TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING

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

9:04 a.m. Thursday, October 26, 2000

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

JOHN W. JOHNSON, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
DAVID M. LANEY

DEPARTMENT STAFF:

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

 PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It's 9:04 a.m., and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome to our October 26th meeting. It's a pleasure to have you here today.

I will note for the record that public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 1:14 p.m. on October 18.

One issue regarding the agenda: Item 6, 10(b) and 12(e)(2) will be deferred.

Before we commence, I would like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have anything they would like to say. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. I've got one particular thing I'd like to talk about. Later in today's meeting, in Item 11, we're going to approve -- normally approve our construction contracts. One of these contracts has special significance to the state. And since we normally approve all contracts in one motion, I want to point out the significance of that one project now. That project is the construction of frontage roads along what eventually will be Loop 1-State Highway 45 in Round Rock at the intersection of I 35 and Farm-to-Market 1325.

If approved today, construction of State Highway 45 frontage roads east and west of Interstate 35 will begin this winter. And what makes that project so significant, it is the first construction project of the Texas Turnpike Authority.

Turnpikes and toll roads in Texas are going to be a growing thing. It is a significant push by the state to build infrastructure quicker by funding with tolls in addition to fuel tax based payments.

I'd also like to say that today's action is a result of a lot of leadership of Commissioner David Laney, who was chairman when the toll projects and toll authority was initially set up; Pete Winstead, chairman of the Texas Turnpike Authority; Phillip Russell, director of the -- I'm sorry.

MR. JOHNSON: Don't worry about it. Are you okay?

MR. NICHOLS: I'm not okay. I've got something wrong.

MR. JOHNSON: Take a break.

MR. NICHOLS: I'll be back.

(Whereupon, Commissioner Nichols left the meeting.)

MR. LANEY: I'll try to pick up where Robert left off. I think he was probably going to add that representatives of the TTA will be available to the press this morning if they want to discuss this project in any greater detail.

Other than that, let me just echo a little of what he said -- not about me, but about the leadership under Pete Winstead and the Toll Division have done a terrific job. This is the first of a number of projects in the Central Texas area that I think will be of great importance, not only to the areas they directly impact, but to the rest of the state as models for TTA and future toll roads.

We now have a North Texas Toll Authority, a Harris County Toll Authority. We have a private toll road that just kicked off and opened last month, or maybe earlier this month. And we're about to launch a series of projects in Central Texas. So we are off to the races, I think, with terrific guidance and leadership.

And Robert would be the last to say this, but in his absence, I can say it for him. He has been intimately involved in the development of the toll system in Central Texas and is doing a terrific job. So I hope he recovers from whatever he's got, so he can come back and finish his job.

MR. JOHNSON: Now, do you have anything on your own --

MR. LANEY: No, I don't.

MR. JOHNSON: -- you want to add or subtract? Thank you.

Let me remind anyone wanting to address the commission to please register with the staff in the lobby. If you would like to comment on an agenda item, please fill out a yellow card. And if it is not an agenda item, we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting, and for that we would ask that you fill out a blue card. Regardless of the color of the card, each speaker will be allowed three minutes.

We will begin this morning with Item 1, a public hearing regarding our highway project selection process. And I would like to call on Al Luedecke, the director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division, to present this item. Al?

And before you get started, I do have a yellow card. We have one speaker who would like to address the commission on this item, so at the appropriate time I'll ask that speaker to step forward.

P U B L I C H E A R I N G

MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

The notice for this public hearing was filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 2000, and published in the Texas Register on September 22, 2000. We are pleased to make this presentation on the behalf of the commission. This public hearing is conducted annually in accordance with the Texas Transportation Code, Sections 201.602 and 222.034.

Section 201.602 prescribes Texas Transportation Commission to hold annual hearings concerning its project selection process and the relative importance of the various criteria on which the commission bases its projected project selection decisions. The commission will receive data and comments and views and testimony from any person, organization, or group, and their representatives.

Section 222.034 states that the Federal aid for transportation purposes administered by the commission shall be distributed to the various parts of the state for a funding cycle through the selection of highway projects in the state in a manner that is consistent with the federal formulas that determine the amount of Federal aid for transportation purposes received by the state.

The distribution under this section of the Texas Transportation Code does not include dedications made for the State Infrastructure Bank or other federal funds allocated by the federal government. The commission may vary from the distribution procedure, provided that it issues a ruling or minute order identifying the variance and providing particular justification for the variance.

The commission will consider comments made at this hearing and written comments following this hearing until November 7. You can send written comments to the address shown, or email your comments.

The minute order describing the commission's decisions relating to the project selection process and distribution of Federal aid will be made at a subsequent public commission meeting.

In the interest of time, I will frequently refer to a public hearing document that was made available to those who requested it. If any of the folks in the audience did not get a copy, they are available in the foyer. I'll share the addresses again at the end of the presentation.

TxDOT is multimodal and relies on three major modes of transportation to address the needs of the public, including transit programs, aviation programs, and, of course, highway programs. First, I'll discuss transit.

TxDOT does not now operate transit services in Texas, nor does it own them. It does, however, have a financial interest in most public systems through the allocation of federal and state funds. Funds are allocated to urbanized areas, those areas over 50,000 or greater population not served by transit authority, nonurbanized and rural areas for elderly and handicapped transportation.

For urbanized areas, these agencies apply directly to the Federal Transit Administration for federal funds. State funds support capital, administrative, and operating expenses. Ninety percent of the state funds are distributed as directed by statute or the Transportation Code, while 10 percent are distributed at the commission's discretion.

For nonurbanized and rural areas, funds support capital, administrative, and operating expenses with federal and state funds flowing through the department. Ninety percent of the federal and state funds are distributed by statute or by Transportation Code, while 10 percent are distributed at the commission's discretion.

Elderly and disabled transportation funds support capital purchases, purchases of services, and preventative maintenance. Federal funds flow through the department and area allocated to the district metropolitan planning organizations, as directed by Title 43, Texas Administrative Code. Projects are selected by TxDOT in consultation or cooperation with the metropolitan planning organizations and local officials, and no state funds are provided.

TxDOT is not involved in the federal grant process for metropolitan transit authorities, or MTAs, in Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, or San Antonio. The authorities are not eligible to receive state funds and must rely on local sales taxes to support their activities.

TxDOT addresses the needs of general aviation through the Aviation Facilities Development Program. This program provides assistance to public entities for the purposes of establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging or repairing airports, airstrips or navigation facilities. The planning process, which is documented in the Texas Airport Systems Plan, or TASP, identifies those airports and projects which will best support attainment of the airport system's plan objectives.

The primary objective of TASP is to develop a statewide system of airports that meets the goal of providing adequate access to population and economic centers of Texas. Adequate access is expressed in terms of time between activity centers and appropriate facilities.

Scheduled air carrier services should be within 60-minute drive for virtually all Texas residents. Business jet aircraft access should be within 30-minute drive of significant population centers or mineral resource centers. Light piston-engine aircraft access should be within a 30-minute drive of agricultural centers.

