build a large transportation corridor from Brownsville to Sherman, paralleling Interstate 35. In your view as a member of the North Texas delegation, what would be your viewpoint of supporting the notion of a toll equity-financed transportation corridor, 15 to 30 miles east of Interstate 35 to take traffic of existing 35 and perhaps provide high-speed rail and freight rail to the state?

MR. CLARK: Well, in fact, I'm a member of the Highway 35 Coalition and that is another area that's going to need some relief. So the road we're talking about of course is not that wide, it's a two-lane, trying to get the access into the airport and up to Pottsboro as a relief now. The amount of right of way that's being acquired at some future date -- and of course, that project is going to take a long time, I think -- that may be one of the possible routes being selected.

I've seen several different ones that the people interested in a tollway have looked at; that may be a possibility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's not your instinct to either support or object to that concept?

MR. CLARK: No. I think the concept, in the long run, is probably a good one, and we've been looking for ways to try to get some relief off of 35, and a combined road and rail project -- I've been able to get no interest in rail among my colleagues, I've been trying for several years because we managed to get Amtrak coming in through Gainesville there. Up to now there's been very little interest, and I think the combined rail and road is, in fact, going to be our future.

And I think, long range, we get this right of way nailed down, we get a corridor established in there, long range it will be there for future development. We're talking right now, though, on this particular project, a fairly small project, eleven miles to complete the corridor, $20 million, it would have a lot of benefits, but then you would have that corridor nailed down for the future if and when the project got up that far.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you suggest if a project of that magnitude went forward, would it be better to try to tie it into 35 on the Red River or 75, based upon this traffic count business that you've got?

MR. CLARK: I actually think that 75 is the route that's being used now and making improvements along Highway 75 and improving it might be the better way to go. I'm not an engineer, but you've got to kind of go where the private sector is using, and right now they're using 75, and that may be you have to look at the use there. But Highway 35, I don't think we're going to live without one or the other, I think over time you have to have both because that traffic, the economy gets going back again from Mexico, we're going to have both.

There's a long-range goal to try to work with Oklahoma and I've been working with representatives over there. If they'll improve Highway 69 -- and finally there was a senator up there who kept blocking improvements there because it was going to go around one of his little hometowns instead of through; we seem to have eliminated part of that problem, talking to the representatives up there that I know, and I think both the people in Oklahoma and on our side are looking at trying to work on bringing Highway 75 up to interstate-type standards, maybe just making it an extension of 45 and go on through. But again, that's long range.

MR. WILLIAMSON: A few more quick questions, Chairman.

Highway 82 in some places is four lanes now. Right?

MR. CLARK: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Has there been a lot of economic development on the frontage roads that parallel Highway 82?

MR. CLARK: There's been some out there over north of Bonham and some starting towards Savoy, not a whole lot up to now. Gainesville, there's kind of a bottleneck there because there's a lot of development right there. And one of the long-range future problems I see further out west as 82 goes right through the center of downtown Nocona and a couple of little towns out there to the west, when we get that last little segment from Bells to Sherman finished up -- which I believe will be towards the end of next year -- you're going to have, I think, a fairly major east-west corridor. Right now they turn off on 56 and they go down through what's basically a farm-to-market road -- it's not really but it is basically -- past houses and so forth, and I think you'll start seeing more traffic. It will be much easier for trucks to just take off that way.

You would be able to come up north out of Collin County up 75, hit 82 and then head out east towards Texarkana or head out west without having to go through all that Dallas traffic which would be a reliever to their air pollution problems.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you say one of your transportation engineers was here with you today?

MR. CLARK: Yes. Mr. Freeman is here, the district engineer, and also the area engineer, Bobby Littlefield.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He may be more appropriate to ask this question, but I'll ask it of you, and if he has the answer, that's fine. Did I see some 55-mile-an-hour speed limit signs on Highway 82 west of this intersection?

MR. CLARK: East, in Red Oak.

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, there are some 55-mile-an-hour speed zones out there; they're in the Wichita Falls District.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I asked the question was maybe more for my executive director than for you. I'm just kind of curious how it is that a two-lane, soft-shoulder, overloaded state highway going by my house is 65 to 70 miles an hour and you guys somehow got four-lane divided lowered to 55 miles an hour. That's interesting to me.

MR. CLARK: I get that question a lot, actually, and the research we did -- and this is when I first got elected, people were complaining about it, why can't it all be 55 -- you hear that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Amazing how people want it to be slower.

MR. CLARK: Until they get on it. Once they start driving, they don't drive that 55 but they sure want it there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I drove it at 55.

MR. CLARK: Well, I'm sure, and I always do too. One of the things that came up was some of these towns had these lower speed limits sometime on back, and I don't think that TxDOT was into trying to force them to bring them up if it was inside the city limits, but I'm not sure they're allowing them to bring them down now if they try to lower them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I can assure you I saw some 55 mile an hour speeds that weren't inside some city limits, and I was much impressed.

