Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Dewitt C. Greer Building
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas

9:00 a.m. Thursday, May 29, 2003

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

MIKE W. BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
CHERYL M. WILLIAMS, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
DEE HERNANDEZ, Minute Order Clerk

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It's 9:11 a.m., and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Welcome to our May meeting. It is a pleasure to have you here today.

I will note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items on the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 1:35 p.m. on May 21.

As is our usual occurrence, I ask my fellow commissioners if they have anything that they would like to report or say, and I'm going to change the order this time and we're going to ask the father of the bride, Commissioner Williamson, if he would like to say anything.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Also, good morning. Thank you for attending. Please take an opportunity to congratulate Senator Wentworth, Senator Shapleigh, Representative Pickett on hard work on the transportation package this legislative session. Some of it is yet to be adopted; please encourage them to see that it gets adopted, and if you get an opportunity, ease across the street and encourage 178 other elected members that it's the right thing for the state. We do thank you for your help.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd like to welcome everyone here. I know a lot of you have come a long ways, some of you, particularly the first delegation, a very long way.

We appreciate it; look forward to the comments and input and also want to thank the legislative members for the work that they're doing. It's a lot of hard work and long hours. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: While the legislature is in session, it's our procedure that we ask any elected officials that have either business or other things that they need to take care of this morning to appear first before their delegations, and so I would make that offer to Senator Shapleigh or Senator Wentworth or anyone else. Chairman Pickett, if you would like to come -- or the El Paso Delegation is first -- you may appear with them, or whatever your pleasure is.

SENATOR SHAPLEIGH: Mr. Chairman, I'll take you up on your offer because I've got a big pile of legislation over there that's in conference, and 3588 is now 16 inches thick.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR SHAPLEIGH: In our office, as in every office in the legislature this session, the mantra is: Ask not what you can do for your district; ask what more can you do for TxDOT.

MR. JOHNSON: That's an excellent mantra.

SENATOR SHAPLEIGH: And you guys, you asked for some tools; your toolbox is now bigger than a crate. You asked for some money. We're in the middle of the Infrastructure Committee on the Senate side, and the chair of the committee looks at me, I look at him, and he says, well, this is a bond amendment for $10 billion for TxDOT.

And we looked at each other and said, well, the agency only said they could spend a billion a year on the projects that they're talking about. And he said, okay, we'll make it $5 billion. So now you have $5 billion of bonding authority to move forward to get some projects done.

But frankly, that's what Texas needed, and the ideas and toolboxes, what you're working with is exactly what needs to be done in the history of this state. This state is uniquely positioned for transportation, given its location on our hemisphere and particularly with Mexico, and you have a giant job ahead of you.

With respect to the El Paso issues, we came six years ago and we said we're going to work. We have revamped our MPO; we've set out the most ambitious program of any district in terms of trying to meet our needs out in El Paso -- which are very unique being on two borders -- but we asked let's finish the loop. We were then the fourth, now the fifth largest city in Texas; we don't have a loop. And that's been the key to our transportation issues since then and you'll see it in the presentation you're going to get.

I'd like to close by saying this: there are three unique and very well suited places for Trans Texas Corridor projects, and one of them is the Anthony Gap. It is the one place where in a defined section of NHS freeway you have very low cost of right of way and very high yield projects in terms of saving the life of I-10, getting cooperation from the railroads, and doing something very unique with respect to the easements that you're trying to acquire. You have Fort Bliss on both sides of that for most of it; it is a project that can get done in the short term; it is in a demonstration in Washington, as you know; it is a project that would save 30 years in the life of I-10 in El Paso, Texas, and I would urge you particularly, Commissioner Williamson, to take a close look at how that would work because when you want to set out the value of the Trans Texas Corridor idea and have it grow, there's a defined area we can make that happen.

I don't want to take much more time from the delegations. It's a pleasure to be with you. I'm going to try my best to get on conference for 3588 and keep a lot of that stuff going. Appreciate working on these issues with you this session.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Senator Wentworth, did you want to speak at this time?

SENATOR WENTWORTH: What I think I'll do is let the El Paso delegation go ahead.

MR. JOHNSON: Chairman Pickett?

MR. PICKETT: Chairman, I'll wait until after the delegation group. Representative Chavez is here and she can --

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MS. CHAVEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MS. CHAVEZ: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak here before you again. I appreciate all the great work that you do on behalf of the transportation needs of the great State of Texas. I worked hard to ensure that we passed a bill as we expand the commission to make sure that the chairman does have the appropriate authority to move this commission forward with all the transportation needs.

I would just like to say that I wholeheartedly support the three projects that are presented today here from El Paso. As you know, El Paso also is very important to the State of Texas and as chair of the Border and International Affairs Committee, what we have in the testimony that we took, kind of through a pre-interim study since the committee didn't exist last session, we discovered what you already know and that is that the ports of entry of Texas are extremely important to the state, that in excess of 76 percent of NAFTA comes through the Texas ports of entry, and that the infrastructure needs along the border are not only important to the border communities, but they're also equally important to the arteries of commerce for the entire State of Texas.

In regards to the three projects, I just wanted to once again come to you and say on behalf of my district, the Alameda Corridor, which is 12.1 miles, is an extremely important project to develop. It is the heart of El Paso, and I ask for your consideration for the three projects, and want to commend all the work that TxDOT El Paso has done on the first phase of Alameda.

We were able to do sidewalks in front of elementary schools and we were able to do lighting and for the first time curbs, and it was just an infant project because the whole corridor needs to have revitalization. But it was an important redo of the area and the merchants along the Alameda Corridor were very appreciative of that effort.

We hope that we don't have a stop in the Alameda development and that you can move forward in developing that project as well.

Again, I speak wholeheartedly for the three projects, and I'm extremely proud of our MPO. They've done a great job in the presentation, and I respectfully ask for your consideration of the three projects. That's it.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you not love us anymore? You didn't bring us a vial of the good earth.

MS. CHAVEZ: Oh, not this time. I wanted to know, though, how the seedling was growing on your -- the vial of earth, the puna de tierra, yes. You also have that and we still want you to remember that.

MR. JOHNSON: We do vividly, obviously.

MS. CHAVEZ: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: She probably had to give them all away to the Senate to get them to cooperate.

MR. JOHNSON: Right, Senator Wentworth?

(General laughter.)

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. I've been here, as you well know, representing the Killeen-Temple area; I've been here representing the San Angelo area; I've been here representing the Austin area; I've been here representing the San Antonio area. I've had a lot of counties in my evolving senate district over the last dozen years.

MR. JOHNSON: It looks like you have a statewide job.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Nearly. But I'm here for the first time representing the Hays County area because Hays County, effective in January this year, was added to my district and I'm proud to be here in that regard.

It has been a great session. Mr. Nichols, I'm glad that Senator Bivins and I, and maybe others -- I don't know anybody else that co-authored it -- but the point of collection is finally apparently going to become a reality, the changing of that, will be a wonderful advantage for the Transportation Commission.

3588, the bill that we've all been watching very carefully for a long time -- I don't know how familiar you are with the funding on that, but when the lieutenant governor named Steve to be both the chairman of Infrastructure and on Finance, toward the end he got involved in the Conference Committee on the budget, so he turned the financing mechanism over to what we call my special select subcommittee. We had a lot of fun; we're going to give you several hundred million dollars as a result of that.

MR. JOHNSON: We're grateful.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Let me tell you a little bit about what we're here about in Hays County. Hays County, as you know, is one of the fastest growing counties in the state, and it's due principally because of the rapid urbanization of Austin and the surrounding suburban counties. It was once a rural county but it is no longer. It's well aware of the funding shortfall in Texas government, so they had a bond issue. They strongly supported it, and of the $47 million approved in that bond issue, $21 million is dedicated to speeding up construction on state roads.

That $21 million represents 44 percent of the cost of the entire project, so once again, I'm proud to be representing a group that understands we can't just come here with our hand out and ask you to pay for the whole deal. You've made it clear that if local communities think that this is a serious enough concern that they'll come up with some local money. So we're nearly matching you 50-50.

We ask you to consider improvements to three roads: one is US Highway 290 from the Hays County line to Dripping Springs; the other is Ranch to Market Road 12 from San Marcos to Ranch to Market Road 32; and the other is Farm to Market 1626 over near the Salt Lick from the Hays County line to Buda. The expansions proposed for these roads would provide a much safer and more efficient road system. In several instances we're talking about two-lane roads with essentially no shoulders and lots and lots of traffic.

You all have always been very supportive of Hays County's efforts, and I thank you for that and appreciate your letting me appear now and excuse myself. I've got a 9:30, a 10:00, a 10:30, and we go in at 11:00. I'd be glad to respond to any questions you might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks for your hard work this session.

MR. JOHNSON: Senator, thank you for being here.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. We know you've put in a lot of work and we appreciate it.

SENATOR WENTWORTH: Well, as you know from my previous presentations here, part of it has to do with the fact that my dad, who was the class of '39 from A&M with a degree in Civil Engineering, had his first job as an employee of what was then called the Texas Highway Department, and although I'm from San Antonio, the reason I was born in Mercedes, Texas, is the state was building a state highway in the Valley. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: That's great.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MR. ROSE: Good morning. I was born and raised in Hays County and have seen the growth over my short 24 years. From '91 to 2001 the population of Hays County has gone from 65,000 to 105,000, one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Texas. And not only do I and Senator Wentworth, the commissioners and the community leaders, Judge Powers here, strongly support these projects, but the people of Hays County do.

And they've shown that support through their support of this $47 million bond package, $21- of which is earmarked for state highway projects, as you know, with $9.2 million reserved for this particular project.

It shows to you and all the hard work that Commissioner Burnett and Judge Powers and all the other folks in the commissioners court and in the county have put forward over the last four years on this project and on this pitch, shows how badly we need this help in Hays County.

The three particular roads -- I can speak to one of them because I drive it every day is US 290. US 290, as you drive west toward Johnson City through Dripping Springs, as all of you know, you see buildings and businesses that weren't there one year ago or three years ago on the left and the right, a lot of crossing over that oncoming traffic as you drive west toward Dripping Springs. One of the -- and I've given some copies of these letters to you -- evidences of this commercial growth on 290 is the Interstep and Firehouse and Center Lake office parks.

Three months ago there was a fatality there. There's been a lot of wrecks and accidents there on 290, and that's just an example of a situation where over 150 people now work on the highway where two years ago nobody officed. And as this growth occurs, we need desperately that center turn lane for the safety of the folks in Dripping Springs and points west.

Likewise, Ranch Road 12 and 1626 and 967 are roads that are very hamstrung by growth, and without a center turn lane, without shoulders, could greatly use your help. So I come to you as a citizen of Hays County, as someone who understands also that a lot of folks in county government and local officials have worked very hard on these projects.

And the people of Hays County continue to demonstrate their overwhelming support for these projects with the bond package. So I sure would appreciate your favorable consideration today.

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Rose, thank you very much for being here.

MR. ROSE: I look forward to continuing to support your efforts in the House on those transportation bills.

MR. JOHNSON: I think Commissioner Williamson has a question.

MR. ROSE: Yes, sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Representative Rose, you're a young man and no doubt will have years of a career here, so I ask you a couple of questions -- and you may not want to answer them and that's fine -- mostly to plant in the back of your brain some thoughts about legislation that might come up in the years that you're here.

MR. ROSE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the things I've observed in my two years on the commission is that we spend most of our time and money catching up with urbanization that's already occurred. That means our right of way costs are five times higher than they should be, our construction costs are two or three times higher than it should be, and it means we're disrupting existing traffic, and all in all it's a pretty bad situation.

Now, we don't believe much in land use planning in Texas, and I'm not advocating that. We don't believe much in telling real estate developers they've got to go through a whole lot of certification before they can build houses and office buildings. But because we don't do that, the state's treasury is every two years placed under a lot of strain to play catch-up for the matters I just outlined.

If a community or an area like Hays County comes forward and says, we realize it's bad and we've pooled up this cash and we want to contribute it and we want you to contribute to it and address our problem now, does it not also make sense that the department, over the next few years, should begin to say to those areas on the edge that we know will be high growth, let's think ahead; let's go ahead and build roads now; build rail now, lay our utility lines now because we know the development will come.

And rather than you putting your cash up, let's enter into long-term agreements where, as the traffic in this area of your county increases, rather than you pooling up cash and passing bonds, you just agree to cost-share on a per-vehicle basis as the traffic increases. Just some thought for you to put in the back of your mind.