Criteria for project selection is based on the identified needs related to TASP objectives, the amount of sponsor commitment, the system priorities that are identified in the TASP, and the availability of state and federal funds.

Highway programs make up a majority of the transportation programs TxDOT develops. These are programs most familiar to the citizens of Texas, and the projects in these programs are financed through Federal aid and state funds.

Let's first look at the Federal aid side of the highway programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, is the current federal transportation bill that authorizes the development and construction of Federal aid projects. TEA-21 was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president on June 9, 1998.

Several major programs are allocated to Texas based on quantifiable data which compares Texas to other states and commonwealths within the United States. Those major Federal aid highway funding categories allocated to the individual states include: Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway System Program, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Highway Bridge Program, and the Minimum Guarantee.

I'd like to discuss Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, or CMAQ, a bit further. Currently, Houston-Galveston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Beaumont-Port Arthur, and El Paso are listed as nonattainment areas. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to add San Antonio, Austin, and Tyler-Longview to the list next year. TxDOT will allocate the CMAQ Program funds to all these areas in a manner that is consistent with the federal formulas that determine the amount of these funds received by the state. The allocation and ranking formulas for CMAQ Program can be found on page 12 in the attached Summary of Categories.

Other TEA-21 programs authorize individual projects as approved by the Secretary of Transportation. Some of these programs that Texas is eligible for include Emergency Relief, the Federal Lands Highway Programs, National Corridor Planning and Development Program, and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program.

TEA-21 also authorizes the funding of individual projects listed in the High Priority Projects Program, and the authorization funds for these projects can only be used for the specific projects listed in the authorization bill.

As I mentioned earlier, Section 222.034 of the Texas Transportation Code requires the commission to distribute funds to various parts of the state in a manner that's consistent with the federal formulas that determine the amount of Federal aid Texas receives. The commission may vary from the federal distribution formulas if it issues a minute order or ruling which identifies the variance and provides particular justification for the variance.

The distribution formula used for TEA-21 did not recognize factors the commission and TxDOT desire to address in the allocation of funds to the TxDOT districts and metropolitan planning organizations. Some federal allocation formulas don't quantify the actual need, such as pavement distress, volume of commercial truck traffic or traffic congestion. Some federal allocation formulas use data that cannot be quantified at TxDOT district levels, such as contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.

In some cases, the federal allocation formulas that distribute the funds to the states could not be used at the state level since they do not address the particular restrictions outlined for each specific Federal aid program. This would pertain to set-asides for safety and transportation enhancements.

Additional federal formulas might not address the system strategies for preservation and mobility. TxDOT's focus on statewide preservation and development of specific systems, such as the Texas Trunk System, would be difficult if funds were allocated across the state in the same manner in which Texas receives them from the national level.

Allocations of fund in the federal formulas can always address the statewide and regional planning needs. Therefore, we have identified the specific variances from the federal allocation formulas and the reason for the variances of each of these categories. Those details are covered on pages 5 through 8 through the available handout. In the interest of time, I'll only refer to those details for your consideration and comment.

I'd like to now take a moment to discuss TxDOT state funding highway programs. While numerous programs have been established by TEA-21 to address the preservation and enhancement of the Texas Transportation System, TxDOT has established several categories to use state funds to supplement federal programs in the areas of preventative maintenance, rehabilitation, operations, safety, system continuity, mobility, and recreation.

Just to name a few, a few of the specific examples of these programs include State Preventative Maintenance Program, Border Trade Transportation Program, Traffic Control Devices, and Texas Farm-to-Market System Expansion Program. A complete list of these categories can be found on page 8 of the provided handout.

I'd like to bring your attention to the Border Trade Transportation Projects Program. This program was formerly known as NAFTA Discretionary Program. Under the old program, each border district made individual recommendations for projects selected. The new program requires collaboration between the border districts. The commission only considers projects that are recommended by consensus of the border districts. This new selection process is a focused approach in making roadway network decisions. More information on this program can be found on page 15 of the handout.

A complete list of all construction categories is listed on page 10 through 16 of the handout. That summary contains a TxDOT category, name, and number; the entity responsible for project selection; the funding type, whether federal, state or local; whether the program is treated as a bank balance program or is authorized as individual projects; the allocation and ranking formula that's involved with it and last year the category formula was revised; and a brief summary of the type of work the program addresses.

Another important factor in the project selection process is the amount of funds available to build projects. In order for TxDOT's project development process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be selected several years in advance of their actual funding. TxDOT uses funding forecasts to predict future revenues from federal and state sources, then programs or selects projects corresponding to the projected funds.

When the dollars become available, the program projects are then funded and constructed. Programming is a commitment to construct projects when forecasted funds become available. TxDOT's proposed programming levels for fiscal year 2005 can be found on page 17 and 18. These are programming levels for highway programs only, since fiscal year 2004 level are also shown for information and comparison only.

The Category 15, Congressional High Priority Projects, on page 18 of the handout, is included only to illustrate the total funds anticipated for the year 2005. Category 15 projects cannot be programmed at this time, since they will be chosen by federal legislature and listed in the next federal transportation bill. As promised, there are -- here are the addresses to send written comments. The deadline is November 7.

On behalf of the commission, I would like to thank you for listening to this important information, and this concludes my presentation.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Al.

David, do you have any observations?

MR. LANEY: No comments. Thanks, Al.

MR. JOHNSON: We do have one speaker who would like to address the commission on this item, and that is Joe Gieselman, the executive manager from Travis County.

Good morning, sir.

MR. GIESELMAN: Commission members, good morning. My name is Joe Gieselman. I'm the executive manager of Transportation and Natural Resources for Travis County, and I would like to specifically address Category 6B, the Off-System Bridge Program.

On July 27 of this year, the Transportation Commission adopted amendments to Section 15.55 of the Transportation Code related to the requirements of local government financial participation in off-system bridges. The amendments authorize the department to waive local government's required 10 percent participation for off-system bridges if the local government agreed to perform an equivalent dollar amount of structural improvements on other deficient bridges or mainlane cross-drainage structures.

The project on which the 10 percent participation is waived is referred to as the participation-waived project. Your adopted rules state that this project must be on the department's approved Unified Transportation Program. That's understandable; however, in a guidance memorandum written just days after your rule was adopted, the department's staff interpreted the rule to mean that the participation-waived project must be either Priority 1 or tentatively selected for upgrade to Priority 1 in the Unified Transportation Program in order to be eligible for the waiver.

This is a significant deviation from the adopted rule. Most off-system bridges in your Unified Transportation Program are Priority 2. The effect of the interpretation of the rule is to have a local government wait, perhaps for years, until one of its off-system bridges rises to a Priority 1 before asking for a waiver or spending equivalent amounts of local funds on other deficient bridges.

If the intent of your rule is to encourage local governments to get moving on their bridge problem, this interpretation has just the opposite effect. There is no incentive for a local government to be proactive.