MR. CLARK: Well, Oak Ridge is one of these little communities that doesn't look like a city. I mean, you have to get way off the highway to find it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There must not be a frontage road right in there.

MR. CLARK: No. When you get to that little town there -- and it's east of Gainesville, west of Sherman, it's in Cooke County -- you wouldn't know it's there if you didn't know it was there; you wouldn't see it. You don't see anything from the highway; you're just there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for sharing that with us.

MR. FREEMAN: I was told that there were some safety concerns out there was the reason they went ahead and reduced that speed limit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't doubt that, and my hat's off to whoever pulled that off because there's some places where the speed limits ought to be 55 miles an hour. Thank you.

MR. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. MADDEN: Gentlemen, I'm here to add Collin County's support to the project. Our county commissioners have voted their support for this project. Since I'm also the representative that's got most of those small-growth towns like Frisco and McKinney and Allen and those others in where most of those population growths are coming, the expansion is going to be continuing going north. Frisco has got a grow-out population that they're looking at by 2020 of about 400,000 people; McKinney is about the same in about that period of time, so we're looking at population growth that's obviously spreading in that direction and any of the expansions I think are very valid items to be added. So we're here basically in support of the program.

I can also tell you that the City of Frisco, their assistant city manager has been a big supporter of this program and pushing it forward, and their mayor is a supporter of the program, and we're glad to be here as part of the project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How would you react to a parallel transportation corridor to 35?

MR. MADDEN: Got to think about it. First, you talked about 35 versus 75, and I think obviously you're going to look at cost on that because you've got to look at the major metropolitan areas of Dallas and Fort Worth, and I think that 35 is probably going to be more logical to use when you look at the combined Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and the closeness that that is, particularly to the DFW Airport. But also since I live right on 75 and it goes right through the heart of my district, it's also going to be a major transportation area.

It probably is going to depend, Ric, on where they're going, where are they going beyond the state of Texas. Is it going toward St. Louis or is it going toward Wichita or is it going on toward the Omaha-Minneapolis areas on north. If you're going toward St. Louis, it makes more sense to use 75; if you're going on toward Oklahoma City, it makes more sense to use 35.

I think that there would be a pretty good coalition of legislators that would support that kind of project. Obviously, we've already got a Tollway Authority which we've been supportive of for quite some time and put it together and working on the toll aspects of highways for that area, and we've got good metropolitan work together specifically on development and putting together a tollway authority.

We've also got the regional transportation with DART which is multicounty with some of the cities that are in it, and obviously we've got some more work to bring some of the other cities in. It depends on looking at taxes, too, and tax bases and what are the revenue sources for those because we've got some cities -- particularly one of the things we have in the regional transportation areas that comes up is when you run up to what's the tax rates, and what some of these cities are using, like Frisco and McKinney have economic development taxes that are not in the regional transportation authority like DART is, whereas other towns like Plano certainly are, and it's a taxing question.

When areas like DART were set up first, it was not, I don't think, even in the forefront of anybody's thought process: Gee, this little town of 2,000 out there called Frisco, Texas, is going to need DART any time soon. Or McKinney, they've got their 25,000 people and they're not trying to grow. And now both those areas need DART and DART needs them. It's a combination of how you work those together.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir.

Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: None.

MR. CLARK; We appreciate very much your consideration of this. Like I said before, this would be not only a reliever for the major north-south highways, but it would open up that intermodal hub. Grayson County is committed to it, they've already put money on the table up front and they've already started to spend it, already started the planning on it, and would very much appreciate your support. Even if it was phased in over a couple of years -- which would be a possibility on that project -- especially if it was phased in to get from 56 maybe up to the airport, there's a couple of east-west roads there, and then follow up on up to Pottsboro would be one way of phasing it, I think -- which might be a little different than normal phasing but might be a possibility.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to make a comment. Hat's off to Grayson County for stepping up to the plate with the money on the engineering and stuff and the commitment for the right of way, utility movements, and things of that nature. Very significant, very significant. You have got a diamond in the rough out there with that airport; I think it could be another Alliance. It's got the rail, you've got the huge population area, it's going to be so difficult to get to Love or DFW from that region of the state, and to have a piece of infrastructure -- I think it was an old B-52 SAC base, wasn't it?

MR. CLARK: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: So you've got the thickness of the concrete and stuff for commercial freighters and stuff in there which in combination with that with the population is just tremendous opportunity.

MR. CLARK: I think anything up to 600,000 pounds, they can handle. We would sure appreciate your help in polishing that diamond.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: It's nice to see Jim Freeman here, the Paris District engineer. It's a great part of the state and we appreciate everyone from Collin and Grayson counties coming today. I'm still trying to figure out when Commissioner Williamson said that he drives 55 miles per hour if that means at least 55 miles per hour -- which would be my interpretation. He didn't blink and his nose didn't start growing like Pinocchio, so I'm still trying to figure that out.

