Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, June 26, 2003

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

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

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It's 9:12 a.m. and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. According to that clock, it's 9:13 a.m.  I stand corrected. Welcome to our June meeting. It is a pleasure to have you here today.

I will note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items of the agenda, was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 3:38 p.m. on June 18, 2003. Normally at this time I ask my colleagues on the commission if they have any items of note that they would like to mention.

But I'm going to exercise a little privilege of the chair and start, and what I wanted to mention, the gentlemen that flank me, Robert Nichols and Ric Williamson, probably worked pretty close to 24 hours, seven days from early January through the end of May -- actually to early June -- and what was accomplished in the legislature for this department and this state is primarily because of the hard work that they did and also the incredible work that the staff of this department did.

And so I publicly want to acknowledge the great work that you two gentlemen did in leadership of our legislative issues. And I also wanted to note that Mr. Nichols has been reappointed to a six-year term.

(Applause.)

MR. JOHNSON: And I think the governor could not have made a more outstanding appointment.

And having said that, Ric, I'll go to you and see if you have any comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming. It's the first meeting after the legislature -- thank you, Mr. Averitt, Ms. Delisi, and whomever else is out there that I didn't see -- the first meeting after the legislature decided to take a chance. And I think all three commissioners and the staff understand that following the governor's lead, the legislature has said we're going to think big, we're going to take risks, we've got to do some things fast to address problems, and I personally appreciate that trust and confidence, Mr. Averitt and Ms. Delisi and whoever else might be here, and we shall not fail.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Well, thanks for the comment. I guess I'm the oldest one on the commission right now, and as soon as I get sworn back in again, I'll be the youngest one on the commission again.

MR. JOHNSON: I think you'll always remain the oldest.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I also wanted to thank Representative Delisi and Senator Averitt for their support you gave transportation this session. It was a truly remarkable session -- one of the most progressive transportation packages passed, trauma care and all that -- in many decades, and I think the public does not fully understand the ramifications, but they will as time moves on. Those who are in the transportation business I think do understand what's in there, and it was truly amazing, and we appreciate the work you did which was quite a bit.

I wanted to welcome everybody here. There's several groups today and some have driven through Interstate 35 which is a thing on its own, and some have come as far as from the Valley in a different group, and we appreciate very much the efforts that those of you who come from your communities, efforts you go to to point out to us what you're working on and what your dreams and plans are for your community, and we appreciate that. So thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks.

The first item on the agenda is a public hearing relating to the Project Selection Process, and Jim Randall, if you'll step forward and open the meeting.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division for TxDOT. The notice for this public hearing was filed with the Secretary of State on May 16, 2003 and published in the Texas Register on May 30, 2003. This presentation and hearing represents a collaborative effort by TxDOT staff, the metropolitan planning organizations, county judges, regional planning councils, and the Texas Transportation Institute.

Montie Wade, a senior research engineer for the Texas Transportation Institute, deserves recognition for his and his staff's facilitation of the work groups and the production of the recommendation reports. They worked with over 145 individuals from TxDOT and our transportation partners, organizing and scheduling meetings, as well as recording the meeting notes from each workshop.

Now let's review the restructuring of the Unified Transportation Program.

In January 2001, we requested the Texas Transportation Institute to perform a survey of TxDOT district planning and metropolitan planning organization personnel, as well as county judges. The survey focused on the perceived limitations in TxDOT's Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process and their suggested improvements. TxDOT received the final report from the Texas Transportation Institute on June 5, 2001. The report has resulted in specific recommendations that TxDOT has used to improve the highway construction project development process and the general understanding and acceptance of TxDOT procedures.

There were two central recommendations produced from the survey. The first was to decrease the number of categories. The number of categories has been reduced from 34 down to 12. Also, the nomenclature used for a project's development stage has been changed to terms which convey a truer picture of what work is being done in that stage. Long Range Projects became PLAN; Priority 2 became DEVELOP, and Priority 1 became CONSTRUCT.

The second recommendation proposed the department hold outreach programs to educate the public on project selection and funds distribution. This will allow individuals outside the department to obtain a better understanding of TxDOT's guidelines, rules and procedures.

We agreed. My staff is currently developing several components to this outreach program including: brochure and a video production, both of which will give a simple overview of the project selection and funds distribution process, and manuals and training courses for department personnel, metropolitan planning organizations, and the public.

In addition, the department asked the metropolitan planning organizations, county judges, and regional planning council staffs to become our partners in the restructuring of the Unified Transportation Program. They were asked to participate and collaborate on the funding formulas and project selection process recommendations we present to you today. We appreciate the work and time our partners have dedicated to this process.

Today we'll be talking about the output of five recommendation reports regarding the following highway construction programs:

Category 1 - Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Category 11 - District Discretionary

Category 2 - Metropolitan Area Corridor Projects

Category 3 - Urban Area Corridor Projects

Category 4 - Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects

The categories are not listed in numerical order for a reason. The first two, Category 1 and Category 11, are allocation programs. Therefore, the work groups developed allocation formulas for use in distributing these funds to our 25 districts based on quantifiable need.

The last three categories are project-specific programs. The work groups developed project selection processes to recommend to the commission.

First, let's discuss Category 1, Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation. This category is part of our Statewide Preservation Program and is included in the Maintain It budget strategy. This category addresses the commission's commitment to preserve the existing highway network and protect the state's previous investments.

The Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation Work Group developed two formulas for allocating funds: one for preventive maintenance and one for rehabilitation.

Preventive maintenance is work performed on a highway pavement on a periodic basis in order to keep the pavement structure sound and avoid more costly repairs in the future. Examples of preventive maintenance include: seal coats, asphalt concrete pavement overlays, cleaning and sealing joints and cracks, and restoring drainage systems.

The preventive maintenance formula developed by the work group has four criteria:

The first US state highway system lane miles - this criteria represents system size and the need to perform certain basic preventive maintenance to a pavement regardless of the traffic volumes.

Vehicle miles traveled per lane mile - this criteria represents use and can be an indicator of how quickly the pavement wears.

Next, the condition of the pavement - our Construction Division does an extensive job of grading the pavements throughout the state and this criteria is intended to bring improvements to pavements in poor condition first.

And finally, the area of bridge decks - this criteria represents the need to perform preventive maintenance to a bridge deck regardless of the traffic volumes.

Next, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is work that will improve serviceability and extend the service life of existing highways. Work may include: replacing pavements, improving the sub grade, upgrading geometric features such as shoulder widening and minor horizontal alignment.

The rehabilitation formula developed by the work group has the following criteria:

First, the amount of heavy wheel loads -- this criteria represents the cause of pavement damage in terms of wear and tear from passing vehicles, especially trucks.

The condition of the pavement -- again, as in the preventive maintenance formula, this criteria is intended to bring improvements to the pavements in the poorest conditions first.

State highway system lane miles -- this criteria represents system size and the need to perform rehabilitation to a pavement regardless of the traffic volumes.

Vehicle miles traveled -- this criteria represents use and can be an indicator of how quickly the pavement wears.

The condition of the bridge decks -- this criteria indicates the bridge decks that are in less than desirable condition and allows the district engineers to rehabilitate bridge decks.

Miles of operational Intelligent Transportation Systems -- this system enhances the operations of our roadways but these systems from time to time must be rehabilitated as well. This criteria is used to send funds to the areas with Intelligent Transportation Systems in order to keep their Intelligent Transportation Systems reliable and efficient. Some examples include control centers, closed circuit TV, changeable message signs, and pavement sensors.

And finally, miles of narrow two-lane roads -- this criteria allows the district engineer to add shoulders to narrow roadways during rehabilitation operations.

The next work group tasked with developing a formula for a TxDOT allocation program was the Category 11, District Discretionary Work Group. These category funds are distributed to the districts to be used at the district engineer's discretion. The work group recommended three criteria to be used to distribute these funds:

First, vehicle miles traveled -- this criteria indicates system use or activity and thus is a relative measure of repair or improvement needs to the highway system in the district.

Next, state highway system lane miles -- this criteria represents system size and the need to enhance and preserve the highway system regardless of the traffic volumes.

And finally, vehicle miles traveled (trucks only) -- this work group used this criteria as a relative measure of truck wear and damage to a district's highway pavements.

The following categories, Category 2, 3 and 4 are part of our Statewide Mobility Program and are included in the Build It budget strategy.

The Category 2, Metropolitan Area Corridor Projects Work Group was tasked with establishing a list of prioritized corridor segments in the eight metropolitan areas with populations exceeding 200,000. This work group was composed of staffs from the metropolitan planning organizations and the staff from their respective TxDOT district offices. First, this group determined the appropriate funding targets for each metropolitan area based upon a set of objective data.

The objective data included: total vehicle miles traveled; population of the metropolitan area; vehicle miles traveled for trucks only; lane miles of roadway; fatal and incapacitating accidents; population under the federal poverty level.

The data was used to produce a relative target share of Category 2 funds each metropolitan area should anticipate on an annual 5-year and 15-year time period. Each metropolitan area then developed a corridor improvement plan for a projected 15 years based upon the target amount of funds to their area over that 15-year period. The total funding for Category 2 over the 15-year period is forecasted to be approximately $10 billion. Therefore, each metropolitan planning organization, with the assistance of their districts, listed projects which will improve essential highway corridors in their area staying at or below the target funding amount for their area.

In addition, all eight areas prioritized their corridor segments and grouped them into three 5-year increments over the 15-year time period. Each metropolitan area will receive one-third of its target funding in each 5-year increment in order to assure equity in the selection of the corridor improvements.

The Category 2 Work Group also made the following recommendations:

In the 2005 Unified Transportation Program, the commission should grant development authority to the corridor improvement projects in the first five years of the 15-year time period.

Next, they recommended to give authority to administratively adjust local priorities within funding targets.

And finally, they recommended to reconvene the work group in five years to review and recalculate funding targets, adjust local priorities and cost estimates.

The report contains letters of support from all eight metropolitan planning organizations indicating unanimous support for the process used by the groups and the recommendations made by the groups.

As mentioned previously, the second mobility category is Category 3, Urban Area Corridor Projects. Like Category 2, this work group was tasked with establishing a list of prioritized corridor segments. This work group was composed of staffs from the 17 urban metropolitan planning organizations -- that is, the metropolitan planning organizations with populations less than 200,000 but greater than 50,000 -- and their respective district staffs. The Category 3 group also determined the appropriate funding targets for each of their areas based on a set of objective data.

This objective data included: total vehicle miles traveled; population of the urban area; vehicle miles traveled (trucks only); centerline miles of roadways; lane miles of roadways; fatal and incapacitating accidents; and population under the federal poverty level.

The data was used to produce a relative target share of Category 3 funds each area should anticipate, again, on an annual 5-year and 15-year time period. Just as Category 2, each of the areas then developed a corridor improvement plan for a projected 15 years based upon the target amount of funds to the area over that 15-year period. The total funding from Category 3 over a 15-year period is forecasted to be approximately $1.7 billion. Therefore, each urban metropolitan planning organization, with the assistance of their districts, listed projects which will improve essential highway corridors in their areas, staying at or below the target funding.

Again, all areas prioritized their corridor segments and grouped them into three 5-year increments over the 15-year time period. Just as the Category 2 Work Group, each area would receive one-third of its target funding in each 5-year increment in order to assure equity in the selection of corridor improvements.

The Category 4 Statewide Connectivity Work Group was tasked with prioritizing corridor projects outside the state's metropolitan areas. This group recommended a statewide highway connectivity network which included: the Texas Trunk System; the National Highway System; and connections from Texas Trunk System or National Highway System to major ports or international borders or Texas water ports.

The goal of the work group was for the highway network to consist of roads with four or more lanes. For this reason, Farm to Market or Ranch to Market roads were not included in the connectivity network.

Within the statewide connectivity network, the work group identified mobility corridors, connectivity corridors, and strategic corridors.

The Category 4 Work Group also established selection criteria and weighting factors to prioritize corridor segments on the mobility corridor, the connectivity corridors, and the strategic corridors. The selection criteria included consideration of: two-lane bottlenecks; traffic; truck traffic; congestion; military deployment/disaster preparedness routes; and connectivity to major ports of entry.

Though the corridor segments were prioritized, the work group did not make specific project recommendations. My staff would work with the commission in establishing funding targets for these corridors and scheduling project development in the affected districts.

The Category 4 Work Group also made the following recommendation: that the Phase I Texas Trunk System projects should be developed and funded before any new Category 4 connectivity corridors were undertaken.

This concludes my presentation. If you would like to read the recommendation reports in their entirety, you can access them via the internet.

If you have any comments regarding the recommendation reports, please mail them to the address shown. Deadline for comments is August 11, 2003. We also have handouts in the lobby with this information. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert or Ric, do you have any questions or observations for Jim?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one or two but I yield to my senior colleagues.

MR. NICHOLS: Is he talking about you or me?

MR. JOHNSON: That's a good question.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I'll make some comments. For those of you in the audience who are not familiar or understand the extent to which this change goes, I will tell you it is a very dramatic and I think positive change in the way the department analyzes transportation projects and allocates funding across the state. The public, the communities, the legislature several years ago asked us to, first of all, try to simplify the process so people can understand it better. We had evolved into 34 funding categories, each of which had its own formulas, and so the public, whether you were a mayor, a county commissioner, or chamber of commerce, trying to understand how we funded highways, there were segmentized formulas using a cost-effectiveness index -- which was a very logical thing -- and each of these were in a wide range of categories, so it was very difficult to understand which pot of money you were looking at.

But the system served the state well for a number of years, but we finally reached the point where the categories had gotten so complicated, so many of them, and in the communities the needs were so great and the funds were so short that just because it was scoring the highest, based on our formulas, wasn't necessarily the projects that the community as a whole felt was most important for their area or region.

So this, in effect, simplifies the categories. It establishes, if you're a metropolitan area or if you're an urbanized area, in the future -- there's a transition period in here -- a known amount of dollars to work with in your area. And the locals, through their MPOs or whatever, are going to have a lot more input into the selection or recommendations of which projects are selected in those areas through our process, so you will be much more involved.

I think it's great. I commend the staff for the work you've done. I know that you worked on it for a couple of years now and it's pretty dramatic. And I know we have already gathered a lot of information and input from around the state, but it's very important for the public to understand that if you have more comments related to this stuff, bring them in and be specific about them. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good work. Two years ago, Chairman Johnson started the department down the road of developing a truly strategic plan as opposed to a process plan, and he invited transportation participants from around the state to help him develop that plan. And then we quickly, after the Chairman's strategic plan process was almost finished, began to ask our friends in the legislature to allow us to begin to change our budget document and our state strategic plan, to follow that. We asked for the whole thing; the legislature was a little bit uncomfortable in the whole thing but they let us start, and I'm told that Mr. Bivins and Mr. Heflin support generally our movement towards that in two years.

So what we're trying to do is set a strategic plan, a budget document and an operational plan that all use the same terms, that mean the same thing, that link back and link forward, and I think that's a great advance for transportation clarity for the public.

Because we have people from Temple here and because I get to be the guy on the commission that sometimes scowls, I want to ask you a question in order to make a point, and I hope the answer is what I expect -- if it's not, I'm going to be embarrassed.

MR. RANDALL: No pressure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As we implement this, have we put in place safeguards that will never allow the communities we work with and our employees in those communities to ever again be put into the corner of: You told us you would build this and it's not being built because the price of that project ten years ago when it went into the plan is doubled, but we don't reflect that in our plan?

One of our goals in this was to strip out for ourselves and for the communities such as Temple that we deal with any false sense that a project approved today at $100 million is going to be built even if it goes to $500 million ten years from now.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. We're now incorporating the factor of the inflation factor in all the projections and all the cost estimates. What's in the UTP should be what the actual cost of that project is, so there shouldn't be any surprises.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the commission has committed itself and is going down a path of if it's in the UTP, we're going to build it if it's in CONSTRUCT, and if it's not in CONSTRUCT, our successors are not going to be told that we were promised to build something ten years from now because it's got to get to CONSTRUCT in order to be built, and it won't get in CONSTRUCT because we have a financially constrained plan, unless we can pay for it.

MR. RANDALL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That was one objective of the governor and the commission, and that alone is a significant step in this process. We should tell the public the truth all the time; we should not promise what we can't deliver; and we should deliver what we say we will. And this document should reflect that. I appreciate the work. Thank you.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Jim, I had two or three thoughts. First, to reinforce what Robert and Ric have said, this is a huge, massive undertaking and I think one that was probably long overdue because the complexity of our UTP had grown and grown to where it took somebody who was very familiar with the department and what we do to understand all the parts of the UTP. And I want to congratulate you and your staff and everybody involved with where we are and where I'm sure we're going to end up landing.

The thought that I had -- I notice that we have a built-in 5-year review of what has happened -- I have a little bit of concern that perhaps we ought to shorten that to maybe three years because we're making an assumption that we're getting it right the first time, and I hope we do, but that, in at least my experience in the business world and the other worlds that I am involved in, it's somewhat of a rare bird that we get it right the first time. So I hope that we have a mechanism whereby we can review periodically to make sure that we're: one, in the right fairway; and secondly, that we're doing the appropriate thing with a minor tweaking or a massage.

I know there are a lot of formulae involved, and I'm not saying that we need to go back and review those on a yearly basis or every two or three years, but I just think we need the flexibility to make sure we're on the right flight path and we're going to land where we need to be in an equitable, fair and constructive way.

The other observation I had is we have several starting points, and it occurs to me that if we take three-year averages to get to those starting points -- and I'm talking primarily Category 1 where we've taken a three-year average of ride scores and pavement scores -- it occurs to me that a starting point ought to be a point and not sort of a motion picture. It ought to be a still shot and the most current data available might be the most appropriate place to start. That's just a personal opinion and something that I submit for consideration.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Otherwise, great job and I think we're well on the way to simplifying, making it more understandable, and as Ric has certainly indicated, something that is a tool within which we will stay and I think that benefits everybody, people within the department and of course the users of the system, who are, in essence, our customers.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you, sir.

Staff know we've got comments number one and two to address immediately during the comment period. On the 5-year, that was a recommendation from the work group, and so again, we're out for public comment until August 11. We'll gather up those comments and then come back with a recommendation to the administration and of course to the commission on the various products. It's not in stone, the 5-year, it was just a recommendation from that work group. And also the starting point, we're flexible with that too. So those will be the first two comments we'll address when we come back to the commission with a recommendation.

MR. JOHNSON: Great.

This closes the hearing, and we will move into the delegation part of our agenda.

(Whereupon, the public hearing was concluded.)

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed, to reconvene following the Public Hearing.)

WACO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND

KILLEEN-TEMPLE URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

MR. JOHNSON: The first delegation today is from the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study. Leading the delegation is Sally Myers, and she's the mayor pro-tem for the City of Temple and the chair of the Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study Policy Board.

Mayor Myers, welcome to the podium. We're delighted that you're here and hope that the journey down I-35 was not too congested.

MAYOR MYERS: Not too bad; we were surprised.

Good morning, commissioners. It's really a pleasure for us to be here today. Actually, I'm going to turn it over to Mayor Ethridge from the Waco MPO. She's going to do the introductions and then I'll be back in a little while after the video is done.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you very much. I'm Linda Ethridge, mayor of Waco, Texas. We're delighted to be here with you today.

