Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, May 30, 2002

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:08 a.m. and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. Welcome; it is a pleasure to have you here this morning.

For the record, public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 1:51 p.m. on May 22.

Before we begin, it's our tradition to ask my colleagues if they have any comments. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Sure. First of all, I'd like to also welcome everyone here today, appreciate very much those of you taking the time out of your workday or play day to come down to Austin and present your transportation projects for your area. We very much appreciate it; hope you feel comfortable here and have a good day. We look forward to the delegations.

I also couldn't help but notice somebody passing out flyers, and I see some of them scattered up and down here. I thought it was kind of funny, first of all, they forgot to sign it so it's an anonymous flyer, and secondly, it says "Toll Road to Hell" and I couldn't help but notice, I've been at each end of the proposed toll road and it looked beautiful to me, and the regions and the elected officials and the people of the area seem to strongly support it.

And there was a question on here that said, Is the toll road fiscally -- you did say comments -- it says, "Is building toll roads with borrowed money a prudent business decision?" was a big question on the thing. I felt like a reasonable answer should be presented, and the answer is yes, very much so. It gives the state an opportunity to take the valuable recourse it has, leverage projects and get them to the ground sooner rather than later, and help free up people that are stuck in traffic trying to get to work, play, school and those kind of things. So yes, it is a very prudent business thing.

Other than that, I have no other comments.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought this was an advertisement for a restaurant.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's see here, it says: "Politics as usual. The current basis for funding toll roads seems to be based on politics. The example of Camino Colombia -- ooh, I like this -- promoted by switch-hitter Tony Sanchez, appears to be a case study of political maneuvering." Uh-oh, wait a minute, it's bad for my guys. "After a Laredo banker backed Ann Richards and failed to get approval, he switched allegiance to George W. Bush." What the hell is this? Guys got nothing better to do than to do that stuff?

I apologize to Copperas Cove and Tyler for not being able to be at your receptions last night. I was in Houston all day long listening to some congestion-mobility and urban pollution problems that are occurring in that area and I just couldn't get back in time, and I do apologize to the both of you. I was in Copperas Cove a couple of weeks ago, I'll be in Tyler soon, and a month ago I had the great honor of being in El Paso and points out West to see some of the members in that community, and I will get to each community before it's over with. When I go someplace I can't just stop, I'm not a drive-by commissioner, I've got to spend some time and understand what I'm looking at, so please accept my apology.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We do have three delegations here this morning and we're delighted that you are here. We will hear from Copperas Cove first, I believe Tyler second, and then El Paso. What we will do is after Copperas Cove has made their presentation, we will take a short recess so that those members who have come mostly attired in their yellow shirts -- which it's very nice to see -- can get back to commerce and industry while the traffic is still bearable up that way, and then the Tyler group and we'll take a short recess after that, and the El Paso group, and short recess after that, and then go through the traditional agenda items after the three delegations.

CITY OF COPPERAS COVE

(Fred Harris, Mayor Rodney Nauert, Col. William Parry, Sen. Kip Averitt, Rep. Sid Miller, Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp)

MR. JOHNSON: Having said that, I would like to welcome the people from Copperas Cove, and I believe that Fred Harris is going to lead the delegation.

Fred, it's a pleasure to have you here this morning. Welcome. The dais is yours and anybody coming to the dais can adjust the height; there's a switch I believe to your right and a little bit down. So the floor is yours.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. The first thing I want to do is disavow that little piece of paper that you got. We have the yellow shirts; the paper does not belong to us, so maybe you'll look more favorably upon us.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARRIS: We're glad to be here again to have the opportunity to present our case to you. I particularly am not going to bore you with the details of the same kind of presentation that I particularly made the last time, all I've come is to ask you to move us to Priority 1 status for our reliever route, and you already know that.

So the first thing I'm going to do is call out some of the names of the people who are here to support us, and then I'll call the elected officials to come to the podium to speak. I'll start out with Senator Kip Averitt -- would you stand, please? Since my back is to you, if you don't stand, I won't know it, but stand, please -- Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp; Representative Sid Miller; Colonel Parry, the garrison commander at Fort Hood; John Hull, the Coryell County Judge; Mayor Jack Calvert, Lampasas; Mayor Pro Tem from Killeen, Kathy Gilmore; Mayor Rodney Nauert from Copperas Cove. And if I missed anybody, I tried to check everybody's name as we were coming in; I hope I didn't miss anybody here that's supporting us.

We have regional support for this, believe it or not, and you have seen that already. We had some resolutions signed by some cities and the whole region is behind this. So without any more statements right now, I'll call our elected officials to give you a presentation in our support, and I'll call Senator Kip Averitt first.

SEN. AVERITT: Commissioners, good morning. It's good to be here today. I know you have a busy agenda today so I will be brief as well.

We have an extremely important project in our region that you know about; we've been here before to discuss the merits and Commissioner Williamson was gracious enough to come by and personally visit our project, see it firsthand. It's something that means a lot, obviously, to our region. It affects three counties: Bell County, Coryell County, and Lampasas County. We do have regional support for the project. As a matter of fact, we have a clear shot right now. The proposed route is in an area that the citizens of the entire region support; we do not have opposition that we know of. This is a project that's been on the drawing board now for 14 years, so we've got a restless teenager that's ready to hatch here, we want to get something moving on this project and we think the time is right.

Our citizens have worked very long and hard on this project. They've accumulated match money; they've done their homework; they've done their research. This project is ready to get moving. It's extremely important to the economic development of our community and to the quality of life for the citizens of that growing area of the state. With Fort Hood so close, the largest employer in the state of Texas, it's vital that the infrastructure keep up with the demand that we have there, and this is a huge part of that infrastructure need that we have.

We have many of the business leaders of the entire region here today, and if you'll indulge me, would all of those who are in support of this 190 reliever route please stand so the commissioners can see. We have a good group of folks here today, and I also assume that all those folks standing up around the edges are also in support of the project.

(General laughter.)

SEN. AVERITT: The folks back home want us to get this done; we're here today to ask you to move the project up to Priority 1 status and help us get this thing rolling. We'll work with you on this, and we thank you so much for your attention and your propensity to help us get this project completed. I'd be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. MILLER: Good morning, commissioners. It's good to be with you again -- and I'll stress "again" asking for this same project to move forward. Commissioner Williamson, your presence was missed last night, but I just want to assure you that your allocation of beverage and food was heartily consumed even though you weren't able to attend with us.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this either because myself, my chief of staff visited with each one of you at length over this project and you know my concerns and desires to move this project forward. I'll just highlight a few points. This is vitally important, not only to the city of Copperas Cove but to the people that pass through that region and also to the thousands of military enlisted personnel that are trying to get in and out of Fort Hood.

Things that have changed since our last presentation, of course the events of September 11 have put a new dynamic on our security there at Fort Hood. We now have one gate which is backing traffic up on 190 even more severely than it was before, so we're dealing with that. We have the new joint-use airport coming on line which we expect a tremendous amount of growth around that airport and access in and out of it is going to further congest 190.

You know, one thing that's very unusual about this project when you're trying to loop a city is normally you have a large amount of merchants that are against it, but I can honestly say that that is not the case here in Copperas Cove. I can only think of one instance, one person that has expressed opposition to this, but I can assure you and you can see by the number of business people and merchants here in attendance this morning that they are fully 100 percent behind this project. They are behind this project to the extent that they're willing to invest $6-1/2 million of local money to get this project up and going.

One of my concerns is that our environmental impact study will soon expire if we do not move this project forward and we'll have to redo that which will slow the project up. We would like to see it moved up to Priority 2 or design stage or whatever is in vogue that you are calling that now, I'm not sure -- you changed that on us.

One caveat, and when I close, is that we would like to reserve the right at some future point to come back to you and change our proposal should we decide to form an RMA. It's something that we are currently exploring; once the rules come out we're going to consider that; we don't know at this point whether that's something we want to pursue or not; there is a lot of appealing properties about that, so just that caveat, we may want to come back and decide to do that once we get the complete information and better educate ourselves on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's very wise.

REP. MILLER: Thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. HUPP: Good morning. Commissioner Williamson, we are not only happy that you came out there the other day, but in case he didn't mention it to you, he happened to come at just the right time when traffic was at its peak, so it took what, a good 20 minutes to get from one end of Copperas Cove to the other, so I felt a little guilty feeling glad about that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The problem was I saw you and Sid and Kip at the other end holding traffic up.

(General laughter.)

REP. HUPP: You weren't supposed to see that. You know, in the legislature one of the interesting things that I've found is that it's always a balancing act: you go there representing your constituents, the people of your area, but once you're in the legislature, you also have to kind of balance that with the needs of the state, as you certainly well know.

And in thinking about this on the way down here today, some of the things that kept coming to my mind from a legislative or a state point of view are things that the senator and Representative Miller already mentioned, and these are things that it is one of the fastest-growing areas of the state; we've got Fort Hood, the largest military installation in the free world; we've got the largest employer in the state of Texas out there; we now have Tarleton there; we're going to have a joint-use airport in the very near future which is going to have a tremendous draw not only from that area but a tremendous draw from Georgetown, Round Rock, the people that don't want to drive all the way down to the south end of Austin, Temple, Waco; it's a training route for when our Fort Hood people go out toward Brady and the western end of my district, and bless their hearts, when they're on the road and they have their convoys going, as you can imagine, that ties up the traffic even more, but it's vitally important to them. And as Senator -- ooh, I just gave you a raise -- as Representative Miller mentioned, since September 11 I think not only some of the state issues, statewide issues, not just our little locale, but I think this is now of national importance as well, and I'm not sure if anybody has even thought about that. It is vital.

I may be jumping ahead of myself just a little bit here, but we hope a little later this morning to find out that we'll be having a state veterans' cemetery going in in that area as well, so all signs point to there being a tremendous increase in the traffic and traffic that has importance to the state as well as to the nation.

So I appreciate you folks, as always, being here in the morning. I know how tough it is to be down here and do the work you do, and I appreciate you guys. And if there's anything we can do for you, don't hesitate to contact any of our offices if we can get you information that you need, and of course, we're here to urge movement up the priority list. Questions? Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: I've got to stick to my scenario or I'll get discombobulated here. This is the time I was going to ask all the representatives and all the supporters for our reliever route to stand up, and I'm going to ask you again to stand up. I'd like for the commissioners to stand up too. I thought you would get the hint.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARRIS: In front of you I would like to thank our representatives because they've been big-time supporters of this from the time I started working on it, they have never wavered, so I want to say this publicly, that I really appreciate their support.

I was told by one of my former bosses that I shouldn't stay up here too long -- that's why he's a former boss. I hear him laughing back there. At this time I would like to bring our mayor, Honorable Rodney Nauert.

MAYOR NAUERT: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Rodney Nauert, mayor of the City of Copperas Cove, Texas, and I want to thank the commission this morning for taking time out of your busy day to meet with our delegation.

The people of Copperas Cove know that the commission is faced with enormous demands and challenges to meet the infrastructure of highways in our state, but as you've heard today and in prior years, Copperas Cove's traffic problem is still there and it's gotten worse over the last year. This last year accident rates on 190 have increased by 33 percent, traffic counts are up, and with TxDOT's plan to widen 190 east of Copperas Cove from four lanes to six lanes, traffic flow will only deteriorate more.

Driver safety is our main concern in Copperas Cove and I'm sure that's your concern across the state, but we also must look today at economics in our area. Copperas Cove and the entire Killeen-Temple MSA is experiencing phenomenal growth. Leading Texas economists have pointed out this Central Texas corridor is the new leader for the future. I know Commissioner Williamson, the other day when he came to Copperas Cove, was talking about clean air, and we were showing him some clean air. We didn't get to fly him around like we wanted to because he wouldn't get in our helicopter.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No way.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR NAUERT: But he was talking about clean air across the Houston and Dallas areas and what you are doing with your air problems down in that area, and I can assure you that Copperas Cove and Central Texas area, from Belton to Lampasas, Hill Country, we have open spaces, we have workers that want to work, we have clean air and we want to keep it clean, but we have open spaces for more industry, and I think the State of Texas is looking at Copperas Cove and Central Texas as a new growth area. It's not even thought about, it's a mindless thing: You know that Copperas Cove is going to continue to grow, our Central Texas area is going to grow.

Fort Hood is there. Fort Hood is one of our great neighbors, Fort Hood is going to be there, also the new airport, our joint-use airport. We're going to have phenomenal growth out of that airport; it's going to happen. Copperas Cove's reliever route is not just a Copperas Cove issue; it's a regional one. We have great support from Fort Hood, our surrounding cities and mayors. Copperas Cove is proud to have the kind of neighbors we have.

We ask the commission today to move to the next phase, land acquisition, purchase of right of way. The longer this phase takes, the more problems we're going to face in the future. Now from the citizens of Copperas Cove, the city council of Copperas Cove I want to thank you for your consideration and help in this project. Thanks again.

MR. HARRIS: Commissioners, we're going to present a video right now. The video is really an update of the one you saw last year, so you'll see the same person that's driving through Copperas Cove and you'll see some more really frustrated people driving through the city. Pay attention really to the guy that's rubbing his head in the traffic; I thought that was pretty cool.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

MR. HARRIS: That was not a sleeping machine. We hope you saw something different in that video than you did last time to enhance your information. I would like to ask Colonel William Parry, garrison commander, Fort Hood, to make a few remarks now.

COL. PARRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Texas Transportation Commission. As Fred said, my name is Colonel Bill Parry and I command the Fort Hood Garrison, the largest military installation in the free world and the only post where the United States Army has currently stationed two divisions. On behalf of Lieutenant General Bell who is the commanding general of Fort Hood and III Corps -- which is America's counter-offensive force -- thank you for the opportunity to briefly address the relationship between Fort Hood and the Highway 190 reliever route.

Senator Shapleigh and the Texas Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and Military Installations visited Fort Hood last week -- Senator, it's good to see you again -- and they heard testimony on some of the issues that I want to briefly address with you this morning. I'd like to make three brief points: the first is quality of life; the second is safety and access to training; and then the third is strategic deployment infrastructure.

First on quality of life of our soldiers, our family members, our great Department of the Army civilians, and our military retirees. As the video indicated, we have 42,000 soldiers assigned, approximately 30,000 family members, and a supportive population of approximately 165,000 people. I'm only capable of housing about 25 percent of my eligible population on post in our 6,000 sets of family quarters, and so therefore, the proximity to Copperas Cove with Fort Hood has established an inextricable link between the two. One-third of the population of Copperas Cove is either a soldier, a military family member, a retiree, or a surviving spouse, and that's somebody who must use Highway 190 to either get to work, to our great hospital which is now a Level III trauma center, or access the goods and services at Fort Hood.

The Army has seen a significant demographic shift over the past 20 years and the quality of life is now really truly key to mission readiness for the Army. Soldiers entering the Army today are likely to be three to five years older than their counterparts were 20 years ago, they're probably married with a family member, they're better educated, and it's extremely expensive today to train and educate and recruit a soldier into the United States Army. So therefore, retention of that soldier is tremendously important to us. We have an old saying that we enlist soldiers but we re-enlist families, and I will tell you that quality of life is key to the decision that families make about re-enlisting in the Army. Now, this reliever route would be a significant quality of life enhancement for our soldiers and their families.

The second point is safety and access to training areas, particularly as this area continues to grow, as you saw on the video, and as a result of the Summer 2004 opening of the joint-use airport at Robert Gray Army Airfield which is located on Fort Hood. Now, the mayor talked about the accident statistics; let me bring that home a little bit more carefully. Six months ago the wife of a soldier from Fort Hood was killed turning left off of Highway 190 into the Wal-Mart parking lot, just misjudged the speed of the oncoming traffic, and she was immediately killed. She'd been married for six days.

About 11,000 soldiers, family members or retirees live in Copperas Cove and have to use Highway 190, so their safety is a concern to me. Additionally, more modern equipment that we have in our inventory today has extended our requirements for training space, such as our aviation training area which stretches between Fort Hood and San Saba to the west. Support vehicles have to use Highway 190 in order to get out to that training area and congestion is a significant challenge for oversized vehicles which contributes to the problem that you saw on the video. Plus it also inhibits our ability to get to other training areas that we use in the San Antonio area, such as Camp Bullis and others.

And third and finally, infrastructure for strategic deployment. It's not a question of if, it is a question of when III Corps forces are going to be called to deploy in this nation's war against terrorism, and that will rely heavily on the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System between military posts in Texas and Louisiana and the strategic ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi. Highway 190 is part of that system but through Copperas Cove its current state is neither strategic or an enhancement to deploy ability.

So again, on behalf of the Fort Hood leadership, thank you for the opportunity to address these three issues this morning, and the reliever route is important to Fort Hood, both today and in the future. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I need to ask him a question.

MR. JOHNSON: We have a question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for being here. I'm the fellow that called your office and asked you for the House Transportation Committee if you could go to Corpus and I found out that you had previous plans, but I appreciated your prompt response.

COL. PARRY: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: A lot of the people who are going to be at that hearing tomorrow are here today, and if you don't mind, I just want to ask you a couple of questions about a high-speed corridor north-south through the state, exiting over to Fort Hood and how the military, within your capacity to comment -- and I understand you have guidelines -- but one of the things that we are working on and we'll unveil in the next 30 days is a concept to crisscross the state with high-speed limited access road and rail corridors, and we're told that the United States military generally, and the Army particularly, has an interest in moving quickly south to Corpus Christi and perhaps quickly east maybe to Louisiana or someplace where you have some other bases.

Could you share primarily for the staff that's in the audience today that will be at that committee hearing tomorrow the Army's viewpoint about that?

