Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, November 21, 2002

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chairman (not present)
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
CHERYL WILLIAMS, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director

PROCEEDINGS

MR. NICHOLS: We'll go ahead and open and begin. I declare this meeting open of the Texas Transportation Commission; today's date is November 21, I'm showing approximately 9:07. Let the record show a quorum is present and that the agenda was filed with the Secretary of State at 12:02 p.m. on November 13. Chairman Johnson could not be here today; he asked me to chair the meeting. For those of you who are concerned about parliamentary procedure, we use Robert's Rules of Order today, and I'm Robert.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: We've got a young engineers group I wanted to recognize from Corpus -- I think there's 18 of you. Would you stand up? Very good.

(Applause.)

MR. NICHOLS: Appreciate you being here; they're all graduate engineers working on their professional engineering license and I think they're out of the Corpus Christi District. So welcome for being here, glad to have you.

Ric, did you have any comments that you wanted to make?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, the meeting ought to go a lot faster with John not here, all that talking is eliminated. Right?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I just want to welcome all of you; I hope you feel comfortable. We look forward to your presentations. I know a lot of you came a long way today to be here. We appreciate it and hope you feel very comfortable, and with that, we'll just go ahead and open it up to our first delegation which is Granbury/Hood County Intergovernmental Coalition, and I think Bob Anderson is going to lead off. Welcome.

GRANBURY/HOOD COUNTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COALITION

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

(Bob Anderson, Mayor David Southern, Senator Kip Averitt)

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, gentlemen, for letting us appear before you this morning. I'm Bob Anderson, county commissioner, Hood County, and chairman of the Transportation Committee of our Intergovernmental Coalition. I just would like to introduce the delegation that we have from our community this morning. These brave souls left Hood County at 5:30 this morning to try to beat the Austin traffic and be present before you on time this year. Our last presentation we were late; you were gracious enough to set us back in the agenda, but we are here willing and able and on time. So if you would, please stand, the delegation from Hood County. Thank you very much.

We appreciate this and we wanted to let you know that the projects we're about to present to you are unopposed in our community; we come to you united in our request. And also, whenever we made application to appear, there was not anything in there alluding to local participation; we do have local participation that will be presented to you during our Power Point.

And just one other word as we move into our presentation. I wanted to share with you the importance of, naturally, our state and US highway that is in Hood County, but our farm to market road system is under tremendous stress, and I just want to particularly lift that portion of our mobility issues up to you. We enjoy our farm to market roads, they are under stress, and anything we can do to continue to improve those and support that effort, we just lift that up to you and hope that that will continue. We do have a great effort from our district engineer and our local folks; they are participating well with us. And we thank you for past approved projects.

I would now like to introduce to you David Southern; he's the mayor of Granbury, and he'll be doing our presentation for us this morning.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, first I wanted to give Senator Kip Averitt an opportunity to speak; he's here and I would like to defer to him.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Always a wise move.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR AVERITT: Thank you, Mayor. Commissioners, good to see you again. Commissioner Williamson, this is in your neck of the woods.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Right down the road.

SENATOR AVERITT: You've probably done a little shopping in downtown Granbury from time to time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I probably eat dinner there twice a month in downtown Granbury.

SENATOR AVERITT: We are appreciative of your time. We know that you have a lot of critical issues around the state to deal with and you have to prioritize these requests.

Hood County and the City of Granbury are a dynamic community, they take a great deal of pride in their community, and they have historically been self-sufficient to the extent beyond what most communities have done. They're not afraid to dig in and do their part for these types of projects. Commissioner Williamson, you know what kind of community this is; it's a historic area.

Hood County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Texas, and as a result, as you know, the stress on the transportation system is immense and growing faster than even we thought that it would the last time this delegation was here before you. They made projections, I believe, last time that they've already exceeded, and so our problems are growing even faster than what we had anticipated.

This community is vibrant, dynamic, a lot of wonderful things are happening, but as in so many cases around the state, our opportunity for economic development and a high quality of life are being choked somewhat by a transportation scenario that is holding us back, and we'd like your consideration in helping us resolve that problem, and it would mean a great deal to our community and that part of the state, as a matter of fact. A lot of people are commuting into the Fort Worth and even Dallas areas from this place, back and forth, so this is a regional request that we're making, and you're going to hear from these folks today the details of the plan. These folks don't come to you with requests very often; when they do come before you, they are serious requests, and we appreciate your consideration.

My office, as you know, is always available to you. If we come up down the road and there are things that we can do to improve our chances on this request, I just beseech you to give me a phone call and let me be a part of the solution as well.

Thank you for your time and you consideration of our request.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait. May I?

MR. NICHOLS: Surely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It has been my habit for 14 months -- however long I've been doing this, 16 months -- that when a member of the House or the Senate passes through our building and he or she is worthy of praise, I take the time to do it. If I judge them to have not been, I just hold my tongue.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: In this sense, you should know, those of you from Senator Averitt's district, that from our perspective, the transportation perspective, we pay close attention to House and Senate members who are warriors for transportation, not that they give us what we want, not that we get our way, but that they advocate for a sound investment in the future of the state's transportation infrastructure.

Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson and myself are in the unusual position of heading the only commission that everything it does results in pretty much a hard asset, I mean, something you can see or put your hands on or can witness a change in your life, whether it's clean air in Houston or a new loop in Granbury or a 55-mile-an-hour speed limit in the Houston area; whatever it is we do, it's without question you can see the results of your tax dollars. So our job is really pretty easy compared to Department of Health and Public Education and all the other things that are harder to kind of define.

Kip is also a close personal friend so it's double opportunity. He is one of the best senators for us that serves, and we listen very carefully when he asks us to pay attention to something.

SENATOR AVERITT: Thank you for those kind words, Ric.

(Applause.)

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Representative Jim Keffer could not be here today due to commitments with the job that actually earns him a living, so he's away doing that, but he did send a letter to each of you and his legislative aide is also here.

I'm Mayor David Southern, as you know. It's good to see you again; I was in Fort Worth and got to speak to you there just briefly.

We're being brought to you by the Hood County Intergovernmental Coalition with Granbury. This coalition provides all of the entities in Hood County an opportunity to come together and speak with one voice. We have all the cities, all the school districts, all the other governmental agencies in my district; we have also state agencies that we invite to participate in our county; and we also have sponsors from TXU as a corporate sponsor of ours, as well as our local economic development foundation and our chamber of commerce. So we work hard on this governmental coalition.

We're brought to you today by the Transportation Committee which is a part of that coalition, and you know Granbury already so I probably don't have to go over this. We are the county seat of Hood County; we began growing in the '70s due to Lake Granbury. Tourism is one of our major sources of economic strength, and we're beginning to be power plant friendly. We have a new AES Wolf Hollow Power Plant being constructed now in Hood County; of course we have the De Cordova Steam Generation Plant on Lake Granbury; and then of course just over the county line we have the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant which is one of only two power plants in this state of that type.

I want to thank you, first of all. Back a few years ago we came and asked you for Loop 567 Northwest which is now under construction and will be completed in the spring. We also four years ago asked you for -- I guess that was four years ago -- for State Highway 144, five lanes; Phase One of that is completed, Phase Two is to start in fiscal 2004. And of course, last time two years ago we asked for Loop 567 Northeast which has a start date in 2004. The other project that we asked for two years ago was widening of the 377 corridor to six lanes, controlled access. We've come back with a modified request on that this time, and we'll be talking about that.

This is just a map to give you an idea of how Granbury is situated. There are only two state highways in Granbury: State Highway 144 which terminates in Granbury; and US Highway 377 which is, of course, a state trunk line. You can see Loop 567 on this map: the northwest portion which is being completed now; the northeast portion which will begin construction; the southwest portion which we have not asked you for funding yet, we have asked Congressman Stenholm's office for because this will be a major route for nuclear evacuation in the case of a nuclear event or a terrorist attack on the nuclear plant; this will be the major route of evacuation. Currently all of that traffic would have to come predominantly up 144 into an intersection that we'll talk about in just a minute.

These are just three of the sample traffic counts that I've put on there, and you can see these highways are carrying traffic in fact outside of the Tarrant County portion of the Fort Worth District. This 43,000 number is the highest traffic count that's not on an interstate highway; in fact, even in Tarrant County the only highways that exceed this number are either freeways or interstate highways.

The reason for rapid growth in our population is continued growth of the retired sector, it is our largest minority; we have more retired people, about double the state average on retired folks. We have also Metroplex expansion, as Commissioner Williamson knows when he tried to come to Irving to the conference in August and was a little late because of the traffic. The Metroplex expands every day, it gets closer to Weatherford and Granbury all the time, and because of that we have a lot of folks who also use that route for commuting. In the two years since we were here last, we've gone from 6,000 people a day commuting into the Metroplex to 12,000 people a day commuting, so it's a continuing problem.

Second home population is something that doesn't get counted in our census numbers. We have about 10,000 folks living there that are counted in the Fort Worth-Dallas area generally because that's where their primary home is, but they live as much of the time in Granbury.

Our quality of life we think is another reason people are moving there. I moved there to raise my kids and hoped to get them raised before we were not a small town, but I'm not sure I'm going to make it.

As you can see from the chart, our population in 1980 was only 17,000; today it's 41,472 -- well, in 2000. We anticipate that resident population to increase by 50 percent during this decade; in addition, the second home population is growing and we expect it to increase by 50 percent, giving us a total combined population of about 81,789 people by 2010. You can see this graphically here and you can see the dramatic growth that we've had in population over the last 30 years.

This is something that's kind of interesting, though. The growth we had between 1980 and 2000 was about -- well, we have 42 percent in the '90s and that was coupled on with a little over 50 percent in the '80s, but that only represented about 30,000 people. We're talking about growing by that many people in the '90s, so our growth rate is not only accelerating but the number of people in that growth rate, because we're larger, is accelerating rapidly as well.

The factors driving traffic growth are tourism. Regional retailing is becoming a big part of that. We have a Home Depot now, and I'm telling you, people come -- even Mark McEndree from Stephenville, your area engineer, tells me he shops there all the time. He's here today and he shops at our Home Depot and it's become a real regional center for growth. We have a lot more commuters and an increasing population, and all those factors are driving that.

Our first transportation priority is a redesign and rebuild of the interchange of these three state highways: SH 144, US 377 and Farm to Market Road 51 South. The Farm to Market Road 51 South currently doesn't feed directly into this intersection but feeds indirectly. It crosses 377 then immediately comes onto 144 and then feeds back into 377, so we'd like to see this interchange redesigned to accommodate all three of these highways.

The traffic growth in this intersection has been dramatic. These are combining the traffic growths from the three intersections that come into it. You can see that we are going to be over 80,000 cars a day by the end of this decade in this one intersection. It was designed at a time when both roadways were only two lane, and now we're talking about five-lane roadways underneath and above on the interchange, as well as a two-lane road on the farm to market road, so we really need to redesign it in order for it to handle the traffic. Currently this roadway is the major roadway that would be used in a nuclear evacuation.

This is a picture of the intersection. You can see the red line and yellow line is where the intersection is located right now. Farm to Market Road 51 feeds into that and then backs up onto it; we'd like to see it come directly into the interchange.

Our second transportation priority is US 377 East expansion to six lanes. We came to you before with a request that was about between eight and ten miles; this is a new request for only a 2.1 mile section to curb and gutter, put controlled access, added drainage -- this roadway has been closed at least once in the last year due to two to three feet of water being over it from a six-inch rain, and there's not adequate drainage under it currently to keep it from overflowing on a fairly routine basis.

Completion of the overpass at the intersection of Business 377 -- we have half an overpass there, so all the traffic from Business 377 has to enter in the left-hand lane and I'm amazed that we don't have more accidents there than we actually have.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you say half of an overpass?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes, half of an overpass. They built half of it and didn't build the other half for some reason, so you go under it and immediately into the left lane. So we'd like to complete that, go completely under it and enter from the right with a sixth lane on that side from Business 377 to the new Farm Road 4. A closer picture of this you can see in the next slide.

