Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, March 28, 2002

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:15 a.m. and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome to our March meeting; it is a pleasure to have you here today.

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 2:03 p.m. on March 20.

We have a very full and I know interesting agenda today, but before we get started, I would like to see if my colleagues, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Williamson, have anything they'd like to say.

MR. NICHOLS: Sure. There are a lot of people here so we'll try not to take up too much of your time. I'd like to welcome everybody here. We very much appreciate the opportunity to listen to the presentations that have been put together for today. We recognize that most people don't realize that communities don't just happen, they are built by people who will take the time to help come and plan and work together to make things happen. Those of you who are here today are obviously those kind of people, and your comments are very much appreciated and look forward to it. So thanks for being here.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm glad everybody is here.

MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner Nichols is probably too shy to mention this, but I know that there's a visiting group from Jacksonville which has come here on a leadership seminar, and we'd like for them to stand and be recognized. People from Jacksonville, Texas. I know you're very surprised that Robert Nichols actually does this.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome. We're glad that you're here.

CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION COALITION

(Neal Kocurek, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, Rep. Ann Kitchen, Rep. Terry Keel)

MR. JOHNSON: Our first delegation this morning comes from Austin and Travis County, and I would like for Neal Kocurek to lead the presentation for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Capital Area Transportation Coalition. Neal, welcome.

MR. KOCUREK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, and Mr. Behrens. We're very pleased to be here today, and we know that this is a very difficult time for you sitting on the commission, facing dwindling revenues and growing demands, and we appreciate the job that you're doing.

We're here today representing a broad range of concerned Capital Area citizens seeking transportation improvements that benefit our entire region. On their behalf, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present today and express our gratitude for the funding you provided last year for completion of the US 290 frontage roads and the grade separation of US 183 at Loyola Lane. We're also appreciative of the hard work of TxDOT employees and applaud their achievements in the difficult task of improving our state's transportation network when there is unlimited need but very limited resources.

In Central Texas, we're trying to do our part to help you help us. We're developing multimodal regional transportation solutions, and towards that end, local jurisdictions are establishing dedicated funding resources for transportation improvements and are working together to maximize the usage of those funds. We come before you today as a collaborative effort of regional stakeholders, working to improve our area's mobility.

I would like to introduce some of the attendees in our regionally united delegation. We have Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Terry Keel, Representative Ann Kitchen, Judge Sam Biscoe from Travis County, Commissioner Margaret Moore from Travis County, Commissioner Karen Sonleitner from Travis County, Commissioner Bill Burnett from Hays County, Council Member Will Wynn from Austin. There may be other elected officials who are here that I have not recognized. If they are, would they please stand. Oh, Round Rock. Thank you very much.

This year we are requesting funding for three priority projects that would provide regional mobility for the residents of Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties. Those projects are shown on the map presentation behind: one, two, three projects.

Our esteemed speakers will be providing you more information regarding these projects. First, I'd like to ask Senator Jeff Wentworth to come to the podium. As an active member of our region's Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Senator Wentworth has been a direct participant in our work to improve transportation infrastructure in Central Texas, and one of the projects we are proposing to you today lies within his state senatorial district. We're pleased to have the Senator with us this morning, Senator Wentworth.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Thank you, Neal. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. Let me begin by saying although I have been an active participant on CAMPO for seven years, it's because of my representation of Williamson County, and originally I shared that with Senator Jim Turner, and after he served a year on the CAMPO and then I served a year on the CAMPO, he decided it was kind of difficult for him to get from Crockett to Austin for the meetings, so I represented Williamson County from '94 until last October when Senator Ogden -- who succeeded Senator Turner after Turner went to Congress -- said, When do I get my year on CAMPO? -- because we hadn't been alternating. So as of October of last year, I'm not on CAMPO any longer, but based on the hopefully intelligent vote of the voters on March 12, I will be back next January representing Hays County.

(General laughter and applause.)

SENATOR WENTWORTH: I want to thank you very much for hearing us; you all are extremely patient. I've been appearing before this commission for a number of years, and I want to say to all three of you how grateful we are that you listen patiently and with such interest in what we have to tell you about our particular areas of the state, and of course, today we're here on behalf of the Capital Area. The cooperation and assistance of the commission in recent years has been very much appreciated, and I want to personally thank each of you for your responsiveness. I have never phoned any of you that I haven't gotten an immediate reply back and an open-minded consideration of our projects, and for that I am deeply grateful.

We're also appreciative of Governor Perry's initiative with the Trans Texas Corridor initiative. Like the governor, the Capital Area is not focusing on just highways but on a complete transportation system that moves people and goods with increased mobility by decreasing congestion, improving freight delivery, and providing safe commutes for our employees and freight handlers.

Local governments in the Capital Area have demonstrated their commitment to transportation infrastructure by passing bonds totaling $818 million for toll roads, roadways, bridges, drainage, and pedestrian and bikeway improvements. Initiatives under way in the Capital Area include development of a freight transportation study, and under the leadership of my colleague, Representative Mike Krusee, discussions regarding a regional mobility authority. The highway improvements we're requesting today are critical for improving safety, mobility and reducing congestion.

To show our strong support for these projects, Travis County has committed $2 million toward the US 290 priority project. All three of these projects are important to our region and economy, but the project that receives the highest priority ranking by CAMPO is the Highway 290 West project. This project would extend the existing western terminus of the US 290 freeway from Williamson Creek to west of FM 1826. With your help, we made this major east-west thoroughfare a freeway from IH 35 to just west of Williamson Creek just short of Motorola. Now we need to continue this project beyond the "Y" at Oak Hill so we can better link the eastern and western parts of the county for access to jobs, schools, to improve safety, and to reduce congestion.

The strong community support and CAMPO's number one priority ranking for Highway 290 West illustrates why we believe that the time has come to fund this project. I thank the residents and business communities of Travis and Hays Counties and Oak Hill for their persistence and patience on this project. They've been wholeheartedly committed to this project even when it has meant personal sacrifice and disruption of their lives and businesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners, for your time and efforts on behalf of the citizens of this state, and thank you for your consideration of this very vital project.

MR. KOCUREK: Senator Gonzalo Barrientos has been a leader in responding to transportation needs in Central Texas for a long time. He serves not only as chairman of CAMPO, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, but he has convened meetings of public officials from throughout the region to discuss how we might work together to better find solutions to serve the entire region. It's in this CAMPO leadership role that he presents details of the remainder of our request to you this morning. Senator.

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: May it please the commission. Members, our delegation, first of all, appreciates the funding that you have made available this last year and we're looking forward to seeing the construction of those improvements. And I must add you don't know how happy I am to be here with my great colleague from Bexar County, Senator Wentworth, and I hope we'll be here together in January. I'm not biased; I just like the guy.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR BARRIENTOS: Members, you've heard that the area here will double in population in 20 years. It's amazing if you look back just ten years or so, this three-county area has increased in about 400,000 people who have moved in here. Now, that makes congestion, and we know that you know about that because you're caught up in some of the same traffic we are.

We'd like to point out today that this growth and our associated mobility problems impact beyond the region. I'd like to stress the direct link between the state economy and that of this region. This area is, of course, a vital part of our technology-driven economy and has to be supported with a safe and efficient transportation system.

Now, although we're all aware that the recent nationwide somewhat economic downturn, the number of jobs in the Capital Area has grown and it's expected to continue to increase at a rate faster than the rest of the state. That continued growth comes on top of an incredible expansion in the employment sector from 1990 to 1999 where in Travis County, for example, employment increased by 70 percent or more, Williamson and Hays counties grew by over 107 percent and 142 percent. Now, despite our best efforts, the area's transportation infrastructure has just not kept with that growth.

The projects we're requesting funding for today are needed to be competitive in attracting top-notch employees and of course businesses, and as our dynamic economy is directly linked to the state's economy and as our workforce has and will continue to expand significantly, we have to address the increased needs of our system.

Now, my primary task today is to tell you a little about the US 183 projects, particularly interested in the grade separation of the remaining stoplight on US 183 at Technicenter Drive and freeway main lanes and frontage roads from north of FM 969 to south of FM 969. That would complete a nonstop tour from Cedar Park to the Austin Bergstrom International Airport, making it much easier for both Central Texas residents and visitors to use that facility.

Now, we recognize, members, TxDOT's current funding shortage, and in light of that, I am pleased to report that the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee has committed $13,200,000 from STP(4)(c) funds to help the commission build these projects, and that the City of Austin is contributing $6,800,000 to help with those construction costs. And of course, as Senator Wentworth has stated, I'd like to point out the local participation, the bond elections in Hays, Travis and Williamson counties, the cities of Austin, Cedar Park and Round Rock have dedicated about $818 million to mobility improvements in our region.

So we're committed to doing our part, and we thank you for all that you do for the State of Texas, and of course, this region. Thank you, members.

MR. KOCUREK: Commissioners, many of our elected officials are prepared to speak to you on behalf of this request, but in the interest of your time and all you have to do, we have asked if any of our state elected officials might like to do that, and we'll limit it to that at this time. I know that Representative Kitchen would like to address you momentarily.

MS. KITCHEN: Thank you, and I'll be brief. Let me start by saying I, too, as well as the people that I represent living in the Oak Hill area, very much appreciate the funding that you provided last time for the extension of 290 for the frontage roads. So today I just want to reiterate that the completion of 290 West really is a crucial component of any attempt to solve the region's mobility crisis. As part of a balanced approach to improve regional mobility, this project's completion would both increase capacity and alleviate congestion, and as you know, 290 West has consistently been our top priority of CAMPO and of our constituents.

Now, you know in southwest Travis County I've talked to many people in the area, and household after household continually expresses their concern about the completion of 290. They're concerned about the traffic congestion but also about the public safety aspect of it. I think you probably are very aware of the fact that US 290 West just abruptly decreases from a six-lane freeway down to a four-lane arterial with a left-hand turn line, creating a dangerous situation. So addressing that, construction of the freeway main lanes, the frontage roads and the interchange with SH 71 would go a long way both to addressing the whole region's transportation system as well as addressing that particular safety concern for those folks that live and work in that area.

So thank you, again, very much for your time and consideration.

MR. KOCUREK: Representative Terry Keel will speak to you next.

MR. KEEL: Commissioners, I'll keep it brief. I do want to thank especially Ric Williamson for all his help to me on transportation issues in the 75th Legislative Session here in Travis County, and I'm not going to repeat the excellent presentations made by my senators, but I do want to tell you about the US 290 West project just briefly from our local point of view there.

It's been my own number one priority in the CAMPO ranking since 1997, and it's critically needed to address safety and capacity issues in the southwest quadrant of Travis County. When I was sheriff of Travis County, this particular area was a real problem, and still is.

I want to thank you for your approval last year of the funding for one part of that project that will construct the second segment of the frontage roads on US 290 West. The request before you today, as Senators Barrientos and Wentworth told you, will construct the main lanes of the highway. The needed right of way for part of this project has already been acquired, so phased construction could be significantly expedited.

These improvements will provide a critical link to the new Austin Bergstrom International Airport for citizens living in west and southwest Austin and Travis County, as well as northern Hays County. Traffic volumes have increased dramatically along this route -- as they have everywhere -- and although there is no good place to end a highway, the further this transition occurs from an urban area, the better, and in particular I want to emphasize to the commissioners that this project would move that transition past the "Y" at Oak Hill.

As you know, our area continues to experience phenomenal growth and with the population expected to double over the next 20 years, construction of these improvements is crucial to sustaining the economic vitality of this region and to promoting safe and efficient travel for our citizens.

I thank you for your time, and I sure hope we get your support on that project, and I know I can count on Commissioner Williamson; I'm just confident of that.

(General laughter.)

MR. KOCUREK: Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens for your hard work, your dedication and tremendously difficult decisions that you have to make to maintain and improve Texas nationally recognized transportation system.

I'd like to reiterate that we are all working together to develop regional transportation, and to demonstrate, I'd like to ask everyone who supports these projects and is here this morning in support of those projects to please stand. Senator Wentworth says we need one more commissioner to stand with that group.

(General laughter.)

MR. KOCUREK: We have come a long way. Our region brings $22.2 million from local entities, and that's shown up here. I think this truly illustrates a unified effort for regional mobility. To recap, we're bringing $13.4 million from CAMPO, $2 million from Travis County, and $6.8 million from the City of Austin, along with the support of many surrounding communities and local organizations. I applaud the local jurisdictions in their efforts to raise $22.2 million for these projects.

We thank you again for your time and dedication to the State of Texas. We'd be happy at this time to answer questions if you have any.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not so much a question but just a couple of comments for the record, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Kocurek, a lot of delegations come before us during the year and a lot of elected members, House and Senate, come before us during the year, and the commission so far has not been interested in saying what I'm going to say about members of which it's not true, but I want to say to you and to the members of your various community groups that in Senator Barrientos and in Senator Wentworth and House Member Keel -- and I'm getting to know Ms. Kitchen better, and from what I can tell, it's also true -- the commission and the department have four strong contributing friends.

And we very much appreciate the fact that we have people in Central Texas who will listen to the challenges we face as a commission and will communicate to us in a civilized and clear and logical way about what's wrong with our department, what's right with it, and then help us fix it because we don't frequently get that kind of communication from other parts of the state and from all members of the Legislature -- and that's okay -- but when we do and when it's so unified and when it's so positive, it makes it a lot easier for us to get our job done.

And I just can't say enough about these four members, particularly the three I know well and what I've seen of the fourth, it's good for us.

MR. KOCUREK: Commissioner Williamson, we greatly appreciate your comments, and our entire delegation, led by the individuals you've spoken of, is really working together and recognizes that we need to partner with you, help you meet your needs, we meet our needs as you support all of Texas, and we thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, these members lead not only their citizens but in particular their local leaders. I mean, we have disagreements, but we never worry about a county commissioner or a city council person or mayor or a member of CAMPO, for Hays and Travis and Williamson Counties, It is always consistently up front, positive and defensible. We never hear about getting whanged on in some meeting off someplace where we weren't; it's always constructive. Ms. Sonleitner knows how I feel about the way that they communicate with us.

All counties, all cities, and these members make that happen and it makes it a lot easier for us to help when House and Senate members and local leaders are speaking from logic and emotion in a civilized way in making their arguments, and to our faces and not in meetings off someplace where they can kind of accentuate the negative and not the positive, and I want to tell you that makes a difference to me.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. First of all, thank you very much for a great presentation. We have said in the past -- and you have stepped up to the plate -- it is so helpful when a region, not just a community but a region, comes together and amongst themselves establishes the priorities for the needs which is very helpful to us and it's very much considered by us, and then to, in addition, step up with a vested interest from the community. It's so easy to ask for things, but when you're willing to put some of your own money up on the plate, that's very meaningful and helpful, and for that I wanted to thank you for the presentation.

I had a number of different things related to transportation, really to comment and talk to, concerning you because I related a lot to the 130 and the Central Texas projects which I know all of you in the entire region -- and part of the entire state -- is very much interested in.

You will probably in the next week to ten days hear an announcement as to the procurement results of the 130 exclusive development agreement, and someone will make those announcements in the next week to ten days. Second, we are scheduling in the April meeting an agenda item to take action on the Central Texas projects and the 130; there will be an action item on there. I've heard so many things -- I know all of you have -- and I've read so many different things in the newspapers around the state about the project, and locally, and you're going to see the real results very shortly, so it is real. That's probably the most important message, and soon.

Simultaneous with this, I believe most of you are aware, the federal announcement that we are going to lose as a state $500 million a year beginning this fall, and it's a huge hit of federal money lost. It's going to impact all of us. On the Central Texas project, our construction costs are the best right now than they ever will be; the interest rates for issuing bonds are the best right now than they will ever be; and we are going to, over the next few weeks, be raising a "Please Help Us" flag. I know you are here asking us for help, but I'm telling you, we're going to be asking you for help and looking to your leadership in ways, and we will lay out all the math and numbers and show you ways that we think might help, and then see amongst yourselves which ways you think you can, but we really are truly going to need some help to make this happen. But I don't think it's a Draconian basis or action; I think you will see it's reasonable, and if you understand, will be supportive. So I'll make those comments.

Another thing we will ask that would also help would be when the communities are considering actions related to the right of way that has been identified on 130, the more your communities can help preserve that right of way for this project, it would be helpful. We have some communities who recently are still okaying plats for subdivisions in the middle of the right of way, so instead of buying a 20-acre or 100-acre tract, we now are going to have to buy those by the lot. That has occurred in the last 90 days. So as your communities are considering those items, please pass that on to help us preserve it, because ultimately it is you and the people who use that freeway who are going to end up paying.

That's pretty much the comments that I wanted to make, and so in the projects that you are requesting today, it looks like it's approximately $100 million worth, three different projects, for which you are stepping up with a vesting of around $22 million. The projects we're asking for help on over here are in the neighborhood of $3,000 million, $3 billion, and so this is huge -- I know you know it is -- $3,000 million worth of transportation projects soon in this area, and we need some help. So look forward to that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mr. Nichols, by your comments then, am I to infer that -- Senator Barrientos, Senator Wentworth and Governor Perry have been most insistent that we move ahead on State Highway 130 -- am I to infer or should the audience infer that we hope to move ahead on 130 soon? Would that be the inference?

MR. NICHOLS: That's about as most subtle as I could put it. Yes, I would think that it looks very encouraging.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because the community has been concerned in the last month or so that the commission, for various reasons, is not moving as quickly as it should, and perhaps this is a golden opportunity to assure the community that there were legitimate economic reasons why we had to take a little time and look at what we're doing. And we shouldn't send you out here with a big smile on your face because we still have some hurdles to cross: the construction is perhaps more than we anticipated; the draw on state funds perhaps might be more than we anticipated; the loss in federal support over the next few years is going to have to be evened out across the state so that's got some impact. There have been very good business reasons why we kind of slowed down a little bit to be sure that we could do what we say we're going to do and what we know the community wants.

And we're probably going to have to ask persons along the proposed route, not just Williamson and Travis, but perhaps south and north, to either be more patient or help us in ways that we hadn't anticipated. I think that would be a fair statement.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I think it's clear, $3 billion worth of new projects for the Central Texas area is a significant accomplishment and the communities, both cities and counties up and down that corridor, have played and will continue to play a vital role in helping us get that job done in as quick a manner as possible. So the partnerships need to be developed from both sides, and as Robert and Ric have said, we need your attention and your help on this area, and likewise, when you need partners from our level, we want to be here to do that within the limits of our resources.