I think Robert's comments are also very appropriate. We obviously can't get everything done that we need to get done, we don't have the resources, and consequently we need partners at every level, whether they be cities, counties or whatever, and I think your willingness to step forward on this project is significant in that regard, and we're hopeful that we can see our way through to getting this done. As you know, we don't make those decisions on the day of the delegation presentation, but we wish you a safe journey back home, Collin and Grayson counties, and appreciate your being here.

We're going to take a very slight recess to allow you to get back to commerce and industry and whatever else you need to get to, and then we'll reconvene and go about the rest of the meeting. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: The meeting is reconvened. We have some housekeeping duties that I would like to note. Anyone who wishes to address the commission should fill out a card at the registration table in the lobby. To comment on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a yellow card, and if it is not an agenda item, we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting, and for that we would ask that you fill out a blue card. Regardless of the color of the card, we would request that each speaker be considerate of the time and take no more than three minutes.

We will begin this portion of the meeting with the approval of the minutes for our commission meeting held in September.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Number 3 on the agenda is a resolution. This is probably an appropriate time to remind everyone about the importance of exercising care in our work zones. TxDOT's workers and contractors need a safe working environment, and one of the ways we can do that is for all Texans to pay extra attention in our work zones. Please slow down and watch for workers in the area. The men and women who work tirelessly to improve our Texas roads deserve that and nothing less.

We've had a fatality in the TxDOT family recently and the resolution concerns that fatality, and I would like to read it and place it in the record. The resolution reads:

"Whereas, Gregory L. Jares was fatally injured while performing his duties as an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation, Waco District;

"And whereas, Mr. Jares had served the Texas Department of Transportation in a loyal and efficient manner and had earned the respect and friendship of his fellow employees;

"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 its sincerest sympathy to the relatives of Gregory L. Jares, and that this resolution be sent to his family.

"Signed by the Texas Transportation Commission this 25th day of October 2001."

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Again we would like to extend our sincerest condolences to the Jares family. Safety on our highway system and amongst the TxDOT family is one of our highest and most motivating goals. This is our first fatality in the fiscal year that we're in; hopefully it will be our last. In the previous two fiscal years I believe we've had two in each of those years, and this is something that is vitally important to the fabric of this department but also to the nature of this great state.

Mike, I will turn over the rest of the agenda to you.

MR. BEHRENS: We will begin with our regular business items. First is item number 4, Aviation, and Dave Fulton will present that minute order.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. Commissioners, for the record, my name is David Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This item is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for eight airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown in Exhibit A, is approximately $1.9 million, approximately $800,000 federal, $900,000 state, and approximately $200,000 local.

A public hearing was held on October 8 of this year and no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

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, David.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll have our rules for proposed adoption first, beginning with item 5(a)(1), the rules on environmental policy.

MS. NOBLE: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, Helen. For the record, my name is Dianna Noble and I'm the director of Environmental Affairs.

Agenda item 5(a)(1)(a) is for the repeal of an existing MOU with the Texas Water Commission and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, both regarding the review of TxDOT projects. Transportation Code 201.607 requires TxDOT to adopt a memorandum of understanding with each state agency that has responsibility for the protection of the natural environment or for the preservation of historic or archaeological resources. Transportation Code 201.607 also requires TxDOT to adopt the memorandum and all revisions by rule and to evaluate and revise a memorandum every five years.

To comply with 201.607 of the Transportation Code, it is necessary to repeal the existing MOUs and readopt a new MOU with TNRCC which provides for review of TxDOT projects having the potential to affect natural resources within the jurisdiction of TNRCC.

I can at this point specifically go over the old MOUs or I can jump to a summary of the major revisions to the MOU. Which do you prefer?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a question for her on this that's general in nature.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, why don't you go to the question and then she can jump over the specificity.

MS. NOBLE: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: When an industrial concern makes application to TNRCC for a permit to construct, or reconstruct an industrial facility which, by necessity, emits product into the air, under the old MOU or under the proposed new ones, or if not at all, what stakeholder rights do we have to express our concerns of the impact of that proposed reconstruction, or construction, in the context that additional contaminants might ultimately push an area into nonattainment and then affect our transportation planning?

MS. NOBLE: Commissioner, the MOU, both the old one and the new one, do allow TxDOT input into the state implementation plan which defines the emissions budgets that are directed both towards industry -- which is defined as point source -- and mobile sources which is generally what TxDOT deals with, so it's an indirect tie. It doesn't give a specific provision that says, TxDOT, you can make an argument related to the amount that we give to the point source, but we do give input on the motor vehicle emission budget, and along with that it does include discussions about the integrity of both the mobile source and the point source budgets that are allocated by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have we ever asked for, or should we ask for, a larger stakeholder presence in the permitting of an industrial application if it might ultimately negatively affect our motor source decisions?

