Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, June 28, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

STAFF:

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

PROCEEDINGS

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:05 a.m., and I would like to call this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order.

For the record, public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 4:10 p.m. on June 20, 2001.

Before we get started, I'd like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have any comments that they would like to make at this time. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I would just like to welcome all of you here. Quite obviously, a lot of you have come a long ways, taken a lot of time out of your day in the interest of your community. We appreciate the effort that you make, and we'll listen very intently to your presentations. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: Two observations that I wanted to offer. One is in late May or early June, as most of you -- probably all of you well know, the Houston/Harris County area were hit with considerable rain. Tropical Storm Allison was -- reeked havoc over the area. And I hope Gary Trietsch is in the audience. I know he's going to be here for the first presentation.

But the TxDOT staff and the Houston District and all the employees did yeomen's work in dealing with the effects of more water than I think most of them have seen in their lifetime and ever care to see again. And I just wanted to congratulate them for a job extremely well done in extremely difficult circumstances.

Secondly, I think it's in the public domain now that the executive director, our friend, colleague, Wes Heald, has announced that he is retiring at the end of this fiscal year. I think, without question, his service to this department and this state have been exemplary, and we're going to figure out appropriate ways to say thank you.

But, Wes, wanted you to know, first opportunity in a public forum like this, how appreciative I think the commission is and this entire state is for your service to TxDOT over the years that you've served as executive director.

We have a very full agenda this morning. We have three delegations. After each delegation's appearance, we'll have a short recess in order to allow people to enter and exit the meeting hall.

CITY OF BAYTOWN

(Mayor Pete Alfaro, Rep. Joe Crabb.)

MR. JOHNSON: The first delegation comes from the good city of Baytown, and I would like to call on the mayor of Baytown, Mayor Pete Alfaro, to begin the presentation. Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR ALFARO: Thank you very much, and good morning, Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Nichols and Williamson. On behalf of the City of Baytown, the Baytown Chamber of Commerce, and the citizens of Baytown/East Harris County area, we want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the area transportation needs.

We'd also like to thank you and your predecessors for the foresight and vision which has resulted in the completion of other transportation projects, including the Fred Hartman Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel and the completion of the most critical portion of Highway 146, or the Old Loop 201.

These two transportation projects have significantly changed the face of our community. In addition, we appreciate your support of the current construction phase of Spur 330 Project, which started in May of 1998 and is scheduled for completion later this fall.

I would also like to go ahead and express our -- my appreciation, the City of Baytown appreciation for the support of Mr. Gary Trietsch, the Houston District engineer, and his staff in helping preparing for this presentation.

Before discussing our request for funding to complete Spur 330 Project, I would like to acknowledge the presence today of approximately 40 business and other community leaders from the Baytown/East Harris County area that are in attendance today to show the community's consensus for the request to be made. I would like them at this time to please stand.

Thank you very much.

This -- most of these leaders left with me at five o'clock this morning from Baytown, Texas, and we're here for this -- about 20 minutes, and then we return to Baytown. Great dedication, I think you will agree with me.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence later of Harris County Judge Robert Eckels that will be here. Representative Joe Crabb is here, and Alan Clark, HGAC transportation planning manager was supposed to be here. Representative Crabb and Judge Eckels, as I said, will be addressing you, the commission.

Today I plan to cover the following topics: the purpose of the presentation, the overview of the community, the Spur 330 Project, and the project summary.

Under the purpose of the presentation, let me acknowledge up front that this is my third time before this commission concerning this project. In November of '92, I came here asking you, on behalf of the City of Baytown and the Chamber of Commerce, to complete Loop 201 and the Decker Spur 3 project to be consistent with the opening of Fred Hartman Bridge, which at that time was scheduled in '94. As you know, Fred Hartman Bridge was opened in September of '95. There's a lot of work to be done in Loop 201.

In '96, November of '96, we came here, I addressed you to work with you to try to phase -- have a phase approach in completing Decker Project. You have helped us. You have started that work, as I indicated.

Today, the purpose of this presentation is to request that the Texas Transportation Commission expedite the funding and construction of the main lanes of Spur 330 Project from Fairway Drive to Interstate 10.

I wanted to point out here on my -- is it on now? -- I want to make sure that we're together. You've got it -- you should have that map in your notebook, but I just want to show you that here's where we started out, and here's Fairway Drive where we stop and where the funds right now will end. And we still need the rest of this to continue.

Without the completion of this last phase of main lanes and three bridges over major intersections, undue safety hazards on the citizens and motoring public will continue to increase.

Baytown's traffic flow is being impacted by the opening of the Fred Hartman Bridge, completion of State Highway 146, and the development of the Bayland Marina, the expansion of the Port of Houston Authority Terminal and the expanding residential development. The completion of the two-lane frontage roads on Spur 330 by this fall are just not enough to provide a safe and efficient traffic flow through the corridor.

As we go into the community overview, I want to recognize that Chairman Johnson knows where Baytown is, but just a quick review for the other two commissioners that may not know. The city of Baytown is situated on the north side of Galveston Bay and on the east side of San Jacinto River, Houston Ship Channel. Houston lies about 20 miles west of the community, and Galveston Island is located within 45-minute drive to the south.

The city's primarily located in eastern Harris County, with a small portion of the city in western Chambers County. There are approximately 70,000 residents in Baytown that occupy an area of over 34 square miles. This land area does not include several major industrial districts such as Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Phillips, Bayer, and the Cedar Crossing, which are located adjacent to the city.

Interstate 10 traverses the northern edge of the community, linking it with downtown Houston and other major urban areas east and west. Access to the South Houston and Galveston, Texas, city areas is provided via State Highway 146 which runs from southwest corner to the northeast corner of the community and crosses the Houston Ship Channel via the Fred Hartman Bridge.

Baytown serves as a critical access corridor during tropical and hurricane events. The Fred Hartman Bridge serves as a hurricane evacuation route for areas south of the Houston Ship Channel from as far as Galveston. Some of the areas that are included is Pasadena, Texas City, Kemah, Seabrook, Clear Lake, La Porte, and Galveston.

Also, the thing that we wanted just again to remind you that the evacuees move quickly northward and eastward and bypass the Houston metropolitan area and save about 30 to 40 miles.

Baytown's economy is dominated by the petrochemical industry. Over 75 percent of the area major employers are directly associated with the petrochemical industry. A significant amount of traffic using Spur 330 corridor is large trucks carrying hazardous materials to and from the petrochemical industry and trucks carrying containers to the Barber's Cut terminal of the Port of Houston Authority.

The completion of the main lanes of Spur 330 Project will improve the safety and efficient passage for these large vehicles, as well as passenger vehicles through this highly developed area.

Spur 330 or -- now let me talk about the project. Spur 330/Decker Drive, as it also is referred, is one of the primary entrances into Baytown. It begins at the interchange of Interstate 10 and extends approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection of 146. The current construction, as I mentioned to you -- try again -- the project started from Interstate 10 and goes all the way to 146. The existing construction project, as I mentioned, will go here and then into Fairway, the main lanes. The frontage roads will be completed all the way to Interstate 10.

And what is left, then, is beyond Fairway we have a major intersection, as you can tell, coming here. There's Fairway. Then, of course, we have the Baker Road and we have then the railroad tracks, and then we have Bayway Drive before we hit Interstate 10. There's a very quick overview of the project there.