I ask the commission to clarify the intent of its newly adopted rule to allow local governments to seek waivers on any -- both Priority 1 and Priority 2 -- of its off-system bridges in the state's Unified Transportation Program and to enable to the local governments to proceed to spend their equivalent dollar amounts on other deficient bridges, known as equivalent-match projects, even before the state selects its Priority 1 projects for state construction funding authorization. Let us be proactive.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. LANEY: No questions, but I appreciate the comments. And if you're right, I don't think I disagree with you. I think we ought to be focused on those bridges whether they're Priority 2 or Priority 1. I may be missing something, but I very much appreciate your comments, and we'll burrow into it a little bit and see if we can bring these things into alignment. That's my position.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Thank you for your observations.

MR. GIESELMAN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: And we will direct the staff to investigate your concerns and make sure that the program does what it's intended to do.

MR. GIESELMAN: Yes. I think the intent is, rather than wait until something comes to a Priority 1, allow us to go ahead and seek the waiver from the district engineer and then proceed to get on with the problem. Yes, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you so much.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We will now close the public hearing, and I would like to thank Al Luedecke for his report and also Mr. Gieselman for his observations.

(Whereupon, the public hearing was concluded.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will deviate a small bit from our stated agenda in that the delegation from Hood County we don't think is fully assembled. And when they are fully assembled, we'll allow them to come in on the agenda at the appropriate time.

MR. LANEY: How many more minutes are you giving them to fully assemble?

MR. JOHNSON: Seventeen. They're on the clock, as they say.

SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: Their bus is late.

MR. LANEY: Yes. We've heard a lot of excuses.

MR. JOHNSON: So Wes, I believe the appropriate thing to do is to proceed with the normal part of the agenda. So if you will --

MR. HEALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item is approval of the minutes.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So move.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. The next item is Item Number 4, Report from the Port Advisory Committee regarding research of impediments to port access.

And, Al, are you going to lead that off?

MR. LUEDECKE: I think we'd like to postpone that, too, because our speaker's not here yet. We're a little out of order. We think they're in town, but they're on the way. I don't see them anywhere.

MR. LANEY: Something having to do with the impediments to port access?

(General laughter.)

MR. LUEDECKE: I think we can't put this one on the ports.

MR. HEALD: Okay. We'll get organized here in a minute. The next item is Item Number 5, Aviation. And I assume Dave Fulton's here. We have two minute orders under the title of Aviation for your consideration.

Dave Fulton.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes, commissioners. My name is David Fulton, the director of the TxDOT Aviation Division. Item 5(a) is a minute order that contains a request for approval for modifications to our existing Routine Airport Maintenance Program. The recommended changes include increasing the maximum grant per airport per year for maintenance from $20,000 a year to $30,000, and including, in addition to general aviation and reliever airports, our primary non-hub airports as eligible for the program.

We're also requesting authorization to utilize money from our budget, transfer funds of $1.5 million into the Routine Airport Maintenance Program to complete the rest of the fiscal year.

We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. LANEY: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: Item 5(b) is a minute order that contains a request for funding approval for two airport development projects. One project is for property acquisition at Clover Field in Houston. The other project is for construction of an air traffic control tower at the Sugar Land Municipal Airport.

If approved, the Clover project is programmed to be funded with 90 percent federal, 10 percent local funding. The Sugar Land project is programmed to be funded 50 percent state, 50 percent local funding. Total estimated cost of both these projects is approximately $2 million; approximately 900,000 federal, 500,000 state, and approximately 600,000 local funds.

A public hearing was held on October 6 of this year. No comments were received. We would recommend approval of both these projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

David, thank you.

MR. HEALD: Mr. Chairman, I believe we can go back to Item 4 at this time.

MR. LUEDECKE: We're always working on just-in-time delivery. We're working now on anticipated schedules.

This morning we're please to have at least one member of our Port Advisory Committee here. And I'd like to ask Ms. Pat Younger, chair of the committee, to come make her presentation to you.

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning.

MS. YOUNGER: Good morning. I promise I'm not going to read all this to you.

For the record, my name is Pat Younger, and I serve as chair of the Port Authority Advisory Committee. I've been chair of the committee since its inception. As you know, the advisory committee was established by an act of the 75th Legislature, and its members began service in 1999, holding the committee's first meeting on February 19.

The committee was established to advise the commission and the Texas Department of Transportation on matters relating to port authorities. Its membership, appointed by the commissioners in office at the time, represented geographical balance throughout the state. One member represents the Port of Houston, which is the position I hold. Two members representing ports on the upper Texas coast: currently John Roby, from the Port of Beaumont; and John Gunning, who is president of the Texas Pilots Association. And two members represent ports from the lower Texas coast: currently, Raul Besteiro, who is the port director at the Port of Brownsville; and Robert VanBoruum -- who is here -- he's the port director of the Port of Lavaca/Point Comfort, and also serves as president of Texas Ports Association. I'd like for him to stand so you'll know who he is.

As is the case with most advisory committees, it took us a while to get a handle on exactly what we wanted to do, what we needed to do, and what we thought would be helpful. After a meeting with the current executive director of TxDOT, Mr. Heald, we learned -- and he was very candid, and we appreciated his candidness -- that TxDOT really needed to learn more about what ports do and exactly what we need. And so we undertook a project to determine what the priority projects are port by port so that we could let TxDOT know, when you are reviewing projects for either funding or for construction or studies, exactly what ports need.

Our first task was surprisingly simple, yet difficult. We first had to identify all of the deep water and shallow draft ports in Texas. That was much more difficult than it appeared. We had a great deal of contact with and knowledge of the member ports of the Texas Ports Association, which includes eleven deep water and three shallow draft ports, but they represented only half of the ports.

We actually have 29 ports in Texas. We divided the responsibilities for contacting these ports among the five members, and we began to visit with each port. It was readily apparent to us that we needed help in trying to determine how to compile this information in a concise fashion in an understandable document. So I contacted John Basilotto, who's the director of the Center for Ports and Waterways, and he just said immediately that they were ready to help us with the project. And he and his team compiled the information for us.

Texas ports contribute substantially to the state and national economy, generating nearly one million jobs for Texans. In addition, activity at ports provide an annual economic impact of over $87 billion. A significant element of the impact of ports, one in which you, as commissioners of the state agency, ought to be particularly interested, is the over $2.8 billion in state taxes generated by port activity.

What I want to do in this short time is just highlight for you some of the results of the report that we undertook for the last year and a half.

What we did was we asked each port, What do you consider the impediments to intermodal transportation? And while I'm on that, I was telling Paul Douglas, with TxDOT, this morning -- I said, Do you realize that when you go through spell check when you're typing something on your computer, and you use the word "intermodal," it always comes up "Not in the dictionary." Now, that's a sad undertaking for ports, because for us, intermodal is the way that we exist. If you're not an intermodal port, you're not going to be able to exist and compete very long.

What we found out were ports said that road access -- which should also make you happy, since that's the primary job for TxDOT and the most helpful thing that you all do for us -- represent 36 percent of what ports say are the largest impediments to trade. Mostly access routes to ports and lane widths being reported most frequently the things that concerned ports the most.