MS. NOBLE: Commissioner, I believe that occurs in the process. For example, in the Houston-Galveston area, there is a lot of discussion about the integrity of both the point source data and the mobile source data, and by nature, it requires both industries, in essence, to come together to address the questions and concerns related to what is the accuracy of that data. It has never gotten to the point where it's been elevated that required anything other than that.

Although I do believe that as the restrictions get more and more, you tend to hear more of those arguments from the point source side than from the mobile side because the mobile side tends to be an invisible face while a point source has the name of an industry associated with it, and we, in essence, represent the traveling public when we're arguing about the distribution to the motoring public.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know where I'm leading with this because you know t he particular instance I'm concerned about, but let me just set a more concrete example. An industry requests a permit for a particular type of product; the industry has several choices about how it emits pollutants, all of which are legal, some of which emit more, some of which emit less. It seems to me that, as representatives of the traveling public, we have a valid reason to express our concerns to the TNRCC hearing examiner if we believe that the albeit, legal, but more polluting, permit might ultimately result in our having to somehow regulate motor source because additional volumes of contaminants have been emitted by a less clean, albeit legal, process that TNRCC might approve.

I'm just trying to understand if in the old MOU or the new one we are taking any more aggressive posture about that.

MS. NOBLE: The method we do that is by commenting and we do make comments when we see the direction that certain regulations might be going toward or how TNRCC may have estimated the motor vehicle emissions budget and we felt that we were not necessarily involved the way we should. I believe that that approach has worked; however, I do anticipate that in the future there's going to be more aggressive discussions on both sides of the table because that piece of the pie is getting more and more demanding and it's getting to the point where we're counting pounds now, not tons, and air quality is measured by tons, but there will be a more aggressive discussion on both sides.

Some of the issues that you're mentioning, Commissioner, are issues that I know that the legislators are battling with the issue of should industry be grandfathered or not, and that's one of the issues that you're familiar with in dealing with the fact that that industry had been grandfathered.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. What concerned me even more was that the TNRCC hearing examiner, had I not been personally interested in it, didn't notify us about this hearing and his decision as to whether to require this level of NOX or permit this level of NOX or this level of NOX, and it kind of hit me that if the hearing examiner could grant that permit under a less clean environment and it be legal, that would have significant impact on us in the Dallas-Fort Worth attainment issues.

MS. NOBLE: The MOU does specify that TNRCC is supposed to notify TxDOT whenever they have a hearing or a meeting that might impact transportation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what I was getting to. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Dianna, do you want to just highlight the changes?

MS. NOBLE: I'll highlight the changes and if I need to go back to some of the more specific issues, I will, because I had five pages so I thought I'd better ask.

The new proposed MOU with TNRCC in essence consolidates and updates the review of projects that were being done for water quality under the Texas Water Commission MOU and air quality under the TNRCC MOU. I will now highlight the major changes.

The new MOU provides for earlier coordination with the intent of improving collaborative decision making and streamlining the review of transportation projects. Under the proposed MOU, TxDOT will coordinate environmental reviews for projects requiring Section 401 water quality certification requirements under the Clean Water Act; under the old MOU that was done by the federal notice.

Under the new MOU, coordination requirements under the old MOU with Texas Water Commission related to hazardous materials/contaminated materials have been eliminated since federal and state regulations negate the need for a separate process. Projects that may encroach on threatened or impaired waters and are five miles upstream will be coordinated. This narrows the projects that would have been coordinated, as defined under the old MOU, which basically defined as new location projects, all highway projects, and all EISs.

The projects in the recharge zone and contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer zone will also be reviewed. Review of projects over the recharge zone had only been required under the previous.

Regarding the air quality, the provisions for the change of information regarding the inspection maintenance program was eliminated. TNRCC has signed a separate MOU with Vehicle Title and Registration Division.

TxDOT will coordinate added capacity projects in all metropolitan areas of 100,000-plus population regardless of the air quality conformity status. The old MOU addressed review of projects only in nonattainment areas, so that has increased the number of projects reviewed.

The review period remains the same: 30 days with an additional 30 days upon written request.

Staff recommends repeal of old 2.23 MOU with Texas Water Commission, old 2.25 MOU with TNRCC, and recommends proposal for adoption of new 2.23 MOU with TNRCC.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments? My understanding is there is a joint public hearing with the TNRCC on the 27th of November?

MS. NOBLE: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(a)(1)(b) and this is Adopt-an-Area proposed rules.

MR. WEBB: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. My name is Zane Webb with the Maintenance Division.

The minute order that you've got before you proposes the repeal of 2.67 concerning the Adopt-an-Area Program. The program was originally designed to entice private funding of maintenance rest areas. We felt that the cost to support these programs was too great for potential adopters since 1997 when the original rules were adopted. We've never used the rules at all; during review of our rules, it was found that we hadn't used them. Staff is recommending repeal.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

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.