The requested funding will involve the construction of the remaining 2.8-mile, six-lane freeway from Fairway Drive to Interstate 10. A total of three bridges will be needed to be constructed at the grade separations at the intersections with the major arteries: number one at Baker Road, number two the railroad crossing at Wade Road, and number three the Bayway Drive.

TxDOT-estimated cost to complete the six main lanes of the Spur 330 Project is $25.8 million. Now, based on Chairman Johnson and District Engineer Gary Trietsch's suggestions, local matching funds should be available to ensure that the work continues on this project. The city council of Baytown has approved the participation with TxDOT and is considering $2.5 million. HGAC has approved $3 million to supplement the city's portion.

Just wanted to just quickly review. Of the five signal light intersections that we have, the three major ones will still be there. The 1993-to-'95 data said we had an average of about 140 accidents. The 1999 to 2000, that average has gone up to 160. 70 percent of these accidents are major. The highest number of these accidents occur at the intersection of Baker Road and Bayway Drive, which are the two intersections that we do not have currently funded.

The Baytown community requests that action be taken to expedite the funding for the completion of the Spur 330 Project. The five primary reasons for this request are: number one, the readiness for construction. The project plans for the project are essentially complete. There will be no right of way and utility adjustment costs. Nothing is holding up this project except funding.

The increase in traffic, especially hazardous material transport traffic, across the Fred Hartman Bridge. As you might -- some of you may remember, prior to the Fred Hartman Bridge, we had a tunnel there. That tunnel was a barrier to large trucks. Now, with the Fred Hartman Bridge, we do have these trucks that come over.

In 1996, the projected traffic flow across Fred Hartman Bridge for 2001 was estimated at 45,000 vehicles daily. The latest traffic count taken in April 2001 indicates that the traffic count has increased to 65- to 75,000 vehicles daily, which includes about 20 percent of the truck traffic.

On Decker Drive, there are 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day now. Back in '95, per TxDOT's estimate, they thought that by the year 2005 we would have about 39,000 vehicles, and we are essentially there already now.

Then it follows, then, number three, that as a result of the increased automobile and truck traffic, there is an increased risk of serious accidents and public safety problem associated with the partially completed existing roadways and bridges. As I mentioned before, this thoroughfare is an integral part of a hurricane evacuation route.

Number five, the project cost may be reduced for the final phase by avoiding dismantling of on-site equipment and incurring remobilization costs at a later date. I know you have limited funds and you have many requests, but I -- as soon as the funds are available, Mr. Gary Trietsch, Houston District engineer of TxDOT, is ready to complete the project.

The conclusion: The completion of Spur 330 Project will provide a safe traffic corridor and reliable hurricane evacuation route through Baytown. It will enhance the area economic development potential, which will improve the socioeconomic environment. Completion of this project will improve the health and safety and welfare of the motorists and residents of the area.

As I mentioned to you before, this is my third time before this commission concerning this project. In 1959, the Baytown City Council approved an agreement with TxDOT to construct Loop 201 and Spur 330. A lot has been accomplished. I am confident that you will do whatever you can to help us.

Also, I believe that you share my desire that after 40-plus years, we will not need to discuss this project again. We thank you for listening to us, and we are ready to provide local funds, about $5.5 million, and any additional information you need.

Would you like to have the questions now, or would you like to have the next speaker talk? Whatever the pleasure of the commission.

MR. JOHNSON: Why don't we have the next speaker, who I assume is Rep. Crabb. Is that --

MAYOR ALFARO: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: Great. Welcome.

REP. CRABB: Thank you for having me. Y'all start at a civilized hour. You're not on a break like we are over at the House where we start so late in the afternoon and stuff. That's good.

I have about a 30-minute presentation, but I'm going to cut it real short and just tell you this. The city of Baytown deserves for you to complete this project, and I hope you will. Thank you.

MAYOR ALFARO: Our next speaker, Harris County Judge Eckels, who was flying in to -- and he was -- he thought that he would make it right as we were completing our presentation, but obviously he hasn't shown up yet, so I don't want to take any more of your time, Chairman.

Do you have any questions or -- we'll be glad to try to address them for you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: No. I didn't have any. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Mayor, there are no questions. It's obviously a very critical project to your community and that area, and it's a worthwhile one. As you know, we do not make decisions during these meetings, but it'll be duly considered, and we appreciate your coming and also the many citizens of Baytown and surrounding areas that have joined you here this morning. Thank you very much.

MAYOR ALFARO: Well, thank you. And on behalf of the citizens of Baytown, we appreciate any support you can give us. And, Commissioner Johnson, we especially appreciate you being up there in Baytown to actually see the project itself. You know exactly what we're talking about. Thank you again very much.

MR. JOHNSON: We will take a five-minute recess to allow some people to leave and some people to find seats.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF COPPERAS COVE

(Fred Harris, Mayor Rodney Nauert, Maj. Gen. George Higgins, Rep. Sid Miller, Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Ralph Gauer for Sen. Troy Fraser)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene this meeting in the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation comes to us from Copperas Cove, and I believe that Fred Harris -- is that correct? -- a member of the Copperas Cove City Council, will get us started.

Welcome to you and all your neighbors.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, commissioners. Good morning. Thank you for allowing us this time for the Copperas Cove and the Central Texas region to present our case for your approval for our reliever route.

This is a regional project that not only benefits Copperas Cove but the entire Central Texas region. And to show you our regional support, I would like to introduce several members of the audience today.

And since my back is to them, would you please stand when I call your name.

Ralph Gauer for Sen. Troy Fraser; Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp; Rep. Sid Miller; Coryell County Judge John Hull; Commissioners Cliff Price and Jack Wall; Deputy Command of 3rd Corps in Fort Hood, Maj. Gen. George Higgins; Mayor Fancher, Kempner; Mayor Jack Calvert, Lampasas; Mayor Jouett from Killeen; former mayor of Killeen Fred Latham; and Mayor Rodney Nauert; and mayor pro tem of Copperas Cove, Bradi Diaz; and mayor of Harker Heights, Mary Gauer.

Mr. Ralph Gauer, representing Sen. Troy Fraser, will now make comments to you, sir.

MR. GAUER: Mr. Chairman, good morning, sir, commissioners. On behalf of Sen. Fraser and the residents of Senate District 24, thank you for your leadership, and for the many things you have done and are doing for the great state of Texas.

Today you're being asked to fund the 190 reliever route, which would ease the flow of traffic to, from, in, out, and around the city of Copperas Cove. This project has been developed in close coordination with TxDOT staff and, as you've just seen, has earned the support of municipalities, county courthouses, civic organizations, and businesses throughout the region.

We believe the Copperas Cove reliever route will: help reduce the immediate crisis of local traffic flow; link Central Texas along 190 from I-35 on the east through Nolanville, Harker Heights, Killeen, Copperas Cove, Lampasas from I-35 to Highways 281 and 183 on the west, and will directly support the intermodal opportunities associated with the opening of the Robert Gray Joint-Use Commercial Airport in Killeen in the spring of 2004.