Neal, I didn't mean to interrupt what you were going to say.

MR. KOCUREK: No, Chairman Johnson. I was just going to say that we do know how hard Commissioner Nichols has been working on the tollways and we do know how hard you and Commissioner Williamson have been working to assist in that arena also, and it's a very difficult circumstance, and as you know and we've conveyed to you, we are dedicated to partnering with you and we greatly appreciate your comments. We understand and we'll be there standing for us to be counted on as we move forward. Thank you so very much.

MR. JOHNSON: What Commission Nichols did not tell you was that our April meeting is scheduled to be in Abilene, so I'm certain that you'll want to make your hotel reservations as soon as possible.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I think Abilene would be tickled to see all of you out there.

One other thing I had in my notes but I failed to mention related to that series of projects. And that is, I know those of you who have been following the issue related to South 45 east and west of 35, I know we've taken some action items, there's some stuff floating. We've seen action and requests from the area to finish the east of 35 and get it connected to 130 before we finish the western portion for a number of different reasons, and I will tell you that every one that I have seen that we have been working on does it in that order. That's very important to some of you, not so much to others, but that is per that request the way it is laid out.

MR. JOHNSON: One final question that you might not have the answer to, but you have come with $22.2 million worth of leverage for us in consideration of these projects and there's about $90 million worth of projects. Are we free to move that money around in any form or fashion, or do you have certain amounts attached to certain projects? That, I think, will be important in the deliberations that we will be considering in the formation of the next UTP.

MR. KOCUREK: I can understand, Commissioner, your question, and as you might expect, there are some things tied to that. We will research that and get back to you.

MR. JOHNSON: Great, terrific.

I've had a request to speak on this issue from somebody, Tommy Eden, and I would like to ask Mr. Eden did he specifically want to address the group on these three projects, or should his comments be saved for the open comment period. Mr. Eden, can you answer that question, please, sir?

MR. EDEN: Yes, I would like to speak.

MR. JOHNSON: But are your comments relative to these three projects or are they relative to a general comment as a whole.

MR. EDEN: They're specifically about these three projects.

MR. JOHNSON: While I've got you here in my sights, could I ask you when you appear here, are you treated with respect and civility, in your opinion?

MR. EDEN: Absolutely.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think you were there Monday and I would ask you for the same consideration in future meetings.

MR. EDEN: Certainly.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You could even take this opportunity to apologize to him for your behavior.

MR. EDEN: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. I'm not here to apologize for anything that I've done. I am here to speak about the need for clean air, and specifically in the Travis County resolution I want to point out -- I am here to support this, by the way -- want to point out the specific clauses in the Travis County resolution that indicate that Travis County supports; where appropriate, install bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities on US 290 West, where appropriate, install bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities on US 183 South, south of FM 969 to north of Boggy Creek and north of FM 969 to south of FM 969.

I would hope that when this commission finds it appropriate to allocate the money for these projects that you take a very close look at that because in the TIP which was approved by CAMPO, those bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not included. Now, TxDOT has indicated that they have every intention of including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, either during the construction of these projects or later on, using some other funds. I'm asking that when you allocate the funds for these projects, you include a requirement that they have bicycle lanes and sidewalks, as supported by the Travis County resolution.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you, and I know that you have been very involved in this effort, and we appreciate your bringing that to our attention. We will consider, as federal law requires, the use of and the implementation of both pedestrian and bicycle features in these projects. You know, we're somewhat constrained by the definition of where it's reasonably possible and we're also somewhat constrained by funding, but we do appreciate your bringing that to our attention.

MR. EDEN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to thank the CAMPO delegation for, as always, a very creative and well put together presentation. As you're aware, we don't make responses on the spot, but please be assured that every consideration will be made on these three requests. And again, I want to emphasize something I said last night at the Partners in Mobility thing is that if we work together, we can accomplish great tasks, and I look forward to working with you.

We will take a brief recess to allow our "Bat" friends to go back to the "Bat Cave" and let our Partners in Mobility group enter. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA PARTNERS IN MOBILITY

(Mayor Kenneth Barr, Rep. Bill Carter, Rep. Vicki Truitt, Rep. Fred Hill, David W. Biegler, Mayor Pro Tem Donald Hill, Allan Howeth, Don Dillard, Mayor Pro Tem John Murphy, Judge Lee Jackson)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation hails from the great Metroplex, Dallas-Fort Worth area, and I would like to ask Mayor Kenneth Barr of Fort Worth to begin the presentation for the Partners in Mobility. Mr. Mayor, welcome.

MAYOR BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission and Director Behrens. We are pleased to be here today. I'm Kenneth Barr and it is my privilege to be the mayor of the City of Fort Worth.

We are the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility which is a coalition of public and private sector leaders who believe that investment in our surface transportation infrastructure is critical to sustain our economic vitality and quality of life, and we very much appreciate a chance to appear before you here today.

Before we get into our formal presentation, at this time we have several members of the Legislature who are here in attendance with us today, and I'd like to ask them to come forward at this time and make a few brief remarks if they would. I will say, on behalf of the group, the rest of us, that we appreciate the members taking the time to join us and be here, and we know that you do as well.

REPRESENTATIVE CARTER: I'm Bill Carter, state representative District 91, chairman of the Tarrant County Legislative Delegation, and just wanted to tell you that our delegation is 100 percent behind the Partners in Mobility and the issues that they're going to bring to you today. I think you'll find that this is probably one of the best thought-out programs from a large metroplex area that you probably will see for a long time to come, and I hope that we'll be able to continue to work with you as we bring this sustainable transportation plan into action. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. Vicki Truitt, state representative District 98.

I just want to thank you for the tremendous time and effort that you all put into addressing the difficult challenges of transportation in Texas with so many people wanting too much and having so little to work with. I just really respect you and appreciate what you do.

I'm here with many friends this morning from both sides of the county line, and I'm very proud to tell you that I'm here with the Fort Worth-Dallas Metropolitan Area Partners in Mobility, and I don't want to take your valuable time this morning because there are others here who are going to explain why we are here. Incidentally, I support both sides, but having been born in Fort Worth, I just had to say that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm glad you clarified it, I thought you were talking about both sides of the Parker-Tarrant County.

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: I just want you to know that I'm here this morning to support them, and I support you and the fine job that you do, and I want to thank you for your continued consideration and your continued support of our projects, and I appreciate your vision for transportation in Texas. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. I am Fred Hill and I'm from the Dallas-Fort Worth side of that equation.

I'm here also to express my appreciation to you but also to show you my support. I'm here to show you my support for the Partners in Mobility. This is one of the finest organizations of its type in the state, and I know that you folks recognize that. We are here as a united group to try to do something good for the State of Texas -- and I know you'll appreciate that, Mr. Williams -- and I appreciate your efforts and I look forward to working with you during the next session on the issue of finding more revenue to help you do the job that you want to accomplish here.

So I appreciate the attention that you're willing to give to my colleagues and my constituents. Thank you for being here.

MAYOR BARR: Thank you very much. We appreciate all of the members being here with us.

Today we are presenting a policy position delivered by a cross-section of public and private sector officials from all across our region, and at this time I'd like to ask the members of our delegation to stand -- and I'll tell you it's about 160 people. If all of you would stand? We are mayors, city council members, county judges, commissioners, city managers, chamber of commerce presidents and board members, and other leaders from nearly every community in the North Central Texas region, and I want to thank all of this group of people for coming here and being a part of our Partners in Mobility delegation. As you know, this is our delegation's eighth consecutive annual appearance before the commission.

North Texas continues to experience dramatic growth, as the area's population now exceeds 5.1 million people. Year 2001 represented the sixth straight year in which the region's population grew by more than 100,000 persons. Indicators are that this growth trend can be expected to continue. Recent forecasts by the Texas Data Center for the Fort Worth-Dallas region estimate that the area will reach nearly 9 million persons by the year 2030. And Commissioner Williamson, contrary to what might be said, Fort Worth does not intend to annex all of that.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR BARR: I've taken a lot of grief over annexation since I've been at this meeting.

By all measures, the Fort Worth-Dallas region continues to be a leader in the state's economy. Over the past decade, our population growth represented 31 percent of the state's total growth and 34 percent of the employment growth; retail sales data shows similar trends. Regional gross product projections indicate that more than one-third of the state's gross product will continue to be generated from the North Texas economy in 2002.

Maximizing the benefits of our current transportation system, as well as ensuring that we have adequate transportation funding available to meet our growing needs, is important to the region and to all areas of the state. Strong partnerships between the Fort Worth-Dallas area and the State of Texas must be maintained that include visionary plans for the future, strategies for ensuring adequate funding levels to meet our needs, and the implementation of projects and programs that reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.

Now it's my privilege to turn the podium over to Dallas business and civic leader David Biegler.

MR. BIEGLER: Thank you, Mayor, and good morning.

I'm David Biegler, recently retired vice-chairman of TXU and I'm still non-retired chairman of the Central Dallas Association. I'm here today on behalf of the North Texas business community -- see, I avoid that issue; I've learned over the years. The business community has a great interest in mobility and its impact on job creation, property tax base, sales tax generation for the entire state of Texas, but specifically for the North Texas area which represents about a third of the state's economy.

We've been very fortunate in North Texas to have experienced several decades of sustained economic growth. While this growth has resulted in enormous benefits to the entire state, it has also resulted in increased travel demand that does continue to overburden the Dallas-Fort Worth area transportation system. While we've made significant progress toward implementing regional multimodal transportation improvements, the growth we're experiencing is outpacing available financial resources which translates into higher costs for business and the motoring public.

In 1999 the cost of congestion to DFW motorists alone was estimated to exceed $5 billion annually. This direct cost does not begin to take into account the lost opportunity costs of foregone economic opportunity, the plants and the jobs which moved to South Carolina or Georgia or Oklahoma because of mobility issues. With the continued growth projected for our region, and given our current pace of addressing it, by the year 2025 this annual cost of congestion alone, ignoring the opportunity costs, is anticipated to surpass $8 billion per year.

Congestion will be more severe, extend for more hours, extend to larger portions of the region, and we'll be adding new performance measures to our vocabulary like transportation reliability and dependability, and unfortunately, we will be adding those same terms to our economic development packages to people who are interested in relocating to our state.

The Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Mobility Study annually reports levels of congestion in major cities across the U.S. The latest findings available from TTI indicate the congestion levels are continuing to rise in the Fort Worth-Dallas area. As you can see from these data, our traffic congestion levels are growing. With limited resources available to address growing needs, we must ensure that investments are being made that provide measurable mobility and reliability benefits.

Securing adequate funding for future transportation improvements is contingent upon providing meaningful and objective performance standards to policy-makers faced with the difficult challenge of allocating limited resources. Monitoring transportation system performance is an essential component of making good public policy.

We applaud Chairman Johnson and the Texas Transportation Commission and the Transportation Working Group for their efforts in developing the August 2001 report regarding the need for: expanded partnerships, setting performance standards, and measuring progress toward addressing needs. We do support and embrace the commission's goals set out for: reliable mobility, improved safety, responsible system preservation, streamlined project delivery, and economic vitality. And we are encouraging our Texas leaders in the Legislature to also embrace the recommendations of the study to address the state's transportation needs.

The transportation needs of North Texas, as well as the entire state of Texas, represent a major challenge that must be overcome in order to sustain economic growth and preserve the quality of life desired by all Texans. When you really come down to it, there is no doubt about it, our economic future will be largely determined by transportation, the challenge of meeting the needs and how we address it. For our particular purposes, again coming back to the North Texas role in the state economy, it's very much an issue specifically aimed right at North Texas because of its critical position in the state's economy.

Meeting this challenge will require vision; it's going to require leadership on the part of elected officials and transportation agencies. The Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility commends Governor Perry for his advocacy efforts in promoting a comprehensive statewide transportation strategy. Incremental thinking will not meet our inter-city long-term needs; we know that. We concur with the needs the governor identified in proposing the plan, including: reducing traffic congestion, reducing the flow of hazardous materials through our cities, improving air quality, and removing transportation obstacles faced by business.

It's our offer that we will work with the Transportation Commission and the Texas Department of Transportation staff to integrate the mobility plan for our region with the Trans Texas Corridor vision.

Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill will now continue our presentation. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, I have a comment, and I have some other things to say about some of these other people later on, but I've got to take this shot at David while I can.

MR. BIEGLER: I'm used to it, Commissioner.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It is good to see you active in this group, and people from North Texas know of you and of your contribution to our society, but I'm not sure my fellow commissioners and other members of the department know. This is one of the finest advocates for free markets and liberty and growth in this state that I ever had the pleasure of dealing with in my 13 years in the Legislature, and I can't let you get off the podium without recognizing you for all the contributions you've made to this state, not just your company. I'm glad you're active.

(Applause.)

MR. BIEGLER: I'm humbled by your comments, Commissioner, and I am going to stay active, and I'll stand here for as long as you want for that type of comment. Thank you, Ric.

MR. HILL: Thank you, David. And Commissioner, we also concur that David is one of our outstanding citizens.

Good morning, commissioners and Mr. Behrens. I am Don Hill, mayor pro tem of the City of Dallas. It is my pleasure to be here this morning on behalf of the Partners in Mobility, citizens of Dallas, and our new mayor Laura Miller.

We recognize that the process of developing, funding and constructing transportation improvements is a very complicated challenge, and we want to salute you for your ongoing efforts to simplify this process by restructuring your Unified Transportation Program. Your staff's proposal to include new procedures for developing transportation projects will simplify the state's transportation funding process, focus improvements in transportation corridors, and enhance the public's understanding of state transportation funding priorities. Reducing the number of funding categories, developing clear and understandable guidelines and focusing on a corridor development approach to improve the UTP are positive steps toward enhancing the funding allocation process.

The Dallas-Fort Worth area has more than $8 billion in major corridor improvements approaching preliminary engineering and environmental approval which will soon need construction funding. These are critical regional projects for which many years of effort have already been invested on the part of TxDOT, the TxDOT staff, local government, transportation agencies, and the public in building consensus, evaluating alternatives, and selecting improvements that best fit the needs of each corridor and the surrounding communities.

We urge TxDOT's staff and the commission to provide flexibility in the UTP update process that allow these projects to be funded. Your policy of all previously funded Priority 1 projects will remain funded is right on the mark; however, future commitments should come from not only the Priority 2 of the New Developed category but also the New Planned category.

We believe that the process of identifying and prioritizing corridors for mobility funding would be best accomplished within the established framework of the Transportation Commission, TxDOT districts, and the metropolitan planning organizations. We also believe that providing increased flexibility will allow the Dallas and Fort Worth districts, in collaboration with local governments and the MPO, to target funding where it is most needed.

The demand for highway capacity is continuing to outpace available funding for systems improvement. As a result, we must find ways to increase the operational efficiency of the transportation system. We support the Transportation Commission in its efforts to move forward with an access management approach to the frontage road questions. We believe progress toward addressing these issues has been made as the focus of this discussion is now centering on developing comprehensive access management programs to improve the flow of traffic along the state's major roadway corridors.

Access management is one of several tools available that will help facilitate improved traffic flow. Other strategies such as freeway bottleneck removal, integration of local and state traffic signal systems, freeway construction traffic management plans, improvements to at-grade rail crossings, and accessing private sector accident data should also be pursued.

We encourage the commission and the TxDOT staff to continue to work collaboratively with transportation agencies, local governments and metropolitan planning organizations across the state to fully explore additional opportunities for maximizing the efficiency of our state's transportation system.

Now let me turn our presentation over to Allan Howeth. Thank you.

MR. HOWETH: Thank you, Don. Good morning, commissioners and Director Behrens. I'm Allan Howeth, chairman of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, known to Commissioner Williamson as serving in the greater Weatherford area.

A complementary program to access management is the promotion of sustainable development which strives to reduce vehicular demand on the transportation system through better coordination of land use and transportation investments. In 2001 the Regional Transportation Council's Land Use Transportation Joint Venture Program provided $38 million to leverage public-private sector joint development initiatives.

North Central Texas Council of Governments’ new Center of Development Excellence serves as a forum for public and private sector dialogue regarding growth and development issues. We're also now evaluating the feasibility of expanding commuter rail service and public transportation into new corridors and service areas. Last week the Regional Transportation Council held a very successful Regional Transit Summit for this very purpose.

In Dallas and Fort Worth and cities across the nation, highway capacity is challenged, as we all know. Citizens are concerned about congestion, traffic is impacting where we live, our transportation system has become less reliable. In North Texas, transportation planners and providers are initiating efforts that will maximize our mobility investments through better management and operations of our transportation systems.

By placing a greater emphasis on customer service, optimizing corridor capacity, and monitoring system performance, we can and will improve system reliability, mitigate congestion, and improve our air quality which we must do.

Intelligent transportation system technology is serving as the communications backbone of our management and operations systems. We are developing integrated freeway and toll road systems along strategic corridors throughout the North Texas area. Roadway and transit systems are being designed to provide operators and travelers with real-time information on system conditions in an effort to make trips safer, modes more reliable, and provide travelers greater choices. TxDOT's TransVision Center in Fort Worth opened in June of 2000 and the DalTran Center currently under construction in Dallas are key components of this regional ITS system.

We also believe there's tremendous opportunity to capitalize on ITS technology which we're putting in place to facilitate the flow of NAFTA truck traffic through our region. By monitoring travel conditions and communicating this information to freight carriers, we can improve safety, enhance mobility, and reduce emissions.

I'd now like to call on one of our major partners in the North Texas area in the transportation field, North Texas Tollway Authority Chairman Don Dillard, to continue our presentation.

MR. DILLARD: Thank you, Allan. Good morning, commissioners and Director Behrens. My name is Don Dillard, chairman of the board of directors of the North Texas Tollway Authority, the NTTA for short.

In August of 2001 we marked the official opening of the President George Bush Turnpike, formerly State Highway 190, that stretches, as you well know, over from State Highway 78 in Garland all the way across the Metroplex to IH 35 E in Carrollton. By February of 2002, the daily transactions on the Bush Turnpike exceeded 312,000 transactions. Like the Dallas North Tollway, the success of the President George Bush Turnpike illustrates the continued willingness of the North Texas commuters to support toll facilities. The expedited construction process exemplifies the value of our collaborative efforts between NTTA, TxDOT, and local governments.