Because I'm totally convinced what the legislature I think is going to do for us in the next 100 hours, 96 hours, is going to be good, but it's only going to be good for a few years. If we don't begin to build roads where people are going to go -- not where they are but where they're going to go, we'll be right back in the same box. So you're a young fellow, you're probably going to be around a while, be thinking about that.

MR. ROSE: I will, and to echo that, to watch the governor's leadership on the Trans Texas Corridor and those issues, speaking to the point you're making and to look at Hays County's commitment, not only for road improvement but road construction in this bond package, I feel like the folks in Hays County, fortunately, are very well served, not by my leadership, but by the county commissioners and judges that have put a lot of work into this on the local level.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you.

MR. ROSE: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you kin to Mark?

MR. ROSE: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, just curious.

MR. ROSE: Although in Caldwell County -- which is one of our three counties -- Mark claims credit for our success because we just had Rose, no first name.

(General laughter.)

EL PASO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

(Mayor Jesus Ruben Segura, Judge Dolores Briones, Representative Joe Pickett, Senator Eliot Shapleigh)

MR. JOHNSON: Before I ask the El Paso delegation to get started, I wanted to make an observation, and the observation is this, that I think we often have a habit of taking things for granted. And this thought struck me recently with the celebration of Memorial Day and an article from our in-house newspaper, The Transportation News.

Our Public Information Office, and, in particular, Randall McDonald, Mike Cox and Tim Cunningham, do a great job of editing and publishing The Transportation News, and the article I refer to talked about the 50 men and women in the TxDOT family who were deployed in the war in Iraq. Many others in the extended TxDOT family were eligible for active duty or had loved ones shipped to distant places that many of us -- I would say most of us -- only read on a map.

I think most of us spent many days and nights watching the war unfold on TV, but an event of this magnitude becomes more personal when families are involved. With this past Memorial Day observance as a reminder of the sacrifices of many men and women, on behalf of the entire TxDOT family, I wanted to thank those TxDOT employees and their family members who unselfishly answered the call of duty. And I'm pleased to note that some 15 of our employees have returned home and our prayers remain with those who are still on active duty and those who have been re-deployed.

I insert this at this time because El Paso probably understands these sentiments better than most as it is the home to Fort Bliss, and we're delighted that the El Paso delegation is our lead-off delegation, and I understand that Jesus Ruben Segura will get us started. He's the chairman of the El Paso MPO Transportation Policy Board and the Mayor of the City of Sunland Park, which I regret to report is in the great state of New Mexico. Mayor Segura, we're delighted that you're here. Welcome to Texas.

MAYOR SEGURA: Mr. Chair, commission members, it's a pleasure and an honor to be before you. I was a little bit worried that in regards to the fact that I'm a New Mexican but we're part of this metropolitan area that abuts three states and two nations.

First, before I start our presentation, I would like to acknowledge some elected officials from the El Paso delegation that are here today to support our region's transportation funding request. As I call your name, please stand.

The El Paso County Judge, Dolores Briones; El Paso Mayor-elect Joe Wardy; State Representative Pat Haggerty; State Representative Joe Pickett; State Representative Chente Quintanilla; El Paso City Representative John Cook; El Paso Representative Dan Power; El Paso City Representative Luis Sarinana.

Once again, good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today representing the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. As chair of the Transportation Policy Board, I'm here to request your approval to allocate funding for three transportation projects that are important to the El Paso region.

The improvements being proposed are: one, the Interstate 10/Loop 375 interchange; two, the Alameda Avenue; and three, the Interstate 10 from Mesa Street to Loop 375. These three priority projects will enhance regional mobility, air quality, economic development, and quality of life for all residents for the El Paso region.

The communities of El Paso, Texas, Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, and Southern New Mexico share a long history of working together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise to address complicated binational and bi-state issues seldom experienced by other cities and states. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the regional transportation systems that we must build, these are but a few of our challenges that transcend political and geographical boundaries.

As a brief personal note, I want you to know that my hometown, the City of Sunland Park, New Mexico, is strategically located at that single geographical point where three states, Texas, New Mexico and Chihuahua, and two nations, the United States and Mexico, come together. Our geography stands as a symbol of our commitment because despite our numerous obstacles and considerable challenges, with your continued support, I can assure you that all of us, the public and private transportation stakeholders in the El Paso region, are committed to build a world class transportation system.

In closing, I would like to thank the Texas Transportation Commission for allowing me, the mayor of the City of Sunland Park, New Mexico, the opportunity to appear before you today. As a political newcomer to the Texas transportation planning process, I have but two words to say, thank you.

I also want to acknowledge -- I apologize -- State Representative Norma Chavez. I know that she spoke to you beforehand. Thank you.

At this point I would like to introduce the Honorable County Judge Dolores Briones who will be speaking.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad you're in Texas.

MAYOR SEGURA: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE BRIONES: Good morning. You notice that he didn't mention that the State of New Mexico abuts the State of Oklahoma.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE BRIONES: Good morning, commissioners. This is the beginning of my second term in office as county judge and over my first term, appearing before the Texas Transportation Commission, I've come to know each of you on a first name basis, and we missed you last night, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: I regret being tied up.

JUDGE BRIONES: Well, we'll just have to make it up to you.

MR. JOHNSON: And I to you.

JUDGE BRIONES: I've got my fingers crossed that you get your budget needs met and that the County of El Paso gets our budget needs met with every minute that passes.

Most importantly, over the relationship that we've had with the commission, I've developed a greater appreciation and respect for the work that you do and everything that you must take into consideration, the difficult challenges that you face taking care of the needs for the future.

In my capacity as El Paso County Judge, I'm aware of the tremendous challenges confronting every level of government during these difficult economic times; however, I'm confident and I hope you will agree that the great State of Texas will overcome these challenges, as in the past, if we simply follow the basic principle that helped to make this a great state and something that we've worked very hard with you over the last few years, and that is that all things are possible if we work together as one. I can tell the spirit of this principle is very evident today in our relationship and in the decision-making process of the Texas Transportation Commission.

As Mayor Segura stated in his opening remarks, the public and the private sector stakeholders in the El Paso region are united and committed to working together with the commission to build a world class transportation system, a transportation system that improves the regional mobility, air quality, safety and a system that creates economic development opportunities that benefit all Texas families.

And speaking of families, we're very pleased with our district engineer, Chuck Berry, one of our very own. Thank you.

At this time, I would like for the commission to view the following video, and this video describes the three priority transportation projects Mayor Segura referred to that our entire community supports. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

JUDGE BRIONES: Well, to top that off, we've got Representative Joe Pickett with us.

MR. PICKETT: I don't sing and dance anymore, but I have something in common with Mayor Segura, I'm glad to be in Texas this week too.

(General laughter.)

MR. PICKETT: Senator Wentworth talked about his changing district and this really is no joke. Mayor Segura being in Sunland Park, New Mexico, I have one of the strangest legislative districts: I represent Sunland Park, New Mexico, El Paso, and as of a couple of weeks ago, a small town in Oklahoma called Ardmore, but the comparison in the transportation is quite extreme.

I'm just going to recap, but if you wouldn't mind, commissioners, I'd like to have the people that came from El Paso, the chamber of commerce folks and the business entities, if they would stand up so you could see who all came from El Paso today that's joining us. Boy, it looks like it's at a funeral, isn't it? Nobody smiled or anything.

(General laughter.)

MR. PICKETT: I do appreciate your past support. You're right, Chairman, commissioners, it's been an interesting session. You have all the players here this morning, Senator Wentworth, Senator Shapleigh, Representative Chavez, in the issues that are before us. And you're right about the 100 hours, Ric; it's going to be real close to the wire, all of us. The conference committees will be going on late in the night trying to settle these issues, and the comment that Senator Shapleigh made about the tools. This is probably going to be one of your biggest sessions, I think, in probably decades. There's still some things that we need to work out.

And before Ric asks the question, if you noticed in the video, there was a comment that said the three projects that we brought before you, we looked at and really didn't qualify or we felt that they should be tolled, because I know that you seem to ask that a lot and it means a lot to you. It's also a fast way to get projects going. In El Paso we're not saying never, but we really do know that these projects are ones that we need your help and support; we have got an infrastructure that needs these improvements.

That interchange is right there with the new TxDOT office that you've all been to. Joe Battle Boulevard -- obviously the name brings back memories to the people here, former district engineer. It's right adjacent to Bill Burnett Road. We don't have anything for Chuck Berry but an alley yet, but depending on his performance over the next few years, we may upgrade it.

But I do appreciate your -- oh, I'm sorry. That's rude, my phone is vibrating. It's really rude to take a call right now. "Yes, Chairman Heflin? Yes, last minute tweaks on TxDOT's budget? I don't know, I'm kind of tied up. Well, let me see if they'll let me go."

I'm sorry to take that call. Do you think that I might excuse myself to get back to tweak the TxDOT budget?

(General laughter.)

MR. PICKETT: I also want to say that our new mayor-elect that's coming in on June 10 has got quite a transportation background. Not only was he in the trucking business, he was involved in the chamber's transportation committee for several years. He also was appointed to different select committees on the MPO, so he's not a newby to this at all, and I'm real excited personally about the involvement that we're going to see from Mayor-elect Joe Wardy on our MPO.

With that, commissioners, thank you, and we await your decisions later in the year in the UTP. Thank you. Do you have any questions, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, but I never miss the chance to compliment or thank, and while you're not on the committee this year, you have always been and continue to be a strong advocate for our department and our goals in transportation, and we're forever grateful

MR. PICKETT: Thank you, Ric; thank you for your guidance.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: I said mine last night. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Chairman Pickett, I wanted to echo what Ric said. In the four years I've been here, you probably have been one of the true -- I hate to use this analogy -- stalwarts or trojans on behalf of transportation issues, and I personally am grateful and I know that the department is appreciative for all your good work on its behalf.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions in general of the El Paso delegation or on the presentation?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who's next? You're not going to let the mayor-elect come up and speak?

MR. JOHNSON: They're keeping him under wraps until June 9 or 10.

MAYOR SEGURA: Let me just, once again, thank you for this opportunity, and as you're around that area, I hope you stop by and we will take you to New Mexico, Mexico and obviously the great State of Texas. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If this is the end, then I do have a couple of quick questions. You're right, we do ask about tolls all the time and will continue to do so with everyone, but also, if the legislation that I think is going to pass passes, we'll start asking questions about right of way for public transit, commuter and light rail, and surprisingly, to some people, we'll probably start asking questions about bike lanes along public corridors.

And the planning process for these projects, obviously the interchange probably doesn't apply, but for the other two, I hope if we haven't given some thought to that, that we might. The State is going to take a little bit different viewpoint, I think, of public transit and alternative means of transportation over the next few years, and it's kind of important for communities, along with tolls, to anticipate that the engineering staff will eventually start asking questions about that.

MAYOR SEGURA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to allude to the fact that the Transportation Policy Board in El Paso is looking into that and already even making some studies in regard to expanding in regards to that aspect of how everything works in regards to not only the transportation but also the rail system and stuff like that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The right of way acquired is never cheaper than the right of way acquired today. It's the cheapest investment you can make.

MAYOR SEGURA: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I think Commissioner Nichols had some observations.

MR. NICHOLS: I just had some comments. I just wanted to, first of all, thank you for the dinner last night. That was very nice; enjoyed meeting with many of you in an informal atmosphere.

And I know over the last number of years you have, as an area, really come together with your transportation projects. The city, the county, the chamber, the MPO, it is such a pleasure working with a community who has put together and prioritized their needs in a very orderly manner, and I think you have done an outstanding job. And those of you who came from El Paso here who are not familiar with what we see sometimes, you should be real proud of your community for the manner in which they've done this. So my hat's off to you, and I know we've made some good progress out there in the last number of years and hope that we continue making more working together. So thank you very much for coming here.

MR. JOHNSON: I appreciate, also, a very enlightening and informative presentation, and it's great to see you. I apologize for getting tied up. I was here until almost eight o'clock and I figured if I got over there at a late hour, it would disrupt things, so I elected not to come and probably should have come, but it was another poor decision on my part. And I appreciate your hospitality, and I'm sorry I was unable to partake of it.

We're going to take a brief recess to let the great folks from El Paso get back to commerce, industry and legislation, and the Hays County people will be next.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

HAYS COUNTY

(Judge Jim Powers, County Commissioner Bill Burnett, Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Patrick Rose)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting and welcome a group from Hays County, but before I ask them to come to the podium, I wanted to mention sort of things we take for granted, part two, and that is the safety of not only ourselves but the people that we work with. Tragically, this last week, TxDOT and its Lufkin District lost an employee. Sonny Tippett of our Center, Texas, Maintenance Section fell off of a TxDOT truck and was critically injured and subsequently passed away in the hospital.