First let me show you the growth rate that we're having on that. When we came to you two years ago, I estimated that the number of cars we'd have by 2005 on this intersection would be 45,000; the 2001 traffic counts show 43,000; so we re-detailed that up to the kind of growth we've had, 6,000 cars in the last two years. And at that growth rate, you can see we're going to be well over 80,000 cars on a five-lane road which is more than it can handle.

This is a closer look at the intersection. On the left-hand side of the slide you'll see where Business 377 intersects; that's where the half of overpass is -- we have the whole half so you can get all the way across it.

MR. NICHOLS: Good.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR SOUTHERN: It's a 2.1 mile section. Farm Road 4 is being constructed now to a five-lane roadway, so this 2.1 mile section of 377 East is the section that we're talking about going to six lanes and controlled access. Of course, these are the two major things that we are asking for: six lanes US 377 and interchange of State Highway 144, US 377 and FM 51.

Our local participation -- you have a resolution that I've given your secretary where the City of Granbury will commit $250,000 and Hood County also has passed a resolution to commit $250,000 to these projects for a total local commitment of half a million dollars. And in addition to that, if new right of way is needed, and this is a particular kind of project that qualifies for local participation, the county would participate at its normal level on right of way acquisition. The county and city together would find a way to help with that as well, but we do want to at least commit this much cash to the project.

And of course, Granbury's future depends on this department. We only have two state highways, as I've said; we have 12 Farm to Market roads. All of our Farm to Market roads have traffic counts as high as most state highways because they are all very busy roadways. This county was a very small county 30 years ago and we only needed two highways at that time, but because of the rapid growth -- and from what we can tell, that growth rate is accelerating -- we really need your help in this effort.

If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer that, and then we have a short two-minute video for you to see.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions at this point, or do you want to watch the video first?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'd rather watch the video.

Let me just say last month I had somebody comment that you never turn around and look at the screen; we have monitors here in front of us.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: I knew that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The same thing that's back here is right here. I'd just rather watch Kip and see what he's doing.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR SOUTHERN: We just built a new city hall in Granbury -- we sent you invitations to our dedication on December 7, we hope you can come -- and we have monitors for the council members now, so I'm familiar with that.

(Whereupon, a video was shown.)

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Short video. Any questions that you have?

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that the total presentation?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes, under 20 minutes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have probably three. You're familiar with the airport of Tarrant County and I guess the Cleburne community to build a toll road from the west side of Fort Worth into Cleburne. Was the Granbury community ever a part of discussing the location of that toll road?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: No, we really never were involved in that discussion; that was kind of done by -- because Fort Worth is in, as you know, Johnson County and Tarrant County. The counties in NETCOG are of two types in the 16 counties; we're considered an outlying county so we don't get involved in the same discussions for highway priorities, and that's why we weren't a part of that discussion. But one thing we are looking at, and the city is acquiring land currently, we hope for a rail station; we hope to have community rail. The rail is already there in existence today and it's owned by the local counties, Centex operation, and we hope to move forward more on a rail line rather than just a toll road.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And that rail parallels 377?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes, not exactly; it crosses it a couple of times, but yes, it does. It's on much of the Bass Brothers property over by Godley and it goes into the downtown station there where they do have an intermodal transportation hub, it goes right into that station.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I asked the question about the toll road, it appears from news reports -- and I'm not active in that project -- it appears that that project is in some trouble.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I've always been curious as to why the project wasn't laid out sort of right between 377 and 121 straight to Stephenville, servicing Cleburne, Granbury and Stephenville and that entire high-growth area. And the reason I'm curious about that, one of the things I've found in my time here is that 99 percent of the time we're responding to problems that have already occurred, we're trying to play catch-up -- not because our department isn't visionary but because the way our flow of cash works, we almost have to wait for the congestion and the problems to occur, and it just seems to me -- without being critical of Granbury at all -- that part of the problem with 377 is we went out and made it more accessible and the industrial community, the development community built up around it and made it more congested.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And now we're going to make it more accessible and it's going to become more congested. Maybe what we ought to be about is finding transportation infrastructure solutions for that area away from development so that your citizens can get to and from the Metroplex and you just continue to congest old 377 all you want to.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, I agree with that, and that's one of the reasons we were looking at the rail line. We discussed the possibility of an offshoot toward Cresson of that toll road within our coalition and decided that we thought that a rail line would be more practical than that because there's a problem once you get to Fort Worth with too many cars being there -- as you know -- and I'm not sure that problem is ever going to go away by building more toll roads into Fort Worth.

I know that recently Fort Worth and Dallas had a joint city council meeting in which they talked about the merger of DART and the "T" into one single system, and we've tried to stay in touch with that process to try and be a route for that. But every time you talk to the folks up there, it's like well, you are a big part of the problem, you bring your polluting gasoline into town and leave, but then when we ask when is our rail line due, they say we're going to plan that in 10 or 15 years.

So we've tried to go around that process and talk directly to some of the federal folks about some grant projects that we could get to do rail. The city has a contract on some land that already has a second rail line on it that is on the main rail line, and we hope to purchase that land this year out of city revenues and make that a stop for a rail line. Now, we also want a tourism line on the weekends; that's the other motivation behind building that line. Grapevine and Granbury have had discussions about returning the train on the weekends to Granbury, the tourism train.

So that was kind of the reason we did that, but we were never really included in those discussions, and I think it's because NETCOG has this difference between the urban counties and what they refer to as rural suburban counties, and we're in the latter category and I think that's why we were never brought into those discussions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The third question I would ask is more of a statement by way of making you aware -- and the opportunity to lobby a little bit in front of a senator and a House member that's back there. One thing that the governor might ask the legislature to consider in the next session is an expansion of the innovative financing tools the legislature passed and the citizens approved two years ago, and in particular the adoption or at least the authorization for us to take a shadow toll approach to the construction of some roads and interchanges in the state, such as rather than you coming to us and saying we need the money to build this overpass, you coming to us and saying we're going to build this overpass; we have contracted with the private sector to do it, and we ask for a 25 cent per car shadow toll until we've recovered $10 million; we've arranged the financing ourselves; we'll manage the project to your specifications; we'll ask that you put it on the state system. We're going to put an electronic vehicle counter on the road.

Every time a car goes across it we'll ask the state to reimburse us a certain amount per car till we've recovered and paid our debt off, and then we'll hand it over to you. That's one of the things that we'll probably be asking for -- just something for you to visit with the senator and the House member about in the event the governor does propose that.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: I think it's a good idea. It would really, I think, be a better way to pay as you go because not only would you be able to use bonded money -- which the state has been very limited on doing -- but you'd really know how many cars were there, wouldn't you, that way.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're kind of struck by the fact that right now the private sector, and particularly the engineering/design part of the private sector, is under some stress in the state because we don't have the cash flow to keep building at the rate that we need to build. Well, it suddenly occurs to us that maybe the thing to do is to put the Granbury National Bank and the engineering community and the construction community and the local community in the business of partnering up to build these things, figure out how to finance it themselves. We agree to help pay for it over time by reimbursing you based on how often it's used, and if you were wrong and that overpass really didn't get used very much, then you guys would have to figure out how to deal with it.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right. That system would work if the full faith and credit of the state is used to secure bonds. The problem with small communities, you know, we're not a Fort Worth, we can't borrow that much money at a good bonded rate, either our county or our city, because we don't have the tax revenue to back that up in case it doesn't come through.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's why you need to get the private sector guys and the local businesses that will benefit from this, the marina, get old Grady Spears -- he's got some money because I give him some twice a month -- get him to throw in, you guys do it yourselves and just use us as the part of the guarantee payback mechanism.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, if you can set up a system with the legislature that will enable the small communities to get involved in that, we'd certainly want to look at it because, as you know, the smaller communities will have a harder time doing that because in Granbury, for example, there isn't a large infrastructure of business -- I mean, the business is mainly retail business, not industrial, not manufacturing; most of our people go into Fort Worth to work at those jobs -- and so that's the only thing I think would be critical for us is having a large enough private sector that would get involved in that process.

I know TXU has helped us a great deal on some of our airport requests to your department and that sort of thing because they want to land their Lear Jet out there at our airport, but I don't know if --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, they used to want to; I don't know if they're going to want to in the future.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, they'd like to if we had a long enough runway, but on the other hand, getting them to be a corporate sponsor for a roadway that goes the opposite direction of where their folks are going to work, I don't know if that would work, but we'll sure work on it and work with you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It sure beats not having the overpass, doesn't it.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: It does, absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: I just had a couple of questions and comments. On the local participation, the $250,000 and $250,000, has the county and city actually passed resolutions?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes, we have, and I've given your secretary the city's resolution; I think Bob has the county's resolution -- it's in the mail.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm kind of following part of what Ric was talking about. You're outside the NTTA region, I believe, aren't you?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: So you're the adjoining county.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: In that whole thing, you're getting in your projections up in the area where the tolls are going to start working.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: And especially ten years after that and ten years after that -- real forward thinking -- the area of regional mobility authorities, you've heard about that?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know there's probably going to be some more work with that in the legislature this coming session. It's something you might want to take a look at because you can not only start helping develop some of these kind of things but also some of the surplus funds in the future can go toward other transportation related areas.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right. Granbury is a member of the TEX-21 lobby and so we are working with them to help you all get some more funds.

MR. NICHOLS: I thought that was a resource group. It's a lobby group?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: I think it's a lobby group to help you guys.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll sure bet you that's what you were told.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who's the head of that thing?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Well, that's a good question. The guy that usually chairs the committees is a councilman from Houston -- I can't think of his name right now.

MR. NICHOLS: You're talking about Carroll Robertson?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes. He usually runs the meetings.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's a good guy.

MR. NICHOLS: A comment. I can't help but look at that Farm to Market 4 and on the history of farm to markets in Texas, as each one was approved and began construction, that's how they were numbered, like Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, so that's the fourth one ever built in the state.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: That's unbelievable.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: It is hard to believe. We had a good state rep at the time and I think that's the reason. But that Farm Road 4 and 51, I brought those last time with the numbers on there. Those two roads are currently carrying together about 19,000 cars a day, but they merge into one city street, Houston. By the time they get to the square, they only have 15,000 cars a day; that's because 4,000 cars a day are taking other city streets to get to Business 377 around that, we finally figured out. We knew there was a large number taking other city streets but we didn't realize it was 4,000 cars a day.

MR. NICHOLS: When you made your last presentation, that was four or five --

MAYOR SOUTHERN: A little over two years ago.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you show a video showing all the trucks downtown?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes, that's the one.

MR. NICHOLS: Somebody asked me about that. It was three minutes solid of trucks making those turns.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: That's right. That was four years ago, right after you came on the commission, when we were here with that particular one.

MR. NICHOLS: I was thinking it was about four or five years ago.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Yes. That was our first presentation.

MR. NICHOLS: And since that first one we did take some action on some things.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: You have, and we appreciate it.

MR. NICHOLS: We appreciate what you do. My house is built of Granbury stone.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: I know.

MR. NICHOLS: You knew?

MAYOR SOUTHERN: You told me in Midland last year when I was there with TEX-21.

MR. NICHOLS: That's really all the comments or questions I had.

MAYOR SOUTHERN: Thank you again, and we look forward to working with you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much, appreciate you all coming up, and it has been helpful, and as you know, we do not take actions at this time. So we'll declare about a three- minute recess and give time for the next delegation to set up. And you're welcome to stay; it's a free meeting.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

SH 44 IMPROVEMENT COALITION

(Representative Vilma Luna, Ruben Bonilla, Senator Carlos Truan, Tom Niskala, Representative Judy Hawley, Representative Richard Raymond, Representative Ignacio Salinas, John LaRue)

MR. NICHOLS: We'll go ahead and start on our next delegation, State Highway 44 Improvement Coalition, from Corpus, Alice, Robstown, Jim Wells, and Nueces Counties.