In a nutshell, we believe the project is good for the Cove, it's good for Central Texas, and in a real sense it's just great for the great state of Texas. The senator has asked that I convey his sincere appreciation to each of you for all that you do, and respectfully request that the commission fully support this agenda item. Thank you, gentlemen.

And I will be followed by Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp.

REP. HUPP: Good morning. Somebody just asked me if my remarks were going to be as long as Rep. Crabb's. I missed that, but I understand his took, what, 30 seconds? See if we can beat it.

I want to thank you for allowing me a few minutes to speak to you this morning on this important proposal. I believe that my friends from Copperas Cove are going to give you an excellent presentation, and I don't want to take up a lot of your time, so I will be pretty brief.

What I will tell you is that I'm obviously very familiar with the traffic problems in that area. I live in Lampasas County, which neighbors it, and I had a business in Copperas Cove, which is in Coryell County, for about 15 years. So I have seen -- while as a resident in that area, I have seen our little farming and military community just grow by leaps and bounds, which is great, obviously, but just as we've seen here in Austin, the transportation facilities or roads just simply haven't kept up with it.

And I know that our community will never be able to reach its full potential until it has adequate roadways. I will tell you that this is a major concern of both Rep. Miller, Sen. Troy Fraser, myself, and all of the constituents that you see here. And I believe that it's pretty amazing to see this many people from the surrounding areas come in to support what's a relatively small project. It's that important to the surrounding communities as well.

As it was said before or will be said again in the presentation which you're about to hear, this region has been one of the fastest-growing areas in the state. We need this reliever route desperately. And without it, I fear that our community will lose valuable economic opportunities, and I think it will have a negative effect on the readiness and efficiency of Fort Hood, which I believe will be spoken to as well.

In closing, I want to thank the commission for their time and commitment to the transportation needs of our state. I also want to thank everyone from Copperas Cove for all of their hard work on this issue. This is an important proposal that has the support of everyone that you see here and everyone that is represented by the folks that you see here in Bell, Burnet, Lampasas counties, as well as Coryell.

And I hope that you will agree with us that this reliever route is needed for the betterment of the community, as well as the state. And again, I thank you all very much for your time.

REP. MILLER: Good morning. It's good to be with you this morning. We appreciate the time you are allowing us to give our presentation this morning. I'm the elected state representative, Sid Miller, from -- I represent Coryell County. And I'm here to represent my support and the community support for US 190 reliever route.

You know, we've been -- the community's been looking forward to this project for some 20-odd years, and the community believes it's time to move forward with it. And they're committed to it, and I think you'll see in the testimony that's going to be presented here this morning just how committed this community is to moving this project forward.

Even though it's a reliever route around Copperas Cove, and Copperas Cove is only a city of approximately 24- or 25,000, it is a regional project. It has far more reaching aspects to it to the community than just that city. With Fort Hood and the surrounding counties, that's an east-west corridor across the state through there. So we have a lot of congestion going right through the heart of Copperas Cove, which really causes some safety concerns that we're all aware of, and we hope that the reliever route certainly would eliminate some of those.

Also, Suzanna mentioned that it would be an asset to Fort Hood, should we need to have rapid deployment. And the chosen route now is to go down 195. But should we deploy to the west, this would certainly enhance the deployment capabilities of our military personnel, should they go to the west or decide on an alternate route down 281 to go to the coast that way.

There is another aspect that increased transportation and -- increased traffic, rather, is going to be enhanced with -- when we get in full swing with the joint-use airport there, the civilian-military Robert Gray Airfield. And once it gets in full swing, I think we'll see a lot of people coming to that airport facility. So we're going to need even more relief from that I 90 pass-through at Copperas Cove.

What -- my office is requesting that we move up in priority on this project. We believe the time is now, especially with the airport and the needs of Fort Hood and the local community. And also, we are asking you to go ahead and commit the funding for this project.

This community -- my office has not received one correspondence in opposition to this, and I think that's very unique. Most of the time, when you're looping a city, you'll have a lot of opposition from -- but apparently the whole community is behind this project, from merchants to citizens to the city staff to the military personnel. And I think you need to take that into consideration.

So much is this community behind this project that they're willing to put up some funds to help move it forward at a more rapid pace. I believe if you'll look -- and you probably have a packet -- that you're getting a commitment of about $6-1/2 million from that community towards this project that they're willing to put in to it from the city and from the counties and from the military base.

Now, you know, we're -- our citizens are going to get an income tax refund from the Government of about $300. But what that translates to is -- the city of 24,000, that means that's about everybody's tax rebate going towards this -- or income tax refund going towards this project. So I think that's significant, if you want to put it in those terms. So you have a small amount of people contributing a lot of money to the project.

So we're just here to ask your favorable consideration to move us up in priority. We're ready. The community's ready for this project, and we'd like for you to commit the funding. Thank you.

MAYOR NAUERT: Good morning. I'm Rodney Nauert, Mayor of Copperas Cove. I want to thank the commission this morning for taking time to meet with our delegation.

The people of Copperas Cove know that the commission is faced with enormous challenges in meeting the state's demand for highway infrastructure. But as you have heard today, the traffic congestion we have had in the past and present in Copperas Cove is going from delays and driver frustration to what I believe to be true citizen safety in Copperas Cove.

Copperas Cove and the entire Killeen-Temple MSA is experiencing phenomenal growth. And with the new Killeen regional airport coming on line, this growth will only come faster, and traffic congestion will only grow, and traffic flow will only deteriorate more.

Copperas Cove 190 reliever route is not only the city issue; it's a regional one. We have terrific support from all our surrounding cities, our city mayors, our city officials. We're real proud of that commitment from those surrounding cities.

When the reliever route is completed, you will be able to drive from 281 in Lampasas, to our west, to I-35 Temple-Belton, to our east, and never have to stop at a single stoplight. And with that, commerce on the 190 corridor will grow even faster.

Now, from the citizens of Copperas Cove and the city council of Copperas Cove, I want to thank y'all for all your consideration and help in this project. Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: Commissioners, before I introduce the video, I'd like everybody who's here to represent the reliever route from Copperas Cove and the surrounding communities to stand, please.

MR. JOHNSON: It's the whole town.

(General laughter.)

MR. HARRIS: We tried.

MR. JOHNSON: Safety in numbers. You know what I mean?

MR. HARRIS: Thank y'all.

We have a video for you to see. And they say if a picture's worth a thousand words, this video ought to be worth 5,000. So we like it, and we hope you do.

(Whereupon, a videotape was run.)

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, commissioners.

Maj. Gen. George Higgins, the deputy commander of Fort Hood and 3rd Corps will make remarks right now.

MAJ. GEN. HIGGINS: Good morning, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning, and I bring you greetings from the 42,000 soldiers and the over-100,000 dependents and retirees who live in the Fort Hood area.

Some -- as you saw from the video, some 11,000 of those soldiers and their dependents and retirees live in Copperas Cove, our neighbor to the west. Those 11,000 citizens commute daily between Copperas Cove and Fort Hood, in some cases, as many as three times a day, because as you know, we take PT in the morning about 6:30, and they've got to drive back and get cleaned up. So they make enormous use of Highway 190.

From the standpoint of the fact that about one-third of the population of Copperas Cove are soldiers and families and retirees of military dependents, the route between Fort Hood and Copperas Cove is enormously important. They use it an awful lot. It's a quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and their families. It would do an awful lot if the reliever route were put in place there.