MR. BEHRENS: 5(a)(2) proposed rules for road utility districts.

MR. RANDALL: Good morning. Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

The minute order we bring before you today proposes the repeal of Section 21.171 to 21.312 and simultaneously proposes the adoption of new Sections 15.130 through 15.136 to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code relating to road utility districts.

The Transportation Commission last adopted rules relating to road utility districts in 1985 as part of Chapter 1 Right of Way. Since that time there have been numerous changes in the organization of the department and in titles of employees. In addition, Title 43 was originally organized by department division but is now organized by subject matter; therefore, the road utility district rules more appropriately pertain to Chapter 15, Transportation Planning and Programming.

Finally, the proposed revisions reorganize the rules to follow the statute more closely and significantly shorten the rules to make them easier to understand and apply.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes the publication of the proposed repeal of Sections 21.171 to 21.312 and the proposed adoption of new Sections 15.130 to 15.136 in the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comment. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. My comment is congratulations on going from 27 pages to 18. My hat's off to you.

MR. RANDALL: Well, I think we need to relay that to the Office of General Counsel

MR. NICHOLS: Hat's off to you. Very efficacious use of words.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: With that, I'll move to accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(a)(3) Proposed Rules for use of State Intellectual Property, Bob Jackson.

MR. JACKSON: Bob Jackson, deputy general counsel.

This minute order proposes amendments to the department's Intellectual Property rules. The department has an agency-specific statute that authorizes us to apply for, register, secure, hold, and protect copyrights, trademarks, patents and other evidence of protection of exclusivity. The statute further requires the commission to adopt rules to implement that statute; the commission did so in 1997.

Over the last four years some policies have changed so we felt it was necessary to amend these rules to streamline and clarify and to further decentralize the process. Recommend adoption of the minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chair?

MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Robert, I know you have some questions -- Mr. Nichols, I know you have some questions. Were your questions resolved?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, basically. I think I will probably always have a little bit of a concern in this. My first concern really was more fundamental. In ‘97 we reviewed the entire process in great detail, put a set of rules in place as to how we thought it should be done; it was done totally different. What is occurring today is modifying the rules, in effect, to back up what we're actually doing. It's a rule that's chasing a process, as opposed to a process following a rule.

I think it's very important that our rules to the public, so the public understands, do in effect reflect what we are doing, and I didn't really have that much problem with the rule to reflect what we're currently doing as I did the actual steps involved and how we got from point A to B.

MR. JACKSON: And the department was reorganized in 1997 with the new administration; that's when the process started to change. It was through our rule-review process that we recognized that our rules weren't quite matching department policy and we needed to change them.

MR. NICHOLS: I will always believe -- I think the great bulk of intellectual property we have are copyrighted materials that we want to protect yet really make available to the public. I know that's overwhelmingly what we're doing with our intellectual property, and for that, this is probably a pretty good process. I know that we do have some intellectual property that has commercial value and I think probably identifying which ones have the commercial value so that we can take those and treat those a little bit differently is pretty important.

I remember, as we did a lot of division tours and stuff several years ago, we ran across several opportunities that the department had missed to probably make some pretty good money with some, and I'm not exactly sure at this moment what the right thing to do on that is, but I think we should always keep in mind there are some of those that are valuable and should be marketed.

But with that, I'll move to accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I asked whether you were satisfied or not -- obviously we communicate through staff and I only tangentially know your concerns, but I want to pose the question to you. In the briefing material we were all given, it appears that one of the reasons for the language you suggest is that district engineers had a great deal of latitude in defining what was intellectual property and how to use it and it was different between districts. Is it now the case that there's less latitude and more conformity or more consistency between districts?

MR. JACKSON: These rules really go both ways: in some ways we're providing more criteria to try to provide consistency in how we handle things; on the other hand, we are decentralizing the setting of the license fees, and the license fees, because of the types of intellectual property that we've had that outside groups are interested in are typically between $1 and $100 because it's not something marketable exactly but something we want to control its use.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that being the case, I second the motion to accept.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Bob, thanks.

MR. BEHRENS: We have our rules for final adoption, and we have 5(b)(1), the Conditional Grant Program rules.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning.

This is a commission minute order for final adoption of Section 4.25 under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code relating to the Conditional Grant Program. The proposed rules were submitted in the August commission meeting, published in the Texas Register for public comment; no comments were received, so therefore we recommend final adoption of these rules.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much for your work on this.

MR. BEHRENS: 5(b)(2) for final adoption, our rules concerning the Off-System Bridge Program, Mary Lou Ralls.

MS. RALLS: I'm Mary Lou Ralls, director of the Bridge Division.