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: And Webb County and Laredo. Good morning, Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Williamson and TxDOT staff. My name is Vilma Luna; I'm state representative for District 33 and the Sparkling City by the Sea, Corpus Christi, Texas -- and notice I said that all in one breath.

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: I want to tell you, first of all, that we have several other elected officials with us as part of our delegation and mention to you that we have Senator Carlos Truan, the dean of the Senate, Representative Judy Hawley, Representative Richard Raymond, and Representative Ignacio Salinas are also present with us, as well as County Judge Saenz from Jim Wells County, Alice, Texas; also, we have the chairman of our Port Commission in Corpus Christi, Ruben Bonilla. And there is a letter of support that I believe has been provided to all of you from Mayor Silva from Alice -- provided to the secretary -- and do want to bring greetings to you from Representative-elect Gabi Canales who was not able to join us today.

What I really want you all to know is that this delegation represents the consensus and the commitment to the State Highway 44 relief routes by Corpus Christi, Robstown, Alice and Laredo and all points in between. We stand ready to assist the Texas Transportation Commission as needed, and I would like to thank all of you for giving your time and attention to us today and giving us the opportunity to talk about the relief routes through Alice and through Robstown.

This delegation has appeared before the commission five times since 1988 requesting relief routes and the need for them has not lessened. From 1997 to 2000 there has been a 50 percent increase in truck traffic between Alice and Robstown. With 8,000 trucks passing through the two cities each day, the need for effective relief routes is greater than ever. Trade has been steadily rising in the South Texas area but a lack of effective relief routes is causing substantial problems: traffic congestion, safety hazards, loss of efficient transport of goods, and air quality issues.

As it stands right now, trucks must pass the busy Tex-Mex Railroad in both Alice and Robstown. Current travel time through Alice is 15 to 45 minutes and through Robstown can be between 10 and 30 minutes, depending on the train. In Alice, trucks have to pass through 13 traffic lights, through a hospital area, schools and major shopping areas that are all right off the urban section of State Highway 44 -- and Alice is my town of birth. I would like to add that as an aside in Robstown the trucks have to currently travel through eight traffic lights, highly populated residential areas, and school zones. And I know that you all are very well aware and can see that the truck traffic is not only being delayed when it passes through Robstown and Alice, but the increased number of trucks is putting the citizens of these areas at greater risk.

With relief routes in place, travel time would be cut to seven minutes through Alice and five minutes through Robstown. The delegation hopes that the State Highway 44 relief route will complete the South Texas trade triangle, allowing trade to move easily and flow freely between Laredo, the Port of Corpus Christi and San Antonio, and in addition to economic benefits, the streets would be safer, immediate air pollution in residential areas and around hospitals and schools would lessen.

So I guess then we get to the big question: how will we pay for this? And as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I realize that budgets are going to be even tighter than they have been in the past in the upcoming session; however, this delegation is fully committed and is willing to look at all funding options in order to get these routes built.

Currently the cost per truck traveling through Alice and Robstown can be as high as $18.75 and $12.50, respectively. With relief routes in place, the cost would drop to approximately $2.06 per truck. Funding relief routes for Alice and Robstown will help reduce the cost of trade and that will be a direct benefit to the State of Texas.

This delegation is willing to look at all methods of financing: bonds, local match, private-public partnerships, phased-in construction. And we also respectfully ask for an alternative funding feasibility study to be administered by the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

I'd like to just kind of again thank you very much for your time and your attention. All of the elected officials and members of the delegation that are present today represent broad support for these relief routes, and please know that as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, I'm ready to work with you and all of our statewide elected officials to explore all funding mechanisms to make this project go forward and to address other critical transportation needs.

The State Highway 44 relief routes are vital to increasing trade in South Texas, ensuring safety, and raising the overall quality of life. Please help us make this a reality, and more importantly, I know you're not prepared to take action today, but keep this on your front burner; it is something that we definitely want to continue to work with you on, and are available and ready at any time to provide you with more information.

At this time I'm going to play tag team and welcome Ruben Bonilla, the chair of our Corpus Christi Port Commission, for additional comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will you be back?

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: I'm not leaving; I'm right here.

MR. BONILLA: Good morning, commissioners, and thank you for permitting the Port of Corpus Christi to be present today. I'm accompanied by our executive director, John LaRue. I also wish to welcome the 18 young engineers who, unknown to us, are present from South Texas and Corpus Christi, and this project that we're discussing is a part of their future destiny because they have professional opportunities. Many of them will be linked forever with the development, the expansion, the refinement of the 44 and 59 coalition efforts that we discuss today.

I first would like to discuss with you an overview of the Port of Corpus Christi. You have a profile of our major oil docks and channel improvements that are underway. The Port of Corpus Christi is the fifth largest port in the United States in terms of tonnage. Last year we moved over 83 million tons of cargo. The Port of Corpus Christi and its 14 member industries generate over 31,000 jobs in Corpus Christi and provide over 50 percent of the city's economic foundation. Our activities generate more than $1 billion in personal income and $185 million in state and local taxes.

Significantly, for this time and era, the Port of Corpus Christi is one of two coastal ports designated as a strategic military port. As we find that our United States continues its efforts to eliminate the scourge of terrorism, the Port of Corpus Christi becomes incrementally more crucial and important to our nation's defense. Should we go to war with Iraq, you can expect the Port to be a primary center of deployment for troops, personnel, military cargo, and probably will be the Port of deployment for a number of ships destined to embark for the Gulf.

Building for the future, Corpus Christi's mission clearly is to serve as a regional economic catalyst -- I've given you a little bit of that data. While we have enhanced our existing industrial base which has been long-term petrochemical based, as shown by the brochures before you, we are diversifying our international maritime cargo business. For example, in the last couple of years, we built a cold storage warehouse of 100,000 square feet. It is the only cold storage warehouse located on the docks of any port in Texas, meaning that ships will come up to the dock and they will unload their cargo directly into the warehouse. We recently had an Australian ship, for example, bring in 100,000 metric tons of beef from Australia to be distributed throughout the Midwest and the East Coast.

Clearly, the Port of Corpus Christi becomes a center and a port of deployment for increased cargo from Latin America. Therefore, the Port has identified the improvement of Highway 44 and 59 corridor as essential to the success of two of our major economic initiatives in the coming five years.

The first is a project that this commission has already approved, the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor, an 11.5-mile road and 7-mile rail project that will improve access to more than 2,000 acres of land along the north side of our channel. It is a national high priority corridor and part of the MPO region plan; it is also a corridor that is located on the national highway system and connects two major thoroughfares, US Highway 181 and IH-37. At a cost of approximately $50 million, the funding is to be shared between local, state and federal agencies. As you probably well know, TxDOT will go out for bids in mid-summer 2003 and the project will likely be complete in either late 2006 or early 2007.

But what the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor will be, in addition to opening up 2,000 acres of land for development, it's going to be a cause for economic rejuvenation in Corpus Christi and all the areas that we're discussing today. There's going to be plentiful jobs, an expanded industrial base, a wider tax base which is good news for the school children of South Texas. The Joe Fulton Corridor, we believe, will improve trade and transportation for this entire region that this coalition represents.

The second economic initiative is La Quinta, which is the ambitious effort to develop a container terminal along San Patricio County. The Port, in 1998, purchased about 1,100 acres. I might remind you that as a result of redistricting, Senator Judith Zaffirini is now the state senator for San Patricio, so Corpus Christi is linked with Laredo, not only by the corridor but also by our legislative delegation.

La Quinta will have excellent highway and rail access to both 35 and Highway 181, along with the Union Pacific Railroad. Container trade between the United States and the rest of the world is growing at a rate of approximately 6 percent. Shippers and steam ship lines are visiting periodically with the Port of Corpus Christi to discuss the manner in which the Port of Corpus Christi can become the global distribution center for a major retailer that will serve multi-faceted purposes.

In addition to providing growth for South Texas, it will also serve as an opportunity to improve the competitiveness of Texas companies in world markets, but it will also alleviate the growing pressures and congestion in the Houston area. The development of a container terminal is not to be viewed as a threat to the success of the Houston Port but as a means to provide relief for the congestion and the air quality problems that presently exist in Houston. Essentially, we can have two container terminals that will serve our global markets more effectively, more strategically, therefore increasing the importance of State Highway 44 and 59.

Trucks that are leaving Laredo now bound along 59 or 35 are creating tremendous congestion, not only in communities like Austin but also in Houston. It makes sense that these trucks begin to come into the Port of Corpus Christi, saving 2- to 300 miles, saving precious time -- time is money -- making the delivery of products and cargo more efficient, more productive and greater profit incentives for companies participating in this global market.

What we miss, therefore, in this whole discussion is Port of Corpus Christi access; that's the only missing link in the equation of global commerce; therefore, to reaffirm the importance of expanding and improving and rehabilitating 44 and 59 and providing these relief routes that we believe will ensure that the Port of Corpus Christi, the inland Port of Laredo, and all communities in between will serve as the primary international trade corridor with Latin American markets.

We are here simply to reaffirm that the Port of Corpus Christi has demonstrated its commitment to the region by investing in our facilities to ensure that the entire State of Texas remains competitive in the world markets. We are ready to meet the challenges before us and we simply ask for your help. Thank you very much.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions in a moment. I wanted to do this rather hurriedly and I apologize for my rapid manner of delivery, but I wanted to leave time for our esteemed senator, a man who has served this region and really brought this subject before the State of Texas and to the commission, the Honorable Carlos Truan.

SENATOR TRUAN: Thank you very much, Ruben.

Members of the commission, I have copies of what I'm going to say but I wanted to thank you so much for this opportunity and I want to thank my constituents for allowing me an opportunity to come before you. In less than two months, I will have been a former member of the Texas Legislature and 34 years has passed by quite fast, and I want to thank you so much for allowing me an opportunity to address the issues of my constituents in the past and I hope that today you will understand that I come before you with a sense of appreciation and also some regret that the next time you see me I will be wearing another hat, but I may not be necessarily appearing before you in the role that I'm for sure playing today.

I want to tell you that on behalf of the South Texas communities and governmental entities that depend on international trade, I am here to add my voice to those who are encouraging you to move forward with upgrading State Highway 44. I had the honor of serving as chairman of the Senate Committee on International Relations, Trade and Technology right before NAFTA and during the time that NAFTA came into being. This has been a long-term project for our region since 1989; even then, 13 years ago, five years before NAFTA went into effect, it was obvious that the Port of Corpus Christi and the inland Port of Laredo -- the largest inland port, I understand, in the nation -- needed to have a better connection to handle the increased freight traffic.

The Laredo-Corpus Christi Corridor is a critical component of the corridor concept which the Department of Transportation established under the Phase 1 High Priority Corridor System. I strongly supported the establishment of this system in 1998 and I commend you members of the commission for designating eleven Phase 1 High Priority Corridors totaling 831 miles, including the Laredo-Corpus Christi Corridor.

As the saying goes, where the rubber meets the road, for us, in the Coastal Bend, though, and South Texas is that the planning and construction on State Highway 44 has started and stopped repeatedly since 1990. Last year I wrote Commissioner Johnson regarding the designation of a special funding category to support the completion of studies and construction of relief routes on the Phase 1 High Priority Corridors of the Texas Trunk System for rural communities with less than 50,000 population.

Let me be clear. I fully understand that you have defined the Texas Trunk Highway System to exclude relief routes such as the urgently needed route around Alice which will eliminate the necessity for heavy trucks to go through 13 traffic lights and a railroad crossing in Alice alone, not to mention several additional lights, railroad crossing and school zones in Robstown, but allow me to respectfully but very urgently suggest to you that even with the most cursory examination of the traffic flow on Highway 44 that relief routes at Alice and Robstown are an essential part of an effective corridor route.

And we also need to keep in mind the big picture, the entire corridor from Laredo to Corpus Christi, not just Highway 44. On the contrary, it includes the Joe Fulton Corridor at the Port of Corpus Christi, the lane improvements to Highway 44, and the relief routes. So why not complete the job? Today I am here to tell you that those who depend on the movement of goods from port to port in our region urge you to do just that, to complete the job by upgrading Highway 44.