I think two things come to mind: one is we often take safety for granted and we shouldn't do that; and secondly, it also stresses the perils that some people face in their normal day-to-day work jobs, and we continually are attempting to deal with accidents within the work zones, construction zones and maintenance zones on the highways, and the reminders that orange cones are to slow down.

But I think the fact that these things happen, we need to step back and take even greater caution, not only as we do our own jobs but as we look out for other people as they are doing their jobs.

I know that the commission sends along their condolences to the family and our heartfelt prayers are with them at this time. And I appreciate your indulgence for letting me put that in.

It's a pleasure to have Hays County here and I believe that Judge Jim Powers is going to preside. Welcome, Judge.

JUDGE POWERS: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: One thing I do want to take notice of, and that is we've been informed that perhaps there may be a person or a group or groups that wish to speak against what you're proposing. And we would ask, so we could be better organized for that, that if there are any people or groups that wish to speak that they get a card, a yellow card at the registration desk and bring it forward to Cheryl Williams on my left so that we may call them up.

We would like to remind you that out of courtesy to everyone that each speaker will be allowed three minutes and we would respectfully ask that a total of 20 minutes be allocated to those in opposition.

So Judge, with that footnote, we're delighted you're here. I had the pleasure of being in Hays County less than two weeks ago, and as I was telling people around here, it's a little gem.

JUDGE POWERS: That's right. Well, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here.

MR. JOHNSON: That's a G-E-M, not a G-Y-M.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE POWERS: I need to make sure, first of all, to turn my cell phone off because the president was going to call and see how we were doing. I'll make sure and pass on that one.

MR. JOHNSON: We know he's interested in this.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE POWERS: But anyway, thank you so much, Commissioners Johnson, Nichols, Williams and Mr. Behrens for the opportunity. I'm Jim Powers, Hays County Judge, and I'm here today to talk to you about the support of this project, and I want to thank you for the support the department has done to this point, and tell you about the major projects that we're developing in our transportation plan in Hays County.

Earlier it was said, and it's true, that Hays County is one of the fastest growing counties in Texas, formerly a rural county. It is continuing to experience a rapid growth over the last ten years. It's true that in 1991 there were 65,000 people in population of Hays County and in 2001 there are over 105,000. Along with that rapid growth and tremendous increase of traffic flow and congestion, the highways and the infrastructure and the county roads have reached a limit of its capability. It appears the growth will continue; it appears that Hays County will continue to be a fast-growing county as more and more people take to the Hill Country.

But our county commissioners and our commissioners court have taken their job very seriously, and we've addressed these problems and these critical issues, and we're going to be hearing more about that a little bit later as Commissioner Burnett has a presentation to give you. But I want you to know that we understand the importance of safety and dealing with roads in Hays County.

However, right now I would like to take a moment just to introduce our commissioners that are here and some other folks. So I'd like to ask Commissioner Russ Molenaar to stand, and Commissioner Burnett who is also here. I also would like to ask the citizens of Hays County and some other officials to stand who represent this project and support this project; so if you would all stand, I'd appreciate it. These are the folks that are committed to seeing that these projects are dealt with. Thank you so much.

Finally, I would personally like to thank Bill Garbade and his staff in the Austin District office and also the South Travis County area office for their assistance in putting together a plan that we believe is an excellent plan that will help us in the future needs of transportation in our county.

Also, at this time I want to make mention of the fact that we appreciate our representatives who have taken their time out to be here to support us in this project and the projects that we're working on. But right now what I would like to do is to introduce to you Commissioner Bill Burnett, who has been a driving force in working with the commissioners court, as well as the county as a whole, in dealing with planning and transportation.

We appreciate so much his efforts and work, and he's going to be speaking to you now about the projects that we would like to ask your help in. So at this time I'm going to ask Commissioner Burnett to come to the podium.

MR. BURNETT: Thank you, Judge.

Commissioners, good morning. I know we weren't able to go to dinner last night; maybe we can have lunch.

I also want to echo what Judge Powers has said about our state representatives. Senator Wentworth and I have served on the Capital Area MPO for two years before his district changed and Senator Ogden came on, and he has been very helpful in transportation issues throughout his career, starting as a commissioner in Bexar County up to the Senate, as well as Representative Rose being here.

I also want to thank Mike Krusee, although he has not been able to get across the street this morning. He was scheduled to come speak on our behalf. I also served with him on the local MPO. I think his commitment to make an effort to come this morning shows his true visionary kind of regional leadership in transportation issues, and I wanted to thank him.

I also am glad to find out there's a road in El Paso that's named after me which is almost as good as the ferry in Port A -- which my son can't quite figure that one out.

(General laughter.)

MR. BURNETT: As I'm sure you aware by our petition, we're here before you looking for support for our road bond program. This is the first time in recent memory that Hays County has come before the Transportation Commission, although this time we do not come empty-handed. As you'll soon see, we have committed a substantial portion of our bond proceeds that was passed by the voters in June of '01 for state road infrastructure system.

Transportation is clearly one of the big issues in Hays County, if not one of the biggest issues in the state, and a big issue to me. The phenomenal growth and recent flood of families, not only coming south from Austin but coming north from San Antonio, has made Hays County one of the fastest growing counties in the state and the population projections from the data center currently have us at around 100,000 in '01; they expect us to increase 257 percent over the next 30 years to 357,000. They originally had us growing only 73 percent to be 173,000 in the year 2025; they upgraded those numbers 83 percent above that, getting us to the point where I think -- which is realistic. CAMPO has adopted those numbers as well as our commissioners court.

But I'm getting off track and Al Luedecke is going to pistol whip me if I don't stay on schedule.

Approximately two years ago, the commissioners court, with the voters' endorsement, approved a $50 million bond program, $47- of it dedicated for roads in the county. While many counties, when they have programs like this, dedicate the project strictly to county roadways, we felt a concerted need to allocate more monies toward state programs. An overwhelming percentage of the voters supported this project. It was supported by Republicans and Democrats, endorsed by both parties; environmentalists and business interests supported this project.

There are 14 different county roads in this bond program; one of those is actually completed, all the rest of them are in the design phase and we hopefully will have those completed within the next two years.

The court, with the voters' endorsement, decided to use approximately $21 million of the bond program to leverage a number of state roads in our county. $5 million, just under 25 percent of that amount, is to cover the county's required participation in right of way costs, utility adjustments, and other contingencies for the state portion of the program. The balance of the bond program, $26 million, is dedicated to the county road program, project development of the 14 roads I mentioned earlier. And hopefully, again, we will have those completed and on the ground, people driving on them within the next two years.

The court, with the voters' help, ultimately selected six state roadway expansions throughout our county and one new location roadway to support with our bond funds. The roads are shown on the map and are listed here in priority order, the commissioners court believes best reflects the needs of the county. In discussions with the district, we discovered that little work had been done on most of these projects due to the need to utilize the limited district staff and resources to develop other roadways throughout the districts that were better funded.

It was decided that a portion of the bond money be used to provide for planning, environmental studies, and design for each project, and we have coordinated with the district to supplement their efforts to get these projects ready for letting -- basically whatever we can do to help. That work will begin as quickly as we complete the necessary funding agreements with the district.

We have, as a result of these discussions and with the help of Mr. Garbade -- and this is big, in my opinion -- developed a mutually agreeable time frame for the development of each project that will have them ready to construct in the 2006-2008 time frame. This listing shows the proposed development dates for each of our seven projects, bringing us to the reason we are before you today.

Working with the district, we believe there are three of the seven projects that can be ready for letting in or before fiscal year 2007. They are three of our four highest priority projects and we believe that the district will agree that these are also important to the department. We are acutely aware that there is not enough funds available for the district to pursue these projects over the pressing backlog they have, so we have come to ask your help in getting these projects built.

In order to help accomplish this, the county proposes to provide a total of $9.2 million, or approximately 44 percent, of the Hays County state road bond funds for the development and construction of the three we believe will be ready for quick implementation.

I would now like to look at each project individually and describe what it is we and the district propose to do together. First is US Highway 290 from Travis County line to the city limits of Dripping Springs. As you can see from the slides, this highway is becoming more and more developed as Austin continues to grow towards the Hill Country.

Another little aside that Al is going to be mad at me about, this also coordinates with the CAMPO plan of the number one highest priority project in the CAMPO plan is the completion, as you know, of the interchange of 290 in Oak Hill. This is a continuation of that and just clearly makes sense in a regional and local level.

Development of subdivisions and businesses along this historically full access highway has increased accidents with entering and exiting traffic. The district has planned to expand this highway to provide a two-way turn lane to make a five-lane section with appropriate shoulders and drives. We propose to assist this project by providing $2 million toward the environmental studies, any necessary schematics, right of way maps, and/or towards construction. The district had estimated the widening portion of this project to be $4.6 million, but the widening of this roadway will require some reconstruction of the existing roadbed and an overlay of the entire surface. This cost is estimated to be $1.4 million. These additional costs are more than we originally anticipated, but the project is so paramount and important to us that we still want to help fund and support its completion.

The second roadway is RM 12 west of San Marcos to the junction of RM 32, continuing into Comal County. Commissioner Johnson, you're aware of the Devil's Backbone you said you recently drove on. Continuing growth towards Wimberley and the Hill Country, plus the urbanization of the area west of San Marcos, makes this project a critical priority for Hays County. This 8.8 mile section of rural FM type roadway has been programmed by the district at the DESIGN level for a number of years.

There is $4 million already programmed for this project but is insufficient for the work that needs to be done. The plan to expand this rural FM type highway is to have four lanes with shoulders. This expansion would meet the needs of the expected traffic for a number of years and would make it a much safer facility. The district is already working on the development of the environmental studies and plans and would expect to have the project ready by late 2006.

Unfortunately, this dated roadway will need extensive modification to meet current standards as a result of this widening. These requirements make this project much more expensive than a simple widening would suggest, and thus makes the likelihood of it ever becoming eligible for district funding very dim. The county proposes to provide $1.34 million for right of way and $2.66 million toward the reconstruction of this $22.9 million project, which represents approximately 40 percent of expansion costs and 12 percent of the total reconstruction cost.

The final roadway is another expansion to four lanes but with a center turn lane and curb and gutters comprising portions of two FM highways in northern Hays County, a true urban section. They are FM 1626 from the Travis County line to FM 967, and then along 967 to Onion Creek Bridge or where the city limits of Buda are. This corridor passes through one of the fastest growing areas not only in our county but truly in the entire state, and the associated development is expected to continue as the Austin metro area continues to grow.

This corridor already experiences high vehicle volumes, especially during commuter times, and with the completion of State Highway 45 South where we, in an interlocal agreement with Travis County, have negotiated and are complete with all the right of way on that roadway. It will dead-end intersect in 1626. Upgrading this roadway to an urban design will ensure a more efficient flow of traffic and a much safer environment for the drivers.

The district will prepare the plans for this project and expects to have the project ready to construct by the year 2007. Hays County will provide $400,000 for right of way and $2.8 million toward the construction of this important project.

These three projects constitute our request to you at this point in our bond program. If you can fund these projects using Category 12 Discretionary funds, we will work closely with the district to have them ready at the earliest possible date. We will continue to work with the district on the development of our remaining four projects, and we plan to return to you at some point in the future to request your help to fund them, unless other funds can be provided through the district or the local MPO -- which we are now a full member -- RMA or private means in the interim. We are currently not included in the Central Texas RMA, although we are part of the discussion process and at some point in the future I think we will be a full member.

We again want to express our appreciation for the help of Bill Garbade and his staff. He has a difficult job, and I've served with him on CAMPO as well, and I understand the strain and the stress and the requirements that are placed on him at this local district in this fast-growing area.

We look forward to hearing from you in the near future with news that all the three projects will be funded, but we know however it turns out, we appreciate your time and interest in our efforts.

I have a couple of letters here I would like to give to you -- clerk or give to you all. They are resolutions from cities, school boards, fire departments, EMS, as well as a letter -- that thank God I went to the post office box yesterday -- it was from Congressman Lamar Smith endorsing our projects, and I think we all know how important he is to transportation planning, especially in Texas but throughout the nation.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have after Judge Powers makes his closing remarks, unless you have some questions right now. With that, I'll let Judge Powers close, and thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

JUDGE POWERS: Thank you, Commissioner Burnett.