COL. PARRY: Yes, sir. Well, specifically Fort Hood's viewpoint and that's kind of what I can talk to today. You accurately hit on the genesis of the problem. We have two strategic ports: Our principal port of deployment is Beaumont and Corpus Christi is the second one. If we were to deploy both of the divisions out of Fort Hood simultaneously, then it would require both ports for that to work. The track vehicles, the tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles, artillery pieces, would go by rail and we have just finished or just completed a military construction project at Fort Hood to add a 12-spur railhead for that purpose to get us to the ports in six to seven days to meet the Commander in Chief's time lines. But there are about 11,000 wheeled vehicles, oversized cargo vehicles that would have to move to the ports as well; they would not move by rail, they would move by road system.

And so therefore, because of the size and the volume of traffic that we would be talking about, the ability to rapidly move that oversized cargo, wheeled vehicles to the ports in a timely fashion to link up with the vehicles that arrive by rail is key and critical because that's what's going to haul the ammunition and some of the other secondary loads of supplies. And to that end, then, the widening of State Highway 195 from the main gate of Fort Hood down to Interstate 35 on the north side of Georgetown has remained our number one priority, and then there are a series of four-lane roads that move to the Port of Beaumont from that point onward, although it's a little surreptitious in terms of how you actually go because I-35 is not the primary corridor, it cuts across to the southeast.

So the ability to rapidly get to the ports for strategic deployment is key and critical to the Army and to Fort Hood, and again, like I said, we firmly believe this, we're not trying to scare anyone but it is only seriously a function of when the call is going to come for us to deploy, and III Corps has the capabilities of strategically altering the landscape out there to the point of it's going to require heavy equipment, heavy forces to do that, and the ability to rapidly get to the ports is important for us, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And with a lot of respect for your position and the organization of which you're a part, I understand there's some questions that you could not address definitive, I'm not trying to elicit from you the response I want, but it might help the commission in its planning scenario and it might help the private sector whom we think are preparing to come forward and make proposals on these corridors. Would it be an accurate statement that a direct high-speed road and rail to Corpus Christi would influence how you deployed in a time of crisis?

COL. PARRY: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In other words, if you could go 31 miles to a direct concrete road and rail that went straight into the port, would that influence deployment?

COL. PARRY: The ability to rapidly get to Beaumont and Corpus Christi is a significant strategic deployment enhancement for Fort Hood, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you so very much. I will, if you don't mind, pass those remarks along to the people in Corpus that we'll be meeting with tomorrow.

COL. PARRY: My pleasure to do so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, commissioners, and my closing remarks are that any option that you propose to us or give us that could help us help ourselves, we're open to it. Thank you for having us, thank all my support back here, and friends and neighbors, thank you for having us.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Robert, any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I just had one question. On the right of way itself, has the city taken any early stages in trying to protect that right of way? You know, sometimes cities --

MR. HARRIS: Let me ask our engineer to address that. Come on up here. He's the expert here.

MR. BOYER: We have a subdivision that's going in right adjacent there, following the right of way line that has been proposed, and we are going to do everything that we can to protect the right of way.

MR. JOHNSON: For the record, would you identify yourself and your position?

MR. BOYER: I'm Paul Boyer, city engineer. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir. It was a good presentation.

MR. JOHNSON: Excellent presentation. Thank you so much and thank everyone from the Greater Copperas Cove community for being here. As you're aware, we don't make decisions on the spot, but it was a very impressive presentation.

We will take a brief recess.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I say one thing?

MR. JOHNSON: You certainly may.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I do want to say -- Representative Miller may have had to leave, but Senator Averitt and Representative Hupp, I know have been seriously looking at the option of a regional mobility authority, and I just want to go on record as saying how much we appreciate the three of you who have always been supportive of transportation in our state, and we're aware of that. We're very appreciative for you already beginning to look forward to how you can make the modern transportation system of Texas a part of your backyard; that's wise, that's good thinking, that's forward thinking, and we appreciate it, and no doubt we take recognition of the fact that you are thinking ahead. Thank you, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. We will take a brief recess so that our friends from Central Texas can return and the Tyler folks can get set up.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CITY OF TYLER

(Mayor Joey Seeber, Judge Larry Craig, Jeff Austin III, Sen. David Cain, Rep. Leo Berman)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. I'm delighted to welcome the delegation from Tyler and Smith County to Austin. I believe that Mayor Joey Seeber will take the lead. Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR SEEBER: Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Johnson and Commissioners Nichols and Williamson, Executive Director Behrens, we thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I am Joey Seeber, the mayor of Tyler since May 8 of this year, three weeks, and a member of the city council in Tyler since 1996.

We are here today to request that Priority 1 status be granted for the construction funding of the first phase of the southwest 5.9-mile portion of Loop 49 from State Highway 155 to State Highway 31. That phase includes two lanes of an ultimate four-lane controlled access facility. Finally, we request that you support our long-range plan that would continue development of Loop 49 to connect with I-20 and eventually extend Loop 49 north of I-20 to US 69 north of Lindale which would complete the US 69 relief route around the Tyler-Lindale metropolitan area.

There are a number of people here today that are supporting us. First, I'd like for Senator David Cain to come up. He's here supporting our project and has a few words to say.

SEN. CAIN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with you; Commissioners Williamson and Nichols, likewise. And Commissioner Williamson, it's my first appearance since you've been here and I'm glad to see you in a different role in transportation than I've seen over the years.

I'm here, as our young, dynamic mayor has told you, in absolute support of Loop 49 and its continuation. It's vitally important to us in East Texas. I'm here also, commissioners, as one of the three senators that represent Smith County and the City of Tyler. I was called yesterday evening by Lieutenant Governor Ratliff who asked me to tell you he was in support of this project and apologizes for not being here. I was also called by Senator Staples, but he wanted to make sure, so he wrote down that he was in support of this and made sure that I carried this message to you. But indeed, it is one that is near and dear to all three of us and we would ask your favorable consideration.

You're going to hear a great deal more from our mayor, our county judge, and from civic leader Jeff Austin in just a minute, but I want you to know how important this project is to all of us. It's been a growing need and increasing priority for well over 20 years and particularly the eight years that I've been in the State Senate. It's exciting to see it finally coming to fruition and we're looking forward to see it come more. I believe you're already familiar with the big picture aspects of Loop 49, including the evidence of explosive growth and development in the region and the much-needed enhancements to safety, efficiency, connectivity and air quality which we'll see in the future when it's completed.

While some stages of the loop, specifically the northeast sections, are a little further off in the future, today we're anxious and ready to move forward on a significant portion of the loop. Two things specifically: one, we're requesting priority status for construction funding for the southwest portion of Loop 49 from SH 155 to State Highway 31; secondly, we'd like to emphasize the importance of continuing development and inclusion in the transportation plan of US 69, Tyler and Lindale relief route portions of Loop 49. These are very necessary and you'll hear more about both.

Naturally, this project is supported by a broad cross-section of people in our area and a vast array of local organizations including the City of Tyler, Smith County, Tyler Area Chamber, the Tyler Economic Development Council, members of the MPO, and I and my other senators represent it and support it wholeheartedly.

We'd like to say a special thanks to Mary Owen and her staff who do such a good job for us. And with that, thank you very much for your favorable consideration.

MR. WILLIAMSON: First, senator and longtime friend, for the record and audience, Lieutenant Governor Ratliff and Senator Staples did make phone calls as well as contacting the senator, and Senator Staples was, as you indicated, most insistent that I understand that he was really interested in this project, not just interested in it, so the constituents should know that.

The constituents should also know that I had the great pleasure of serving with Senator Cain in the House for six years, and in fact, he was my first chairman on the House Transportation Committee in 1985. You could ask for no better and more forceful voice for transportation, as far as this member is concerned, than Senator Cain. He's an acknowledged expert in the subject matter and he cares deeply about the state's transportation system, and I publicly acknowledge that and am thankful that it's you I'm looking at in this matter.

SEN. CAIN: Commissioner, I'm very humbled by that, and we do go back a long ways and it's just great to see you in that chair. Look forward to working with you a long time. Thank you.

MAYOR SEEBER: We're also fortunate to have our state representative of Smith County, Leo Berman, who would like to say a few words.

MR. BERMAN: Thank you very much, mayor. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, staff members of TxDOT. This is my third appearance before you; it's always a pleasure to be here, and I want to thank you for the many hours that you give to the citizens of the state of Texas. Thank you very much.

Allow me also to thank you publicly for the support that you've provided for the Loop 49 project around Tyler, Texas. I also want to single out one of your own, a lady who does an outstanding job as our TxDOT district engineer for the Tyler District, Mary Owen. We all have an excellent working relationship with Mary and I'm very proud that she's our district engineer.

Thank you, Mary.

I won't go into a great deal of detail in my presentation except to once again reiterate the importance of Loop 49 to the Texas Trunk System and resolving the congestion in Houston and also in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex by allowing the traveling public to proceed northwest from Interstate Highway 10 in Beaumont, through Tyler, to Greenville on US 69 and then west to Decatur on US 380.

Locally, Smith County and the City of Tyler have contributed $1 million toward the construction of the Loop 49 western segment, and in addition, a local contribution of $500,000 to perform the preliminary engineering for the Loop 49 western segment was provided by local entities. The standard 10 percent participation in right of way and utility adjustment costs by Smith County and the City of Noonday is also anticipated.

Finally, let me say that the US 69 Lindale relief route further complements Loop 49 and the US 69 Phase I Texas Trunk System Corridor. This project is currently in the long-range plan authorization; this segment connects Loop 49 to Interstate Highway 20 and initiates a significant portion of the overall relief route strategy.

Smith County is ready to begin the acquisition of right of way once the commission grants proper authorization. Presently this portion of Loop 49 is not included in the UTP and is authorized up to the right of way acquisition by Commission Minute Order 103708.

Our goal in Smith County, in East Texas, is the expeditious completion of Loop 49 and I can't thank you enough for any support that you can provide to the accomplishment of this goal. Thank you, gentlemen. Do you have any questions? If not, it's a pleasure to be here again before you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MAYOR SEEBER: Thank you, Representative Berman. I might add that Representatives Glaze and Chuck Hopson are also supportive, and I believe there's a letter from Chuck Hopson, so our entire delegation, all of our representatives from the area are supportive and I believe have letters there supporting it.

The Tyler-Smith County outer loop project, now called Loop 59, has been discussed by local government and business leaders since the 1960s. In the early 1980s we requested that TxDOT include the outer loop in their project development plan. The Tyler Metropolitan Planning Organization has included the loop in each of its metropolitan transportation plans since 1984. Other significant milestones include in 1993 the TxDOT commission passed Minute Order 102419 which authorized advanced planning for the southern segment of the loop but did not commit funding for further development or construction.

In 1994 the City of Tyler-Smith County, and a local foundation offered, and TxDOT accepted, $500,000 for engineering and environment studies on the west section of Loop 49. As a result, in April of that year, Minute Order 103708 was passed by the commission. In 1996 the technically preferred route for an eight-mile southern section was announced; in 1998 the final environmental impact statement for the southern section of Loop 49 was approved by the Federal Highway Administration with the issuance of the record of decision.

In 1999 we requested and the commission approved funding for the first 5.5-mile $16 million phase of this project from US 69 south of Tyler, going west to State Highway 155. In the year 2000 the commission approved our request for a 2-mile $9.1 million segment from US 69 south going east to FM 756, or as we know it, Paluxy. In 2001, the final environmental impact statement for the western section of Loop 49 was approved by the Federal Highway Administration with the issuance of the record of decision.

The City of Tyler and Smith County provided $1.6 million of local match for the first phase of construction that will start later this year. The second phase was matched with $1 million from Tyler-Smith County and the City of Whitehouse, a community of 5,000 located south of Tyler. Tyler's economy is one of the strongest in Texas; we've set records in new construction, residential sales and retail sales for the last four years. We are the regional hub for retail, medical and educational services in East Texas. While we are pleased to have this prosperity, it has presented us with some unique challenges.

Our city council views traffic and transportation as the most critical priority for city funds. In 1995 our citizens passed a half-cent sales tax for infrastructure improvements and to date we have spent or committed approximately $18 million on traffic and transportation projects. This amount includes $2.5 million for Loop 49 planning, right of way and construction. All that we have planned will fall short, however, if Loop 49 is not constructed.

Approximately 63,000 vehicles every day travel US 69 and State Highway 31 through East Texas; when they get to Tyler, they're forced into a bottleneck. The primary way to get from one side of the city to the other is on Loop 323 which is not a controlled access facility which currently averages 47,000 vehicles per day, it serves hundreds of businesses as well as providing direct access to four high schools, two public and two private. The majority of the time Loop 323 is at or exceeding its designed capacity. Level of Service E and F are commonplace on Loop 323.

The City of Tyler welcomes TxDOT's position on access management. The city has implemented access management strategies in recent years to help preserve the mobility of our arterial and collector systems. Raised medians are being constructed on Loop 323 and US 69 to curtail the alarming accident rates on these facilities by the TxDOT Tyler district. To effectively implement access management strategies, the city and state continue to work together on these projects.

Many local drivers are finding alternate routes to stay off Loop 323 and in the process are contributing to a congested and dangerous situation on smaller farm-to-market roads in the southern parts of the city and county. As a result, according to the statistics published by the Texas Department of Public Safety, rural Smith County roads are among the most dangerous in Texas. We've been near the top of the list for total and injury accidents for the last five years.

The numbers in Tyler are not very encouraging either. The increasing congestion has caused Loop 323 to experience accident rates at 86 percent higher than the state average for divided roadways of four or more lanes. Loop 323 has a rate that is 51 percent higher than the state average for similar highway systems.

In conclusion, the construction of Loop 49 will establish a controlled access facility that will preserve the mobility of the Loop 49 and Highway 69 corridor; it will create a safer and more convenient route for traffic traveling through the Tyler area; it will provide relief for traffic congestion on existing roadways in urbanized Smith County; it will increase mobility and provide improved access, including emergency services to southern Tyler-Smith County area; it will mitigate air pollution concentration; and it will connect to State Highway 64 which will provide access to our new $15 million airport terminal at Tyler Pounds Field. Our airport is the largest in East Texas and is projected to have 140,000 operations this year with future projections indicating a continual increase in air traffic.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your considering this project and we would hope that you would see fit to fund this phase of the project that we're requesting.

At this time I would like to introduce Larry Craig, Smith County Judge.

JUDGE CRAIG: Thank you, mayor. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, executive director, and staff. I too would like to thank you for the opportunity to again be before you and ask for your continued support on our project for Loop 49 in Tyler and Smith County.

Smith County Commissioners Court has been supportive of this program since its inception and we've shown that support by pledging $3.7 million to that project. That money has been for planning, been for right of way, and for construction funds to help move this project forward.

We certainly understand the need to relieve congestion on the Tyler and Smith County roads and streets and to provide a regional bypass, or relief route, if you will, as part of the Texas Trunk System. Tyler, Smith County and East Texas have been expanding tremendously in economic and population growth. Over the past four years especially we've set all-time records in building permits, in retail sales, in home sales, and most importantly in jobs created.

This region has become the center for multi-state distribution centers such as Wal-Mart in Palestine, Neiman-Marcus in Longview, Target Stores in Tyler-Lindale, and the Goodyear store in Terrell, all of these last three being on the Interstate 20 corridor. Last year Brookshire's Grocery Company which is headquartered in Tyler and employs over 10,000 people built a new 350,000-square-foot distribution center that services their 135-store system. This is great and this is wonderful, but these distribution centers have thousands of employees and have added literally hundreds of trucks to our highways every day.

With economic growth, again fortunately, population growth is there, and since 1960 when the majority of our county roads and county streets and city streets were built, the MSA in Tyler-Smith County has grown to 179,000 and to handle this growth we must keep up with our infrastructure, especially with the movement of people and goods through our roads and highways.

As stated earlier, the segment we're requesting construction funding for is the 5.9-mile segment from State Highway 155 to State Highway 31 West in Tyler. This is one of the most congested and dangerous areas in Smith County and it makes a major contribution to the statistics that were referred to by Mayor Seeber.

Finally, we all support the Texas Trunk System adopted by this honorable Texas Transportation Commission in 1998. One of the top three priorities for funding in that system is the upgrade of US Highway 69 from Beaumont through East Texas to Greenville, connecting with US 380 in Decatur north of Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as shown on the regional map. This corridor will serve as a regional relief route and it will take the pressure off the metropolitan systems in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth area.

State Highway 31 from Waco through Tyler is also in Phase 1 of the Texas Trunk System; both State Highway 31 and US 69 intersect in the heart of Tyler and Smith County. This potentially will cause a bottleneck in the most popular city and county in East Texas; therefore, the investment strategy of the trunk system will not be successful if the increased traffic is not able to bypass Tyler. Currently we estimate that 12- to 15,000 vehicles per day that pass through Tyler and Smith County on their way to other destinations; this will only increase with the new trunk system.

Our East Texas neighbors support the need for this project and have written many letters, passed many resolutions endorsing the construction of Loop 49, and we've provided you with some 55 statements of support from counties, from cities, from school districts, chambers of commerce, major employers and economic development groups in East Texas. We have a number of those people here today and I'd like to ask all of those folks that are from Tyler and Smith County to stand that this honorable commission might see who's here with us. Thank you.

In conclusion, you can see Loop 49 has been a long-term priority for Tyler, for Smith County, and for East Texas. This year the City of Tyler and Smith County have committed an additional $1 million in match for this next section of Loop 49 construction. And as Senator Cain said, we very, very much appreciate what Mary Owen, what her very qualified staff has done to help us in Tyler and Smith County, and also we thank this commission for your support.