I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you, I wish you well, and I stand to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

MR. NICHOLS: Senator, before you sit down, do you have any comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you going to say the same thing I'm going to say?

MR. NICHOLS: I was going to give you an opportunity first.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We appreciate your many years of service to the State of Texas. You've represented your district well, with dignity and grace and forcefulness. We will miss you in this arena.

SENATOR TRUAN: Thank you very much, Commissioner. I appreciate your saying that.

MR. NICHOLS: I was going to echo along those lines and say, sir, it's been a real honor and a pleasure working with you over the last six years. I only had an opportunity to do it for six years and I know you've seen many come and go, but I had not been on the commission 60 days before I was in the Corpus area trying to find out what was going on, what was needed, and you were there, straight up championing the causes of your constituents and the state as a whole, and you have never stopped doing that the entire six years I've known you, and have been a real help, and every time I've ever requested to visit with you, you've always made yourself available -- didn't always agree with me, I understand that, and I appreciate that and respect that -- but I really do want to thank you for the work that you've done.

SENATOR TRUAN: Thank you very much. It's been a very, very high honor, one that I never imagined that I would have to have been elected to the legislature, first in the House and then in the Senate, and to have had the honor of becoming dean of the Senate. That is an honor that I shall always be very grateful to my constituents for allowing me that opportunity. I thank you so much for your comments.

MR. NISKALA: We also have some state representatives that are part of the coalition, and I would like to introduce another representative that has served our area greatly and we're going to miss woefully, and that's Judy Hawley.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Hello. Again, a pleasure to appear before you all. I want to thank you for your leadership in what I think is probably one of the toughest agencies and certainly one of the most important in state government. You're in the position of saying "No" a whole lot more than "Maybe", and "Maybe" a whole lot more than "Yes", and I think that's going to continue to be the case.

And I've watched, as I've served on the Transportation Committee, how we have struggled to find resourceful ways to allocate and stretch our very limited dollars. And the Rural Bridge Program was wonderful, a way to get three bridges for one, and the Texas Mobility Fund, and this concept of shadow tolls, and we just keep adding new pieces to our funding vocabulary to stretch those dollars to get more bridges built, to get more roads built, and it's going to continue to be a challenge.

I think this is one of those challenges that needs to be addressed. This delegation is united; you've got a number of communities, you've got a region that has come to you saying this project is absolutely critical, not only for the state's public policy but also for the realization of the full potential of this region. You are very keenly aware of the economic opportunities that are available and you're very keenly aware of the inland corridor, the inland Port of Laredo and its very viable connect with the Port of Corpus Christi.

59 and 44 have been on the Texas Trunk System, we've connected the dots -- that was critical. Now it's time to really finish the job; it's time to get those relief routes built so that we can take full advantage of having those corridors in place. You know our region, you know our people, you know our delegation, you know that this region of the state is absolutely committed to working with you in whatever way possible to make these particular relief routes realized as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

As you also are keenly aware, the growth potential for the Coastal Bend and for the Port of Corpus Christi is unique in that we are an area of air quality attainment. A primary obstacle that stands in our way of capitalizing on the multimodal potential provided by a port with capacity to expand and without the onerous restrictions of air quality non-attainment status is the efficient transportation linkage between the Port of Corpus Christi and the inland Port of Laredo, and the economic potential for the entire region, and I think for the entire state is dependent upon finishing that corridor.

I urge you to help us explore every possibility to make those relief routes not only a possibility but to realize them. Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before you this time and all the other times as well. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Don't sit down yet.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not as many years but certainly as much commitment. Enjoyed serving with you; you served your state well.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I've told you privately and I want to tell you publicly how much we appreciate what you've done, on the Transportation Committee particularly. It's been fun working with you. I think a lot has been done.

REPRESENTATIVE HAWLEY: I think so too. Thank you, appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell us when you decide what you're going to do.

MR. NISKALA: Also part of the coalition is Representative Richard Raymond.

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: Commissioners, I know you've got several items that you've got to deal with today, so I won't take too much time, but I wanted to come before you as part of this group, not only because I was born in Alice and because I used to represent Jim Wells County in the legislature and I have so many great friends here -- and I want to pay tribute, as well, to Senator Truan who has been a senator most of my life or a state representative and has been my senator, even though I've never had a chance to vote for him, even though I grew up in Duval County, I didn't get a chance to vote for him because his name wasn't on the ballot there -- and also to say that two of our members who are here, Judy Hawley and Ignacio Salinas, who won't be returning, have done a great job for South Texas and it's been a great honor for me to serve with them.

And to say that we in Webb County -- I represent Laredo, as you know, most of Laredo, not the entire city; it's grown enough that I can't represent the entire city anymore, but I represent most of it -- and the commissioners court -- as you all will know because you would have gotten this information last year -- unanimously passed a resolution supporting this proposal and the ideas that are being put forth to you today.

We're excited, let me say, about the work that the Port of Corpus Christi does. Ruben Bonilla is a longtime friend of mine, someone I've looked up to who has given me great advice over the years, someone I admire, and they are doing a tremendous job, and we in Laredo recognize that, and we recognize that this is a tremendous opportunity to continue to build the corridor as others have been built around the state that have been very advantageous to the communities, to the economy, and to the State of Texas.

I know that as much as we are growing in South Texas, in fact the entire state is growing, that you all as commissioners have tremendous challenges, I know that, and my hat's off to you for the work that you've done, that you're going to do. Commissioner Nichols, if I remember correctly, your term is about up and I'm recommending to the governor he reappoint you. No response from the audience?

MR. NICHOLS: Didn't hear a single clap, did you?

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: And Commissioner Williamson --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you like promise him to do a vote on this deal.

MR. NICHOLS: This is all spontaneous, I assure you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's a good recommendation; Mr. Nichols is a good commissioner.

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: I do too. And Commissioner Williamson, let me say, just to remind you, I first met the commissioner in 1986 when I was traveling around working for a state elected official. He invited us to his district; he took us to his house; he cut up some apples for us, some cheese, gave us some crackers and a Coca-Cola.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think you brought me a bottle of honey, didn't you?

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: That's right. And he's been very, very nice to me through the years, given me a lot of advice; we served together, and I appreciate what you do. As Renato Cuero, our late colleague from Weslaco used to say, he's housebroken, and so you know, I believe that the Texas Department of Transportation is very, very fortunate to have the perspective Commissioner Williamson brings.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND: Thank you for your consideration. I know you've got a lot of other things on your plate, but we think this is very important and we think that it is something that will benefit the entire state. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: At some point I'm going to need to ask somebody about the rail traffic that comes out of Laredo and goes that way. Who would be the most appropriate person? I don't want to put an elected official on the spot unless they wish to be.

MR. NISKALA: Okay, but we have one closing comment from Representative Salinas who is part of the coalition and is also, unfortunately, going to be leaving us and he's going to be missed.

REPRESENTATIVE SALINAS: Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you with my colleagues from Jim Wells, Nueces and Jim Wells County. I do happen to live in Duval County so I've probably experienced what all these people are talking about firsthand.

Last March I came before this commission in support of special funding designation for support of construction of relief routes located in smaller rural communities along Phase 1 High Priority Corridors of the Texas Trunk System, especially those communities such as Alice and Robstown which are located along high volume trade near the Texas-Mexico border.

It is vital that current traffic bottlenecks at Alice and Robstown along the State Highway 44/US Highway 59 trade corridor be eliminated. The completion of relief routes in Alice and Robstown along the 44/59 corridor which link the country's largest inland Port of Laredo and the deep water Port of Corpus Christi would create a more direct, more efficient, and much safer route for a large number of trade merchants.

The increased volume between Laredo and the Port of Corpus Christi is currently funneled through school zones -- and as you know, I am a school teacher so that is of particular interest to me -- and over railroad crossings in Robstown and through more than a dozen traffic lights in Alice, Texas. I can tell you that I have sat behind many of these trucks as they try to move their merchandise from one port to another while I myself am either trying to get to school or to a doctor's appointment or to the grocery store.

I realize the heavy burden placed on the commission's shoulders with respect to making the most efficient use of our state's limited transportation dollars; however, it remains imperative that the potentially dangerous and inefficient bottlenecks along the Highway 44/59 trade corridor be remedied as soon as possible. With the state's economy slowing and trade between Mexico and the United States becoming more important than ever, it is critical that highway infrastructure needs in South Texas in particular, specifically those intended to streamline trade routes and increase safety in our communities, be addressed as soon as possible.

If a change in statewide funding policy to include relief routes such as a part of the Texas Highway Trunk System is not a consideration, then I urge additional and more focused cooperation between TxDOT and the local communities represented here today to address areas of high vehicle congestion along Highway 44/59 trade corridor. This has been a previously stated goal of this commission.

Again, I thank you for your time and I thank you for your service to the great State of Texas.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: Commissioners, we do have two individuals present, Tom Niskala who is president of the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, and John LaRue, our executive director of the Port of Corpus Christi, that I believe can address your question, Commissioner Williamson.

Now, Richard stole my line about you being housebroken, and I was clapping for you.

(General laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: Mr. LaRue, I think, can answer the specific question regarding the rail line.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The rail traffic that comes through Alice, it passes through the Port of Laredo?

MR. LaRUE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And how close does it get to Corpus Christi?

MR. LaRUE: That traffic that's coming through there is on the Tex-Mex system, and almost all of that is originating in Mexico or going to Mexico, but if it's moving through Laredo northbound coming from Mexico City, from the auto industry areas in Saltillo and Monterrey, moving through Laredo, then some of it goes up 35 on the UP system, a good part of it goes on the Tex-Mex.

MR. WILLIAMSON: To where on the Tex-Mex?

MR. LaRUE: The Tex-Mex technically ends in Corpus Christi, ends in the Port of Corpus Christi. They have trackage rights now on the UP system all the way up to Beaumont. So a good part of it collects just outside the port area, right outside the airport -- which I'm sure you've been to in Corpus -- you'll see a railyard there, and that's mainly Burlington Northern and Tex-Mex business.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there's a fair amount of freight traffic moving from the Republic of Mexico through Laredo to Corpus Christi.

MR. LaRUE: Oh, definitely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is there also a fair amount of train freight moving from Corpus Christi through the Port of Laredo and back to Mexico?

MR. LaRUE: Yes. Most of what we're moving right now is agriculture-related, grain. With the refrigerated facility that Chairman Bonilla mentioned, we're moving frozen potatoes, french fries, frozen beef to Laredo and into Mexico. So the agricultural and beef and fruit component is probably, originating Corpus to Mexico, is the major component.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, to what extent would -- I understand that this discussion is about transportation; that's not lost on me, Ms. Luna, I understand that -- but I'm just kind of curious to what extent would the economic strength of the port be enhanced, if at all, if there was a higher speed and away from the state's highway system freight line running directly into Monterrey that could be secured in Monterrey and not even be stopped coming across the border to Corpus Christi and then extended on to the Port of Houston? To what extent would that help or hurt?

MR. LaRUE: It would be a tremendous help. I think you would see a lot more traffic that is still moving by highway move by rail with that type of operation. And if it were a system that had more competitive access rail-wise -- which I'm sure you understand what that means -- that would even be better.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We just wish UP and everybody else understood what that meant. Reckon they'll hear that? Reckon that will get back to them?

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: But I guess my concern is would the economic vitality of the Port of Corpus Christi, aside from the road business -- let me ask the question a different way. Representative Hawley has mentioned several times to me the need to figure out a way to help the port finance, I guess, deepening or lengthening or somehow expanding the port.

MR. LaRUE: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would it be made easier to secure that financing if TxDOT led the effort to provide that direct rail and ultimately highway link into the port?

MR. LaRUE: Yes. In a word, most definitely, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So in a way, not unlike our commitment to help Toyota come to San Antonio, in a way the Transportation Commission's efforts have collateral positive benefits to the area's economy beyond just the highway.

MR. LaRUE: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you.

MR. LaRUE: You're welcome.