In summary, we bring to you $9.2 million of Hays County bond funds that we wish to apply to the TxDOT highway system to be used towards right of way, design and construction of these three projects which are critical to our county. Further, we request total of the $34.3 million of Category 12 dollars to be implemented in these three projects. We recognize that funding is very limited for TxDOT and I'm sure you're aware of the fact that it's very limited for our county as well. Essentially, we are offering to partner with you by making county monies available to the state highway system. In return for that, we ask for your support in the form of Category 12 dollars to implement our programs.

I believe that your approval will send a strong positive message of encouragement to other counties to bring funding that will help them develop their projects in their counties. Thank you very much, and once again, I appreciate your time. And if you have any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, Robert or Ric? And let me lay out a guideline for the way I think we should proceed. I think if there are any questions on your presentation that we'll ask them now, then we will ask the one person who has asked to speak in opposition, we'll ask her to come up, and then if we have any questions for her, and we might have some for you as a result of what she brings, so please remain around. But Ric, did you have a question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sort of as a follow-up to my dialogue with Mr. Rose earlier, would it have been easier on the community if a program had been in place here at the department level that you could have come to us and said we really need this road, and we're willing to reimburse you over the next 20 years as the traffic on the road increases, a nickel a car, a penny a car, whatever it is, as opposed to accumulating cash or having to acquire debt to put something into the program?

MR. BURNETT: Yes, I think that is outside-of-the-box thinking and I think that's something we're going to have to look at if we expect to grow as the state is projected to grow. There are those that say that putting money up front on roadways is going to encourage development and subsidize development. I don't subscribe to that, but I think that somehow or another we need to be able to have better planning. And I think counties having more authority to be able to use the tools like that, I think clearly we do not have that now and if the department or the legislature is to expand the authorities of counties to be able to do creative financing type packages, that's the only way we're going to be able to accomplish what we can with the limited dollars that we have compared to the needs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It just seems to me that if we both had a way of dealing with this in a way we could afford and in a way that would anticipate logical growth patterns, by the time you had the traffic increased, you'd have the property tax base and the property tax revenue to pay your share of the subsidy.

MR. BURNETT: And you're exactly right, the cost of that ten years down the road is substantially increased compared to what we could do it for today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: I have comments and questions. First of all, I'd like to thank you and the county for bringing money to the table. It's obviously supported by the people through the bond issue, and a question on the bond issue, did you have the specific projects identified, or was it just a dollar amount when you went for the bonds?

MR. BURNETT: The specific projects were identified. We had discussions with the local district about which projects were in either Phase 1 or Phase 2, and they were listed, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So when the voters approved the bond package, they saw specifically which projects it would be. I think that's very important.

MR. BURNETT: And the election notice specifically had each project listed as well.

MR. NICHOLS: The first project -- is Bill Garbade here? Bill, I remember some time ago we looked at a project that was in our briefing book and what was actually going on at the district were slightly different. Two of these projects, the second and third, I'm showing are in the DEVELOP phase right now in the UTP, but the first one I'm showing it's not in any of those categories.

Is that correct? Okay, we're consistent. We probably need to get that there real quick, that 290 project. That's the first one you had listed and the one that's the furthest behind as far as development work, so I think that's going to be pretty important. I guess I'm looking over at Mike now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's got a microphone now; he can probably talk to us.

MR. GARBADE: Commissioners, we've been developing those 290 projects on kind of a piecemeal basis, turning lane for turning lane, development by development, safety money, whatever we could, to move along. And the plan that they're bringing you is an effort to consolidate, within the limits of Hays County, the things that we've been piecemealing in the past. So yes, we don't have planning money for working on those; we pick up planning money for safety projects and other things as we go and as the need arises -- as it stands now.

MR. NICHOLS: Do we know whether or not the 290 project is in the recommended or going to be in the next UTP in the DEVELOP mode or not. If it's not, I hope you take a look at that and make sure it's in that category which will help speed it on up.

I guess a comment was, Commissioner Burnett, in addition to a ferry boat and a road, I think we've also got your name on a picture in the back. I think the gentleman whose picture is on the picture is probably either in the room -- is the other Bill here? He's probably in the back room watching it on TV.

MR. BURNETT: I had some calls from him on the 71-35-290 interchange.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I told you that's because we tell everybody you're his brother -- no son, you're his son.

MR. BURNETT: We'll have to clear that with my father.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: That's really my questions. I appreciate you all very much coming to the table. This is, since I've been on the commission, I think the first time Hays County has come. I would encourage you to come back.

JUDGE POWERS: Thank you so much. Let me just say real quick before I close -- and once again, I do want to say thank you for your time and your effort in listening to our concerns -- and Ric, in regard to your question about some of the long-range planning efforts of counties, I think it's critical that we find some mechanism, some way to be able to regionally think about roads and what's going to happen from a regional standpoint. But one of the problems that we do face in county government is our inability to plan the long range like cities, and so oftentimes a highway like 290, for instance, has a lot of business, a lot of homes all on the same corridor, and so that creates a real problem for us.

But once again, I do appreciate your comments and take that to heed. So thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

HAYS COUNTY - OPPOSITION TO HAYS COUNTY PROPOSAL

MR. JOHNSON: Signing up to speak in opposition is Melanie Oberlin, staff attorney for Save Our Springs Alliance. Melanie, did I get your name right?

MS. OBERLIN: Yes, and good morning, commissioners. And also I'd like to ask that if I'm the only person speaking in opposition that I not be limited to just three minutes. I don't think it will take me much longer, but the notice we received said all opposition parties would have a total together of 20.

MR. JOHNSON: If you're the only person, then we can grant you some leeway there.

MS. OBERLIN: Okay, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Please don't take the 20 minutes.

MS. OBERLIN: I won't. I think about six or seven should do it. I do have written comments. Will you accept those?

MR. JOHNSON: We'll place those in the record.

MS. OBERLIN: And I can give copies to the Hays County delegation as well.

Good morning and thanks for letting the SOS comment on this. As you know, it is our mission to protect the Edwards Aquifer, its springs and contributing streams and the natural and cultural heritage of the Hill Country watersheds, with special emphasis on the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer, and the comments that we are making today reflect our mission.

I know in the past you have asked us if we oppose every road that comes before you, and the answer is no, but we do ask for some smart road planning. And with regard to Highway 290 which lies in the contributing zone of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer, we think that the plan here is not realistic and will lead to water quality degradation of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer.

Specifically during construction we expect to see silt and sediment polluting the creeks in the watershed, and we believe that this road is based on population projections that may or may not be the way that the future actually goes. Roads like this tend to lead to suburban sprawl and increase the vehicle miles traveled over the contributing and recharge zone, and increased vehicle miles traveled, as you are well aware, increase the toxic roadway runoff and air pollution with use of the road and all the development spurred by the roads.

We think the Hays County proposal needs to include funding for a comprehensive up-front analysis of the projects' effects on the environment, including cumulative and indirect effects under both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. In addition, the Hays County proposal doesn't address air pollution or noise pollution at all. Hays County has typically been a rural area in Texas and noise pollution and air pollution are sure to come with a big highway running through and we think those should be addressed.

The plan for expansion of US 290 needs to include some mitigation measures. There's no money set aside that we saw in the delegation's request for such measures. The plan says that no environmental mitigation is anticipated. This is either an overly optimistic view of the plan to generate a low budget, or it is demonstrative of Hays County's lack of understanding of the vulnerability of the Edwards Aquifer to highway pollution and pollution from development generated by expanding roads over the contributing and recharge zones.

Every roadway project in the Barton Springs watershed needs to include funding for mitigation measures. The SOS Alliance believes that mitigation is absolutely required, and it should be based on environmental studies analyzing the consequences of the Highway 290 improvements. Enough land should be purchased to mitigate the pollution caused by the development facilitated by the improvements as well as directly caused from use of the highway. At the very least, funding and a timetable should be provided to ensure that enough mitigation land within the Barton Springs watershed is purchased to reduce the impervious cover of US 290 to 15 percent or less. In addition, funding should be allocated for land to be purchased to provide a buffering strip along the highway. A buffering strip would reduce visual and oral blight and allow for some vegetative filtering of highway runoff.

Funding for water quality control monitoring and maintenance should be included in the projected cost of the highway project. Monitoring and maintenance are necessary to ensure that control structures are performing as designed. The cost of maintenance and monitoring is too often overlooked when considering the cost of infrastructure development.

Finally, I believe there may have been a federal EIS done previously for parts of 290 and the SOS would request that a supplemental federal EIS be done for this road as it is part of a highway that has used federal funds. An EIS, under NEPA, we think is appropriate.

Finally, I think that regional planning has been something that has started recently in Central Texas and is important to the development of our highways and infrastructure, and before any major infrastructure development goes forward, we should wait for the regional plans that have started in this area to be finalized, and those regional plans should have democratic citizen input as to what people in this area hope to see for the future of the area, how they would like to preserve the Hill Country and the quality of life they've enjoyed thus far. So we ask that a 290 plan incorporate these regional plans that are coming through the pipeline now but aren't yet finalized.

And with regard to RR 12, we would just like to make note that the portion that's proposed today is in the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer, and although that portion of the aquifer does not feed Barton Springs, we'd like to make Hays County aware that they probably should consider some environmental effects to the Edwards Aquifer's southern portion as well.

We thank you for your consideration of these comments.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay, Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm two years now on the commission and frequently get to hear the environmental perspective, and I wish to compliment you on a professional and point-by-point presentation. There was no emotion, it was the facts, it was your viewpoint, and that's helpful to the commission and it's also helpful in beginning to reconcile the differences between the parties, and I compliment you.

MS. OBERLIN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Melanie, a couple of questions. I note that you made no reference to the third of the three projects, the 1626/967. Do you have concern there?

MS. OBERLIN: Well, certainly I think a regional plan should address that, and all these new roadways allow access to the contributing and recharge zones of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer and that road will certainly do the same, and I know that there's a lot of development projected for southern Travis and Hays Counties. So certainly I do hope a regional plan will consider those, but because those didn't lie within the narrow mission of the SOS Alliance, we chose not to comment on those today. We do recognize that Hays County and Dripping Springs have some transportation needs that need to be met to serve existing communities.

MR. JOHNSON: Is it the sense of SOS that through smart road planning that these projects can be done, or is it the sense that one or more of them definitely should not be done? Do you think with proper care, concern, mitigation, et cetera that these can be done?

MS. OBERLIN: Certainly, yes.

MR. JOHNSON: You mentioned a buffer. Do you have a determination or a vision as to how wide that buffer should be that in your mind is appropriate?

MS. OBERLIN: I don't at this time, but I could certainly look at the Edwards Aquifer rules -- the projects say that they will comply with those -- and see if there's a suggestion in there or some other science that would back up an appropriate width of a buffer strip.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Robert, did you have anything? I may be a little too idealistic, but I believe that projects like this and the environment can live in harmony and do marvelously together, and I'm interpreting that you concur with that.

MS. OBERLIN: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: I want the Hays County people to know that we believe that there is harmony between the environment and trying to move people from one point to another.

Thank you so much. Any other observations?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MS. OBERLIN: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions of our good friends from Hays County?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a follow-up, same thing I said to El Paso. I know you're doing engineering and planning and working with Mr. Garbade and you're a little bit down the road, but always keep in the back of your mind: tolls; public transit routes, primarily rail transit routes; and bike paths. That will be asked more and more of projects coming before the commission.

MR. BURNETT: Yes, we have looked at that and had discussions with Representative Krusee and Commissioners Sonleitner and Boatright and the Williamson County folks about the RMA process and felt that at the time that was set up, we were quite not ready and didn't have the projects that would be ready. Although in the not too distant future, we will, and we'll join that RMA and that is going to have to be one of the tools in our box.

MR. JOHNSON: Appreciate your being here, and if there's nothing else from the delegation, we'll take a brief recess to allow them to return to Hays County and then we'll commence the meeting with our regular part of our agenda.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting with the regular part of our agenda. I understand I made an egregious error earlier by referring to someone as Randall McDonald when I meant to say Ronald McDonald.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Actually, I meant to say, for the record, Randall Dillard, and I apologize for that, but maybe he's more a celebrity now than he was before.

Before we begin with the business portion of our meeting, please let me remind you if you would like to address the commission, we would like for you and ask you to fill out a card at the registration table in the lobby. If it is an agenda item that you wish to comment on, we would ask that you fill out a yellow card and please identify the agenda item, and if it is not an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a blue card and we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the color of card, we would ask that each speaker be allowed three minutes.