And now it's my pleasure to introduce to you Jeff Austin III who is representing the Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you, judge. I guess yellow is the color of the day. We did not hand out the yellow deals nor did we bring our yellow T-shirts, and I will say as a banker the use of debt instruments is okay.

(General laughter.)

MR. AUSTIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners and staff. My name is Jeff Austin III; I'm representing the Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce. I've been an active member of the chamber for a number of years and currently serve as chairman of the Development Council; two years ago I chaired the Transportation Committee for the Tyler Chamber.

The Tyler Chamber has taken a lead role in over its 100-year history in promoting quality transportation for our city and region. In the 1960s the chamber first proposed an outer loop around Tyler. Much of the pressure for constructing Loop 49 has come from the tremendous growth the city has experienced over the last decade. Our population for our MSA has grown from 155,000 to 175,000 from 1990 to 2000, and new growth has recently accelerated. Just recently published census figures show we grew by 4,000 in 2001; we are now at 179,000. If that annual rate of growth continues, we will surpass 220,000 by the end of this decade.

Traditionally the pattern of growth has been to the south of Tyler but in recent years there's been considerable growth to the west, as we're going to point out on the map up here. For example, our new $15 million airport terminal will open this summer just off of Highway 64 West. This is a regional airport which serves most of East Texas. The airport will be approximately one mile inside Loop 49 and will provide connectivity to I-20 and other regional airports.

Oxford Aviation, a top international flight training school based in England, has plans to construct its first U.S. facility at the Tyler Airport. They will employ 80 and train hundreds of students every year, and they are currently in operation right now.

Distant Lands Company Coffee will break ground next month on a new 60,000-square-foot processing plant on Highway 64 between West Loop 323 and the proposed Loop 49. They will employ 60.

Jordan's Plaza on Highway 64 West houses several technology companies and will be adding more this year.

A national retail company has selected Loop 323 and Highway 64 West as their lead site for a major new development.

Cox Communications is about to complete construction on a six-state customer service center on Southwest Loop 323 that will employ 600. They do have plans also to add a second facility with 400 additional jobs within five years.

The Southwest Loop is also the lead site for a proposed arena and convention center, a project that could include other retail and office and residential projects.

Tyler Junior College has its continuing education complex on the Southwest Loop and will open a new 70,000-square-foot skills training center this fall.

Finally, in 1998 the Target Distribution Center opened on Interstate 20 northwest of Tyler and currently employs 1,100. That does create a lot of truck traffic through our area.

All this new investment made by the public and private sectors has and will add pressure to the highways and streets on the west side of Tyler, thereby making the need for Loop 49 even greater. At the same time, completing Loop 49 around the west side of Tyler will create a US 69 relief route around Tyler. That relief route will permit traffic originating on Interstate 10 near Beaumont to travel through East Texas to the north of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex on the trunk system without a major bottleneck. It will also allow southbound traffic on I-35 north of DFW to avoid the Metroplex and Houston en route to I-10 in Beaumont.

Also, the US 69 corridor is a vital piece of the southeast Texas hurricane evacuation route and Loop 49 will complete a corridor system gap and relief route around Tyler that will improve mobility in our region of the state.

The chamber appreciates the funding support provided by TxDOT and the local units of government that have financed the first two segments of the Loop 49 project. While we will continue to request support from these organizations, we've also decided to seek federal dollars. In March of this year we submitted a request for Federal Highway Demonstration Funding in the amount of $31 million to help fund Loop 49 between State Highway 155 all the way up to Interstate 20.

Our congressman, Ralph Hall, has taken the lead on this request and we have pledges of support from Congressman Max Sandlin who is a member of the House Transportation Committee and from Congressmen Pete Sessions and Jim Turner. We know there's stiff competition for these federal funds, just as there's stiff competition and fierce competition for your TxDOT funds, but we will leave no stone unturned to see this project through its final completion.

We appreciate and support the commitment and strategy of the commission to direct funding to complete entire corridors and the actual segments within the corridor to fulfill a mission of greater mobility within our region and across the state.

That concludes our presentation. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, any questions, observations?

MR. NICHOLS: Probably more comments than questions. First of all, I'd like to thank you for a great presentation. You've done everything that we've asked over the last three or four years; you've shown not only full local support, city working together and the county and stuff like that and the chamber, but you've also shown regional support, you've gone outside the county. Obviously it does affect flow through the area.

You've stepped up to the plate with money, a vested interest, the county and the city -- greatly appreciated. You've helped pay for pre-engineering, a very important step. And it is on what I consider a critical intersection of corridors, the 69, the 31, but also the 20, so in effect, what you're going to have is a connection between I-10, 20 and 30 right through you and every bit of it goes into that loop area.

So I just want to compliment you to keep up the good work, keep doing what you're doing, keep pursuing it. Good luck on the Demonstration money. And I would like to send you back with some food for thought, and that is next month -- last session, with the help of many legislators, they passed the Regional Mobility Authority, the ability to create a mobility authority in a region, whether single county or multi-county -- next month I believe we're scheduled to vote on the final set of rules so you'll have a set of rules, kind of a general guideline to follow.

And as you look at the projects in your area, the regional, the corridors, some of the high-volume short lengths, you might as a community or region start thinking about and looking at that as a possible way to go because long-term you're going to be a lot better off and it will put you in the driver's seat and local control on something like that. The commission is very supportive of it, the legislature was too, and obviously the citizens of the state -- they supported it 68 percent. So anyway, I just wanted to send you with that.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have any observations, questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, I think Mr. Nichols said it all for me.

MR. AUSTIN: As a footnote, we have discussed the possibility of forming an RMA; we have not engaged in any studies yet but that is in our work plan.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the difficulty -- and the reason I was so complimentary of the Copperas Cove bunch -- the difficulty is it's sometimes kind of hard to close your eyes and envision what it would look like, but simply put, look at the North Texas Toll Authority in Dallas, look at the Harris County Toll Authority in Houston and just imagine that on a much smaller and regional scale and imagine the partnership that the commission wants to create with those communities who will aggressively pursue that avenue.

I mean, the economics of it are pretty simple: if you think that the legislature can raise gas taxes enough for us to build all the projects we all want to build, then you wait; if you think that's not possible or probable -- I make no comment about whether it is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be -- but if you think that it's better to tax yourself to pay for your own roads or roads that help your community, then why wouldn't you set up a toll system and do it yourself and treat it like an unequalized school district where you get to keep all the money that you raise locally plus you get to keep my money when I drive through to see Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: If he ever did which he doesn't do.

(General laughter.)

MR. AUSTIN: Actually, commissioner, we did send you a letter inviting you to come to the Tyler District and we certainly would welcome -- we did hear your comments earlier this morning and would welcome the opportunity for you to visit the Tyler District.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The problem is Mary does such a good job of running it, I need to stay out of there.

MR. AUSTIN: She does. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. That's an excellent presentation, and as you're aware, we do not make decisions on the day of the presentation.

We're going to deviate a little bit from our normal agenda and before we take a recess we're going to recognize a member of the TxDOT family for distinguished service to the department. This person began working for TxDOT on state transportation issues about five years ago and we were in Abilene last month when this service award became due, so we wanted to return to Austin to make this presentation, and so we are with great pleasure and appreciation presenting a five-year service award to this gentleman on my right, Robert Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: Me?

MR. JOHNSON: I have it here, as a matter of fact.

MR. NICHOLS: Has it been that long?

MR. JOHNSON: I know it doesn't seem like it. This is a "Certificate of service in recognition and appreciation of five years of meritorious service with the Texas Department of Transportation. The commission presents this certificate to Robert L. Nichols, and extends its congratulations and best wishes for a long and happy continuance of service." You've even signed this.

MR. NICHOLS: I signed it? No, I didn't either. Kiss my foot, that's dangerous.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, any comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Somebody is a good forger.

MR. JOHNSON: I think Sallie Burke.

MR. NICHOLS: Forgers on board.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I haven't had the opportunity to spend five years with him, but I can tell you the year I've been with him, it has been meritorious. I was expressing to some of my former colleagues in the legislature last night, I can't think of two better guys to serve on a state commission with than the two of you. Robert, you're an interesting cad and I hope this is just the first of at least two five-year awards for you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We're going to have a picture. It's amazing being around Robert; his license plate is very well -- if you've seen him whirling through the state with "El Nino" on his license plate, it's pretty descriptive. I think if you look at the major things that he's gotten involved with, starting with the Trunk System and now his involvement in the Central Texas Turnpike Project, you know, not only does he immerse himself in these projects but he gets them done. My father preached to me on many occasions, you know, we deal in results management, and Robert, you've produced results and they're good ones.

I want to congratulate you and thank you on behalf of not only the commission and the department but also your friends and neighbors across the state.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I want to start an investigation of who got my signature on there.

(General laughter and applause; pause for photos.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for indulging us with that part of the agenda. We'll take a slight recess so our good friends from Tyler and Smith County and East Texas can return and the El Paso delegation can get in place.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

EL PASO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

(Mayor Ray Caballero, Judge Dolores Briones, Rep. Joe Pickett, Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, Rep. Norma Chavez)

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning again. Our final delegation of the day comes to us from the great West Texas town of El Paso, and we're delighted that they are here. I would like to call on the good Mayor Ray Caballero, if he will please get us started.

Mr. Mayor, welcome.

MAYOR CABALLERO: How are you this morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Ingeniero Behrens. Good to see you this morning. I'm very pleased to be here representing a great delegation. I don't know how the delegation from Copperas Cove claimed all of us who were standing back there, mostly El Pasoans. That was a pretty brilliant move, actually; we couldn't say anything, but having listened to their proposal, it sounds pretty good to me.

And that's really the challenge that this commission has: all of them sound like great proposals. Obviously, I'm not here to sell Copperas Cove or Tyler, although they're worthy cases, we're here to bring you three wonderful projects and also to join with you in working toward having a safer, more efficient and prosperous and healthy Texas.

Can I give you some good news in all these hard decisions you have to make? If you can stand it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.

MAYOR CABALLERO: How would you like to be the commission in a state that was trying to deal with stagnation, lack of growth, no prosperity? Really, the challenge that you have is, in a way, very pleasant in how you manage change, how you deal with prosperity, and at the end of it come out with a healthier, safer and more prosperous Texas so that everyone can share in this good life that we all want. That's kind of a nice deal in comparison to some states where really they don't have the benefits and the resources that we have.

The question is, you know, how do we allocate those resources? You hear a lot of analogies here to chains, you know, links and all sorts of things. That's what roads are, they're connectors of our communities.

And before I get into that little topic, I just want to turn around and tell you my great county judge, state representatives, county commissioners, two representatives, but if the El Paso Delegation would please stand up -- and I'll claim all the other ones who don't stand as well, like Copperas Cove.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR CABALLERO: Our state senator, representatives, thank you very much, appreciate it.

Now I know what they did: They put Copperas Cove first and that's how they got to claim us.

If you live in Texas and you're anywhere near I-10, I-20 and I-30 -- that covers a lot of people, doesn't it -- all your east-west traffic comes through us, all of it, your transcontinental traffic. If you are serviced by rail anywhere south of Denton and north of Brownsville and the traffic is going to and from southern California, usually the big ports of Houston and so forth, it comes right next to my office. The trains are going to be approaching 80 trains a day here in two or three years. And this is good news that there's an increase in traffic and commerce.

In addition to that, of course, 80 percent of the incredibly increasing traffic that we have to deal with between the United States and Mexico comes through Texas, and 30 percent of that comes through El Paso, and we have to integrate that into the mix as well.

In the past two years, obviously when 10, 20 and 30 interstate highways join together -- through El Paso it's simply I-10 -- all of that traffic goes through us. I can tell you, and the delegation here can tell you that in the mix the truck traffic has increased exponentially and I don't have to tell this commission the wear and tear the truck traffic means to our roads, it means 8- or 9,000 cars in the equivalent. And while we welcome this increased commerce, we also have to find a way to deal with it, and two of our three projects today deal with that sort of traffic.

You have the interchange at Interstate 10 and Loop 375 you're familiar with where we simply have to connect those two interstates/loops. El Paso, while other cities are on their second and third loops, with the help of this commission, we're trying to link up the first one, but ours is especially challenging and we recognize that. We've got a mountain, we've got another state to deal with, another nation, and some significant challenges that this commission has really been dealing with, some parts of that loop right now, the ones that are unbuilt, they're quite unsafe. That issue, you can see, is a common theme in all the presentations brought to you because health and safety, of course, must be the number one considerations. So we want to just start the interchanges there.

The Alameda project is not an interstate but it's a very important road, it's the equivalent of our Interstate 10 before the interstates were built, Highway 80, and would like to start Phase 3 of eight phases of that road. We've invested a lot, both our community and TxDOT. It's a worthy project that needs to be followed through.

And finally, on the west side of El Paso the interstate goes from three lanes on each side to two lanes north of Mesa, and we want to continue and build a third lane, as we should, essentially to Trans-Mountain Road which is pretty close to the state boundary.

These projects, members of the commission, are all worthy in the mix. Getting back to the analogy of chains, we could have a great chain but obviously, as you know, if there are one or two links, then the entire chain is compromised. El Paso obviously is your link; you have to go maybe to the tippy-top of the Panhandle to get out of the reach of the funnel aspect that we have in El Paso, and we recognize that it is the role of the pass, it's the role of the link that El Paso has always been. That's why we're called "The Pass" because so many things north and south pass through there.

Obviously in dealing with that funnel, it is one of the essential links, and there are several. All roads in Texas linking us are important but some are especially critical. These are the projects that we bring to you. You know roads much more than I do, each of you has seen them. We value the service.

Thank you also for appointing a great district engineer, Chuck Berry. We all kind of chuckle now over Chuck's initiation over a very sad incident that we had in El Paso, but I'm going to tell you he performed in an admirable way. I was really, seeing him, looking at him the way he was operating under some pressure, he is a credit to TxDOT. Your staff, all of them, very professional, great credit to you.

Thank you for your visit, Commissioner Williamson. I think he reconnoitered all the good restaurants, I was just telling him, and you can go out there and he can give you all the good recommendations, commissioners and engineer.

I want to now get to the remainder of our delegation, and I'm going to be followed now by our great County Judge Dolores Briones, and thank you for allowing us time to make this presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, mayor. Thank you for your hospitality when I was in El Paso.

JUDGE BRIONES: Good morning. I'm pleased to be here this morning and I'm learning how to work this now after so many trips, and we're getting to know you and that feels really good that we're dealing with friends and fellow Texans.

Mayor Caballero, our great mayor of the City of El Paso, told you about our three key priority projects and I'd like to expand on the priority projects number 1 and number 2.

Our number 1 priority project is the Interstate 10/Loop 375 interchange located on the east side of El Paso at Americas Avenue. It involves an existing cloverleaf interchange and the construction of flyover ramps for all directional traffic movements. These flyover ramps will provide primary access to Interstate 10 and Loop 375 at Americas Avenue. The project cost will include right of way, preliminary engineering, contingencies and construction.

Contracts for the already funded Phase 1 of the $35 million project will be let in December of 2002. Contracts for the second-phase request for $110.3 million should be let in 2004. This cost would include the outer loops, frontage road connectors, direct connectors, right of way, and aesthetic treatment -- that means it's going to look pretty.

We urgently need this interchange construction to bring the interchange up to current standards for heavy truck traffic to and from the Zaragosa port of entry. The project would also greatly improve mobility and provide an efficient freeway I-10 to freeway Loop 375 connection. This area is highly congested and we receive reports of conflicts between cars and heavy trucks.

On any type of construction project, especially when it is related to transportation, someone asks what impact it will have on the environment. I'm happy to report that there are no social or economic disruptions. Construction of the flyover ramps will improve air quality; the changes will not adversely affect water nor noise quality.

The completion of Loop 375 is essential to the expeditious flow of traffic around El Paso. This interchange is also significant for access to the proposed Northeast Parkway which will provide an alternate route around downtown El Paso and congested Interstate 10.

Our priority project number 2 is Phase 3 of the reconstruction, rehabilitation and upgrading of State Highway 20, known as Alameda Avenue. This is a multi-phase project. The phase we are addressing today is Alameda from Delta Drive to Coronado Street, a total distance of 1.5 miles. And State Representative Norma Chavez is pretty proud of her work on this project.

In 1994 the City of El Paso agreed to work cooperatively with TxDOT to contribute general revenue funds in the amount of $4 million in combination with federal and state funds to improve Alameda Avenue. To date, the City of El Paso has contributed $200,000, the city's share of the Alameda Avenue feasibility study. This leaves a balance of $3.8 million of city funds committed for this project. Alameda Avenue forms the backbone of the roadway system for the east-west travel in El Paso County's lower valley which we now officially refer to as The Mission Valley.

We consider these improvements high priority. Along with the enhanced traffic flow, they will improve pedestrian access and water drainage. Presently the roadway does not drain properly and pedestrian routes are interrupted or nonexistent. We urgently need the proposed reconstruction to correct these deficiencies and to improve conditions for both pedestrians and vehicles -- many large families from that Mission Valley area. Alameda Avenue is a significant public transit route with the highest number of transit users and the longest route in an incorporated area of the county. Alameda is one of the major arteries paralleling I-10 and provides mobility for the southeast and Mission Valley areas of El Paso. It also serves as a relief for I-10 traffic.

This reconstruction includes roadway, sidewalks, safety lighting, and drainage improvements, and this project will require $10,164,000.