Over the past decade, more than $675 million worth of toll road construction has taken place in North Texas. This investment in regional mobility improvements, on behalf of DFW motorists, serves to reduce the burden on traditional state and federal freeway funding programs, thereby providing funds for additional roadway construction in the area. Toll roads are a vital component in solving the mobility challenges we are facing in North Texas.

Senate Bill 342, passed by the 77th Legislature, and the subsequent Constitutional amendment, Proposition 15, passed by the Texas voters in 2001, have provided the opportunity for expanded partnerships between TxDOT and NTTA in the funding and construction of toll roads. Now is the time to establish all those necessary agreements, rules and policies to maximize this resource. We encourage the commission and the TxDOT staff to involve officials from NTTA in developing workable rules to implement the toll equity provisions of Proposition 15. We stand ready to assist in this endeavor, and I think that endeavor is already underway.

NTTA has identified more than $2 billion worth of additional toll road projects for construction in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, including: the Southwest Parkway in Fort Worth, the Trinity Parkway in Dallas, and extensions to both the Dallas North Tollway and the President George Bush facilities. The Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners in Mobility looks forward to this opportunity to now accelerate construction of toll road projects in North Texas by virtue of the leadership of the Texas Legislature, supportive Texas citizens, and the continued cooperation between NTTA and TxDOT in the construction of these needed facilities. A strong partnership between TxDOT, NTTA and the funding and construction of toll roads is critical in meeting our mobility needs.

Thank you for your time to talk about NTTA, and at this time I'd like to turn it over to John Murphy who will be our next presenter. Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Don. Good morning, commissioners and Director Behrens. I am John Murphy, mayor pro tem of the City of Richardson and chairman of the North Texas MPO, the regional transportation council.

The dramatic growth we have experienced in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and the resultant rise in traffic congestion require that we develop collaborative and innovative strategies to expedite the funding of transportation improvements. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and its successor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, created new partnership opportunities for funding transportation improvements. The Regional Transportation Council, Texas Transportation Commission Partnership Program -- which we created with you in 1995 -- capitalized on this opportunity to combine regional and state resources to address mobility needs in North Texas.

Since that time, our partnership program has resulted in construction of dozens of vital transportation system improvements, projects that most likely would have been delayed or remained unfunded. While we are very proud of this accomplishment and we greatly appreciate your participation with us in this program, we cannot rest for long on this accomplishment, as we still have a long way to go meeting the needs of our area.

In the year 2002 the Regional Transportation Council is proposing to utilize federal Surface Transportation Program Metropolitan Mobility funds, in conjunction with Texas Transportation Commission Strategic Priority funds to construct $370 million in critical regional transportation projects. This year's request proposes a local share of 65 percent and a state share of only 35 percent.

With your United Transportation program in transition and our desire to permit long-range projects to be expedited, it is more difficult for us to select projects during this period; however, we are confident that the projects we are putting forward for your funding consideration represent terrific opportunities for us to continue to build on our successful partnership program with you.

Let me now call on Lee Jackson to conclude our presentation.

JUDGE JACKSON: Thank you, John. Good morning, Commissioners and Mr. Behrens. I am Dallas County Judge Lee Jackson, and this is probably my last appearance before you as an elected official representing the county of Dallas County. I'm retiring at the end of this year, and so I thought it just as a simple personal courtesy if you would just agree to give us everything we've asked for.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE JACKSON: Seeing no motion, I'd probably better go ahead and finish my speech. I do want to cover on the back page of our brochure the eight major points we've tried to make to you today.

We support your efforts to establish goals and you've established five very broad goals of system performance and achievement for the residents that will be useful in determining progress. The challenge now is to actually turn these adopted goals into things that are tangible enough to inspire the citizens and state leaders to be a benchmark of progress and particularly to drive investment; otherwise, it's just another study. If we can make these goals and their corresponding benchmarks as clear as the state has done in public education -- where a state leader can say let's ensure that all children can read by the third grade -- it will then help actually drive the funding and the legislative support process. And that's going to be a big challenge; we want to be your partners.

On number two, we'd rather partner with a state that has vision than one that doesn't, because we've certainly struggled to develop a vision broad enough for a region as complicated as ours, and at times the state, we thought, maybe wasn't paying attention to our needs. Now you have come forward with several visions, and we commend the vision of Governor Perry's plan and this agency's role in fleshing it out, and we just ask that you'll continue to work with urban regions and find ways to integrate these new large and inspiring statewide visions with our metropolitan plans.

Bullet number three, you have begun a very healthy process of simplifying and streamlining the Unified Transportation Program. The hardest part may be to come up with a way that will allow TxDOT districts, in collaboration with MPOs and local governments, to focus funds where they're needed the most. This means the 25 districts may vary in their priorities. This flexibility is contemplated in your system but it is not formally a part of your current position, and we urge you to consider ways to make the program not just flexible at the state level but flexible district to district.

Number four, we believe that achieving greater levels of mobility with limited funding can be accomplished in part by placing greater emphasis on freeway operations and access management. We applaud your decision to focus on a comprehensive access management program in the planning, funding and construction of future transportation facilities. We recognize that new legal mechanisms and financial incentives may be necessary to help enforce the very difficult task of limiting access to what are supposed to be limited access roadways, and we pledge to work with you and to support that.

Bullet number five says basically that the same logic that applies to freeways, treating them like a system and managing access, also applies to the overall transportation system, and we recognize that you and we and the entire transportation community need to place more emphasis on system management. We used to call this bottleneck removal but it's now obviously perceived rightly to be something much broader than that; it's not as simple as finding a few bottlenecks. All of us need to do more as the state matures. We urge you to support and provide funding for those critical mobility and air quality projects which will help us manage and operate the overall transportation system.

Number six is the topic of corridors, one in particular. We applaud the focus on the concept of corridors to drive transportation planning, but we suggest that perhaps not all corridors are equal, and that if there is a first among equals for this state's economy that the efficient flow of freight and traffic along the I-35 NAFTA corridor is vital to both the state's economy and obviously to us in Dallas-Fort Worth. We urge you to support and identify state, federal and local partnership opportunities for the removal of bottlenecks for the improvement of its carrying capacity and the deployment of ITS technology in the I-35 NAFTA corridor.

Number seven, we ask the commission to move as expeditiously as possible to involve NTTA officials in developing comprehensive mutually acceptable rules and procedures for our joint development of toll road construction in North Texas, and again, our message is one of flexibility across the state. We recognize that in some areas you, the State, are going to be asked to build and operate some toll roads that may technically be owned by a new startup RMA. In our area, we hope and intend to build and operate all the feasible toll roads through the vehicle of the NTTA, but we recognize that we need your help, but it is a different kind of help than those startups, and we hope that your rules will recognize that the roles will be different for different projects in different regions of the state. So again, we ask for flexibility.

The last bullet ends appropriately on the theme of partnerships. We feel some pride in having helped encourage and suggest this partnership program in which we've offered up some of the federal funds that are under the control of our metropolitan planning organization to draw down in a two-for-one match -- two of our dollars for one of yours -- contribution in a very successful partnership program. We've done that again this year and we urge the commission to continue this very successful program which we hope is a statewide example of what we need more of.

Those are our eight themes. We've had a set of really good presenters and you can see that we are united in this, and that concludes our presentation, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. If you have any questions for any of us in the delegation, we're here to try and address them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Don't leave.

MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the greatest things about this position is you've got a bully pulpit to dress people down and then a bully pulpit to compliment people.

JUDGE JACKSON: I didn't notice you ever needed a pulpit, Commissioner.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a story to tell about Lee Jackson. Mr. Hill, I was a freshman legislator in the summer of 1985, I didn't know much about the legislative process because unlike a lot of people that get in our business, I didn't run at the local level and precinct work and work my way up, I just got up one morning in December of '83 and decided I was mad about government and I ran, so I had a lot to learn. In my freshman year, I sat in a section of the floor that included Mike Toomey -- who everyone in the room knows is my closest friend -- Lee Jackson, I think it was Ray Keller was in the section, and Ernestine Glossman was in the section, and so I was exposed to some of the best minds in the Legislature.

Summer rolled around, and during our time we were having a lot of special sessions, but we had about a 45-day break, and somebody suggested that I needed to sign up to take a legislative trip, state-paid-for, to Seattle, Washington to attend a legislative conference and learn what other legislators were doing about different things, and I thought that sounded like something I should do. So I signed myself up and made my draw against the state account and did everything you're supposed to do, and got on the plane and flew to Seattle and I got my agenda of the courses or the seminars I was supposed to go to, and I selected two.

And I got up the next morning, and my wife was going off with some other spouses, and as I was walking through the floor, an unnamed member of the House stopped me and said, Are you headed to the golf course? And I said, No, I'm going over to the seminar on -- I forget now what it was. And he kind of looked around and said, Why? And I said, Well, that's why we're here.

I went on over to the seminar, walked into this big room, and there was one member of the Texas Legislature in that room besides me, and that was Lee Jackson. And we sat down together and attended this three-hour seminar, and we got to the break and I went outside and said, Lee, where's everybody else? And he said, Well, not everybody attends these for this reason. And for two days it was always Lee taking care of his business.

There will be lots of opportunities, Mr. Chairman, to recognize Lee Jackson over the next few months, but to the son of an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation, to a recognized and outstanding member of the Texas House, to a calm and visionary county judge, and to the original proponent of Senate Bill 342 working with Senator Shapiro and Proposition 15, I won't use words, Lee, I'll just simply stand.

(Applause.)

MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say that Lee Jackson is a terrible golfer too.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That might have something to do with it.

JUDGE JACKSON: I would say that I just had a later tee time that morning, but actually I don't play golf at all. Thank you very much for those kind words, and I appreciate you and my colleagues here, but I remind you this is not my party, and in addition to all those kind words, you do feel good about what we asked you for, don't you?

(General laughter.)

JUDGE JACKSON: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I was going to say something nice about Judge Jackson but I can't come back behind something like that. But I do want you to know that I sincerely appreciate the leadership and the counsel you have provided me, not only for your region but for the whole state, on transportation. It is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I find it's sad to think about having these meetings and having conferences and gatherings on transportation that you claim that you're not going to be there, and I know that's hopefully a false claim, because you have provided insight to me personally and also, I know, to this commission and the department, and your work efforts in the transportation area are known around the state and probably around the country. We appreciate it as a commission and I know three individuals up here appreciate it, and I would suspect very strongly that all your constituents appreciate it. And we wish you the best in whatever endeavors lie ahead because we know you're going to be extremely successful.

One thing I was going to say, I'd like to call attention that David Laney has been here this morning -- I think I just saw him sneak out. Three years ago Ann Wynne was up here and she complained about having a bad hair day, and with that, David introduced me as a new member of the commission, and I was going to introduce him saying I was having a bad hair day, and I'm sorry that David snuck out. But David, as you know, served six years on this commission and I believe five as chair, and did an extraordinary job and his service has been missed, but it's been filled well by our man with the bully pulpit, so we're grateful for that.

Any questions on the presentation? I know that everything that has gone on, that this will be well considered, and your offer of almost two-to-one leverage is extremely generous and it enables us to make decisions more readily because it gives us more resources with which to make decisions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do have a comment on my fellow colleagues, Mr. Hill and Ms. Truitt, and Mr. Carter, even though he's retiring. You know, the difference between what we do and what I think all other agencies of state government do is what we do is measurable. I mean, there's really not much room for philosophical difference. We finance roads, we hopefully in the future will be financing rail, we help cities and counties build things and it's easy to measure it. You know, a thousand feet of frontage road in the Grand Prairie area, it's 15,000 feet of rebar, whatever. It's not so easy to do that in other parts of state government, and it's therefore easier, I think, to support, where you can, the resources necessary.

Mr. Carter, in his years as one of my classmates, was always a strong supporter of transportation -- he should be recognized for that. And Mr. Hill and Ms. Truitt have also been friends of the department, and we always compliment and say thank you to those, and we say thank you to three of you.

Bill, what are you going to do?

MR. CARTER: I'm going to put my wife to work.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, hat's off for a good career in the Legislature and to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and to the Weatherford-Fort Worth area. And we say thank you to all three of these members who have helped us, in addition, of course, to the other delegation that's not here, and in particular Senator Shapiro who in the end is the leader for North Texas on our transportation issues.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you again for all you do for not only your area but this great state.

We will take a brief recess to allow our friends from the Metroplex to get back up I-35. There's no traffic at this time.

(Laughter.)

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CITY OF WACO

(Mayor Linda Ethridge, Dr. Robert Sloan, Margaret Mills)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. Our last delegation today comes from just up the way, I-35 -- probably came down I-35, no alternate route. Mayor Linda Ethridge, I believe, is going to lead the delegation. Welcome, Mayor. We're delighted that you're here.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Well, thank you very much and thank you for saving the best till last. We think this is a good slot to be in. We really do appreciate the chance to visit with you today about this project.

I'd like to introduce some of the people who have come along with us, or have them stand. They have these buttons on so you can easily identify them. Would you stand? And if there's anyone else in the audience who would like to give us extra support, I'll give you a button. Thank you very much.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Is that the area code?

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: No. That's Loop 574. It's probably somebody's area code but I don't know whose.

We would like to handle our presentation this morning in the following way: we have a video that's about eight minutes that we would like to show you, and then we'll have three speakers. Dr. Robert Sloan who is president of Baylor University will come after the video; and then Margaret Mills who is executive director of Downtown Waco will speak; and then I'll make a few additional remarks. So if you would start the video, please.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

DR. SLOAN: I'm Robert Sloan from Baylor University. Thank you for the time that you've given us. The video has already spoken to the critical nature of Loop 574 in terms of infrastructure and the movement of people through Waco and Central Texas, and others will speak with regard to the direct access -- the video has hinted at this already -- the more direct access and thus the economic impact that 574 would have with regard to various tourism venues in Waco.

I'd like to speak on behalf of Baylor University with respect to the very significant role that 574 would play for us as a university, and thus, for Waco and Central Texas as well. In recent years we have completed a number of very significant projects that are in the Brazos River Corridor which is precisely the area that this proposed loop, extension of Highway 6, would facilitate and would serve. For example, we have recently built and completed a major law school campus for the Baylor Law School, the Umphrey Law School, $32 million project; we've just completed a seminary project, the Truitt Seminary, nearly $18 million; a tennis complex of $5 million -- we have another $3- to $4 million to spend on that project as well. These are all, again, in the Brazos River Corridor.

We have just completed a new sports complex, again, along the river, a soccer complex, a baseball and softball field, a student life center. All of these projects together are in excess of $85 million that the university has spent directly along the river. One of the things that the sports complexes have done is make available for Baylor and for Waco and Central Texas numerous major NCAA Division 1 athletic regional and sub-regional contests which, of course, bring a lot of sports participation from outside the state into Central Texas as well. So we've already hosted, in terms of baseball, track and field, basketball, so we've had this success already.

We also have some current and future projects under way exactly in the Brazos River Corridor as well: we have a science building that we will begin construction on this summer; it's a $103 million science building; we have a museum complex, the Mayborn Museum Complex which is a $23 million project; we have a parking garage and office facility as well; we have a panhellenic building; we have a marina that we are renovating and extending. These projects alone, that we've either already started or will start within the next few months, add an additional $152 million to the $85-86 million of investment that the university has already made in the Brazos River Corridor.

I can tell, as well, that along the river we have other aspirations for some other venues. We were the first university in the U.S. to put forward a proposal for the George W. Bush Library; we have a major proposal that we are sending on to the White House. Of course, there are other universities in competition for that as well. We hope to achieve success in that area, but we have significant land there that will be very important for us either for the library or for other significant projects in our master plan.

So again, this corridor is very important to the university. Loop 574 is something that will have a very positive impact, we believe, for Waco and Central Texas, and I can tell you that the investment that we've made already as a university there is very considerable, both in the recent past and in the future. So we would appreciate very much your support of this project. Loop 574, I think, in terms of the movement of traffic and the movement of people, with the additional venues that we have, is the most critical piece of the transportation puzzle for us as a university.

Thank you very much.

MS. MILLS: Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson. I'm Margaret Mills, executive director of Downtown Waco, Inc., a not-for-profit economic development corporation that's responsibilities are for the revitalization of the central business district, and we are also the city's contractor for the development of the Brazos River Corridor. It's our responsibility to facilitate quality development throughout the 12-1/2 mile Brazos River Corridor which is within the boundaries of a federally designated enterprise community.

An area challenged economically, the corridor winds its way through the central business district. While the downtown business district has experienced significant growth and reinvestment in recent years, with the consolidation of the State of Texas offices in downtown, the centralization of federal, county and city offices, as well as arts facilities, specialty retail, loft apartments, fine dining, the east side of the corridor remains economically challenged. Once a thriving commercial district, Elm Avenue on the east side of the river -- which was also shown in the video -- is a targeted development area for the City of Waco. Historically significant buildings, as well as developable land are adjacent to the proposed Loop 574.

We urge your support of this loop which will enhance the access to Baylor University, our central business district, Waco's finest museum and performing arts facilities, McLennan Community College, Cameron Park Zoo, the Mammoth Site, the Waco Regional Airport. Recently named the third most visited museum in Texas, the Texas Ranger Museum is located adjacent to the Texas Sports Hall of Fame and Baylor's proposed Mayborn Natural Science Center and Cultural History Museum, offering tourists and Wacoans alike a diverse museum complex in the heart of the Brazos Corridor.

The proposed Loop 574 assures the revitalization of Elm Avenue and the strengthening of East Waco neighborhoods, while offering key development opportunities throughout the Brazos Corridor. A favorable decision on this project will provide the needed stimulus to assure quality development throughout the enterprise community.

We thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today, for providing us this time, and I particularly appreciate your service on this commission and your commitment to the diverse interests of Texans. Thank you very much.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you, Robert and Margaret.

We talked a little bit about the value of this to our community, and I want to emphasize again what the City of Waco wishes to do in support of this project. The video alluded to the maintenance swap which would result in your having I think it's five miles less maintenance, so we think that's a very efficient plan and we are anxious to go forward with that.