We have some very distinguished people with us, and I'm going to introduce some of them to you in just a moment, but I do know that Senator Averitt has a meeting that he has to make at 10:00, so I think we better start with Senator Averitt.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Somebody told me he was going to draw up a congressional district for Robert Nichols.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR AVERITT: We can talk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

I've been before you on many occasions touting some very worthy projects in my district, projects that are the seed of economic development. Building the roads is the first part of economic expansion. Our state has been actually quite lucky in the scheme of the United States economic situation. We're still perking along, but slowly. I believe there's not dollars better spent than building roads to stimulate the economy. For example, I've been before you to talk about a bypass in Copperas Cove. A new road in Copperas Cove stimulates all types of entrepreneurial commercial development and residential areas that otherwise would not have happened -- a huge boom for a community like Copperas Cove in a new road.

Interstate 35 is the same thing for the State of Texas. It's the backbone of our economy; it's the backbone of international trade in the country. There's not a more important road that I know of in the State of Texas than Interstate 35. Built 50 years ago, as you know, it's pretty much getting to the end of its useful life as we know it today. You have put the expansion and improvement of 35 on your priority list. I'm here today to thank you for doing that and encourage you to keep it on your priority list and keep Interstate 35 funded, keep the progress moving. It's a long and drawn-out process, it's a difficult process going through metropolitan areas, rural areas, but it's important, not just for our communities in Central Texas but indeed for the entire state.

So I am here to encourage you to continue to keep the 35 project on the top of your priority list, to move forward. We've given you some new tools to deal with your job. I hope that they work and I hope that you'll give Interstate 35 some serious consideration on some of those new tools. And there are some things that I think the federal government is going to allow you to do on interstate highways that you haven't been able to do in the past, and I think we would be foolish not to examine thoroughly every option.

We are committed to doing whatever it takes to making Interstate 35 a safer, more pleasant drive not only for commerce but for folks like me who are on that damn road every day.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR AVERITT: And it's important for our communities, but it's also important for every community in this state; it is the backbone of our economy. And I want to encourage you; I'll work with you individually, as a group, however you see fit to see what we can do to utilize some of those new tools that are coming on line, and I just want to encourage you to be very aggressive. And any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Nichols said it best, but I have to repeat it: you're a tremendous friend of transportation, Senator, and we do appreciate so much your commitment.

SENATOR AVERITT: Well, thank you for your time, and I especially want to thank everybody here from the Central Texas area who came up to support the project, and most of them won't speak but we're here in force and en masse and in unison. So thank you very much, and thank you for everybody that came.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Senator.

(Applause.)

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Our delegation very much appreciates the opportunity to address you this morning. We have a good deal of respect for the work that you do, the responsibilities that you have, the significant challenges that you face, and we are very encouraged by the can-do attitude that you bring to your work, and we even understand when scowling is perhaps appropriate.

We're going to handle our time the following way: I'm going to tell you a little bit about the people who have come with us; and then after that, the mayor pro-tem of Temple Sally Myers, will speak -- well, before that we will have a video, and then Sally will speak; and then following her you will hear from Drayton McLane; and then I will be back with a few remarks; and then our delegation presentation is very well sandwiched today, we started with Senator Averitt and at the end of our delegation presentation you will hear from Representative Dianne Delisi. So that's kind of our plan.

We have several elected officials that are among our group, and I would like to mention their names to you and ask them to stand and remain standing. We have Sally Myers, who is the mayor pro-tem of Temple; we have the mayor of Temple, Bill Jones; we have the mayor of Harker Heights, Mary Gauer; we have the mayor of Killeen, Maureen Jewitt; we have the mayor of Belton, Dwayne Digby; and since I'm a mayor, that's why I'm introducing the mayors first.

We're also pleased to have with us Commissioner Joe Mashek from McLennan County; Council Member Maurice Labens of Waco; Council Woman Patsy Luna of Temple; Martha Tyroch of the Temple Council; Leroy Schiller, who is commissioner of Bell County; Jon Burrows, who is the Bell County judge; Ric Ash, who is an alderman in Salado; Robert Vincent, who is a commissioner in Lampasas County; and Tim Brown, who is commissioner in Bell County and he's also the past president and the current vice chair of the National Superhighway Coalition. And then we're also very pleased to have Jared Love, who is representing Senator John Cornyn; and we have Jerry Phillips, who is representing State Representative John Mabry.

And if I have missed any elected officials, please don't be shy -- which elected officials never are -- and stand up and say your name if I missed anyone. And we have Jay Brown from Senator Fraser's office, and I'm sorry I didn't have your name before.

And I'd like to ask all the other members of our delegation to please rise at this time. We're easy to spot; we have these nice big buttons. We actually are representing a population base of 450,000 people, so I appreciate everyone who came down. You may be seated now. And I will turn this over to the mayor pro-tem of Temple, Sally Myers. We'll do the video -- I keep trying to skip the video, but we really do want you to see it.

(Whereupon, the video was shown.)

MAYOR MYERS: Well, I don't think I have to say anything now; the video said just about everything. I am Sally Myers, the mayor pro-tem for the City of Temple, but I serve currently as the chair for the KTUTS which is really the Killeen-Temple MPO, and we are part of the delegation that is coming today, the Waco delegation and the KTUTS delegation.

You're seeing the slide that shows that we represent over 500,000 Texans in the area. Our region has grown by nearly 20 percent, along with the corridor between San Antonio and Dallas that has grown almost 30 percent. I think this is an interesting statistic that 40 percent of Texans live within 15 minutes of I-35 -- I didn't realize that at the time.

We have some real congestion issues along those older segments of I-35. Currently between our regions, 50- to 100,000 vehicles a day travel that central artery, and it moves all goods and people from rural to urban areas to the central cities like Killeen, Waco and Temple, to universities like Baylor and Mary Hardin-Baylor, and to our major military base at Fort Hood. The growth of this traffic volume has exceeded the capacity of the road.

Traffic volumes double almost every 20 years. It's been proven across Texas time and time again that traffic volumes can overwhelm roadways in a very short period of time. In McLennan and Bell Counties, I-35 is basically at the same traffic load design as when the original interstate was installed. That means that those traffic volumes will reach Level F or at best Level D with improvements in the near future.

A third of NAFTA truck traffic flows through this region. I don't think any of us ever realized what the volumes were going to be of that heavy truck traffic, plus the fact that the heavy weights of the trucks pound that I-35 roadway on a daily basis.

And we talked already in the video that I-35 is over 40 years old and most of the area that we're talking about through this region is one of the very first areas that was constructed. Sight distances, exit and entrance ramps, and bridge clearances are mostly substandard for the kind of cars and vehicles that are traveling on it today. Exit ramps and entrance ramps are difficult to negotiate with main-lane traffic an average of 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limits -- we all know that -- and short entrances onto the interstate can impact vehicular accident rates as people on I-35 are braking because you're trying to get on.

Frontage roads, unfortunately, through this area also are mostly two-way and are not continuous, and that's something that we think if that were the case, if we could have continuous one-way frontage roads along the existing corridor, that would actually alleviate some of the congestion along the main lanes.

Something that our community deals with, and I know the Waco community deals with, is the public safety issues that we have to contend with. These aren't just accidents; these are crashes, and they occur within our region three times a day. And we all know that it takes away our public safety people to work those accidents, to provide care to the people that are injured, and then it also causes backups along that roadway. The other thing that it does is when we have to put our police and our fire out on I-35 to take care of accidents, then we also are taking them off of our local streets.

We also know that Fort Hood is the largest military base in the world, certainly in Texas, and there are over 70,000 people who live on that base and 45,000 are active soldiers. Also, I-35 and US 190 are the primary deployment destinations for Fort Hood. Rapid deployment from Fort Hood is now mandatory. Military strategy has changed. It must be quick and decisive. It must be able to move its men, machinery and equipment to its ports and destinations in minimum time. We think I-35 is a critical link through our region for them to reach their deployment centers.

That's really all I have to say. I'm going to introduce Drayton McLane to let him visit with you a little bit about the business and commerce issues, and then if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.

MR. JOHNSON: Drayton, before you get started, did the Astros have a scout at Round Rock on the 24th?

MR. McLANE: Well, that's our AA team and we keep scouts there all the time, so if you're available, we could certainly use your expertise also.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we had a left-hander throw out the first pitch and I understand it was so impressive that it would be a bidding war between TxDOT and your organization, but he looks like a phenom, probably a middle-aged phenom. Mike Behrens threw out the first pitch, and I understand there was an argument with the umpire whether it was a ball or a strike, but the velocity was very impressive.

MR. McLANE: Well, Mr. Chairman, our project is very important to Central Texas and he is a person of great importance. We could let him be the starting pitcher for the Houston Astros at any point. And left-handed pitchers get a third more than right-handed pitchers, so I think his going price would be about $2 million a year. I would hate to see him take a pay cut, though.

(General laughter.)

MR. McLANE: Thank you, and our record is improving at Round Rock, so thank you for setting a good example for us.

Mr. Chairman and commissioners, thank you for allowing us to come and visit with you again. It's quite an honor to be here and to represent Central Texas.

You have heard from the political viewpoint the importance of this. I would like to just talk for just a minute about from the commerce and business. I have been in the logistic transportation business for over 40 years and we chose Temple back in 1966 because of its great location and because of I-35. If we compare the traffic on 35 in 1966 versus today, you couldn't even recognize it, and basically through Central Texas the system is today as it was then, and the traffic has certainly grown with great proportions.

Temple, Waco, Killeen, Belton is just a great location for industry. As they're serving not only Texas but about ten states and Texas, it's a great location and that's why so many. Tractor Supply, which is a great retail organization, is located in Waco and has their distribution center. The military has to supply the commissaries and other retail stores they have; they have a great distribution center in Waco. WilsonArt which has the largest laminating business in America and their main plant is in Temple and their distribution. McLane Company, the company I've been involved with for over 40 years, and we distribute throughout the southwest out of Temple. Wal-Mart has two distribution centers that supply retail food throughout the State of Texas from Temple. BFG is a food service company based there, and then there's literally hundreds of other people in the transportation business.

If we don't change this, it's ultimately going to change the distribution pattern. They're going to have to move somewhere else. I know from involvement with McLane Company and Wal-Mart, that has been a very serious discussion. Texas is the largest state for Wal-Mart in retail sales; they have several distribution centers in the state, but it's really beginning to be affected by the congestion that's there.

Two or three other observations. Temple, my view is, is the largest city on Interstate 35 that only has four lanes going through the business part of Temple, and it is really restrictive. It gets down to a bottleneck when it gets there, and as Sally Myers pointed out, because we don't have continuous frontage roads, when there's an accident within the City of Temple, you stop traffic there and there's no other place for them to go around. So this is a continuous problem because there's huge delays and great costs associated with it.

In the last ten years, as the Austin area, Georgetown, Round Rock has grown, Central Texas has grown tremendously, and we have not been able to adjust the road system there.

Mr. Chairman, you and I spend some time in Houston and we saw what happened on I-10 in the Katy area, the bottleneck that has been created there in the last 15 years. You're now correcting that, but it took a long time, and both you and I have spent a lot of hours sitting on I-10 around Katy not moving at all, and that has really been a hindrance to Houston and particularly in the Katy area, and we think this could additionally be a major problem for us.

One of the great assets of Texas is Scott & White Hospital. It's one of the finest medical centers, not only in Texas but throughout the United States. It has been designated as a Level 1 trauma center. The only other close trauma centers are in Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, so Temple is a very key location and importance of Scott & White of getting people in and out of there quickly, and the congestion, we think, it's certainly important that we solve that problem.

Thank you for allowing us to present this, and we will certainly have an opening for a pitcher on Saturday.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: We've told you a lot of things today that you already know, and that is that the interstate is old. We have concerns about safety. We know it's congested. Drayton has spoken very well to the importance of the interstate to our region and beyond. The early cities were settled on rivers, and this is our river of commerce and we must be able to move people and goods efficiently and safely if we're going to thrive economically as a community.

But what we also need to be sure that we tell you is that there is a very good plan in place, that both the Waco and Killeen-Temple area totally support, which will address these needs. So what we're asking for is: by 2014 we want to commence widening to six lanes with continuous one-way frontage roads; by 2014 we want to address the necessary safety issues which we think is largely addressed through frontage roads; by 2019 we want to commence widening urban sections to eight lanes; and by 2019 we want to continue planning for the ultimate needs of the corridor.

Now, we think it is very important to protect and plan well for the future for this very significant regional asset. We do understand that there are other needs and that while I-35 alone cannot meet all those needs, it is critical, and a parallel corridor by itself cannot meet all of the needs. We do support the protection and redevelopment of I-35 and we support the initiatives to develop other parallel roadways.

We also want to tell you that we are very understanding of the financial challenges that you have, and we're open to creative ways to make this happen well. We're very well aware of Commissioner Williamson's interest in toll roads.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Is that not you?

MR. WILLIAMSON: All three of us. Pitch in here, guys.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: All three of you. Did you all see that scowl?

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Point well taken.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But the problem is -- and we have to use this forum to talk about this because it's the only opportunity we have -- it's just a matter of cash flow. Drayton sees it in his business and a doctor sees it in his business. If you've got a billion dollars of want and $200 million of need and $300 million of revenue, you're going to spend 200- on need and 100 million on just bringing down the want some, and the rest of it gets left out. And thank goodness for a governor who is willing to confront that.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Well, and the reason that I brought it up is to tell you that we would certainly be willing to explore ways to use that. I don't know what they would be. I think we would all have a rebellion if we suddenly made I-35 a toll road, but as we expand it, there might be an opportunity to have an express lane that was a toll, or there might be some other out of the box thinking that we could explore together that would make this project more financially feasible and viable.

So I bring that up simply to stress with you that we are open to exploring creative financial options with you, and you certainly know better than I do what that range of options might be. But we did want to be sure that we expressed a willingness to work with you in ways that make sense so we can have what we think needs to happen on I-35 and that the other things that need to happen in conjunction with it to serve all of the needs in our region can take place. So that's why I bring that up. And I also apologize that I did not give all the commissioners full and total credit for the toll road emphasis.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, give them credit for the toll business too.

MR. JOHNSON: Mayor, it is nice that Ric takes some of our arrows for us, but I think we are committed to the concept of toll financing for a lot of the expansion of our existing corridors and for new corridors.

A prime example of that Drayton referred to was Interstate 10 West there in Houston. The middle four lanes, two in each direction, will be, as you indicated, express lanes and they will be tolled. It's a partnership with the Harris County Toll Road Authority. We have the groundbreaking this Saturday for the first section of the I-10 expansion. That will not be a tolled section; those will start in 2005 and 2006. But I think it's a prototype that's something well worth considering when we go to expand, because, as you well know, these are very expensive projects. They're very meaningful and significant, and because of that, they become very expensive and we need to be very creative in the way we fund them, and tolling is the most viable option.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Plus, very seldom is it discussed. I mean, you know it, and the people who live in the area know it, and we know it because it's our business, but seldom is it discussed the cost of the reconstruction while it's going on. I mean, what we tend to focus on is the $100 million here or $200 million there to pour the concrete. Is it pour or lay? Pour the concrete, lay the asphalt. What we don't ever focus on is how much it costs in the lost productivity and additional accidents when one part of the lane is blocked off or I can't get to Cheeves to buy dinner -- told you I'd get it in -- or I can't get over to buy coffee at Starbuck's or somebody gets killed making the wrong turn. I mean, the cost of that is never cranked into the equation, and it's costly.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Well, I started my remarks by telling you we do respect the challenges that you have and we pledge that we will work with you in any way that is reasonable and makes sense so that our desires for Interstate 35 can be fulfilled for the good of the region, and we sincerely mean that and are happy to explore whatever option seems most viable with you to accomplish that.

I think we've used up our time and probably exceeded it a little bit, and so I'll call on State Representative Delisi, and then after she speaks, if you have any further questions, we would be happy to try to respond to them.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

(Applause.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, is the chair aware that Ms. Delisi has been recently recognized by the greatest political magazine in the state as one of only ten who qualify as the best of the legislature?

(Applause.)

MR. JOHNSON: I was aware of that, and that was a very, very flattering and accurate piece.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And while the article focused on her obvious leadership in the trauma business, what we would point out to the audience is that there were about six legislative players that made our transportation package happen, and there is no question that Dianne Delisi standing firm in keeping trauma and transportation together was as responsible as anything else, and we really appreciate what you did.

MS. DELISI: Thank you so much.

The last time I talked with you all, I believe that you had somewhere around $600 million to spend for maintenance and operations statewide for a state of almost 22 million people. How frustrating it was for me to come to ask you to do more with less, to come to ask you to build roads with one hand tied behind your back because you literally did not have the money. I am very hopeful that the passage of the governor's bill, House Bill 3588, will give you the tools to build highways in Texas, and I think that it will revolutionize the way that we do build highways in Texas. And so in advance, we in Central Texas thank you and Texas thanks you.

Now, if you'll allow me just an observation for a minute. When I was a little girl, my father used to like to take us on summer trips, and so we would go to Arkansas and we went over to Carlsbad Caverns one summer, and when we got close to Texas, Daddy would always say: "Mama, roll down the windows, we're going to smell the Texas air; and kids, look at that silk ribbon in front of us, we're back in Texas." It's the Texas highway system, and we knew that we were safe and sound.

Well, indeed, I had that same thought driving this morning from Bell County to Williamson County because Bell County is two lanes, the roadbed is deteriorating, and when I hit the Williamson County line, it was a silk ribbon: continuous one-way frontage roads, three lanes at a minimum on either side, a wonderful tall concrete barrier. And I want you to know as I make my comments today that it is no reflection at all on who I think is the best district engineer in the state, and that's Richard Skopik.

(Applause.)

MS. DELISI: And he's ably assisted by John Obr who is the project manager on I-35. They haven't had the money; like you, we have asked them to do more with less.

My experience with Bell County is that the roads are not sound, that they are also not safe, and I would like to read to you just a couple of sentences from Don Svlodnek who is justice of the peace around Salado, and he writes to me about a nine-mile stretch of road. He sends me the names of all the deceased on this nine-mile stretch with the mile marker of the places that they died and he writes:

"Every person on this list, except one, was killed in an auto crash on a nine-mile stretch of I-35 from the south Bell County line to north of Salado. The majority involved bone-crushing head-on collisions as a result of vehicles crossing the narrow unobstructed median." He writes: "Even a barrier would have saved most of these lives." And then he says: "P.S. No response necessary, just action."

Now, in your handout today under Section 10, I read: nearly two out of every three days someone is killed or injured on this section of the Waco District I-35 corridor. So not sound, also not safe.

So what I'm asking today is, at a minimum, a tall concrete barrier completed for Bell County. I say tall because the roadbed is uneven in places and if a truck catches an edge, they roll into the incoming traffic and it always results in fatalities. The second thing that I am asking is that 2019 sounds like I'm going to be very old at that time, and I don't know if my children will be wanting to take away my license by that time, but by darn, I want to drive on three lanes with continuous one-way frontage roads -- and that's one sentence: three lanes on either side and continuous one-way frontage roads.

Now, I do want to reiterate I'm really only interested in outcomes, and so the job is up to you all. RMAs, tolls, leveraging dollars to bond, design-build, Trans-Texas Corridor, dual use of the interstate system, I'm for all of it. However, please be aware that I-35, as the corridor, is the lifeblood for the cities that I represent, and I am acutely aware that when I make the safe and sound argument for I-35, that it sounds bleak and it sounds terribly expensive. And perhaps the Trans-Texas Corridor, you might argue, might be a less expensive alternative to relieve the congestion, but I would counterpoint that I-35 in Bell County must be improved because we're part of the corridor. Williamson County has six lanes and then we go to the two lanes that Drayton referenced -- I call it the "Temple Squeeze" -- and so I find that the district that I represent is the weakest link.