This is final adoption for the rules pertaining to Title 43 Texas Administrative Code, Section 15.55(d). These rules presented for final adoption expand the current requirement that work performed increase the structural load-carrying capacity of the equivalent match bridge to also include other safety work on equivalent match structures. It also expands the definition of the type of structure eligible for the equivalent match work to include low water crossings. In addition, the rule expands the jurisdiction of equivalent match work to include structures under the jurisdiction of geographically adjacent or overlapping governmental units.

These rules were posted, as required, in the Texas Register; we received no comments. Staff recommends final adoption.

MR. NICHOLS: Does this pretty much settle out all the adjustments from that program?

MS. RALLS: Yes, it should. The various issues that came to us from the districts have been handled in this.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mary Lou, I know that with the Isabella Causeway disaster that you and your division have played a significant role in getting that project back up, and I believe it's going to be open prior to year-end, and I think you're to be congratulated also.

MS. RALLS: Thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(a) Transportation Planning, funding for the State Highway 121 interchange at the Dallas North Tollway.

MR. RANDALL: Again, Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

This minute order revises Minute Order 108466, dated March 29, 2001, to reflect an authorized construction cost of $13,125,000 for the State Highway 121 portion of the Dallas North Tollway interchange. This project will be funded 100 percent by the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

The previous minute order authorized the department to enter into an agreement with the North Texas Tollway Authority for the improvement by the tollway authority of the State Highway 121 and the extension of the Dallas North Tollway north and south of State Highway 121. These improvements include the design and construction of the interchange between State Highway 121 and the Dallas North Tollway, including main lanes, frontage roads, and ramps.

This minute order also authorized the department to fund 100 percent of the costs associated with engineering, right of way and construction of the State Highway 121 portion of the Dallas North Tollway interchange at a cost not to exceed $11 million. Additional costs have now been identified increasing the estimated construction cost of the State Highway 121 portion of the Dallas North Tollway interchange project to $13,125,000. The North Central Texas Council of Governments now intends to fund the entire cost of the interchange project with Category 4(c) STP Metropolitan Mobility Rehabilitation funds.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

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. BEHRENS: Jim, go ahead and take 6(b).

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 6(b), this minute order amends Exhibit L, Category 12, Strategic Priority of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to include three project selections in the Austin, Houston and Dallas districts at a total of $16,550,000. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 UTP. Upon approval, the projects identified in Exhibit A to this minute order will be added to Exhibit L of the 2002 UTP. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: James Bass will now present three State Infrastructure Bank loans.

MR. BASS: Good afternoon. For the record, I am James Bass, director of Finance for TxDOT.

Item 7(a) seeks your preliminary approval of a loan to the City of Winnsboro in the amount of $331,700 to relocate a waterline in conjunction with the widening of Farm-to-Market 515. The city has requested a term of 10 to 20 years, but if you approve, we will negotiate for a shorter term of closer to five years, and staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Item 7(b) seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Whitehouse in the amount of just over $3.4 million to pay for the acquisition of right of way and utility relocation expenses for the widening of Farm-to-Market 346. Interest will accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4 percent per year with payments being made over a period of 15 years, the first four of which would be interest only. Again, staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Item (c) seeks final approval of a loan to the Wise County Water Supply District in the amount of $4.15 million to fund the relocation of utilities made necessary by the expansion and reconstruction of US 380. Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4 percent with payments being made over a period of 20 years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're not going to tell us about our cash flow?

MR. JOHNSON: Do we have any money in the bank?

MR. BASS: I think we had $18.2 million this morning.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, it's getting better.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 8, Contracts in Maintenance and Highway and Building Construction.

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

Item 8(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October 4 and 5, 2001, whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had 17 projects; we have five projects we recommend for rejection.

The first project is Project Number 4011, a mowing contract in Atascosa County, it was 25 percent over, we had two bidders. This is over our usual prices in the area and we'd like to go back and rebid and solicit additional bidders.

The second project recommended for rejection is in Harris County, Project Number 4014, an asphalt pavement repair on IH-10. It was 46 percent over and there were three bidders; we had some asphalt requirements that we need to reduce that were causing excessive overrun for the project. We'd like to go back and make that change and try to get reduction in the prices on the project.

We have three projects in Bexar County, Project Number 4002 is a mowing contract; we had one bidder that was 20 percent over. An additional project in Bexar County, 4012, had one bidder; it was 17 percent over. And the last project in Bexar County was Project Number 4013; we had one bidder on that project and it was 13 percent over.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exceptions noted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Comment. I would like to thank Thomas and recognize the fact that they're being diligent in checking these proposals that appear to be over and where they seem to be somewhat limited in their response, pulling them back and talking to the DE, and I think he's to be commended for that.

And I move.

MR. BOHUSLAV: I'd like to make clear on the maintenance projects the Maintenance Division generally handles the recommendation. They did look at the issues that we discussed on those.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Very pleased to see that.

MR. NICHOLS: Was that 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.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 8(a)(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on October 4 and 5, 2001. We had 50 projects; we have one project we'd recommend for rejection.