Thank you very much for your time and your attention. I just want to share with you that in El Paso we've got character and we've characters. You've met a few already, and I'm about to introduce another one to you for the conclusion of our presentation this morning before the delegation speaks at its will. I want to introduce to you State Representative Joe Pickett who is the chair of the Transportation Policy Board. He followed a couple of great former chairs of the Transportation Policy Board and he's living up to that reputation.

Commissioner Williamson, I don't believe you were here a couple of years ago when State Representative Joe Pickett, who just recently got elected to his fifth term, came before you with baseball bats. You know, I was reminded of that with this switch-hitter business this morning. State Representative Joe Pickett came before the commission with baseball bats, and I just want you to know that I don't believe he's got those this morning because --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll bet he's still got them at his house, though.

JUDGE BRIONES: Yes, I think so. He didn't need the baseball bats to get reelected in his district. You know, they didn't need to get hit over the head to know that we needed to return this representative to Austin on our behalf and to his powerful position on the Appropriations Committee. So with that, you've got to fend for yourselves. Okay?

MR. JOHNSON: Judge, if I might set the record straight, if the truth be known -- and the statute of limitations has expired here -- those bats said "Hit a Home run for Fort Bend County," and I have one in my office.

JUDGE BRIONES: He's been talking to the mayor about annexation.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Pickett, welcome. Do you have character, or are you a character?

REP. PICKETT: Well, I've never been introduced as a character before, but you know now why they reelected her, and if this was my Lion's Club, I would have had to pay a $5 fine for that commercial she gave me.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But is it not the case that she broke some kind of record when she got reelected?

REP. PICKETT: I believe so; I believe she is the shortest judge to ever be elected in El Paso.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: I'm in trouble now. I want to bring attention to the third project, but before I do, I want to remind you of some history. I know that you are pretty much history buffs. Back in 1879 the Texas Legislature passed a law giving counties the authority to plan, to spend money and to build roads. The legislature in 1879 also gave the counties the authority to draft all males 18 years old to 45 to spend ten days working on those roads. I'm proposing some new legislation next session. I'm going to make two changes: We're going to raise the age limit from 45 to 85 so we can include all the commissioners, and we're also going to change it from all male to female. And would everybody stand from the El Paso Delegation again, please. If you will look at proposed legislation and multiply all these people by ten days, this is the additional match we're bringing for these three projects.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: And I also brought you a gift too because I know how Commissioner Williamson is very tight with money and his stint on Appropriations, we're still hearing about the "Wonderful Williamson" -- as they call him. So I brought you something for when you serve your ten days.

(Mr. Pickett handed out hard hats to commission members.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a practical gift, I like that.

REP. PICKETT: Those are all gifts from lobbyists, and I don't accept gifts.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Erase the tape right now.

REP. PICKETT: No, it came through me but those have all been reconditioned.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This probably came from Tommy Eden right here.

(General laughter.)

REP. PICKETT: To be serious if I can for a moment, I do want to talk about one of the three projects and that's the widening of the lanes on Interstate 10. Now, you've all been out to El Paso several times and I appreciate it; all of you have been out there. You have visited and gone down Interstate 10 going towards Las Cruces, New Mexico, and from where Mesa exit is on Interstate 10 going north to Trans-Mountain has become a huge area of development not just for El Paso but it's becoming that same way for that part of New Mexico there.

The additional lanes on both sides, it's not only going to be traffic going through El Paso or north up to New Mexico but it has become a pattern, a circle there, and a lot of this development that has been talked about in your hearings on frontage roads and stuff, we're not asking for a frontage road -- at this time -- we definitely need to expand this area.

In the past year we've had several accidents along Interstate 10 that tie it up for an enormous amount of time. We need more relief, we need more space, and it's imperative that we widen this from two to three lanes in each direction. It's part of our I-10 West Corridor study recommendations, but as I said, with the development that's proposed in this area, the tie-in to Trans-Mountain Road -- where we're already doing some new improvements there that is this loop that we keep talking about.

And Commissioner Williamson, you'll be glad to know that the development along this portion of the loop will not have frontage roads on Trans-Mountain; it leads into the state park there.

But it is imperative that we do have this flow of traffic, the expansion of the three lanes in this particular area. And you all know, as well as I do, whether a trucking driver, trucking company, whatever it is, people are just inherently afraid of trucks. Where this narrows down to two lanes the speed is picking up because people are starting to hit the outskirts of El Paso, ready to hit I-10 as it goes into New Mexico, and with the truck traffic that's generated now in New Mexico as well as Texas, it's becoming a dangerous area for when that mixture of car and truck hits that same location. So we hope you will look at this project favorably.

With that, we do have a couple of other members of the legislative delegation that I know you'll recognize: Senator Shapleigh is here and Representative Norma Chavez is here, and I know you'll allow whatever time they need to speak. Thank you for your attention and I appreciate you showing up last night and giving us the opportunity to talk to you one on one.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As is my habit? First of all, Joe and I served, I think, two terms together, been a good friend, but I never miss an opportunity to recognize a warrior for transportation, and you, Joe Pickett, have been a warrior for the state's transportation system, and I'm personally appreciative.

REP. PICKETT: Thank you, Ric, I appreciate that. Made my day; I'm going to go in the back and cry right now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: By the way, this is not an OSHA-approved helmet that you gave me; I can't use it on the job site.

(General laughter.)

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I don't know where this came from, but I do want to say I have enjoyed my time in the legislature and this is not true, it's not like that over in that building, and I want you to know that. Commissioner Williamson, you have served over there, and I didn't know if this was referring to transportation or service in the legislature.

(General laughter.)

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: I wanted to first thank you. Mr. Chair, you came to a conference that we did in October, the first binational conference of any community, U.S.-Mexico, to try to plan binational issues, and I want to thank you for your commitment of coming out and participating with us that day.

Commissioner Nichols, I want to thank you. When Commissioner Williamson talks about warriors for transportation, it's easy to come over here and talk about how we're going to spend the money and create the corridors and where we're going to put them, but to my knowledge, you're the only one that's been to that building to tell us how we're going to raise the money and try and put some tax revenues into this system so that we can really make a difference in mobility in the state of Texas. And I know you got a few arrows from that adventure over in that funny-looking building over there, but in saying what you said, you're making the case for additional revenues into the most dynamic transportation system in the country.

In our conversation before I came up here, Mr. Chair, in the history of this TxDOT organization I would say that the 1917 era when you got started, the 1950s era when Eisenhower strapped you with the National Highway System, and this era of NAFTA and the large urban growth in Texas is the most difficult task of being a commissioner in the State of Texas' history. And when you have a governor running on a platform of transportation, in my knowledge, I've never seen a political race run on transportation, so your role, I think, is central in Texas in the future, and I want to thank you for your service.

Ric, I want to particularly thank you for coming out to El Paso and having a personal one-on-one visit, and as we're all finding out, these SMART border issues between the U.S. and Mexico, U.S. and Canada are complex but essential. Our president can't go and ask for free trade legislation of we can't make the free trade work that we've got, and if we can't make product and people move more efficiently and safer and faster, then we're not going to get the job done in free trade for our president, or more importantly, for the constituents that we all represent.

There's one point I wanted to make about that map. These are I-10 projects, two of them, the biggest ones, the major link that will grow into the major link in Juarez -- which is one of the top three industrial bases of all Mexico -- that I-10 which the mayor said combines with I-20 and I-30 to come into El Paso, that I-10 is the northern infrastructure of Mexico. Let's think about that. You have those Mexican states that abut Texas starting with, of course, our sister state of Chihuahua, you've got Tamaulipas, you've got Nuevo Leon and Coahuila -- those are our major trading partners for the State of Texas -- you go over to Sonora, you get over to Baja California Norte, I-10 is their infrastructure. So the maquila industry that is driving the industrial expansion of Mexico depends on I-10.

So when we're talking about I-10 as a highway, you're really talking about driving the trade for Texas in the future. We talk about these corridors that go through I-35, I-69 and I-20, I-25 up to Albuquerque being north-south corridors, I-10 is perhaps the most important corridor for carrying international trade of any in the country because of its all-weather nature and because, frankly, Mexico has not yet invested in their own infrastructure along that border strip.

So as we think about the implications of funding these interchanges, that's an extraordinary piece of highway that we need to invest in in the state of Texas. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

REP. CHAVEZ: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson. It's great to see you again. I applaud your continued efforts to provide the necessary infrastructure needs for El Paso and all areas of the state of Texas, and I thank you for this opportunity to be here with Team El Paso to support the three projects that we present here today for El Paso's infrastructure needs.

I think you can see from the demonstration and the Power Point that was presented that we are truly the international gateway city of the Americas and these are very important trade corridors, funding that we need to continue to provide economic development for not only just El Paso but for the State of Texas.

I've provided you with some written testimony; I won't read it but I'd like to go over a few comments that I have today, and as I stated wholeheartedly that I join my colleagues, the community leaders here today and Team El Paso to support all three projects.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about project number 2 that's been very dear to my district and it's been a rallying point, and to tell you how much the community appreciates what this commission has done to start a very poor neighborhood, a neighborhood that floods regularly, a neighborhood that did not have lighting, a neighborhood that did not have sidewalks where the elementary schools were now has seen the realization of the dream of having the Alameda corridor completed.

This $8.4 million project will provide additional lighting, additional sidewalks, as well as acquisition for right of ways, and it's going to be a painful transition for our neighborhoods. A lot of these small businesses have come up through sweat equity and they're paycheck-to-paycheck small businesses, and when we go into that, what the first phase of our project has demonstrated is that we are going to have some serious issues and displacement because of shutting the doors for entry. Just in the sidewalks that we were doing, they're telling us that there's going to be some problems. And so this is going to be a painful growth but a very necessary growth.

This commitment complements the project that we're doing currently and we also committed to the project from the east corridor at the last meeting last August toward the central part of the Alameda corridor which is also going to be an important project from Lee Trevino to the Americas. What this project is doing is continuing, like I said, helping the businesses see a bird's-eye view of what the $85 million project is going to be.

The Alameda Avenue is an indigenous trail. There's three missions including San Lorenzo in central El Paso, Mision Senacu, and of course, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, and the Spaniards used it as the Indian trail, and then of course it became US 80 and Texas 20. There are over 636 small businesses; 92 percent of those businesses are Hispanic and 40 percent of those businesses are owned by women. It has five elementary schools, two middle schools and four high schools. So you can see, as the representative I represent the largest urban district along the Texas-Mexico border in the state of Texas. I think you can see the needs of urban inner-city and corridors such as Alameda, and so your efforts to include this is greatly appreciated.

With redistricting, I represent about 90 percent of the corridor but Representative Paul Moreno, Representative Najera, Representative-elect Quintanilla and myself are the House members that represent it and of course Senator Shapleigh represents the whole area.

If you remember -- I too have a gift -- last September 14 I gave you a puno de tierra -- not you, Commissioner Williamson -- and a puno de tierra is a vial of earth. And I literally went to the Alameda corridor -- I'm a spiritual person and believe in my roots and decided that it was very important for you to have a symbol of the neighbor. And today what I'd like to give you is seedlings from the Rio Grande Cottonwood Tree which is native and indigenous to the area.

And if you read the history of Alameda and the corridor, the whole area along the Rio Grande there was a lot of cottonwood trees and we still have some, but I'm hoping that these seeds will be symbolic of the seed money that this project provides for the growth of this poor urban inner-city neighborhood.

And with that, I again enlist your support for all three projects, and I thank you for all your hard work that you've done on behalf of my constituents and El Paso.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe that Jason Anderson, who is representing Senator Frank Madla, would like to enter a word for the record.

Jason, thank you for being here.

MR. ANDERSON: Members, Senator Madla could not make it here today so asked that I come on his behalf to just express his support for the three projects that the El Paso MPO is bringing before you today. Senator Madla doesn't officially begin to represent a portion of El Paso County until January 2003 but is already getting involved and understands some of their transportation needs out in the area. So on his behalf, I'm here providing you a letter expressing his support for these three projects. Thanks.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Senator Madla also, so you will know, as did Senator Staples, took the time to call and express personal interest in this project, so the constituency will know Frank Madla is a good guy.

MR. JOHNSON: That was an excellent presentation and all obviously worthwhile projects, and I hate to be repetitious but we do not make decisions on the day of presentations, but appreciate everybody from El Paso and the El Paso area for being here, and with your presence in mind, we would move to agenda item 3 which is a report from El Paso County regarding the Guadalupe/Tornillo International Bridge.

Judge?

JUDGE BRIONES: I'm going to introduce to you still another character from El Paso, our own Commissioner Miguel Teran from that district and the county. He is a warrior too and a great champion for the families in his district, and he has taken the lead and he has taken the bull by the horns on this relocation and expansion of the Fabens port of entry, and so having said that, I'd like to introduce Commissioner Teran.

MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner Teran, welcome.

MR. TERAN: Commissioners. Last night I enjoyed talking, learning a lot of our Commissioner Nichols' background. Never suspected that he was in plastic injection molding and the like.

And this morning I was just reminded of a significance of a little cottonwood tree here. A lot of times we all do what needs to be done or what we perceive that needs to be done, and in the process sometimes destroy the future, unfortunately.

I was hired a long time ago when I was a youngster to cut the cottonwood trees along Socorro Road and North Loop Road which was the beauty of the valley, and later I married a lady from that valley and I have not heard the end of that saying that I destroyed the valley. Well, I was just out doing the job, and TxDOT at that time saw it necessary to remove those cottonwoods because they presented a hazard and as a result we ended up with the removal of those trees, and now we're hoping that we can replant those trees and get it going.

We're here just primarily to give you an update, a report, if you will of what has transpired relative to the port of entry at Guadalupe/Tornillo. The trade climate in El Paso and Chihuahua are very healthy, the existing bridges in the urbanized area of El Paso are already at capacity; the Guadalupe/Tornillo present existing bridge is very narrow and incompatible to the commercial traffic necessary through the area. Therefore, we are proposing a new replacement bridge that will consist of three lanes in each direction and it will include a 271-acre border station which will include the site, perhaps, for the first truly preplanned one-stop inspection station for the state, as well as the federal facilities with state-of-the-art scientific processes to ensure against terrorism and the like.

Also this presents a new opportunity for the road from the port of entry straight to Interstate 10 without having to cross through the small communities and with an overpass over Texas 20 and the railroad, so that will improve the existing conditions there.

The State of Chihuahua has already begun the design stage of their plans to build a four-lane highway from Samalayucca as well as from the inner parts of Juarez to take the traffic overflow into the Guadalupe/Tornillo, but it's really the one we refer to as Fabens. And we have also received a letter from the governor of Chihuahua expressing his concern to expedite this process and in support of the project. We received, also, [speaking Spanish] from the State Department of Mexico conveying to the State Department the fact that the federal agencies in Mexico have reviewed the project and are favorably supportive of it and welcome and would encourage speeding up the process.

Yesterday we met at length with TxDOT staff over the project itself and we've arrived at the conclusion that we will start the process tomorrow -- that is, tomorrow we will turn in the six copies of the environmental assessment as we have it, along with the preliminary design aspects of the proposal so that they can provide us some input to ensure that we are hand-in-hand doing this jointly without any surprises to anybody.

So with that, I would like to just acknowledge the fact that we do have our present delegation here if they wish to say something. We did receive a letter from Frank Madla, our shortly to be acquired senator for our area, in whose district this port of entry lies.

So without further, I thank you very much and I hope you can enlist your support in making sure that the newly created TxDOT process for reviewing ports of entry in fact becomes something that will get the desired results but will not impede the progress of pursuing the presidential permit necessary for this project. So thank you very much. I'll turn it over to our senator.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is not a character.

(General laughter.)

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: Can we have the slide on the El Paso-Juarez area? When Bush and Fox sat down and described their 22-point plan of what had to happen at border ports for security primarily, but also to promote free trade in making it faster, safer, and more efficient for product and people -- which is the vision of free trade in North America -- one of the things they were implicitly talking about is this port. Why does it take ten years to create a new port in the state of Texas with Mexico and our sister states? How can we lessen the amount of time it takes to do that? And once that product gets to that port, how can we cross it much faster and more efficiently?

This is one of two ports on the planning blocks here at TxDOT that will be true one-stop inspection stations, preplanned and not retrofitted. It's also a model of how two states, and particularly one very hard-working commissioner who now knows more about the Mexican transportation system than most mortal people alive in the world today, have to break their backs to get a bridge project done in this time and era, and my hope is that we can partner with TxDOT to expedite this true one-stop. This is the eastern shuttle, if you will, coming up from Chihuahua and also getting much of the maquiladora industrial parks of the eastern side of the Valley of Juarez to go through there, and so what we're really looking at is how do we expedite the creation of this infrastructure that will move product in a radically different way, Commissioner Williamson, in the SMART border concept that you've embraced and the state has embraced.

And so I encourage whatever we can do in this agency to truly partner with a guy, although he makes seven times what a state senator makes, shouldn't be burdened with the task of promoting international trade almost by himself, and that we can get the partnerships to the table to make this thing happen.

And I'm very appreciative of the way this commission, frankly, has led the way in the one-stop inspection station concept, leading with the Texas Transportation Institute and going up to Washington when that's really a Customs and federal function, but you are the agent for Texas business in that concept, and your commission, in taking a role, funding that study and making it happen, is truly driving the agenda when it came to Bush and Fox's 22-point plan.