The city will, of course, be responsible for 100 percent of the costs associated with right of way acquisition and relocation of utilities, and in addition to that, the City of Waco will contribute $750,000 to the project. We have upped the ante and sweetened the pot a little bit -- the last time I spoke to you, that was a paltry $500,000. The Waco District is going to match that amount from their discretionary funds if this project goes forward.

So we think that the project is not only a good one from the standpoint of very sound transportation planning, we think it's an excellent project in terms of the leveraging of public dollars by bringing together the state and the district and the local dollars. We think that the taxpayers are very well served by that kind of arrangement.

Just to sum up, we think that this project is going to allow people to move into and through our city much more efficiently; we think it's going to help connect key attractions; we think it is a vital piece in terms of opening up an area that's been economically depressed and we think it would really enhance the prosperity and the potential development of that area; and we also think it is a key corridor for Baylor University which, as Dr. Sloan described, is very happily growing and prospering in our community.

One other thing that I would mention that was alluded to briefly in the video, one of the ways this would help is really to eliminate a lot of driver confusion. There's one particular spot where you really can't figure out how to get anywhere from there because there are just too many signs, too much confusion. And actually we had ten more people who were coming down but I just had a call and they're lost up there.

So I think it makes sense for a number of reasons, and this project has also been in the planning since 1985 and I think the time really has come for this to be funded. So I hope very much that we'll be able to go forward with this project and that you can provide the funding this year.

I do want to thank you for your time and your kind attention today. I know that as policy-makers you have a very big balancing act to do with scarce resources, and we do appreciate the efforts that you make and want to thank you again for hearing us out today. And I want to renew one promise that I did make to you the last time I was here. I said that if you would fund this that we would -- we being all of the people that came here with me -- we would say nice things about you everywhere that we go, and I do want to renew that promise. And I know some of you are relieved that your mothers could finally hear something good and that seemed to be something you wanted.

We do appreciate you and thank you for your time today.

MR. JOHNSON: Wonderful offer. Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to ask her a question in a moment, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to ask Mr. Skopik a question first.

MR. JOHNSON: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Richard, to your knowledge, has there been any thought given to Loop 574 being a toll road?

MR. SKOPIK: No, sir, no thought has been given to that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have any, just off the top of your head -- and I know department employees don't like to do that -- do you have, off the top of your head, any idea how many vehicles would use this loop in a regular 24-hour day?

MR. SKOPIK: It would probably range from somewhere between 4- to 10,000 upon opening.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then one last question, have you started talking at all with Waco or McLennan County and/or Bell County and other Central Texas towns about a regional mobility authority?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, we have, we have started that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Richard.

Mayor, I don't want to give you the wrong impression. The chairman is very consistent in bringing before the commissioners and staff individual presentations that are made during these things, and it will be considered -- I'm sure that's what he's going to tell you -- without regard to the questions that I'm asking you about RMA, but it seems to me that this might be a worthwhile project for a regional mobility authority to be formed around and for the state to consider using toll equity money to help make this project real and to begin to generate local toll revenue to pay for other local toll projects.

It would be my hope that as we're considering the request to fund it as a free road that leaders in Waco and McLennan County and at Baylor University, because one of the things about this new law -- I'm fond of using A&M as an example -- there's not any reason why A&M can't help finance a toll road from Bryan-College Station to Houston, and there's really not any reason why Baylor University can't help finance it on the part of a toll road also. So just something to think about.

I know it's new to all of us and we're feeling our way through it, but my personal urging would be to consider whether or not this makes sense. If 100 percent of the traffic is going to be McLennan County citizens, then take the opportunity to begin to build a revenue-generating asset that McLennan County citizens can benefit from. Just my thoughts.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Well, I appreciate those comments. We have had at our metropolitan planning organization -- we have begun -- and of course, it is all very new to us -- to look at those possibilities, and I know it's important to the commission because I know you're challenged to stretch your dollars as well as you can, and we will certainly move forward to do the organization that has to be done. I don't know whether this is the best candidate for a first attempt there, but we're certainly open to guidance from the commission on how to take the best advantage of these new opportunities that we're just beginning to learn about.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think each commissioner has said many times publicly in all parts of the state if a community chooses to form an RMA and take a project that would have gotten in the long line for state approval and build it as a toll facility, the commission intends to continue to invest gas tax money in communities. In other words, it's not money you would lose, but we're trying to get communities to focus on if toll roads are the revenue-generator for expansion in the future -- and right now we think they are -- then anytime you've got a road that's almost purely locally used, take advantage of that, ask us for assistance in building that toll road, and keep those tolls yourself and invest them in your community. I mean, it's just logical to us, but anyway, you've given me the answer.

Thank you, Chair.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you very much. Any other questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Just adding on to what Ric was talking about, if you do a local toll project like that, because those monies are leveraged in that toll project, you end up building three projects or three times as much project for the same amount of money. For the amount of money that will eventually be put into this, you could have had three times as much construction plus a potential revenue source. So even if this one may or may not work, I would encourage you as a community and as you're looking at the entire region, on your next projects -- and I think you'll have more leadership also coming from the district and from our staff here to help you guide in that direction -- for which projects longer term and then evolve them from the ground up as a toll project. We're going to have to all start thinking in a slightly different direction.

As to this, good job. We've been watching this progress for a number of years and I was going to ask Richard a couple of questions too, or maybe our Executive Director Mike. We're through with the record of decision on the environmental. What percent of the right of way has the city obtained at this point?

MR. SKOPIK: No right of way has been acquired at this point.

MR. NICHOLS: My notes say: Right of way acquisition by the city should be completed by this fall.

MR. SKOPIK: That's right. Really, the parcels that have to be acquired are fairly large parcels, in terms of numbers, the numbers are, I'm thinking, are less than a dozen parcels. I may be incorrect because of some recent things that have happened where things have been subdivided, and I don't want to step out here because the city is taking the lead on the right of way, but they're anticipating some donations, or are at least working in that direction, but that's purely their business and I'm not prepared to really speak to that.

But the bottom line is I see no reason for the right of way not to be acquired in that time frame at this point.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: We do believe we can meet that time line.

MR. NICHOLS: And I think it's an excellent idea that you are trying to obtain the right of way as opposed to TxDOT, regardless of who ends up paying for it, because what happens when the locals acquire it from local people, they're able to do a better job, in some cases obtain a donation, things of that nature; whereas, for some reason when the state steps up to try to acquire, people see dollar marks and it costs us all more money. But we do feel like we can have the right of way by this fall?

What about when that right of way is obtained, will there be a lot of utility relocation? I know it said $200,000.

MR. SKOPIK: I would say that on this project, compared to most projects, it's on the lighter side because really where the utility adjustments have to be made is around where the connection is to I-35 and then there's another connection on the other end of the project where it connects to Business 6, or Highway 6, the spur that goes over to Highway 6 and Business 77. They're all kind of clustered together on what I call the south end of the project.

MR. NICHOLS: The construction plans, what percent completed are those?

MR. SKOPIK: Ninety-nine percent.

MR. NICHOLS: So we're almost through, okay. The fact that it was put in Priority 2 some time ago was an absolute commitment by the commission that it will be built, and usually, as the right of way progresses and the drawings and engineering plans progress, that at a certain point of completion we're looking for the opportunity to flag, so we're basically there now. I hope something doesn't get snagged on the right of way. So all that's great.

Also, I commend you for what I think is a very clever idea of swapping out city streets for state roads, because it does get awkward down there. There is a tendency, as we move and build new things, we retain old highways -- obviously because they're state -- that really in effect are city streets but we end up maintaining them. So if we could pick and trade out like that, I think it does make sense -- that's my personal feeling. So I compliment you on that.

You've got a great district engineer. I know he's real bashful but he's glad to be back home, I know that.

On the Highway 6 connection, the Highway 6, as I think you mentioned, was one of the Phase One Corridors that's identified to be four-lane divided basically all the way to Houston, so as that thing gets nearer to completion as a four-lane, you're going to have an increased amount of traffic feeding into Waco in that area, so a connector will become even more important.

Thank you for answering the questions and I appreciate the presentation.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you all.

MR. JOHNSON: Mayor, I'm glad that you brought up the MPO. I know that the director Hugh McNeely has been working with TxDOT on the re-authorization of TEA-21 and that's a very vital partnership because we're in the sixth year of TEA-21 and we'll go to the federal government for a re-authorization of the Highway Act and it will cover the next six years, and it's extremely vital to all Texans who use our transportation system as to how that looks and what we're able to benefit from it, and his work is greatly appreciated.

Excellent presentation. I did want to ask President Sloan about this marina and what courses I needed to sign up to take at Baylor so I could use the new marina. Is that part of the educational program or is this a recreation element?

DR. SLOAN: Well, no. It's part of the educational program and recreation. Our so-called PE human performance area uses it, and I have to tell you there's a lot of traffic, seriously, from outside the state that comes to the Brazos River Corridor. We've had schools from the north who have skull and crew teams come to Waco to work out, and in the future, we plan to start a varsity women's crew, so anyway, but we get a lot of out-of-state traffic.

MR. JOHNSON: Terrific. Well, once again, extremely well thought out presentation, and as Ric alluded to, we don't make decisions on the spot, but we're optimistic that we'll get there. Thank you so much.

We'll take a brief recess so that our friends from Waco and McLennan County can return home.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Before we begin, let me remind you that if anyone would like to address the commission, please fill out a card at the registration table in the lobby. We would ask that if it is an agenda item that you request to speak on that you fill out a yellow card and identify the specific agenda item. We would also mention that if it is not an agenda item and you would like to address the commission at the open comment period at the end of the meeting, we would ask that you fill out a blue card for that purpose. And please keep in mind that we would request that each of your comments be held to a maximum of three minutes.

We will begin the meeting with approval of the minutes of our commission meeting in February.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I believe we'll turn the agenda over to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll move to agenda item 3 which concerns Aviation and funding of improvement projects. This will be presented by Karon Wiedemann.

MS. WIEDEMANN: Good morning. I'm here to present item number 3. This minute order requests approval of 14 airport improvement grants. The total estimated cost of all of these improvements is $9,405,464; this consists of $6,519,198 in federal funds, $1,918,269 in state funds, and $967,997 in your local matching funds. That is shown on your Exhibit A to the minute order.

We held our public hearing on March 11; no comments were received. We recommend approval of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll so move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 4, Public Transportation. Margot Massey will present three minute orders for your consideration.

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

I was pleased to see Richard Skopik here in support of item 4(a) toll credits for the City of Waco. This will be Phase 2 of a building project where they have sought and received, on their own, federal discretionary funds. We recommend your approval of toll credits as match in the amount of $408,000.

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. Thank you, Margot.

MS. MASSEY: The second item is an award of discretionary funds for vehicle capital replacement based on programming flexible federal funds, $5 million in federal funds and a little bit of leftover balance from previous years. This will be distributed to urban and rural transit systems around the state based on depreciation and replacement costs. All of the equipment will be alternatively fueled. We recommend your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Question.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: First of all, Margot, I want to say once again how much I appreciate your taking my personal interest in alternative fuels to heart; I know it's been difficult for you, I'm aware that you've had a lot of complaints. I need to ask you if a process for getting exempted from that is in place that you feel comfortable about. Is it now possible for people to say we just can't do it and here's why?

MS. MASSEY: Yes. We've recently released those waiver procedures, and I think it addresses those cases where it's not feasible at this time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then secondly, Mr. Chairman, sort of in light of the embarrassment that citizens of our state brought to you earlier in the week, I wonder if we're doing an adequate job in making sure that the public, and in particular Tommy and his crowd, understand that we are the most advanced state agency in the State of Texas in promoting alternative fuels as a replacement to diesel fuel vehicles.

MS. MASSEY: I think we can definitely improve our efforts there. We've been so focused on the planning part of this process and fueling issues and facilities issues.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to say for the record I just find it bizarre that people who purport to be interested only in clean air -- and I can only hope they're not interested in some other political agenda they wish not to discuss -- would embarrass the agency of the state which is leading the way in moving away from diesel emissions, and I want to be sure we're doing our part to make those citizens understand how hard we're working.

MS. MASSEY: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So every effort that we can take, Mr. Behrens, we ought to take to remind these people that we're doing our share to clean up the air.

The third thing is are we overlooking either emotional credit or financial credit that might be available to us through the federal government by making sure they understand how focused we are on shifting to alternative fuels?

MS. MASSEY: I believe the recognition is certainly there. I was recently in a meeting with folks from the Environmental Protection Agency and they're aware of the bold initiative that we are undertaking here, and certainly the U.S. Department of Transportation is aware of it as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Subject to other questions, Mr. Chairman, I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: Was that a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it was a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MS. MASSEY: The third item we have for you is our federal formula program for rural transit, the Section 5311 program, our annual program of projects for you. And again, all vehicles identified or to be funded through these contracts will be alternatively fueled. We recommend 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.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot, thank you very much.

MR. BEHRENS: We have agenda item 5, beginning with 5(a) Proposed Rules for Adoption, the first being rules concerning our Environmental Policy. Ken Bohuslav.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: My name is Ken Bohuslav and I'm the director of the Design Division.

The minute order we have for your consideration today proposes amendments to Section 2.62 and 2.65 to the department's Environmental Policy contained in Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 2, Sub-chapter (d) of the Texas Administrative Code. Currently the Landscape Cost Sharing Program allows private businesses and civic organizations to participate in financing state system landscape improvements through local governments. The proposed amendments to Section 2.62 and 2.65 will allow private businesses and civic organizations to participate in the cost of materials and labor of the landscaping directly with the department.

Staff recommends your approval of the minute order to propose these rules for publication in the Texas Register.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So Mr. Chairman, is this the next step in what has been a series of steps to empower the department to be more entrepreneurial in serving its citizens?

MR. JOHNSON: Hopefully we're headed in that direction in encouraging people to participate with us in projects which will improve aesthetics of our roadways.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Excellent. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Ken, before we vote, a question. What about maintenance of these landscaping projects? Is that still going to be a department issue or do we accept contributions for maintenance?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We accept the contributions for maintenance as well.

MR. JOHNSON: Will the signs be similar to what we see in the Adopt-a-Highway?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: I'm getting a head shake yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay, great. There is a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We have item 5(a)(2), Chapter 9 which refers to rules for Contract Management.

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

If you approve this minute order, we will publish for public comment a revision of 43 TAC 9.4. It was recently brought to my office's attention by the gentleman who manages that function of the Office of Civil Rights that this particular provision of the rules could be more exactly stated and far more informative than it is at this time. We have so modified that particular section of our rules to make it plain that it does not apply just to equal employment matters but it applies to everything touching on civil rights as it relates to our contracts; therefore, better putting the public on notice what we expect of them and what our charge is. Therefore, I would recommend that you approve the minute order so that we can publish this revision of the rule.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: A comment and then I'll second. I like the beard; it's coming along real good.

MR. MONROE: Well, thank you. You were my inspiration.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That was a second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Thanks for everything.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(2)(b) which would be amendments to Highway Improvement Contracts.

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

Item 5(a)(2)(b) proposes amendments to Sections 9.10, 9.11, 9.13, 9.14, and 9.16 through 9.18 related to Highway Improvement Contracts. These rules address considerations for proposals with contractor bidders. This will allow you to reject bids if there is a mathematical mistake in a contractor's bid. Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So Mr. Chairman, this is another step the department is taking in setting the rules and regulations up such that we act more like a business, more entrepreneurial, not afraid of risks and can move a little bit faster. Is that how I would interpret that?

MR. JOHNSON: I think that's a good interpretation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And Thomas, you're sending these out now for comment from the public?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Keeping with the commission's desire to send out to the public proposals and seriously encourage comment and take into consideration that comment.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir, and we will be discussing this with contractors and we already have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Excellent move, Thomas, excellent move. So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you have any observations or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had an observation and then I'll second it. Observation being I'll echo what Commissioner Williamson said, but also, we're kind of moving out on new territory here related to bids which we've had conversations related to this. As we delve out into it and time moves on and we actually go through a few of these real situations, we also need to be prepared that if it doesn't work well that way to come back quickly and modify these things or do whatever we need to do to fix it. So anyway, that's a second.

MR. JOHNSON: A motion and a second made. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 5(a)(3) -- am I next?

MR. BEHRENS: No.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: I'm sorry.

MR. BEHRENS: We're first going to agenda item 5(a)(2)(c) which would involve Contract Claims Rules for Toll Projects. Phil Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, the director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

The rule I bring to you today deals with contract claims resolutions. Generally speaking, there are two statutory provisions that provide for contract claims resolutions for state agencies. Generally, the Government Code Chapter 2260 applies to state agencies; specifically under the Transportation Code, Section 201.112 applies to the department. This department statute applies to aviation contracts, non-toll state highway construction contracts, and contracts for professional services. Toll projects do fall under the broader Government Code Chapter 2260.

This minute order, should you approve it, would provide for a process that is consistent with the general 2260 statute but at the same time would take advantage of the department's tried and true contract claims resolution process. Staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Generally, Phil, is this going to make it easier to resolve disputes or harder?

MR. RUSSELL: I think this helps clarify the process so that we can take advantage of some of the department's procedures. Under that framework, it should make it easier.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it makes the rules of the game more clear to everybody.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's my only question.

MR. NICHOLS: Was that a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(3), now, Thomas, you can talk about Contract Management.

MR. JOHNSON: Thomas, you know that when someone bats out of order, it's an automatic out.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Well, the reason I tried to do that is because I knew I would have to raise this podium again.

(General laughter.)