Rail access was cited as 18 percent, varying from the location of the railway to inadequate amounts of tracks at the ports. Of particular concern was the need for more rail tracks and the need for improving at-grade crossings.

Water access impediments represented 19 percent, which included, obviously, dredging. Dredging is a major concern of ports. Adequate widths and depths of channels, shoring up channel markings, vessel navigation are extremely critical, not only in terms of getting your cargo to its final destination, but in terms of safety and in terms of protection for the environment.

Infrastructure status requirements stressed 12 percent by ports, including repair and replacement of docks and piers.

The GIWW, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, gained a lot of attention from ports, only representing 13 percent of impediments, but this seems to be a major concern to the ports in Texas, and it will probably be the next project that this committee undertakes over the next year is to determine what we can recommend to TxDOT in terms of what we think is appropriate for the GIWW.

More specifically, each port listed their individual wish list of priorities that they would undertake, if funds were available, and further prioritize these projects. They went through this exercise to encourage you to fund more port projects and to give you the information you need to make the determinations of which projects are more important to each port.

Now, given all of that, what do we want you to do and what are we requesting? What we would really like is to see the commission encourage the district engineers to carefully peruse this report, paying particular attention to the priorities listed for the ports in their area, within their jurisdiction, and to work with the ports' staff and to sit down with them and match, project by project, in a prioritized fashion, what funds might be available through TxDOT to help these ports accomplish these priorities.

Thus, our Texas waterways would continue to be competitive with ports outside of the state of Texas and will continue to augment the economy in the strong manner that is expected of them.

With that, I would answer any questions that you have, and also let you know that the gentleman who prepared the report, Mr. Basilotto, is also here, if you have any particular questions.

MR. JOHNSON: David, any observations or questions?

MR. LANEY: First comment is, That was as instructive and clear and concise a report as we've had in a long time. I appreciate it very much.

MS. YOUNGER: Thank you. It's the old school teacher in me.

MR. LANEY: Yes. Well, I sat up straight when I saw you walk in.

You said there are a number of other ports that weren't on your radar screen initially that you all turned up and so forth. The first mention you made was a center for -- that helped you do this?

MS. YOUNGER: Ports and Waterways.

MR. LANEY: What is that?

MS. YOUNGER: It is a division of the Texas Transportation Institute. The Center for Ports and Waterways was created also by an act of the legislature, the 74th Legislature, if I can remember correctly. And this is an institute that does an extensive amount of research on port-related projects.

MR. LANEY: Okay. I just didn't -- they're part of TTI.

MS. YOUNGER: They are.

MR. LANEY: The number of ports that you turned up, are they all shallow water ports, or are there some deep water ports?

MS. YOUNGER: No. There are eleven deep water, and the remainder are shallow draft.

MR. LANEY: No. I'm talking about ones that aren't members of the --

MS. YOUNGER: Right.

MR. LANEY: There are eleven deep water --

MS. YOUNGER: There are eleven deep water total of the 29.

MR. LANEY: Okay.

MS. YOUNGER: The remainder are shallow draft.

MR. LANEY: How would you assess the relationship between our districts now and the more major ports, in terms of the interworkings and relationships, interaction and so forth.

MS. YOUNGER: I could better answer that by comparing where I think we were eight years from now and where I think we are now.

MR. LANEY: Okay.

MS. YOUNGER: I think there's been a vast change, improvement, from where we were then. I served on a transportation infrastructure committee for TxDOT some eight years ago for one of our commissioners when I was with the Port of Houston, and they had a consultant come in. And the first day we were there, I was representing one of my commissioners, so I thought I should -- untypical of me -- be quiet.

And they threw up a slide on the screen, and they said, Modes of Transportation, and they had a plane and a train and a truck and a car and a pedestrian, and somebody on a bicycle. And, you know, I had to raise my hand and say, Where's the ship?

So it wasn't even on the radar screen eight years ago that ships were indeed a mode of transportation and a viable one. Today, I think that the district engineers, and particularly the staff here -- and I do want to comment that the staff that has been assigned to our committee has done a fantastic job of helping us along and being supportive in what we're trying to do.

I think we've come a long way; I think we have a ways to go.

MR. LANEY: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll turn it back over to you. A thought -- and this is for you and for Wes -- that you all might want to consider is to model some program, along the lines of the Border Trade Transportation Program, that we get our Gulf Coast districts together to work with these folks on a joint basis, working together rather than independently of each other. Prioritize the projects, because there are far too many, it sounds like -- too many ports, particularly if you throw in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, to keep up with. And yet there's got to be some prioritization that works with our system as well as yours.

It might be a model that works for us along the coast with the ports, as well as along the border.

So, that's it. Thank you for your --

MS. YOUNGER: I think that's an excellent idea.

MR. JOHNSON: I think that's a great observation also.

I think your report's very informative. In fact, it opens up one's eyes as to the impact that our ports and the traffic through them has on the state -- a million jobs and almost $3 billion in taxes were the numbers that I gleaned from the report.

And my observation's much like David's: I think we should set a goal of coordinating the needs of the ports with our ability to deliver the portions of the system that we can deliver. And a coordinated effort, rather than one that's sort of divided in separate and distinct parts, I think would be a step in the right direction.

And the interfacing between your group and TxDOT needs to be done -- I don't know what the frequency is or the formality, but I think we definitely can improve. And what we'll end up having as a result of that is an improved system -- intermodal system, which comes out of the mouth, but apparently not out of the typewriter.

MS. YOUNGER: Maybe we'll get it in the dictionary soon.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other observations?

MR. LANEY: No.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you so much for that report.

MS. YOUNGER: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Pat, before you leave, I, too, would like to compliment you on the work that y'all have done. As we update our transportation plan, our statewide transportation plan, it's going to be extremely important that we understand the significance of the ports and the impact that it has on our infrastructure.

Also, I'd like to invite you up on the second floor. We have some new pictures up there, and you'll be very proud to see there's a barge in one of those pictures.

Are we ready to move on?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. HEALD: Okay. I believe that takes us to Item Number 6, Public Transportation. That particular -- there's one minute order, and it will be deferred.

That moves us to Item Number 7(a)(1) and (2). Is Jerry Dike here? Okay. David Linzey will handle that. And this is rules for proposed adoption, both of those.

MR. LINZEY: Mr. Heald, good morning, commissioners. I am David Linzey, director of Headquarters Operations for Vehicle Titles and Registration Division.

First item is a minute order which proposes adoption of amendments to Section 17.2, 17.3, and 17.8, concerning procedures for issuance of a certified copy of an original Texas certificate of title. The amendments will allow the department to require verifiable proof of identification from the owner, lienholder or agent applying for a certified copy of the title, will assist us in identifying fraudulent applications.

The amendments also include updated language to reflect the language in the recodified transportation code, and also include changes to enhance readability, clarity, improve the grammar/spelling and include cross-references and references.