I think the second point I'd leave you with is that a number of convoys move east and west from Fort Hood and to Fort Hood to Highway 281 and down to Camp Bullis, out to Bryan and Brownwood. We train out west. And the reliever route would assist greatly in reducing congestion through the city of Copperas Cove. In fact, as you know, oversized military vehicles are a real challenge. So the reliever route to the south would help us a lot in that regard.

And I think the final point I'd leave you with this morning is the fact, first, that Fort Hood is locally called The Great Place. Now it's called The Great Place for any number of reasons: 342 square miles of training area, the largest military installation in the western world, the Army's premier power projection platform for strategic deployment.

But I think the most important reason it's called The Great Place and regarded as such by the folks that live at Fort Hood and the surrounding area is that we are -- we've got wonderfully good neighbors all around us. And our good neighbors in Copperas Cove do many, many things for our soldiers and their families.

When our soldiers deploy worldwide, the citizens of Copperas Cove close ranks on our families and take care of them. We respond by programs like Military School Coalition, Adopt-a-School Program.

And finally, you know, talking about it's one thing, but there's this saying in the Army, "Hoo-ah." Well, I happen to believe in "Do-ah." And Fort Hood has transferred 140 acres to help facilitate the right of way and bypass for the reliever route. We think it's that important. And we're awfully glad to be really great neighbors.

And we would appreciate enormously your positive consideration for moving this up on the priority. It would mean an awful lot to all of us in the region. Many, many thanks, gentlemen.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: I was going to say something myself, but they told me I couldn't talk because we don't have enough time. So I'll just say, Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Thank you for this time. Thank you for listening.

Additionally, we in Central Texas region thank you for your graciousness that you have already provided $4.4 million into this project for engineering and internal expenses. We really appreciate your generosity. And I extend an invitation to all of you to visit our fair city. You will be getting an official invitation soon.

Again, thank you, and God bless you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't have any questions, just comment. Appreciate the presentation. Obviously a lot of people came in this morning. The -- and it was nice at the reception last night, visiting with some of y'all on a one-on-one basis. I think that was real helpful.

I noticed in your presentation you did touch on the airport, improvements in the terminal and stuff. And I think there may be an underestimate of what the impact of that may be for commercial air traffic in that area, not only freight but passenger traffic. And you've got a half-million people in that end that are going to be pooling and working in and out of that airport. So I think that's also a part.

But just thank you for your presentation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I didn't have a chance to visit with Rep. Crabb, because I didn't think of it in time. One of things I've been doing, Representative -- talking to Rep. Miller and to Mr. Fraser's staff person, as each delegation's come through, I've taken a moment to point out that there are a lot of important things that state government does. We educate kids -- or we finance educating kids. We finance caring for the sick, in housing the elderly. We finance higher education for adults, and we build highways.

There's nothing more important or less important about building highways, but I have an observation for you as a former member. Of everything that state government does that you have to decide about spending your money on or allocating your taxpayers' money towards, this is the one department and the one function that you physically can look at the money and look at the product and know that the money and the product are matched up.

It's harder to look at ten-year-old child and say, Did the local school district do their job? It's harder to look at an elderly person who can't communicate and say, Are we really caring for that person? It's harder to know if my college-paid education 34 years ago was a good investment.

But it's not hard to look at the 90 cents out of every dollar that you give us to spend, to see where it goes. It goes to this and to Baytown, and it'll go to Ports to Plains, and it'll go to, you know, one of a thousand projects.

And my point is to ask you ahead of time -- not two years from now, but now -- to remember, we're going to -- we will be asking you for some significant things in 2003. And when we come to ask you and if it requires a hard decision on your part, a decision that I've had to make in my past, and I know how hard it is, I want you to stop, when that time comes, and think, you know, there isn't any secret about building highways. There is no magic about the 190 reliever and Spur 330 and Ports to Plains and paralleling 35 and paralleling 10 and building the state's infrastructure.

There's no secret about it. There's no magic. There's no partisan divide. We either build for now and the future or we don't. And that requires us exercising good wisdom, the staff exercising good judgment. But none of that's possible without the elected body exercising partnership. And this is the way it is.

It's a very simplistic -- it's the simplest part of state government. I don't know any other way to put it. Give me a dollar, and I'll spend at least 90 cents putting some asphalt somewhere or concrete.

MR. JOHNSON: I would like to probably echo the remarks of both my colleagues, one, for your hospitality last night. We appreciate it greatly. It's a special treat to get to know the people who are affected by the decisions we make.

As Ric has referred to, infrastructure is so vitally important to the economic vitality and the quality of life of this wonderful state, and it's a complex, diverse issue. The needs and challenges are huge, and they are different.

It's wonderful to see Rep. Hupp and Miller. Maj. Gen. Higgins, I cannot express to you what a great resource and neighbor and friend Fort Hood is not only for Central Texas but for this wonderful state. And for all the friends and neighbors from Copperas Cove and the surrounding areas, it's great to have you here.

As I mentioned before, we do not make decisions at these meetings, but we appreciate the message that you have brought to us, and it will be placed in the consideration file.

I see Richard Skopik here, the very capable Waco district engineer. And he does an incredible job for all of the Waco District. And we'll consult with him and others, and hopefully at some point in time, if all the lines cross at the same time, we'll be able to do projects like this, and this one in particular.

We will take a brief recess of five minutes to allow our good friends from Copperas Cove to exit and our next delegation to get seated.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF WACO

(Mayor Linda Ethridge, Cmmr. Lester Gibson, Scott Felton.)

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission. Our next delegation has made the trip down Interstate 35 from Waco, and at certain times of the day that is no small feat.

I would like to call upon the good mayor of Waco, Mayor Linda Ethridge, who I believe is heading the delegation. Welcome. We're glad that you're here, and hopefully nobody's out stuck on I-35 trying to get here.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: No. I think everyone -- well, almost everyone got here safely. We have someone, I think, lost in Austin, but we will find them before we return.

Good morning. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to talk with you about this very needed project in our community. And thank you for the investment in planning money that you have already put into it.

We would like to handle our presentation in the following way. We have a short video that we would like to show you, and then Mr. Scott Felton will speak. He is representing business interests on this issue. And then County Commissioner Lester Gibson will speak, and then I would like to make some closing remarks.

But for now, I would like to direct your attention to the video.

(Whereupon, a videotape was run.)

MR. FELTON: Chairman John Johnson, members of the commission, good morning. I'm Scott Felton, president of Wells Fargo Bank in Waco and currently serving as treasurer of Downtown Waco, Incorporated, board of directors, a nonprofit economic development corporation committed to the rejuvenation of the Central Business District and responsible for the management of the Public Improvement District in Waco.

Additionally, Downtown Waco, Incorporated, is the City of Waco's development contractor for the Brazos River Corridor, a 12.5-mile stretch of the Brazos River running through the heart of the Central Business District.

As a representative of a major business in downtown Waco, as well as officer of an organization committed to the economic development within our city, we are supportive of Loop 574, which will provide a direct connection to downtown Waco and Interstate 35 from State Highway 6. The connection offers a linkage from the Business District to Waco's regional airport, eliminating current access challenges to downtown Waco from Highway 6.