We will begin the meeting with the approval of the minutes from our April commission meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, I will now turn the meeting over to you for the rest of the agenda items.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We'll go to item 3. Commissioners, as you recall, Governor Perry asked us to develop a Metropolitan Mobility Plan, and as part of that effort, we brought in some of our district engineers, Gary Trietsch from Houston, Maribel Chavez from Fort Worth, Jay Nelson from Dallas, David Casteel from Corpus Christi, and we had our Transportation Planning and Development represented on it, Federal Highway Administration was represented on it.

I did ask David Casteel to chair that committee, and we have now had several sessions where we have met internally with our group, but also where we have brought in external partners to look at that draft plan, and at this time David will give you an update on the status of that plan.

MR. CASTEEL: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. I'm David Casteel, district engineer in Corpus Christi. Mr. Behrens and Mr. Simmons asked me to spend about 15 minutes today giving you a brief report and an update on the draft Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan. I'm pleased to do so.

Over 60 percent of Texans, more than 12.4 million people, live in the eight largest metropolitan areas of the state. Traffic congestion in these metro areas negatively impacts the quality of life for millions of Texans. The air Texans breathe is made worse by idling and slow-moving vehicles, productivity goes down and costs go up as delivery and industry shipments are stuck in traffic. Commuters, shoppers and tourists are all frustrated and tired of constant delays.

One recent report showed that congestion in the Texas metro areas cost the state over $45 billion between 1990 and 2000 in terms of delay and wasted fuel. It is time to change the way Texas plans, funds and delivers transportation systems in our metro areas.

This draft Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan is a framework for these needed changes. Multimodal and comprehensive regional solutions, developed and implemented by regional leaders, is the heart of this plan.

Mr. Behrens covered some of the history, but I'll cover it again and continue on. Last year, Governor Perry revealed a statewide plan for addressing the movement of people, goods and utilities with the Trans Texas Corridor. That plan works to reduce congestion and improve air quality and safety in our metro areas by diverting long-haul of hazardous materials from the most populated areas. The Trans Texas Corridor is a great starting point for the Texas Metro Mobility Plan.

The Transportation Commission worked with the people of Texas to issue transportation partnerships in 2001. This blueprint for change showed that Texas' future is tied to an efficient and effective transportation system. That document is the guide for the Texas Metro Mobility Plan.

The Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force has studied transportation and concluded that the most serious transportation threat to the state is the continuing delay brought on by congestion in our urban areas. The task force report is a companion to the Texas Metro Mobility Plan.

For many years, leaders in our big city MPOs have discussed and advocated a need and goal-based planning philosophy to comprehensively address our metropolitan areas' problems. These MPO visionaries are the agents for change as recommended in the draft Texas Metro Mobility Plan. And as Mr. Behrens said, on March 13 of this year, the governor sent us a letter directing us to develop a long-range plan focused on relieving congestion in the urban areas of our great state.

With a Texas population that's predicted to grow from 20.8 million in 2000 to 29.6 million in 2025, and with 90 percent of that growth predicted to occur in our metro areas, the governor's directive was very welcome at TxDOT.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like we have congestion on our software.

MR. CASTEEL: Upon receiving the governor's letter, Mr. Behrens formed a work group of district engineers as he talked about, along with Mr. Wueste, Mr. Randall, Jack Foster, and our good friend at the Federal Highway Administration, Mike Leary to help us develop a draft response to the governor's plan. Steve Simmons served as our sponsor for this work group. That work group reviewed the work of the Governor's Business Council, built upon our own experience, and prepared a draft plan.

A stakeholder group of cities, counties, MPOs and transportation interest groups have reviewed the plan on a couple of occasions and offered some wonderful advice to us and some insight to help us deliver the draft plan as we have it today. Our most recent meeting with our stakeholder group was just yesterday and we made a few changes last night to our draft plan.

The Metropolitan Mobility Plan is a framework for improving the planning, funding and project delivery in our metropolitan areas. It is a framework for change that has been suggested by our many transportation partners and stakeholders and as directed by our state's executive. I'll spend a little time on each of these elements and then talk about our schedule for completion of our work.

The first element of the improvement framework is planning. In this plan each metropolitan area will develop a regional mobility plan for approval by the Transportation Commission. This regional planning effort is different from what we do now in that it is visionary and comprehensive across all modes and is aimed at achieving specific goals for reducing congestion and improving mobility for freight and people and connecting to the Trans Texas Corridor and other interregional transportation systems. This effort will be, first, a needs-based plan followed by a prioritization process to step-wise meet these goals.

The draft Metropolitan Mobility Plan is focused on reducing congestion and improving personal and freight mobility. To help with the effort, TxDOT is developing a measurement tool that we're calling the Texas Congestion Index. This tool will help the MPOs and districts assess the impact of potential projects and policies for the different modes and their impact on urban life. The Texas Congestion Index tool will initially be based on available data and will be used across all the different modes. The index tool is based on how efficiently we can move people and goods in our metro areas and assigns values to time for comparison and impact assessments. This index tool will be used to help in planning and in project prioritization, and it will be used in reporting progress to the public on how we're doing in relieving congestion in each region.

In the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan, regions will be focused on developing projects to meet goals measured by the Texas Congestion Index. This effort will be locally initiated by the individual metropolitan regions but will require the partnership of many entities, including TxDOT. In this plan the act of planning is philosophically changed to systematically setting goals, identifying needs, meeting goals using new tools for assessment, and implementing prioritized projects. This effort will allow us to know what it will take in each region, in terms of funds, projects and policy, to improve the quality of life for our metropolitan Texas.

In this initiative, planning reveals the needs and sets the priorities for improving urban life. Funding makes the improvements reality. Currently we determine how much money we have and then we decide what we can build. Under this plan we first ask what is needed and then seek the funds to realize it. This plan addresses funding in three ways. We all know that improving metropolitan life will take more funds than we have now.

The Governor's Business Council estimates that it will take $78 billion more than is currently allocated during the next 25 years to reduce congestion in metropolitan Texas, and this is the highway side alone; it doesn't include freight corridors and transit. However, they estimate that such an expenditure will result in $511 billion in benefits in terms of additional jobs, saving fuel, reduced delay, increased productivity and improved air quality and safety. Certainly a secure Texas Mobility Fund will be very important to helping improve Texas in our metropolitan areas.

Our metropolitan areas are also asking us for a change in the way we allocate funding. This change will help to better develop financial plans. In the draft Metropolitan Mobility Plan, TxDOT will regionally allocate mobility funds based on a formula factored on population, vehicle miles traveled, and other components. This regional allocation will allow for baseline financial expectations. The plan suggests that the regional allocations not be reduced to areas that develop other sources of funds to help meet goals. This plan also suggests that the commission retain some amount of funding to help encourage innovative local financing options.

This change from allocation on a project basis to allocation on a regional basis was recently recommended by one of the Unified Transportation Plan work groups, the Category 2 work group. That work group included the same eight metropolitan areas of Texas and the nine TxDOT districts within them.

Even with a secure Texas Mobility Fund and this baseline TxDOT regional allocation, some metro areas will still need more options to fill the funding gap needed to improve metropolitan mobility. This plan supports allowing for more local options and methods for generating these gap funds. These funds will remain in the local areas for their use in meeting the mobility goals. Using alternatives such as tolling added capacity projects would be a local decision. This plan calls for lifting many of the restrictions on several of the other options as well as development of new options to generate gap funds.

After suggesting changes to planning, the plan changes funding, allowing for more funds, better financial planning through different allocation methods, and an increase in local control and local options for developing gap funds beyond those expected from TxDOT.

The third leg of the framework of this plan is changing the way projects are delivered in our metro areas. The plans suggest environmental streamlining made possible through the improved comprehensive planning methods and processes. Also suggested is: unrestricted use of exclusive development agreements to more rapidly deliver projects; seek specific exemption from toll equity restrictions; and allowing more toll projects in metro areas, as well as seeking blanket approval to add toll lanes to existing highways in metro areas and improve project funding and oversight rules for off-system projects that contribute to reducing congestion.

The time for changing to comprehensive, multimodal, goal-based regional planning, allowing for enhanced funding and more rapid project delivery, is now. With each day of delay, millions of Texans are stuck in traffic, losing time, time better spent with family, at work, at play or in service to the community. The draft Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan as a framework for this change is nearing completion. Our transportation partners have been very instrumental in this development. We currently have TTI working with Mr. Jack Foster of TPP and three of the MPOs, Dallas-Fort Worth, Hidalgo, and Houston, to develop the Texas Congestion Index and how to implement that tool.

In the next few weeks, we are going to ask the directors of all eight of the metropolitan MPOs to gather together with us and help us finish up this plan. The final plan, we feel, should be ready to send to the governor, with your permission, by mid June, and we hope that the commission will adopt it in June or July. This will allow for implementation with the 2005 version of the Unified Transportation Plan with the regional allocation of funds. Federal and state enabling legislation will need to be further analyzed and developed.

TxDOT will be very involved as a partner with the MPOs in implementing this framework and end up meeting specific goals for improving metropolitan life. The goals will be met using many modes and will be regionally achieved. Our work group stands ready to assist with adoption and implementation. Based on the stakeholder group and our work group's experiences, we anticipate broad support from the metropolitan areas for this draft plan.

Metropolitan Texans want and deserve relief from congestion. We feel this plan is a step towards meeting that need and fulfilling the governor's direction. Any questions for me?

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Good job.

MR. CASTEEL: Thank you, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I've watched this thing kind of evolve, and I think it is an incredible different direction in planning to work toward the relief of congestion. Hat's off to the group who worked on it, and instead of spot-picking projects as I've observed in the past, it really goes more to a comprehensive plan.

And it's going to be real interesting to see what other type of revenue sources we end up from different local areas to help supplement and deed the thing. As opposed to programming dollars, it is a true plan. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, a few questions, David.

MR. CASTEEL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And good job, also.

MR. CASTEEL: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm obviously pleased with the product and I look forward to June-July approving it.

Is it safe to say that the provisions of the various transportation legislative initiatives that are floating around between the House and the Senate and in conference right now, while passage of none of them would not stop us from moving forward on this plan, passage particularly of the Mobility Fund, the pass-through toll, the raising or eliminating the cap on the toll equity, and the ability of TxDOT to participate with, if necessary, the metros in helping them get their rail line right of way done, those are all funding mechanisms that would rapidly contribute to the implementation of the plan?

MR. CASTEEL: Absolutely, and that's specifically addressed in our draft plan. And I think the provisions to move monies between modes is incredibly important as we look to the future of what metropolitan Texas is going to be.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So for all of us who are concerned about -- not that the plan will not be approved because it will be; the governor has directed and we're following -- but those of us who are concerned about having enough tools in that tool kit to get some of this done fast, we need to be over there in about 45 minutes encouraging our members to support the maximum amount possible.

MR. CASTEEL: Mr. Behrens is shaking his head "yes."

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I really am pleased because this, in my view, is the way we should be planning action. Not that I'm critical of what's been done in the past, but this is my businessman's view of how we solve problems, and I encourage you to round those eight MPOs up and put the finishing touches on us, and let's give them a framework that we can start educating our DEs with and move about it.

MR. CASTEEL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: David, one question. The Texas Congestion Index, how does that differ from the congestion index that the Transportation Institute developed?

MR. CASTEEL: Certainly, sir. The one that Dr. Lomax at TTI that he's been on "Good Morning America" with all these times is basically the highway mode alone index, and it compares travel time during peak hour to travel time during non-peak hour on highway alone. What the Texas Congestion Index does -- and we have Dr. Lomax hired to assist us with this effort -- it takes personal and freight mobility across different modes, assigns values to them, and then in a formulation that's yet to be determined -- but we've got the MPOs, the Michael Moores and the Alan Clarks of Dallas and Ed Mulater from Hidalgo, helping us decide how we can combine those into a single index. So it's a big step for us. We think it's going to be an evolutionary process because it's just a huge step, but we think we need to start now on that.

I'm involved with the RMC, the Research Management Committee, with planning and I think I can see quite a few projects developing in that to support this effort in the future. What we want to do at this point is take the data that we have for the different modes and combine them into a single index.

MR. NICHOLS: David, working on the plan for the metropolitan congestion thing is probably a little bit different kind of planning than you were used to up in the Childress area.

MR. CASTEEL: Absolutely. We just decided where to shoot seal coat and we'd go shoot it.

MR. NICHOLS: Big difference from Childress. Great job.

MR. CASTEEL: Thank you, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, David. Appreciate all your work.

MR. JOHNSON: David, one other thing.

MR. CASTEEL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: I agree this is a tremendous start, and I think you're well on the way and I want to salute you for your leadership and your team members for their contributions. And I think it's terrific that you're coordinating with the work product that the Transportation Committee of the Governor's Business Council has spent a lot of time and resources on, and although you don't always agree with everything that you have as a resource, to utilize that as a work product to help you along the path I think is terrific.