So I just wanted to highlight that this is one of two true one-stop areas that we can preplan and get done with the kind of technology that we're going to see in the future at these ports, and I want to thank specifically one Texan who's taken a leadership role in making something very complicated and difficult happen. It was even more difficult than when Ric Williamson tried to cut the Texas budget nine times from 1990 to 1996. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I ask two questions, Chair?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Senator, we've recently suggested to Department of Transportation Secretary Manetta that with a portion of the federal funds we're going to be allocated at some point -- and we don't know how much it is yet -- that we might like to build a facility that is, as you have advocated for, large enough for state functions and federal functions as we know them. Whether the six federal agencies are willing to commit to locate there or not, we've just basically said we might just dive off and do this anyway and then let the federal agencies explain why they can't locate with us.

I know you spent a lot of time and put a lot of emotion into this matter. Can you think of any reason why we shouldn't be sort of building the ballpark and saying here it is, come use it?

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: My take on that is this: Who in this process represents Texas business? This is our largest trading partner; NAFTA is working better than we ever thought. What happens is when that product is sitting in that line for three hours, suddenly Japan's product, Germany's product are more competitive than our product, and so the question becomes how do we fix that? The agency that has to push that in my view, commissioner -- and we've shared this -- has got to be TxDOT because while you own bridges and you're in the bridge business in the state of Texas, but you're not in the Customs business, Customs has to serve you. You're the owner of the bridge and you're serving Texas business as an agent.

And I am very appreciative that you've taken a lead role as an agency to say we're going to build the park, we're going to show you how it can get done, we're going to put the technology systems in place, and what's going to happen is we're going to show that this truck will move through here in ten minutes to solve the problem that you at the federal agency have been dallying with for ten years. I am 1,000 percent behind this agency doing that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I felt like that would be your response but I wanted to be sure. I don't like to get down a path and find a senator or a House member in the area not comfortable.

The other question is when I was in El Paso, and I know that different individuals speak from different perspectives for different constituency groups, but one of the questions that I couldn't get resolved in my mind was whether or not the maquilas will easily discontinue going through the center of town or near the center of town and go to the west side of town. And what should we be doing or can we do, or what should the City of El Paso or the county be doing to influence that if the commission bites off a couple hundred-million-dollar bullet and tries to build a truly modern loop? How do we make sure the maquilas go that way?

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: Well, trucks are going to go where it's cheapest to go. Today they're using that bridge because it's free and it represents, in the maquila industrial parks of today, the shortest and most direct route to I-10 and Butterfield. Tomorrow I think what's going to happen is with maquila expansion where the loop is being created in Juarez, where the industrial parts have been built in the last ten years, where there's water available and flat raw land, the maquilas of Juarez are slowly moving eastward in the valley, what is the former Valley of the Rio Grande, heading east, so I think they're going to be physically much closer to the Ysleta/Zaragosa location.

But the real promise that we can make them that will move them there is if we can tell them: if you go Ysleta/Zaragosa, you'll get through in ten minutes; we're going to have for you a dedicated truck lane the way we have a dedicated passenger lane in other parts of our community. And frankly, the other issue that we need to work on is if in this mix one of those bridges is free, then it's going to skew the economic decisions that a truck makes as it leaves a maquila. My hope in looking at this vision of what we do with product and people along the border is that we dedicate ourselves to one principle: let's move the person and the product in ten minutes, get it across. We all win if we can do that.

And as we build this international loop, the one that's 375, goes through the international loop at Juarez, it's very obvious that that Zaragosa/Ysleta station is going to be the one-stop major eastside location of the future, just the way San Geronimo is going to be on that side and later on Fabens/Casetas going to the east and heading to Dallas and Houston.

My prediction, commissioner, is that the new mayor of the City of Juarez, who has made air pollution his number one issue when he ran before -- as you may have heard that there's been some issues with respect to the election of the mayor of Juarez -- he's very interested in solving some of these quality of life issues in Juarez, and I think we have, frankly, an identity of interests, Juarez to El Paso, to investing in this international loop as the primary option for commercial traffic to make it in and out of our community.

But the promise we need to make them -- and it involves TxDOT as a partner -- is that we can get your truck through there in ten minutes, that you won't be in a line, that you won't be idling, that you won't be wasting time on product, and that the Phillips TV sets that are in the back of your truck will be competitive in a world environment because this bridge didn't become a disincentive for Phillips to locate. And I think that's where we are in El Paso, Texas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much.

SEN. SHAPLEIGH: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Jason Anderson, representing Senator Madla, has asked to speak on this. Do you want to enter anything for the record, Jason?

MR. ANDERSON: I believe a letter has been issued with the information, so we're good with that.

MR. JOHNSON: Right. Thank you very much.

REP. CHAVEZ: Mr. Chairman, I just want to also add my support for the project. I think it's really important for the growth and the corridors for El Paso.

MR. TERAN: I'll close with the fact that we are purchasing 271 acres of land to ensure that you do have enough space to do the most up-to-date and modern facility possibly available at any border station.

MR. NICHOLS: Who will own that 271 acres?

MR. TERAN: The county is purchasing the entire right of way at county's expense, including 271 acres for the facility. The facility itself -- we're providing the land, we're assuming that the federal government will then build the facility, and if they can't, we'll build it for them and lease it to them. And we're hoping that TxDOT and the state will provide the necessary funds for the one-stop station and ensure that it has everything that we need. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You wouldn't be opposed if the state decided to build a bigger facility and invited the federal government?

MR. TERAN: Oh, by all means, we welcome the state to build it, we're just merely providing the land to make sure that you have plenty of it. We're providing 271 acres, combined facilities, federal, state and county facilities, so that there's plenty of land for all of us. Now, if the state wishes to come and build it, the land is already there.

MR. JOHNSON: Representative Pickett, did you have something to add?

REP. PICKETT: I just wanted to remind that Senator Shapleigh talked about the hard-working commissioner. What he didn't mention that your staff is aware of but you need to be aware of, it's not just the bridge, it's very complicated, and the commissioner has got a plan worked out how to connect this bridge to the interstate. You heard the word "expedite"; the commissioner is planning on expediting this, with the county judge efforts, and building the infrastructure from the bridge to Interstate 10; they're talking about flying over the railroad tracks, straightening out the actual path you now take -- is it two 90 degree angle turns? So besides the bridge, the commission needs to know that he is working on the other part of it, if not as diligently, more because it's a little bit more control in his hands on that. So it's a bigger picture than just the bridge and I want to remind you of that.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. DURAN: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Tury Duran, general manager for the Lower Valley Water District and I just want to put on the record on a couple of items. I also serve as the co-chair for health, environment and urban development between United States and Mexico and I've been serving in that capacity for the last three years. Our committee, we're 42 members in the United States and 25 members in Mexico, ranging from private sector, nonprofit organizations, local, state and federal entities and our committee fully endorses and supports -- this port of Fabens is very much needed for all our region on the issues that our committee is trying to address.

At the same time, as general manager of the Lower Valley Water District, I want to put on the record that our water master plan has been integrated with the economic development program of the county in that area, and also we're projecting that in a time line to ensure that the water and sewer services are there at the time that the bridge will be built.

So as Representative Joe Pickett said, this is bigger than just a bridge, it's a really integrated vision thanks to the leadership of Commissioner Teran. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

Any questions or comments, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of comments. First of all, thank you for coming such a long ways. I don't know if there's any place in Texas that's further from Austin than El Paso, and a lot of you came; it's very important to you. Also, thank you very much for the reception and dinner last night, it was wonderful. I heard a comment at the dinner I think needs a little correction. Someone was talking about your new district engineer Chuck Berry, said he was brand spanking new. I hate to tell you he's got a few miles on him.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: But he's real excited about it and I think the executive director made a great choice.

I had the pleasure of meeting a lot of you for a number of years now and it's always good when we're out there or you are here, as the judge said, you feel like you have friends and you know people, and you have really come together since what I remember back in '97. In '97 locally I know there was a little friction between some of the entities. You speak as one voice and that's very important to us, and I think there's a great working cooperation between the community -- that's what I would call it -- and TxDOT. We're very excited about that; I think there's been great progress.

You face one of the most unusual situations and there's not one single one like it in the state where you have a connection with Mexico, you have a connection with part of your corridor with another state, you've got a mountain in the way, those type of obstacles, and I really do appreciate the way you've approached that with us. So hat's off to you and thank you very much for a great presentation.

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

MR. WILLIAMSON: Only that I was surprised that particularly the mayor didn't ask us to begin to think about the problem with traffic and rail congestion in downtown El Paso which I know is very much a personal concern of his. And I want you to know that I took some time after we were together and watched and looked and took notes, and you're right, we're going to have to do something about that. The idea of just continuing to build roads over it and try to piece it together is not a very good idea for the state or for the city and county. So I'm cognizant of your concern about downtown El Paso and have asked our staff to look at that for you.

I appreciate everybody coming this far also.

MR. JOHNSON: Again, thank you so much. I want to add a word on how insightful this discussion has been relative to the trade challenges that we face in this great state, in this great country, and how forward-looking a vision like this last presentation illustrates because we have to look forward and think forward, because as the good senator has noted, we cannot survive on international trade if our borders remain to be barriers, and we need to do everything in our power to make them not barriers but very cohesive partners in trade with our neighbors to the south.

Again, thank you so much for being here. We're going to take a slight recess so that you can return to great West Texas and then we'll reconvene the meeting shortly with the rest of our agenda.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting. Before we begin the business portion, I would like to remind everyone that if you'd like to address the commission, please fill out a card in the registration lobby, and to comment on an agenda item, we would ask that you would fill out a yellow card and identify the agenda item; and if it is not an agenda item, we would take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting, and for that purpose we would like for you to fill out a blue card. Regardless of the color of card, please be aware of the time of everyone involved and limit your comments to three minutes.

We would also ask that any people with noisemaking cell phones or pagers, if you would please put those in the silent mode, it would be greatly appreciated.

The first item on the agenda now is the approval of our minutes from the 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.

Michael, if you will take the agenda from there, please, sir.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll go to item 4, the State Infrastructure Bank, and we have three items there that James Bass will present. And then also I'd like to take the liberty to let James present the rules that pertains to the State Infrastructure Bank which is 9(b)(1).

MR. BASS: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, I'm James Bass, director of finance.

Item 4(a) seeks your final approval of a reassignment to the State Infrastructure Bank of an existing loan to the North Texas Tollway Authority for cost of the President George Bush Turnpike. We feel it is appropriate to transfer this loan to the SIB which is now the mechanism used by the department for loans of this type. If you approve, the SIB would transfer funds equal to the current outstanding balance of the loan to the State Highway Fund and the SIB would then receive all loan repayments from NTTA, and there would be no changes to the terms of the existing loan, and staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. First of all, I think it's a very appropriate way to handle the loan since the legislature approved it after the loan, but also, I just want to make a comment that we really appreciate the concurrence of the North Texas Tollway Authority and the great working relationship that we have with them and TxDOT. With that, I'll move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And with my second, Mr. Chair, I'd like to associate with the remarks Mr. Nichols made. I, being a resident of North Texas, am most appreciative to the North Texas Turnpike Authority and to the leadership of North Texas for helping make this happen. It makes it a lot easier for us to do our business and I say thank you also, and I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

MR. BASS: Item 4(b) seeks final approval of a loan to the Baytown Municipal Development District in the amount of $2.5 million to fund improvements to Spur 330. This loan may look familiar to you. Back in March you approved it to the City of Baytown; when we began working on the loan agreement itself, the city informed us that they really intended for the loan to be with the development district, and a change of that nature requires your approval of this change, and staff would recommend your approval.

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. BASS: Item 4(c) seeks final approval of a loan to Taylor County in the amount of just under $558,000 to fund the right of way acquisition and utility relocation of FM 204, known as Clark Road, from US 83 to FM 1750 just south of Abilene. The construction of FM 204 will replace an existing county road with a new farm-to-market road. Interest will accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of 4.1 percent with payments being made over a period of eight years, and staff recommends your approval.

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. BASS: And jumping to agenda item 9(b) on the Administrative Rules for Proposed Adoption, this minute order requests approval to have proposed revisions to the State Infrastructure Bank rules published in the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments. Most of the revisions are technical corrections to the language or the rules but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have on the proposed revisions, and staff would recommend your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Are there any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: We'll now go to item 5, Texas Turnpike Authority Division and we have three minute orders that pertain to the Central Texas Turnpike projects. I'd like to bring your attention, they will be taken in the order of 5(a), 5(c), and 5(b).

MR. NICHOLS: You're going (a), (c), (b)?

MR. BEHRENS: (a) to (c) to (b).

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like a construction project.

(General laughter.)

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

Agenda 5(a) relates to two elements of the Central Texas Turnpike Project. Previous commission action has requested that the division study these two projects, Loop 1, State Highway 45, as potential turnpike projects. The limits of those two projects, State Highway 45 is from just west of 183 to State Highway 130, and the Loop is from Farm Road 734 up to State Highway 45. Of course, within the last couple of years we have achieved environmental clearance and have secured both RODs, records of decision for those two projects.

Also, the commission in previous action has approved the environmental review process for both of these particular projects. If you approve this minute order, you would be providing three important statutory requirements for these two projects. First off, you would designate both Loop 1 and State Highway 45 as turnpike projects; second, you designate each of these two projects as controlled access facilities; and third, you would approve the location and alignment of both of these two projects as delineated in their respective environmental documents. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Question. Since this wasn't identified as to who produced it, I don't assume it was from the turnpike authority.

MR. RUSSELL: I am not aware of that publication, but if it is, I will track it down.

MR. NICHOLS: You're not aware of its publication.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, somebody told me, Mr. Nichols, Phillip Russell's phone number was 554-9060.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't really have a question.

MR. RUSSELL: We may have to change that number.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: I believe that we've had a presentation. Any questions? Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you. As Mr. Behrens indicated, we'll take agenda item 5(c) first. Agenda item 5(c) performs two important functions. Number one, it would approve the draft financial plan and it would specifically authorize $700 million towards the construction of the Central Texas Turnpike Project, Phase 1. That first phase, of course, is State Highway 45/Loop 1 and approximately the top 50 miles of State Highway 130.

If you go through some of the particulars, or let me at least highlight some of the particulars: Again, it would appropriate $700 million towards the construction of the Phase 1 project through the years 2004-2008; it would also provide for cost overrun assurances for both construction and right of way expenditures. We're at the point now, of course, we're fine-tuning both our construction and right of way estimates, we feel very comfortable of those estimates. As a bit of a precaution in our financial plan, we're going ahead and including about a 5 or 10 percent contingency to handle any potential cost overruns in both the construction and the right of way areas, but to the extent that these funds would be insufficient, then the department would stop in and backstop those, just like on any other highway project.

The department would also be picking up operation and maintenance expenses on this state highway project, and of course, one of the other critical elements, the financial plan would provide that the commission will ensure the timely completion of three very important elements that are associated with the Central Texas Turnpike Project. Number one, it would ensure the timely opening of US 183A by 2011, and again, as most people understand or most people are aware of, 183A is being very closely analyzed as a potential start-up project for a future regional mobility authority here in the Austin area. Through this action, the commission would also ensure that the US 183A interchange at State Highway 45 would be completed, and it's really a phased completion through 2007, '08 and '09. And then lastly, a project that is not part of the Central Texas Turnpike Project but it is an important link to that project is the State Highway 45 South, and we're talking about just the piece from 35 over to 130, about a seven-mile project, and again, the commission would be ensuring that that project would be built by 2007.

The financial plan, of course, is being developed and finalized; we still have some more work to do, some internal work, as we discuss all the elements. A couple of areas that we're looking at pretty closely: One is the potential for a portion of the bonds to be variable rate; and the second to be potentially an issuance of short-term bond anticipation notes. By approving this, this is simply a draft plan, we will be coming back with a finalized plan at your June commission meeting, but those are a couple of elements that we're at least looking at internally and we'll have that recommendation to you probably within the next couple or three weeks.

We would recommend approval of this minute order, and I'd be happy to address any questions you might have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: All right, Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil, I'm aware through statements in the free press that transportation leaders in Central Texas and some transportation consultants -- who I want to be on the record as saying I don't believe are leaders but are men and women hired to have an opinion -- have some concerns about our pending toll equity and regional mobility authority rules, and some have even gone so far, privately in meetings with commission and staff and publicly in the free press, to somehow threaten the commission with withholding support for regional mobility authorities if the commission doesn't do what primarily these hired consultants paid to have an opinion suggest. Were you aware of those statements?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm reliably informed that a group of private sector individuals totally disinterested in RMAs might be interested in proposing an EDA, public-private with the state, venture for 183A. Is there anything in the minute orders we adopt today that will prevent this commission from receiving a proposed EDA for 183A and moving forthwith if the transportation leaders of the community and the privately paid consultants, who are not leaders but paid to have an opinion, decide that they don't want that as part of a regional mobility authority?

MR. RUSSELL: I'm aware of no such restrictions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we could move forward and just suggest to my good friend Mike Krusee and the private consultant that Williamson County likes to hire to come talk for them that they can just go on about their business and we will proceed with building a toll road. Is that correct?

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you so much.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. On the minute order, the way it's worded everything is fine. In the exhibit that's the overview of the financial plan where there's a series of bullet points, just to have it on the record I wanted to go through and make a few comments on a few of the issues. Page 1 where it says "Major Maintenance Fund," I just think for the record as we go between now and the final that we might also review -- and I think we had a discussion on this that I would consider that maybe have a major maintenance fund.

MR. RUSSELL: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: Because I think there's a very good possibility we don't need to have that, but I'm still open.

On page 2 when we get into bullet number 2, the "Variable Rate Bonds, $150 million," although that is the financial advice, right now that's the way this is written; also for the record, I've still got some more personal educating. I'm one of those old-fashioned ones that likes fixed low interest rates, so that might possibly could get changed between now and then.