We believe the increased maintenance and beautification of Martin Luther King Drive will further assure the development of the east side of the river and the heart of the Public Improvement District.

The inclusion of five exiting roads into Business State Highway 6 will enhance opportunities for the driving public to navigate through Waco's metropolitan area, while introducing new development opportunities throughout the corridor.

We urge your support for this commitment and resources which will enhance public access through the center of Waco's Business District to the regional airport.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Downtown Waco, Incorporated, and the interests of downtown businesses, which fully recognize and appreciate the potential of positive impact that Loop 574 will have. Thank you very much.

MR. GIBSON: Chairman Johnson and the other commissioners, good morning. I want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present to you a proposal that has been top priority in McLennan County for a number of years.

I am county commissioner of Precinct 2 in which the scope of the project is within my county commissioner precinct. Also I was a former Waco city councilman for two years in 1989 to 1990. I've been a county commissioner for two years, so I understand that length of the project in regards to its priority. I supported it when I was a city councilman, and I support it also as county commissioner of Precinct 2.

Our Commissioner's Court is also supportive of the project Loop 574. We have made prior commitments, financial commitments, of the county to improve State Highway 6, along with the great help that we get from TxDOT in that particular area.

Recently we completed phase one of a project of Highway 6, widened it to a four-lane, and that was from Falls County to State Highway 1860, and we're in the second phase of doing -- of completing the project from 1860 to 164 on State Highway 6. The county did commit $190,000 in the first project for right of way, and we also committed $63,000 in the second project.

Long before my time, someone -- our leaders had the vision to hook from Highway 164 into the city limits of Waco, and this particular project, if approved, would basically open up a lot of opportunities within the city of Waco, McLennan County, and specifically within my particular precinct district.

We know that there are approximately 19,000 to 20,000 vehicular traffic on State Highway 6 that comes in to the city of Waco on a daily basis. With the proposed 574, it would basically give the -- our travelers the opportunity to view the beauty of Waco and McLennan County.

Also, in my district, we have what we call the East Waco Community, which is an historically disadvantaged community, and this particular project will open up a wide range of opportunities in regards to economic development because of the traveling. It would put it more closer to Waco in regards to accessibility to I-35, and this would open up a realm of opportunities.

I stand before you today to support it, and I know that our court supports this particular project, and I encourage you to approve it. Thank you.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: You've already heard many of the good reasons why we want this project: the improved accessibility to our downtown area. And I would add to that that it also would be a very good link to the Cameron Park Zoo, the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame, the Texas Sports Hall of Fame, the Dr. Pepper Museum, Baylor's Governor Bill and Vera Daniel Historic Village, the emerging mammoth site, and Lake Waco.

So we -- this would be a wonderful pathway to key destinations in our community. So improved accessibility is key for us. Eliminating some of the confusion -- if you recall that maze that you saw in the video, that's a place where bewildered travelers go and decide, I can't get there from here. And it would really add a lot of efficiency and convenience to the driving public.

Because we think this is a very important project, I want to just quickly summarize what the City of Waco is willing to do and what we would like to contribute to this project in order to enhance its possibilities. One is the swap of ownership of roadways, which was alluded to in the video, which would have the net effect would be that you would have five miles less of roadway to be responsible for and maintain. And we would be pleased to undertake that swap and those responsibilities.

The City of Waco, in this proposal, will be responsible for 100 percent of the right of way acquisition and utility relocation. So we have the roadway swap, right of way acquisition, utility relocation. And in addition to that, we are planning to contribute $500,000 to this project.

It is also our understanding that the Waco District would contribute $500,000 from the district discretionary fund. So we believe that this is a good project, not only from sound transportation planning, but it is also a very good project in terms of good leveraging of public dollars by combining these three different revenue streams.

The other thing that I would promise you from the city of Waco is that we would say nice things about you everywhere we go.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: This project is very desired by our community. There's been discussion about it, really, for the last 15 years or so. I know of no opposition to this project over that long period of discussion. And in fact, there is very strong support.

You've already heard from County Commissioner Gibson and Mr. Felton representing business interests. You also, I believe, have letters of support from at least presently State Sen. David Sibley and support from Rep. Kip Averitt, and Rep. Jim Dunnam is also supporting this project.

And today we do have a representative with us from David Ogden's office. If you would stand up and say your name.

MS. BRITTON: My name is Tiffany Britton, and I'm the chief of staff for Sen. Ogden who is very supportive of the project.

MAYOR ETHRIDGE: Thank you. We also have several folks with us representing chambers of commerce, Downtown Waco Development, which is also the Public Improvement District in our community. And the Brazos River Corridor, where this roadway would go, is one of the number-one -- the development and redevelopment of that corridor is a number-one priority of our community and our city council.

Also with us today is one of my colleagues on the council, Toni Herbert, if you would stand. And I would like to ask all of the people who came down with us, if you would please rise and look impressive.

Thank you.

I also want to single out for special recognition Dick Fletcher, who is here representing the City of Robinson. And he is the current chair of our MPO, and they are in very strong support of this project.

There are many reasons to do this project. I know that you all have -- always have more demand and more need than you have funds, but we respectfully request that you fund this project and allow it to go forward. And I would hope that you would do that for our community and meet this need.

I also want to tell you that we really do appreciate the very fine working relationship that we have with the district office, and we have found them to be very good partners on a number of issues. And we really do appreciate the leadership in that office and the way that your department interacts with us on any number of issues.

People who have been my predecessors in this job for many years back tell me it was not always so. And I don't care to probe that, but we do appreciate the good working relationships that exist. And I would be remiss not to mention that, and particularly want to thank Richard Skopik, who is here today, for his role in sustaining that good relationship.

Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, we would be happy to try to respond to them. Thank you very much.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. I can't tell you how wonderfully crafted and couched many of the things that you said were, not the least of which is the mention of the word "partnerships." I think so much of what we face in this state in infrastructure challenges must be dealt with through partnerships of local governmental entities and the Department of Transportation.

And Richard Skopik's presence and attitude is exemplified across all 25 of our districts, and we want to work with the locals in meeting the needs and challenges that they have.

I was also touched by the thought that -- how pleased my mother would be if she knew that if we approved something that somebody would think highly of us.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you once again for a marvelous presentation. We'll take a short recess so that you can get back up I-35 before rush hour starts and make it home in a timely fashion.

We'll recess and reconvene in five minutes. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. Let me remind everyone that if you plan to address the commission, we'll need you to sign up at the registration table. We have a staff in the lobby who will be able to assist you.

If it's an agenda item that you would like to comment on, that we would ask that you fill out a yellow card. And if it is not an agenda item, we'll take your comments during our open comment period at the end of the meeting. And for that, we would ask that you would fill out a blue card.

When your name is called, you will be allowed three minutes, and please remember to state your name for the record.

We will now proceed with our agenda, and we will proceed with the approval of the minutes of our commission meeting in May. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved.