MR. NICHOLS: Any more comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I had several comments. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for the presentation. It's obviously a very collected effort and a lot of support, not just at the local level but it's a regional project, and I think we understand that and you have shown that consistently.

Secondly, the Department of Transportation is obviously very interested in multimodal forms of transportation. The port is a huge asset for the state -- I mean, it's just a huge asset -- and we recognize that the flow of commerce from Mexico, from Laredo through the various ports of the state are real important, and some years ago recognized that the weak link was the transportation system between your area -- which is exactly what you're focusing on -- and in regards to that, when we did the Phase 1 Trunk System where we had all this funding formula there were dots -- it's kind of like a shotgun approach based on formulas -- we took those and lined them up for priorities, statewide hearings, statewide input, and because of the high priority of this, it made it in that first round of categories. So it was recognized very early that this needs to get done -- I wanted to kind of re-emphasize that.

But at that point in time we only have a certain amount of money that we can expend per year in trying to accomplish that objective, and we had the opportunity -- I was just going to try to clarify a point -- of spending that money on the longer stretches in between the communities or spending it on the relief routes at the time which would have meant we could do much fewer routes. And we recognized that the public hearing process and environmental process was much longer and more complicated on relief routes than it was on the long stretches, so statewide we opted for the stretches in between.

The funding is not prohibited on the Trunk System for relief routes -- I think that's real important to know that -- even though it wasn't the highest priority in Phase 1, it is not prohibited and can be done. And what we had said, the department said was the objective on the program was to have a ten-year window in which all these projects were either constructed or under construction, and then we would go into Phase 2. You don't begin Phase 2 on the eleventh year because of the public hearing process, you begin that process five years earlier -- which is the next year or two -- of what would come next.

And I recall, and I wanted to pass on to you, that one of the things that was recognized early in that statewide process was the problem of relief routes on the corridors, not just in this area -- we recognize that -- but statewide, that as the long stretches were improved that it would probably increase and redirect some of the traffic which makes even greater pressure on those communities that don't have the relief routes. So conceptually -- and that will be proven out by public hearings -- as we get into Phase 2, I had always figured that we probably would end up with a proportion of that funding per year allocated to relief routes on communities that were in the Phase 1 corridor -- if that doesn't sound too complicated. So I'm just trying to let you know that long term I think there's going to be some real relief here; short term we're going to obviously take and see what we can do also.

The second thing I wanted to point out was Interstate 69 -- I know we talk about US 59 but I know you are very well aware of Interstate 69 which will pretty much follow the US 59 route; it's real, we're in the environmental process of the evaluation -- which will have a tremendous impact not only on this region but on these relief routes, because as that is built it's going to draw more traffic toward it also. And the decision on funding regarding Interstate 69 and whether there's going to be construction money is a federal decision that is in the process of being made as we speak.

The six-year federal formula which is up this next year -- was TEA-21, now it's -- what's it going to be called, TEA-2 or something? TEA-3? Figure that out. It will be TEA-3, that's what they're calling it -- that six-year formula is going to affect transportation funding for the State of Texas over the next six years. Historically, when there was an interstate program, it was specifically identified and funded in this federal bill, so as we have opportunities to speak to our delegations at the national level, please be sure to put in a plug because they now have the opportunity to lock it in, and if they don't lock it in, we have to wait six more years -- that's the bad thing.

The other thing I wanted to mention was I did not hear it in this presentation but I recall -- what was it, two years ago when you came which was a very good presentation also -- in those relief routes -- I'm going to bring up the area of access control or management, or whatever -- at that time we were evolving and have continued to work on, consistently for the last two years, the subject matter called access management, how we connect. As opposed to just endless driveways, each Burger King -- not picking on Burger King -- each hamburger place or each convenience store is probably a more correct way, having all the driveways they want, trying to utilize shared driveways, collective access points, things like that in a more managed approach which will help traffic dramatically, flow of traffic, mobility, and reduce incidences of accidents and allow full development -- actually a much longer period of time.

When you made the presentation and I think had your meetings in the area, the presentation that was made two years ago was early in that process evolution of the department where we were looking at relief routes with zero access, and we have moved from that to managed access. I think many of us are now convinced that if it's managed properly -- and there's some national principles that are accepted nationally, and we've been having public hearings around the state with regards to this issue; we're going to take some action today but I think the final action will probably occur next year -- but access points could be made because I think as you're trying to acquire some of that land or get donated land -- which would help the whole region -- if there is an opportunity for some access, even if it's managed access, that might be very beneficial to you in your dealings with the property owners, and I think it's very important to you as a community for future economic development. So I wanted to pass that on.

Although it is not finalized, it will be some months, we're going to have a new redrafted manual that's going to come back out probably February or March -- I think David Casteel can work with that and start seeing, not that it will be formal or final, but you can get kind of a feel for where I think we're going to be going -- I guess is the correct way to say that.

We have done a number of things down there: the Fulton and the causeway. And the big bridge, the high bridge -- now, I recall from a number of years ago there was some concern about the height of that bridge; even though it's very high, some of these super tankers -- I didn't hear anybody mention that.

MR. BONILLA: There is a committee now meeting on that and it's Mr. Casteel and his district engineers are considering that. The present height is 138 feet and it's much too low. We can't bring in cruise vessels, we can't bring in the large containers, and consequently, the need to purchase the land in San Patricio County for the development of our container terminal. The present plans are to move the bridge slightly and elevate it to a height of approximately 200 feet; at least that's the conceptual plan, probably 15 years away.

MR. NICHOLS: Unlike a roadway where we could lower the road, you can't move the channel.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That's really all the questions I had. Any more? I want to thank you very much for being here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to talk to Ms. Luna one more time.

MR. NICHOLS: Do what?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ms. Luna.

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: I'm present and available, Commissioner.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just want to take the opportunity to note for the record how aggressive you've been the last two years on transportation matters, and forthright. We didn't get a chance to know each other as well in the House as Richard and myself and Ms. Hawley and myself, but you appear to be very interested in transportation and we notice things like that and appreciate it very much.

REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: Thank you very much, and certainly my office and my staff is available to work with you all and your staff in moving forward on all of these projects. Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. Appreciate the reception last night; that was great. A very good presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The only problem is they brought that Hugo Berlanga and he dominated the whole conversation. All he wants to talk about is these big deer and his son.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: We'll take a three-minute recess.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

P R O C E E D I N G S (cont’d)

MR. NICHOLS: We'll go ahead and reconvene. Anybody who has not filled out a card who would like to make a comment with regards to something that is on the agenda, you need to fill out a card; if it is an item that is on the agenda, it's a yellow card. If you would like to make a comment with regards to something that is not on the agenda, it's the blue card. You can get the cards right outside the door. If it's not on the agenda, we can listen but we cannot take action on it.

With that, we'll go to the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't have any.

MR. NICHOLS: Could I have a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Mike, do you want to go ahead and pick it up?

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 3; this will be a report from the Grand Parkway Association. Our rules on transportation corporations require that they come in once a year and give us an annual report as far as the current condition, the status of the projects and the activities they've done in the past year, and today we have Mr. David Gornet who's the director of the Grand Parkway Association that will give us that report. David.

MR. GORNET: Good morning, commissioners. As soon as they kick the computer on up there, we'll have a presentation. Thank you for letting us come up here and talk to you. Mr. Behrens has a detailed information report that was sent to him back following the end of the fiscal year. This will be a report that will go over the highlights of the past year and activities that we see proceeding forward with the project.

The Segment D is the piece that's already open on your screen there; that is the one that was opened in 1994, 19 miles in length from I-10 down to US 59 South. Part of that is a freeway, the remainder of it is a four-lane highway where we have built main lanes and then come off on the entrance/exit ramps and then come back on for the main lanes, leaving those overpasses in portions uncompleted.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's the difference between a freeway and a four-lane highway, a freeway has got a divided median?

MR. GORNET: A freeway has overpasses, grade separations at the intersections; the highway has at-grade intersections.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And how much of that is tolled?

MR. GORNET: None of that is tolled as of today, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. GORNET: However, there's been a lot of traffic improvements on that segment. Currently TxDOT has three projects under consideration for construction scheduled for next year. Those are the overpass at FM 1093 to get through traffic out of the at-grade intersection, as well as at Kingsland and Highland Knolls further north up near I-10; that will complete the freeway segment from I-10 all the way down to south of Westheimer Road. Then additional projects for the main lanes between the overpasses up near I-10, main lanes south from 1093 to US 90-A, and from US 90-A down to US 59 for additional improvements along as the capacity is needed and funds are available.

That's Segment D, as we call it, and as you're familiar, the segments are numbered alphabetically going around. I'm going to take these in the order we've been processing them.

Any questions on Segment D, commissioners?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any additional questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll probably have questions when we go through the whole thing.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir. Segment I-2 -- which we have a record of decision from 1998 on -- we're preparing construction of that. Commissioner, you're familiar with the USX agreements that expire --

MR. WILLIAMSON: US Steel?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir, that's now Cedar Crossing, LLP -- those expire in September of 2003. Construction for this segment is currently scheduled for June of 2003 for letting; we are well on our way to that. You are preparing designs in-house, the Houston District is; they have those completed; they're working on right of way mapping for some of the drainage easements; and then the full package will be here to Austin for review.

The I-10 overpass is scheduled for letting in March of '03 with the segments from I-10 down to 565, and from 565 on down to FM 1405 in June of 2003. As I mentioned, that's Cedar Crossing that covers from the HL&P canal all the way around to Cedar Bayou which includes donation of 150 acres of land and $1.7 million in cash expires in September of 2003.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And are you going to mention a bullet point "Could implement toll collection strategy"?

MR. GORNET: We have been discussing how it would be possible to implement tolls in that area. There is the opportunity to do that with the concurrent construction or construction could go on in advance as of June 2003 and then during that time frame of construction decisions could be made on how best to implement that and to add toll collection into that project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This question applies to the previous segment and this one. What provisions are being made for light rail or commuter rail in the right of way?

MR. GORNET: There is no current provision in the right of way other than that the right of way envelope, we have a wide grass median that could be used for commuter rail, freight rail. Probably the horizontal alignment is incompatible with freight rail; you could put in truck only lanes, additional single occupant vehicle lanes.

MR. NICHOLS: What's the width of the right of way?

MR. GORNET: Three hundred foot minimum in Segment D as well as Segment I-2 here; it's 400 foot at overpasses.

Segment C in Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties from 59 around to State Highway 288, that was started in March of 1998; we have funding from Fort Bend County for their 68 percent of the project and from Brazoria County through TxDOT, through agreements that TxDOT and Brazoria County have for the remaining 32 percent. Fort Bend County passed a bond issue in 2001 for another $7.7 million to allow for purchase of the right of way for those pieces that may not be donated, as well as to fund PS&E activities down there. We have a draft environmental impact statement that was released; we held our public hearings; we're now awaiting the final environmental impact statement to get signed off on.

Corps of Engineers has been moving a little slower. Our project handler that has done all the Grand Parkway work passed away in August and so we've been having to break in a new Corps person to review the project; he has his other projects that he had previously been assigned. So we're waiting for comments on the final environmental impact statement and expect to have that released in January next year.

Again, this is being considered as a toll facility --

MR. NICHOLS: January of next year?

MR. GORNET: January of 2003, yes, sir, for the final environmental impact statement. Given that time frame, we'll have to hold a public meeting after that to show our schematics; expect a record of decision then later in 2003.

MR. NICHOLS: In all these public hearings that you're having with regards to the different segments, we are bringing up the fact that it could be a toll road?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir, we are. And all the environmental impact statements also reflect that; there's a discussion section in each of those that this could be developed as a toll road.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, when I see a statement like "being considered as a toll facility," who is doing the considering?

MR. GORNET: We have left the options open for that. In working with the Houston District, they have expressed the need to make sure that we leave that open and that our design is not incompatible with trying to implement toll collection. For instance, on this segment where you cross the Brazos River, you could set up a toll collection facility there so that the traffic going from 288 around to 59 --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But the question I'm asking is who's doing the considering, and you said, We have left that option open with the Houston department. Well, who is we?