And so I'm asking you today to consider fast-tracking a minimum of three lanes with continuous one-way frontage roads through Bell County. Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MS. ETHRIDGE: Do you have any questions?

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Comments. We appreciate an outstanding presentation. It's good to see so many people from the area and the community. I'm very impressed with how many elected officials you've got here today. I believe you could be real dangerous if you wanted to.

MS. ETHRIDGE: We wanted you to think that.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: We said some nice things about Representative Delisi about your legislation and stuff and Texas Monthly, the recognition you received as best legislator, but one of the things that I got tickled in reading that article was it commented how nice you are -- I think that was the word they use "how nice" -- and historically "nice" doesn't get the job done is what it said, but you broke the rule and stayed nice and did an incredible piece of legislation to fund trauma, to help tie it to legislation to transportation in a year when you had a $10 billion shortfall, and that's incredible. And we really do appreciate everything that you did.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: The chair will no doubt say this, but I would like to say it to my former colleague as well. The commission doesn't make decisions on this day about delegation requests, but I have already represented for my two colleagues in your district, Ms. Delisi, and I will repeat it again: we will expand 35 to six lanes without any doubt, and probably sooner than most fear. And we don't see a conflict between the corridor and addressing 35 from Brownsville ultimately to the Red River. 35 is the backbone of the state's economy and we understand that, and we will act with good faith and responsibility to address what we all know are the weaknesses that you pointed out.

I think that we're a little bit perplexed because we think that it would be somewhat important to have a high volume loop around the west side of Temple in place before we started tearing up and expanding 35 and doing the frontage road stuff right through the middle of your city, and we think that that loop could be a gold mine for Bell County if it were owned by Bell County as part of RMA. We know you're talking about it, we know the city -- or at least some city officials have represented some reservations about a toll project. We're sending all the signals we know how to send. I think we've expressed to you, at your request, we're going to help pay for that study. We're not going to ask your taxpayers to pay for it, but we do need the county to say we're thinking about forming one of these and this is our project. I think those 14,000 TxDOT employees want to help Temple out a lot and we think it makes sense to do it, and it will particularly make sense when we start closing down lanes of I-35 and people have to pay the toll to go around. But we need leadership at the county level.

MAYOR MYERS: Can I just address that? Bell County has already passed the resolution for that toll viability study. I think it's in the packet.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good. I haven't read my packet. Is it here, Skopik? Are you ready to roll, buddy?

MR. BURROWS: Temple passed it on Thursday and we passed the bond money.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Most excellent. Good, we get to spend money in Ms. Delisi's district now.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I think Richard was fixing to address something.

MR. JOHNSON: Richard, did you have a comment?

MR. SKOPIK: You do not have those resolutions in your packet but TxDOT has received those.

MR. JOHNSON: That's good news.

MR. SKOPIK: Both from the county and the city.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I suppose you are having a DE meeting next week and you're going to talk about some of the other tools. It's not beyond the realm, as Ms. Delisi pointed out, there are a whole lot of other tools now besides just a straight-up turnpike, and we want to help and will help. We just need a little bit of local aggression, like you said you had, and here we go -- faster than anybody is ready. We're the 1st Infantry of the DOTs in the states now: we are nimble and we move fast.

MR. JOHNSON: As Ric mentioned, we don't make decisions on the spot for delegation appearances, but I do want to thank you and emphasize how impressive the presentation was in highlighting the need but also highlighting the conditions that exist currently, and I think it makes a statement that's hard to ignore. In fact, as Ric mentioned and Robert has implied, we're not going to ignore it. This is critical to the communities that are represented here, but it's critical to the state and it has national tones to it because I-35 is the corridor that, due to NAFTA and probably several other reasons, has become overworked and under-served, and we need to do something about that. And given the tools that we now have and the flexibility and the aggression of the locals to get involved and roll up their sleeves and partner with us, we're going to get the job done.

So thank you so much for being here. Have a safe and speedy trip back on I-35 or whichever route that you take.

We will take a very brief recess so that you may get back to commerce and industry, and our good friends from the Rio Grande Valley can get organized.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

RIO GRANDE VALLEY MOBILITY TASK FORCE

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Our second delegation this morning represents the Rio Grande Valley, and it's my understanding that Hidalgo County Judge Ramon Garcia will speak first.

Judge, we're delighted that you're here. Welcome, it's a pleasure. I want to thank you for your hospitality last night; very much appreciated. I don't want to put words in Robert's mouth but I heard he had a good time.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE GARCIA: Well, good morning, and Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we also want to thank you for providing us with this opportunity to discuss our region's transportation needs and concerns and to make a case for this commission and our region working together and becoming partners for the good of Texas and the Valley.

I'm Ramon Garcia, county judge of Hidalgo County, and I'm a member of this Rio Grande Valley Mobility Task Force.

We have come together as a region. We are a four county region, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron, along with the communities that are situated in these four counties, and we have come together to develop a regional plan and to identify and document the transportation needs of our region so that we can, with your help, address those transportation needs in a proactive manner. We want to be your partner in providing for the transportation needs of South Texas.

Our South Texas area has exploded. We are here today with a plan asking for your support so that we can provide for the needs of that area. We need to act now to address the transportation needs before these projects become totally unaffordable.

We want you to know not only the statistical data in support of our plan, but also about who we are. We're the third fastest growth area in the country. We are the front door to the largest trade partner this country has. Over 3 million people, we can say, live and reside and travel within this area.

And one thing that is not as well known, but I believe needs to be talked about more and more, and that is that our area is one of the most patriotic areas in this country. We have more combat veterans living in our area than anywhere else in the country. We have always been there at every one of the conflicts and battles and wars that this country has had. And there was one community, those of you that may be old enough to remember, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. One community, the city of Edinburg in our area, had more young men killed per capita than any other community in the country. And recently in this rocky operation of war, we had names like Garza, Espinoza, Hernandez, and these are people that were being talked about and visibly portrayed as heroes in our country for giving up their lives, fatalities, prisoners of war, wounded, and they're all from this South Texas area.

We know what sacrifice is all about. We want to work together with this commission for the good of our area and the good of Texas. We are here today as a group and I want to introduce some of the dignitaries that are here.

We have, from our county of Hidalgo, Commissioner Tito Palacios; John Wood from Cameron County; Mayor Connie de la Garza from Harlingen; Mayor Beto Salinas from Mission; Mayor Fernando Pena from Roma; Mr. Bill Card, the incoming president of the Rio Grande Valley Partnership; Mr. Bill Summers, our CEO of the partnership; State Representative Juan Hinojosa; along with representatives from U.S. Senator John Cornyn; Senator Eddie Lucio. We have all the legislative groups from the Valley supporting this effort.

We need your help. We want to work together with you, and today we want to make that case. Thank you.

At this time, I would like to introduce my good friend, one of the true leaders in the South Texas area, our Cameron County Judge Gilberto Hinojosa.

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Thank you, Judge.

Members of the commission, thank you for allowing us to speak to you today. Commissioner Williamson, we were pleased to have you down in the Valley recently and we hope you enjoyed your stay down there.

I've appeared before you on several occasions. There's been different persons up there in the nine years that I've been county judge, but I think that in the nine years I've been county judge, although there's been different persons, there have been commissioners in the TxDOT transportation commission that have worked with the Rio Grande Valley in a way that has ensured that a large part of our infrastructure needs have been met, and we very much appreciate the leadership in this area that this commission has provided to us. So different faces haven't changed the attitude of this organization towards the Rio Grande Valley and it has made a big difference in our community, and on behalf of the Rio Grande Valley, and particularly Cameron County, I want to thank you for that.

You've also made some great appointments in your district engineers, and you stole one away from us recently, Amadeo Saenz, and he's done an outstanding job, as I understand, up here as he did down there during the time that he was a TxDOT engineer.

We're coming to you with a regional mobility plan that we've updated from the last time, and as you well know, this regional mobility plan is a plan that provides for our future needs in the Rio Grande Valley in the area of transportation infrastructure. There's a price tag to it and it's a pretty hefty price tag but it's projects that we need to be able to ensure that the Rio Grande Valley has the necessary transportation infrastructure to be that supporting community for the great State of Texas, to make sure that this economic machine of the great State of Texas remains strong in the future.

We realize that the state cannot fund even one-half of the needed transportation projects statewide, so knowing this, we've put together this plan, but we've also worked very strongly with the Texas Department of Transportation to ensure that we come up with new solutions for funding. For example, like Hidalgo County, we've been using local funds to complete necessary studies in an effort to relocate railroads out of heavily populated urban areas in Brownsville, Harlingen and San Benito. Now, we realize that you don't fund railroad relocation projects, but the assistance that's been provided to us by TxDOT in putting together these plans not only benefits the Rio Grande Valley but it makes better use of the funds that you have available because we don't have to construct overpasses to get around all these at-grade crossings in these communities. And that's something that we've been working on recently in Brownsville, Harlingen and San Benito.

In some portions of the railroad relocation projects, we will be using the existing railroad right of way to construct new roadways to make loops to communities where we have not had the right of way necessary to do that in the past. In Brownsville, once we complete the railroad relocation project, we will be able to construct a four-lane boulevard on existing Union Pacific rail right of way which will add about a 30,000 vehicle a day capacity to the west side of Brownsville.

The mobility plan that we are presenting you today is a commitment of public and private resources to help with the kind of planning necessary for the future of not only Rio Grande Valley but for South Texas. The funding and the input for this plan has come from many sources, and although we are not all here today, we are here in the plan together, and that includes the cities, the counties, the MPOs and the business community in the Rio Grande Valley.

We hope that you will take a look at our plan, continue to provide the support that you have in the past, and continue the partnership that we've enjoyed with this commission over the years that you have been providing the support that we need to develop our infrastructure.

With that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. William Card III.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Great time during my recent trip and enjoyed thoroughly everything. But when you see Carlos Cascos, tell him to go a little bit easier on me on Friday night. I couldn't quite keep up with him the whole night -- a little more energy than I have.

JUDGE HINOJOSA; He couldn't keep up with me either because he ran against me last time and he lost.

(General laughter.)

JUDGE HINOJOSA: Let me bring up Bill Card III.

MR. CARD: How do you follow that?

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with all of you today, and if you'll allow me just one moment, I need to take a personal moment to give a public thank you.

My name is Bill Card III; my father is H.W. Card, Jr. He has appeared before this fine commission previously. My father preceded our fine mayor, Connie de la Garza, in Harlingen, as the mayor of Harlingen for a period of 12 years, from 1987 to 1998. In 1998 this commission made him a Texas Road Hand, and I just want to tell you all that is one of the proudest awards and achievements that he has received. And I wanted to say a personal thank you. I might not ever have an opportunity to do this again, but I thank you from a very proud and grateful son, so thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you. I think the thanks really needs to come from the commission and the department and the state for the contributions of your dad, but we appreciate you mentioning that.

MR. CARD: Thank you, sir.

I have the opportunity to present a lot of the nuts and bolts of this so I'm going to try to stay relatively close to a script -- which is sometimes difficult -- but we do have a lot of information that we did want to get to you in a relatively short period of time, so if you'll excuse me, I will be going through some of this rather rapidly.

It is a pleasure and honor to speak before you today. You have before you a map that summarizes graphically our priority projects, but before discussing these, I'd like to provide you with some historical and background information.

As Judge Garcia mentioned, the task force is comprised of representatives from four counties, Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy, and cities within those counties. We have also been working closely with the three MPOs in the Valley and the Pharr District to highlight and prioritize our region's needs. As you are aware the Pharr District is larger than our four county region. Our four counties, 24 cities and other local entities have come to the table, contributed local funds, and worked together since 1991 to develop a unified regional mobility plan which is now being updated.

The plan consolidates elements of MPO and rural plans into one plan that identifies the 20-year transportation needs and priorities of the Rio Grande Valley. We're in the process of finalizing the plan but wanted to first present it to you and get your feedback. We're not here with any specific request for funding; we are just looking for your input and your vision. We trust that we can work together in the future as we have in the past years to address our mobility needs.

The Mobility Task Force was formed in 1991 at the urging of the Texas Transportation Commission to come together with one voice. We listened to what the commission told us; we developed a unified plan identifying the transportation needs of the region. The plan was updated in 1996 and we are in the process of updating it again. Because of the commission's leadership and guidance and the Pharr District's support, we have promoted regional cooperation and have made significant progress. We are very proud of the results and believe you have helped us be a leader in a regional approach to planning.

When we came to you in 1990, we had one freeway, the Valley Expressway, segments of US 83 and US 77 that stretched from Brownsville to western Hidalgo County, but we had no interstate highway. US 281 and US 77, the two major roads into and out of the Valley, did not provide quality controlled access highway connections necessary for regional and international trade. We had a population of more than 700,000 people and were one of the fastest growing areas in the nation -- as we are today.

Agriculture had been hard hit by droughts and freezes. The maquiladora industry was beginning to boom and trade with Mexico was increasing. In fact, by 1991, U.S.-Mexico trade was at $60 billion. We were already beginning to see a strain on our infrastructure and this was even before NAFTA which skyrocketed trade activity between Texas and Mexico.

In the last decade, many projects have been completed; some are underway, and some are yet to be funded. We've got a list up here that basically shows some of the primary accomplishments that we have made, and you'll notice that there are a number of interchanges, railroad relocation projects, and the like, and we're very proud and pleased with the work that's been done on those and those accomplishments that have been made.

Most of these projects, however, were made possible by a special border infrastructure funding category that's no longer available. We have received more than $1 billion in transportation funds since 1991 and we want to thank you for your attention to our needs, but must continue to move forward and plan for tomorrow, expanding on what we've done.

Two out of every three jobs created in Texas are directly or indirectly related to trade. Trade with Mexico in 2000 approached $250 billion and roughly 20 percent of this trade is to or from Texas. If Texas is the front door to trade, then the Valley is the screen door. The Rio Grande Valley has become a manufacturing and distribution center for trade with Canada, Mexico, and Central America. Without additional infrastructure and continued improvements, we will overwhelm our system and the ripples will be felt in Houston, in Dallas, and in fact, across the nation.

One thing that we like to think about when we think about this is that our situation is one very much -- and we've discussed this previously -- very much like an hourglass where we've got Canada, ourselves, we've got the neck of the hourglass right down there in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, then spreading back out into Mexico and South America, and all of this commerce and trade is running right through the neck of that hourglass, and it is imperative for us to have the transportation system that is necessary to handle that additional traffic.

That is actually one of the biggest, fastest growing growth engines for the State of Texas. We all know what our revenues are like today in the state and we've all been looking for funds. This is an area that, like any good business, can be fed, supported, and it will help us all throughout this state meet all the objectives and needs that we have.

While Texas has grown substantially over the last decade, our growth rate is almost double the state rate. Our population exceeds one million people and is expected to nearly double again by 2030. We're a major tourist destination for 125,000 annual winter Texans and eco-tourists and birders, as well as Mexican nationals. In the transportation priority plan developed for working with the 108th Congress, you recommended that transit funding consider both Texas and Mexico population along the border. We could not agree more. Our binational population is three million people: approximately one million on the Texas side, two million on the Mexican side. If we considered this binational population, the Valley would be the third largest metropolitan area in Texas. You're right, you must consider this binational population when you evaluate transportation needs.

Forty-seven percent of all Texas-Mexico vehicle crossings in our state move across Valley bridges -- 47 percent. Again, almost one-half of all crossings occur in our Valley border counties. We must keep expanding our infrastructure to deal with the changes we know are coming. We do not have to tell you how important it is to keep planning ahead of the growth.

Truck traffic continues to increase. There are more trucks traveling on US 77 at the entrance to the Valley than there are on Interstate 35 at the edge of Webb County. Plus, there are another 2,800 trucks using US 281 at the edge of Cameron County. This means that more than 2.3 million trucks per year use US 77 and US 281 to enter or leave the Valley, and we're talking about the large trucks.

There are as many as 10,500 trucks on interior segments of US 281 on any given day, which is comparable to Interstate 10 in Harris County and Interstate 45 in the Dallas area. As you know, truck traffic does three times the amount of damage to our roadways and none of the roadways in the Valley receive interstate funding.

There are nine existing international bridges and five proposed bridge projects. As you well know, international border crossings have experienced tremendous growth in the last decade. Last year, more than 1.2 million trucks crossed international bridges in the Rio Grande Valley. This is 30 percent of all Texas-Mexico truck traffic. That is up 233 percent from just ten years ago.

Daily traffic has also increased substantially in the Valley since 1992. We have had a 60 to 70 percent increase in traffic along US 83 and segments of US 281, and a 232 percent increase in traffic on US 77. Meanwhile, our lane miles have increased only 4 percent.

We are also seeing major increases in rail traffic. What was an average of three trains a day in Harlingen has turned into six a day, and could double again in the next ten years. The Port of Brownsville has seen a 456 percent increase in rail traffic in the last five years, and what you see in this photo, an ambulance waiting for a train, happens far too often already. I think that speaks for itself and it's definitely an issue that we need to address in the Valley.

There are more than 500 at-grade rail crossings in the Rio Grande Valley. These crossings affect safety and disrupt travel and economic trade. Cities like Brownsville and Harlingen are working to relocate rail lines out of the densely populated areas and develop new uses for the existing rail right of way, like intra- and intercity connections and loops, and we look forward to working with you to explore rail partnerships and other funding approaches.

We're looking at a number of new international bridges being built over the next few years: Anzalduas, Donna, and rail bridges in Cameron County. We have bridges being expanded and modernized in Hidalgo and Starr counties. We're also working closely with Mexican officials as they continue highway improvements such as the improvements to Highway 101 in Mexico.

As you can see on the back cover of your map, historically, the highway used to access the major population and industrial areas in central Mexico was via Monterrey, as shown in blue. This was the only real safe route through the mountains. This route had the obvious effect of funneling traffic through Laredo, even though this route required more time if you were headed to Houston or to the eastern United States.

The Mexican federal government and the states of Tamaulipas and San Luis Potosi are building new roads to Mexico City. This new route, shown in green, goes from our region to Ciudad Victoria and on to San Luis Potosi. A new route through the mountains is under construction replacing a roadway that had steep grades, many curves, and was narrow and dangerous. This new road is expected to open later this year and will have a major impact on transportation patterns. More truck traffic will be moving through our bridges and along US 77 and US 281. Traffic, particularly to and from the eastern and southern United States, will save an estimated six to eight hours using this new route, and I think that's self-explanatory. If that trucker can save six to eight hours, I think that this is going to be heavily, heavily utilized.

We must tie Governor Perry's and your Trans-Texas Corridor to our bridges and coordinate it with improvements to US 77 and US 281, and we need to start tomorrow. If you will, please take a look at the map inside the materials we provided. This map shows some of the priority projects but it certainly does not show all of the projects we have identified in the larger plan. The larger plan includes a list of all projects totaling well over $3.5 billion. We will finalize this map and that larger plan document following our meeting here with you today.

Let me just quickly mention some of our regional priorities. We need to move forward and complete I-69, beginning with interim improvements to US 77, US 281 and Farm Road 511 so the Valley will have interstate level highway service. Although I-69 has Congressional approval and is approved for planning by TxDOT, the lack of progress is hurting community planning and development since the route is not determined. Funding delays have caused approved and needed projects to be delayed.

An example is a critical segment of US 281 from Trenton to State Highway 107 in Hidalgo County. It was scheduled to be let for bid in July 2003, but has been moved back to fiscal year 2007. We need to plan ahead to widen east-west connectors like US 281, the Military Highway, and Farm Road 1925 to at least four-lane controlled access roadways. US 83, while not complete, is already at Level of Service E and F in some sections, and cannot be expanded because additional right of way is not currently available.