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

The next agenda item is a resolution to send to the family of Larry Burney. And if I may, I would like to read that resolution:

"Whereas, Larry Burney was fatally injured while performing his duties as an employee of the Texas Department of Transportation, and whereas Mr. Burney had served the Austin District of the Texas Department of Transportation for nearly five years in a loyal and efficient manner, and whereas Mr. Burney had earned the respect and friendship of his fellow employees in the Llano maintenance section, and whereas it is the desire of the Texas Department of Transportation to honor his memory, now therefore be it resolved that the Texas Transportation Commission does hereby extend sincere sympathy to the relatives of Larry Burney and that this resolution be sent to his family. Signed this 28th day of June 2001."

I'll pass it to my fellow commissioners for execution and a motion to --

MR. NICHOLS: So move.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Second.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is a report on the Transportation Work Group. There's a little bit of a history -- if I didn't skip something. Pardon me.

A little bit of history on this agenda item. Late last year, I formed a work group consisting of 16 Texans, some elected officials, some transportation experts, to look at transportation as a whole in this great state and the many challenges that it faces and to compress a lot of these challenges into key goals, which are meaningful and measurable to the users of the system.

These 16 people, using resources from the Texas Transportation Institute and the Center for Transportation Research, in particular, Dennis Christiansen from TTI and Mike Walton from CTR have done a superb job. They met many times over the last four-plus months in discussing and organizing. And today, Carroll Robinson, who was one of the members of that commission -- he's a city councilman from Houston -- will present a draft of the report.

Please be reminded that this is a draft. We expect to receive comments and would actually welcome any comments that anyone might have, and probably at our next meeting, we'll have the draft in final form.

Carroll, thank you for your work on this effort. I also notice Mayor Windy Sitton from Lubbock, who is a member of the group. And I don't know if anybody else present was on that group, but my thanks and the thanks of everyone involved with this process to each of you for coming out with what I believe to be a very meaningful report, which will be extremely useful.

The purpose of this, one, is to listen to people's concerns, but also to tie this into the Texas Transportation Plan, which will be a 25-year plan for state transportation needs, which will be completed towards the end of this year.

Councilman Robinson, thank you so much for coming, and welcome.

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say good morning to you, Commissioner Nichols, Williamson, and to Executive Director Heald. I appreciate your opening comments.

Commissioner Nichols, I'm going to do something, because every time I see you someplace in the state you have a prop, so I brought a prop this morning.

And what I love the most, for all the folks in the audience, is the cover of our prop, which talks to Texas Transportation … Road, Modes and System … Connecting You to the World. And I just want to point out that Texas is a continent, and we'll let the rest of the world connect to us, and we'll have a couple of international bridges down in South Texas and the like.

Mr. Chairman, I think Mayor Sitton and I would agree with you; we would be highly disappointed if we do not receive a lot of critical commentary on this report and critical in the positive sense of things that may have been left out. We tried to synthesize down to five big ideas, five goals, and we would hope people would say, Those are five good goals, but there are additional goals that we ought to pursue, and we start and continue an ongoing dialog.

I not only want to thank Chairman Johnson, you, for having the courage to appoint what was a freewheeling group of individuals who came together to share our ideas and thoughts, and the TxDOT staff for letting us come in and be not only critical but constructive relative to TxDOT, but more importantly for the overall issue of transportation in this state.

I know the governor is on the road in that other area of the state that we kind of like every now and then, because I'm parochial from Houston, and we don't want them to have all the money. But he's up there that's doing something that's really positive for the state.

This past session, I think TxDOT really provided a lot of leadership on bringing people together to look at transportation on a statewide issue, and this task force is a continuation.

And Governor Perry, who deserves a lot of credit for putting this on the public policy agenda, will be signing the Mobility Bond Fund, which we'll have on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment, and a toll equity bill. And I think those are two important pieces of legislation, and they're going to move our state down the road for continued progress and good work.

As I've said, a lot of what we did couldn't have been done without the staff from TxDOT. And as you go through the report, not only for the members of the commission and the public, you'll see all 16 members of the work group listed, and you'll also see in each of the subareas, the five goal areas, the technical expertise, the individual from the TxDOT staff who helped us come up with what we see as the overarching benefit of this report, the five goals -- and I'll talk to each of those in a second -- and the partnership efforts, because if you take anything away from this report, it's synthesized down to this: TxDOT ought to be the facilitator, and we ought to be working in partnership, because even if you took all the money that the legislature gave to TxDOT, or if we had the ultimate budget that TxDOT needed, TxDOT in and of itself couldn't do transportation all alone in the state of Texas.

And it's going to require partnerships between the state, in terms of TxDOT, local elected officials, local governments, and the federal government working together in that partnership.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to read for the record the names of the members of the group, and it was chaired by yourself. We had Dennis Christiansen from Texas A&M; Dr. C. Michael Walton; Betty Armstrong, former county commissioner; Charlie Ball; Carlos Benavides; Tim Brown; Joe Graff; Joe Krier, from down in San Antonio with the chamber; Michael Morris; Katie Nees; Mary Owen; Carol Rawson; myself; Armadeo Saenz; and Mayor Sitton.

And I know, Mayor, you always had your able and trusted assistant, and you see I've been tagged, because Ports to Plains and the Texas Trunk System, which are going to be talked about here today, were two of the examples of the partnerships that we thought should be a road map, if you will, to the kind of things that could be done.

In the report, you'll see some of the things that TxDOT, as an agency, is doing across the state. You'll also see examples of what, in partnership with local government and counties, TxDOT has been able to do to move us forward in the area of transportation.

Chairman Johnson, when you gave us the charge, you said you wanted us to look at Texas transportation challenges in developing solutions to help the commission build a new vision for Texas with clear goals. At the meetings, I used to tell them, every time we started a conversation, that my mother had to understand what we were talking about, because if she couldn't, it wouldn't make a difference to what we were trying to do.

And I think my mother understands. I didn't send her the 50-page email, but I did call her up and just make sure she was going to be okay moving around the state, and said you guys are doing okay.

And our five goals were: reliable mobility, improved safety, a reasonable systems preservation, faster project delivery, and making sure the system as we developed it contributed to economic vitality.

And I think when you look through the report and look at the partnership efforts going on and that can be done, you'll see that this report is a great starting point.

The report, Mr. Chairman, as I said, in final summary of this -- it's a starting point and not an end. And that was never the intention of the report. The overriding theme of the report is partnership. TxDOT can't do it all, nor can it do it all alone, and that there's got to be follow-up and oversight.

And one of the most important things, I think, for my mama, is that if TxDOT in this state would come forward every year with some kind of annual state of transportation report, so the public and all the members of the legislature and transportation stakeholders can get a snapshot of where we are in time as we make progress toward the overall goal that we see as what the transportation system for our state ought to look like in the future.

I want to close by reading something to you, and it's a part of your letter, Mr. Chairman, out of the report:

"The working group members met almost monthly, conducted a detailed survey of metropolitan planning organization, county judges, and legislative officials, and deliberated a wide array of views. This report is the result of their efforts.

"I believe it serves two purposes. First, it is a future transportation blueprint for the governor, elected and public officials at all levels, business leaders, and drivers throughout our great state.

"Second, it is also a major component of a forthcoming Texas Transportation Plan that will build on the recommendations for Texas' future for transportation.

"The report contains the five goals which we've talked about. It talks about the visions. It talks about the need for action and partnership, and it talks about accountability, something that we all agree on. And it lays out what TxDOT and all of us can do together, and it makes this point clearly: that the financial resources have to be a part of this process, and it's going to take those at the state level in combination with that at the local level."