MR. CASTEEL: Mr. Simmons has given us good direction on that.

MR. JOHNSON: Good. Thanks.

We have one individual. Vic Suhm has asked to speak on this agenda item. Vic, we're glad you're here. You're a very strange face to this commission.

MR. SUHM: Right. You may recall last December that Judge Eckels and Judge Harris and Jim Irwin and Michael Stevens made a presentation to you, and I hope you see some similarities between the plan David just presented to you and some of the things that were suggested to you back in December. As the author of the script that they presented, I particularly am pleased to see a lot of similarities between the things that we were suggesting then and what's contained in the plan.

And while I guess I'm frequently a part of efforts that might be more critical or asking for money or doing something like that, I thought I should change my mode and come up here and tell you thank you and commend you for doing what I think is really fine work, not only in terms of content but in terms of process. I think this exemplifies the way the department can operate at its best and really show excellence, and I want to commend you and thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Vic.

Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item number 4, Aviation, Dave Fulton will present the airport projects for the month.

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

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for five airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown in the Exhibit A, is approximately $3.2 million: approximately $2.6- federal, $275,000 in state, and about $320,000 in local funding. A public hearing was held on May 12 of this year; no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. David, thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 5, our Rules. We have item 5(a), are rules for proposed adoption, and Carlos will make that presentation on the different way we do speed zones in school areas.

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

The minute order before you provides preliminary adoption of a change to the department's rules covering the operation of school zone flashing beacons on the state highway system. This change allows TxDOT in cities of 50,000 population and greater to expand the hours of operation for school zone flashing beacons for school-related activities.

Under our current rules, school zone flashers can only be operated for school events that occur immediately after the end of the normal school day. This amendment would allow for the expanded use of the flashers during school events that occur at other times, such as athletic events in the evening.

The school districts would initiate the request for the extended operating hours and TxDOT or the city would have to concur. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: This has been an issue that's very close to Representative Vilma Luna and she has sent a letter and we're going to place that in the record. I do want to quote one sentence, that she "thinks the proposed rule change offered by the department is a good first step in ensuring the safety of our children." And I think that's very gratifying to learn. She's been obviously an advocate in this area for a long time.

Are there any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Carlos, you're in contact with her and her office on a regular basis.

MR. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And you'll no doubt extend the commission's appreciation for her willingness to work with us and we hope this is indeed a good first step to solve the situation she's concerned of and others across the state.

MR. LOPEZ: We will do that.

MR. NICHOLS: My comment was going to be along the same lines to just publicly state that she was one of the prime supporters of doing this and bringing it to the attention of the commission and the department and deserves full credit for this issue which I think is a very good one. I just want to make sure that's on the record. I think it's a great idea.

MR. JOHNSON: Do I hear a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, item 5(b), we're going to defer and bring that forward in June.

We'll go to item 6 under Transportation Planning and Programming, and Jim Randall has four items to bring before the commission.

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

Item 6(a), this minute order designates the proposed Eagle Pass Outer Loop as State Highway Loop 480, cancels a project currently authorized with Strategic Priority funds, and applies that funding towards the construction of the first phase of the outer loop.

The project to be canceled was previously authorized for $5 million in the 2002 Unified Transportation Program by Minute Order 108653, dated September 27, 2001. This project is located in the city of Eagle Pass from the intersection of FM 375 and FM 1021 to the entrance of a General Services Administration inspection facility, a distance of approximately two miles.

The city passed a resolution agreeing to plan, develop and construct the necessary improvements for this project and has requested that funding commitment be transferred to the first phase of the proposed outer loop project. The outer loop project is from FM 1021 to US 277 East, a distance of approximately 2-1/2 miles, and is currently authorized for $5 million in Category 11 District Discretionary funds. The outer loop will serve as an alternate route for commercial truck traffic that presently circulates through the downtown portion of the city.

Upon your approval, the first phase of the outer loop project will be funded in Priority 1, Category 12 Strategic Priority of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program at a cost not to exceed $5 million. Additionally, the Eagle Pass Outer Loop will be designated on the state highway system as State Highway Loop 480 from US 277 north of the city to the proposed city truck route near the GSA facility, a distance of approximately 16.73 miles.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(b), the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service has requested that a segment of State Highway 21 be designated as a forest highway. The USDA Forest Service is planning to develop a new Sabine Ranger District Office and work center complex in the Sabine National Forest area. The complex will include a visitors center, public parking, picnic and rest areas. The project will be located south of State Highway 21 on Forest Service Road 192 and is scheduled for construction in 2004.

It is anticipated that the traffic generated by the new complex will require the construction of turn and acceleration lanes at Forest Service Road 192 and State Highway 21. In order to qualify for Federal Forest Highway Program funds, this segment of State Highway 21 will need to be designated as a forest highway.

This minute order nominates State Highway 21 in Sabine County as a forest highway from State Highway 87 in Milam eastward to the East Sabine National Forest boundary at the Louisiana-Texas state line, a distance of approximately 7 miles.

If you approve this minute order, the nomination will be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration for designation consideration as a forest highway. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to prepare and ask you questions privately ahead of time. Displaying my ignorance, is any part of Highway 21 part of anticipated Interstate 69?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And by designating this as a state forest highway, are we preempting ourselves from ever doing any expansion on this highway?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir. We just become eligible for discretionary funding under that program.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There's no strings attached to that?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's not like a historical monument?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then my final question is we have checked with local people to be sure this is okay with them?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. This came out of Dennis Cooley out of the Lufkin District.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I had no questions.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll entertain a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(c), we bring to you the third quarter program for economically disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the project and staff recommended adjustments for each of them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals.

There are ten projects: nine in Shelby County and one in Jasper County. The total reduction in participation for these projects is $237,750. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 6(d), this minute order presented for your consideration authorizes $29,366,675 in Federal Discretionary funds, as approved by the Federal Highway Administration. These funds will be used specifically for the development of projects listed in Exhibit A.

The department annually submits candidate projects to the FHWA for funding consideration. For fiscal year 2003, the department has been notified that the 19 projects identified in the exhibit will receive federal funding. In order to remain eligible to receive these funds, the department must obligate the funds by September 30, 2003 to meet the FHWA's requirements.

We recommend approval of the projects identified in the FY 2003 Federal Discretionary Program. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you, sir. May I say one more thing? Appreciate Mr. Williamson appearing at the planning conference yesterday; he did a good job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We didn't embarrass anybody, did we?

MR. RANDALL: I don't think so. Thank you, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 7, our State Infrastructure Bank loans, we have final approval for one for the City of Comanche and one for the Town of Horizon City.

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

Item 7(a) seeks your final approval of a loan to the City of Comanche in the amount of $400,000 to fund utility adjustments in connection with the rehabilitation of US 67 from Elm Street east to State Highway 36. Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.2 percent, with payments being made over a period of ten years, and staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had no questions. I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: 7(b) seeks final approval of a loan to the Town of Horizon City in the amount of just under $255,000 to fund the expansion of Darrington Road from Farm to Market 1281 to the town limits, approximately 1.1 miles to the east. I would like to note that this project is not on the state highway system, but it is eligible for federal aid funding and therefore eligible for assistance from the State Infrastructure Bank. It is also a follow-up loan to one that we have done previously a couple of years ago. The city requested a loan that was approved for $10,000 to do the environmental work necessary to complete this project. That loan has been repaid and they are ready to move forward to the construction phase.

Interest would accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4 percent with payments being made over a period of nine years, and staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had no questions on this, but after we move this out, I did have a question. So I'll move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'll second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. NICHOLS: SIB in general, you and I had a conversation the other day concerning the SIB balance is dramatically low, and if we choose to draw down under the TEA-21 program, then we have to do an entire new agreement, we lose a lot of flexibility in those funds. One of the options you were looking at, without mentioning which entities, but some of the large loans, there was a chance that the entities might be interested in paying off some of their notes to the SIB and saving money on interest because the interest rates have dropped. Has there been any progress in those areas?

MR. BASS: I believe there's been discussions on that, and while the interest rates in the market might be preferable, to the other entity there are other considerations that they're looking at. For one thing, a loan with the department, the market would perceive that -- understandably so -- we are what they call a patient lender, that if this project were to -- they don't know you very well.

(General laughter.)

MR. BASS: The perception is that the department and the commission are patient lenders and if the project were to ever experience any problems -- which is not anticipated -- the department may be more willing than the capital markets to look at a restructuring of the existing loan. So that is one of their considerations. The existing loan today through the SIB is subordinate to other debt that they have. Of course, additional debt could be placed in the marketplace that would also be subordinate. But there are other factors that they're having to consider in addition to just interest rate of X versus interest rate of Y, and there are other factors that they're looking at, and I believe that they are continuing to look at that option, although there is no commitment that that will be pursued.

MR. NICHOLS: The only other -- I'm not going to say hope -- option other than pulling down money under TEA-21 is in the re-authorization of SAFETEA -- I guess is what they're calling it -- to have SIB and Texas approved in there, hopefully under the ISTEA rules. So I guess we're hoping that it gets consideration.

MR. BASS: Right. We're currently reviewing the proposal of the administration for SAFETEA and looking at the rules for the SIB; that's still ongoing. One thing, it continues to allow that only five states would be eligible to participate in that, and currently -- well, Texas was made the fifth state back in December of 2001 to participate in TEA-21 State Infrastructure Bank Program. We have not yet drawn down any capitalization because of our concerns over the impact that would have to our program. We have, on a draft basis, sent a cooperative agreement to FHWA for their review to see if potentially we could set up as a separate entity and a separate function a TEA-21 SIB with the hopes that it would not affect our current ongoing program. I don't necessarily anticipate the response to be favorable to that, but we thought it was worth a letter.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, James.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 8 under our Turnpike Projects, Phil Russell will lead two discussions, one on some toll feasibility studies that his division has been doing, and then also talk about the ongoing evaluations of proposals for Trans Texas Corridor type projects.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Behrens. For the record, my name is Phillip Russell, director of the Texas Turnpike Authority Division.

As Mike alluded to, a couple of things I want to talk about today. The first is a couple of months ago, I guess, we were requested to begin an analysis of the Unified Transportation Plan, specifically analyzing projects in there that might be toll feasible. Let me say from the outset that our analysis is purely at that level; it's looking at toll viability. We're not looking at this point whether there's local support, political support, and even some of the engineering implications, but again, it's at that rudimentary level of trying to ascertain which projects might make sense from a tolling standpoint.

We specifically focused on Categories 2, 3, 4 and 6; those are basically the added capacity categories. It's on the magnitude of about 600 projects that we have begun to look at. We're not completely through yet, but I thought it would be an advantageous time to go ahead and give everybody kind of a status report and a head's up of where it's going.

Just as a bit of background information, in the turnpike industry, there are essentially three levels of analysis: level one is a feasibility analysis; level two is kind of an intermediate analysis; level three, of course, is the investment grade analysis that Commissioner Nichols, of course, is aware of. That's the investment grade report that we took to the Bond market last August with a lot of detail.

As you ratchet up each one of those levels of investigation, you accelerate and increase the amount of detail that's required to get to that level. As you increase that detail and that work effort, you obviously increase schedule implications -- each one of those takes longer -- and you increase the cost for each one of those analysis. The level one might be a month in duration; the level three might be a year and a half or more in duration. And so because of that, what we've tried to do within the division is really create something even below level one, a very rudimentary kind of back of the envelope analysis with some broad assumptions so that we could very rapidly go through the Unified Transportation Plan.

With that said, a couple of the things that are coming out, the first numbers that are coming out, it looks like about a third of the projects that we've investigated will support not only operation costs but some portion of maintenance costs as well, either some portion or all of it. And of course, when you look at those projects, the majority of those or many of those projects are in the metropolitan, the urbanized areas. As such, when you try to correlate the number of projects versus dollar amount, that third of a project probably accounts for more than half of the dollar volume that's in the UTP, and again, obviously many of those projects generate not only operation and maintenance revenues, but they do generate enough revenue to support and replace Fund 6 funding levels as well.

One of the things that's coming out -- of course, there's a lot of discussion statewide, if not nationally -- is the interstate system. You don't have to be a certified traffic and revenue engineer to know that if ever an interstate was tolled, it would generate tremendous amounts of revenue, and it really doesn't make any difference whether it's I-35 in Austin, Dallas or whatever: 410, 610, any of those would generate significant amounts of revenue.