Development is closing in. Again, gentlemen, we're looking at cost factors. We may be able to partner with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Texas Parks and Wildlife to get the environmental assessments completed quickly and acquire the right of way now while it is still affordable. And there is a similar opportunity for Farm Road 1925 and other intercity loop projects.

Expansion of Military Highway and Farm Road 1925 will provide alternate east-west routes across the Valley. The Military Highway expansion will allow for connections to international bridges and relieve some of the traffic on US 83. Segments of US 83, the Valley Expressway, still need to be completed. Relief routes are needed in Roma, Rio Grande City, and La Joya. A critical segment in the San Benito area has been delayed because lack of funding.

We need to complete bridge connectors and construct new bridges to serve increasing international trade. As an example, the connection from San Juan to the Pharr bridge will help move truck traffic safely through this area.

We have the opportunity to improve safety and mobility throughout our region by constructing additional rail and completing rail realignments. We have already mentioned some of these critical projects. We need to construct intercity and intracity loops like the ones in Hidalgo County, Harlingen and Brownsville. These are also connected, as we have discussed, with rail realignment in many cases. Notice how the Harlingen Loop reroutes rail around the city in conjunction with the new roadway.

Finally, we need to expand intelligent transportation systems valley wide to utilize the mobility, safety and security opportunities this system provides from systems that provide direction to motorists to ones that monitor the weight and contents of trucks. We have a great many opportunities to utilize these technologies.

Since we began working as a regional coalition, we have seen a significant increase in the construction dollars allocated to the Pharr District, but funding is still not in line with our transportation needs. The historic under-funding of this region cannot be solved in a few years. Valley residents and officials are willing to use local contributions to address mobility needs but local resources cannot possibly fund this level of projects.

We're working to find creative funding solutions such as regional mobility authorities, toll roads, and dedicated truck lanes, to assist by development of construction plans and looking for various ways to creatively fund transportation projects. We want to assess with you the potential for use of bonds, exclusive development agreements, participation payments and leases, and use of the State Infrastructure Bank.

We note that the conceptual plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor includes connections through our four county area. The importance of providing a viable trade corridor with Mexico is critical for all of us. As a group, we want to work with the commission to bring your vision to a reality. We recognize that the state cannot completely fund our needs and we are eager to do our part. We're looking to you to help guide us through this process, and we thank you for your time.

At this time, I'd like to introduce Mr. Bill Summers, the chief executive officer of the Rio Grande Valley Partnership. And again, gentlemen, thank you for your time.

MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I wanted to see my name up there again. Thank you.

(General laugher.)

MR. SUMMERS: You know what? Our two judges and my new chairman for next year made an excellent presentation. We wanted to show you that the Valley has worked together for transportation needs since 1990, but we couldn't do it alone. We had to have the people in the Pharr District of TxDOT, Amadeo and Mario and all his people, but also you, the commissioners. I've got to say this, you've done so much for us, and we really appreciate it.

And Commissioner, you can keep up with me because I ain't got nobody to run against.

(General laughter.)

MR. SUMMERS: I just want you to know, on behalf of all these people here that we thank the good Lord every day that you men are up here looking after the transportation needs of the State of Texas. And you're welcome to the Rio Grande Valley any time, and in fact, in January we've requested that you have your commission meeting in the Valley.

And we just don't have any more to say; we just want you to write us a check for $3.5 million and we'll get this over with real fast.

(General laughter.)

MR. SUMMERS: We have two mayors with us and several distinguished people: Mayor Salinas from Mission and Mayor Connie de la Garza from Harlingen. And I know we might have exceeded our time and the number of people, but I'd like Mayor Connie de la Garza to make a presentation or talk to you for 30 seconds.

Thank you so much for allowing us to be here.

MAYOR de la GARZA: Thank you, Bill. And commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity, and I will take 30 seconds.

Yes, I'm Connie de la Garza, the mayor of Harlingen, Texas, and the only thing that I want to bring to your attention is the fact that this four county area, with one million Texans north of the river, is the only major area in Texas without an interstate, and that's basically what we want today. We want to be connected with an interstate. We realize that we're in competition with many other areas of Texas, but put us in the loop with the interstate and we'll work with you on the balance. Thank you.

MR. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. The mayor of Mission demanded equal time. These are great guys -- they're like you, they're great guys; they're good friends.

MR. WILLIAMSON: They're always welcome here.

MAYOR SALINAS: Thank you, commissioners. I just want to thank you for everything you've done for the Valley. I've been on the MPO in the district in Pharr since 1998. We applaud the funding that we've gotten for the last five years or four years, over $300 million a year which is a lot of money. I think that needs to be noted to everybody in the Valley. We've done so much in the infrastructure in the Valley, and of course, we're now joining together with the rest of the counties, and our growing needs are very hard, and Governor Perry has listened to our petitions, has worked together with us, worked together with you, and as you can see, it only takes you to drive through the Valley.

And the amount of money that you have given us and Amadeo Saenz put it together for us; Mario Jorge is an excellent engineer and we see him once a month, and it's all the mayors from the county of Hidalgo that join together and we just appreciate all the monies that we've gotten, and hopefully we can put this plan together and put the Valley in the four county area to be able to meet our demands on the growth that we have. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, that completes our presentation. We would like to tell you that our newest state representative, number 150 in the state, Juan Escobar was here and he had to catch a plane, but also we have representatives from Senator Lucio's office. As you know, Senator Lucio suffered a heart attack and he's on his way to Houston to be checked out. And we also have a representative, Mr. Love, from Senator John Cornyn's office. So we have a lot of support. We appreciate it; thank you so much.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. Robert, did you have any comments or questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had several comments. First of all, thank you very much for a very great presentation, and thank you for the reception last night. That was really nice to have an opportunity to visit with everybody in a more informal environment. And I thank the Pharr District and all of your communities for doing such a good job of training Amadeo Saenz. You did such a good job of training him, we're not going to send him back; we're going to keep him up here.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: But over the last number of years, I think you have seen a dramatic increase in funding in the Valley; that has been a major commitment, and we're going to continue. You still have a tremendous number of problems and needs, extremely high growth area.

As to Interstate 69 -- I know you made some specific comments on that -- the funding of the construction of Interstate 69 is tied into a six-year federal formula. Some of you are aware of that; some of you may not be. That six-year formula, there's only a window literally every six years that opens for a short period of time, and it's right now. The United States Congress historically on interstate programs -- we haven't had one in 30 years until the designation of Interstate 69 -- it is the federal government in that program who designates construction funding for that, and we are anxiously awaiting what they do this time. Any opportunity that you have in speaking with anyone in Washington, members of Congress, our U.S. senators and so on, take every opportunity to emphasize the importance of stressing that needs to be funded.

In the meantime, we as TxDOT are doing what we can to accelerate and be prepared for the moment that it is funded. And in doing that, we have hired consultants to identify the locations and do the environmentals. Most of you are aware it takes numerous years to get through all the environmental steps, and we have done that. We're not complete with it all but we're in process, so that when those federal funds are available, this state is going to be ready to jump in and begin very quickly. We will be quite ahead of the other states. And we recognize the importance of identifying that. I think I even went down when some of the signs were put up some time ago.

I also want to commend you on continuing to stay with a regional approach. You began that process some time ago. It is extremely difficult inside communities for people to agree and between communities for people to agree -- it's a very difficult thing. I came from a municipality -- I was on city council and a mayor for a number of years myself. But you have really done a great job in that and tying those priorities down that are the most needed for your region, and for that we do appreciate it.

There's a lot of you here today who have come from the Valley. There's not many places in the state that are further away. I know people in the Panhandle and El Paso certainly come long distances at times, but you have come a long way to be here today and express your needs and plans for your community, and we appreciate that.

Bill, thank you -- both of you -- for longtime commitments to transportation. I know also I saw Alan Johnson here earlier. Is he still here?

MR. JOHNSON: He had to go catch a plane.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. And Mike Allen -- is Mike still here?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, there you are. In '97 when I got on the commission, you were some of the first people who were there and have been consistent. I was going to recognize Alan because he used to serve up here, I know, on the Turnpike Authority, so it's always a pleasure working with him and he keeps up with transportation quite a bit.

With that, thank you, and when you leave, be careful going back. So I'll just pass it on.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Good presentation, good group of guys and gals. We like the regional approach and I think you'll continue to feel comfortable that even though the border initiative category has been eliminated, the commission's approach and the governor's approach is that we're Texas from Rio Grande to Red rivers, and so everybody is going to get what they need to get in order to make progress.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Ric.

MR. NICHOLS: I do have something else. I forgot to mention one thing. I mentioned it last night but some of you weren't here last night at that reception. And that is encourage the counties and chambers and stuff to begin considering the possibility of establishing a regional mobility authority. I thought Commissioner Williamson was going to jump all over that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you know, as opposed to the previous delegation, Mr. Nichols, these people have been pretty aggressive about advancing their agenda and mobilizing regionally, and there's no need to repeat it. They know that that's probably the next step they need to take, and I believe they're discussing it amongst themselves now.

When I was down there with the governor a couple of weeks ago, I detected that the resistance might be sort of a fear that if we do this, enter into the world of doing some toll roads, we won't get any more tax money, and it's just not the case. The money is going to continue. We have a regular program. We're going to have a toll program, and we're going to have an innovative finance program. And the regular program won't be changed by a community's willingness to go into the toll program and the innovative program. But from what I could tell in visiting with the officials that I talked to, they're aware of that and they're just working it through regionally, and I suspect we'll see them pop up pretty soon -- at least we hope so.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Nichols.

MR. NICHOLS: That was perfect.

MR. JOHNSON: Bill and Bill, thank you so much for the effort that you made, and judges, we're grateful that you made the effort to be here and lead the delegation. A very impressive and informative presentation to let us know what's going on.

Bill Summers, you're a real jewel and always have been. Your interest in what goes on at TxDOT, and of course, in the Rio Grande Valley, we're appreciative of what you do for not only your area but also the state.

I want to thank everyone for being here who came a great distance. As I mentioned last night, the fact that you've come together as a group rather than as competing interests makes our job easier from one aspect. It's still difficult to prioritize and allocate limited resources, but we continue to make an effort to do the best we can in that regard. And likewise, when you help us by prioritizing your needs, that sends a clear message, and we think that local involvement, local decisions are what we should be guided by.

So having said that, thank you for being here. Have a safe journey home.

We'll take a brief recess so the good folks from Hurst-Euless-Bedford can come in.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Our final delegation is from Hurst-Euless-Bedford Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Charles Powell with the chamber, I believe will begin. Is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No.

MR. JOHNSON: That's what I was informed.

MR. POWELL: Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to ask State Representative Todd Smith, if that would be okay.

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. You can run this show any way you want to.

MR. POWELL: I'm the non-politician.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And a friend of transportation, I might add.

MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Ric. Thank you. Good morning or afternoon -- is it morning or afternoon? Something in between. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Representative Williamson, and Mr. Behrens. I believe I'm correct, Ric, if I recall correctly that one session that we served together, that I now have the privilege of occupying your desk on the House floor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's the best seat in the house.

MR. SMITH: I heard you singing Representative Delisi's praises earlier and my claim to fame is that I currently occupy the seat once held by Ric Williamson.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's true you don't miss anything, do you? It's the best seat in the house.

MR. SMITH: It is a good seat. Thank you all for the work that you do and for having us here today. I am before you today to aid my constituents in their quest to secure funding for the State Highway 121/183 highway expansion project for the 9.7 miles between State Highway 820 in Hurst and State Highway 161 in Irving, otherwise known as Airport Freeway. The following presentation to be given by the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Chamber of Commerce will detail this project which is the highest possible priority for the people of Hurst-Euless-Bedford.

I would also like to say that I greatly appreciate the attendance this morning, many of whom got up at 4:30 in the morning, along with me, to get on a bus to come down here this morning to visit with you, but particularly my District 3 distinguished mayors, the Honorable Ric Hurt -- I will ask them to stand, if they can. Where is Mayor Hurt? Back there in the back. The Honorable Mary Lib Saleh, who I once served under on the Euless City Council. The Honorable Bill Souder is here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The one and only.

MR. SMITH: Yes, you better believe it. Mayor Souder, in particular, has worked on this issue for the past 20 years with all levels of government, including the federal level where he has worked with Congresswoman Kay Granger in his pursuit of securing funding for this project.

At this point there are a number of other local elected officials that are here today. Could I ask all of you who are elected officials in one regard or another in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area to stand up? City council members and Commissioner Whitley. I'd also like to ask all of you who are representatives of other elected officials -- I know Congresswoman Granger has representatives and Senator Nelson, Representative Vicki Truitt. And if I can also ask everyone who came down this morning on a bus from the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area to show your support for this project.

(Applause.)

MR. SMITH: Thank you. I hope that the presence and efforts of my constituents is indicative of the extent to which they believe this is important. This needed priority project will increase mobility and reduce congestion not only for the people of Hurst-Euless-Bedford but for the many communities that this highway serves. This project will also be a substantial part of the solution to the Metroplex's current air quality issues and enhance the safety of our people.

The already huge number of vehicles per day that use this highway are rising yearly with the most recent 2001 study showing that the maximum traffic volume was 203,000 vehicles per day with the highest daily concentration of traffic during the morning and evening rush hours often causing major traffic jams for several hours a day, something that you know something about. This is up from a maximum recorded number of 147,000 vehicles per day in 1988 and a maximum record of 174,000 vehicles per day in 1997. Additionally, this number is expected to rise to 361,000 vehicles per day by 2025. With the expectation of such a large jump in the amount of vehicles using this particular highway, the state should act now to prevent further traffic, pollution and safety problems and to prevent a further deterioration of my constituents' qualify of life.

This highway has the highest traffic volume of any highway in Tarrant County and it currently has only six lanes of traffic. The second highest traffic volume in Tarrant County is in Arlington and it experiences only 121,000 vehicles per day as compared to the 203,000 vehicles per day on Airport Freeway, and it has the same number of lanes, six.

In Dallas County the highest volume recorded is 275,000 vehicles per day on a highway which is well known for its congestion. When I think of congestion, having grown up in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, I think of LBJ Freeway, that being Interstate Highway 635 near US 75, otherwise known as LBJ Freeway. But LBJ already has ten lanes so the traffic, as congested as it may be, runs much more smoothly with less traffic jams than Airport Freeway. In other words, LBJ Freeway -- which I understand is an interstate highway -- has 67 percent more traffic lanes than Airport Freeway but only 35 percent more traffic. That, in my mind, having grown up in the Metroplex and appreciating the congestion on LBJ Freeway, says as well as anything I know what we're dealing with in the H-E-B area.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments has determined Airport Freeway to be a top priority. I was informed this morning, in trying to get to the bottom of this in terms of the relative level of congestion on this freeway versus the other projects that are in front of you how to get to the bottom of that, how to rank it, I was told that this highway is an E-F level of service and that's the closest thing you've got to a congestion factor or congestion rating. It's my understanding that there are a number of projects across the state that have already been funded that are at that level or less, and I think that illustrates and demonstrates that we are justified as a community in being here this morning.

The project in question would raise the number of lanes from six to either eight or ten lanes and also add two or three additional reversible managed lanes. The estimated cost of the project is $380 million for both the construction and the right of way. Tarrant County has committed to paying for 10 percent of the cost of the right of way and relocation of utilities eligible for reimbursement.

Those of you who have known me and know of me know that I am perfectly prepared to do whatever the leadership of this state will allow me to do to ensure that we have adequate funding to meet our state's highway needs. It is my strong conviction that this project should be approved immediately with full funding in order to protect the quality of life of those many Texans who now use or will soon use this highway.

At this point, it is my privilege to turn the presentation over to the experts that being the representatives of Hurst-Euless-Bedford Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for your attention, and Charlie, would you like to visit with them?

MR. WILLIAMSON: And thank you for all of your help and support on transportation issues, Todd. You've done us really well and we appreciate it.

MR. POWELL: Thank you, Todd. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Mr. Williamson, Director Behrens. I'm Charles Powell, chairman of the board of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Chamber of Commerce. Obviously we represent the cities of Hurst, Euless and Bedford.

Todd indicated to you that we had this fine delegation of over 100 people that came down this morning to make this presentation, and I want to thank them for being here. They have made this trip today to impress upon you how strongly they feel about the needed expansion of State Highway 121/183 which we commonly call the Airport Freeway. It is the most heavily traveled east-west commuter connection between Dallas and Fort Worth. As I mentioned, I want to sincerely thank each one of these individuals who came down to be a part of our presentation today, and I thank you, this commission, for allowing us the time to be here before you today.

I'd also like to commend the Fort Worth District staff of TxDOT. They have been most helpful in providing us information for this presentation and meeting with us as the planning and discussion about the expansion continues. They provided us with the information that you will see in the packets before you, and we also had input from the North Central Texas Council of Governments and I want to publicly thank them for the help in this project.

Joining me today in our presentation will be Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley and City of Euless Mayor Mary Lib Saleh. You've already heard Todd's comments relative to the importance of this project to his constituents, and again, we want to thank you for letting us be here this morning for this presentation.

The purpose of our presentation today is to ask you to expedite the planning and fully fund the expansion of Airport Freeway. That portion is from Loop 820 on the west and goes all the way through to State Highway 161 on the east. In each one of your binders, there is a full copy of our presentation and all the supporting documentation relative to those facts.

In the past ten years, traffic congestion obviously has increased throughout the corridor. There has kind of become a lack of reliability along the roadway. Air quality has deteriorated, safety has been compromised, and business and homeowners have been affected by the uncertainty of when this project would be started, and we truly believe in turn it is now affecting the economic viability of our communities.

What we're asking you today is to include the expansion of the Airport Freeway -- as Todd indicated, that's the 9.7 mile section -- which is the major east-west commuter corridor between Fort Worth and Dallas in your next UTP. We would also ask that you commit commission strategic funds to the project and hopefully accept no further delays in the planning process.

Given the annual increase in traffic congestion we're experiencing -- and certainly you know the projections for our area as continued traffic and growth will continue in the Dallas-Fort Worth area -- moving forward with the expansion of this project is critical not only to the citizens and the businesses of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area, but to the commuters of the Metroplex. Over 136,000 people daily commute to Dallas from Fort Worth to work, and over 46,000 people from Dallas commute to Fort Worth. That's further evidence that truly this is becoming a regional issue.

To give you the details of why the expansion of this freeway is so urgent, I would like to introduce Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley who will continue our presentation at this time. Fortunately for us in our area, Glen has just been elected chairman of the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, good.

MR. POWELL: Thank you, Commissioner Williamson. I'll let you tell him that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now I've got somebody I know real well I can whack on.

(General laughter.)

MR. WHITLEY: Thanks, I think, Charlie. Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson, Director Behrens. I'm Glen Whitley and I'm the Tarrant County Commissioner for the northeast part of Tarrant County that includes Airport Freeway. We're here today to show you why the expansion of 121/183, commonly known as Airport Freeway, can no longer be delayed.

The 9.7 mile Airport Freeway is mainly a commuter corridor between Fort Worth and Dallas. It is the only south entrance to DFW International Airport, the economic engine of the DFW Metroplex. Although there are other road connections to the airport, Airport Freeway is the busiest. And there's a letter in your packet supporting the expansion project from Jeff Fagan, executive director of DFW.

The existing freeway was originally built in the late '60s. It consists of six main lanes and two-lane frontage roads. Reconstruction at the south entrance to DFW International Airport was completed in 1975. Planning for the expansion of Airport Freeway began in 1987 when the roadway reached its maximum flow capacity and had E and F levels of service.