And I would offer this in closing for all of us members of the working group, and I think you will agree with me and all the members. We are so proud to have been a part of this effort. And we thank the commissioners and Chairman Johnson for having the courage to bring all 16 of us together and let us speak our mind freely and to put this report into place.

We started out as friends of transportation, and in the end -- I think I can say this for all 16 of us -- we have become much stronger supporters of this agency and the employees, and we are much more committed to doing all that it takes for us working together in partnership to build the kind of transportation system that will carry our state not only through the 21st century but into the centuries ahead, to make sure we do all we can for Texans and the people who live here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Mayor, and to all the members of the work group.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Councilman Robinson. Any questions or comments, Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Those were very kind and eloquent words. I appreciate that.

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: And I basically look forward to the presentation -- the report, but particularly want to thank all the individuals who volunteered the time to go work on this thing. I know they put a lot of heart and soul into it and their energies, and it's greatly appreciated, and they should be recognized for that. Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Carroll, all I can say is I hope the report is as good as your presentation was. But my heartfelt thanks to you and Mayor Sitton and to everyone who served on the committee, but also the numerous resources that assisted in the deliberations and in the final report itself, or actually the draft report.

We'll move along to the next item on the agenda, and the second report deals with the improvement plans for Interstate 35 through the Waco District.

As you are all aware, I-35 is one of the state's major NAFTA thoroughfares, and we've asked Waco District Engineer Richard Skopik to give us a report on what is planned along this very busy and major route through his district.

Richard, welcome, and thank you for being here.

MR. SKOPIK: Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and good morning to you, as well as commission members Nichols and Williamson. On behalf of the Waco District, we want to thank you for inviting us to provide you an update on perhaps what we feel is the largest ever transportation improvement project in the history of the Waco District, and that's being the expansion and reconstruction of I-35 through our district.

But before I proceed, I'd like to just introduce to you some of the members of my staff with me here today. To my left, immediate left, Russell Lenz, deputy district engineer; to my right, Mr. John Obr, our director of our I-35 project office; and then continuing on this next row, Ken Roberts, our public information officer; Mr. Reggie Richardson, director of Transportation Planning and Development; Richard Brown, our newest area engineer from the Gatesville area; area engineer John Jasek covering the Waco area; and our senior area engineer from Belton, Jim Cowan.

This presentation will hopefully provide you a brief look at some of the existing conditions and what's being proposed, projected cost at this point, time schedule, funding status, and future considerations.

First, I want to just take you quickly through some existing conditions, not that none of you are aware of these, but maybe it will kind of put things a little bit in perspective and where we're headed with this.

The I-35 corridor through the Waco District consists of three segments. The first segment is 94 miles long. It starts at the bottom of the screen at the Williamson County line and continues north through Bell, Falls, McLennan, and Hill counties, to the I-35E and W split, east and west split, north of Hillsboro. At that point, the two remaining segments within the district consist of 25 miles -- or approximately 20 miles of I-35W and approximately 9 miles of I-35E, where we touch the Fort Worth District and the Dallas District respectively.

This report is going to focus on this most southern segment, the 94-mile segment, and the work to provide a minimum six-lane freeway in the most rapid manner possible. The majority of the 94-mile segment is a rural, four-lane, divided freeway with two-way frontage roads, as shown in red.

Portions of the highway through the cities of Belton, a part of Temple, and most of the Waco area have an urban six-lane freeway with one-way frontage roads depicted in black.

Other conditions that you might need to kind of keep in mind through this 94-mile segment is right of way widths generally range from 250 to 275 feet, as compared to 400 to 450 feet typically seen on most rural freeways in Texas.

Average daily traffic as of our latest counts -- official counts, that is, of 1999 -- range from 41- to 53,000 in the rural areas and 51- to 83,000 in the urban areas.

I might just add also that the average daily traffic is projected to increase by 50 to 100 percent in the next 20 years. This is in keeping with history. Since basically the 1950s, traffic counts have doubled every 20 years through this part of the corridor.

Trucks account for 25 to 30 percent of the overall traffic, and truck traffic has increased 10 to 12 percent since NAFTA, according to the most recent studies that we have.

Many portions of I-35 in the 94-mile segment were originally constructed as US 81 during the mid- to late 1950s. As you can see from this photo, it's very evident throughout this segment that the facility's operating at capacity with the increasing demands. And particularly, our busiest time on the freeway corridor is really the weekend, starting about Friday afternoon and continuing through Sunday evening.

Truck volume increases continue to rise, particularly since the passage of NAFTA. The need to accommodate these vehicles in the redesign of this corridor is not only essential but expected in some form by the traveling public. The potential for car-truck crashes is on the rise and raises the most concern not only to myself but Central Texans that use this corridor daily.

Looking back to the 1950s when the corridor was originally designed, minimal right of way was acquired. Design minimums of that era were allowed, and the roadways that still exist in most areas, as depicted here with this picture in Troy, generally has narrow medians, concrete slopes in these medians, slip ramps, and bridges with restrictive clearances both horizontally and vertically.

Adding capacity by widening simply to the inside towards the median that other districts along the corridor have utilized will not work along most of this segment due to the narrow conditions. For this reason, there is a need for substantial additional right of way and major reconstruction in order to just add two lanes.

Let's talk a little bit about the proposed -- what we've got proposed. All existing four-lane sections --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that the same bridge we were looking at three frames back?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. SKOPIK: The only thing that's kind of been added there since the 1950s is a center concrete median barrier and some texturing on the shoulder that we just did. But everything else is pretty much like it was.

All existing four-lane sections will be expanded to accommodate six lanes except for sections through Temple and at Hillsboro near the I-35 split. Due to the capacity needs in Temple and operational issues at Hillsboro really related to the I-35 split, these areas will be expanded initially to eight lanes, as shown in black.

All four-lane sections being expanded to six lanes, which are really shown, I guess, in bold red, will have provisions for a special-use area to allow for future mobility needs. Likewise, existing six-lane sections in Belton, Temple, and Waco will be expanded to eight lanes, and that's shown there in green. And where possible, we'll also have similar provisions in these areas to allow for a special-use area in the future.

I would also like to note that construction will include a 12-foot outside shoulder in lieu of the usual 10 foot to enhance safety, also provide for traffic handling during maintenance operations, traffic handling during emergency incidents, and for future use as a possible travel lane.

One of the big issues is we've got more than 200 bridges that will need to be replaced just on this 94-mile segment. The controlling factor of most highway construction projects is the completion of bridge structures. I think that can kind of be evident if you drive any direction on I-35 from Austin, you're going to see that the roadway work is -- proceeds along and maybe, in fact, is basically complete, yet the bridge work is still ongoing and really holding up the project.

This has been a big concern of mine from the word go, and so with the cooperation of the Bridge Division -- and Mary Lou Ralls and Ronnie Medlock are here -- we just can't say how much we appreciate what they're doing to work with us to develop what we are calling a totally precast bridge system. And I just couldn't help myself telling you just a little bit about it.

It's really a first, or will be a first for Texas. We're building really on a very successfully used precast bent-cap system that was developed and used on the Pierce Elevated Project in Houston. And what we're planning to do is take this one step further.