Page 5 "Overview of Projects," as we go down "Anticipated Construction Funding State Highway 45 East" where it says "TxDOT" I think everyone should be advised that I think the commission is very interested in that if it goes to the environmental to make sure that we keep the option open to toll that.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: As opposed to just a straight construction project; I think that would be a very good toll project.

And that's it. With that, would you like a motion now?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I have one observation -- and I think this is a fair and accurate statement -- I believe that this commission is extremely committed to these projects which form the Central Texas toll system, if you will, but I also want everybody to understand this commission is extremely committed to the auxiliary or supportive projects which are necessary which you mentioned: 183A, the interchange of 183A to 45, and also the 45 South piece from Interstate 35 over to State Highway 130. I know that we've concerned ourselves with how we express that commitment but I just wanted to put it in the record that I feel it's an accurate statement to state that this commission is committed to ensuring that those projects are in place and supported by the times that we have said that they would be.

And with that observation --

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

MR. JOHNSON: -- unless there's a disagreement from one of my commissioners, I will put this up for a vote. I believe Mr. Nichols has moved.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

The last minute order, as included under agenda item 5(b), relates to application to the Bond Review Board for Phase 1 of the Central Texas Turnpike Project. As you are aware, the department has the ability, obviously, to issue revenue bonds, primarily through the Turnpike Act, Chapter 361, but there are other statutory requirements for any state agency before they issue bonds to seek and gain approval of the Bond Review Board before issuing those bonds. The Bond Review Board, of course, is composed of the Officer of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, and Comptroller of Public Accounts.

This minute order, again, is almost a companion to the previous minute order that you just approved, but it would authorize the department to file the application with the Bond Review Board so that we can seek and gain their approval.

Of particular interest on the minute order, again -- and I'll stress, as Commissioner Nichols just mentioned, that these are proposed ideas, it will come back; we'll have a full chance to vet all these ideas, but the Bond Review Board that we offer whatever options that we're contemplating at this time -- the specifics are that: the application will include approximately $950 million in first-tier revenue bonds; again, we're considering the option of $150 million in variable rate bonds; we're looking at developer note that could be up to $10 million, and again that's a statutory requirement, it probably will be less than that but it could be up to $10 million; and of course, the bond anticipation notes that we've talked about before in the approximate amount of $700 million; and our TIFIA note as well up to an approximate amount of $916 million.

All of these things would be included in the application to the Bond Review Board and we would recommend its approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions? We have one speaker on this issue, Dick Kallerman who is the transportation chair for the Austin Regional Sierra Club. Is Mr. Kallerman here?

MR. KALLERMAN: Thank you, commissioners. The Sierra Club has some concerns about the financing of the Central Texas Turnpikes. Times are changing and the justifications for the bonds, as put together by Texas Turnpike Authority in their application for credit assistance to the bond houses, seem to assume that the next 40 years are going to look like the last 40 years. We feel that's rash, and we're talking about, as Phillip Russell just said, $950 million, roughly a billion dollars worth of revenue bonds.

Just two things we think need to be looked at: One is the population forecast and the auxiliary traffic forecast that goes along with it. We in Central Texas, and maybe other MPOs in other parts of the state are the same, but the CAMPO group has many times, we think, used transportation and population forecasts that are very optimistic, very high, and in fact, they've been criticized by not only ourselves but other organizations that know more about forecasting transportation than we do.

The second item is fuel price. Fuel price today at $1.50 a gallon, or whatever it is, is less than it was in 1970 given inflation adjustments, so fuel prices come down -- that's in 30 years. Now, in the next 30 years, fuel prices are not going to come down, not going to stay the same -- I'm saying this as though I know what's going to happen, but we feel that there's going to be a considerable increase in fuel prices because petroleum supplies are past their peak probably, or will be in the next few years.

And those two items are very, very important for the gathering of tolls in order to pay off a billion dollars' worth of revenue bonds. This may not be what Chairman Greenspan called irrational exuberance but we think that is a little optimistic and what are we going to do to pay off these bonds?

The principle and interest are going to have to be paid off with toll revenues but if the toll revenues are insufficient, we can either allow those bonds to default -- which is a very unlikely, I think, in Central Texas -- or the payment can be made from any other source other than revenues from another toll road, turnpike. So if the money doesn't come in from the tolls, we're going to be paying off those bonds with taxes, just like we buy our roads today. We just are afraid that we might be getting into some kind of a financial black hole that is of a billion dollars that's going to suck in road funds and other funds, possibly, from Central Texas that are badly needed for other forms of transportation and badly needed for maintaining and building other roads, other roads that, by the way, might even be competition if they're free to toll roads and may not be looked upon with too much optimism.

So we think that we would like to urge caution. We would urge the bond houses also to take a close look at the numbers that have been given them.

MR. JOHNSON: Any comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this yours?

MR. KALLERMAN: That's published by Rethinking Our Urban Transportation Environment; that's an organization called ROUTE. I'm a member of that and so is Roger Baker and other people you might know. Yes, it is ours.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you responsible for this?

MR. KALLERMAN: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can we just talk a minute?

MR. KALLERMAN: Please.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You've been here before and you've always been treated with civility and you've always treated us with civility, and this commission, frankly, listens pretty carefully to what the environmental community says, even when they rudely interrupt the chairman in a public meeting and make fools of themselves, and I'm trying to understand why this is constructive to a civilized discourse about your rational warnings about the toll road. How can this possibly contribute to a civilized discussion, two different points of view, and how to resolve those points of view?

MR. KALLERMAN: I can't believe you can say that has anything to do -- that's an eye-catching headline, you know, that's what headlines are for.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But it's uncivilized, it's just not necessary.

MR. KALLERMAN: Have you read it?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I've read every one of them. I read parts of into the record.

MR. KALLERMAN: A lot of it is quotes from newspapers; a lot of it's quotes from consultants.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But "The Toll Road to Hell"? Some of us in this room, not all, are religious people. This is very insulting, it's not eye-catching, it's insulting for no reason.

MR. KALLERMAN: I might point out to you that it's just a play on words from "The Road to Hell" -- you've heard that: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It's a play on the same words. That's a perfectly acceptable phrase and it's a perfectly acceptable play on that phrase. I in no way find your concern to be justified.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, and I don't ask you to find my concern to be justified, I point out to you that it's hard to have a serious and civilized exchange of ideas between two or more divergent viewpoints when one or either party relies upon this to attract attention. This is almost -- not only is it insulting to me, I suspect it's insulting to my colleagues, it's insulting to 14,800 state employees, all of whom have worked hard and suffered while this toll project got down the road, it's insulting to anyone who is prepared to pay the tolls, and it's not necessary.

You have a commission that wants to really listen to your viewpoint; you have a commission that even though a commissioner gets insulted in public, he's seriously trying to reduce air pollution in this state; you have a commission who thinks about these things. To make your point, it's not necessary to do this; we wouldn't do this to you, we wouldn't go out and hand out this kind of stuff to you and say the Sierra Club, you've never heard us make fun of "greenies", you've never heard us insult you from this dais. You're a citizen of the state and deserve respect but the commission deserves respect as well. And this just doesn't contribute towards a civilized discourse, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

MR. KALLERMAN: Let me point out that you three gentlemen are the symbols of fantastic power in this state, you also control tremendous amounts of money, and you are feeling pressure from people who have neither money nor power, and in fact, we spend our time and our money doing what we think is right with absolutely no recompense. The only thing we might get, now and then we might win an issue or two.

Now, if people of no power who in fact spend their time and money generously for no other reason than to do the right thing, if you feel that people of that sort -- and by the way, you can whisper and get a headline, most of us really have to do something a little special to even be recognized as being an opinion to be listened to.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But not by us. The fact that you speak, we listen.

MR. KALLERMAN: There's maybe too many words on that flyer, it's filled with small script on both sides, and there's thousands of words there. I really think that the other 1,995 are to be considered too besides just the headline.

MR. JOHNSON: Might I make an observation or two?

MR. KALLERMAN: Please.

MR. JOHNSON: The points that you have brought, first of all, with respect to the risk that the State has relative to the sale of these bonds, I don't think you've painted or received a completely accurate picture. These are revenue bonds from the project and obviously if the project system is not --

Becky, help me if I'm going down the wrong trail here and supplying something incorrect --

But if the system does not pay off the bonds, the bonds become in default but they are not an obligation of the State of Texas.

MR. KALLERMAN: Now we understand that.

MR. JOHNSON: And then secondly, with respect to the future and where oil prices are headed, predicting the future is a very inexact science and it's difficult, and I think the decisions and the judgments that we've made to get where we are today reflected a lot of looking at, as best we can, and listening to the best sources that we have of what the future bears in terms of traffic commitments, traffic flow, and factored into those predictions and studies have been population growth and have been the price of fuel. I would dare say that CAMPO -- I believe you referred to, as a source of maybe over-optimistic projections -- I don't think CAMPO was our source in terms of who we look for, but in terms of the consultants that we used to study, so I don't think we're reading off the same page as CAMPO.

The bottom line is what I'm trying to convey to you is that a lot of very bright people have looked at these projects from a lot of different ways, there are some significant institutions that are going to put at risk their funds because they're going to purchase the bonds, and I believe that we've all arrived at the same conclusion that this is going to be successful, it's going to be mobility enhancing, it will not be a risk to the State of Texas, and so that's why it's on the agenda and we're standing ready, I believe, to pass it.

Now, there are differences of opinion, obviously, but predicting the future is a very inexact science and we've tried to factor in as many of the permutations and factors as there are to arrive at where we are today.

MR. KALLERMAN; The new thing, of course, is that these will be funded in a different way from the past, but we also see more roads of the same sort that's causing problems today in terms of air quality and traffic and congestion, so while the funding is new thinking, we see the roads as old thinking.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think we have a little bit of a difference of opinion, but in some ways I think we do agree, but the intent here is these are going to be mobility enhancing or -- be environmentally sensitive in terms of the air that we breathe. That's a very high priority -- I believe I speak for my fellow colleagues on the commission -- in our deliberations and considerations.

MR. KALLERMAN: That's got to be number one. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

I will entertain a motion on agenda item 5(b).

MR. NICHOLS: One comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: In the actual language it says "proposes" -- I have the same comment I had before -- it proposes that we go to the LBB with all of these things plus the variable rate demand bonds of $150 million and I just wanted to comment that it's possible that might end up being fixed rate.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. With that, I so move.

MR. RUSSELL: One other comment, just to make sure we're all clear, two important things that the commission I'm sure is aware of, needs to be aware of, all of these project elements were designed not just for highway purposes but with the idea that there might be other solutions in the future, whether it be light rail, commuter rail or whatever, and in 130 particularly we will be acquiring a 100-foot envelope in the median for whatever the right decision is for Austin-San Antonio. It could be utilized for light rail, commuter rail, whatever; we've got a place for you whatever the right decision is.

And the other thing as far as demand, one of the comments that we receive quite often from folks in the industry that come down and look at these projects is that the high level of congestion that we have right now, not so much planning on the future -- yes, our independent traffic and revenue folks, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, will be taking a neutral viewpoint, they're not going to be taking any of the demographic information just for granted, they're going to be checking into it themselves -- but more importantly, most folks would suggest that these roads should have been built 15 years ago so the need is there right now, that's why I think they're going to be good toll roads.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think Mr. Russell was anticipating one of my two questions which was we are providing for light or commuter rail in the future.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. We're providing an envelope for that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: An envelope for that. And then the second question would have been do I understand the design explicitly eliminates frontage roads?

MR. RUSSELL: There will be pieces of frontage roads or access roads that will be built to provide access.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the interchange.

MR. RUSSELL: Although it's environmentally clear, there will not, at least in the beginning years, continuous frontage roads built.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So our objective is to get slow-moving, more polluting traffic off of 35 and downtown Austin onto fast-moving, controlled access, less polluting State Highway 130 to the east.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, from Point A to Point B.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or C.

MR. RUSSELL: Or C.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Was there a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: There's been a motion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, commissioners.

MR. BEHRENS: Going to item 6, Coby will present our proposed strategic Plan for 2003 through 2007.

MR. CHASE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Coby Chase; I'm the director of the Legislative Affairs Office. My job here today is to ask for your approval of the 2003-2007 Strategic Plan.

Our internal Strategic Plan working group was comprised of Ron Hagquist, James Bass, Jefferson Grimes, Steven Polunsky, Cheryl Mazur, Steven Bolles, and me. For a brief time it included Joanne Walsh who has now moved on to the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization. We looked at the task before us, knew that adding current data to the previous 340-page plan would be the effortless thing to do but it would be completely out of sync with the direction this commission and this administration appointed the agency and that is simplify, simplify, simplify.

At first pass, we are not a simple operation to understand and the general sentiment is that we're not any easier to understand with each successive pass. As time adds new challenges, things become even murkier. We've been encouraged, to use the politest term possible, by a number of leaders to make our work easier to understand. Some of the more notable suggestions have come from the Senate State Affairs Committee, the Legislative Budget Board, the Comptroller and the Governor.

Last year Commissioner Johnson convened a task force to examine the department through the eyes of its customers and the result was Texas Transportation Partnerships. It breaks the TxDOT mission into five common-sense areas that are important to the users of the state transportation system. They are: reliable mobility, improved safety, responsible systems preservation, streamlined project delivery, and economic vitality.

We built the new streamlined Strategic Plan on that foundation of objectives. Following that, our working group took the current 20 budget strategies, as you see up there, and then compressed them into five. They are, from the bottom up: plan it, build it, maintain it, maximize it, and manage it. It was our feeling that these broad categories show a clearer relationship between money and results achieved.

If memory serves me correctly -- and Bill, if you'd put that previous chart up -- the current appropriation structure tracks 8 percent of the money with 70 percent of the categories, basically these categories and including aviation is about 8 percent of our budget, but 70 percent of the appropriation structure is dedicated to following them.

From that point we took 121 measures and reduced them to 30; we took a number of individually imperfect measures and produced a robust performance system. It's kind of like judging the health of your dog: If his nose is cold there's a 70 percent chance that he's in good shape, or if he eats well there's a 60 percent chance he's okay; however, when you combine the two, that would be cold nose and eats well, there's an 88 percent chance he's healthy. We clearly took the healthy dog approach in putting together measures to produce a better performance system.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That must have been Nichols' idea.

(General laughter.)

MR. CHASE: Well, just suffice it to say we're eating well and our nose is cold.

At any rate, the measures and how they were combined are found in your briefing books. I'll be happy to go over them with you to any degree that you'd like, but I've taken too much time.

What you have before you in Exhibit A are two things: First is the streamlined plan, the second is essentially the previous plan with new data. The reason you have two plans is because we haven't heard back formally from the Legislative Budget Board as to what we can put into our new plan. Our proposal is that you approve the streamlined plan and we can keep that as a record of how the commission thinks this agency should best measure itself. Since we haven't received a final answer to Commissioner Johnson's request to streamline the Strategic Plan, I would like to suggest that the staff be allowed to continue our discussion with the Legislative Budget Board until an agreeable substitute can be worked out by the June 17 deadline, and staying within the boundaries of all the information that's already been presented to you in the drafts.

This will require a slight modification to the minute order before you and at the appropriate time Richard Monroe will be happy to come up and suggest that language. And that is it and I'll take any questions you might have.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand plan it, build it, manage it, so on and so forth. Underlying those broad descriptions are there more precise terms like safety?

MR. CHASE: Yes, there are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Where does safety appear?

MR. CHASE: This is what you would find in the Appropriations Bill. To take it one step further and to show you, we took 121 performance measures and put them into roughly 30, maybe 28 -- depends on how I count each day -- you would find safety under Build it, number of high crash locations improved, and under Maximize it under number of Highway Safety grants awarded.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you focused on safety. Did you focus on economic development?

MR. CHASE: Yes, that was one of our more interesting discussions. Everybody knows that good transportation leads to -- I mean, it's pretty much the cornerstone of economic development, especially in this state; the question became how would you measure it, and Ron Hagquist who is one of the primary architects of this plan, after a long discussion said it's actually pretty easy. What we would do, if this plan were approved, it would cost a little bit of money but not much to do a survey of new businesses in Texas as they've registered with the Secretary of State's office and then poll them and ask them and you would devise some sort of polling instrument to ask them what role did transportation play that kept you here or you moved or whatever the case may be. So Ron has convinced us that we can measure that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we've got safety, we've got economic development. Do we have air quality?

MR. CHASE: Under Plan it, we have number of projects reviewed for environmental impact, and that was a result of a number of discussions that had to do with not all projects require environmental work, this is just making sure we do all the ones that we're required to do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So let me understand you're asking the commission to approve a Strategic Plan that's actually understandable to the everyday Texan that includes a focus on safety, economic development and air quality.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't know why the Budget Board would say no; it sounds to me like good government. Would you like a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: I thought they did say that.

MR. CHASE: No. They haven't directly told us one way or the other formally. We were copied on an email to the Governor's Budget Office that said that not all of it would be approved but it leaves the door open for discussions as to what could be in there.

MR. NICHOLS: And it would be more helpful in those discussions if we took a more formal approach to our request.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: The other comment I had is that it took me the first year or two to kind of figure out what was going -- you have to in your own mind picture what this is. To me a strategic plan is a vision of where you want to go in all the areas and how you're going to accomplish that or at least the path you choose. This is a performance measuring tool, it doesn't lay out the vision, it doesn't lay out how to get there, it is a performance measurement, and to me I locked in my head three years ago that this is not a strategic plan, this is a performance measuring device and as such I think its description is incorrect, and in my notes I said that I think the name should be changed because in addition to this Strategic Plan, we have the Texas Transportation Plan which does lay out the vision of connectivity and all those kind of things and how we'd get there and how things should be approached, and that's being updated as we speak.