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 5(a)(3) is for the repeal of Section 9.6 through 9.8 and 29.21 through 29.26 and new sections 9.100 through 9.110 concerning contractor sanctions. These rules will include sanctions for contractors that do not perform, do not execute contracts, in addition to our current requirements for bidding crimes. Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So when we put these out for comment, and unless they're changed radically and we adopt them, we've basically said to the public the commission now takes it seriously that when you make a proposal you need to be prepared to stick with your proposal, and if you didn't intend to stick with it in the first place unless certain things happened, there will be penalties associated with that kind of behavior.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So once again, the department takes another step towards treating the Department of Transportation as a business and operating quickly and efficiently to resolve disputes.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm real impressed with this stuff we're seeing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: That's great. Robert, did you have a question?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: I have one question, Thomas -- actually it's an observation and it's one of the points. I don't know if we used a template of what others might be doing in this arena, but one of the provisions calls for a debarment for no more than 36 months for a bidding crime or fraud and related conduct. You know, my sense is that if it's premeditated bidding crime or premeditated fraud that that's an extremely serious offense, and I'm wondering if not to exceed 36 months is sufficient punishment to deter or to discourage behavior like that now. I just throw that open as an observation.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: If they're convicted on a federal offense in a federal court and they're debarred by the federal government, they'll be debarred for the period of debarment by the federal government, so if it's a permanent debarment, we would apply that to the contractor in our state as well.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a)(4) will be presented by Carlos Lopez pertaining to Safe Routes to School.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, there's a switch there that you can lower it.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, we're going to have to do something about this order. Fortunately I'm much taller than Phil so I won't have to go as far down.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, Thomas, you shouldn't have started this, buddy.

(General laughter.)

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

The minute order before you proposes preliminary adoption for the second set of rules establishing the Safe Routes to School Program. House Bill 2204 of the last legislative session requires TxDOT to develop this program. The initial set of rules for this program became effective in December.

House Bill 2204 allows the use of Federal Hazard Elimination Program funds for Safe Routes projects. During the development of the program, the department determined that it would be extremely difficult for these types of projects to effectively compete for safety funds. For this reason, the proposed rules allow the program to use Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program funds.

The proposed revision to the existing rules makes minor modifications and removes references to the Hazard Elimination Program. The new parts of the rules outline how the department will evaluate project applications and allow the use of Enhancement funds for the Safe Routes to School Program. TxDOT will hold a public hearing on these rules. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have four people who have requested to speak on this agenda item. Preston Tyree, education director for the Texas Bicycle Coalition.

MR. TYREE: Good morning, commissioners, Director Behrens. My name is Preston Tyree and I'm the education director for the Texas Bicycle Coalition, and I want to tell you how much I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

The work that's going to happen in this program is just incredible what's going to happen across Texas and the communities. As you know, the Safe Routes to School Program allows communities to get involved in fixing the routes to schools so their children can be safe on the way to school, either walking or riding. And Commissioner Williamson, I believe this is certainly an area where TxDOT can take credit for stepping out and being entrepreneurial because it's something you've never done before in TxDOT. We're talking about community level now, down at the local block level which is going to be a little bit different and a little bit strange, and that's one of the reasons we're working so hard to try to get the rules recognized.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you know Tommy?

MR. TYREE: I do know Tommy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you tell him that we are trying to do these things?

MR. TYREE: You know, every family has got an eccentric uncle, and we love him to death but every now and then we have to ask him to be a little bit less strident.

So this is like nothing else TxDOT does and we really want to work with you and make sure that this can happen because it can change the shape of Texas. It's an opportunity for local communities to get involved and to work with TxDOT, work with their local district engineers, and make a difference.

There was a reason these funds were put in Hazard Elimination: these are small projects, nationwide these projects rarely exceed $50,000, may go as high as $100,000 for the total project which includes the planning and everything else, not just the infrastructure. So these are very small projects; these are not projects that you typically see in Transportation Enhancements. Transportation Enhancements, the average project is over a million dollars and that's not what we're looking at; we're looking at $50- to $100,000.

Transportation Enhancements, the local community has to put up 20 percent. We're talking about communities around a school; to have to put up 20 percent of that money is going to be tough. And in Hazard Elimination, it's 10 percent. And we understand. We sat in and were invited to sit in on the project that looked at the rules under which Hazard Elimination funds are produced, and yes, it's tough because we don't have data. But you know what, we can solve that problem too. We can get the data, I think, that says that we've got some issues on the Hazard Elimination.

I just want you to hear that by moving into Transportation Enhancements, we've got some big problems facing us, and one is that these projects are going to be real tough to compete with the million and $3 million projects and to even show up on the radar. I think this is a great step; there's been $3 million allocated for this which was not put forward by the legislation, TxDOT came up with that, so it's a really great first step. I don't want to be here saying you've given me candy, I want donuts, because that's just a first step. We're talking about $3 million, that may be 30 projects. We've got 8,500 school campuses around this state and so there's a lot of work to do out there, and we're ready and willing to work with you and try to make that happen. Thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Comment, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I did. Our mission statement is real simple; it's to move people and goods safely, effectively and efficiently, and I think we will all agree that the most important cargo we have are our children and their safe movement from the residential neighborhoods to the school and back. I was really kind of thrilled that the Legislature passed this, and I'm sure you worked on it. I think it's a wonderful bill.

In the placement of where to place this thing, although there may be some problem in putting it in the Enhancements category, let me tell you, you want to be there -- you want to be in that category because that category, even though we're identifying and flagging $3 million -- that category this last round had roughly $140-$170 million, and as projects were selected and scored and ranked by the districts and the TPEC and all these other things, because of that Safe Routes to School -- because of that program, even though this rule was not officially passed, we were able to go in and do an extra scoring internally on those projects that were Safe Routes to School projects, and we identified and funded about $30 million worth.

MR. JOHNSON: $33 million.

MR. NICHOLS: $33 million worth on Safe Routes to School, and that's going to be in addition to this set-aside for this particular $3-. That's why you want to be in that program, so if we can work out the little difference between the donut and candy, let me tell you, it's worth it. So my hat's off to you.

MR. TYREE: Am I correct in assuming that we get the same amount of money for Hazard Eliminations in Texas as we get for Transportation Enhancements?

MR. LOPEZ: We get less in Hazard Elimination.

MR. TYREE: How much less? Because over a six-year period, those numbers are supposed to be 10 percent of the STP, both of them. Is that correct?

MR. LOPEZ: Our typical Hazard Elimination allotment per year is between $25- and $30 million federal.

MR. TYREE: And what's the Transportation Enhancements per year, not per call but per year?

MR. NICHOLS: Transportation Enhancements Program per year? It's running about $70 million a year.

MR. JOHNSON: But it's not an every-year call.

MR. NICHOLS: That's right, we do it in round. But it is a direct percentage set by the federal government of our fuel tax.

MR. TYREE: Of the STP funds?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. TYREE: And so is Hazard Elimination and they're both the same percentage. I believe. I may be completely wrong; this is not my profession but that's what I understand.

MR. NICHOLS: The reason I point it out is because I think that is incorrect; I think the Enhancement thing is substantially larger, and we have internal flexibility and it was ranked, so you got about ten times more than you would have otherwise, in addition to preserving the $3-.

MR. TYREE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I think the point under the Hazard Elimination Program is that most Safe Routes to School Programs on their own, because of the data issue, do not qualify, and we recognize that although there's a 10 percent match there and a 20 percent match under the STEP program, it's much better to get money from the STEP program and have a 20 percent contribution than getting no money. I mean, we could say there's zero match and if you don't qualify because of the grading, it's a world of difference, and we recognize that. We think this is a very appropriate channel, and as Robert said, it's the best channel, although we know the match does double and a lot of these communities and a lot of these schools struggle to meet their own needs and to add this 10 percent burden on them will add to their struggle, but we want to work with them to get these things done.

MR. TYREE: And the history has been that in these types of programs, the communities really kick in because they believe in them, and in a lot of cases they'll come up and say we need a traffic light or whatever, and TxDOT says it's down the line, and the community will say what if put up half, what if we put up more than that. So it's been a history that the communities really step in, so we are looking forward to working with you.

MR. NICHOLS: And the $33 million that were approved, the communities already agreed to pay the 20, so there wasn't a problem with them paying the 20 percent there.

MR. TYREE: That's right. Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Next speaker is Gayle Cummins, also with the Texas Bicycle Coalition; she is the executive director.

MS. CUMMINS: Thank you, Carlos, for lowering this for me. My name is Gayle Cummins; I'm the executive director of the Texas Bicycle Coalition, and I want to thank you, commissioners, for recently approving all of the STEP funding for good bike and pedestrian projects with TEA-21 money.

My intent was to come here today and comment on the proposed Safe Routes to School, but instead I'm standing here confused, and I don't have the means to adequately prepare to comment on the rules. Our organization was one of the primary stakeholders in Safe Routes to School; we've been working with TxDOT as a team from the time even before we filed the bill. I thought we were together on this, and yet I did not receive a copy of these rules until two minutes before the meeting this morning. We were also left out of the process of this second part of rules-making.

We've not had the 30 days or so of working with TxDOT staff and legal department to give our input into this process. So today I'm really here to question the public involvement process. This was a citizen-driven initiative, and I don't feel like the citizens are being heard.

When the announcement came on February 9, Representative Roberto Gutierrez said in a press conference that TxDOT was allocating $3 million for the Safe Routes to School. We were excited -- we were stunned, actually. And I called, I wanted to see how can we jump in on the next part of this rules-making process. I was told that staff and the legal department would take care of that and that they would not need our input on this process. So I'm questioning more the closed-door policy at this point.

MR. JOHNSON: Gayle, may I interrupt you at this point?

MS. CUMMINS: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a clarification, I think, that Robert, did you want to make, or did you want me to?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll address it unless you would like to.

MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: The open-door working with you on getting the rule the way we think it should fit the program begins today. That is what this action is. Actually, you were not even supposed to receive that until after we approved the proposed rules. The public involvement process has already begun; this begins it. Your comments today, your receipt of a proposal of some rules, the taking it back, working with all your parties of what you think should be modified or changed or whatever on those rules, that's what we're opening up now. It is an official opening up, we're here to talk to you and get your comments; this is a place to start, let's work from here together. So that is the process.

So you have not been cut out, you would not get 30 days notice. There's a point at which it's got to start; this is it. So don't be disappointed you were left out before that; it starts now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As a matter of public ethics, you wouldn't want us, for example, calling H.B. Zachry and Company and soliciting their public comments before we wrote our proposed rules. You wouldn't want us calling Exxon and getting their private comments about fuel purchases before we proposed the rules. In a similar manner, we wouldn't ask you for your private comments before we proposed something; that's when the public comment part starts. I mean, that's what we're doing today.

MS. CUMMINS: Maybe I was under the wrong impression.

MR. JOHNSON: I think the emphasis is that these are proposed and they are not final. There's a 45-day comment period and we welcome and encourage comments, and the difficulty that we would have in sending proposed rules prior to the commission proposing them is that where do you start and finish the people or the groups that you send them to; and so therefore, it would be inequitable and to be equitable we do not distribute them until they are proposed. A 45-day open comment period, and as Carlos indicated, there will be an open hearing on this matter so everyone who has an interest in it may make their comments, and I think it's our job to listen, understand, and where the comments are appropriate that the rules be modified before they're presented as final.

I hope that clarifies that we didn't single you out as being a bad guy and not want you to be part of the system and part of the procedure, but out of equity we have to do things this way.

MS. CUMMINS: Yes, sir, and I even wanted to make sure I wasn't overreacting on this issue, so I went to the TxDOT website and I typed in the word "public involvement" and did a search, and hundreds of examples came up of all the --

MR. JOHNSON: Did you get Commissioner Williamson's bio when you did that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought I kept that off the website.

MS. CUMMINS: And so I know that you do know the public involvement process and the word "consensus" was in a lot of the examples of what happens, but just to make sure I wasn't overreacting, I also checked the Federal Highway Administration guidelines, and some policies and guidelines they had even suggested back in 1995, and they gave examples of effective involvement and ineffective involvement. And I guess I'm just asking to bring this to your attention, effective involvement means open exchange, opportunities early and continuing involvement; ineffective is what I see is going to happen possibly with the Safe Routes to School. We may have one or two public hearings, if that.

We have proposed rules, a draft of it right now, and according to FHWA, that's probably not the most effective way to conduct a program. And I know you're talking about conducting an effective business also. We just want to make sure there are as many opportunities as possible for the public to be involved with this, and because we are a bicycle and pedestrian cause, that it has less relevance than the big road projects. That's what I'm asking you to consider. I thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Next speaker, Sparky Anderson, program director for the Texas Community Project.

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. For the record, my name is Sparky Anderson and I'm the state program director for the Texas Community Project. I'm also here in support of my colleagues, the recommendation, at least what we understand, how to get the community involved with the funding mechanism, so we support the use of the Hazard Elimination fund at this time. We would like to have continued dialogue with you, and as you know, you've received thousands of letters from citizens on this subject. I bring you more here today.

I also want to make comment on the public process, the open process. This, as you've heard already, was a citizen initiative; citizens brought this to the Legislature. Representative Gutierrez carried the load for us and citizens walked through the halls of the Legislature to pass this bill. We would then hope that citizens would be able to participate from the very get-go once the June date came around, since die happened, and we could start working with TxDOT.

My colleagues at Texas Bicycle Coalition assured me that they were going to be able to be involved in those processes, and they were involved initially with dealing with the formula setting process. I think we voiced our concerns and opinions at that time, but after that moment, everything kind of disappeared and the public participation process went away.

I too am concerned about whether or not we're following the guidance from the Federal Highway Administration in telling the state transportation agencies and MPOs to engage the public early on and often, to start using the language that the public understands, and to get the public's comments, as diverse as they are.

Commissioner Williamson, I would want Exxon's opinion at the table. I would want to know what their comments and concerns are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you wouldn't want us to call Exxon privately and get their comments.

MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely not. The same thing, I wouldn't want you to call me privately. That's why other agencies use stakeholder processes: they put us in the room, I can hear the concerns of those who may have a different opinion than I, and I as an advocate for citizen needs could go out and work to find answers to overcome those objections or concerns. That's my responsibility to my members to effectively bring a voice to the table for them.

But I feel ineffective when we're seeing the package now, I've got 45 days to think my way through this process, try to get dialogue with my members first, understand objections that are out there, look at legal ramifications and understand all of the financial situation involved with this funding and this issue, and then try to bring you concrete, effective conclusions and answers instead of a bunch of rhetoric. You don't want that, you don't have time for it, and I don't have time either in 45 days.

We were hoping that the dialogue could start earlier. I've done this in several agencies, from the federal level down to local government. We've been involved in helping to draft and work our way through the process through consensus efforts and then bring those solutions to you so you can introduce a package that can just skid right on through the process.

I am quite concerned with this and have decided to draft a letter to the Federal Highway Administration to ask their opinion on whether or not we're following the guidance that they have put out both in ISTEA and TEA-21.

Thank you and I'll be able to answer any questions if you'd like.

MR. JOHNSON: Question, comment?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for being here, Mr. Anderson.

Robin Stallings, state coordinator for the Texas Bicycle Industry.

MR. STALLINGS: Hello, commissioners. Thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak here; I really appreciate it. For the record, my name is Robin Stallings; I'm the state coordinator for the $200 million a year Texas Bicycle Industry, mainly mom-and-pop shops all over the state, about 250 of us and we're, I guess I said, a $200 million a year business collectively.

I want to start with thanking the commission and thanking in particular the governor for approving the $3 million. We see this as a good start for a pilot project. We'd hope that there would be, for example, a bicycle advisory board that would be able to review these processes so that it's not just internal with staff but to have staff advising this TxDOT citizens commission -- I'm not sure exactly what you call that -- for reviewing these kind of projects, and of course to be finally approved by you all.

The concern that I have is really about process. You know, every small business person is way too busy to do this kind of stuff and so am I, and we've relied heavily on the Texas Bike Coalition and they have been a very responsible businesslike voice that we have been able to get behind with no reservations, and this is a first. Only in the last couple of years have we been comfortable working with them; it tends to be a lot of very independent, very conservative-minded people that run their own businesses like this, and it's the professionalism of the Bike Coalition that's caused us to feel like they can speak for us. So when you hear them, you know that there's an industry behind them as well.

At the same time, we haven't had to go to those meetings because right after the session, TxDOT promised to include the bicycle stakeholders in this. I went to the first meeting; when I realized that it was going to be extremely well handled by the Texas Bike Coalition staff, we didn't have to worry about it. And then along the way that dropped. We did know it was going to be a two-phase process but it was not made very clear that it was going to be done this way. I do believe it's going to be very difficult to communicate with our members and the far-flung people out across the state in 45 days and come up with a good plan and to hear the concerns of the other business interests out there.

Obviously we're a business interest and we feel like this collaboration can work best if everybody's concerns are on the table and that you don't just get showered with all these divergent opinions that we might have been able to work out beforehand when the next hearing comes.

Also, this rulemaking process began with the Department of Public Safety and they have engaged stakeholders. It feels very different. The Department of Public Safety is open and working with everybody on it, and TxDOT didn't. And I have to say a lot of great things about TxDOT staff. They have been very professional and I'm not complaining about anybody individually, of course, because they've been very excellent, but the process is the problem for us, that there hasn't been more engagement. We believe the door ought to be open to everybody. If they don't show up, then that's their problem, but when we're trying to show up, it's very difficult when the door is closed.

And that's my comments for now, and thank you very much for having this hearing, and we're excited about the Safe Routes to School Program and it could almost have been devised by a TxDOT public relations person because this is going to get more good public relations out there for the Texas Department of Transportation than almost anything else you're going to do based on the wild popularity that these programs have had in other states, so I look forward to working with you in the future on it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have some questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many days of layout would you suggest if 45 is too quick. I started to ask Sparky this and I wish I would have. How many days would you suggest?

MR. STALLINGS: Well, I'm not sure exactly what other deadlines we're going to hit, but part of the concern is if there's not a way to have stakeholder meetings and discussions along the way so that we're working something out, if it's just a matter of more time and then we all hit you with an answer all at once, then I'm not sure that we've actually had the chance to develop any consensus.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is your observation we should have been given more warning and thus there should be more time allocated to the public process, or is your observation in addition to the 45 days you should have organized stakeholder meetings. Which is your suggestion, or is it both?

MR. STALLINGS: Well, it's really both probably. I'll defer to the people in the trenches, Gayle Cummins and Preston Tyree. I have a lot of respect for Sparky Anderson, but frankly my constituents wouldn't be quite as comfortable with them because they're a little more grassroots. We're business guys; we're 65 percent Republican, and we know that Gayle Cummins and the Texas Bike Coalition are going to -- we feel very safe and comfortable with them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you saying that Sparky is not?

MR. STALLINGS: You know, I suspect that he's not a Republican. I'm not certain, and I have to admit that I personally am not a card-carrying Republican myself.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But your organization is.