We recommend adoption of the minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. LANEY: No. So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LINZEY: Thank you. Item 2 is a minute order which proposes adoption to amendments to Section 17.51, concerning registration reciprocity agreements. The International Registration Plan is the agreement between the states of the United States and the provinces of Canada. Recent changes to the International Registration Plan, including changes associated with the implementation of the Audit Netting Program, necessitate revision of the rules.

We've also removed some language in the rules that's very clear in the Transportation Code. And again, we've made changes to enhance the readability, clarity, improve grammar/spelling, and to correct references and cross-references, and we recommend adoption of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion.

MR. LANEY: There's a motion; so moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: The motion carries. Thank you.

MR. LINZEY: Thank you very much.

MR. HEALD: Thank you, David.

Item 7(b)(1) we have one rule for final adoption. Diana Isabel.

MS. ISABEL: Good morning. I'm Diana Isabel, director of the Human Resource Division.

This minute order adopts amendments to Section 4.50, 4.51, and 4.56, concerning the department's Sick Leave Pool Program. The commission approved the proposed rule changes in August. It was published in the Texas Register on September 15, with a deadline of written comments by October 16. No comments were received, so we recommend that this final minute order be adopted.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 7 -- excuse me -- Agenda Item 8(a), (b) and (c), we have three SIB loans for your consideration. I believe the first two are final, and the third one is preliminary.

MR. BASS: Good morning. I'm James Bass, director of TxDOT's Finance Division. As Mr. Heald stated, we have three minute orders for your consideration this morning.

The first one seeks final approval of a loan to Denton County in the amount of $10 million to prepare plans, specification, and estimates for a project to reconstruct and widen State Highway 121 from the Dallas County line to the Collin County line. The county had requested a 4.5 percent interest rate with a seven-year pay-back period, and staff would recommend your approval.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BASS: The second minute order also seeks final approval of a loan to the City of Henderson, which is located in an economically disadvantaged county of Rusk County, in the amount of $110,000 to fund the relocation of utilities made necessary by the construction of a new location bypass for US 259. The city has requested a 4.3 percent interest rate with a five-year pay-back period, and staff recommends your approval.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. LANEY: Quick question on that one, James. The economic disadvantaged status -- does that affect the loan eligibility?

MR. BASS: It also affects the cities within that county.

MR. LANEY: Okay.

MR. BASS: The third minute order seeks preliminary --

MR. LANEY: Excuse me. Let me understand clearly. They're qualified for the loan whether or not they're economically disadvantaged or not.

MR. BASS: Correct. But it impacts the interest rate and the terms that are offered.

MR. LANEY: Got it. Understood.

MR. BASS: The final minute order seeks preliminary approval of a loan to the Port of Corpus Christi in the amount of $16.3 million to fund a portion of the cost to construct the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor, which will link I-37 and US 181 on the north side of the Corpus Christi inner harbor.

The port has requested a 5 percent rate with a 20-year pay-back period, paying interest only in the first three years. If approved, staff would negotiate with the port for a shorter pay-back period. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. LANEY: If I'm not mistaken, this is one of those things that helps remove impediments to port access. So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BASS: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 9 under Transportation Planning, Al Luedecke.

MR. LUEDECKE: Commissioners, I'm Al Luedecke, director of Transportation Planning and Programming. The minute order we bring before you today approves the advancement of two final phases of the Interstate Highway 635/US 75 interchange project to Priority 1, 3A, NHS Mobility of the 2001 Unified Transportation Program so that we can let it as one construction project.

This $210 million project is a ranked project interchange type, which means, once a part of the interchange is selected for funding the construction, the department commits to fund and build the entire package.

Using traditional federal funding practices, this project's construction would have to be done in construction phases over several years, because the total construction cost of this multi-year project could not be obligated in a single year without delaying other vital projects.

Using the innovative financing techniques of partial obligation, the department is able to spread the obligation for the whole project over the entire life span of construction, therefore only obligating the funds needed for each year's construction. This enables the department to let this entire project at one time to a single contractor. Among the benefits of using one contractor is elimination of mobilization costs for multiple contractors and for one centralized work zone traffic control plan and subcontractor.

And the staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or observations?

MR. LANEY: One quick observation. This is a lot of work on the district's part, as well as on the part of your staff, and my compliments. It's a complex financial management project, as well as a construction project. So I applaud the efforts and the results.

So moved.

MR. JOHNSON: My observation is that projects of this type that are, one, expensive, and, two, long in tenure or timing -- I hope we can do more of this sort of innovative look ahead with those types of projects, because I think everybody wins. They're, in the long run, hopefully less expensive. People can see that they're going to get started and finished, and they will hopefully be started and finished in a more timely fashion.

MR. LUEDECKE: And, of course, this allows us to speed up the delivery of the product.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I will second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. Item Number 10, we have two minute orders under that item. Carlos will handle those, the first one being 10(a). 10(b) -- and I assume, Carlos, you know we've deferred 10(b).

MR. LOPEZ: That's correct, sir.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Carlos Lopez, and I'm director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you authorizes the use of approximately $2.4 million in federal funds for a project in the Value Pricing Pilot Program. METRO will be the lead agency for this project and will provide the remaining 20 percent match of about $600,000.

Existing state and federal laws allow the establishment of value pricing programs under which vehicles with two occupants are allowed to pay a fee to use an HOV lane during peak travel hours. The IH 10 HOV lane has had such a program since 1997, and this program is scheduled to begin on the US 290 HOV lane later this year.

This project will analyze markets and evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts and pricing, and improve existing hardware to enhance toll collection and enforcement. METRO will continue to fund the management and the marketing of the HOV lanes at no cost to TxDOT. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Carlos, one question. The onus will be on METRO to advertise and get into the public domain the information necessary for people to take advantage of this?

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct. I think they realize that the Quick Ride Project on 10 was not well advertised. They want to find better ways to do that and what'd be the proper way to do that for 290.

MR. JOHNSON: A motion? Questions?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Item Number 11, Contracts -- 11(1) and (2), Thomas.

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

Item 11(1) is consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on October 4 and 5, 2000, whose engineer's estimated costs are $300,000 or more. There are three projects. Staff recommends award of all projects in the exhibit.

MR. LANEY: So move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 11(2) is for consideration of the award or rejection of highway construction building contracts let on October 4 and 5, 2000. Had 52 projects, an average of 4.54 bidders per project.

Had one project recommended for rejection; it's Project Number 3008 in Harris County. We had one bidder on that project; it was 21 percent over. And there was a requirement in the project that they had to have three crews operating. By removing that requirement, we'll get more competition on the project, and we'd like to go back and make that change and rebid the project.

In addition, as you mentioned earlier, Project Number 3001 is the State Highway 45 project, the first toll road project, is included in this award list. Staff recommends award with the exceptions noted.

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. HEALD: Okay. That moves us to Item Number 12 under Routine Minute Orders, and I will handle those, as usual, starting with 12(a), Establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state. There are a list of those.

12(b), Highway Designations, in Bell County, Loop 530, remove Loop 530 from the state highway system from US 190 west of Belton eastward 1.3 miles. And I understand the City of Belton has requested that, which is okay with us.