As a history buff, I find it kind of intriguing, I guess, and interesting that one of those projects that comes up again, of course, is I-30 in Dallas and Fort Worth. We started out as a toll road, the DFW Turnpike; it was converted to a freeway in the '70s, and now it's one of those projects that we're looking at if it could be tolled. And again, I want to emphasize that we looked at it from a level of would it make sense just from a revenue standpoint, not whether there would be support for it.

Obviously if you start talking about tolling the interstates, it creates lots of interesting discussions. There are several permutations that could take. For instance, as you all are very well aware of, there is some discussion about tolling merely the increase in capacity on the interstate, very similar to what we're doing on the Katy Freeway in Houston and we're considering to do on LBJ in Dallas. The balancing act of that, although there's certainly more political support, more local support for that sort of tolling pattern, as you increase those costs by building those high-occupancy toll lanes in the middle, you increase your construction costs, but you're also injecting free competition within that corridor which diminishes your toll viability. So again, it's just simply a balancing act on that.

The other thing -- of course, it's kind of intriguing from a purely technical standpoint -- is the issue of pass-through tolling and the opportunities to provide some tolling opportunity on an interstate and utilize it on a parallel corridor. Obviously whether those opportunities are provided depends much on what happens in the next 96 hours, whatever that might be.

Another level of projects -- they're not interstates but they're very analogous to it -- and I'll throw one out, State Highway 114 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, a very interesting project that we've begun to look at, and much of it is controlled access, but that's a project.

If there was political support, political will and local support, then that's a project that would generate substantial amounts of revenue. Individual components might be difficult to support, but when you look at it as a system, as that entire corridor, just from this very rough standpoint, it looks like it would be quite a generator for revenue for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

The example there is kind of interesting, as well. I talked a little bit on the Trans Texas Corridor that we need to develop that corridor as a whole, not pick just the low-hanging fruit that generates a lot of revenue but to look at it and analyze it as an entire corridor so that we can build that entire corridor and so that the department is not left with those pieces in between the urbanized areas that perhaps don't generate that sort of revenue. 114 is very similar: there are elements in there that would be a little difficult to stand alone but when you look at it from west of the Motor Speedway all the way down through the Funnel, I think the early numbers are suggesting that it would be a platform to fund not only that but probably some of the improvements for the Funnel.

Just a couple of other real quick groupings of projects. Some of the projects that we looked at that from this early point appeared to generate in excess of 50 percent of revenue: a project here in the Austin District, 183 which stretches from 35 down to the airport, it's one that we've talked about quite a bit; US 290 out east of Austin; of course 360 in Fort Worth; 161 in Dallas; 1604 in San Antonio is one that we have been analyzing and will continue to analyze.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's talk about that for a moment.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I went down and drove the entirety of it.

MR. NICHOLS: The entire what?

MR. WILLIAMSON: 1604. And I know that the Bexar County guys and gals are struggling with what project to pick for their RMA. I don't know how Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nichols feel, but I would like to express on the record if they're not interested in 1604 because of political backlash -- which I understand -- or if they feel like it's too big a project, I don't want us to waste much time looking at it as a state project because it strikes me much similar to Grand Parkway. It is a toll corridor waiting to happen and if the locals for whatever reason don't want to take advantage of that, I think the legislature in the next 91 hours is going to put us in the toll business and 114, 1604, Grand Parkway, we need to waste no time, Phillip, no time, we need to be about it. If locals don't want to do it, we understand; we'll do it for them and might even make it part of the corridor itself.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. I think, Mr. Williamson -- and you probably have had other discussions with some of those folks -- I know from my level when I've gone down and spoken with John Kelly and Tom Griebel, Judge Wolff and those guys, they seem to be very animated and very interested about tolling many of those or at least looking at the opportunities for tolling roadways in that area.

They've requested and we have engaged one of our traffic and revenue engineers to look at several of those projects, 1604 being one of them. And I think ultimately, Commissioner, it's all about how you engage the public and how you explain it to them. If we simply come down there and say hey, you guys, would you like us to toll 1604, I think we all know what the answer is going to be.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But Phillip, the difference between now or 91 hours from now and our previous life -- we all look at life through the prism of our experiences; we very seldom look at life through the clear pane of the glass. We don't have any time to wait, and I'm not scolding you -- I'm talking to Mr. Behrens, to you and to the staff.

We have got to move, because 181 men and women -- some of them will probably change -- are going to be back here in two years and they're going to be asking the question: Okay, we gave you all these tools and all this unregulated authority -- some say -- what have you done to improve the mobility and congestion problems of the state. The three of us, and maybe two more, need to be prepared to say this is what we've done.

And we're going to take some heat. I think we all know that we're going to take some criticism for going down and saying if you guys don't want to do it, 1604, we will; or 114, we will; or Grand Parkway on the east side of Houston, we will. But Lord God, let's do not wait, let's be about it. Speaking for myself.

MR. RUSSELL: I think your point is well taken, and I can assure you that we're moving out very quickly. And again, from my perspective, I think San Antonio is right there with us; they're pushing hard, they're ready to investigate all those options.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, he's not through. I'll make some comments before you get off the pace.

MR. RUSSELL: Just a couple of other projects that we've looked at, and again a group of projects that might be less than 50 percent toll viable. A lot of the projects we're still looking at, good projects: 183A; an RMA project; 45 Southeast that's here in the Austin District. So I think all of those projects warrant further analysis and we intend to do that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's the highway to Yoakum?

MR. BEHRENS: 183 South.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How does that set up?

MR. RUSSELL: It's looking like a bang-up toll road process. Mr. Behrens indicated to me that he wanted that to be one of the top two or three projects in the state, as long as he got a toll tag right after Kirby Pickett's.

(General laughter.)

MR. RUSSELL: Just a mention on a couple of other projects, and especially based on this analysis, we are looking at many of the projects in Dallas and Houston and Fort Worth. Again, it's no surprise, those projects, a lot of congestion, a lot of traffic, they're going to make good toll road projects. We've had some good discussions with Dallas and the NTTA, the Houston District, Harris County Toll Road Authority, and of course much of that is oriented towards the Grand Parkway. I'm confident those guys are very much engaged in that project, as well as others, in looking at tolling opportunities.

Just the last thing I might mention is we looked at the Unified Transportation Plan projects that are in the pike, and to a certain extent, that gives us some flexibility; we can look at it. If it appears to be a good toll road candidate, we can adjust and change the design and move forward. We're also beginning to look at some of those projects that are actually in construction, and obviously that creates another set of issues, but 151 in San Antonio is an excellent example. It's well under construction, but from my perspective, Judge Wolff, John Kelly and those guys have been pretty open to it. And it will take some public involvement and some additional environmental work, but there are several of those projects that if everything came together --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if they did it as RMA, they would be retaining the revenues themselves.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, that's exactly right.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. About 2-1/2 years ago, you and I and the districts had put together a list of projects of potential. Did you compare those lists? Are many of these some of the ones we looked at a couple of years ago?

MR. RUSSELL: I have not physically compared those, but from my recollection, many of those are the same projects.

MR. NICHOLS: I think you partially answered a question I was going to ask, and that is you are in communication with the current tolling authorities?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: In other words, Harris County and North Texas. Sharing possible candidates like this list, some of this list?

MR. RUSSELL: We have not shared specifically this list yet since it's not complete, but our intent is to.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay, but the intent is in those areas to begin the process of working with them.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And you have RMA here; I think San Antonio-Bexar County has indicated they may be heading in that direction, so I would encourage us to not only work with the ones that have already identified and applied to be RMAs, but those areas of the state that probably will at some point. In other words, I would speculate like in the Valley, the South Texas area, is probably a very good candidate. I'm not quite sure who the parties are to work with that, but I would begin working through the district office to begin communicating with the leadership down in those areas.

But some of the other areas that we've got some population -- I don't have to sit here and rattle them all off -- but even though they have not expressed an interest yet in RMA, if there's candidate projects in those areas, in those urbanized areas, I would begin rapidly doing what Ric was talking about and getting the leadership in those communities involved with the district and the turnpike with those projects, because they make up their mind they want to create RMA.

MR. RUSSELL: And we have commissioner. I think staff has visited several of those districts, many of those roadways. One that I didn't mention that is very interested because it transitions pretty well from one of the delegations this morning is Loop 375 in El Paso. Chuck Berry got out very early on and called us and said here's two or three projects; I don't know if they'll make it as toll roads, can you guys start looking at them. So we're in a pretty close dialogue with Chuck trying to get some additional information, and ultimately whether they make it or not, who would know, but right now it appears to be a reasonable project.

You got the projects that are currently in the UTP -- I know those are the ones you're focusing on next. You have the next wave of projects that probably would come into the UTP next if it was not fiscally constrained. I would be quickly starting to take a look at those too.

I don't know if it's in a rule or in a minute order somewhere, but I know we have openly spoken in this room about trying to create an incentive program in these communities for conversion of many of those projects into toll projects -- whether they're toll-operated by us or the locals -- that if they've already committed for in the construction program or in the UTP, that whatever dollars we can free up from the sale of those toll revenue bonds that we would put right back into that area or region, some of those next-ranking projects, which would help accelerate and I think meet some of the goals that are set into the metropolitan congestion thing we were talking about earlier.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's almost a double-dip. We're willing to somehow create a partnership and go on the hook for debt and keep the tax money investment in their district.

MR. NICHOLS: I think the commission has indicated quite publicly in this room what I think is the intent, and I would not feel uncomfortable while you are talking to them to mention that.

MR. RUSSELL: And I think, Commissioner, again a perfect example is 151 where we received some early calls about: Well, Phil, we're already in construction, we're going through a payout. The question is being asked is there a way that that money can be recirculated, redistributed within that area, and I think the answer is yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely.

MR. NICHOLS: And the answer is yes.

MR. RUSSELL: There are, of course, a couple of permutations about how you would toll that. Either way, the bottom line answer is it will allow you to get kind of a two-for sale: you can get that project and one more perhaps.

MR. JOHNSON: And 1604 connects in to 151, and you have a system already up and running, almost. I mean, 151 is nearing completion and 1604 can be improved, and it becomes a system almost overnight or as quick as anything could happen.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just be sure and remind John -- I'm sure he already knows -- remind John and the county judge we'll be asking the question about rail transit, enough right of way, Michael's favorite topic, bike paths. But I mean, we want to seriously tell them this is multimodal and intermodal. We're apparently fixing to have the tools to go pay for that; we don't want to miss this opportunity.

MR. RUSSELL: Chairman, I think 151/1604 is really a great example because 151 does have the ability, if it's tolled, to feed a lot of traffic into 1604.

MR. JOHNSON: And vice versa.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. And even 1604, I think, makes for pretty good play in the public when you look at how long it would take us to traditionally fund 1604. The fact that you can phase in the tolling of 1604, use that revenue stream to accelerate the further extension of 1604, I think will play very well with the local folks. So again, it's how we tell the story and provide good information to the public. I'm optimistic that they'll be on board supporting it.

MR. NICHOLS: I know that many of the urbanized communities have expressed an actual concern that as they did more projects as toll roads and helped solve some of their own problems in their area that we, from a programming standpoint, as their needs went down some, would take the money and put it somewhere else. I mean, they actually have a fear of that, and what we are saying publicly is quite the opposite. Not only is that not going to happen, we will create an incentive to encourage you to do that. Anyway, enough said on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I think it's even expressed in the draft plan that David presented us. Basically it's the commission making that commitment to our urban participants: make this step with us and that's what the plan will provide, no penalty; build toll roads and keep building tax roads.

MR. JOHNSON: It's added leverage.

One other note on this line, I had lunch yesterday with one of the county commissioners whose district is the western part of State Highway 99, the Grand Parkway, and I asked him -- and there were seven or eight of us at the luncheon table -- what his constituents felt about that becoming a toll facility, and he said they're all for it. Given the tradeoff that we can get this thing done -- right now there's minimal main lanes and its frontage roads are done -- but if we can get this done more quickly by being a toll facility, it needs to be a toll facility. And obviously, in the competition of funds, it's unknown when you could get the main lanes done as a tax feature as opposed to a toll feature.

So my sense is there are going to be elements that we're going to hear from that say this is not the appropriate way to go, but I think they are far outnumbered -- and the San Antonio example is perfect, what's going on on 130, working with the Central Texas RMA, and then the tolling authorities in North Texas and Harris County, and given what's going on in the next 91 hours, or 84 hours, however many hours it is.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're down to 90.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay, down to 90 -- I just think adds a lot more fuel to our case.

MR. RUSSELL: Any other questions or observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to ask about 130, about the corridor proposal.

MR. BEHRENS: That will be the next item. We'll go to item 8(b).