MR. GORNET: We would be the Grand Parkway Association. There is not an agency that has said we want to build this as a toll road as of today, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let me just reflect this commissioner's position. Whether it's Houston or Dallas, Weatherford or wherever, a major state facility like this needs to be a toll road.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We do not have the financing to build things like this as tax roads any longer. And one of the very first recollections I have of an official meeting here, this matter was discussed, and I was learning from you and the chairman at the time, but I thought that's what the two of you said.

MR. NICHOLS: We've said it consistently for several years.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir, you have, and the design of this still allows for tolls to be implemented, but we have not gotten to the point of saying here's where we need to put toll plazas or someone has not stepped up. In this case, the Fort Bend Toll Road Authority could be an agency that could implement this as a toll project to work partner with TxDOT; Brazoria County, to my knowledge, does not have an RMA in place; TTA could come in and function in that capacity on this project also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we receive sometimes valid and sometimes invalid criticisms from the large urban areas, specifically from Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, that we don't spend enough tax money on their projects, and my view is -- I don't want to be repetitive beyond this one instance of being repetitive, but my view is this is a pretty classic example of toll debt that could be supported by this department. And whoever "we" is, tell them that what I want, and what I think I heard Mr. Nichols say a while ago he wants, is let's quit considering and let's quit talking about and let's quit thinking about; this thing needs to be a toll road.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll work with David and our staff to make that happen.

MR. NICHOLS: I know you've been working on this many years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can you throw 121 in Dallas into that same category and go ahead and convert it to a toll road?

MR. NICHOLS: I think one of the areas that's probably sent some confusing direction maybe to you was that up until last November we did not have the constitutional authority to put any equity into that project, so there was still kind of an iffy from the district standpoint: if we wanted to build it as a toll road, we can't put a dime in it, and if there's not enough bonds to sell, and if Harris County Tollway Authority didn't want to take it on, then how do you get there. Even though there was a consistent intent, that's one of the reasons we wanted those hearings conducted that we were in hopes the toll equity would pass, and it did.

So after it passed, I think there's been a real clarification that may not have gotten disseminated real well from the commission that every opportunity we have on these that we're going to build. If we're going to be building it, especially if they're in urbanized metropolitan areas, new locations, things like that, they are just absolutely prime to be tolled. Even if the toll volumes in the beginning don't warrant paying somebody to stay in a toll booth, the toll booth needs to go up.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And even if you don't put a computer in it, you can just put up a sign that says: This week no charge, but as the volume picks up, we're going to start charging in the future so you're getting a freebie as we go, so that we can pay for the long-term maintenance and operation and expansion and things like that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This week no charge, compliments of Commissioner Robert Nichols.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Well, I think you understand.

MR. GORNET: Mr. Behrens and I can negotiate, figure out how to structure this to implement that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I mean, here's the deal: my brother-in-law lives along Segment D and he's not going to be happy about driving that road free and having to pay a toll, but it is crystal clear to me if we intend to rebuild the infrastructure of this state as we need to, we're going to have to build a lot of toll roads in Texas, so we ought not to let my brother-in-law ever get mad. It ought to be a toll road right from the start -- although he'll probably still get mad.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I think conceptually there could be a number of approaches. For instance, if the Harris County Tollway Authority wanted to approach it as a toll road, that certainly could be an option. I think we might even give them first option since it's in their area. If some of these counties -- because some of this falls outside their jurisdiction --

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: -- if they chose to do their own toll authority or a regional mobility authority, I think we would be open to those kind of ideas. If all of those above don't work and they don't want to, we still, under our TTA, have the authority to go in there and do that -- I'm seeing a nod by Phil Russell -- and we have that authority. We might end up with the district doing the construction or whatever, get the thing, and possibly Harris County or one of these others would want to operate it. But we're certainly open; we're not fixed in our mind there, but I think where we are kind of fixed is it needs to be a toll road.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

The next segments are the four segments: E, F-1, F-2 and G that go across the west and north side of town; it's approximately 52 miles in length. We started those studies in July of 1999. HCTRA provided 20 percent of the funding; TxDOT is providing the remaining 80 percent for the route studies and the environmental work. We have the DEIS; again waiting on the Corps of Engineers to get signed for the draft environmental impact statement for Segment E. We've been told for the last three weeks they're three-quarters of the way through their review of the document, but we still anticipate having that signed by Federal Highways in December of this year, hold a public hearing in late January or sometime early February next year on that.

The other segments, F-1, F-2 and G will be coming out sequentially. Again, this is being considered by the toll road authority; the participation by HCTRA, you all conceded them first option on being able to develop that. We have been told that they're going to do another traffic and revenue study that will look at the current numbers, traffic numbers that they have and the current demographics based on the 2000 census, and they can put together a package where they can fund a larger percentage of this than they were going to be able to back in 1998 when initial discussions occurred.

MR. NICHOLS: On those traffic and revenue studies that they're doing, is that information available to us to look at also?

MR. GORNET: It will be when they're finished, yes, sir. They have a draft one from 1998 that they may be willing to make available to you, but it's my understanding it's not for public disclosure.

MR. NICHOLS: I think it's important to know that it is available to us, because if they look at it and they choose not to and then we still want to toll by some other means, having the use of that is of value to us. I'm not saying we want to pay for it since it's already paid for, but we certainly would want to use it.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: There's a reason I said that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand.

MR. GORNET: Given the schedule of getting the environmental impact statements completed and moving forward with public hearings, final environmental impact statement, and then records of decision, if the Toll Road Authority or TxDOT or TTA wants to move forward with construction, we still anticipate the earliest construction, on a fairly aggressive schedule, could begin in 2004 on those segments, E in particular.

The next segment we've started studies on is Segment B and that study started this summer. We have a project manager for that project, Mr. Bob Sutton, in the back here listening. That's jointly funded by Galveston County and by TxDOT and Brazoria County. This, like Segment C, is very important as an evacuation route. Brazoria County has expressed interest in doing this as a toll road and Galveston County is supportive of that issue also, and again, toll consideration will be part of the environmental documentation process so that can be implemented. Right now the current schedules are for the draft environmental impact statement to be released in early 2004 on that; look for a final environmental impact statement in 2005; the earliest construction could start on this segment then would be sometime in 2006.

MR. NICHOLS: In some of these stretches, like where B is, there's large areas of that that are not developed.

MR. GORNET: That is correct, sir, on Segment B and the southern end of Segment C.

MR. NICHOLS: The last time I was down there -- which was like four or five months ago -- a lot of it is just open farmland. So we have the opportunity -- in other words, you're building, conceptually, a right of way width for a highway, controlled access, all that kind of stuff, but I know early on you were not giving consideration to rail and passenger commuter rail and all that kind of stuff. If we're going to ever pick up some extra right of way, the time to do it would be early in these stages.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir, it would, and as part of the scoping process we've already started, we would have to implement some additional scoping procedures if we were going to give consideration for freight rail/commuter rail because the design characteristics would change for the right of way over that of just a highway type facility.

MR. NICHOLS: Just throwing that out; if we're ever going to get the right of way, that's the best time to do it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely so.

MR. GORNET: The remaining three segments, A, H, and I-1, we have no current studies underway. Galveston County is looking forward to getting the travel demand forecasting for Segment B done so that we can analyze what could be done on Segment A, is a facility needed, or would an upgrade of an existing FM route between I-45 and State Highway 146 on the south side of town handle the travel demand in that area, or do you need to implement a new high-capacity facility through that corridor.

Segments H and I-1 on the northeast side of town that traverse Montgomery, Harris, Liberty and Chambers counties, we get calls continually from folks out there building houses, mainly on rural home sites. There's a number of large land holdings out there that are perspective larger master-planned development communities as development moves out in that corridor, but there's not quite the demand there. County commissioners in Harris County and Montgomery County have indicated they'd be willing to talk about funding some of the study for that so that we could identify the right of way today before that development occurs and that future development will be complementary to this is where the road is rather than trying to put the road in after the fact.

And that is the end of all the segments of the highway, sir. We appreciate your time, your continued support. We will work with Mr. Behrens and the rest of the department to identify how we do our toll collection strategy and to bring that forward.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And provide for light rail and commuter rail within the right of way.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any more comments, questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. GORNET: Thank you, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go on to item 4, the Aviation item; David Fulton will present his projects for funding.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike. For the record, my name is David Fulton; I'm the director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for seven airport improvement projects. Total estimated cost of all requests, as shown in the Exhibit A, is approximately $4.5 million, $3.8 federal, $200,000 state, and approximately $400,000 local funding. A public hearing was held on November 1 of this year; no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Any questions or comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any of this money going to the McKinney Airport?

MR. FULTON: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5 is our Rules.

MR. WILLIAMSON: When are we going to get the McKinney Airport deal, by the way? I'm bringing my hard hat to that meeting.

(General laughter.)

MR. FULTON: We expect that in February.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good. That will be the one I'll skip; you and John can handle that one.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5 is our Rules; item 5(a) will be a withdrawal of the rule on access. Ken B. will present.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav and I'm the director of the Design Division.

The minute order withdraws the proposed repeal of Sections 11.50 through 11.53, Access Driveways to State Highways; new Sections 11.50 through 11.55, Access Management; and amendments to 15.54 Construction (Control of Access on Freeways/Frontage Roads).

Public hearings on these rules were held in Austin, Houston and Irving. The department received numerous comments asking that the adoption of the rules be delayed so that local input could be incorporated into the Access Management Manual and the manual be completed before the final adoption of the rules. At the present time, the manual is in the draft form and it is not anticipated to be finalized until spring of 2003. Staff agrees with this request and recommends that the proposed rules be withdrawn to allow time to incorporate public and private input, complete the Access Management Manual, train the department personnel to ensure consistent access management application. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Comments or questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: How do you define public input? You said to receive public input.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: In addition to the public hearings that we had, we are having extensive outreach meetings.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How are those organized?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: How is it organized?

MR. WILLIAMSON: How is an outreach meeting organized?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: It can take several shapes. We would define the outreach to be more formalized where we would actually have an organization, such as Michael Morris's organization where we met for a couple of days with them to discuss this, to meetings with the industry, the developers, and to discuss access management issues with them. We're meeting tomorrow with the City of Houston and some of their representatives; we're meeting with other transportation officials; we had a meeting with TEXITE, Texas Institute of Transportation Engineers. So we're using our consultants, we're using our staff, we're putting the word out that we want to talk about access management and any requests that come in we're meeting with these individuals and gathering the information.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it appears that all of the caterwauling and screaming came from five sources: the developer community, the real estate ownership around the next perspective frontage road community, small cities around the urbanized areas that feel like we're threatening the economic health of their tax base, existing development owners that wish to expand, and then everybody else that just likes to complain.

What I'm really concerned about is that whether we agree the criticism is valid or not, I hear way too much of you guys don't ask us for our opinion before you move forward, and on this one I would like to not hear that criticism. I don't mind criticism that says you didn't agree with us and you're running over us, that's okay, that's just the way public policy is; some people don't agree and some people win and some people lose. But I'm real sensitive to criticism that says you go on about your business about something that affects my life and you never give me a real chance to argue my case, so I hope we organize in a way that we don't hear that criticism.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We think we're using all the resources that are available to us to make the contact with these groups and are not turning down any opportunities to discuss this issue with them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Like I say, it's okay to disagree. You know where the commission wants to go, we've made that painfully clear. But disagreeing is one thing, giving people a reason to say they've been ignored is something different, and let's try not to do that.

MR. NICHOLS: I just want to make sure I ask you this question so I get it on the record. After the first round of public hearings, where people made comments in a formal public hearing setting, you don't really have the opportunity to have back-and-forth conversations and explanations and things like that, it's more of a receiving information, the formal public hearing.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: But everybody who made comments in the formal hearings, whether it be in Irving or Houston or wherever, as I understand it, you did write them letters.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And you gave them an opportunity where we would meet with them -- we being your group, I guess -- meet with them if they were developers or if they were cities, if they were MPOs or whatever the situation was, take their project or their concerns and sit down and try to explain access management more and show how it would impact that thing. Is that correct?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: So this is not in the normal course for an agency, I guess, but we have gone to that extent. Okay.