A public meeting was held in 1993 and the project was put on hold in 1994. If the expansion had gone forward at that time, we'd be getting ready to have a grand opening ceremony in 2005. As you can see by this slide, delays are definitely going to worsen an already bad problem.

As shown by the previous slide, the traffic has continued to grow and Airport Freeway has now the 4th and 12th most congested segments in the DFW area. Most of the traffic on Airport Freeway is a result of vehicles coming into the corridor primarily from east and west. Every morning, as you can see, the traffic builds up going east, and then in the evening it builds up going west.

Now, what I want to highlight at this point in time -- and I'll see if I can do this -- there we go. All right, Steve Simmons is the one that gave me this thing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Steve Simmons.

MR. WHITLEY: Well, what happens is it won't work when it gets to the thing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did he give that to you today?

MR. WHITLEY: He did.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's here?

MR. WHITLEY: He's supposed to be.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we haven't seen Steve in five months. Steve, you made it.

MR. WHITLEY: What he forgot to tell me was this won't work on the screen.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Didn't he use to work for you guys?

MR. WHITLEY: No. He always worked for you but he used to represent us very well.

(General laughter.)

MR. WHITLEY: What I want to point out, if you look at the 820 segment, and that's the segment right above the little circle that says 121 that's red. That section of red has been approved and is going forward with construction, but as you notice, it's moving right into the next section of red which was the 4th most congested area in that chart that you just saw. Above that, coming down, the yellow is a portion of the 360 main lanes which you have approved and that's a part of the Funnel expansion, but that too is feeding into the 12th most congested portion which is that red portion between the 183 and the 161 segments.

So again, what we're doing is we're fixing the problem but if we delay the fixing of 183/121, or the Airport Freeway, then we're simply going to have fixed from the backside and we're going to be pushing that congestion right into some of the worst congestion already.

COG has measured the morning eastbound segments as F level of service and the evening segments as E and F, and basically F says you've got a parking lot, and E says that's the most congestion that that particular road can handle.

Airport Freeway corridor has become really the major east-west connection between Dallas and Fort Worth, and unfortunately, the region's biggest bottleneck. As you can see by this slide, 35 percent of the east-west traffic between Dallas and Fort Worth is carried by 183, yet of the four major east-west connections, this is the only one not funded for expansion. So we've taken care of 20, 30 and 114; we've got to come back now and take care of Airport Freeway.

The results of the delay basically are that someone now who is traveling in that corridor never really knows how long it's going to take for them to complete their trip. When an accident happens, the roadway shuts down. People can't get to their jobs, ambulances can't get to the hospitals, businesses can't operate, passengers miss flights, freight shipments get delayed.

Since 1993 when the first public meeting on the expansion was held, property owners, both residential and businesses, have had an uncertainty as to what to tell potential buyers about the timing of the expansion. Businesses have been reluctant to expand and most believe they've been negatively impacted by the uncertainty of the timing. Many homeowners have applied for hardship purchases of their property because of their age or because of illnesses. In recent years we've also seen a rise on the number of fatalities in the corridor.

What are we proposing? The proposed expansion would result in an eight to ten lane freeway with two and three lane reversible HOV managed lanes, possibly toll lanes in the median. The preliminary cost estimate for construction and right of way is $381 million. Tarrant County will pay for 10 percent of the right of way costs. The advanced planning should be completed by August 2004; with three years to purchase right of way, construction could begin in 2007. We support TxDOT's design and are willing to do whatever we can to streamline the process and we support the HOV managed lanes being toll lanes.

I have to kind of stop here for a moment and applaud the department in the recommendations that I heard earlier regarding project selection and also in the formula. I think that's going to go a long way toward allowing us, as local officials, to go to our citizens and our taxpayers and seek out other means of funding, whether it be bonds and other local approaches, to bringing additional funds to the table to complete this. And I applaud you for looking forward in that and doing that.

DFW Airport Freeway expansion project was included in the Partners in Mobility presentation in March, and this body is a priority corridor and a candidate for the proposed Regional Transportation Council-Commission Partnership program. The corridor has also been included in the Mobility 2025 update to our MPO and has been a part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Mobility 2000 since it was adopted in 1986.

In addition, Airport Freeway has been identified as a candidate for HOV managed lanes which we feel could be and we support could be toll lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hold that picture right there, Glen. Don't move it. Have you got your little red thing?

MR. WHITLEY: I do but you're not going to be able to see it on that. I can show it to you over here, but it won't get over there. Remember that, Simmons.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. In our newspaper and locally we've been discussing some idea Mr. Perot has, you know lines.

MR. WHITLEY: Of tolling the 170 which is up at the very top. Just right up there and off to the right, that's 170. Now, that's the existing 170. The part that he's talking about is the part that's west of 35 and he is suggesting that that would all be tolled, and in fact, I think that we have not built the main lanes to 170 and I really believe he's talking about tolling that entire section of roadway.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The question I was going to ask -- and now that I've got my orientation, I see it probably won't help your situation -- the question I was going to ask is what would happen if we were aggressive on that project and extended it east.

MR. WHITLEY: Well, east of that it's going to go on up into Denton County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, southeast -- I'm sorry. What if we curved it back southeast and tied it in close to the north end of the airport.

MR. WHITLEY: And that's 114 and you've got that approved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But that probably wouldn't offer any instant relief for the situation you're bringing up.

MR. WHITLEY: No. You know, again, I think the impressive thing we've shown is that even with I-20 and with I-30 and the improvements we've made there, Airport Freeway is still carrying 35 percent of this east-west traffic. Now, we have got some roads built -- you see the Trinity Parkway on there -- we also have improved highway 10. We have got some east-west alternatives that will help to relieve the pressure when we begin reconstruction of 183 and 121. So we're ready to go; we just need your help in setting it as a top priority as we go forward with that deal.

Congressman Michael Burgess has requested $50 million in Congressional earmarking for this roadway and we've had numerous meetings with the Fort Worth District of TxDOT and their staff with regards to design issues, and they've been very helpful and we're working with them on a continual basis.

Again, what we need you to do is identify it as a top priority in the 2004-2013 Unified Transportation Program. I'd be glad to answer any questions, and if none at this time, I'll turn it over to Mayor Mary Lib Saleh for her conclusion of our presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question for you. I heard you say you're willing to consider tolling the lanes, then later on you said you would support tolling the additional inside HOV lanes. How do you think your constituents would react if we asked you to let us convert the existing inside lanes to tolls and not require you to come up with the right of way cost?

MR. WHITLEY: Would there be any lanes along that segment of road that would not be tolled?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

MR. WHITLEY: I think as long as there are still travel lanes there that would not be tolled that our group would support the toll.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If you don't want to say, Glen -- I mean, I've been in your position.

MR. WHITLEY: No, I have no problem. In fact, that was a question that had come up. I think our communities are interested in making sure that people can still access parts along that roadway without a toll. I believe, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, that it is mostly a commuter corridor, and I think that there have been studies that have said that if we tolled the expansion portion of this that that would pretty much pay for about 95 percent of the cost for expansion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I only bring it up with you because -- and this is one of the difficult things we've all got to work through -- this is a cash flow situation throughout the state -- as Gordon wrote about the other day and we'll give him the opportunity to write again about it. And the more positive cash flow projects that are in front of us, the easier it is to divert tax money to couple up with that project to make it happen faster.

So I only ask the question in front of the group so they can begin to think about how would they react if the state said we need to go ahead and capture those inside lanes now and then proceed and start collecting tolls on those, and that will help us finance the entire project. Just something to think about.

MR. WHITLEY: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner, I'm glad you brought up Congressman Burgess's name and the work he's doing. I've been in Washington twice, I think, in the last five weeks and I had an appointment with him, and he is obviously doing a lot of work on this particular project from the Washington standpoint. And one of the things that he and Congressman Culberson, who represents the west side of Houston, have discussed is overlaying the concept of the way I-10 West was done in partnership with Harris County Toll Road Authority and the end result is that the new configuration will be two toll lanes in the middle, two in each direction, four free lanes in each direction and then three frontage road lanes. It's a wider footprint than this but that concept is what I think he's interested in laying over, and of course, is doing some great work at the federal level in assisting us.

MR. WHITLEY: And I'm not going to speak for everyone else, but I'm very supportive of that type of an approach. I see a lot of similarities between Katy Freeway, Highway 10 and 183 Airport Freeway.

MR. JOHNSON: Thanks. I'm glad you brought up his name. He's doing great work.

MR. WHITLEY: He really is. For only having been on board for almost six months now, he has just done a fantastic job, one in transportation, but two, in a lot of other areas. I heard him speak at a town hall meeting, in fact, this past Saturday and I was amazed. There were some questions that kind of came out on what I would consider to be kind of off-the-wall type issues, and he was right there on the spot with it. So he is really a studied individual and has done a very good job for us.

MAYOR SALEH: Thank you, Glen. Good morning, commissioners. Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson, and also Madam Secretary and Director Behrens, thank you.

You can see by these statistics and by the willingness of over 100 citizens to appear before you that the need for the expansion of Airport Freeway is a serious issue. The inability to navigate the freeway affects our quality of life and our business climate. After all, who is going to open a business if the customers can't get to their front door.

The quality of air in our community is another ongoing problem. Looking at historical trends, the ozone exceedencies in the DFW non-attainment areas, we see that as of the year 2002 the area had an average of 100 parts per billion of ozone while the goal is 85 parts per billion. With 50 percent of air pollutants coming from the on-road vehicles, it's important that congestion be alleviated in our region.

The health of our citizens is being affected. As a former chairman of the local hospital Harris Methodist H-E-B, I can tell you that asthma and other respiratory diseases has been increasing. As our population ages, these occurrences will only continue to increase unless we take concrete steps to clean our air, including alleviating traffic congestion by improving the Airport Freeway corridor.

The American Lung Association recently rated Tarrant County as the 19th worst area in the nation for ozone air pollution. This is the first time we've been ranked in the first 25 worst counties. In 2001 the county ranked 46th, and in 2002 the 37th, in 2003 the 19th. And in the National Research Corporation's annual survey of healthcare and the prevalence of chronic conditions across the United States, citizens in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford service area had a considerably higher incidence of asthma than our neighboring cities that don't front the freeway, considerably higher than the rest of Tarrant County, and in Texas and in the entire nation.

There's a table in your presentation book with more detailed information. It certainly is an eye-opener to the respiratory problems in the H-E-B community. As you will see, we had the highest incidence of respiratory problems in all of Tarrant County.

In a study conducted around the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, it was found that the number of asthma-related hospital emergency visits for children decreased by 42 percent while the Olympics were being held. The decreased traffic congestion resulted in a 28 percent reduction in the ozone monitor levels. Experts agree that this study has demonstrated the strong link between traffic congestion levels and health outcomes.

We ask that you do whatever you can to keep this project moving forward and to fully fund the construction. We believe that the Airport Freeway is as important as any roadway in the DFW area, and we want to maintain our economic viability in the region and that this should be a part of the 2004-2013 project. If not, we request that you at least designate commission strategic priority funds to it.

U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess has it on his list for Congressional earmarking. Airport Freeway is a designated part of the DFW Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations Mobility 2025 Update Plan, but it has been a part of that mobility plan since 2000. Funds for the project have been included in RTC's proposed partnership program. We support the current TxDOT plans in developing Airport Freeway and will do anything we can to streamline the ongoing planning process.

We are open to the planned HOV managed lanes being toll lanes. This would provide an alternative to those vehicles that are just passing from Fort Worth to Dallas and still would have lanes available for our own citizens that are free. Improvements have been made to State Highway 10 south and parallel to 121/183 in preparation for the construction to begin on the highway. We've worked with RTC to fund the Trinity Railway Express, a commuter train which also runs south and parallel to the Airport Freeway, connecting Fort Worth and Dallas. All three of our cities represented here today participate in the operating costs of that connection.

The interchange at 820 and 121 has been completely rebuilt. The 121 Funnel just north of H-E-B has been funded. All around us commitments have been made to improve congestion and the reliability of our roadways. DFW Airport Freeway is the last piece of the traffic puzzle in our area that needs your support for this bottleneck to be uncorked. We do not want Airport Freeway to be known as the Airport Freeze-way.

You have in your notebooks letters of support from state senators and representatives whose districts cover the planned expansion of DFW Airport Freeway from 820 to 161. In addition, there are letters of support from our cities, DFW International Airport, Bell Helicopter, American Airlines, Harris Methodist Hospital, as well as homeowners and businesses that have been affected by the delay of the expansion.

In closing, we feel it is time to expand the DFW Airport corridor and we urge your consideration when you are funding projects in the coming months. We truly appreciate your efforts to improve mobility across this great state and we thank you for your service to fellow Texans. We thank you for hearing our presentation today, and a thank you to all of our delegation who got up early this morning to catch a 5:00 a.m. bus from Hurst-Euless-Bedford who traveled early to support our cause.

At this time, Senator Jane Nelson has a letter that needs to be read, and I'll call on her representative, if there are no questions. Thank you.

MS. GUEST: Good afternoon. I see that it is past twelve o'clock so I will make this brief. My name is Brooke Guest and I'm from Senator Jane Nelson's office. It is my privilege to be here today to read a letter of support for this project.

"Dear Commissioners: I'm writing to offer my strong support for the expansion of State Highway 121/183 through the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area and to request that this project be expedited and fully funded.

"As you well know, the transportation needs in our Metroplex are substantial. This is a heavily traveled thoroughfare that connects our two major urban hubs. Its expansion is critically needed to help ease congestion, improve safety, and assist in achieving better air quality.

"The ability of our region to grow and attract new businesses is directly linked to our ability to provide highway access to the millions of Texans who live, work and shop in our region. If we can ensure that the roads of North Texas are open for business, the entire state benefits.

"Please accept my sincere gratitude for your efforts to improve mobility in Texas. I hope you will strongly consider expediting this project as it is clearly a priority for our community.

"Very truly yours, Senator Jane Nelson."

Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Robert, any questions or comments for the delegation?

MR. NICHOLS: I guess more comments than questions, but I may have a question. First of all, I'd like to thank Representative Todd Smith for the support you gave to transportation in the legislature. It was real critical and we appreciate it.

Glen, it's always good to see you, Commissioner. He and I actually got to know each other about four or five years ago in a very unusual room across the street in the pink building at the Capitol in a reverse situation. He and I were on the same side, but I won't get into that.

MR. WHITLEY: We walked into a buzz saw.

MR. NICHOLS: We walked into a buzz saw, literally, that day.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So it was only you two?

MR. WHITLEY: There were some other people in the room but we were the ones on the menu.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: It was fairly meshed. I will truthfully tell you that of all the east-west routes between Dallas and Fort Worth, I did not realize that 183 was actually carrying the bulk of the weight until this meeting. I'm embarrassed to say I did not know that.

MR. WHITLEY: There's been such development in that northeast part that that's where a lot of the people are moving.

MR. NICHOLS: It's just really shifted.

MR. WHITLEY: Yes, it has.

MR. NICHOLS: And it's obviously continuing to expand. In the evolution of some of the thinking on transportation in Texas in just the last two years, people's perception of how to fund some of these projects hasn't quite caught up with the way the legislature has been going. We received two years ago the authority to put money in for the first time into a toll road. I mean, the State literally could build a toll road and could use some State money to help support a toll road which we thought was very dramatic.

For the past 24 months, as we approached numerous projects that are in the planning stage, the ability to put money into them, looking at tolling some of those new lanes -- like we are doing on the Katy Freeway in Houston and what was considered on 183 may be tolling some of these new lanes in the middle, however you define them -- expanded dramatically in this last session -- really in the last couple of months to the point that I think the legislature recognized that there are so many demands, particularly in urbanized areas of congestion, even if we take the money that we do have and put it into toll equity to support a toll road on expansion, we still will not have enough money to tackle all the projects that are needed, although it helps dramatically.

But some of the tools that they gave us this session -- which I think we intend to try to use and encourage you to get into -- is the actual ability to convert some of the existing roadways to toll ways now. It's almost unheard of; may or may not be supported locally. Obviously projects like the 183, not necessarily that you would toll everything, you've got frontage roads and maybe some other lanes in there, but rather than just looking at the concept of tolling some of the new lanes, the ability to go in -- because we still may be short statewide -- the ability to go in and pick up a few more of those existing lanes or possibly all the main lanes, whatever works for the project, is something we seriously need to kind of back up and revisit on some of these things. Because it could make the difference of, if we could do that, very possibly you could just go in there and as quickly as we can design this thing and build it, get after it.

The interesting thing about toll roads is that technology is coming around so fast with the toll tags of the NTTA, they're now compatible with Houston-Harris County. You could take the Dallas-Fort Worth tag and go to Houston with it. I shouldn't call it Dallas-Fort Worth -- the NTTA tag you can use them in Houston. The toll roads that are being built in the central part of the state will all be compatible; everybody will get their money. And you don't have to stop and carry a bag of quarters with you and throw them in a toll booth, you can just drive through at 50 or 60, whatever the speed is, and make them work.

But a lot of it is going to be heavily dependent on local support of whether or not they're willing to tackle not only some of the new lanes of capacity but some of the existing lanes of capacity. Whether we do it as a state project or it is done in conjunction with NTTA or some of the other things you're considering, I don't think it makes a lot of difference to us, but it sure will make the ability to go now and start busting some of this stuff loose.

MR. WHITLEY: I think one of the things you might consider as you look at that, especially if you're looking at taking the entire portion of the roadway and tolling that, is looking at maybe allocating some funds to some major arterials that would provide an alternative to traffic within a very small part of the region, i.e., if it was just within three or four communities, but making sure that some of the other east-west roads that are not what I would consider to be a major collector or something along that line, would be improved so you're giving an alternative to someone. Now, instead of going out and hopping on Airport Freeway to go from Hurst to Euless, maybe I'll move to Harwood or maybe I'll move down to Highway 10 or Trinity Boulevard because now we've improved that, we've done some signalization that allows us to be able to move through that area a little bit quicker without having to go out and, as it were, hop on a toll road to go four or five miles. I think that's a possibility.

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, I think those are things that we haven't been really considering for the last 12 to 24 months, and I know it takes a while to get a consensus of support because a big chunk of that is new. But it is such a serious subject and can have an impact difference of "go now" with all the money, or not.

MR. WHITLEY: I just applaud you for thinking out of the box that you are looking at other ways to try to encourage partnerships in the process, and I think that's good.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, my good friend and colleague stated it well, and I want to restate it. It's not that anyone is lined up at the entrance gate saying "Toll me, toll me, toll me," it's that hundreds of thousands of people are lined up at the entrance gate saying "Fix this damn road." And it's really a matter of do you want to start paying instantly another dime in a gasoline tax, or do you want to pay a direct user fee for using a piece of that road. And it's going to take us bringing this up at every meeting and leaders who come down to Austin or up to Austin from the Rio Grande Valley and going back home and talking to constituents and explaining there is no road fairy.

The legislature has given us the tools to do this, but we have to be aggressive and accept responsibility for paying for those assets, partially from the gas tax and partially from direct user fees. We worked very hard to convince the legislature, Todd Smith, to take the chance on giving us this tool. We cannot and we would not go into any community and force it on anyone, but we're all but telling you there is a tool there to guarantee that this project zooms like a rocket if the community is prepared to make that effort. I don't know how we could be more clear.