MR. CHASE: Correct, yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Which to me is a more appropriate strategic plan and then inside that we may have initiatives of certain areas for which there will be other things. But this is a performance measuring tool which I think is very important --

MR. CHASE: Exactly right.

MR. NICHOLS: -- and I strongly support consolidating those measuring tools in this direction. I think at the time I also made a note on one of the measurement tools on capacity.

MR. CHASE: On capacity.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you change that? It was suggested in here that you measure capacity improvements by the lane miles added and that's a simple way but it doesn't give you a good picture. An example being like the High Five in Dallas $260 million expansion that's going to dramatically increase utilization and therefore capacity, but basically adds no lane miles.

MR. CHASE: Right, exactly. I mean, improving capacity is not always measured just by the number of lane miles you build, it's just how quickly do I get home at night, I mean, that's the true measure. And changing what is in this document now would require action here; if you wanted to add that, it would have to occur here. We did not change anything that was already given to us.

MR. NICHOLS: That was going to be my question, did that get changed? I don't know if there was a concurrence or not but I think it is an incorrect measurement just to add lane miles as our measurement of capacity addition because that's not what it is.

MR. CHASE: What about changing it to dollars spent to increase capacity?

MR. NICHOLS: That would be better, but just because you spend a lot of dollars doesn't mean you added capacity.

MR. CHASE: Well, that's true too.

MR. NICHOLS: Since we're sending it over, I just want to note that I think we need to figure out a better way to measure capacity addition, and I think there is a way. It could be, for instance, if we're spending a quarter of a billion on an interchange that doesn't add lane miles, how many additional cars or vehicles in a day could pass through there that couldn't pass through there before. I think our engineers could estimate that. Whereas, if we go spend $50 million on a farm-to-market road that 250 cars a day are going to use, I mean, there's potential capacity but nobody is going to use it, and therefore, it wouldn't be --

MR. CHASE: Well, one of the agency objectives, the very first one, is reliable mobility from Commissioner Johnson's report, and the outcome measure, I mean, it would be compared to peer cities. And that, mind you, is fairly broad. It would say in the Houston area, has congestion been reduced comparable to, I don't know, I guess Atlanta or Los Angeles, but it's not a precise as putting it at the level of an individual road like a High Five or something like that.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I think something of that nature needs to be -- exactly what it ought to be, I'm certainly open to ideas, but that is my only thing and changing the name.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good comment, I agree.

MR. JOHNSON: And I concur also, Coby, that I think Robert's observation is an accurate one that we need to make sure that we're offering meaningful and measurable quantities that are accurate and the right thing. As an example, on lane miles versus efficiency, there is a difference, and we're spending a quarter of a million dollars on the High Five and that's not adding lane miles, using a statistical method, it shows that we're not gaining anything by that and yet we're gaining a great deal of efficiency and we need to be able to put that statistic in or measure it in such a way and present it.

My other observation is that I know that you and your committee have done a lot of hard work on this and the result is an excellent one, and my sense is we need, as you recommended, to approve it but also ask that you work with the LBB to endeavor to find out what they have in mind and to try to arrive at an accommodation, and then the next time this comes around we'll know what they're looking for. And then Commissioner Nichols' observation that perhaps this is a misnomer, we ought to take that into consideration also.

MR. CHASE: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Good job.

MR. CHASE: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Excellent job.

MR. CHASE: Thank you so much.

MR. JOHNSON: Do we have a motion to accept the report?

MR. CHASE: Richard Monroe will need to offer some language to slightly modify it so we can keep the door open to work with the LBB until June 17, the deadline.

MR. JOHNSON: He's going to offer language on the motion itself to keep this out of --

MR. CHASE: On the minute order.

MR. MONROE: For the record, my name is Richard Monroe, I'm general counsel for the department. This amendment is offered in the spirit of moving this thing along because, as I understand it, it must be filed with the powers that be before the commission will meet again. With that in mind, the suggested language I will refer you to the final paragraph of the minute order, the one that starts: "It is therefore ordered by the Texas Transportation Commission that the document entitled, Agency Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007, as shown in Exhibit A" I would propose that we add a comma "except as it may be altered as requested by the Legislative Budget Board and concurred in by the executive director or his designee" comma, and then we would pick up with the language that is printed there. Given the apparent need, I would propose that language be incorporated.

MR. NICHOLS: Mr, Chairman, I would so move that we do what he suggested.

MR. JOHNSON: All right.

MR. NICHOLS: With those additions and corrections.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. MONROE: Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 7, Aviation where Dave will have a minute order for airport improvement projects.

MR. FULTON: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Dave Fulton, director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for grant-funding approval for 27 airport improvement projects and a request for cancellation of a previously approved loan. Total estimated cost of all requests, as shown on Exhibit A, is approximately $5 million, $3.8 federal, $300,000 state and $800,000 in local funds. A public hearing was held on May 6 this year, no comments were received. We would 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. BEHRENS: Item 8 will be Public Transportation presented by Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good afternoon. I'm Margot Massey of the Public Transportation Division.

What we have before you today is we made an error, transposed a couple of numbers in the March minute order on the Federal Rural Formula Program allocation. I regret the error and ask that we fix it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Now what are you going to do?

MS. MASSEY: Do I need to point out the geographical location of the one who benefitted from the error, and its proximity?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, so moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 9(a) the withdrawal of some previously proposed rules, Ken Bohuslav.

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

The minute order we have for your consideration withdraws the proposed amendments to the department's frontage road policy contained in Section 15.54. Those amendments were proposed by Minute Order 108731, dated December 13, 2001, and published in the Texas Register on December 28. The proposed amendments discourage frontage road construction and strictly limited access to controlled access highways. Six public hearings were held around the state to receive public comments. Over 200 comments were received and many indicated that traffic congestion on the state highway system would be better addressed by the adoption of an access management policy.

Adoption of an access management policy is proposed under separate action; therefore, the previously proposed amendments to Section 15.54 should be withdrawn. Staff recommends your approval of the minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Ken, don't leave. We now have for proposed adoption 9(b)(2) and that begins with Access Management.

MR. K. BOHULSAV: The minute order we have for your consideration proposes the adoption of an access management policy for the department. Specifically, the minute order proposes the repeal of existing Sections 11.50 through 11.53, Access Driveways to State Highways, adds new Sections 11.50 through 11.55, Access Management, amends Sections 15.54 under Construction, Control of Access on Freeways and Frontage Roads, and repeals Section 21.104 Substitute Considerations for Disposal of Access Rights.

Amendments to Section 15.54 were proposed last December and withdrawn just now. Public comments received related to those proposed amendments indicate that traffic congestion on the state highways can be addressed through the adoption of a comprehensive access management policy. Staff has worked on such a policy and based on the research that the department has conducted over the last two years has developed that policy.

The minute order proposes new Sections 11.50 through 11.55 and replaces existing Sections 11.50 through 11.53. The current sections primarily address construction and maintenance responsibilities for driveways; the proposed new sections will implement the department's access management policy and the new access management manual. The rule outlined the process by which local governments and property owners may request access to any state highway facility. The access management manual specifies appropriate access design criteria for different roadway types and outlines the process for analyzing the impacts of the requested access points on the state highway system.

Currently Section 15.54(d) allows the department to provide frontage roads on facilities with full access control under a variety of circumstances and with varying degree of local cost participation. The proposed amendments to Section 15.54 deletes Section (d), thereby removing the consideration for funding as a primary decision of whether to build a frontage road and will eliminate confusion that results from an assumption that access will automatically be granted if a frontage road is constructed. The proposed amendments make provisions to honor significant prior commitments made under the current frontage road policy.

The remaining language in Section 15.54 relate to access and is proposed to be consolidated in the new sections proposed in Chapter 11. The repeal of Section 21.104 is necessary to avoid confusion by the public that if they fund the construction of a frontage road they will automatically have access permitted to the frontage road. The statutes allow for the department to accept substitute consideration for disposal of access rights.

Due to the interest in these rules, we have scheduled three public hearings around the state to receive public comments. Hearings are scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. at the following locations: on June 26 in Austin, July 1 in Houston, and July 3 in Irving. Comments may also be submitted in writing through July 15, 2002.

In summary, the current rules are focused more on frontage road construction than access management; the proposed changes will implement an access management policy to preserve safety, mobility and the operation of all facilities on the state highway system without disrupting economic development to the state. Staff recommends your approval of the proposed rules for publication in the Texas Register.

MR. NICHOLS: When this goes out as proposed, two questions, one, the preamble that's in our book, does that go with it?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay, because there's some very good explanations of why some of these things are in those rules in the preamble.

Secondly, anyone evaluating these rules or proposed rules will need access -- I hate to use the word "access" twice -- they need the guideline, the manual itself. Is the manual going to be now publicly available?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We have copies of the manual available today at our PIO office and it's also available on our website -- it will be available on the website as soon as action takes place.

MR. NICHOLS: In other words, you've got to flip a switch but not until after we vote. Very good. That's wonderful. My hat's off to the work you have done on this, you've just done yeoman's work, particularly on the manual, working that through, and a lot of people involved in it. I also want to thank Mark Marek. Is he here today?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Hey, there you are. The traveling companion of me through a lot of those meetings. Appreciate it very much; he did a good job.

MR. JOHNSON: Does that mean you're not going to these three hearings?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll go to some of them or all of them or any of them.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We would love to have you there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: They've all asked you back to the Dallas one for sure.

MR. NICHOLS: Dallas wants another bite, huh?

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I'll be happy to do that. That's the only comments I have.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My hat off also to Mr. Nichols who's taken the lead on this issue and the staff. I have been contacted by private real estate interests who have some concern that the approach we take to publishing for comment and taking comments on our rules isn't conducive to a less formal committee approach; it allows a person to be very candid about his or her viewpoint about a proposed rule. Now we're going to have three hearings and I think we've addressed the concerns of local governments which was principally what we were focused on.

What I guess I'm musing about is there any for us to aggressively solicit the viewpoint of real estate owners, not just developers but men and women who own their real estate already, don't have any intention of developing it, but might have the intention of developing it someday when their children need to go to college or even when they pass it on to their children in an environment that doesn't sort of put them on equal footing with local government officials who have sort of a different viewpoint? Is there any way to accomplish that? Maybe not? Do you want to think about it?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: I'd like to think about that. They do have the opportunity to provide testimony at the hearings and written comments to us, and some of them were not shy at all in the hearings we had on the frontage roads.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I think they probably regret that. Well, it's just food for thought. Nobody on this commission, I think, wants to suggest we don't follow the law, but I've often pondered why it's necessary for us to publish a proposed set of rules in the Texas Register and why we can't just identify the 5,000 groups of people out there that might be interested in something and send them a draft and say: We're going to think about proposing this. Do you have any comments.

MR. JOHNSON: The problem is there might be 5,001. We want as complete and broad distribution as you can get, and you might overlook someone if it were going from us to them, but when it's made available to all through the internet, I think that's --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know the impression that it gives? The impression that it gives when we first publish is that that's what we're going to do, and in fact, we all know of actors in the transportation, environmental, and development world who have told us privately that commissions of the past and OGCs of the past have basically told actors that once it hits the Texas Register, that's it, buddy; don't screw with us.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think this is a prime example that that is not the case, that's not an accurate picture in all instances.

MR. MONROE: If I may -- this is Richard Monroe, general counsel -- as to this is it, either take it or drop dead, the whole idea is that we do solicit your comments and changes can be made. Now, somewhere you reach a point in that process where the changes, if made, would be so great that we would have to republish so that people could see them in their new form. Now, where that line is is a matter of judgment and if there's enough dispute about it, four years later some appellate court will tell you if you guessed right or not.

But as to the comments, one of the purposes of this whole process is if you have comments to make about the rules, I ought to be able to hear them; if I'm interested also, that is the reason for the public meeting so that I could get up again perhaps and say I violently disagree with what Mr. Williamson said.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, let me give you just a point blank example, Richard, of the dilemma we face. I hear what you're saying and I certainly hear what the chairman said, but you know, we don't apply that standard to our discussions with the Association of General Contractors; we don't apply that standard to our discussions with other trade groups in the state. All I'm saying is it's almost a selective process; we have some people we have long-time relationships with that we're real comfortable going and having lunch with them and talking to them on a committee basis, and yet we're not real comfortable talking to oil and gas distributors in West Texas who might have utility lines that are going to be affected by our proposed utility regulations. Do you see my point, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, guys that would never know that those damn rules got filed in the Texas Register, even though we could say, well, you had your chance to comment. And guys that live in North Texas who their entire life savings is in one 10-acre piece of property that they've asked us to give them access to and we refuse, and they don't read the Texas Register. You know, some of them may not even read English.

And so I want you to understand I heard what you said and I don't want the record to reflect that I'm against open records or recording information because I'm not against that, but we sometimes have a double standard that pays tribute to some but not to all.

MR. MONROE: In that vein, commissioner, for what it's worth, my advice has always been you treat everyone equally.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, I like that.

MR. NICHOLS: Can we vote on this yet?

MR. WILLIAMSON: We need to make a motion.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move that we do this.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We'll go to item 9(b)(3) which will be rules Darrel Hunt will present for Vehicle and Titles, registration renewal via the internet.

MR. HUNT: These rules proposed are pertaining to our vehicle registration renewal processing through the internet. The rules contain clean-up language from rules that were adopted in July of 2000 when we first started our pilot program for internet processing. We ask for approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, comments?

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.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9(b)(5) which is Traffic Operations and Congestion Mitigation Facilities. And before you start, Carlos, we are deferring 9(b)(4) which were some utility accommodation rules, and I know in talking individually to you, commissioners, we've decided to defer those and try to put out more information on sort of the direction that we're going in line with that rule.

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

The minute order before you proposes new Sections 25.40 through 25.43 concerning Congestion Mitigation Facilities. These new sections implement state law regarding HOV lanes and High Occupancy Toll lanes, better known as HOT lanes. The state statutes allow the department to design, construct, operate or maintain an HOV lane on the state highway system or to charge a toll for the use of one or more lanes of a state highway facility, including an HOV lane.

The rules outline and appoint in the project development process that the designation of HOV or HOT lanes should be brought before the commission for consideration and the factors that the commission can consider in establishing toll charges. These new sections also authorize the department to enter into any agreement with a regional tollway authority or a transit authority to operate one or more of the lanes of a congestion mitigation facility on the state highway system. We 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. Thank you, Carlos.

MR. BEHRENS: Now going to our rules for Final Adoption and 9(c)(1) is rule concerning our construction projects and private participation in those projects. Jennifer.

MS. SOLDANO: For the record, I'm Jennifer Soldano, director of the Contract Services Office.

This minute order adopts new Section 1.506 concerning Private Participation in Highway Construction Projects. The new section permits private participation in projects through the donation of money or tangible goods and no longer requires coordination through a local governmental agency. A donation of real property will continue to be processed under the existing rules.

The new section is designed to permit the greatest degree of flexibility that is consistent with protecting the public interest. Private participation may take a variety of forms and may be structured in any manner as long as it is governed by a formal agreement with certain terms. These terms include provisions to ensure that the department can effectively implement the donation agreement, provisions to protect the department and the public from later efforts by a private entity to alter its participation, and provisions governing the implementation of the agreement, the handling of funds and work on the project.

The commission proposed these rules in February and the rules were published in the March 15 edition of the Texas Register. No comments were received. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had none. I'll move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9(c)(2) will be rules concerning Employment Practices, Diana Isabel.

MS. ISABEL: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Diana Isabel, director of the Human Resources Division, and before you today is a minute order which would adopt amendments to 4.13 and 4.14 which concerns Job Application Procedures. These are primarily just clean-up changes. One is to reflect the current salary groups which were modified with the state classification system; it also clarifies language about our application deadline process, and it allows for applicants to submit their applications electronically.

The commission approved the amendments by Minute Order 108799 dated February 28, 2002, and there were no comments received. We recommend your adoption of the final rules.

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. Thank you, Diana.

MR. BEHRENS: Jim Randall will present 9(c)(3) final rules on the Abandonment of Rail Lines by Rural Rail Districts.

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

This minute order we bring before you today adopts new Sections 15.140 to 15.145 to be codified under Title 43 TAC, Part I concerning the Abandonment of a Rail Line by a Rural Transportation District. Senate Bill 406, Section 3, passed by the 77th Legislature provides that under Article 6550(c), Section (5)(r) a rural rail transportation district created under that article may not abandon a rail line of the district with respect to which the state funds have been loaned or granted unless the abandonment is approved by the commission as being consistent with the policy of that article. The new sections outline the policies and procedures by which a rural rail transportation district may apply for and obtain approval to abandon a rail line for the district.

The proposed amendments were published in the March 15, 2002, issue of the Texas Register for the purpose of receiving public comments; a public hearing was held on April 2, 2002. One person provided oral comments at the hearing requesting copies of the legislation and the proposed rules be provided to each rural rail transportation district; two written comments were received stating no objections to the proposed rules. The comments are addressed in Exhibit A. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions, comments?

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, Jim.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 9(d) Rule Review, and that will be presented by Ken Bohuslav.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: For the record, my name is Ken Bohuslav.