12(c)(1) under Right of Way, Disposition, Purchase and Lease, in Bexar County, US 281, west side of Henderson Pass, south of Loop 1604, consider the sale of a surplus drainage channel easement. And that is based on the appraised value -- selling for the appraised value.

12(c)(2), Brazos County, Milberger Street at FM 974, consider the quitclaim of right of way to the City of Bryan.

12(c)(3) -- this minute order provides a quitclaim of a .4676-acre tract of surplus right of way in Burnet County off of Old State Highway 29.

12(c)(4) minute order provides for the quitclaim of a 2.831-acre tract of surplus right of way including the sale of a .708-acre portion in Gillespie County off of Old State Highway 20.

12(c)(5) -- this minute order provides for the sale of a 5,153-square-foot tract of surplus right of way in Tarrant County off of State Highway 183.

12(c)(6) minute order provides for the sale of two tracts of surplus right of way containing 1.85 acres and .26 acre, totaling 1.853 acres of land, based on the appraised value.

12(d) involves a donation to the department, which I understand is an annual occurrence. This minute order provides for the acceptance of a donation from the Texas Travel Industry Association of various items during the Study Tour to educate department's travel counselors about Texas Southeast region. And there's an exhibit there that lays out the amount of money.

12(e), Eminent Domain, that being 12(e)(1), request for eminent domain proceedings on noncontrolled and controlled access highways. And there's a list there for your view.

12(e)(2) is being deferred. That involves condemnation of some land in Houston District headquarters' site, and I understand that land has sold, and we've got to reappraise and start over.

And, Mr. Chairman, I believe that ends the routine minute order portion of our business meeting.

MR. JOHNSON: Do we have motion to approve the routine minute orders?

MR. LANEY: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. HEALD: The delegation is still not here, and I understand they're some 30 miles out still.

We have no need for an executive session, so we won't be asking for that.

Under open comments, I have two cards here for you.

MR. JOHNSON: Under the open comment session, I'd like to invite Gaynelle Riffe to please come forward, and she's representing the SPIRIT Coalition Board, US Highway 54.

MS. RIFFE: I'm Gaynelle Riffe, from Stratford, a tiptop town in the Texas Panhandle. I'm with the chamber, their transportation chair, and I'm also on the SPIRIT Coalition board.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you again. I want to thank Mark Tomlinson, our district engineer from Amarillo, for his support here.

I'm here to deliver and I have given you the packet of information that you asked for at the Lubbock commission meeting in July. It is the long range plans of US Highway 54 Coalition states New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

I have just received some good news from the Kansas -- federal money from the appropriations bill, and that article is clipped to the back of that. I got that yesterday before I left.

This is one of several plane reservations that I have made to come down to talk about the Texas Trunk System, and I think probably an election year has really messed up the schedules. So after November 7, maybe we'll get back on track.

The SPIRIT 54 Coalition is asking your consideration to add US 54 to the Texas Trunk System, and I know that the planning and -- is asking for your input right now, so I would like for you to consider that.

My community, Stratford, the county seat of Sherman County, will celebrate their centennial in 2001, and this year was the beginning of the celebration. It was a visit to the original county seat, the town of Coldwater, 14 miles south of the present county seat of Stratford.

Sherman County was organized in 1886 in the county seat, Coldwater. The courthouse was built in 1890. The town plat was filed in 1891 with some 50 -- 40 to 50 town sites sold to investors in Waco. The town newspaper advertised several businesses, and things were progressing with a stage line to the railhead in the west side of the Panhandle of the -- what is now the Fort Worth-Denver -- and the promise of the Rock Island Railroad from Wichita to connect to Santa Rosa, New Mexico, and the rail to El Paso.

The railroad did not go through Coldwater in 1901, but went through the new town of Stratford, 14 miles to the north. The county seat was moved. Coldwater is now a pile of rocks in several sites marking a courthouse, a jail, and some dwellings, and a small cemetery of eight graves. It is in the middle of a farmed section of land that is now in the CRP Program.

As we were preparing the site for the visit, we were reminded why transportation is so important. Upgrading US 54 and a part of the east-west Transportation National Highway Priority Corridor is important not only to the whole Panhandle of Texas, but to our border states as well.

Again, I ask for your consideration to adding US 54 to the Texas Trunk System, and I hope you might visit the Panhandle soon, maybe for a pheasant hunt. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

David, do you have --

MR. LANEY: Well, my first comment is I'm sorry Robert's not here to hear your presentation.

MS. RIFFE: I'm sorry?

MR. LANEY: It's all right. I'm sorry Robert Nichols is not here to hear your presentation. I know he's very interested in comments about the trunk system and, needless to say, one of the real leaders of what we've done in recent years on that count. On the other hand, I know he's very much aware of it. So I appreciate your presentation.

MS. RIFFE: Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The -- I think you're aware that the timing of this is interesting, in that we are in the process of reviewing the trunk system for possible additions. So hopefully you can take back to tiptop Texas a centennial gift. But time will tell, and I think we'll know in the next 30 or 60 days.

MS. RIFFE: Well, we appreciate your consideration.

MR. JOHNSON: I know you've worked very hard. This is not your first visit.

MS. RIFFE: That's right. And it won't be my last.

MR. JOHNSON: Good. We welcome you.

Our next speaker is Peter McStravick from the wonderful Tomball, Texas, area.

Mr. McStravick, welcome, and thank you for being here.

MR. McSTRAVICK: Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. I just wanted to take this opportunity to come and thank you -- all of the commissioners -- for the State Highway 249 Bypass, better known in Tomball as the Tomball Bypass, as it certainly is going to mitigate the congestion that we're currently experiencing in the business area of Tomball. It will also help the air pollution problem that exists in Harris County, and hopefully, it will reduce the number of accidents and potential fatalities.

And thank you very much. We appreciate your cooperation.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you. The 294 Corridor is a very important one, and as the northwest part of Harris County continues to flourish and grow, it's going to be even more important. We appreciate your coming.

David, do you have anything? Are there any other comments for open comment session?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a slight, hopefully, recess to await on our friends from Hood County. So why don't we recess for -- try to reconvene about 10:25, and hopefully that will allow them enough time. If they are still not here, we'll continue the recess for a few more minutes in hopes that they will arrive shortly after that. So we stand in recess.

(A recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning again. We will reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission.

We're delighted that the delegation from Hood County has arrived. I'm sure the problem had nothing to do with I-35 or anything like that. Probably the Port of Austin was a little congested and you had trouble navigating that obstacle.

Delighted also that Senator Sibley and Representative Keffer have been here.

So at this point, I would like to call County Commissioner Bob Anderson, who I believe is going to lead the delegation. Is that correct?

MR. ANDERSON: That's correct, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

HOOD COUNTY DELEGATION

(Hood County Commissioner Bob Anderson, County Judge Linda Steen, Kenny Woods, Mayor David Southern, Sen. David Sibley, Rep. Jim Keffer)

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. We appreciate the patience of the commission this morning due to our morning traffic woes in Hood County. We would like to apologize for our delay.