MR. STALLINGS: The organization is by far, and in fact, we have Libertarians over and above that, so the Republicans are the liberals in our group.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The record should reflect that there are no Republican or Democrat roads or bicycle paths in this state; it's just Texas roads.

MR. STALLINGS: Duly noted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I apologize for asking the question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STALLINGS: But I would defer that timing, whether or not 45 days. If it could be extended, it seems to me it would be a helpful matter, but particularly the engagement in that 45 days, I'm not sure I understand how you're going to be getting feedback. If it's just mass letters to you all or if there's some way to kind of assimilate this and work this out, like we have tried to do with TxDOT every step of the way, including about a year before the legislative session started.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe there's an open meeting. Is that right, Carlos? Scheduled for --

MR. LOPEZ: April 30.

MR. JOHNSON: Thousands and thousands of rules come before this commission and the procedure has been pretty much the same: They're proposed; there's a 45-day comment period, and most of them, if not all, there are mechanisms for concerned people to address the concerns that they have in the proposed rules; oftentimes there are open hearings. We've gone through a rather interesting session on our access and frontage roads issues and this has been the procedure, and the proposal and the final adoption of rules. And I'm somewhat amazed that we get to one area of the very broad spectrum that the department and this commission oversee -- that being bicycle and pedestrian paths -- a proposed set of rules, that 45 days is insufficient for responsive time and an open meeting whereby the stakeholders can come and address their concerns is inappropriate. I'm somewhat amazed at that. Do you have any sense of why that is?

MR. STALLINGS: Well, this may be a little bit new. Texas is not known for creating a whole lot of bicycle facilities compared to almost anywhere else, and in Enhancement obligations, for example, we were 51 nationwide -- I thought they'd only have 50 but I guess they're counting District of Columbia too -- we were literally at the very bottom of the heap. It was a little embarrassing, as I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago.

By the way, Kay Bailey Hutchison is now the co-chair of the Senate Bicycle Caucus, and this is going to be a Republican issue before I'm finished with it.

(General laughter.)

MR. STALLINGS: But I think effective might be the better word than appropriate, that how do we get most effective with this so that we can make this program win. It seems like resistance partly because it's new, that we don't feel like there's a lot of enthusiasm to make this program successful. We want to see this $3 million squeeze all the juice out of it so we get the most benefit for the most school districts and in a process that is easiest for TxDOT to administer so it doesn't become a big hassle with a lot of little projects. And we feel like that being involved along the way will help us communicate to make the project more effective later. So that's my thinking about effectiveness, not inappropriateness.

MR. JOHNSON: Again, Texas ranks 51st in what rating?

MR. STALLINGS: In the Enhancement obligations. It may be a little bit --

MR. JOHNSON: Enhancement obligations?

MR. STALLINGS: When the money is actually obligated, so it may be that we're not near as bad as we look because we don't do our obligation until later in the process than other states, but what it looks like is that the Enhancement funds are not being spent.

MR. JOHNSON: Are you talking about in a particular area or spent at all?

MR. STALLINGS: Well, it appears from the federal level when they're looking at the re-authorization of TEA-21 -- which with my national colleagues I'm quite involved in -- that the Enhancement Program is not well utilized because when a big state like Texas especially has a slow rate, it brings the entire country down. We get 10 percent of all that money and California gets a little bit more, but we're one of the heavy hitters as far as the Enhancement Program. So when our obligation rate -- Preston Tyree can speak a little bit better to the kind of technical details -- I'm a business guy; I'm not a transportation whiz -- but I believe it's the obligation rate, and we look very low on that. And that was one of our primary messages to the Congress people there is that we have a perception problem if not a problem in fact because as far as I know, the Enhancement Programs have been subscribed, we haven't left money on the table, but it's a concern.

MR. JOHNSON: The observation here is that instead of doing the '93, '97 and '99, they ought to be done in '92, '94 and '96, or all up front in the re-authorization? I mean, this is a timing issue.

MR. STALLINGS: No. I think it's timing and it may be the way we call it obligated, but for some reason, we're doing something than the vast majority of other states. I realize that there are some examples like from ISTEA where maybe the local people, it went over budget, they couldn't come up with their match, they won't send the money back and it's stuck. And in TEA-21 that was changed so that there is a deadline, they use it or lose it which I'm obviously in support of. So I’m not sure what we can do about the old cleanup if that's what's hurting our obligation rates, or if it's because of the way we call a project done and pay for it that maybe it's different from what the other states are doing.

But it would sure be nice and give our congressmen a little bit more enthusiasm for supporting the Enhancement part of TEA-3 -- which is what people have so far been calling TEA-21 re-authorization -- that if we were able to look at that, see if it's the way we measure it, and see if we can bring that obligation rate up.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Let me make a couple of suggestions here. First of all, the $3 million that you're trying to make sure we squeeze all we can out of, we just got through approving $33 million worth of Safe Routes programs, funded them, and that is very significant in my opinion. We like the program, we are supportive of the program, we want to make it work as much as you do. So please keep that in mind, everybody that's involved in this thing, we want it to work. Obviously we think a lot of it.

I'm going to make a suggestion and then I'll make a motion. Is he the last speaker?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Then I'll make a motion. My suggestion to our executive director would be to possibly get our Traffic Operations group, while we're out and we have the time -- because the proposed rules go out -- that maybe we do try to organize in this time period in a more formalized manner where you sit down with some of your staff, whoever you from the bicycle coalitions and the bicycle shop owners, or anybody else interested or expresses an interest to come and have a series of meetings to kind of review, go through the rationale of the rules, get the input, as opposed to getting a formalized letter, and begin that dialogue that some discussed. I think that can be very productive.

I think this is not that complicated. I think there's this fear among the bicycle groups that there's something going on here that is not really going on. And if we do that, then I think you'll get a dialogue going that you had hoped for and we can accomplish everything in an expedient manner.

MR. STALLINGS: Well, that sounds very promising and I would really appreciate that.

MR. BEHRENS: That's fine and we can make that happen.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you think you can make that. That was really directed more over here than it was to you.

MR. STALLINGS: One brief comment on the Enhancements and how many of the $33 million that was approved for the Safe Routes to School projects. One reason that originally we wanted to put this in HES funds rather than Enhancements is that most of the Enhancement projects, besides different level of funding, they're linear projects and they're connecting other trails, and that's a real important piece of that and those are very necessary facilities. Now we're kind of competing against other very worthy bike projects with Safe Routes to School, but they have to be looked at more like a radius out from the schools, so just because there's a school near one line, that doesn't help maybe 75 percent of the kids at that school. If you're lucky enough to live along an enhancement project, you may get to school but you may not be able to make the jump to the school from the enhancement project if it's not safe for that last three blocks, and this Safe Routes to School we see more as the last three blocks. Even though it's within a two-mile radius, it's how does it connect to other things, how do, with a radius, make it possible for all of those kids to bike and walk.

And I think one of the major important things about Safe Routes to School, in California where the Congress funded some demonstration projects, that in nine schools that they did, they were able to increase biking and walking by 56 percent in each category, but the amazing thing was -- and this was the bonus -- that they reduced traffic congestion around the schools by 29 percent across the board. And we can do a lot for traffic congestion if we concentrate on those schools that are near arterials where there are bottlenecks, if they get an extra point because we're going to be getting some traffic benefits out of this really on the cheap.

And we're also going to be doing something that's not TxDOT's mission but an important one for all of us as Texans, you know, the health and obesity and the early onset of diabetes which is a huge problem, particularly along the border regions, but we see that we're knocking off a lot of different problems with this kind of a project. But that's the reason that it's not exactly the way those Enhancement projects work; they're good, it's good to include schools in that, but they don't do what Safe Routes to School will do. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Robin, thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Will you entertain a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We'll go to agenda item 5(a)(5) and 5(a)(6) will be presented by Phil Russell.

MR. RUSSELL: Again, my name is Phillip Russell, director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

The proposed rules I bring to you today would provide for the repeal of several sections of Section 53 of the TTA rules. Specifically there are four elements, Section 53.1 through 53.12 provide for construction and letting process; section 53.50 dealt with contract claims, Section 53.51 with the EEO process, and Section 53.52 through 53.54 with debarment and suspension. All of these rules now are redundant and no longer needed; TxDOT rules are provided in each and every one of these areas. We would recommend approval of these proposed rules.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: You said approval; it says repeal.

MR. RUSSELL: It is repeal of these rules, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Approval of the repeal. Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. RUSSELL: The next item is proposed repeal of Chapter 54 of the TTA's exclusive development agreement process. It is a repeal and simultaneously proposing new rules. To really break it down, what this proposed rule would do, is it would address the rules in four separate areas. Number one, it would reflect dissolution of the old TTA board; it would provide for a two-step environmental review process within the exclusive development agreements; it would delete the need for a financial feasibility certificate; and it would provide increased flexibility in the unsolicited proposal process.

Currently under the existing TTA rules, once an unsolicited proposal is received, we publish that proposal and potential competing proposals have 45 days to respond. If you approve these revisions, it would increase the flexibility of the commission so that on more complex projects, that 45-day comment period could be extended. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you want to go first, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have several questions, Phil, I want to just establish. First of all, it seems to me, Mr. Behrens, that these are pretty significant changes we're making.

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, they are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I want you to take just a moment and go back over the four and perhaps to a non-engineer and to a person who hasn't been on the commission as long as my two colleagues, tell me again exactly what each one of these are going to do.

MR. RUSSELL: Be happy to. Four general areas. Number one, of course, I guess it's more almost bookkeeping. There are several references to the old TTA board; it would replace those references to the commission for clarification purposes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So the first area is just basically clerical in nature.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. The second part would provide for a two-step environmental review process during an exclusive development agreement.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's talk about that a minute What do we have now, a one-step?

MR. RUSSELL: It essentially is a one-step. That would come in through an unsolicited proposal. We would review the environmental component, as well as the design and construction component. What these proposed rules would do it would very clearly give us the ability to control that environmental component. We would have the option to either, number one, do the environmental process ourselves, or number two, allow a consortium to provide those environmental services, but very clearly that environmental consultant could have no interest in the overall outcome of the project and they would have to report directly to us. So it very clearly delineates the environmental process within the overall project development.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to be clear not only in my own mind but for the public. We receive an unsolicited proposal to build something from Laredo to the Port of Houston, and currently the proposal would include environmental and the proposer would take care of the environmental. That's the current approach?

MR. RUSSELL: With our involvement, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: With our involvement. And the new rule would suggest that the proposer could propose the project and either, one, say I'll do it as part of my proposal, or two, TxDOT, would you do it for me? -- my proposal is just about the design and construction and operation. Correct?

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if the proposer says I'll do it, we require that someone not associated with the final product be in charge of the environmental and report to us, even though the proposer is paying for it.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Those are good rules. Thank you. Keep going.

MR. RUSSELL: The third thing would delete the need for a financial feasibility certificate. This was something that was utilized I think in California several years ago. We find it very unwieldy and unmanageable; there were very few firms out there that were offering this sort of certification. Frankly, we can get those same financial assurances through the normal RFQ, request for qualification, request for proposal process.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So that certification process almost was eliminating competition for proposers. Correct?

MR. RUSSELL: No, sir, not really. It complicated the process and it really provided no value to the state. It's still very, very critical that we look into these consortiums and make sure that they have the financial capability to undertake and complete the project, but there's a better way to do it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And what was that last change?

MR. RUSSELL: The fourth thing would provide flexibility to the commission to extend the comment period. Current process is we receive an unsolicited proposal, we publish it in the Register, and we essentially say to any other potential competitors that you have 45 days to submit to us a competing proposal. It makes no distinction between a $10 million, a $100 million or a $10 billion project. What this element would do is increase your flexibility so that as you look at individual projects and if they increase in complexity, and in your view competitors need increased time to respond, you can now give them that increased time. Whether it's 45 days, a month, two months or three months, we could expand that time to make sure there's healthy competition and everybody would get a fair opportunity to compete on a particular project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So again going back to my example of Laredo to the Port of Houston, current rules, the commission would be somewhat constrained if a large proposal like that was made. We would have to move more quickly than perhaps competing proposers could put their packages together. Now for these particularly large projects, we can elect as a commission to say we're going to take six months and make sure that the whole universe of opportunity is given a chance to make a proposal.

MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One more question. I noticed in reading through the rules there's one section that says to encourage private participation -- I'm on page 1: "The department can issue an RFP or the department can accept unsolicited proposals."

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So to make it clear again to the public, if we so choose, we can issue a request for proposals just to propose an idea.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We can say to the world: We want your ideas on a corridor from Laredo to the Port of Houston.

MR. RUSSELL: We can either solicit ourselves or we can receive it unsolicited through the private sector, either way.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But this rule that you propose concerning the timing affects either one.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your answers, Phil.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(b) Rule Review for the finance area. James Bass.

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

This minute order deals with review of our rules for the State Infrastructure Bank in the collection of debts, hardship financing for utilities, and payment of fees for department goods and services. These rules were put out earlier for public comment and none were received. Staff has determined that the rules are still necessary and therefore recommends that you approve this minute order to continue these rules.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Just comment. This is on the SIB rules. Right?

MR. BASS: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I just happen to have been here long enough that I was here when these things were adopted, and they're very simple, understandable. It has been working very good, and hat's off to the way that the Finance Division has handled that entire process from evolution to date. So I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thanks, James.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's not going to tell us how much money we have in the bank?

(General laughter.)

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 6 pertaining to access rights and frontage roads for Kendall County.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav, the director of the Design Division.

The City of Boerne has requested a frontage road in the westbound direction on I-10 from State Highway 46 south for approximately .7 miles. The minute order presented today for your consideration tenders a proposal to the city for this frontage road and considers the release of certain access for public street connections. Currently on the south side of I-10 in Boerne, a two-way frontage road extends from State Highway 46 to State Highway 87; on the north side of I-10 at the location of the proposed frontage road, an office and retail development is planned

The city has offered to contribute the cost of the design, engineering and construction of the two-lane frontage road with acceleration and deceleration lanes, as well as operational improvements identified in the traffic impact analysis. These improvements would consist of minor pavement widening, restriping at State Highway 46 and US 87, and traffic signals at the proposed westbound frontage road at State Highway 46 and at US 87 at New Street.

The city will convey the needed right of way to the State and pay a cash consideration, if any, for the difference between the value of the State's interest in the access rights and the value of the needed right of way.

The department has determined that there will be no discernible difference in the main lane operation by including the frontage road and should provide some improvements based on increased queuing links provided by the ramp relocation and increased length of storage for traffic existing on State Highway 46. Based on access management principles and in accordance with the current department's operational criteria, it is recommended that the number of public access points be reduced from what the city had proposed which would be reduced from three to two access points. Also, as this would be an urban frontage road, the department recommends a three-lane frontage road section in lieu of a two-lane frontage road section which was proposed by the city. The cost for the third lane is estimated to increase the frontage road construction cost by about 13 percent or $140,000.

The three-lane configuration is based on a two-lane frontage road with a third lane added to accommodate merging ramp traffic from I-10 main lanes. This is a standard lane pattern used by the department in urban frontage roads.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute order which tenders to the City of Boerne the proposal I've outlined.

MR. JOHNSON: We have three people who would like to speak on this issue, and then Ken, I would appreciate if you would remain to answer any questions.

Patrick Heath, the mayor of Boerne.

MAYOR HEATH: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you briefly.

We thought for a while about bringing a delegation with us similar to the ones which you encountered this morning. If we had done that, there would be no one left in Boerne to carry on the business that needs to be done there.

I appreciated, Commissioner Nichols, your remarks at the beginning of this morning's session about building communities. Our concern is to continue what we think has been a successful and careful pattern of channeling and managing our growth in the Boerne area, as has been the case for some time now.

The community of Boerne was founded in 1849 and has obviously grown very slowly -- our current population is 7,000 with another surrounding 15,000 persons outside our city limits -- but in the past 10 to 12 years, we've seen a considerable amount of growth with our population since 1990 doubling.

This opportunity for commercial development in an area that is literally surrounded by public highways, US 87, State Highway 46 and Interstate Highway 10, this commercial development would follow in the pattern we've tried to establish of careful managed growth in our area which is an attractive area not only for persons moving from San Antonio and from other parts of Texas but indeed from around the United States.

If we are granted the permission to work out the details and to construct what is in fact, to this lay person's mind, an extension of an off ramp but is actually the building of a lane which has not been there, was not built there -- an access road was not built in this section of Interstate 10 when it was originally constructed.

We do appreciate the fact that there would be only two access points to this road. These would be city streets; one would be the extension of a city street, the other would be a brand new city street which would connect Interstate Highway 10 access to US 87 at a point where signalization is already planned. We would, in effect, with the building of this new city street then be able to improve our circulation, reduce some of the congestion on State Highway 46 which would be to the north of this proposed new street and parallel to it, and beyond that, of course, would be able to reap the benefits of commercial development in this particular area. Our conservative estimates are that the annual return in terms of ad valorem taxes and sales taxes to the three governmental jurisdictions would be from $1.6- to $1.7 million.

Our highway department meets with us -- that is, with the city and the county and our school district representatives -- monthly, and we have then, when we meet with them, the opportunity to discuss opportunities like this for continued cooperation between our local governments and TxDOT. We appreciate the cooperation they've shown us in the past and we hope in this instance you'll give your favorable consideration to this request. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

The next speaker is John Kight, county commissioner, Precinct 1, Kendall County and a former TxDOTer. Welcome.

MR. KIGHT: Chairman Johnson and commission members and Director Behrens, appreciate you giving us the opportunity to talk today. Continuing on with what the mayor said, in addition to the safety aspects, the improved convenience and mobility to the highway system that it will experience -- this ramp relocation -– what we’re doing is backing it off, because right now we’re already having problems with traffic cueing up and backing into the main lanes, but it would improve the operational efficiency of not only IH 10 and 46 to 87, just sort of an island in there. And if we don’t do this, it’s forcing everything onto 87. And this will all be based on what y’all now call access management principles that have been promoted by the San Antonio District for a number of decades. Good idea.

With the authorization of this project by y’all’s commission, the positive economic impact on the fruition of this project will be roughly 40 percent increase in sales taxes and about a 2 percent increase in the entire county on ad valorem taxes. And this is a $28 million project that we’re talking about. As we’ve mentioned, this basically is a win-win proposal to provide additional transportation infrastructure at no cost to TxDOT and at the same time give an economic boost to both Boerne and Kendall County.