MR. SMITH: Can I ask a question? Is it unreasonable to presume that the -- and I do not know the answer to this question, that's why I'm asking it -- is it unreasonable for me to presume that the bill -- I don't know how it works in terms of paying the toll that you describe; it sounds like to me at least the convenience factor has been addressed -- but is it unreasonable for me to presume that the bill I and my constituents get who live in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area directly along this roadway and use it, in most instances, multiple times every single day of their lives, that the bill that they're going to get at the end of the month or whenever they get it is going to exceed the cost to them of increasing the gas tax by ten cents a gallon? Is that a reasonable presumption?

MR. NICHOLS: Would the toll be more than the gas tax?

MR. SMITH: Yes. I mean, at the end of the day, if you live immediately adjacent to the roadway and you're going to be using it multiple times every day, my presumption -- and that's what I'm asking, if you can tell me if I'm right or wrong?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that would depend on how much of the road you elected to capture to toll.

MR. SMITH: I guess I'm addressing the notion of taking the existing freeway that has been there for my entire life.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You wouldn't have to capture all the lanes; you could leave one or two of the lanes open.

MR. SMITH: I'm trying to understand a little better the political dynamics of the funding question because I certainly understand and appreciate and am prepared to lead on the issue of providing funding and have been pushing in that direction for as long as I have been in the legislature, but my presumption is that a gas tax paid by all of the people of the State of Texas would be a less costly means of expanding this particular freeway than would a toll road by which they pay disproportionately because of the fact that the toll road is in the vicinity of the neighborhood in which you live.

MR. JOHNSON: Here's what they get in exchange for a slightly increased cost. I think probably mathematically or economically, if you run this question out, you will find that if you use -- if the main lanes are tolled, for example, and you use the main lanes to run a few trips a day, yes, the price will probably be higher than an increase in the gasoline tax, but what you get is consistency of travel time, and if somebody leaves their house and is going to school or the mall or their job, they can still use the frontage roads. I mean, there's going to be free alternatives with no cost, but you don't have consistency of travel time. And what that provides you, one, is peace of mind that you can leave your house at 7:30 and be at your office at five minutes of 8:00 or whatever the dynamic is, and that's an option that people have to make -- actually want to make, I believe. Just give me consistency of travel time and I'll pay a few extra.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And there's also one other aspect that you would have to consider, I think, as a House member -- I know I would consider it if I still were with you. You might pay a dime every day in Hurst on a gasoline tax. Right off the bat, only about 5.6 percent of that, a little over a nickel, a little under six cents, actually ends up in our pocket; 2.5 right off the bat goes to schools; and then another penny and a half to two cents goes to the DPS to police the roads; and then of that 5.6 cents a gallon, it's distributed on the formula you got to hear about this morning all the way across the state. And the urban communities, of which you're a part, have argued for the longest time that you pay the lion's share of the gasoline tax and get about half of that back in tax investment in the roads in your community.

So a different way to look at it is, yes, you could raise the gasoline tax, but you can't believe how much you're going to have to raise it in order to get this road built as fast as we could build it if we captured one or two of the interior lanes and started tolling them tomorrow. We did a little bit of analysis a couple of years ago just to see how quickly we could go from one-third of our need to two-thirds, and I think the gas tax increase is around 26 cents a gallon, and I don't know how many people out there want to raise their gas tax 26 cents a gallon.

MR. SMITH: Did I hear you earlier today suggest that you believe that that is a part of the solution -- in other words, it's going to require a combination of toll lanes and gas tax increases?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you didn't hear me say that because I'm against gas taxes. I'm for tolls and I'm against general taxes, so I can't speak to that.

MR. NICHOLS: I think what you've got is a situation where they said give us a shot of what tools you need without a gas tax to try to get the job done, and the bills that were passed gave us basically a full toolbox, and I think the approach is going to be to go out and make it work, and we will exhaust every possibility on trying to make it work, and if at the end of the day we can't make it work with those tools, then you explore the next way.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What you heard me say is you or we or NTTA would do a revenue analysis and say how much money could we borrow against one lane tolled tomorrow to build these additional four lanes, and if the answer is 30 percent of what we need to build the additional lanes, then we would have to come up with the other 70 percent out of the traditional cash flow from gas tax as it is now, toll equity. In other words, we would reach into the existing gas tax you pay, come up with 70 percent of the money; we would borrow the other 30 percent as a toll bond to do 100 percent of the cost and start the project immediately. And it could be that those toll revenue estimates could be 60 percent or 70 percent; it might be 80 percent toll viable. There are not very many that are ever that high but it could be.

MR. SMITH: I guess it's difficult for me to understand, and I'm trying to figure out if this an urban and rural issue, and I suppose there are certainly issues there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think it's safe to say these are tools that we feel like we can offer urban Texas to allow it to take almost 100 percent of its money and reinvest it in its own community, as opposed to investing a piece of 56 percent of its tax money.

MR. SMITH: And that's what's difficult for me to understand and appreciate is how it is that we might wake up one day and every road in the Metroplex is a toll road, and by funding the needed expansions of freeways in that mechanism, that that's not disadvantageous to the constituents that I represent as against a gas tax that applies statewide to ensure that every Texan has equal access to an uncongested freeway.

It's hard for me to imagine -- now, I recognize the education argument. We're going into a special session where it appears that we're looking for education funding too.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I suspect that's going to happen.

MR. SMITH: So it's hard for me to envision that meeting our needs through an expansion of the gas tax that applies statewide rather than waking up one day and having toll roads throughout our community is not a better solution. But we can discuss that as we go about it.

I certainly am here in agreement with everyone behind me that we've got to solve this problem first and foremost. I think one thing I have learned is we're always going to have disagreements about the best way to do it, and if you let those derail you in getting the job done, then you're never going to get there. But I think all of those discussions are important and helpful along the way.

Thank you. I won't take any more of your time.

MR. WHITLEY: The only thing I might say in conclusion is I think, as you mentioned, there's going to be many tools that we have to look at. I know from a federal standpoint we're looking at -- as Chairman Young constantly reminds us -- the user fee, and I guess the good thing about an increase in that user fee is that we've been promised that we'll get 95 percent of that back and none of it will go to education and none of it will go to DPS.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the whole argument, and frankly, Todd, I can't tell you how valuable that exchange we just had is because it gives Gordon, who will reach out to half a million people tomorrow, a perspective on the public debate that has to occur in this state about how we rebuild our infrastructure. Do you do it with a general tax that is used for education and public safety as well as transportation, or do you do it with a specific user tax, 95 percent of which will be spent on that piece of road in front of the Home Depot store at the intersection? That's the philosophical discussion this state has got to have about its infrastructure, and it's a great discussion to be involved in.

MR. WHITLEY: And as you well know, you only have funds currently for about a third of what is out there, and I don't think anything we've talked about solely is going to get us to the solution, and I think we have to look at everything, both nationally and state, we have to look at every alternative, also trying to bring more local dollars in. And as I mentioned earlier, I applaud you because I really believe that this project selection recommendation and the formula recommendations will allow me to get up and say to Tarrant County and its citizens and the city people to their citizens, we need to put money in bonds for road expansion and we need to match or we need to bring some additional funds to the table. So I think that's very important.

MR. NICHOLS: Thanks. I was just going to say something to Representative Smith. One other thing that most people often forget, and that is that the existing roads and bridges that we have on the state system, they don't last forever. County commissioners and I think mayors understand that real well because they work with it, but the roads typically last 30 or 40 years. You patch them, you work them, you do preventative maintenance, and then you reach a point like an engine that's got too many miles on it, you have to go back in and just totally overhaul it.

And what we're seeing because of inflation and some of these things in some of the urbanized areas, just the cost of overhauling some of the existing roads cost the state 10 to 13 times what it cost to build them in the first place -- that's how much inflation we've had. And it's something they didn't have to deal with back in the '60s when we built half of the system. Half of the system of the entire state was built in the '50s and '60s, all the interstate, all the farm to markets and stuff, and all of that system is hitting that 40-year expiration date at the same time.

So the state is spending a higher and higher percentage of its transportation income just to preserve the existing system. Fifty-five percent of everything we get basically goes just to try to preserve it, and it's still tottering down some at that. The level of congestion with what's left over -- I think Commissioner Williamson was touching on it a while ago -- like on the gas tax when we looked at it some time ago, to use a 10-cent a gallon gasoline tax, if the legislature passed it, probably would be enough to keep congestion from getting much worse, but it wouldn't dramatically improve congestion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I fear my former colleagues really don't comprehend the rate of gas tax you'd have to increase in order to have an appreciable amount of cash flow.

MR. NICHOLS: It would take 20 cents plus to begin a dramatic improvement in road construction and expansion in urbanized areas.

MR. SMITH: Let me say this one thing. Nobody here is suggesting that that alone is an excuse for doing nothing, I take it, and that's the problem now is that there is just not enough pushing, in my opinion, for additional revenues under circumstances where it is obvious that we need them, not just in our community but across the state.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Across the state.

MAYOR SALEH: If I may make a comment. Texas is somewhat behind other states, in that all across America there are toll roads where they keep their highways up to date -- all across America. When we travel out of state, we comply with the toll road fees; we are willing to get on a non-congested highway and pay for these toll roads. And it's time for Texas to come up to all the other states and it's time for us to alleviate these traffic congestions, have more visitors come to our state for economic development, to alleviate the health problems and others as well, and I think it's a great idea to finally do something in the State of Texas for our citizens. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We agree with you, Mayor, absolutely. Robert, did you have anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: No, that's it. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Two observations. One on the efficiency of tax and the traditional funding of highways. The third most efficient way is the state gasoline tax. As Ric mentioned, after education, and we don't want to short education, and after the DPS diversion, we're getting between 5 and 6 cents, or let's say 50 and 60 percent of that tax. On the federal level, we get 90-1/2 percent by formula and it's diluted after discretionary items are taken; we're getting probably 85 to 86 percent of that. But on a pure user fee, after administrative costs, we're getting 98 or 99 percent of those funds back into the system for transportation needs. So just from an absolute tax collecting efficiency standpoint to put back in the transportation system, the gasoline tax is not the most efficient method and the state tax is not the most efficient tax from a traditional standpoint.

I salute the information that you brought. I was unaware, as Robert was, of how important an east-west artery corridor this is and the tremendous amount of vehicles per day that travel. I've been in and out of DFW Airport and been on 183, but I had no idea that it just dwarfed, by comparative standards, the two interstates and the other east-west corridors traveling east to west across the Metroplex. Now, I know Ric probably feels it because he travels it a lot.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ric always goes south and goes around it. I don't want to feel their pain any more than I have to.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: But I mean, it's horrible; for all of us who have to drive it, it's horrible.

MR. JOHNSON: Anyway, to paraphrase one of the things that Ric said, and I believe also, if there's a way we can work with you, partner with you and utilize some of these tools and if it's 70 to 80 percent toll viable, this project will take off like, in his words, a rocket ship. If we have to go through traditional means, we're going to be bailing water not as fast as it's coming in in trying to get to the end of this project. So we want to work with you, and thank you for illuminating how important this is to your communities but also to the state as a whole.

We don't make decisions on the spot on these things but we do want to work with you in this regard.

We'll take a brief recess to let our good friends go back to the Metroplex in a safe and sound manner.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Before we begin, let me remind everyone that should you wish to address the commission, we would ask that you fill out the appropriate card at the registration table in the lobby. If it is an agenda item that you wish to speak on, we would ask that you fill out a yellow card and please identify the agenda item; if it is not an agenda item, we would like for you to fill out a blue card and we will take your comments during the open comment period at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the color of the card, each speaker will be limited to three minutes.

We will now begin with the approval of the minutes of our May commission meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Mike Behrens, I'm delighted to turn the rest of the agenda items over to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We'll start off with our usual number one item, Aviation, and Dave Fulton will present the airport improvement projects for funding.

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

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for nine airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown on Exhibit A, is approximately $5.9 million: $2.8 million federal, $2.9 million state, and approximately $200,000 in local funding.

A public hearing was held on June 9 of this year. No comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's see. Is Robert still the senior member and I'm the junior, or am I now the senior and he's the junior.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert is kind of the sandwich: he's the senior and the freshman.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, in that case, I'll wait till you so move.

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. NICHOLS: As soon as I'm re-sworn in and replace myself, I'll be the youngest.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then I get to move.

(General laughter.)

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 5 is Public Transportation. This will award vehicles from one transit district to another.

MR. DENNIS: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Wayne Dennis. I'm the interim director of the Public Transportation Division.

The minute order I bring before you today proposes the award of 13 vehicles to two rural transit districts. On April 11, 2003, the department took possession of 13 vehicles purchased with state and federal funds from a rural transit district which the department has terminated its relationship with. The 13 vehicles were originally purchased to provide public transportation in Nolan, Taylor and Mitchell Counties.

The minute order presented for your consideration authorizes the award of three vehicles to the South Plains Community Action Association and ten vehicles to the Central Texas Rural Transit District. Awarding the vehicles to these districts will make the vehicles available to provide public transportation services in these respective counties. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Are there any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: The equipment is still being used basically in the same area, but by a different provider.

MR. DENNIS: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I hope the record can reflect that I voted in the affirmative for the approval of the minutes.

MR. JOHNSON: We will have the record reflect that.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 6 will be proposed rules for adoption. The first one would be concerning some management rules.

MR. MONROE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I'm general counsel for the Texas Department of Transportation.

In the last session of the legislature, certain laws were passed which among other things, affected our advisory committees. The minute order we bring to you for your consideration and for subsequent publication in the Texas Register for public comment concerns changes reflecting statutory changes about how certain committee members will be selected. These are specified in the subject legislation, and also the legislature saw fit to not fund certain traveling and hotel and meal expenses for advisory committee members.

I would recommend your approval so that we can publish these to receive public comment.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have a question but I had a comment. Some of these advisory people who were getting reimbursed for travel, we might even want to double-check with them, some of the ones who are still holding over in those committees, to make sure that they are aware of that and that still would like to serve under those conditions, I guess. I think that would probably be advisable because I was told of someone yesterday that was on one of our committees that might not be able to serve otherwise.

MR. BEHRENS: That's a good point and we can do that. And I think, Richard, they're encouraging some of these meetings could be done by video-conferencing.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir, that is the case.

MR. BEHRENS: It was in part of the legislation.

MR. NICHOLS: I just thought I'd mention that. I didn't have any other comments. I'll so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 6(a)(2) is rules on contract management. Amadeo.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, Cheryl. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Assistant Executive Director for Engineering Operations.

During the 78th Legislature, three House bills were passed that authorize the department to include contracts of the Texas Turnpike Authority and contracts dealing with the Logo Sign Program under the existing department contract claims procedures. This legislation included specific authority to resolve the claims for the turnpike division and the logo sign program through our informal resolution and appeals process of the department.

The proposed minute order before you proposes adoption of the rules by amending 9.2 Contract Claim Procedure and repealing 9.120 concerning Contract Claims under Transportation Code 361 -- which is the Turnpike Authority -- which is no longer needed. These proposed amendments and the repeal will be posted in the Texas Register with written comments that will be accepted until August 11, at five o'clock. Staff recommends your approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions or 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.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 6(a)(3) will be a repeal of existing access rules and the presentation of new access rules.

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

The minute order proposes the repeal of Sections 11.50 through 11.53, Access Driveways to State Highways. The minute order also proposes new Sections 11.50 through 11.55, Access Connections to State Highways.

The current sections primarily address the issue of construction and maintenance responsibilities for driveways. The proposed new sections will implement the department's use of access management. The rules outline the process by which local public agencies may be delegated the access location permitting authority by the department. The rules also outline how access purchase requests can be made for locations where the department controls the access.

The proposed rules provide for an implementation date of January 1, 2004. In addition, there will be a transition period until January 1 of 2005 where exceptions may be granted for a specific access connection request where significant prior commitments have been made under previous department policy.

The department has conducted more than 25 outreach meetings to discuss access management with cities, counties, MPOs, elected officials, developers, real estate interests, private citizens, with attendance exceeding over 800. Input received at these meetings and from the previous public hearings have influenced the development of the rules before you today.

With approval of this minute order, three public hearings will be conducted, July 23 in the Metroplex, July 28 in Austin, and July 29 in Houston. Written notification of the proposed access management rules and the public hearing locations will be sent to all city and county officials, local state officials, chambers of commerce, MPOs, local transportation partners, and individuals that provided comments to us on access management.

Implementation of an access management approach is necessary to assist in preserving the safety, operations and mobility of the state highway system while providing reasonable access for land use and development.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions or comments?

MR. NICHOLS: Question number one. Before, we pulled the previous proposed rules down. One of the big comments had to do with the manual. So much of the rules referred to the manual; the manual was not publicly available. There was a great interest in the community, particularly the development community, about what the manual would look like.

As I understand it for the record, the draft manual -- which is probably very close to its final form -- has been on the internet since April?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir, since April 15.

MR. NICHOLS: Have we made notification through letters to MPOs or anything that the manual has been on the internet?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir. We sent out notices that it was available and how it could be retrieved from the internet.

MR. NICHOLS: Have we begun receiving any unofficial comments related to it?

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Actually, we have received very few comments on the draft manual.

MR. NICHOLS: I assume your home phone number was not there.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: No, sir.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Well, anyway, you have really worked quite a bit on this thing over the years and this process has been going on for about two years now. I still feel like it is extremely important and I think it has been refined dramatically from where we started. In addition to the 25 outreach meetings, as I understand it, you have had numerous, numerous one-on-one meetings.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: We've taken every opportunity to talk to anybody that wanted to listen to us about access management.

MR. NICHOLS: And still will, as I understand it.

MR. K. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the only comment I had.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: My comment is congratulations, Robert. Although we all take pride in it, this was of particular personal importance to you and I think it's done and a job well done.

MR. NICHOLS: Well, this is proposed, so we've got a ways to go. But thank you.

I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Before we vote, my observation, if there were 800 at these outreach meetings and open hearings, most of those were when you visited Irving, I think.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. They're getting to know me up there a little bit better.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(a)(4) will be some new rules being proposed for toll projects using our new tools.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon. I'm Amadeo Saenz, for the record.

The proposed rules before you deal with the comprehensive development agreements. This minute order proposes the adoption of new Section 24.11, Comprehensive Development Agreements, and amendments to Sections 27.1 through 27.5, Policy, Rules, and Procedures for Private Involvement in Department Turnpike Projects concerning comprehensive development agreements for financing, design, construction, maintenance or operation of facilities on the Trans-Texas Corridor or Texas Department of Transportation turnpike projects.

House Bill 3588 of the 78th Legislature regular session contains a number of provisions related to the Trans-Texas Corridor and to toll roads of the department. These provisions include a new Chapter 227 that was added to the Transportation Code to allow the department to plan and construct a new set of intermodal transportation facilities that will be known as the Trans-Texas Corridor which will integrate highway, rail and utility components. Rules implementing this authority will be part of proposed Chapter 24.

House Bill 3588 also includes amendments and additions to Chapter 361 of the Transportation Code that changes the name of exclusive development agreement to comprehensive development agreement and prescribes a detailed process for entering into these kinds of agreements that may include financing, design, construction, maintenance and operation of facilities on the Trans-Texas Corridor or other department turnpike projects. These agreements will be selected according to a process that provides the best value for the State.

Chapter 227 also authorizes the comprehensive development agreements with regard to the Trans-Texas Corridor and provides that all provisions of Chapter 361 that relate to the agreements as part of turnpike projects also apply to agreements for part of the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The minute order proposes adoption of new Section 24.11 relating to comprehensive development agreements for facilities on the Trans-Texas Corridor and proposes amendments to Sections 27.1 to 27.5 relating to policies and procedures for private involvement in the department's turnpike projects to be codified under Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Part 1. 27.1 describes the policy; 27.2 provides some definitions; 27.3 provides some general rules for private involvement into our projects; 27.4 provides the procedure for soliciting proposals where the department can solicit proposals; and 27.5 provides a procedure for the department to process unsolicited proposals.