Project Number 3024 is in Cooke County; we had six bidders on this project for off-system bridges. It was a little higher than what we'd like and we'd like to go back and combine this with some other work to try to get efficiency of scale and reduce the cost of the project.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exception noted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Jackson, a question. There is one construction project that's being recommended for approval that I feel as though I should abstain from because Farm-to-Market 521 in Fort Bend County runs in front of our place of business. Should we exclude that from this motion and then vote on it separately where I can abstain, or should we approve this and should the record show that I abstained just on that one particular project.

MR. JACKSON: I think you've put enough on the record, and either way is all right with me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Could we just cancel the project?

MR. NICHOLS: I can tell you've been in court before.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion and a second, and I would like to ask for the record that I vote in favor of all projects with the abstention on the Fort Bend County Project Number MG2001(313). All in favor the motion and the second --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute. Now I better look and see if any of these affect anything I do. Oh, I don't own any land; I guess it's okay.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. NICHOLS: Let me also say in our last meeting we had requested some information from you about historical cost overruns, underestimates, overestimates, things of that nature. We are now in receipt of that -- I know I got mine -- and it looks like it stayed fairly well balanced, no unusual trends on overruns or underruns with the exception of last April I think there was one really big project in that period of time, but probably the more startling to me was the construction cost index from 1992 to 2001 which showed a 48 percent increase in nine years of overall construction costs. So that's about 5-1/2 percent per year, very consistent.

I mean, it wasn't like it flattened out for a couple of years; it just looked like a slight trending-up chart, 5-1/2 percent per year which means in the last five years we have, in effect, lost 25 percent of our budget through construction costs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have any instinct about why that is, about why those costs are going up like that? Is it materials, is it lack of competitors in the business?

MR. NICHOLS: He probably is more of an expert on it.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Well, let me just say that -- and I think I discussed it with one of the commissioners -- the Highway Cost Index is purely an index of materials and work on construction on specific items. We take some big items such as base work, dirt work, asphalt work and concrete work and we unitize those and weight those to come up with indices for each letting and we do a running average. So it's pretty much just the cost of materials and workmanship out there.

As we are told by industry out there, generally we're more influenced by what happens outside the department than we influence what's going on as far as prices out there, so we can't say that we necessarily control those prices out there.

Now, as far as that indices that you received, the Highway Cost Index, it's only reflective of the material and work that's performed for those items. It's not a reflection of the full increase in cost to build a section of highway because of additional environmental requirements, additional construction requirements, additional legislation requirements or regulations that we may encounter on our work out there, so there's an added cost to that.

MR. NICHOLS: So you're saying we know that the cost of construction has increased at least, at a minimum, that 5-1/2 percent, but other environmental costs and procedures could actually add to that. And the demand, I know some of the projects that we're designing now are much more expensive in nature due to the volumes and weights that are on those roadways, so there's an additional percentage on top of that.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Additional design requirements because of increased traffic loads, that definitely is not measured in the Highway Cost Index. Additional environmental issues such as the SW3P requirements that we have now for ensuring that we reduce storm runoff, reduce sedimentation runoff off our projects, that's not measured in Highway Cost Index but it is an additional cost that we have to build a project out there.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thanks.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I was making jokes a while ago about your abstention and it suddenly occurred to me, how were you aware that you needed to abstain, seriously? Did someone catch it for you?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I asked my very capable assistant Phyllis Chandler to be mindful of any projects on Farm-to-Market 521 because that's where our major place of business is and it's on the state system.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Like I said, I was laughing about it and then I got to thinking I'm on Highway 51 and I think I've been contacted by the right of way folks about providing them some information about a pipeline, and I don't want to get caught.

MR. NICHOLS: You have to donate the right of way free.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would donate the right of way free if somebody would change the speed limit to 55 miles an hour.

MR. NICHOLS: But we have to approve that.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's just up to us individually to be sure that we're aware.

MR. JOHNSON: It's a point to be observant of.

MR. BEHRENS: We have Item 8(b), two contract claims.

MR. WEBB: Good morning. Again, Zane Webb, Maintenance Division.

The first minute order you have before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Dan Williams Company, Project STP97(399)MM in El Paso County. On September 11, the TxDOT Claims Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor; the contractor agreed to the settlement as shown in the minute order. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WEBB: The second minute order approves a claim settlement for a contract claim by Ed Bell Construction Company on Project STP96(71)MM in Tarrant County. Again on September 11, the TxDOT Claims Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation of settlement to the contractor; the contractor agreed to the settlement as shown in the minute order. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends approval.

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, Zane.

MR. BEHRENS: We have item 9 where Bob Jackson will make some recommendations concerning the contested case.

MR. JACKSON: Bob Jackson, deputy general counsel.

This minute order provides for a final order in a contested case arising under the Administrative Procedure Act. The parties are the department, represented by the Attorney General's Office and John Gannon, an outdoor advertising company represented by a private attorney.