It is indeed a privilege to appear before you. I'd like to introduce our county judge, Linda Steen.

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning.

MS. STEEN: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: We're delighted you're here.

MR. ANDERSON: President of our Lake Granbury Chamber of Commerce, Kenny Woods, and many others representing our real estate association in Hood County and citizens from our area.

Would y'all please stand that's with our delegation this morning. Thank you. And special thanks to Representative Jim Keffer and Senator Sibley, as well.

Gentlemen, we thank you for this opportunity. Since our last appearance, Hood County has developed an economic development district, a tax abatement policy, and a master thoroughfare plan in cooperation with the City of Granbury. Our county is definitely on the move, and it has caused us considerable concern in the area of traffic.

We have only one state highway, US 377, that dissects our county from east to west. And a portion of our county to the south, about six or eight miles, has State Highway 144. The remainder of our road system is farm-to-market roads, which consist of about 12 of those. So due to our development and our nature, we are in terrible stress concerning this area.

We will present to you a video, and our mayor, David Southern will be doing a PowerPoint presentation. And at this time, we'll go into the video, and then he'll take it up from there.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, a videotape was shown.)

MR. SOUTHERN: Good morning. As you can see, we drive fast in Granbury, Texas, as well.

I'd like to talk with you just a few minutes about our needs in the city of Granbury and throughout Hood County. We recently opened a new Chili's, a restaurant, as you saw in the video. They had the largest opening day in the history of that restaurant chain because of the amount of people that travel by that restaurant each day is over 30,000 people. And so we've had a tremendous growth in all sectors of our economy.

Ready for this? Okay. I've got a demonstration here that'll just take a few minutes, starting with this, as you've seen, our square. This was before the restoration of our courthouse tower, which in the newer pictures, you saw the restoration.

This is brought to you by, as we indicated, the Granbury/Hood County Intergovernmental Coalition Transportation Subcommittee. Hood County is our county seat. It was the Main Street USA Program, and tourism is our primary industry. We have a huge tens of thousands of people each year.

Just one of our tourist attractions, the Granbury Opera House, attracts over 80,000 visitors each year to our square area. Our lake has become known as one of the best fishing lakes in Texas and is attracting lots and lots of fishermen. And, of course, the whole event started with the development of Lake Granbury 30 years ago.

Growth of the retired sector continues to be a major element of our growth. Pecan Plantation is now the largest homeowners association in the state of Texas.

The Metroplex is expanding in our direction. We're not excited about that, but there's little that we can do about it. More and more people are commuting. They've even installed an air monitor in our county to see if we should go in the nonattainment area.

When we hired our new city manager, we hired somebody that used to work for DART, so we could figure out how to do a commuter rail line into Fort Worth someday. So -- that's Mike Collins is our new city manager. Hired him away from Wylie, Texas.

Our second-home population has grown tremendously. Our census bureau reports are about 10- to 15,000 people low, because they don't count the many people who have second homes in Granbury, who live there two to seven days a week, but have a residence somewhere else where they're counted for the census. And then again, our tourism population.

If you'll look at this chart, since 1980, our resident population has grown from 17- to 43,000. Our nonresident, second-home population's grown from 3- to 10,000, and our total population now stands at about 53,000, not counting the tourists.

The most modest expectations over the next ten years, which the Census Bureau's used, indicate we're going to have around 81,000 total residents by 2010. Most estimates are over 100,000.

Our total population growth can be seen graphically, since 1970 when we had about six people, up to 2010 when we expect to have well over 80,000 people.

Our transportation priorities are, too, as you heard on the video: Loop 567, the northeast funding, an accelerated schedule. What we mean by that is we would like for the schedule to accelerate as fast as possible under your system. We know that on the northwest portion, we provided 50 percent of the right of way, and it took us 12 years, basically, to get that project in line from its very beginning. That's partially our fault, but we would hope that we can do an accelerated schedule that would see us finish the northeast portion within a year of the time that we finish the northwest portion.

The northwest portion's scheduled to be completed in two years. The northwest portion only will carry about half as much traffic as the northeast portion, so, of course, that's why we're building it first. But --

(General laughter.)

MR. SOUTHERN: US 377 East expansion, the six lanes curb and gutter, controlled access -- this is because we've had a lot of accidents with people trying to cross five lanes of traffic. We also have many -- I think we have about eight stoplights in Granbury now. When I moved there 20 years ago, we didn't have any. But they're all on US 377.

And as you know, there's a plan by your department to widen 377 between the county line and Bluff Dale and the city of Granbury to four lanes divided highway, so that's going to be bringing more traffic into this already crowded corridor.

The traffic count we had on the video was a little off. We just got our '99 study in, and it's actually up to 37,000 cars a day at one location on 377 East. In fact, that exceeds by about 10,000 cars a day the interstate travel between Weatherford and Abilene. And the only place in the Fort Worth District outside of Tarrant County that has a higher count is on I-35 in Burleson. So we have a huge number of cars.

This is a picture graphically of Granbury that shows our main 377 with the business route and the 144 also in red to the south. The Loop 567 -- the first portion, the northwest portion there in the upper left-hand quadrant is being -- has been let in August, and we're anticipating that project going quickly.

The northeast portion is much shorter and will be much less expensive. We do hope to have a completion, though, of connection back to 377, across the Pearl Street Bridge, that will enable an underpass to be completed there. We have half of an underpass already, but the traffic is entering from the left lane, which is also a way that people turn back to go to the city of Granbury, and that's also where you see the 37,000 cars per day.

Factors driving the traffic growth -- of course, as you know, increase in the population, the growing tourism, the healthy economy, and the increased commuting in our community.

The reasons for the loop -- of course, there's safety, the congested square area. Safety particularly -- we don't really have a good way to evacuate our community if one of those roads gets shut down due to a chemical spill. If they have to reroute those 37,000 cars, in addition to the 13,000 cars that are already on the business portion, we would have over 50,000 cars going through the square on one road, not counting the other folks going to the north.

So obviously, that would be a difficult thing to accomplish. I think we do that on the 4th of July every year, but it is really difficult to accomplish. Our economic stability is beginning to deteriorate in our tourism for the square area because of so many people going through the square that are not related and using the accompanying city streets.

Historic preservation is a concern, because some of the studies in the northeast indicate that the heavy truck traffic by these historic buildings deteriorates not only the exteriors, but the foundations of those buildings. As you know, our entire square area is on the National Historic Trust as the best example of a 19th century square.

Business 377 traffic growth has -- that's the business route -- had about 12,000 cars in '95, up to about 14,000 cars today. You can see, we're going to have 20,000 cars just on that one corridor going through the square. In addition to that, you have Farm Road 51 and Farm Road 4, which are connected through our square on Houston Street. That represented only 10,000 cars or 11,000 cars in '97. It's continuing to grow, and by 2010, we expect that will be over 25,000 cars.

So a square which is today, we believe, handling about 25,000 cars, by the time the northwest loop is finished, if we don't have a northeast loop, will be handling 35,000 cars. If the northwest loop were not being built, it would be up to 40,000 cars. We're not convinced the square can handle that kind of traffic, and we think it's going to shut down our tourism operation within that time period. You can see the growth here is tremendous in the square traffic.