In accordance with Government Code Section 2001.039, Texas Department of Transportation filed notice of intention to review Sections 15.50 through 15.56 of the Texas Administrative Code. The proposed review was published in the March 29, 2002, issue of the Texas Register; no comments were received regarding the adoption of these rules. Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: We have one speaker who has requested to address the commission, Tommy Eden.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden. I'm here to discuss the need to amend Section 15.54(c) regarding sidewalk construction.

I'm asking you to amend this rule to address the environmental justice issues by making sure that highways are built for safety and for accessibility, whether those highways go through low income or minority areas or not. I'm asking you to listen to the countless Texans who are telling you we want sidewalks and we want safe pedestrian crossings on our roads, and saying we want bikeways on our roads.

Commissioners, it's time to put on those hard hats and bike helmets that were handed out to you earlier. If you plan on going walking on any of your highways, there's some real safety problems out there. Last year we had a record number of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. Most of those pedestrian fatalities were on state highways within the city of Austin. In fact most of those pedestrian fatalities were on Interstate 35 and US 183.

Please show that you support safe transportation for pedestrians and bicyclists. When you're ready for true intermodalism, we can build a highway that will someday be safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, safer than any state, including Vermont and Oregon. Texas is the best state and we deserve the best highways. It's that simple.

Therefore, I hereby request that the Texas Department of Transportation hold a public hearing to consider amendments to Section 15.54 of the Texas Administrative Code in order to require more stringently that sidewalks and bicycle facilities be built when you are building a highway.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any questions or comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have anything, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: All right, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What is environmental justice?

MR. EDEN: Environmental justice involves compliance with the Federal Civil Rights Act.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So that is a legal term, Mr. Monroe, "environmental justice"?

MR. MONROE: It can be so used and it has been invoked in various lawsuits.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is it reflected in statute someplace, is it defined?

MR. MONROE: Not as such, no, sir. It can comprise any number of factors or a combination thereof. The idea is, to put it very bluntly, if you're going to run a six-lane highway through Austin, why did you run it through the east side and never consider Tarrytown. That's what it was meant to avoid.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I see. So it's almost like to a nonknowledgeable person the term should almost be economic justice or socioeconomic justice.

MR. MONROE: It's somewhat tied up, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My other question was, Tommy, did you or Robin ever apologize to the chairman for disrupting him? It's a civilized thing.

MR. EDEN: Commissioner Williamson, I am not taking responsibility for what Ms. Schneider did. If you would like to meet with Ms. Schneider, I can certainly help you to speak with her, I'm sure I can get in touch with her and you're welcome to meet with her and discuss what she did.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So your answer is no?

MR. EDEN: I have not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you were part of that group that did all that.

MR. EDEN: I was in the group, I was not the person who interrupted Commissioner Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: To set the record, Tommy was in the chorus, I think.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, he wasn't leading the choir.

MR. JOHNSON: Tommy, an observation, if I might. The way you crafted your request, it sounds as though if we don't honor it, we're not in favor of safety and safe corridors, safe highways in Texas, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm going to put words in my own mouth, and I think there's nothing that could be further from the truth than that. I think as we've demonstrated in our actions throughout the course of my term, I'm sure Commissioner Nichols' term, and I'm sure the rest of Commissioner Williamson's term that those are very high priorities in our overall thinking.

In terms of your request, my concern -- and it somewhat probably echos something that Commissioner Williamson has just brought up in a previous discussion -- is that we have before us the final adoption for these rules, and from a timing standpoint, if this could have been brought to our attention prior to this, preliminary adoption or you could have expressed your concern in another way, we could have dealt with it, and I'm sure the issues have been discussed. I know there's correspondence that's gone on from Senator Barrientos to Federal Highway and a response has been made, so these are issues that we take very seriously, but I think the point that I'd like to encourage you to do is that when you're aware of these issues, the system is such that when things are up for final adoption, it's difficult to go back and examine things when it's more appropriate to do when they're up for preliminary adoption or in the consideration of the formation of the rules themselves.

MR. EDEN: I did not see a preliminary adoption on your agenda any time in the past.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, this is a readoption, so these rules are there, and your point is well-taken.

MR. EDEN: And I would ask that you postpone this readoption -- you have at least until February of next year to readopt this -- and hold a public hearing, let people weigh in on the rule that's already there.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we can adopt the rules and still people can issue comment because the rules can be changed. It would be my preference that we went that route rather than to do nothing. Anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just going to say, Chair, we do a lot of work on bicycle stuff. Everything you write to us or every call you make, or anybody interested in that issue, we give it a lot of serious consideration. We know that there are a lot of Texans who use bicycles and it's more and more every day. We know that.

MR. EDEN: We don't have the infrastructure that makes it safe to ride a bicycle on these highways.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't have all the infrastructure we'd like to have but we're getting there as fast as we can and we'll be getting there even faster with this commission.

MR. EDEN: I hope so.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now with the little personal ride-around vehicle, even the techy guys want bicycle lanes. Don't you have one of those?

MR. JOHNSON: Not yet.

(Commissioner Nichols leaves the meeting.)

MR. BEHRENS: Item 10 will be Transportation Planning, and Jim Randall will present three minute orders under that subject.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. Again, Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 10(a) we bring you the third quarter program for disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff would recommend the adjustments for each one of them. The adjustments are based on the equations approved in earlier proposals. There are four projects in Cameron County and the reduction in participation for these projects is $23,961. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you. Item 10(b), Section 15.52 of the Texas Administrative Code authorizes certain local governments, including cities, to contract for the design and construction of an improvement to the state highway system other than a project to improve freeway main lanes on the state highway system. Pursuant to that authority, a locally performed and managed state highway improvement project must be authorized by the commission in the current Unified Transportation Program or by specific minute order.

The City of Greenville, located in Hunt County, has requested approval to fund, design and construct a project to improve the existing at-grade intersection at US 69/380 and Industrial Boulevard. The planned improvements include work on the state highway system. The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes, in accordance with the 43 TAC, Section 15.52(8)(b), a project to improve the intersection at this location.

With the approval of this minute order, the department will review the plans, specifications, estimates, change orders, and perform construction inspection and materials testing oversight. This project will be designed and constructed in accordance with all department standards and policies. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One quick question, Chair.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: When did this project start?

MR. RANDALL: When did it start? I'll have to check on that, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Was this done under our expanded or improved guidelines for local management of projects? Did we not expand?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes, but we already had authority to do it with cities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So this is not a case of where our changing the rules resulted in an improvement to the state system?

MR. RANDALL: The rule went into effect August of last year, I believe.

MR. BEHRENS: What we did today is different. That's the one you're referring to.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I've always got my eyes open for those things.

MR. BEHRENS: The minute order passed today allows us to do similar to this with a private entity, where before we had to go through a city or county government to accomplish that. But this job is scheduled to be let next month.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I so move.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 10(c), this minute order authorizes the placement of bridges in Tarrant and Wise Counties. The first bridge is located on South Pipeline Road at Hurricane Creek in the city of Euless; the second bridge is on County Road 4421 at Oliver Creek, southeast of Decatur. Both bridges have recently suffered serious structural damage due to flooding and are in need of replacement. As a result, local citizens are taking significant detours of approximately two miles in Tarrant County and approximately ten miles in Wise County.

The estimated cost of the Hurricane Creek bridge is $225,000 and it could be let to contract by approximately December of 2003. The Oliver Creek bridge has an estimated cost of $358,000 and it could be let to contract by January 2004. Funding for the bridges is 80 percent federal, 10 percent state, 10 percent local. With your approval of this minute order, we will proceed with the replacement of the bridges to be funded in Priority 1, Category 6(b) Off-State System Bridge Rehabilitation Program of the 2002 UTP. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is December 2003 and January 2004 the quickest we can let the contracts?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. This is given to us from the districts; I'd have to check back with the districts.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It seems like a long time to let. So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 11, we'll have the award or rejection of highway improvement contracts. Thomas.

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

Item 11(a)(1) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on May 7 and 8, 2002, whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. We had 14 projects; staff recommends award of all projects in the exhibit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Item 11(a)(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on May 7 and 8, 2002, as shown on Exhibit A. We had 31 projects, an average of 5.32 bids per project; staff recommends award of all projects in the exhibit.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And bids continue to be below estimated costs?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a trend that's been going on for several months now.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Is our estimation poor, or is it getting more competitive?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: It's very competitive right now.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if we have -- of course, all the people we need to hear this are gone now, but if we had an internal bank we could look to and borrow money during times of economic stress, we could probably get our road projects built a lot cheaper, couldn't we?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if Mike had like 2-1/2, 3, 4, maybe $5 billion in cash just sitting there for the right moment, he could pull the trigger and get roads built cheaper.

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: Depends how big your letting is, but yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that your testimony, Thomas? And when are you Bohuslavs going to get your stories straight? Is it Bohooslav or Boslav?

MR. T. BOHUSLAV: We have a whole presentation on this.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 11(b) brings a settlement for a contract claim in Taylor County. Amadeo.

MR. SAENZ: There's a whole presentation on the Bohooslav or Boslav, and we'll be happy to discuss it another day.

Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, assistant executive director, Engineering Operations, also chairman of the Contract Claims Committee.

The minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Cherokee Bridge and Road, Inc., on Project STP 98(148)UM in Taylor County in the Abilene District. On May 9 the TxDOT Contract Claims Committee considered this claim, we met with the contractor and the district and made a recommendation of settlement to the contractor and the contractor has accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and equitable and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: $2.7 million down to $200,000? Did you tie the guy up and beat him?

MR. SAENZ: We just heard it and deciphered it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm constantly amazed by these things. So moved. I mean, I don't doubt my guys, but would you go ask for 3- and take $200,000?

MR. JOHNSON: That's a good question, just depends on the circumstances.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Commissioners, in item 12 you have the routine minute orders; they're listed as they appeared on the posted agenda. If you would like us to discuss any of those individually, we'll be happy to do so; otherwise, I would recommend that they be approved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are there any frontage roads in here?

MR. BEHRENS: No, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any right of way or utility matters?

MR. BEHRENS: There are right of way matters.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Tell me a little bit about that.

MR. BEHRENS: The right of way matters are basically to remove some right of way from our system. One of them is exchanging drainage easements, the other one is selling surplus easements.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But nothing about the rules.

MR. BEHRENS: No. This is just transactions that we're doing, routine transactions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have anything?

MR. JOHNSON: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We do have some folks for open comment.

MR. JOHNSON: This now is our open comment part of the meeting. We have three blue cards, the first one is Kent Bell, the director of Planning and Zoning Services. Since I believe everyone is speaking on the same issue, perhaps if you would like to go in a different order.

MR. BELL: Yes, Mr. Johnson. I was going to ask if we could let the representative from Mr. Domingo Garcia's office go first.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. Ana Correa. Which order would you like to go? We'll let you go however you'd like to go.

MS. CORREA: Good afternoon. On behalf of State Representative Domingo Garcia, I'd like to thank the commission and members for your willingness to hear some concerns that we share with our constituent and his family, Mr. Kalia's family, in regarding the Project Number 3281-00.

I'm Ana Yanez Correa, chief of staff for Representative Garcia, and he truly regrets not being here to facilitate this process for his constituent, and Mr. Kent Bell who is the director of Planning and Zoning Services of JDJR Engineers. After evaluating Mr. Kalia's call for assistance, it is our opinion that he raises some very valid claims regarding his rights to have access for a new gas station on his property located at Sylvan and I-30 exit of Dallas County.

Representative Garcia would like to point out the following things. The first one is that Mr. Kalia and the JDJR Engineers have modified the proposal to resolve whatever safety issues that were previously present. And the second issue is that there's already two different gas stations in the front and he feels that this should also be facilitated to his constituent for the technical reasons that Mr. Bell will present to you guys.

So I'm just here to thank you again for listening to them, and Representative Garcia really hopes that you will approve this because their economic welfare also depends on it and it would be nice. Thank you.

MR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm Kent Bell with JDJR Engineers, 2500 Texas Drive in Irving, Texas. In the intent of brevity, I won't go through the background but where we stand today is a request for driveway access to the I-30 frontage road was denied due to proximity to the existing off-ramp, the Sylvan off-ramp, a future right turn lane that is planned, and the I-30 redesign and widening project that was stated in the response from TxDOT. You have a copy of that.

The first two issues are actually included in the third so I'll basically be addressing ramp proximity and the right-turn lane issues as they're shown on the I-30 reconstruction plans. You have a very small reduction of the pertinent sheet of those reconstruction plans; I've got an enlargement here that I'll try to be referring to and still be heard on the microphone.

The plans show the proposed intersection of travel ways of the Sylvan exit ramp will be 402 feet from the southeast corner of the subject property. It's our understanding that the TxDOT standards prohibit driveways within 250 feet of the intersection of travel ways, so we don't believe that the requested driveway violates separation standards as they apply to exit ramps.

As to the proximity of the proposed driveways to the free right-turn lane onto Sylvan, we have reviewed our original request, will no longer pursue the most westerly driveway location that was originally requested. That's only 158 feet from the westerly terminus of the storage lanes and in my opinion, that's too close, so we are dropping that request.

MR. JOHNSON: Is the district aware of that?

MR. BELL: We have not provided this yet to the district but we will do so. We wanted to visit with you first because I think we still have an issue with the district regarding the easterly-most driveway.

Regarding that easterly-most driveway, in their letter TxDOT had indicated that there was going to be a new right-turn lane constructed. The plans show modification to that right-turn lane but only at the very intersection of Sylvan. The majority of the existing right-turn lane, storage lanes, and transition is not to be revised in the current plans for the I-30, nor is the majority of the existing transition and storage into the Texas turnaround.

The driveway location that we would like to get specific is located approximately 273 feet from the westerly terminus of the existing free right-turn lane onto Sylvan. This does not conform to the new requirements of TxDOT, as I understand them, however, those guidelines in the language of them say they may be applied to right-turn lanes; it doesn't state it as an absolute mandate. It indicates and implies that discretion may be applied in certain design decisions.

Previously, we would have looked at a design limitation of 200 feet of storage and 100 feet of transition before we would design a driveway access onto the frontage road. What we're looking at here is 27 feet at variance to what those standards would have been. This is an unusual situation, though, because this transition lane off of Sylvan into the right turn is very, very long and gradual. It begins approximately 245 feet east of our southeast property corner -- I'm sorry -- it's 245 feet east of the centerline of the proposed driveway which is a lot longer than what you would see for a transition lane. The majority of that lane that is in front of the property is already storage and actually it exceeds the storage requirements under the new guidelines.

Because of that very gradual transition lane, it doesn't cause a hard turning maneuver as you are entering the free right-turn lane. It also provides for very good sight visibility as you would be exiting the driveway onto the frontage road. Given that we're 273 feet from the westerly terminus, that we fairly well comply with the standards that were in place a few years ago, that it does not appear to impair storage capacity for vehicles queued to turn onto Sylvan and does not appear to pose a safety problem as far as to vehicles entering the transitioning traffic, we're asking that our request be reconsidered.

Now, if the standards are to be applied without discretion, we would like to ask that they be applied as well to TxDOT's own project which would mandate the reconstruction of both the existing free right-turn lane onto Sylvan as well as the Texas turnaround that goes under the turnpike. Our request, of course, though, is that our request be reconsidered. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

MR. JOHNSON: I asked you if the district were aware of the change from two driveways to one, and the one being the most easterly, and you said that they were unaware but that you also had another issue with the district, and that issue is?

MR. BELL: I believe that the issue is still the current standards as they relate to the free right-turn issue. I don't see a problem as far as the proximity to the intersection of travel ways from the exit ramp. I mean, we're over 400 feet away so I don't see a problem there, but I do see a concern in their eyes regarding this free right-turn situation and how the new rules are to be applied.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, this is a personal impression, but I think it would be extremely rare that the commission would make a modification when all remedies have not been exhausted, and clearly in my mind, since the district is unaware of the proposal to eliminate one of the driveways in the request that all remedies have not been exhausted and that I would encourage you to get back with the district and discuss that part of the proposal and how it affects their thinking and what might be done between the two parties to get you where you want to get.

MR. BELL: We can certainly pursue that.

MR. JOHNSON: That would be my suggestion, and if that fails, then all have been exhausted and perhaps you'd like to come back before the commission, but I just would like to say personally it would be extremely rare that this commission would overturn the decision of the district. It might have been done in the past and it might be done in the future. I'm just advising that I think it would be a rare circumstance.

Now, Ric, I do not want to put any words in your mouth, but that's, as I say, a personal impression.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You speak for the commission, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: We do appreciate your coming.

Mr. Kalia, did you want to add anything?

MR. KALIA: I just had a couple of comments. The property itself is at the end of a hotel which has an access from the Fort Worth Avenue, it's the opposite road to the turnpike, but this land will only be developed if we have an access to the I-30; there's no other way we can develop this land. Any access from the hotel is just not feasible, and then next door there's another gas station and obviously they won't give us any access either, so the only way we can get access is through the eastern -- like Mr. Bell said, the southeastern, that plan that we have. So we'd really appreciate if you guys consider this and grant us the access, and thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think your first thing you need to do is to revisit the issue with the district, especially in light of the change in the request, and let's see where that goes. I know Representative Garcia has been diligent in this matter. I've talked to him on a couple of occasions; he's probably talked to Mr. Williamson.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He has been very persistent, politely persistent, but he's very persistent for his constituent.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for coming and representing the representative.

Anything else to come before the commission? We were going to go into executive session and take away Robert Nichols' five-year service award, but since he's not here, we don't need to do that.

If there's no other business to come before the commission, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: For the record, please note it's 1:48 p.m. and this meeting stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: May 30, 2002

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 169 inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the Texas Tranportation Commission.

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