A formal hearing was held involving the taking of testimony and introduction of evidence. Afterward, an administrative law judge issued a proposal for decision which is now before you. Neither party appealed the recommendation of the administrative law judge.

Gannon held an outdoor advertising permit for a location in Guadalupe County in the San Antonio District; it applied for a new permit allowing a larger sign for that location. Its application for the new permit was denied on the grounds that the proposed location was too close to a ramp; its original permit was canceled on the grounds that the sign structure had been removed by Gannon.

The judge's proposal for decision recommended that the cancellation of the original permit be upheld. It further recommended that the denial of the application for a new permit be reversed and that a new permit be issued to Gannon for this location.

The Office of General Counsel is your legal advisor; we do not represent the interests of either party. To assist you in considering this, we've drafted two orders for your consideration. One order accepts the recommendation of the administrative law judge; the other alternative order would reach a similar result but by reinstating the original permit that was canceled and leaving the issuance of a new permit to the department's internal appeals process as set out in the rules. We recommend the second order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept the minute order as recommended by counsel.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, do you have any observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I would like just a moment to fashion -- I think I can ask this question. If it sounds to you like I'm headed down the wrong path, you stop me.

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Whatever decision we reach today, however we vote, will we be establishing a precedent for our own staff to follow with regard to similar situations?

MR. JACKSON: If you adopt the first order, you will be setting a precedent that will affect the staff and the outdoor advertising industry; if you adopt the second order, you could say that that too will send a message to staff statewide.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In that case, Mr. Chairman, and I know it's late, but I would request that we go to executive session and discuss this.

MR. JOHNSON: That will be fine.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll withdraw my motion until after we come back then.

MR. JOHNSON: We will break for executive session -- we believe it to be very short -- and then reconvene the meeting.

MR. JACKSON: We can state for the record that we're going into executive session to receive legal counsel on item 9.

MR. JOHNSON: So noted.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following the executive session.)

MR. JOHNSON: The meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is hereby reconvened. The commission has concluded its executive session with no action taken on any matter.

I believe there is a matter before us, a regular agenda item.

MR. NICHOLS: What do you want me to say -- that I withdraw my withdrawal?

MR. JOHNSON: You've already withdrawn your motion; you need to reinstate your motion.

MR. NICHOLS: Reinstate, all right. I'll reinstate the motion to accept the minute order as recommended by counsel.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We have Item 10, the Routine Minute Orders before you there, listed as posted on the agenda. If you want to discuss any individual one, we can do it; otherwise, we would recommend approval of those minute orders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to ask a question about this one.

MR. JOHNSON: Which one is that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to ask a question about the Austin District Travis County FM 685 for a length of 2.943 miles, the speed limit has been reduced from 65 to 55 due to high driveway density. What's the definition of high driveway density?

MR. BEHRENS: Carlos.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You might as well answer the other one, Carlos. What's the definition of a rural residential development?

MR. LOPEZ: My name is Carlos Lopez; I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.

We wrote some additional flexibility into our speed limit rules based on laws that were passed in the previous session that allowed us to take into consideration things like narrow roadways, rural development, driveway density, and the like in order to come off more from our 85th percentile speed that's calculated when we take a speed limit study. We did not purposely put a number per mile of driveway density because each road has its own unique characteristics; what might be a high number on one road and based on the development may be a different characteristic on a different road. We leave that up to the judgment of the engineer in charge to determine if there's a high driveway density.

In this particular one, they believed there was enough driveway density to drop the speed limit further than we normally would under our regular procedures.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So using our standard approach, it's a general definition and not a specific definition.

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's up to the area engineer to decide if this particular area is a high driveway density area or a rural residential development.

MR. LOPEZ: That is exactly right, and they can take that flexibility that's in our procedures to make a recommendation for a speed limit that would have been lower than what we normally would have done.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Carlos, do you believe all area engineers in the state are aware of this?

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: While you're still on that topic, I think they passed a statute some time ago but I know it's in rural, the counties have some input on some of the two-lane rural roads, the county resolutions on speed limits?

MR. LOPEZ: Right, we can accept resolutions from counties when they may have particular concerns on a rural type of roadway. We would obviously take that resolution into consideration and see if we can apply some of this additional flexibility that we have in our procedures to reach a speed limit that would be acceptable to all parties involved.

MR. NICHOLS: That was an additional.

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Carlos, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: I think that concludes our business agenda and I don't think we have anyone for any open comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there any other business to come before the commission?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: There being no further business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute. We're not doing these right of way dispositions?

MR. JOHNSON: We bundled all those together.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In one? It's done? What a man. I was for all of them.

MR. JOHNSON: The record shows that. Is there a motion to adjourn?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Note for the record it is 12:38 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Department of Transportation

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: October 25, 2001

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 135 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

_______________10/31/01
(Transcriber)             (Date)

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