As you know, the timely implementation of TxDOT infrastructure projects can have a major impact on local economies, as well as all improved safety and operational levels of service for the transportation network.

We look forward to a favorable recommendation by y’all, and I appreciate y’all’s time and consideration. If we can answer any questions, if you have any. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I have a question. The contribution that has been proposed, I was under the understanding was coming from the city. Does the county have a portion of the contribution?

MR. KIGHT: This is all in the city. It would be through the city.

MR. JOHNSON: But are there county funds involved?

MR. KIGHT: There's no county funds involved.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the commissioner?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I was going to wait until they all were through.

MR. JOHNSON: Heidi Ross who works for the firm of WHM, the project engineer. Welcome, Heidi.

MS. ROSS: Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman and commissioners. My name is Heidi Ross and I'm with WHM Transportation Engineering Consultants.

I was charged with analyzing the impact of the proposed frontage road extension to the surrounding roadway network, and I worked closely with TxDOT and the local traffic operations department through this process to make sure the study area scope and the analysis methodologies were acceptable to TxDOT.

We're recommending the proposed extension of the I-10 frontage road and also along with that the relocation of the State Highway 46 exit ramp for the following reasons. First of all, we conducted a main lane weaving analysis on the I-10 main lanes, considering the extension of the frontage road and the relocation of the 46 ramp. The weaving section is proposed to operate at level of service B which is a good level of service considering a planning analysis that used 30-year traffic volume projections. We used design hour volume projections for the year 2030.

Also, the extension will eliminate queue backup on the I-10 main lanes. The city has indicated that queues currently back up from the frontage road on to the main lanes, and with construction of an additional 3,400 linear feet of frontage, it will eliminate that problem.

The results from the core sim model analysis that we conducted indicate improved operations on the surface street network in the following ways. The extension of the frontage road alleviates the need for installation of an additional traffic signal on State Highway 46, a section of that roadway that's already really congested and an improvement that would be required if the extension were not constructed. The extension also reduces traffic volumes on State Highway 46 by about 20 percent during the peak hour through provision of alternate and parallel travel routes, and this reduction in traffic on 46 translates to fewer left turn maneuvers being required from public streets on to State Highway 46 and makes 46 a safer roadway on which to travel. And the core sim model indicates that the extension of the frontage road reduces overall network delay by about 30 percent for the peak hour as compared to a no-build network scenario.

And finally, again I wanted to emphasize that the cost of the frontage road extension and the other recommended intersection improvements is going to be funded entirely with city funds; TxDOT funds will not be used. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have any questions. Is she the last one?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Any questions of any of the speakers?

MR. NICHOLS: Probably more comment than question, but there is a question that I'll have. I think I made sure I'm understanding this. The access will be on the two public streets; the public streets are feeding to the frontage road. There's no actual direct access or private or commercial access on the frontage road? That's right, that's the way I understood it. Because there was another thing in the way they wrote the order that was a little confusing to me, but that's the way I understood it, I saw the schematic.

Probably the comment really is more we appreciate, first of all, the patience that you have had with us as we've worked our way through this process. Your request for access rights and extension on the frontage road came at a period of time that the commission was taking a hard, pretty tough stance on that, and I think for a good reason, not aimed at you but talking about statewide, because the development on frontage roads has been somewhat of an arbitrary decision in the past and now that our capacities are being utilized.

So evolving through that, it's interesting because Boerne is the first true experience that I've had of the department working its way from where we probably, the way we were going, would have said no using the access management principles -- which you're going to be hearing more about as we move forward -- were applied here to the traffic impact analysis and all that. There was an opportunity for me, I know, to kind of watch how it evolved -- there may be some others also -- and by properly laying that thing out, I was really intrigued by the fact that not only would the addition of this, when done this way, not add but actually freed up and would allow a flow, and for the City of Boerne allows you actually even more development land for the future and a great flow.

So I appreciate your patience and the opportunity for you to step up to pay for this. I'm glad it looks like it's going to work out for the staff for evolving through this process because it's certainly been very educational and helpful for me. I know the administration and there's a lot of people involved in this.

But other than that, I really didn't have any comments. I've kind of had a chance to see the diagrams blown up. I know Amadeo and Ken and them have shown us. And that's really all I had.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll make a motion if that's all the comments we've got.

MR. JOHNSON: I have some questions that I want to get clarified in my mind.

Ken, the south frontage road is two-way. Correct?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON: And it is complete from 87 all the way to State Highway 46.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, and actually there's a two-way beyond the 87 as well.

MR. JOHNSON: After this frontage road would be built, would that remain a two-way frontage road on the south side, or would it convert to a one-way?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: It would remain a two-way frontage road on the south side until at some time in the future when the frontage road could be completed on the north side.

MR. JOHNSON: Completed from where to where?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: It would be have to be from 87 to 46 which would also require the interchange to be reconfigured,

MR. JOHNSON: And that's a distance of how many miles or whatever?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Between 87 and 46 is about a mile and a half.

MR. JOHNSON: Currently heading east and west bound on Interstate 10, is there an exit for 87?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Currently heading east and west bound on Interstate 10, is there an exit for State Highway 46?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: If I am interpreting this diagram correctly, on the west bound lane the exit ramp will be closed and will be moved farther back away from the intersection.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: About 7/10ths of a mile back.

MR. JOHNSON: New exit ramp then adjoining the frontage road and the frontage road then would go all the way to State Highway 46.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: And there are two access points reserved for the city onto the frontage road.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: City street access points, that's correct.

MR. JOHNSON: You're proposing a three-lane frontage road on the north side but the south side is still a two-lane frontage road. Correct?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Correct.

MR. JOHNSON: We hopefully somewhere down the road go into a system development. Is it conceivable that we would go to three-lane frontage roads throughout and that they would be one-way, and I don't know where they would stop and start; they would obviously head back towards the more metropolitan area of San Antonio and where they would continue westbound, I don't know.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: I think that's very likely that that would be the case.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, your question triggers a question, and I guess I wanted to echo Robert's comments. I appreciate the courage, fortitude and patience you exhibited. You were sort of an example for us on how we think this whole access management relationship can be created across the state, and all three of us think that it's very important for the future of the state.

In my area where I live, Ken, the district engineer rightfully is beginning to talk to local officials about the need to do away with two-way frontage roads where possible, and I presume that the department, either the commission or executive administration has generally at some point in the immediate past decided we need to start doing this consistently.

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Maybe as long as we're taking the slings and arrows of frontage road discussion, Mr. Chairman, we ought to begin to give staff some guidance on why it's important to encourage people to go to one-way frontage roads over the long haul.

MR. JOHNSON: I think this commenced with the -- after that -- on Interstate 30. Their system is basically two-lane or two-way frontage roads up there and we're trying to develop a plan whereby the system would go to one-way, and I think what Ric is implying is that we encourage staff that let's try and incorporate conversion of two-way frontage roads throughout.

I'm most familiar in the Huntsville area. A lot of traffic on I-45 and you have two-lane frontage roads on both sides of I-45 there and it looks to me like an invitation for safety concerns.

As Robert said and part of what makes us tick, safety has to be one of the highest concerns.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And, Coby, kind of learning from the last year of how we approach significant policy statements, perhaps as soon as this meeting is over, we will decide how to communicate to our legislative leaders or the entire legislature and to the MPOs and all of the other guys and gals that get involved in this business that this issue has come up in the meeting and the commission has made a clear statement about beginning to look at it, so that no one is caught off guard. We haven't proposed anything but it's now on the radar screen.

I've told District Engineer Chavez that I think one way to make this happen, Robert, is to try to entice conversion at the same time you're talking to communities about their exit ramps and entrance ramps and turnarounds. In other words, most communities will cooperate with change, even if it's painful, if it's coupled with things that improve mobility or economic development in their minds at the same time.

I'm glad we've had the opportunity to touch on this because I think we've got to start guiding people in that way, Coby, Mr. Chair.

MR. BEHRENS: I would ask the commission if you would let us put a plan of action in place and some recommendations we could bring to you on how we can transition from areas of two-way frontage roads to one-way frontage roads.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Before we do something formal?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like a good idea to me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: There's a motion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: And a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Ken, thank you for your patience and thank you for your participation and patience.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 7, Transportation Planning. Jim Randall will present to us six minute orders.

MR. RANDALL: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mr. Behrens. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 7(a), the minute order we bring before you today provides for the appointment of seven members to the Border Trade Advisory Committee. Senate Bill 195, passed by the 77th Legislature, established a Border Trade Advisory Committee and provided that the commission may adopt rules to govern it. The committee's purpose is to define and develop a strategy and make recommendations for addressing the highest priority border trade transportation challenges.

When appointing members, the commission may consider facts such as the desirability of geographic and occupational diversity. The committee will be appointed to staggered terms as follows: terms expiring August 31, 2002, Charles Crespy of El Paso, Richard Valls of Laredo; terms expiring August 31, 2003, Bill Summers of Weslaco, Carlos Nieto of Presidio; terms expiring August 31, 2004, Manny Najera of El Paso, Connie de la Garza of Harlingen, and Dora Alcala of Del Rio.

We recommend your approval.

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.

MR. RANDALL: Item 7(b), this minute order authorizes $51,400 to fund Phase 2 of a project for the beneficial use of material dredged from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Chapter 51 of the Transportation Code requires the commission, acting through the department, to administer the state's responsibilities as the non-federal sponsor of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including cooperating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Corps maintenance of the waterway. Section 51.009 of the Transportation Code also authorizes the commission, through the department, to enter into agreement with the Corps to participate in the cost of a project to beneficially use materials dredged from the waterway.

In Phase 1 of the project, the department expended $123,900 toward the construction of geo-tube containment facilities and the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The material was allowed to consolidate. With these additional funds, the department will purchase material to plant on approximately 14 of the 43 acres which will help stabilize the large mass of soil and speed development of the habitat while waiting for natural vegetation to occur. This will ensure a safe water transportation infrastructure through Brazoria County with connections throughout the coastline of the state and U.S. inland waterway system. The Corps has proposed completing Phase 2 this spring.

Additionally, this project will preserve a mooring facility, a necessary asset for the safe transit in West Galveston Bay by commercial vessels. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I wanted to be sure we weren't taking somebody's land when we were doing this, but Mary Ann assured me we weren't.

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. We created this with geo-tubes.

Item 7(c), this minute order authorizes the replacement of four bridges in Caldwell, Guadalupe and Hunt counties. The first bridge is located in the Austin District on the San Marcos River in Caldwell and Guadalupe Counties at County Road 116. This bridge is currently closed due to a severe flood that occurred last November which completely washed away the bridge. This has resulted in a significant detour of approximately five miles.

The other three bridges are located in the Paris District in Hunt on East Caddo, West Caddo, and Farber Creeks. The East Caddo Creek bridge is critically deficient and the West Caddo and Farber Creek bridges are structurally deficient.

The estimated cost of the San Marcos River bridge is $580,000 and it could be let to contract as early as this December. The East Caddo, West Caddo, and Farber Creek bridges will be replaced under one contract and have a combined estimated cost of $278,000 and could be let by March 2003. Funding for all the bridges is 80 percent federal, 10 percent state, and 10 percent local.

With your approval of this minute order, we will proceed with the replacement of the bridges to be funded in Priority 1, Category 6(b) Off-State System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program of the 2002 UTP. We 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.

MR. RANDALL: Item 7(d). On February 24, 2000, the Texas Transportation Commission approved Minute Order 108112 which established responsibility for the Grand Parkway Association to furnish 82 percent of the right of way for Segment I-2 of State Highway 99, locally referred to as the Grand Parkway. This minute order presented for your consideration authorizes reducing the required right of way to be provided by the association from 82 percent to 60 percent of the total right of way for Segment I-2. This minute order also authorizes the department to proceed with the necessary acquisitions of the remaining 40 percent of the right of way at an estimated cost to the department of $1.8 million.

Segment I-2 from IH 10 East to Business 146 East, a distance of approximately 12 miles, has projects currently in Priorities 1 and 2 under Funding Categories 3(a) NHS Mobility, 4(c) STP Metropolitan Mobility, and 12 Strategic Priority of the 2002 UTP. In order to execute the timely construction of this segment and to meet the transportation needs of the citizens of Texas, it is necessary to adjust the percentage of right of way provided by the association. The Cedar Crossing's Limited Partnership has agreed to pay the department $1.7 million toward the preparation of PS&E of the contract on Segment I-2 from FM 565 to FM 1405 if awarded by September of 2003. If the contract isn't awarded, they will have no obligation to pay the department.

With your approval of the minute order, the Houston District will proceed with the acquisition of the right of way. The district anticipates letting its first project on this segment on the Grand Parkway by April of 2003. David Gornet, director of the Grand Parkway Association is here today to address any questions or concerns you may have regarding the association's role in the development of the project.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You go ahead this time, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I have a feeling I'm going to anticipate some of your questions, so I'm not going to ask those. The Cedar Creek Crossing Limited Partnership, are we talking about the U.S. Steel property owners?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. About a year ago we transferred.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, because I remember when all that was set up, and that does have a critical time that we lose several million dollars. They had basically pulled the plug on donating all that right of way, a huge tract of U.S. Steel land and they were pulling the plug, and we basically went over and hammered out a deal that if we got it on the ground within a certain time period that they not only would donate the land but they would write a big check, and in that consideration -- now I'm going to start to pass the ball over -- they agreed that if we built it as a toll road, that was acceptable with them. I know that has nothing to do with the toll road, but with that, I'll pass the ball.

MR. WILLIAMSON: About 12 months ago I got sworn in and I remember the very first mentally stimulating conversation I participated in was this Grand Parkway and I met that young man out there, and I remember that we were very interested in this being a potential toll road, and a lot has changed since then with the passage of Senate Bill 342 and the adoption of toll equity by the voters. The federal government has made us aware that there's going to be approximately, over the next six years, around $2 billion less in new construction money available to the state. I would ask that Harris County, City of Houston, Southeast Texas be looked at no differently than we look at North Texas, and that is, is it not in our best interest to convey -- this is your backyard, maybe I should be letting you speak about this -- but is it not in our best interest to convey to Gary and to the leaders of that community this needs to be a toll road, whether we own it or they take it over as part of the HCTRA or their own system. We don't need to build or authorize one more foot of this if it's not a toll road, in my view. If I'm wrong about that, tell me I'm wrong, but my brother-in-law lives out on part of that and I drive it pretty regularly and if there was ever a case to be made for a local road serving a local community and eventually becoming something bigger, I can't think of it. I mean, it's a great opportunity.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. When David Gornet, the executive director, appeared before you I guess in January to give their annual report, you emphasized the importance of this being considered as a toll facility. At that point in time, Gary Trietsch has entered into a contract with TTI and they're looking at that right now, so a study is going on right now to look at that possibility.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I get confused. Is TTI the UT bunch?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the A&M bunch.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I wore maroon for you today, Mike, so why don't you call those guys and tell them to get that study finished and let's figure out what's going on here.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll do that.

MR. JOHNSON: I agree. The Grand Parkway serving the Greater Houston area is a prime candidate for tolling. My sense is there are certain segments of it that are more toll-able or more financially viable, especially the northwest quadrant from Interstate 10 all the way probably to US 59 northeast, but it doesn't diminish the fact that we need to look at the potential of tolling all parts of it, and I think as Ric has said, not only do we need to partnership and be resourceful in looking for ways to finance these things, the timing of this, I believe, will be ten to 15 years more quickly if most of it is a toll feature. I think if we're waiting upon traditional funding sources to build the Grand Parkway, it is a long time in coming and I don't think anybody in the Houston area or in the state of Texas desires that result, so I think this is a prime candidate.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If we're going to be putting in X amount of dollars per year free road or toll road, I would rather be putting in X amount of dollars as a toll equity contribution and get the dang thing built. That's the sense I get from the people I talked to down in your part of the world is let's move.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm not sure what type of study TTI is doing on that, to see if it ought to be a toll road or not?

MR. RANDALL: It's the initial feasibility of it. They're not doing a full bore study.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't know that we need so much a feasibility of it, I do know that they would need to make sure it's configured properly as a toll road; otherwise, you'll end up with on and off ramps where you can't control them and eventually get a fee. We know that it may not on a stand-alone toll road warrant with traffic revenues and all that kind of stuff, the bond issuance to pay for the thing and the payback overtime and the operation and maintenance and all that. I've been getting a pretty good education the past year or so on that, particularly accelerated lately. But we do know that if the new location freeway, in effect, in an area of the state that's going to be the vast population is growing and it's connected eventually into a huge configured loop like that, that's a no-brainer.

If the revenues do not cover the operational costs of those toll booths, we don't even have to put equipment in those toll booths for the first five years, but stick the toll booth up and let them drive by and say "Free today" and at some time when the volume picks up -- which it will be there, I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind -- then at the point in time that the volume has picked up that you can cover your operational costs, then you can put up -- because the technology on the toll tags, they may not even have to have somebody in that booth at some point -- can cover that and can help pay for the long term, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80 years from now, routine maintenance, rehabilitation, all that kind of stuff, and as it feeds into the other things.

If it goes up free, non-toll, it's opened up and it's used that way without any declaration of being tolled, it is free forever and you can't go back, not technically can't go back from a practical standpoint. But if we go in and say it's a toll road and we have been saying that year after year after year on every single segment -- I know I've said it for four years in a row -- and incrementally segment by segment we're building every single one free, but we're writing checks. We have got to somehow or another get through the study and say this sucker is going to be a toll road, stick up booths and say "Free today" if we have to, but get it configured as the asphalt or concrete goes down so that it will work as a toll road. I don't know if that's directed to you or there or where or whoever, but I think that's the signal we keep trying to send.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a couple of other questions, Mr. Chairman. Where does the Grand Parkway get its funds to pay for its now reduced to 60 percent?

MR. RANDALL: Most of that is either -- well, I probably ought to let Mr. Gornet address that rather than me trying to do it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, don't run off because I have some questions for you.

MR. GORNET: Those are donated rights of way.

MR. WILLIAMSON: By whom?

MR. GORNET: By the property owners.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So whenever I'm told that you're currently paying 82 percent, what that really means is adjacent landowners are contributing.