These additions and amendments to the rules will be posted in the Texas Register and written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2003. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Comments or questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have one question for Amadeo, Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: All right, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Without taking a lot of time, because I know we're short on time, the rules anticipate a two-step process, three-step process, four-step process?

MR. SAENZ: It's a two-step process if the department initiates the request where we would go out and ask for proposals and then we would evaluate those proposals, and then short-list and then go to a second step. If we get an unsolicited proposal, it adds a step, I would say, in advance where we would take that unsolicited proposal, we would evaluate it, and if it makes good sense to the department, if it meets our goals and meets our requirements, then we would go out there and start the solicitation process. We would solicit competing proposals and then that would have some definite criteria that everyone would have to submit their format. And then from that, we would evaluate those proposals, and as we evaluate those proposals we would short-list, and then the final group would be given the opportunity to submit detailed proposals for final selection.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So in the first example the first step, and in the second example the second step are basically the same.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And the level of information required at those two steps is sufficient for us to qualify individuals or consortiums to go to the next step but is not so detailed as to expose their intellectual property to the public record.

MR. SAENZ: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And did we design these proposed rules taking into consideration on the one hand the need to have enough time to give everybody to compete, but on the other hand taking into account that we're now the 1st Infantry of the Department of Transportation and we move fast to get things done?

MR. SAENZ: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Is there a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(a)(5) is under Traffic Operations and pertains to logo signs.

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

MR. WILLIAMSON: Where have you been?

MR. LOPEZ: Here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's been a long time since you've been up here.

MR. LOPEZ: I was here last month.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Did I forget?

MR. LOPEZ: Very briefly, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It was quick.

MR. LOPEZ: It was quick, yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It was short?

MR. BEHRENS: He was short.

MR. LOPEZ: Not in stature. Right, Mike, is that what you meant?

MR. SAENZ: He followed Thomas and the podium was a lot higher.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what it was and I didn't see him.

(General laughter.)

MR. LOPEZ: The minute order before you partially implements House Bill 2905, better known as the Mike Behrens Relief Act.

(General laughter.)

MR. LOPEZ: State law directs the commission to authorize the executive director to approve or deny variances for certain eligibility requirements of the department's logo sign program. House Bill 2905 allows approval or denial of these variances to be delegated to the executive director's designee. We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we get to find out who you're going to delegate to first?

(General laughter.)

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. WILLIAMSON: What the legislature does for you, Behrens.

MR. BEHRENS: Item 6(b), our last one under proposed rules, a Rules Advisory Committee.

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir, commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Monroe.

The minute order before you will appoint an advisory committee on regional mobility authorities. The department is required to appoint such a committee under the terms of House Bill 3588 of the last legislature. The list of names is on an attachment to the minute order itself. We would recommend your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: Has there been any preliminary contacts if these people would serve?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: They have agreed to serve.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Monroe, would you read into the record their names?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir. Tom Griebel from the San Antonio Mobility Coalition; Bill Summers, Rio Grande Valley Partnership chief executive officer; Jeff Austin, a banker in the City of Tyler; Mark Watson, who is the city manager of Temple; Judy Hawley, who is with the Laredo to Corpus Christi RMA; Bob Geyer -- and I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly; it's G-E-Y-E-R -- El Paso County Planning Department; and Mr. Bob Tesch, T-E-S-C-H of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

MR. JOHNSON: That's an excellent group. There is a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: And I think, Mr. Chairman, Tom Griebel is here today near the back.

MR. NICHOLS: Speech, speech.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.

MR. JOHNSON: Was he here to speak on the fact that members of the advisory committees were no longer going to be reimbursed?

MR. GRIEBEL: You're going to give me a microphone and I'm going to turn it down. No way I've got to talk to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Are you willing to serve without travel expenses?

MR. GRIEBEL: Yes, I am willing to serve. Thank you very much for appointing me; I appreciate that.

MR. NICHOLS: We appreciate you doing it without getting reimbursed for your travel.

MR. GRIEBEL: And that's the only thing that they offered to me: the fact that I'd get to stay at the penthouse down here in Austin and get reimbursed for all my expenses. I guess I look upon the rules for the RMAs, if you are going to become the Big Red One or the 1st Infantry Division, then the RMAs should become the Delta Force or the Ranger Battalions so then we can move out.

The goal is to kind of build these facilities as quickly as possible with the least amount of unnecessary delays in the process. Thank you for appointing me; I appreciate that.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for serving.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We know you'll do a good job.

MR. BEHRENS: Of course, Bill Summers was here earlier with the Valley delegation, and Mark Watson was here with the Temple-Belton delegation, and I don't think anyone else is here unless I failed to see them.

Going on to agenda item number 7, Turnpike Projects, first would be the General Engineering Consultant Quarterly Progress Report. Bob.

MR. DAIGH: For the record, my name is Robert Daigh, deputy director of the Turnpike Authority Division.

Agenda item 7(a) is to present for commission acceptance Quarterly Progress Report number 3 for the Central Texas Turnpike Project. The report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the bond indenture and covers progress of the project through the end of May of this year.

This report reflects an additional letting of the State Highway 45/IH-35 interchange project and its award to Archer-Western Contractors for approximately $103 million. This contract was $29 million under the estimate that was included in the project's original financial plan.

The report also reflects the ongoing construction activities by Zachary Construction Company on the State Highway 45/Loop 1 interchange, and that construction is proceeding of high quality and on schedule.

Right of way acquisition and utility relocation efforts continue to be on schedule for all elements of the project. Offers have been made on all of the 177 parcels for the traditional design-build bid elements which are Loop 1 and State Highway 45. Of those 177 parcels, by the end of May 96 have been acquired. On State Highway 130, as of the end of May of this year, three parcels have been acquired.

In summary, the report states that we are on schedule and within budget. Staff recommends acceptance of Progress Report Number 3. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: The acceptance of this is part of the covenant and the reporting is part of the bond covenants.

MR. DAIGH: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 7(b) will be to authorize publication of a request for competing proposals and qualifications for corridor development along I-35, I-37 and proposed I-69.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon again, commissioners. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Assistant Executive Director for engineering/operations.

Item 7(b) authorizes publication of a request for competing proposals and qualifications for the development of a corridor of the Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to I-35, I-37, and proposed I-69 from the Denison area to the Rio Grande Valley.

In December of 2002, the department received an unsolicited proposal from Fluor Enterprises, Inc., for developing the proposed priority corridor of the Trans-Texas Corridor that is parallel to I-35, I-37, and proposed I-69 from Denison down to the Rio Grande Valley. In February of this year, the commission directed the department to further evaluate the proposal and investigate options for developing the priority corridor.

Since that time, the legislature passed and the governor has signed House Bill 3588 which authorizes the commission and the department to establish, designate, construct and operate the Trans-Texas Corridor and which authorizes the department to enter into comprehensive development agreements for the development of the Trans-Texas Corridor facilities. House Bill 3588 requires the department, if a decision is made to further evaluate an unsolicited proposal, to publish a request for competing proposals and qualifications in the Texas Register that includes a deadline by which the competing proposals must be received.

Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that it is compatible with the existing and planned facilities and that it furthers the State's transportation goals and this corridor merits further evaluation. This minute order instructs staff to notify interested parties that the department will accept for consideration any competing proposals and qualifications responsive to the request that are received within 60 days of the date the request is published in the Texas Register.

As required by House Bill 3588, the department will evaluate the original proposal and any competing proposals and develop a short list of proposers that are qualified to submit detailed proposals for development of this priority corridor. The department may submit a request for proposals to each short-listed proposer and after evaluation of the proposals may select the proposal providing the best value for the department.

Staff recommends your approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I figured you were going to make some comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The only comment I have to make is that we can't move fast enough for me.

MR. NICHOLS: I so move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. SAENZ: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good job.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 under Transportation Planning and Programming, Jim will present three items.

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

Item 8(a), this minute order authorizes the transfer of partial funding from the Fort Bend Parkway project originally authorized for $17.1 million and applies it toward the construction of a project on US 59 from State Highway 99 to State Highway 6. Minute Order 108287, dated August 31, 2000, tendered a proposal to Fort Bend County for the development of a toll facility, the Fort Bend Parkway, along the route of State Highway 122 from Beltway 8 to the proposed State Highway 99, or Grand Parkway, a distance of approximately 17 miles. Under the original terms of this minute order, the department was further ordered to construct eligible portions of the Beltway 8 and State Highway 6 interchanges at a cost not to exceed $17.1 million.

The county has completed the preliminary development required under Minute Order 108287 for the segment from Beltway 8 to State Highway 6. The commission has authorized this segment of the Fort Bend Parkway as a county toll road and removed the segment of State Highway 122 from Beltway 8 to State Highway 6 from the state highway system. The Harris County Toll Road Authority has now initiated the construction of the Beltway 8 interchange with the Fort Bend Parkway at its sole expense, relieving the department of its responsibility.

The State Highway 6 interchange, including the access roads with the Fort Bend Parkway, has a current estimated construction cost of approximately $12 million, leaving a balance of $5.1 million from the original $17.1 million approved by Minute Order 108287. The county is now requesting that any remaining balance originally approved by Minute Order 108287 be transferred to the county bond-funded portion of the US 59 project in Fort Bend County between State Highway 6 and State Highway 99.

Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you. Item 8(b), this minute order authorizes the replacement of a bridge on Farm to Market Road 3222 over Shaw Creek near the Town of Hallsburg. The bridge is structurally deficient and is rapidly deteriorating. Due to the condition of the bridge, it is currently incapable of carrying full legal loading. The total estimated construction cost for this project is $236,672 to be funded in Priority 1, Category 6A, On-State System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program of the 2002 Unified Transportation Program.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question. I support doing this because it obviously needs to be done. My question really relates more to I'm really kind of surprised that we have to approve a minute order to do this. If this bridge is deteriorating that quickly and it's under a $300,000 threshold, whenever you get in a situation like that, you don't always have to wait for a minute order, do you? Or do you?

MR. RANDALL: Well, in this particular case, this project would have been in the 2004 Statewide Preservation Program that won't be approved until July now, and so it's scheduled for letting in August so we had to go ahead and move it quickly into the CONSTRUCT category so it would be prepared for letting.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. RANDALL: Item 8(c), this minute order reappoints a member to the Grand Parkway Association's board of directors. Minute Order 107004, dated November 21, 1996, adopted Sections 15.80 to 15.93 of the Texas Administrative Code relating to the creation and operation of transportation corporations. These sections require commission review of an individual's application, financial statement and letters of reference when considering the appointment of a member to the board of directors.

Minute Order 107189, dated June 26, 1997, appointed Robert C. Brown III of Sugar Land to serve on the board for a term expiring June 26, 2003. Pursuant to Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Section 15.85, the board has nominated Mr. Brown for a second term and submitted the prescribed documentation for commission review. With this reappointment, Mr. Brown's term will expire on June 26, 2009.

Your approval of this minute order is requested.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have a question, but I think he requested that we hold up here a second.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Jim, do we have any reason to suspect that Mr. Brown is not in support of tolls?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir, we asked him, Mr. Williamson. Yes, sir, he supports tolling, and we've talked to Mr. Heckmann in the Governor's Office and they approve of the appointment.

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. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 9, our State Infrastructure Bank, being presented by John Munoz.

MR. MUNOZ: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is John Munoz, deputy division director for the Finance Division.

Item 9 seeks approval for the executive director to execute a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration for the purpose of establishing a State Infrastructure Bank under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to provide loans and other financial assistance for transportation facilities.

Staff recommends your approval, and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I have several questions. Number one --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, good. Is this the first time we've had him up here?

MR. BEHRENS: I think so.

MR. NICHOLS: That was going to be my first question. Is this the first time you've been up here?

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, it is.

MR. NICHOLS: Did anybody inform you that normally on the first presentation that they usually slip us a bunch of trick questions and stuff?

MR. MUNOZ: No, they did not.

MR. NICHOLS: Bass didn't tell you that?

MR. MUNOZ: No. Bass is out of town; he's left the city.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: I send most of my questions in by e-mail and I think I did get them answered. It's my understanding that we're going to attempt several different avenues.

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And in this approach, if we approve this, we're going to try and see if we can get the feds to agree any new funding would be kept separate.

MR. MUNOZ: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: And I just want to make sure we've got an understanding that if they don't let us do that and if we exhausted all other possibilities, that before we go and modify and merge the two programs that we do come back to the commission.

MR. MUNOZ: Absolutely.

MR. NICHOLS: I don't know if I ought to ask him or Mike. I just want to make sure.

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So James left town and left you holding the bag.

MR. MUNOZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, tell me, which way that we get permission to go, will make us the most money?

MR. MUNOZ: If we keep the two programs separate, if we have the TEA-21 funded SIB separate and apart from the NHS funded capitalized SIB, we are going to be in the best position in terms of flexibility in order to address our loan needs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's not fair. I think somebody prepared him for us.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't have any more questions.

MR. JOHNSON: The TEA-21 SIB has not been funded. Is that correct?

MR. MUNOZ: That is correct.

MR. JOHNSON: And the ISTEA SIB is what we have been operating under.

MR. MUNOZ: The NHS Act funded SIB.

MR. JOHNSON: And is the predominant difference that when funds are repaid under the NHS Act they recapitalize the SIB, they stay in the SIB; whereas, under the TEA-21 they do not? Is that the difference?

MR. MUNOZ: Under the NHS, the repayments are not subject to the requirements of NEPA and the Davis-Bacon Act, and therefore, the locals who are receiving these loans will be able to utilize these funds for the actual work that they'd be needed for.

MR. JOHNSON: Whereas, under a TEA-21 SIB, those requirements?

MR. MUNOZ: Those requirements remain in place for even the repaid funds.

MR. NICHOLS: Are you also aware of any changes in the proposed -- I think the new program is called SAFE-TEA?

MR. MUNOZ: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: That's the new six-year, SAFE-TEA. Under SAFE-TEA are there proposals to go back to the old system on SIBs?

MR. MUNOZ: I'm not sure at this time. There's different interpretations of how SAFE-TEA is going to be affected in the SIB program arena.

MR. BEHRENS: I think in the proposal actually the SIBs are going to be going away. They're proposing, though, to have five states -- again, on a pilot basis -- but all the states that currently have a SIB, they have to reapply.

MR. JOHNSON: Are we in that group?

MR. BEHRENS: We're currently in the group.

MR. JOHNSON: But would we be a pilot or would we have to reapply?

MR. BEHRENS: We'd have to reapply. And we discussed that last week when we were in Salt Lake City with Mary Peters, the Federal Highway Administrator, and of course, they were supporting that the SIB would be opened up to more states. So they're still working on trying to get that maybe adjusted. Currently the way it's written, existing states would have to reapply.

MR. JOHNSON: Is that the administration's version or is that Chairman Young's?

MR. BEHRENS: That's the Administration's version, yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions or 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.

MR. NICHOLS: Good job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Very nice.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, John.

MR. MUNOZ: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 10, approval of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan.

MR. LOPEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, I'm Carlos Lopez, director of the Traffic Operations Division.

The minute order before you seeks approval of the FY 2004 Highway Safety Plan. This plan attempts to reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes by funding various enforcement, training and education efforts. The FY 2004 Highway Safety Plan contains a total budget of approximately $42 million which will fund 267 traffic safety projects. These projects cover various areas such as occupant protection, police traffic services and speed control, DWI and DUI countermeasures, traffic records, and roadway safety.

We recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: On the traffic records, is this related to the CRIS Program?

MR. LOPEZ: We have some money in here to build that system, along with some other money appropriated by rider.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: How are we progressing on input and having the ability for more immediate results tabulation on crash records?

MR. LOPEZ: On the crash records? We're getting very close, and in fact, we've asked four vendors of the original 12 that applied for our RFP for a best and final offer. We ought to begin negotiations with some of those firms next month; we should have somebody on board by September.

MR. JOHNSON: Assuming that happens, will we be fully up and running by what date?

MR. LOPEZ: The requirement in the RFP is within 18 to 24 months to have a fully operational crash record system.

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: Agenda item number 11, we'll have our contracts for the month of June. Elizabeth.

MS. BOSWELL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Elizabeth Boswell. I currently serve as the Construction Section Director within the Construction Division.

With regard to item 11(a)(1), authorization of this minute order will provide for the award of highway maintenance contracts let on June 3 and 4, 2003 whose engineers' estimated costs are $300,000 or more. Staff recommends award of all projects as shown in Exhibit A.

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.

MS. BOSWELL: With regard to item 11(a)(2), authorization of this minute order will provide for the award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on June 3 and 4, 2003, as shown in Exhibit A.

Staff recommends rejection of one project as follows: the project recommended for rejection is located in Wichita County. This project consists of pedestrian street lighting, walkways and landscaping for a transportation enhancement project for the City of Burkburnett. Staff recommends this project be rejected as a redesign of the project is warranted and will sufficiently clarify the scope of the work. This redesign should result in bids closer to the amount of funds programmed and available for this project.

Staff recommends award of all remaining contracts, as shown in Exhibit A.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

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

MS. BOSWELL: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 11(b) would be a claim in Jasper County.

MR. SAENZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, I'm Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Assistant Executive Director for Engineering Operations, also chairman of the Contract Claim Committee.

The minute order before you approves a claim settlement for a contract by Angelo Iafrate Construction, L.L.C. on Project NH 96(794)M in Jasper County in the Beaumont District. On May 14, TxDOT's Contract Claim Committee considered this claim and made a recommendation for settlement to the contractor; the contractor has accepted. The committee considers this to be a fair and reasonable settlement of the claim and recommends your approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: A question. This is a significant difference. Where did the difference of opinion come from: $2.3 million additional compensation?

MR. SAENZ: The contract dealt with some issues related to wetlands and some suitable sub grade material and delays regarding that. We looked at the entire project, and the delay costs. A lot of them we could not justify. We felt what we offered them was fair and equitable, and the contractor agreed.

MR. JOHNSON: I believe Mr. Nichols has moved and Mr. Williamson has seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: Item number 12, Richard will present two contested cases that have come to the department.

MR. MONROE: For the record, my name is Richard Monroe, general counsel for the Texas Department of Transportation.

12(a) addresses another matter of billboards. We are obliged by both federal and state law to be the responsible state agency for the Highway Beautification Acts. In relationship to that, we play a certain regulatory role as to billboards.

In this particular case, the department canceled an outdoor advertising permit because the sign itself did not comport with the terms of the permit. The billboard company objected; the case went to the State Office of Administrative Hearings; the judge there held in favor of the department.

At that point certain exceptions were filed on the part of the Attorney General's Office but only as to certain legal technicalities of the decision itself. The company filed its own response to those exceptions; however, there were no exceptions to the decision itself, i.e., that the permit be canceled within the time given for such exceptions to be filed.

Therefore, I would recommend that the decision of the hearing officer be upheld, that the minute order be executed and approved taking away the permit of the billboard.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, comments?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

MR. JOHNSON: You're actually seconding the removal of a billboard?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I flew on an airplane this week.

MR. JOHNSON: You did?

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's right.

MR. JOHNSON: You're becoming a multimodal guy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there's always an exception to otherwise common sense rules of never get on an airplane and don't take a billboard down. I'm here on both.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I will not be eating chicken for dinner.

(General laughter.)