And all the groups that registered input that Mr. Williamson was referring to -- which there's many, many more, obviously -- nowhere in that list was a group called the traveling public. We had very few opportunities in any of our public meetings where the traveling public came and was represented, in my opinion. I did see two times where somebody stood up and represented themselves as just being a citizen and from the traveling public perspective, and I thought that was significant too.

I'm going to make some comments and then we'll move on if we want to move on, but I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. I think it would be easier than asking questions back and forth.

As I understand it -- you know, I'm a little hesitant to approve something that even though I feel very strongly on, if we do not have a finished product like a manual, and you are taking the manual that was out through these hearings and some of these focus groups, or whatever you call them, and we are going to make some -- I think you told me significant changes or a number of real changes in there?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's correct. We're going to totally rewrite it.

MR. NICHOLS: Some of it would be more simple or simplified, things like that, but it still would be effective.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's correct. We're taking all the comments that we received, and a lot of the comments were really the practical application of access management which is important in how we apply access management consistently, and in trying to incorporate that plus obviously engineering applications to access management.

MR. NICHOLS: Schedule-wise, as I understand it, you had indicated somewhere in the January period, maybe late January, we might have an internal document for review at the division and district level, or February or something like that?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: The schedule that we have, we're hoping that we can have a draft for internal review sometime in late January.

MR. NICHOLS: Then once you kind of go through that process, then March-April, somewhere in there, you'll go back out with the manual -- which is also kind of more than we normally do -- and start having open hearings and reviews.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We would continue our peer review of the manual and really beyond just the engineering type review but make it available for comments from the concerned groups and start getting feedback on it.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. And then that process, June-July, should be through all that -- May-June-July?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We would hope that we could propose new rules at the June meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: And have the manual complete?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: And have the manual complete by then. That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: I just want to make sure that we have the manual complete.

On the next set of proposed rules on this -- and I'm just saying it because I know there's people in the audience who are listening or making note of this -- it will give us an opportunity at that point to have the manual, but also, some of the things that we picked up on the proposed rules that I think were going to be considered -- at least from the drafts that I saw -- that we would add would be one that would probably include a transition period?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And it would also probably include a -- one of the comments that I heard that I was very supportive of is we have 41 cities in the State of Texas who have adopted access management guidelines for development in their cities on the roads and stuff, driveways -- which was a lot higher number than I originally had heard -- and if we have a different set of rules because they're obviously not going to all be identical, then the developers and the people in the community can be somewhat confused and that if we choose to adopt on those things, in that city that has access management, stick with one or the other -- which I would have a tendency to go with the local one as long as it met a qualified general standard -- which I think most of them do -- that would also be probably something very similar to that in there.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: That's what we have proposed to put in the new rules.

MR. NICHOLS: And then I think, hopefully, as other cities adopt access management that they would choose ours or the statewide one. I think that's pretty much it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You didn't expect all that, did you?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I think he did.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I think the direction is still very strongly to go that way. Whereas, some actions we take, as we make mistakes, we can correct them as we go, this is an issue, economic development and how people make decisions on investments is extremely critical to all of us, the state as a whole plus these communities, and to the people who work in our state, and it is extremely important that we get it right the first time. So I applaud the work you're doing; you've done a lot of work on it.

In all the hearings that I went to -- which were quite a few -- I heard one comment that stuck with me and that was that whatever it is that's decided on how you access these roadways, it needs to be consistent and it needs to be predictable. That is so important from an investment standpoint that they know how they can do that stuff, and for the past year in our attempt to get over this bridge to that ultimate goal, we've had a period that's a gray area, a thick mass, where people are not sure what to do. There is an inconsistency and they're not real predictable of if they invest in a piece of land knowing what they can do with it two years from now, and the sooner we get through that, I think the sooner we'll all be, as a state, better off.

I want to also predict -- I said this at the short course -- that once we get through this and apply it and ten years later people look back, they're going to wonder why we didn't do it sooner. With that, do you have any more comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. NICHOLS: Do I have a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 5(b)(1), a rule for final adoption concerning our Conditional Grant Program. Diana Isabel.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning. For the record, my name is Diana Isabel; I'm the director of Human Resources.

This minute order adopts amendments to Section 4.25 concerning the Conditional Grant Program. The proposed rules were adopted at the August commission meeting; they were published in the Texas Register in September, and no comments were received; so therefore, we recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Any comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MS. ISABEL: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 5(b)(2), we have a rule for final adoption and this would be to clean up some right of way rules on Disposal of Real Estate Interests.

John?

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is John Campbell, director of the Right of Way Division.

I'd like to present for your consideration Minute Order 5(b)(2) which provides for the final adoption of the repeal of Section 21.101 through 21.103 and simultaneously proposes the adoption of new Sections 21.101 through 21.106 concerning the disposal of real estate interests. The repeals and new sections are necessary to reorganize the sub-chapter into a more comprehensive, easy to follow format and to establish clear procedure for selling property by sealed bid. No comments were received; staff recommends your approval.

MR. NICHOLS: Comments or questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No comments.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: We have two items under Transportation Planning, item number 6; Jim Randall will present those items.

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

Item 6(a), we bring you the first quarter Program for Disadvantaged Counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff's recommended adjustments for each of them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. The four projects are in Harrison County and the reduction in participation for these projects is $42,941. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(b), this minute order amends the 2002 Unified Transportation Program to increase the authorized construction cost of various projects currently authorized in Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT) level of authority. Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001, approved the 2002 Unified Transportation Program; Minute Order 108241, dated June 29, 2000, states that certain projects which exceed construction estimates by $10 million must be approved by the commission minute order or are to be considered in the next update of the Unified Transportation Program. The department is currently working toward streamlining the UTP development process. Development of the 2003 UTP has been suspended and further action has been deferred until next year's update of the restructured program.

In order to prevent interruption of the fiscal year 2003 letting schedule, it is necessary to amend the 2003 UTP to increase the authorized construction costs of various projects in the Dallas, Houston, Pharr and San Antonio districts which are currently listed in Priority 1 (CONSTRUCT) level of authority, as shown in Exhibit A of this order. We recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have a comment?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, but I think you do.

MR. NICHOLS: I have a comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How did I know that?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't know. You probably saw the scribbling on my deal here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I saw the fire in your eyes.

MR. NICHOLS: Really I had two comments. The first comment had to do with I know some people consider this a cost overrun; in my opinion this is not a cost overrun. When these estimates were originally made years ago, it was before we went through the design process and all the detail work, plus you've had several years of inflation, and now, in effect, that we have done a lot of that, our estimates are probably much more accurate but they are above the original authorized levels. So that's what this action takes care of.

MR. RANDALL: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: The second comment has to do -- and this is going to be a little bit longer -- the causeway in Galveston --

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Is Gary Trietsch still here? He's watching on the TV screen? That's all right, he may rather watch it on TV.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or he left because he knew you were going to ask this question.

MR. RANDALL: But I might want him up here with me.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: And is Amadeo here too? Anyway, Mike is here, so I mean, everybody is here.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Regarding the causeway, I mean, I have seen letters and phone calls and stuff back and forth and I know there's been numerous meetings, having to do with the disposal of the rubble. Normally, in the rubble like this, the contractor, in his contract price is just responsible for disposing of it. In this situation -- and this goes back to the last legislature, the last session -- other states have programs called artificial reefs. Is there anybody here from the artificial reef thing? No. Anybody here from Texas Parks & Wildlife? The other states have artificial reef programs -- Florida has had one for years and years and years -- a lot of economic benefit, tourism, it's good ecologically, and all that kind of stuff.

The artificial reef people have requested Parks & Wildlife cooperation with us, and there was actually some bills -- a bill in particular that was passed asking us to give consideration to this, so it raised the bar on me paying attention to it. All I'm really asking for is that when we do our bid, I'm hoping that one of the options on the disposal is that that rubble be used for -- to at least get a price for the disposal for the artificial reef thing.

Now, my feeling on it is as long as it's not costing us substantially more to do it -- I'm not sure how to define substantial -- then we really ought to give serious consideration to doing that, working with Texas Parks & Wildlife. I know it's kind of new to Texas, so we're having some difficulty with it, and I think Parks & Wildlife has some concerns, and I read a recent letter by some artificial reef people -- it was some engineer that worked for Exxon or used to, retired, who the rubble definition is actually defined by what used to be the TNRCC, the environmental --

MR. BEHRENS: The TCEQ.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm slow to adjust. But it's possible that as that rubble is torn down, it could just be dropped on barges, hauled straight out and lowered into the water, just dumped which sounds like just dumping but actually the whole ecological system develops around it. I know that we have seen concerns where the oil that's on the road may have to milled off the first half inch and you've got to have all these dust sheets and that kind of thing. That's just not what has really been occurring in these other states, and they found that it's just been great for the environment.

So at some point those decisions will be made, I don't know if it's by Parks & Wildlife or the TCEQ or what, but I would think at least our responsibility is if we go out for bid and we don't have that as an option, that it sure makes it difficult to have that opportunity. And I know that a number of those legislators are asking us to stay within the bounds of that thing, so I want to make sure that I make the point that I sure hope we do.

MR. SAENZ: For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director for Engineering Operations.

I know that our Houston District and our Bridge Division have been working with Parks & Wildlife on that very project and trying to come up with some options, and they're trying to develop estimates as far as cost, so I'll just follow up on that and make sure that we try to incorporate that.

MR. NICHOLS: And I know all these comments are on the record and I would like the pertinent portion of this transcript to be sent to the Parks & Wildlife, whoever the appropriate person is, and to the legislators who worked on that bill that have an interest in this, and I think there's some others in that area, and to the people that are working on the artificial reefs. We have an official committee that works on that.

MR. SAENZ: We will do that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Robert, is there some doubt that the contractor doing the demolition would do that?

MR. NICHOLS: The problem is not that the contractor would or wouldn't if we asked him to, it's what type of requirements from the state are put on the disposal of it. In other words, when we first brought it up, someone said -- I'm not saying it's from TxDOT but one of the other groups -- said that, you know, you've got to mill a half inch of all the concrete off that bridge, and to mill it off creates a lot of dust so you have to tarp the bay, in effect, to collect the dust, and then dispose of the dust, and then you have to -- it's just on and on and on.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That was probably a guy that was hoping to sell us material to provide for this fake reef.

MR. NICHOLS: No, it's not.

MR. SAENZ: There were issues dealing with environmental, there were issues dealing with additional cost to take it out in open waters and the types of vessels and insurance and requirements. We've tried it on several other projects where we couldn't get a good bid, for lack of a better word.

MR. NICHOLS: It requires interagency agreement and it requires clarification of what the real environmental requirements are on it, because -- I see somebody coming up that knows something about bridges. I asked for everybody else but I forgot to ask about the bridge lady.

MS. RAWLS: This is Mary Lou Rawls, director of the Bridge Division. We have a member on my staff, Michael O'Toole, who is actually on the Artificial Reef Committee, and he's working with the Houston District, and at this point it looks like the Parks & Wildlife has $250,000 that may be possibly available that we could potentially incorporate as an incentive in the contract for the contractor's consideration.

MR. NICHOLS: As I understand it, the legislature gave Parks & Wildlife $2 million or $5 million to be used for artificial reefs, and the committee has said they would spend the entire amount on this thing if it would help.

MS. RAWLS: It's my understanding from the Parks & Wildlife that that's for liability issues, so they're reticent to use it.

MR. NICHOLS: That's why I want to make sure comments of this go because it really kind of depends on -- anyway, I want to make sure we do our part. That money, I think, was appropriated by the state to see that artificial reefs are built, and if the requirements are overly stringent than they need to be, then you start asking if it requires us to spend more money, but the latest letter I saw about the actual decision being made by TCEQ could clarify that. I just want to make sure the option is open. The rest of that doesn't have to occur here, I just want to make sure that when we go out for bid, one option is open there.