The traffic along US 377 is even greater. We're going from around 30,000 cars in 1996 up to 37,000 cars today. By -- well, that was '99. We're anticipating those numbers are probably up about 2,000 more now. But just 2005, we'd be up to 45,000 cars, and up to 60,000 cars at the growth rate by 2010.

MR. JOHNSON: Now is that Business 377?

MR. SOUTHERN: No. This is the main 377, outside -- about 60,000 cars, if we just grow at the rate that we've been growing over the last several years on that highway. That's where we need six lanes, because -- we would really prefer a freeway with access roads, but the folks have told us there's not enough right of way there to build that.

Funding the northeast loop, of course, is our top priority, along with funding the six lanes of 377, at least from 144 South to 167 South. Granbury's future depends on you.

This picture I brought last time, it shows one car on that bridge. Today the traffic count on that bridge is up to 30,000 cars per day. I tried to get a better shot of that yesterday, but it was just too overcast to do.

We're going to be back to you. You know, we were here two years ago this month. Mr. Laney was here at that time, of course, and we appreciated his support, and did come through for us. And we hope that we can continue to depend on your support. We know you have a lot of pressures and priorities from everyone.

But we will come back in the future and talk to you more about our farm road system, and how inadequate it's proving to be, and hopefully the eventual extension of 144 to the north.

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Why was the northwest segment done before the northeast?

MR. SOUTHERN: At the time that the -- the first plan, over 12 years ago, there was some discussion about -- and I believe that it really wasn't as much -- 12 years ago, we didn't realize how many people would be commuting on the northeast route. We had about 1,000 folks a day commuting at that time.

Also, the cars -- the big trucks, as they come around the corner of the square, have clipped the building several times as they turn back to the west. And so we felt, at that time, the major northwest portion needed to be done first to get those big trucks off the square. Unfortunately, we now have more big trucks going the other way on the square than we do to the west. But the west ones are still the major problem

I know Mr. Heald's been there when people have had to back up 377 Business to the west to allow one of those big trucks to turn around that corner on the square. So that was the primary reason.

Any other questions? I'd be glad to answer.

MR. JOHNSON: David, do you have --

MR. LANEY: No questions. A couple of comments. I would love to see that traffic off of the square, away from the square, and if we can help you get there as soon as we can, as far as I'm concerned, it's going to be very, very beneficial, aside from traffic.

The traffic volume isn't all you're doing. We have a special program you may not be aware of where we divert traffic to areas of the state that are more attractive than the others just so we inflict a little pain for all that beauty that you all get to -- but it's a very attractive area. I know it's going to continue to grow. And I'm afraid you are going to be enveloped by the Metroplex in some short order, I think. But it sure would be nice to preserve what you have going in that square. It's truly a unique situation, and to the extent we can help, I hope we do.

MR. SOUTHERN: Appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. LANEY: Let me add one other thing. It's a big effort to get on a bus, and it's even a bigger effort to get stuck in traffic on the way down here. We very much appreciate you all taking the time and effort to come down here for a presentation like this. It's reflective of how important it is to you all, and it gets our attention. So we appreciate the effort. It really heightens the emphasis on it for us. So, thanks.

I think we have an elected official --

MR. JOHNSON: We do. Would Senator Sibley or Representative Keffer like to address the commission?

MR. LANEY: Do you need to ask them if they --

SEN. SIBLEY: Thank you. I do appreciate the opportunity to address you, Mr. Chairman, commissioner, engineers. And I think it shows how important this project is to the people of Granbury that they would get on a bus and come down here and test out the interstate system and other traffic woes here in the city of Austin. And I think it drives home the point that they'd like not to end up in this condition around their city in the near future.

I'm here to speak wholeheartedly in favor of both projects, the extension of Loop 587, the reclassification of 377. I believe it's forward-thinking. They're trying to manage a problem before it gets out of hand.

And I think the traffic count there justifies, of course, 377. That's just not a problem. It is becoming one of the alternate routes, as you go north and south, to try to go into Fort Worth. And people are now taking 281 north from here, going through there, seeing some bluebonnets, enjoying some good pie in Hico, and working their way on north. And they want to approach Fort Worth now from the southwest, and 377 is that natural route. So I see it as potentially part of the -- of an alternate route to I-35 going north and south as you go into Fort Worth.

The loop around the city has been something that they -- Mr. Heald, you'll remember -- for a long time, they've been working on. Y'all have approved the northwest portion of the loop, and this is the northeast. It's a matter of time before it gets done. I'd encourage a shortening of the time. It really will help the people of Granbury and Hood County manage their problem.

So I thank you for your time. I appreciate your attention. And I'll yield back the floor. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. KEFFER: It's always fun following him. But I -- Jim Keffer, District 60, and I also want to come and reinforce the testimony. I want to congratulate Commissioner Anderson and your committee on the work you've done.

Of course, Mayor Southern, as always -- they put their money where their mouth is. I mean, they are there. They not only understand the problem, as Senator Sibley said; they are willing to roll up their sleeves also and try to resolve and keep some form and some way to -- for it to grow specifically, you know, and not have the growth that we have seen in other places in Texas.

And they are forward-thinking, and I, too, want to lend my support. I thank you again for the northwest, the loop. Finally it is becoming a reality. And with the northeast part, as you've seen in the presentation, really the more important to be moved up and added to the priority list would be a tremendous thing.

And, Wes, just on 377, you know, being from West Texas, that I see here that the 37,000 vehicle count is in front of the Dairy Queen. Now, you know in West Texas that the center of all wisdom and all things good, they come in the round tables of the Dairy Queen, and we cannot inhibit people from being able to go in that parking lot. So please listen to what they're saying.

But in all seriousness, we just think that the delegation coming down and showing -- you know, they're not strangers to this committee, and they will continue to be down. And I appreciate your openness and willingness to listen. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

I hope everyone is aware that we do not make decisions on the spot when presentations like this are made. I do want you to know that -- a very interesting presentation, and I, for one, salute forward-thinking. I think that it's imperative that communities like Granbury look forward as to what their transportation needs are, and hopefully we can be partners in solving those challenges and getting ahead of the curve, instead of behind it like we are in congested neighbors that you have to the northeast, I guess.

Is there anyone else in the delegation who would like to speak?

(No response.)

MR. JOHNSON: If there are none, thank you so much for the effort that you made to get here. We recognize that these are not easy tasks on some days to assemble everyone and get where you want to get in a timely fashion. And we salute the effort that you've gone through, and we appreciate your being here. It's very helpful to me, individually, and I know the commission as a whole. And I know that Robert wishes that he were here.

If there's nothing else to come before the commission -- David, do you have any observations for --

MR. LANEY: One thought: You might want to go back on 281.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Stop in Hico for some pie.

If there is no other business to come before the commission, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

(Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: October 26, 2000

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 72, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Department of Transportation.

___________10/27/00
(Transcriber) (Date)

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