MR. MONROE: Item 12(b) concerns a little known function of the department in that we permit salvage dealer yards. As part of the regulatory scheme, we want to know if someone has been convicted of a felony within a three-year period. In this particular case, the man who submitted the form may have been a felon but he had an honest side to him and he said, yes, I have, making him ineligible for such a permit. We so informed him; he took exception to that; the case went to SOAH, the State Office of Administrative Hearings; the gentleman did not show up at the hearing; the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the department.

If you agree with this minute order, you will uphold that decision. I would recommend that a favorable response be given to the decision and that the minute order be approved.

MR. JOHNSON: Questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I move we go with our counselor's advice.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. MONROE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Richard.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 13 is our Routine Minute Orders. They are listed as posted on our agenda. If you want any of them individually discussed, I'd be happy to do so. They cover donations to the department, eminent domain proceedings, highway designations, right of way, and roadway load zones and bridge postings, and speed zones.

MR. JOHNSON: Mike, I had a question on a donation. Is there somebody who could give me a little help?

MR. BEHRENS: Jennifer is here, Jennifer Soldano.

MS. SOLDANO: Which one would you like to talk about? I'm Jennifer Soldano for the record.

MR. JOHNSON: Actually, Jennifer, this was a conspiracy, it was a ruse to get you up here because I understand this is your last meeting.

MS. SOLDANO: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: And I wanted to convey from the commission our thanks for all that you've done for your fellow co-workers and this department and the commission, in particular, and we're going to miss you. You've been a huge contributor. And I wish I had several questions on some of these donations.

(General laughter.)

MS. SOLDANO: Thank you. I really appreciate it.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you recommend that we accept these donations?

MS. SOLDANO: I would recommend that you accept the donations, especially the money.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How do you feel about donations generally?

MS. SOLDANO: Well, you know, they have increased greatly in the last few years and they're a good thing. They make everyone happy.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We really will miss you.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm going to echo the chairman's comments also and Commissioner Williamson's. I went back there a while ago and said the same thing and I want to say it publicly: thanks for everything that you've done.

MS. SOLDANO: Thank you. I really appreciate, and I've really enjoyed working for the department. And I could come back in another capacity; just right now I'm going to take a vacation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We hope to see you back.

MR. JOHNSON: Don't be a stranger.

MS. SOLDANO: Appreciate it.

MR. BEHRENS: You know, Wes had set up the Contract Section and put Jennifer in that place, and they really have done a good job of looking at all of the contract documents and everything that goes through there, and we appreciate everything that Jennifer has done for the folks in this organization.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions on any of the routine agenda items?

MR. NICHOLS: Move we accept.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MR. BEHRENS: We don't need an executive session, and we're at open comment period.

MR. JOHNSON: Requesting to speak at the open comment section, Norma Minnis wants to speak on Loop 12 in the Dallas area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you write us a letter?

MS. MINNIS: Yes, I have, but I've got my remarks here if you would like to have them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought I remembered a letter from you.

MS. MINNIS: Well, good.

I'm Norma Minnis and I live in Dallas near White Rock Lake Park. I serve on the board of my neighborhood association. I'm here today representing the 1,600 households in my neighborhood, Old Lake Highlands Neighborhood Association. There are another 4,000 households in three other neighborhoods who are also concerned with this project.

Last June TxDOT made a presentation to our four neighborhood associations that abut White Rock Lake. Included in this presentation was a very large interchange and a very long elevated bridge on Northwest Highway through White Rock Lake Park. The opposition to these two projects was so great that TxDOT announced they were abandoning the projects. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

However, in December 2002, we learned that TxDOT had not abandoned the Northwest Highway bridge elevation project. This project would raise Northwest Highway to a minimum of eight feet -- that's at the bottom of the concrete -- to perhaps as high as 20 feet above the park. We actually consider this an affront that will destroy one of the few visually attractive roadways in our city. It will create a divisive barrier between our communities, the way we know all such thoroughfares can. Which side of the bridge do you live on?

TxDOT will tell you we have a flooding problem, but there are far worse flooding problems elsewhere. And I'll be glad to elaborate on that just in case you're interested. The question that TxDOT cannot answer is this: What good would such a bridge be when in a 100-year event the nearest intersection would be under water? This is the intersection where the exchange that TxDOT canceled due to the public opposition was to be. What good would it do to elevate the bridge when the nearest intersection is under water? If the intersection is flooded, would not the bridge be inaccessible?

Neighborhood opposition is extensive and intense. The first item on a TxDOT memo recognizes that the majority do not want an elevated road. I brought with me some copies of letters from our city council representative, Gary Griffith. Councilman Griffith correctly points out: "With the severe budgetary crisis occurring in the State Legislature, it seems to me that this is not the time for the state to propose this $13 million project." He goes on to state: "There are some question whether this project has the unqualified support of the elected city officials."

Lastly is a copy of a letter from Senator John Carona, our state senator, stating that: "Based on the outpouring of public opposition to this project, I have to question why it is proceeding. With the shortfall in funds and a long list of needed road projects in this district, I would like to know why this section of Northwest Highway cannot be maintained and these funds diverted to another project in the district that is both needed and wanted?"

Actually, I have the same question for you today. We would like to know if these funds can be redirected to a more needed and wanted project. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ms. Minnis, we appreciate your being here and taking the time to bring your concerns and address the commission. We received your correspondence and also Senator Carona's letter and probably one or two others, and the district is keenly aware of your concerns. And I believe what has brought this project -- risen again is the high cost of maintenance plus the flooding issue that you have mentioned, and these things wear out from time to time and they need to be revisited.

MS. MINNIS: Yes, sir, and these bridges are 70 years old -- we know that, but this is a park. So we are very concerned about what this type of project would mean to our community, and that's why I'm here and that's why I brought the letters from the council person and from Senator Carona.

And the flooding, I would like to address that. The TxDOT people will tell you that this road flooded six times last year. Well, one of those times was a water main break where some woman drove into it and had to be rescued, so that can hardly be really counted as something that nature did. And whenever the road has been closed, it has been closed very, very briefly, and actually usually at night. The disruption to traffic is absolutely minimal.

Over the Memorial Day weekend when we had about five inches of rain and my electricity went out for 12 hours, I couldn't sleep. Every hour I drove down there because it was a record rainfall. There was absolutely no flooding; they never closed the road during the Memorial Day holiday.

So I am not trying to say that nothing needs to be done there, but this is really not what we want.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I wonder if it would be the case, Mr. Chairman, that the bridge may be approaching unsafe status.

MR. JOHNSON: I don't know the answer to that. Mike, if you would look into it and address these concerns.

MR. BEHRENS: We will look into it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the situations we might be in -- and I confess sometimes we don't communicate as well as we should, even the three commissioners don't communicate as well as they should -- sometimes a bridge is unsafe; we've got to tear it down for safety reasons, and the standards that we have to comply with from the federal government are different than the standards when the bridge was built originally. I face that in my own community right now with a bridge over a railroad or a grade separation over a railroad that the community is not happy about. We don't do to you what you don't like because we want to do it; sometimes we don't have a choice about it.

MS. MINNIS: And I know that. I have been serving on a committee. We have met twice a month since January 6 with TxDOT and with engineers and with neighborhood people, and we have really reached an impasse with us and them. I don't know that I can tell you exactly what the solution is, but we are really upset about this.

MR. JOHNSON: Someone mentioned to me that the City of Dallas might have a requirement on bridge replacements and the clearance. That is one of the reasons that this is proposed to be as high as it is. Is that correct?

MS. MINNIS: That's correct, and a couple of things have come to light here very recently in our committee. We thought we were dealing with TxDOT and the money coming from TxDOT. At our Tuesday night meeting, we learned that it's really the federal government that's giving us the money. So we kind of get this conflicting -- not really conflicting but kind of new information as we go along. And we have really not gotten the impression that the City of Dallas is 100 percent behind this project. I do realize, though, that if you replace a bridge in the City of Dallas, there is a requirement that it be built for the 100-year event -- we realize that. We continue, though, to ask TxDOT to try to work with us and to work with the city. I mean, we're just human beings. It may be a rule but it's not necessarily from God. You know, we made the rules, so surely we can rewrite the rules.

It's a park -- we keep saying this -- it's a park which surely makes it different than I-35 out here.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, it also occurs to me if the City of Dallas has a requirement, they can grant a waiver to that requirement, not rewrite the rule.

MS. MINNIS: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Now, their reluctance might be that they hate to create exceptions, but I think if the case is strong enough, you create exceptions.

MS. MINNIS: And that's part of the reason we asked you to move the --

MR. WILLIAMSON: You ought to quit talking; you've got two on your side now.

(General laughter.)

MS. MINNIS: I know. I was just going to say if you could help us move the money, give us some time to go ahead and try to work this out with all of these people -- I mean, we did just get our councilman who was newly elected. I mean, this was a campaign issue for him.

So that's what we would be asking you to do, if you could just go spend that money someplace else, give us time to try to work this through, I'm just sure we'll be able to come to a meeting of the minds.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have something, Robert? I so rudely cut you off twice.

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to say, kind of repeat a little bit of what they were saying. We've got so many projects where everybody supports it and they're greatly needed and we cannot fund all of those. It's very unusual for us to fund a project unless it's a safety -- if it's an imminent safety consideration, that's totally different. It's very unusual for us to fund something that is not supported locally, so I don't think you've got a whole lot to worry about.

On the 100-year flood thing -- and our Bridge Division is in the back -- you've got the 100-year and the 500-year and all those kind of things. I recall shortly after I got on the commission I was asking what appeared to be a dumb question: How often should we expect a 100-year flood. And by definition, obviously its 100 years, but we had three of them in like a 20-year period.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, that covers us for another 240 years, 280 years.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: But they periodically even go back, and as our climate is changing, and are reevaluating and changing a lot of those levels. The definition of a 100-year flood is changing.

MS. MINNIS: Well, of course, our problem really is because of all the development north through Plano. I mean, that is the true reason that we are being asked to bear this burden.

MR. NICHOLS: But we've got lots of people who will be happy to use those funds.

MR. JOHNSON: In fact, I think our next speaker has that in mind.

MS. MINNIS: Before I leave -- because I'm going to my neighborhood association -- I know you're not saying okay, no problem, we're moving the funds -- you're not telling me that. Are you?

MR. NICHOLS: We cannot take action on these items because they're not posted agenda items.

MS. MINNIS: Oh, I see.

MR. NICHOLS: The counselor is sitting right there. So we always welcome the public to come talk and express concerns of interest or whatever, but if it's not a posted agenda item, we cannot act.

MS. MINNIS: All right, I understand. So I need to ask to be on the agenda and bring some of my neighborhood people.

MR. NICHOLS: Not necessarily.

MR. JOHNSON: Actually, we prefer for this to work through the system.

MR. BEHRENS: Let us look into it and we will correspond with you.

MS. MINNIS: Okay. Appreciate it.

MR. NICHOLS: I think it would be fair to tell your neighborhood association that some of the commission members officially told you that it was very unusual for us to fund projects unless it was an imminent safety problem.

MS. MINNIS: I understand.

MR. NICHOLS: That were strongly locally opposed.

MS. MINNIS: Thank you. I appreciate it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Also bear in mind, safety is probably the chief reason.

MS. MINNIS: Well, we're just looking for another way of doing this. I mean, we agree that 70 years, we've really probably got our money's worth out of these bridges, and we'd like to find those people who originally built them because they built some great bridges. But anyway, thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It was Al Luedecke who was on that crew.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Our next speaker is the mayor of the City of Kaufman, Paula Bacon.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You want this money?

MAYOR BACON: We have an idea. Hello. I'm glad to be here.

MR. JOHNSON: Welcome.

MAYOR BACON: Thank you for having this opportunity for the public to speak. My name is Paula Bacon and I'm mayor of the City of Kaufman. Kaufman is 33 miles southeast of Dallas on US Highway 175, and it's the county seat.

We are experiencing growth at a remarkable clip. I've traveled here today to kind of keep you apprized of our good situation in Kaufman regarding the relocation of a section of State Highway 34. I would offer this thought to you, that at its modest price and extraordinary benefit, this may be the most cost-effective project you will be seeing coming down the pike soon.

If I could ask you to picture the routes around Crockett or Carthage, both with a population of 7,000, like Kaufman, or Jacksonville which is larger. All of these are south and east of Dallas. If you can picture these, you'll have a picture similar to the five-mile stretch we are asking for with the SH 34 relocation project in Kaufman.

We already have $600,000 in funding for this modestly priced, though much needed, bridge and roadway connection. 90 to 95 percent of the right of way will be donated. So we are looking at extremely minimal cost for right of way. There are no wildlife habitat issues expected because the SH 34 relocation is almost exclusively old railroad right of way and farmland. Very soon in January, our SH 34 preferred route with new traffic projections should be out, say both our area engineer and Steven Endress at the district office who is working on the schematic drawings, and the consultants for the environmental are hired. So I believe that we're really quickly coming to a -- is this what you call a funding date?

We have really big huge community support and it's growing every day. As this comfort grows, so does the support for this project. Community partnerships -- you sound like you guys probably all do your homework -- are extensive. You probably already know this, but the city, the county, the school district, the business community, the chamber, the Presbyterian Hospital, Congressman Ralph Hall, State Representative Betty Brown, and more, everybody is on board with this.

I will bet you that not only at its modest price and extraordinary benefit is this the most cost-effective, it might be one of the most popular projects coming down the pike, much needed. Five of the six area schools -- actually, soon it will be -- well, I won't say soon, but there soon may be six of the seven area schools, are on this route which is a tremendous potential boon to traffic flow and safety. The relocation and more appropriate thoroughfare will provide major reduction of traffic accidents in filled intersections and of large freight haulers going around the courthouse square.

We are seeing major, major development in Kaufman -- well, for us it's major. We have just provided final plat approval for the first 100 of a 500-home development. Another 150 homes are under construction now in a nearby development, and a 519-bed county jail is under construction now. The beauty of it is the State Highway 34 relocation will totally address all the traffic flow issues on these developments for both the homes and the jail. In addition, there are these 250-unit apartments that are part of the planned development here; another 100-plus acre mixed use development has been final platted; and we have a contract with a Wal-Mart; and all of them are hanging on the very edges of State Highway 34 and US 175.

If I could just give you this handout. Is that okay?

MR. JOHNSON: Sure. We accept handouts.

MAYOR BACON: In the district, 2 to 3 percent increase in traffic counts is typical for our district; however, in Kaufman we're seeing something substantially different. Laid out in this chart I've given you, it's based on the latest traffic count maps. You can see how remarkable our increases are.

Just to summarize, I have six locations here on SH 34 and we're seeing increases from 5.3 percent traffic from the year 2000 to 2001 to 42.31 percent increase -- now, that's where the new post office went in, so that's part of the reasoning for it. But overall, I pulled a little average here. If you do this average correctly, what you're seeing in overall traffic is 11.64 percent average increase on these six locations.

I just want to thank you for this opportunity to talk with you about Kaufman's awakening, and thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your letter of encouragement and letting me know about progress on this project. It's our hope that the commission will recognize what an excellent project this is and schedule a funding date as soon as it's feasible. I want to thank you, and all the best to you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No. Thank you for coming.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: This was a one-person delegation appearance. Very informative. Question: Why do you need more beds in your jail in Kaufman?

MAYOR BACON: I'm not really the one to answer that question, but they're building a doozy.

MR. JOHNSON: Don't make it too good, they won't want to get out.

MR. NICHOLS: Getting ready for progress up there.

MAYOR BACON: I guess we're getting ready for something, anyway. But thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are they going to rent some of the beds out?

MAYOR BACON: Probably. I know that at this time that's occurring where we're shipping prisoners out.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I read something in one of the North Texas papers that they're going to rent some of the beds out. It's a pretty booming little county.

MAYOR BACON: Things are really popping. It's getting a lot of us pretty nervous about what we are going to do with all that traffic, because at this point it's pretty gnarly, if you know what I mean. It's only for a short period of time, but we're at four-way stop signs under the intersection of these highways. The roads are kind of torn up because there's a moisture problem under 175 at the overpass -- you just fixed it last week and it will last a short time and we'll be back to it. This project really solves so many problems.

MR. JOHNSON: Have you been here for quite a bit of the meeting?

MAYOR BACON: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: What do you think of toll roads?

MAYOR BACON: You know what, I'm glad you said that. I was saying we'd do that.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Kaufman County can have RMA. The surplus cash flow that you raise after maintenance and amortization of your bonds, you can spend on transportation projects, including bike lanes, whatever. Tommy, I said that for your benefit.

MAYOR BACON: Is there someone in particular that I should talk to while I'm here today?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, hopefully we can put you in touch with the right people to discuss RMAs. I mean, it needs to be a county project but it could be very beneficial to the community.

MAYOR BACON: I understand. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: The last speaker that I have signed up to speak is Tommy Eden.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Williamson. Thank you for helping us to get funding for Safe Routes to School. I've noticed that both houses of the legislature have passed a bill that will provide more funding for these safety projects.

MR. JOHNSON: I hope you and the Bicycle Advisory Committee will encourage people to sign up for the license plates because I am certainly -- I hate to transfer from one beneficiary to another, but I am going to be one of the first in line to get a new license plate.

MR. EDEN: I am concerned about the possible loss of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the Austin area. Part or all of the Capital area will soon be designated in non-attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard. This summer you're going to be considering -- well, let me start off by saying CAMPO will soon be reconsidering its current policy of setting aside 15 percent of metropolitan mobility STP 4(c) funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects, and this is a misguided effort to redistribute these funds into other air quality projects.

This summer you're going to be considering a proposal for CAMPO to contribute metropolitan mobility funds towards the construction of major highways in Travis County which will increase the emission levels in Travis County. Particularly, there are proposals to construct freeways on US 290 West and on US 183, and as far as I can tell, it looks like the proposal is still to build a freeway on US 290 West without sidewalks.

I do not support constructing a freeway on US 290 West without sidewalks on the access roads. The Austin District of TxDOT has continued to build more and more roadways without even considering bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Building roadways without even considering bicycle or pedestrian facilities is a violation of the Federal Transportation Equity Act, TEA-21, as well as a violation of state policies set forth in the Texas Administrative Code.

The Austin area is scrambling to find funding for air quality projects, so much so that the CAMPO staff has suggested raiding the bicycle and pedestrian funding in a misguided effort to reach ozone attainment. Obviously, taking money away from projects for modes that do not pollute is not going to help to improve air quality; it's only going to make it worse.

Very soon TxDOT will have an opportunity to appoint a new district engineer for the Austin District. The Austin area has a high number of bicyclists and pedestrians on our highways and there's a great potential in the Capital area to improve accessibility and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The local jurisdictions have several projects which have been funded but I'm told TxDOT has obstructed progress on some of our bicycle and pedestrian improvements. I'll have more to say about that later this summer or perhaps this fall when I have more specific information from CAMPO about them.

The main point I want to make today is that TxDOT will have a choice. TxDOT can appoint someone who will continue to build roadway projects only for motor vehicles, or TxDOT can find someone who is willing to work with advocates for bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and safety. Thank you for your time.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Robert or Ric, any questions? One observation on one of the words you used, the word "obstructed" -- please make sure that your facts or at least your beliefs are that TxDOT did obstruct as opposed to something else.

MR. EDEN: And I'll have more information the next time I speak.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, develop the information as you can and we'll hear from you later in the summer, I presume.

MR. EDEN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any other questions, comments or business to come before the commission?

MR. BEHRENS: We have none, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: If there is none, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: 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. For the record, it is 2:07 p.m. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you one and all.

(Whereupon, at 2:07 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)

MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: June 26, 2003

I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 1944, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Sunny Peer before the Texas Department of Transportation.

                          07/01/03
(Transcriber) (Date)

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