MS. RAWLS: We've also been working with the other states, like Florida DOT, and they have not been expending their funds for this, that's been handled outside of the Florida DOT.

MR. NICHOLS: But I don't think they've been putting these type of requirements on their disposal of the concrete either.

MS. RAWLS: Right. Those aren't our requirements. We're working to accommodate this issue.

MR. BEHRENS: When that bill came up last session, you know, in that committee we let it be known that we would cooperate and have this material to be available and that we were going to set it up in our plans and that one of the options would be that it could be loaded on barges, taken out and used as an artificial reef. The other option would give our contractor, if that was too expensive, then he would put it maybe in a stockpile site where it could then be picked up later and taken out at a later date to be used for a reef. So we've always said that we were going to make this available.

MR. NICHOLS: If it's an overly stringent requirement of what you have to go through to take it out there -- which is not necessarily what we decide, it's what somebody else decides.

MS. RAWLS: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I just wanted to make that point.

MR. BEHRENS: We did express, though, that if it was an additional cost to get it hauled out there by the contractor because of the limited money and the need for more transportation projects, we weren't going to pay that difference.

MR. NICHOLS: I agree, and I agree with that.

MS. RAWLS: That's right, and we are also working with Texas Parks & Wildlife on a report that's in progress now.

MR. NICHOLS: And I think if we can get through this first one -- which this bridge happens to be a big one -- as we rework many of the other bridges along the coast, if we can get this thing simplified and streamlined so it becomes routine, we can be successful like Florida in our fisheries and that kind of stuff without adding really extra cost.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, you and I should never get off the script because we always open up cans of worms.

MR. NICHOLS: I was talking about fish and artificial reefs, you're talking about worms.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Worms and fish. Why don't you ask Diana to interface with TCEQ or EPA and see if maybe there are some industries that are currently being sanctioned or negotiating sanctions on certain air quality or water quality issues. I think they've got a pretty aggressive program if we get EPA's approval, where if Exxon is going to be fined a million, they can go fund something like this and it counts against their fine. I hesitate to use Exxon; since we're in court with them, I should use somebody else. Amadeo Saenz Chemical Company is going to be fined anyway. I think they've got a pretty aggressive program; that might be something we ought to look into and be a little entrepreneurial. And you might also get the State government's award for thinking outside the box, you might get a reward yourself.

MS. RAWLS: We'll pursue that.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. Is there a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you need one?

MR. NICHOLS: To pass.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 7, Design, and this will be to allocate funding toward the Green Ribbon Landscape Improvement Program.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Again, for the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav and I'm director of the Design Division.

The minute order before you today authorizes funding for the second year of the Green Ribbon Landscape Improvement Program under Category 10 of the 2002 UTP. Rider 57 requires the department to allocate funding for landscape planning and other enhancement activities to districts that have air quality non-attainment and near non-attainment counties. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 8, our two SIB loans, to be presented by James Bass.

MR. BASS: Good morning. For the record, I'm James Bass, director of the department's Finance Division.

Item 8(a) seeks your final approval of a loan to the City of Clyde in the amount of $120,000 to fund right of way acquisition and the relocation of utilities in connection with the construction of a railroad overpass on Farm to Market 604. If approved, interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.1 percent, with payments being made over a period of eight years. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BASS: Item 8(b) seeks final approval of a loan to Lavaca County in the amount of $89,000 to fund the replacement of off-system county bridges on County Roads 196, 438 and 280. These three bridges are a part of the department's Equivalent Match Program, and interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 3.3 percent, with payments being made over a period of five years, and staff recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: I've got a motion and I'm going to second it, and I want to make a comment. When we reworked that off-system program -- which the department did a great job on that -- one of the things we were hoping this would encourage is exactly this type of action. With the counties in that program being able to spend that money on their own would tackle more bridges, we could tackle more bridges, and this SIB program is just working great on this thing.

All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9 will be our Contracts for Maintenance and also Highway and Building Construction.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav; I'm director of the Construction Division.

Item 9(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on November 7 and 8, 2002 whose engineer's estimated cost are $300,000 or more. We had eight projects; staff recommends award of all the projects. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction and building contracts let on November 7 and 8, 2002. We had 68 projects; we have one project recommended for rejection in Polk County; it's CSJ 0911-04-033. We had one bidder on that project; he was 30 percent over; other bidders are interested and we believe we can go back and get better prices so we'd like to go back and relet it.

Staff recommends award of all projects with the exception noted.

MR. NICHOLS: Motion to do that with the exception of the one. Do you have a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not yet. Didn't you want to say something?

MR. NICHOLS: No. Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9(b), commissioners, will be deferred.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought that was a buddy of yours and you wanted to ask him why we were rejecting his bid.

MR. NICHOLS: I already did; I just didn't do it here.

MR. BEHRENS: 9(b) is being deferred; we didn't quite have that package ready; it will be coming to you next month.

Item 10, Richard Monroe will present a minute order on a contested case.

MR. MONROE: For the record, my name is Richard Monroe; I'm general counsel for the department.

I am asking you to approve a decision made by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) which went against this department. Normally that would be a little difficult for me to do, but in this case I think it would be appropriate. This concerns a small, that is to say about $12,000, maintenance contract which the low bidder refused to execute. The department attempted to sanction the low bidder for non-performance. He exercised his right to go before SOAH and the SOAH judge ruled you can't hit him for non-performance because he never signed the contract, a sound enough legal theory.

Because of the size of the contract and because we have revised our own rules to provide for a different process to sanction people specifically for refusal to execute the contract, I feel we should go ahead, endorse the SOAH judge's decision, put this behind us and move ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: Comment?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I ought to be able to think of something.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you want me to make some comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't like to go in defiance of a judge, but with regards to this -- and Richard and I have already had this conversation -- you have the letter of the law and then you have the spirit or intent of the law; the letter of the law -- which is in effect what the judge ruled on -- said that the guy never received the contract; therefore, he can't be in default of it. But the spirit, in all fairness, was he was the low bidder and refused to accept it. It's like we tried to give it to him but he wouldn't accept it, so he never got it. Therefore, he shouldn't have his bidding level reduced or something like that.

Normally in the spirit of the law or letter of the law on our low bid contracts, if you have a qualified bidder and they've met all the other requirements, then the spirit of the law is they get the job, they get the contract, but the letter of the law authorizes this commission to reject a bid for any reason.

MR. MONROE: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And I will, for the record, say -- just in case the construction industry out there is paying real careful attention to this -- that when we get in situations like this where it's an obvious violation of the spirit of the law to, in effect, defraud an action -- maybe defraud is too big of a word -- like refusing to take a contract when they really got it, if I were sitting up here -- which I am currently -- if it came to me, I would use that as a situation to reject that bid, and I think the letter of the law definitely allows me to do that. If, for instance, we felt like his bidding level should be reduced and he came in and bid on something that was twice that level and had gotten around by one of these kind of things, I'd nail him, I really would -- and that's for the record. And we can legally do that.

MR. MONROE: The commission can reject any bid for any reason or no reason.

MR. NICHOLS: And that's the letter of the law. Did you have any comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm confused. What do you want to do?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: We've already fixed the rule. We're going to be dealing with this judge on other cases and it's not worth carrying it to a higher level, spending the funds. I think by making the point, we're making the point, and I would encourage a motion so that I could second. Is that what you're asking?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I ask him what motion he wants to encourage?

MR. MONROE: He wants to make the motion that we will approve the SOAH judge's decision.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

MR. NICHOLS: I second that.

MR. MONROE: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. NICHOLS: All in favor, say aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought maybe you wanted to fight.

MR. NICHOLS: I would like to fight that guy, but we're not, but we're going to make a point.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 11 are the Routine Minute Orders. These are listed as they appeared on the posted agenda. If you would like to discuss any of those individually, we could do so; otherwise, I recommend approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mike, if we approve these, that means we're going to finish before lunch. How long has it been since we finished before lunch?

MR. BEHRENS: It's probably been about --

MR. WILLIAMSON: About a year and a half?

MR. NICHOLS: Ever since you've been on the board.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So maybe we shouldn't approve these things, don't want to break our string.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Open comment session, Tommy Eden related to pedestrian fatalities, representing himself.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you serving the state, are you participating?

MR. EDEN: You have appointed me to your Bicycle Advisory Committee.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you participating?

MR. EDEN: I am participating, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because we have a lot of guys that we try to get in the process and they never show up, never give their opinion, they never fight for what they believe. We're still trying to get the Sierra Club guy that's against every damn road come down here and help us; you know, they won't ever come participate.

MR. NICHOLS: Tommy, you've got the floor.

MR. EDEN: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Welcome.

MR. EDEN: And thank you for your appointment; I appreciate it.

We do not have very many sniper shootings here in Austin. If people were going around shooting people in our city, we would go to extraordinary lengths to see to it that the killings would end. If five people had been shot and killed in Austin last month, our government would have spent millions of dollars to make sure that the killings would end. Fortunately, we've not had that many people killed with guns in a single month for years, but in the last month, October 2002, a record number of pedestrians were killed after being struck by motorists, five pedestrians in one month in Austin alone.

Last year, 2001, was a record year for pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities; 17 pedestrians and four bicyclists were killed in Austin last year. Of the 17 pedestrians killed last year, five were on Interstate 35 and four were on US 183. This year we're likely to have as many pedestrians killed on Interstate 35 as last year. Of those 17 pedestrians last year, if those 17 pedestrians had been killed by guns last year, we would have spared no expense to stop the killings. Now, these pedestrians were not killed by guns; I suspect that many of them were people who just simply did not have cars and who needed to get across the roads.

Five people were killed last year in Austin on Intestate 35, all pedestrians in Austin; in 2000 there were three people killed on Interstate 35 in Austin; seven in 1999; five in 1998. Am I stuttering or why am I not getting the message across? Why is this not front page news? Pedestrians are being killed on our highways.

TxDOT is spending millions of dollars on so-called safety improvements on our freeways to rearrange entrance and exit ramps and those funds are not being used to get pedestrians or bicyclists across the highways. Call them up and ask them why; ask them if it bothers them that pedestrians are being killed on their highways because TxDOT did not want to provide a way to walk across the highways; ask them why they're not building sidewalks when they build frontage roads. Ask them if it bothers them that pedestrians are being killed on their highways because TxDOT did not want to provide a way for people to walk along the highways.

We don't need snipers here in Texas, we don't need any sharpshooters to kill our brothers and sisters. Sometimes it seems that the engineers at TxDOT have very effectively allowed more pedestrians to be killed, especially in low income areas, where many people don't have cars.

MR. NICHOLS: You have about one minute.

MR. EDEN: I'm done. I'm just asking that you stop the killing pedestrians.

MR. NICHOLS: I appreciate your comments. Every time you've ever been here you've been concerned about people and safety and things like that; we appreciate that. I can assure you that this commission and this department is very concerned about safety also; we're extremely safety conscious, not only in a working environment but in the method that we develop roadways to try to protect people and minimize the damage. We do not have the resources to build everything that we would like to build -- I think you recognize that.

We lose, every 2-1/2 hours -- when I got up this morning and since we're going to be going to lunch here in a little bit, we've had two or three people die on the highway, it's one every 2-1/2 hours, and we know that as we build some of these things we can save a lot of lives. We know in the City of Austin there's a lot of people that die from smoking cigarettes, I mean, there's a wide variety of categories, and we are doing our best to try to provide a safe environment for people to get around, but I do appreciate your comment.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any comment?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. NICHOLS: Any more cards? Is that it? No executive session? No further business? I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Do I have a motion?

MR. WILLIAMSON: What time is it?

MR. NICHOLS: Let's beat it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. NICHOLS: Adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: November 21, 2002

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 118 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.

________________11/25/02
(Transcriber) (Date)

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