MR. RUSSELL: Item 8(b) is kind of my monthly update on State Highway 130. As you know, we have received an unsolicited proposal on 130; we continue to evaluate it. Commissioner Williamson, as you mentioned a minute ago, much of what we do and how we treat that proposal depends on what occurs in the next 89 or 90 hours, but we are continuing to evaluate it and move forward.

If legislation is provided that would allow us to move forward on that proposal, we will still need to go out, develop new rules, exclusive development of rules that pertain specifically to the Trans Texas Corridor. So that is a discussion that's occurring between us and general counsel as we speak.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, wait a second.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will that prevent you from issuing invitations to make competitive proposals under the old rules?

MR. RUSSELL: That's probably a call for general counsel.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not interested in waiting three or four or five or six months, Phil.

MR. RUSSELL: My view, not as general counsel but as the director of the division, I think we could probably move on out on the 130 footprint but not on the Trans Texas Corridor footprint -- and then how that would relate to expansion of the Trans Texas Corridor, I think the general counsel would have to make a call on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I don't know that this proposal is on the 130 footprint or a different footprint that would be called a corridor. My point is we have one or more private sector entities who have taken a chance and spent a lot of money and ask only that we ask other people to do the same thing and begin the process of analyzing it.

And I think circumstances have forced us to this point to be where we are, but based upon what our best understanding of what the legislature is doing, it's highly likely that in 90 hours our world changes. And I think it sends a very poor signal to the other private sector partners that we will wish to take chances on our behalf if we tell them in three days: Well, let's do it all over again under some rules we'll get figured out by August or September.

So I don't ever ask Mr. Monroe to do things that he can't do, but on the other hand, we have a process in place we could follow and I would be, as one commission member, very concerned if we could not at least tell the world: Go ahead and make us competitive proposals for this goal and let's start looking at them. That's my view.

MR. RUSSELL: I understand. One of the other things that we're doing, Commissioner, to move on out on this corridor is we have issued several notices of intent to gain additional consultant help to support the 130 effort. And all of these, the way we're scoping that, the language we're providing is under existing authority. We certainly have the ability to extend 130 both north and south on that footprint, but we're providing language within those NOIs that would give us the flexibility to expand it to the Trans Texas Corridor footprint, if that should occur over the next 80 or 90 hours.

Probably the most important of these consultant efforts is what we call a corridor engineer. It's not an industry word or anything, it's one that we've really put together, and it's composed of three --

MR. NICHOLS: What's the new word?

MR. RUSSELL: Corridor engineer.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to write that one down.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And two years from now there will be statutory language to force us to spend a certain percentage of our money on corridor engineers, and then there will be a whole procurement process that will develop. We'll have created a new industry. And Mike will retire and go to work as the head corridor engineer of Texas.

(General laughter.)

MR. RUSSELL: And Mr. Monroe would probably want to talk to you about that too, but that's another thing.

The corridor engineer, at least as we're defining this consultant, really is composed of three more traditional functions. We're essentially trying to push three consultant type entities into this one engineer to try to move the process as quickly as possible.

The first one, of course, is procurement engineer. They help us with all the procurements, specifically on the EDA and assessing these proposals. As you remember, on 130, voluminous amount of work took probably a couple of years to finally go through, get all the postings out and get it done. We're obviously going to accelerate that considerably on this, but the procurement engineer is extremely important to initiate and trigger that process.

The general engineering consultant, of course one of the functions they provided on a bonded project is a quarterly construction update that I provide to you all on a quarterly basis. And then the third function of this corridor engineer will be the programming engineer, and again HDR provides that for us on 130; they provide a lot of the traditional oversight to the consultants, design and construction oversight. We're going to be pretty flexible on that language because as the corridor stretches through several TxDOT districts, each individual district may be able to step up and handle a lot of the design and construction oversight, so we're going to provide a lot of flexibility.

But this corridor engineer has been issued; the NOI closes here in about a week. We anticipate to interview those folks next month and hopefully we'll have a selection before the June commission meeting. So we are on an accelerated pace. Again, that's the first step, probably the most important consultant to bring on board and get the process set up.

On top of that, we're going to be selecting about four what we would call advanced planning engineers doing the environmental work to jump on out and begin that alignment work on 130 north and south. Again, we need to get the corridor engineer selected, underway, and so we anticipate the advanced planning environmental consultant will probably be selected by August, first part of August, all four of those.

So those are things that are project-specific on 130 to extend it north and south, and again, the language is such that it's the 130 footprint now but we have the ability to expand it to the Trans Texas Corridor.

The last thing that's occurring in that area -- of course, Randall Dillard is also going out with a consultant to help in some of their outreach issues on the Trans Texas Corridor itself, not limited to just 130 but the entire Trans Texas Corridor. And there have been a lot of questions about that: is that somehow intended to supplant what we're going to be doing on the environmental, the NEPA process. Unequivocally the answer is no; it's purely to augment what we're going to be doing on our normal public involvement for the corridor. So Randall will be going out with that, I think this summer, and they will be having their public outreach programs for the Trans Texas Corridor in general throughout the summer and throughout the fall. That gives you a little snapshot of where we are on the corridor. Questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Questions? Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: Phil, thank you. Excellent work.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. BEHRENS: Let's go to item 9, our highway improvement contracts for the month of May. Thomas?

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

Item 9(a) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on May 6 and 7, 2003. We had 30 projects, an average of almost four bidders per project. We recommend award of all projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(b) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on May 6 and 7, 2003. We had 53 projects, average number of bidders of about five. If you have any questions, we recommend award of all projects.

MR. NICHOLS: I had a comment. This is $440 million, one of the larger months, and I think almost half of it is in that small town in Southeast Texas, Houston, the Katy Freeway?

MR. WILLIAMSON: How many bidders did you have for that project, Thomas?

MR. BOHUSLAV: There were two bidders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Only two?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Two bidders.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But you were comfortable with that?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Our estimate on the project we believe is low, first; there is some added costs due to time requirements for the project, but we're comfortable with the award, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why do you think there would be only two bidders for a project that big?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I think the contractor we're proposing the award to, this is their backyard, and they are very competitive in this area. Contractors that used to bid there have not gotten work in a long time, and they didn't want to put the effort into probably bidding the job. That's speculation to some degree.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why was the one in Corpus Christi 28 percent over -- if I read that correctly -- our estimate?

MR. BOHUSLAV: Which project?

MR. WILLIAMSON: That would be BS 35-L 0180-04-108 STP 2002(714), or the first one on your list.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Okay. We did forward that information to you. What we have is there were some complexities to the project, a complex storm sewer system, had many special inlets, traffic inlets, large boxes which were very costly -- we didn't anticipate that. The hot mix processes were higher than normally we expect because of the multiple move-ins that they have on the project. We feel comfortable with the competition, though, on the project, and we're comfortable with the recommendation for award.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess what I'm getting at, although the overall dollars to dollars estimated were pretty low, those were two things that jumped out at me and I'm just asking the question in terms of thinking about the future. Are we losing construction companies such that competition is not as tight as it was, or is the general construction world beginning to accelerate their activity? Have we seen the bottom, in other words? Are we going to start seeing higher proposals for the same work, either because construction companies have moved out of the state or because the construction activity is picking up?

MR. BOHUSLAV: I think we have the same amount of bidders on our projects; I think you can see that by the average number of bidders per project. Usually on our very large projects, we have good competition. I mean, that's where we really get seven or eight bidders in a lot of cases. In Houston, though, that one project, like I mentioned before, I feel like it's their backyard and it's tough to compete against the Williams Brothers there.

I don't see the overall estimates higher or our bids overall are higher than normal because of that one project primarily -- there's another project as well -- but I don't see any change in the competition in general in the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Chairman.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: We'll move to item 10, our routine minute orders, and I would like to point out when you look at the donations to the department, we had contributions from Dairy Queen, La Quinta Inns, and then Three Way, Inc. That's all donations toward our Don't Mess With Texas Program. Dairy Queen donated $50,000, La Quinta donated $25,000, and Three Way, Inc., contributed several pallets of trash bags that amounted to about $3,000 worth. So I think that was important, worth mentioning.

I will tell you that the routine minute orders are as posted on our agenda, but we will be deferring item 10(d)(5) which is a re-designation of access control on US 69 in Jefferson County, so that one will be deferred until probably next month. So you have the minute orders as posted; we recommend approval. If you want any one of them individually discussed, we'll be happy to do that; otherwise, I recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions about any of the routine minute orders?

MR. NICHOLS: Just a comment. On these people who had these donations, I would like to request that we send a letter from the commission thanking them for those donations.

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, sir, we will do that.

MR. NICHOLS: I had no questions.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll entertain a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike, that concludes the regular agenda?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, no, Tommy is here to complain because I almost ran over him the other night.

MR. JOHNSON: We will now enter into the open comment period of the meeting, and we have Mr. Tommy Eden who has signed up to speak on bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It was actually the other way around: he almost ran over me, that's what it was.

(General laughter.)

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden.

I was here recently to express my appreciation for the work that you've done over the past year in making improvements that I was concerned about. You've re-established the Bicycle Advisory Committee, you've made a commitment to air quality by improving your diesel engines, you've committed $5 million to the Safe Routes to School. The time that I came here to speak last, Commissioner Johnson wasn't here, and I wanted to make sure that he heard my appreciation personally.

MR. JOHNSON: I read the minutes and I'm grateful for your observations.

MR. EDEN: And last I heard, there was a proposal for license plates that would help to fund the Safe Routes to School. I haven't heard anything about it since, and I'm hoping that if there was legislative action needed that that legislative action has happened, but I haven't followed it.

MR. JOHNSON: It is needed and we're optimistic that it will be successful, but until it happens, we're uncertain.

MR. EDEN: Okay. As you know, there is a very high demand for the funding of bicycle and pedestrian projects. We saw that as we were reviewing the applications for Safe Routes to School, and it's very important that the State of Texas continue to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects, not only for the children who are looking for a safe way to get to school and the parents who would like to be able to send their children to school by bicycle or on foot, but also for everyone. We all need safe places to walk. Bicycles can help to reduce congestion on our highways.

I hear you saying a whole lot about reducing congestion, and I am concerned because I have heard some discussion about the possibility of taking money that is used for bicycle and pedestrian projects in some places and using that instead for other types of congestion mitigation. I would hope that TxDOT would not engage in that kind of shifting of funds because, as we know, there is an extreme need for improvements in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or observations for Tommy?

MR. NICHOLS: Have you been -- I think you were here last month?

MR. EDEN: I think it was the month before.

MR. NICHOLS: I threw out the idea of possibly tolling those bicycle lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I asked that the other night when he almost ran over me.

MR. NICHOLS: I guess you haven't changed your mind.

MR. JOHNSON: You know, Commissioner Nichols is an inventor and in his office in Jacksonville he has plaques I guess from the patent office for various inventions, and he's working on a toll tag for bicycles.

MR. EDEN: We need to do everything that we can to encourage people to ride bicycles and get out of their cars, so if we can charge people for driving their cars anywhere and pay people for riding their bicycles, then we'll make great improvements.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: You have a friend -- I assume a friend -- is it Preston Tyree?

MR. EDEN: Yes, I know Preston Tyree.

MR. JOHNSON: And he's on the bicycle advisory group.

MR. EDEN: No. He represents the Texas Bicycle Coalition.

MR. JOHNSON: Are they a friend or a foe?

MR. EDEN: They're friends.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay, well, I'll say this then. I noticed in the university that I went to and he happened to go to also -- which will remain nameless at this point -- he recently received a national award for bicycle education which I think is wonderful, not only for him but for the work that he is doing in the State of Texas.

MR. EDEN: Yes. Preston Tyree was named Texas Bicycle Educator of the Year.

MR. JOHNSON: It's always good to see you.

MR. EDEN: Well, I thank you for your time, and I appreciate all your support. I look forward to seeing that funding get through the legislature and I hope to hear more about it.

MR. JOHNSON: As do we.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Tommy.

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

MR. BEHRENS: That's all the business that we have, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I want everyone to be attuned to the fact that there will be a fire balling right-hander throwing out the first pitch at the Dell Diamond on June 24 in observation of the CLICK It or Ticket campaign. He shall go nameless but his initials are M-B and he's to my left. He's been practicing every night, throwing 100 pitches, and he's going to Nolan Ryan's baseball camp here in the next week or so. And having said that, is there a motion to adjourn?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Please for the record note it's 12:20 p.m., and this meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: May 29, 2003

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 122 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Ben Bynum before the Texas Transportation Commission.

                                06/02/03
(Transcriber)          (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731