MR. GORNET: Correct, sir, the adjacent landowners. We had agreements with these landowners that had time frames on them that they would contribute the property. Some of those time frames have expired; properties have been sold.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So when you go from 82 to 60 and we go from 18 up to 40, we're going to be paying cash and you're still going to be getting contributions.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's a little bit misleading, for what it's worth, Jim. I'm not picking on you, but it's a little bit misleading to me, anyway. But it brings also an opportunity for me to talk about something. So what is the state's justification -- what's TxDOT's justification for telling an area of the state that a previously required right of way contribution for us to spend state funds is now going to be reduced? And I'm not arguing with that, I just want to know how do we explain this.

MR. RANDALL: Well, in this particular case, sir, we want to expedite the construction of this; we do have the U.S. Steel.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, do we want to expedite it because it's in Houston's best interests or because it's in the state's best interests?

MR. RANDALL: I think the answer here is with the size of Houston, whatever is in the interests of Houston is probably in the interests of the state also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's in the interest of the state to expedite this project, and, therefore, previously expected 100 percent right of way, we're going to reduce to 60 percent. And in fact, if it were enough in the interests of the state, we might even want to reduce it to 50 percent or 40 percent. We just keep reducing it because this is a statewide important to the state project.

MR. RANDALL: I believe the size of Houston, the traffic needs of that particular part of the state, that you can't argue that it is in the interests of the state, economic development of the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm all for this. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is maybe this is the first concrete example -- pardon the pun -- since we've begun to consider different funding mechanisms to expand our infrastructure. Maybe this is the first clear-cut example of where the state recognizes that there's a compelling state interest to release cities and counties and areas from their right of way obligations because of local economic conditions and step into the breach and pay for that at the state level simply to move that compelling state interest along.

Because it seems to me that this might be a little bit -- not exactly but somewhat similar to dilemma we face with State Highway 130. We have expectations of local government that, if perhaps for different reasons, can't ever be met. We've all searched, I know, for a justification of how you tell, for example, my district you've still got to come up with your 100 percent of right of way, and maybe we say to Amadeo's old district you've still got to come up with 75 percent of the right of way, but now Houston, we're reducing your obligation and Caldwell County we might be reducing your obligation. It seems to me like we have to have a rationale that's defensible.

MR. JOHNSON: We're talking about one segment of the Grand Parkway here, I-2, not affecting any other segments of the Grand Parkway. Is that correct, David?

MR. GORNET: Commissioner, at this point in time on the other segments that we have under study, we've had to step back from what the original model was for soliciting donations from the landowners because new federal highway guidelines and doing the environmental study process preclude us from considering donation of right of way in the alternative alignments procedure. So until we go through all the alternative alignments and identify this is the route that makes the most sense based on environmental impacts to both the natural and human environment, then we could solicit donations of right of way. At that point in time, however, the association, TxDOT and Federal Highways have already said this is where the highway will go and we will have less leverage in dealing with those landowners through which the highway crosses.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm not picking -- I'm going to vote for this. I understand why we're doing it, but I'm just looking for is this the beginning of a rationale that we can tell our employees that they can talk to other parts of the state about, that we are beginning to recognize that in some cases a project that originally was thought of as a Houston project as it turns out is not a Houston project or not an Austin-San Antonio project; this is a statewide and even international impact project that the state can justify a different approach to the right of way dilemma than it previously had stated.

I just think we ought to be consistent; I think we ought to be prepared to tell areas still if you want us to build this road, you've got to give us the right of way because this is purely local. Or we ought to have some consistency where we can say, however, that portion of 130 from Lockhart or Georgetown or Seguin or whoever to wherever is compelling to the state enough where the state can step up to the plate and reduce the right of way requirement. That's all.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have a motion and a second?

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. Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. RANDALL: Item 7(e). This minute order approves supplemental projects and amends previously approved projects in the allocation portion of the Border Colonia Access Program. In order to initiate the program, the administration agreed to a first program call of $50 million with $25 million being distributed based on border colonia population and the remaining $25 million to be distributed on a project-by-project basis.

Exhibit A to this minute order lists the projects that were added or amended. The total cost for these projects is $2,503,321. With these changes, the total amount authorized by the commission based on the border colonia population is $24,727,343. The commission will distribute the remaining portion of the first program call to individual counties on a project-by-project basis at a later date. Agreements between the department and the counties will be executed after the Texas Public Finance Authority has issued the bonds. Staff recommends 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.

MR. RANDALL: Item 7(f). The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century set aside discretionary funds under Section 118 and 119 for the National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Discretionary Program, referred to as the Border Corridor Program. Section 118 is for the coordinated planning, design and construction of corridors of national significance, economic growth and international or interregional trade. Section 119 is for projects to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or across the border between the United States and Canada and the border between the United States and Mexico.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes the Fiscal Year 2002 Border Corridor Discretionary Program for a total of $8,400,000 as approved by the Federal Highway Administration. These funds will be used specifically for the development of the projects listed in Exhibit A and these projects will be matched with the required 20 percent state or local matching funds. In order to secure federal funding, it is necessary to obligate the FY 2002 program with FHWA by September 30 of this year. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: All of these funds were earmarks. Correct?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I was looking at this memo from Foster to Randall. Why did West Virginia need $54 million to study this stuff? Does anybody know?

MR. RANDALL: I think Mr. Byrd is from there, isn't he?

MR. NICHOLS: It's not political, I'm sure.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: This isn't a joke, this is the truth?

MR. RANDALL: It's the truth.

MR. NICHOLS: On the NAFTA corridor stuff a few years ago, Arkansas got as much as we did.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're telling me?

MR. NICHOLS: You got it, but we don't get to vote on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We got $20 million to study this and West Virginia got $54 million? That's disgusting, that's an embarrassment.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm sure it has nothing to do with the seniority and makeup of the Congress.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know that I want to move anything about this. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 8, State Infrastructure Bank. We'll consider item 8(a); 8(b) will be deferred.

MR. BASS: Good afternoon. Once again, I'm James Bass with TxDOT's Finance Division.

Item 8(a) seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Baytown in the amount of $2.5 million to fund improvements to Spur 330. Interest will accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.4 percent with payments being made over a period of eight years, and staff would recommend 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: How much money have we got, James?

MR. BASS: $51 million.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that balance starting to build?

MR. NICHOLS: Is that this morning or this afternoon?

MR. BASS: This morning. We only get it once a day.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 9, Contracts, Thomas.

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

Item 9(a)(1) is for the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on March 5 and 6, 2002, whose engineer's estimated cost are $300,000 or more. We have an average number of bidders of 5.3 and the percent underrun on these projects was 13.48 percent underrun. Staff recommends approval of all projects.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Costs going down, Thomas?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: The underruns are going down; I don't know exactly where we are on highway cost index.

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. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for the award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on March 5 and 6, 2002. We had an average of 6.16 bidders per project, and underruns there of 13.75 percent. Staff recommends award of all projects.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I bet the construction industry isn't happy with this.

MR. NICHOLS: Is not?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean this is awful low, isn't it, $100 million a month.

MR. NICHOLS: $100 million a month -- well, it's the time of the year.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Am I looking at the right one? $117 million for the month. Not going to be much overtime. So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(b) is for the proposed minute order to establish bid guaranty amount for all highway improvement contracts. If approved, the guaranty amount will be 2 percent of the estimate rounded to the nearest thousand dollars to a maximum of $100,000. If this minute order is approved, the effective date will be June 1, 2002. Staff recommends approval.

MR. NICHOLS: This is not a two-step process; this is just a final minute order. Correct?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: 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: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 9(c), Contract Claims, and Amadeo will present those.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant director of Engineering Operations and chairman of the Contract Claims Committee. We have before you two minute orders. The first minute order before you is a claim settlement for a contract by Arrendell Enterprises, Incorporated, for project RMC 6041-46-001 in Bexar County. On February 13 the Contract Claims Committee considered this claim, met with both the district and the contractor, and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: 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. SAENZ: The second minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Amwest Surety Insurance Company on Project BC 24-0-8 in El Paso County. Again, on February 13 the Contract Claims Committee considered a claim, made recommendation for settlement to the surety. The committee also considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and also recommends your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: This is that situation where the contractor went broke and the performance people had to come in, hire somebody, finish the job. We've gotten through all that, got a good facility, and this is kind of the cleanup of the whole thing.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm going to second, but let me understand, they asked for $271,000 the surety, and you told them $7,000 and they're accepting it?

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You don't work on a percentage basis, do you?

MR. SAENZ: No.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 10 are our routine minute orders that are listed as they appeared on the posted agenda. If you'd like any of those addressed individually, we could do that; otherwise, I would recommend the approval of the routine minute orders.

MR. NICHOLS: There are a couple of additional 75 mile per hour additions on here?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, there are. I think it's 46 miles.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean we're not lowering miles?

MR. NICHOLS: On the average it stayed the same. You're lowering Houston and raising West Texas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We haven't raised any speed limits in Parker County, have we?

MR. NICHOLS: I did not have any problems with it.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

I think we're going to move the open comment part of the meeting to current time and afterwards we will go into executive session pursuant to Section 551.073 as posted on the meeting agenda to discuss donations relative to the State Highway 130 project. The open meeting portion of the comment cards, Dick Kallerman?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Couldn't last it out.

MR. JOHNSON: Dick Kallerman, are you not here anymore?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: Bill Martin? Bill Martin, you are not here anymore.

Randy Robinson?

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you for the opportunity to come speak before you today. First I'd like to thank you for your endurance, as we have all endured this meeting this morning. I know you've had a lot on your agenda and I know those presentations go long.

My name is Randy Robinson and I'm currently the chairman of the Dripping Springs Area Chamber of Commerce; and I'm a board member of the North Hays County Emergency Services District Number 1; I'm a former member, from beginning to end, of the Blue Ribbon Hays County Multi-Corridor Transportation plan for the year 2025; and I just recently completed a stint and am now an ex-candidate in the Republican Primary for State Representative District 45.

The reason I'm here to talk to you today is about the "Y" in Oak Hill. I know you've heard this subject. The "Y" in Oak Hill, the Highway 290 project from Williamson Creek. I believe you heard it early, and I thought sometimes they talk about if it's the first thing you talk about it's better or maybe the last, so maybe we'll get both today.

What I wanted to say to you is I know that's been a priority project for the last three years of CAMPO. I originally started in all those different things that I talked about earlier from the Chamber of Commerce to the SD to the Blue Ribbon Committee are all the result of a meeting I attended over three years ago from the concerned citizens for a safer 290.

I'm here today to talk to you about what we have coming in our area. We have coming in our area in Dripping Springs three subdivisions; those subdivisions will include four golf courses, a 350-room resort hotel, and the most recent projections that we saw from CAMPO are more than a tripling of our population over the next 25 years.

I can tell you that the Dripping Springs Independent School District demographic study says that their population will double in the next ten years. I've recently been reading about the exercise of Bee Cave and the Lakeway area for the growth of a major shopping area there between Bee Cave Road and Ranch Road 620 and Highway 71. And almost all of that traffic goes through the "Y" in Oak Hill.

As a candidate I will tell you that I campaigned for infrastructure, basically, and one of the things I told people was when I moved to Dripping Springs in 1976 the speed limit was 55 miles an hour and me and one other person were driving 70 and it was the Texas Department of Public Safety officer. Today I'll tell you that the speed limit is 60 to 65 miles an hour out there. Everybody is probably driving that same 70, but certainly it isn't the case when we're seeing people colliding with each other and the growth of businesses out there to the point that there are a number of blind spots. My daughter was in an accident where her car was totaled and nobody was assigned fault because it's a blind spot on the highway.

What I'm telling you is we have a tremendous amount of growth going on out in that area and I mean a tremendous amount. We're talking 5 percent per year, and I think if you look at that, that's a huge growth number. We're the fourth fastest growing county in the state of Texas.

And I emphasize all those things to you because I know that you are dealing with the economics of roads, but I'm dealing out there with what I will call the economics of lives. I can tell you that the number of fatalities has grown remarkably out in that area over the last couple of years. Our EMS is having to consider putting a substation around our county line because the majority of our cases are now on Highway 290.

I know that 290 will not get improved towards Dripping Springs until it gets improved through the "Y" in Oak Hill. I've looked at the construction time of that project and can tell you that by the time it completes, we will no longer have the "Y" at 290; we will have the "Y" at Camp Ben. And I make that comment to you as Mayor Kirk Watson addressed our Blue Ribbon Committee and told us that they anticipated that Camp Ben McCullough will be requiring, based on the traffic projections, an eight-lane road coming off this intersection of 290. If you look at the fact that Loop 1 is dead-ended going south at a greenbelt there at 45, you will find that 290 through the "Y" in Oak Hill is going to be the major corridor for almost all of the western half of northern Hays County.

So what I'm telling you is I believe it's a critical juncture for traffic in our area; it's critical to the lives of the people who live out there, regardless of the economic impact and certainly that will be immense to the people in Dripping Springs, our businesses out there because it's going to get to the point that you can't move on that road.

I will tell you that I remember 183 as it went through some of these same problems years back and the old bumper sticker that said "Pray for me, I drive 183" and we've coined a phrase that said "Don't come to your final rest on 290 West." So I'm asking you to consider deeply, as you go through your process of budgeting and know that what I've come to talk to you about is true, and I'll be glad to provide any statistics you would like from any of those entities, but I will tell you that the growth issue that we have is being paid for not just in dollars but in lives, and I'm asking you today to please think about that hard and really consider moving that as your top project. Recognize that CAMPO, with one representative from Hays County, one representative out of over 20 members, has had that as their number one project now for three years.

Gentlemen, I thank you very much for the opportunity to come talk to you today, and I hope that you will consider this project as one of your top priorities too. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Martin was going to speak on the same subject. He has written here he is the Democratic nominee for House District 47. Mr. Kallerman was going to speak on the Trans Texas Corridor Plan. Richard Mueller with Dean International.

MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir. I didn't intend to be speaking today but appreciate your taking my comments.

A couple of things rang my bell in the process of the meeting today. One of them was your comment, Commissioner Williamson, about West Virginia getting all that borders and corridors money. I don't know if you see a lot of the ranking of where Texas is in return of gas tax money that comes from Texans, but we are the fifth from the bottom. And at Dean International, we work for the City of Irving and we also represent TEX-21 and I was wondering, we have delegations go to Washington, D.C. every so often, and I'm not really authorized to offer this, but I would like to know if any of you members of the commission would be interested, or from TxDOT would be interested in joining our delegations when we go up to Washington, D.C. We really do get very good appointments and it would strengthen our case if our members were interested in having you. If you had some interest in going up there, that might be a marriage that would be very beneficial to both sides so that we could elevate the return of the money that Texans are already paying in this gasoline money.

MR. JOHNSON: We appreciate the offer. We visit delegations through our Legislative Affairs Office.

MR. MUELLER: The other thing that came to mind was when the folks from the Texas Bicycle Coalition were talking about the perception of being closed out of the process, I wanted to convey to you that TEX-21 members see themselves as being among the best friends of TxDOT and the commission but they also have felt that same sort of thing. So from the aspect of perception being reality, there might be an adjustment that might be necessary, if you will, in the process of coming up with the rules. The aspect of having a rule and then a period of time where TxDOT works by themselves makes people nervous, quite frankly.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. Who are you?

MR. MUELLER: My name is Richard Mueller and I'm with Dean International and we represent TEX-21.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's Dean International?

MR. MUELLER: We're public policy consultants for TEX-21.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you charge TEX-21 for work.

MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, who is Dean? Who owns it?

MR. MUELLER: Well, David Dean owns it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: David Dean the lawyer?

MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir, used to be secretary of state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who are the constituent members of TEX-21?

MR. MUELLER: TEX-21 is a wide variety of cities and counties across the state, City of Dallas, Dallas County, Harris County, City of Houston, El Paso, Austin, San Antonio.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's fine. So you're saying that those people feel like they don't have input to our process or is it you and David Dean don't have input into our process?

MR. MUELLER: No, sir. I'm conveying comments that we're getting from our members.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know what, we hear from the City of Dallas and the City of Houston and House and Senate members almost on a daily basis, and we even get calls at our homes, so I take great offense at the statement you just made that you feel like you've been cut out of the process. Maybe you and David have been cut out of the process but I don't know of a city, county, region, MPO or transportation leader that's told me they've been cut out of the process. They may not like the way we make decisions, but I'm real sensitive about what we say on the record being accurate. Maybe you're upset with us.

MR. MUELLER: I don't think it's a matter of being upset. I'm not upset; I'm really trying to convey what I have heard from some of our members, and they have a perception that -- it's not that the process doesn't eventually work, because we do have this public hearing process and the public hearings have been effective as far as our members are concerned. But what I'm saying is that there is issue of a disconnect for a period of time. There's conversations that it's not as open as they would like it to be. I mean, that's about all I can convey to you. I'm trying to share a perception that they have some concern in this regard.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there any particular issue that this is focused on more than others, or is this an impression that you've derived as a general impression on all issues?

MR. MUELLER: I would not say on all issues. The ones that are of concern at the moment are the frontage road has been in the direction that we've had hearings and now we're waiting on the additional rules to be published and so we're waiting for that. The Trans Texas Corridor is another issue where there's waiting to see how this is going to be developed, and specifically the aspect of using toll equity funding and mobility funds for implementing the Trans Texas Corridor when they have this perception of other needs that they also want to have addressed. So it's how it will be applied and how the rules will come out and then the process of being able to address those rules.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like a lot of whining to me and nothing is worse than adults whining.

MR. MUELLER: I'm just telling you what I hear, and that's the only reason I'm bringing it up.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. MUELLER: You bet. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: At this time we will recess so the commission can meet in executive session pursuant to Section 551.073 as posted on the meeting agenda. We will deliberate on negotiations as to donations relative to the State Highway 130 project. The time is now 2:05 p.m. We stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following conclusion of executive session.)

MR. JOHNSON: This meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is reconvened. The commission has concluded its executive session with no action being taken on any matter. If there is no further business before the commission, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Please note for the record that it is 3:25 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: March 28, 2002
 

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 181 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Sunny Peer before the Texas Transportation Commission of Texas.

                                  4/09/02
(Transcriber)            (Date)

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