It's anticipated that our system will not only expedite construction but will significantly enhance work-zone safety by completing a bridge in a matter of days and weeks instead of the typical weeks and months.

The concept at this point, in a kind of simplistic form -- and we kind of sometime refer to this as kind of our Tinkertoy deal -- is the concept consists of a typical foundation, such as drill concrete shafts, as you see here in the picture in the lower portion of the slide, that supports a precast bent structure having a center open core. The precast bent structure is cast off site in advance of foundation construction. And the precast bent once erected is then filled with concrete.

In essence, the precast bent structure serves as a form for the remaining concrete placed on site to connect the foundation and precast bent. Simultaneously, the remaining portion of the total bridge structure -- that being what we call the superstructure -- can also be constructed or will be constructed off site in segments.

Shown here is a steel-box girder with a top slab being cast with connectors shown along the edges in order to join the segments once they are hoisted into place out in the field at the location of the new bridge.

Lastly, the next-to-last step is really the superstructure segments, or these units, are hoisted into place on top of the precast bent structures. The segments are then connected really with a closure pour that's kind of kind of depicted with that white dashed line there between those two units.

The next two slides really kind of depict the completed structure showing a couple ideas in terms of aesthetics or appearance that we're currently looking at that work in this kind of system.

Other improvements throughout the corridor will include continuous concrete median barriers to improve safety, as kind of depicted here. And this is the most recent slide of really our newest rehabbed segment through the city -- or through a portion of the city of Waco near Loop 340 and Valley Mills Drive.

Other improvements, as well as the concrete median barriers, will be upgraded access ramps meeting current design standards, relocated frontage roads made continuous throughout the corridor and converted to one-way operation.

Aesthetic treatments in terms of cost-effective structural enhancements, as depicted by this retaining wall section under construction in Hillsboro, will also be included.

Rural ITS technologies will be employed through the use of dynamic message signs to assist with operating the freeway corridor more efficiently while under construction and upon completion as well. We plan to have these signs in place at key locations throughout the corridor prior to beginning the majority of the main-lane construction, the idea being really to allow us to do a better job in managing construction and keeping the public better informed of major incidents.

What about the cost? Here's the numbers. The cost of reconstructing this 94-mile segment is currently estimated at $1.47 billion with a projected ten to twelve years to complete. Right of way acquisition and utility adjustments are estimated right now to add basically another 100- to $200 million to the overall project cost. Approximately 2,000 parcels of right of way are estimated to be involved as well.

This 94-mile segment is currently authorized -- and that's kind of depicted on the screen as well -- for development under Category 1, High Priority Interstate Corridors, and Category 3A, National Highway or NHS Mobility.

Currently Category 1 is funded at approximately $40 million per year, and the portion of the project authorized under Category 3A must compete statewide with other high priority needs throughout the state.

The district continues to seek every opportunity for other funding options, such as the National Corridors Planning and Development Program authorized under TEA-21, as well as Federal Bridge Replacement Programs and Federal Safety Programs.

Priority 1 projects -- those projects that are currently authorized for construction are shown on really this slide and the next one. The blue dots indicate the three projects we currently have under way in the Waco and Hillsboro areas. The red dots indicate projects we anticipate proceeding to construction over the next 12 to 24 months.

Our initial plan has been to find every possible location where work or some portion could be performed while we proceed with the lengthy planning and right of way process. The work shown will consist primarily of bridge replacements throughout the corridor, indicated by, really, the smaller red dots, as well as main-lane widening in Hillsboro and Waco areas and some major interchange reconstruction primarily at Loop 340 on the south side of Waco.

This table shows all of the Priority 1 project authorized at this point based upon current funding levels. Although construction funds have been sufficient to this point, once additional right of way has been acquired for various portions of the project, the need for significantly more construction funds will be necessary in order to meet the schedule outlined earlier.

A little bit about future thoughts. The Waco District as part of the plan to have provisions in our design, as I mentioned earlier, that will allow for future and trade and public demands in terms of capacity to the year 2025. At the national level -- and I know most of you are familiar with this -- the recently completed I-35 trade corridor study from Mexico to Canada indicates that as many as eight lanes in the rural areas and as many ten lanes in the urban areas of Belton, Temple, and Waco will be needed to satisfy year 2025 projections.

Even with the district's proposed expansion plan, developing alternatives for addressing the continued growth along these corridors is vital to the region and this state. Interest among public officials in the region continues to gain in terms of us looking beyond 2025.

Alternatives to further expansion of I-35, whether it be a parallel roadway or some other mode of transportation or both, are all being discussed. The feasibility of extending State Highway 130 to the north, as was shown on an earlier slide, has been drawing the most attention up to this point.

In closing, our I-35 project office has developed a Web site, as shown above, that provides the updated information about ongoing planning activities pertaining to the corridor. You should soon be seeing signs along the highway similar to this one that's kind of shown there that we hope will be our goal to further convey to the public what is all going on to improve transportation along I-35.

I guess with this said, I just want to reiterate that the Waco District is firmly committed to finding innovative ways to obtain a minimum six-lane freeway in the most expedient manner possible on this segment. In so doing, we certainly want to continue to solicit any and all ideas to ensure that this happens, because it is a challenge, let me tell you.

And I hope this information has proven to be beneficial. I know it's quick. And I invite you to stop by anytime in Waco to obtain the latest happenings, and we'll certainly go and visit and find John and his staff, and we'll try to get a little more information as it develops, because it's happening very quickly. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please, go ahead. I have a few.

MR. NICHOLS: The -- when you were talking about the future considerations, where you were showing going up to ten lanes, fourteen lanes, and so on, my question is, on what you have laid out for the additional lanes to be constructed now with the replacement of bridges, at additional right of way, will the right of way that we acquire over the next few years to do this allow for the additional lanes to be added later? Same thing with the bridges?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir. It will allow addition of one more lane in each direction, in most cases --

MR. NICHOLS: In addition. One more lane in addition to what we're --

MR. SKOPIK: In addition to either the six in the rural areas or in addition to the eight that we're planning in the urban areas. So right now our plan is for $1.47 billion is essentially to get you a six-lane freeway in the rural areas and an eight-lane freeway in the three urban areas.

MR. NICHOLS: And we'll have enough right of way to add an additional lane in each direction.

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely.

MR. NICHOLS: And the bridges that are being planned, which -- I saw Mary Lou back there -- it's very clever on the bridge idea -- but those bridges will be constructed so that we don't have to replace those when we add those other lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, John.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Kind of following on what Mr. Nichols asked, then, for about -- I read $1.6 billion? Did I misread it?

MR. SKOPIK: That's correct. I was mentioning construction, but when you add the right of way along with the construction, you're looking at about 1.6.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So for $1.6 billion over what period of time, start to finish, if no disruptions?

MR. SKOPIK: Ten to twelve years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's say twelve years --

MR. SKOPIK: Twelve years.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- to be conservative. So for $1.6 billion over 12 years, for a 94-mile stretch --

MR. SKOPIK: Ninety-four.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- we would have six continuous lanes, expanding to eight through the urban areas --

MR. SKOPIK: Through the urban, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- with the capacity to go to eight continuous lanes, expanding to ten for some additional cost, whatever that is.

MR. SKOPIK: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What -- I'm going to ask you a lot of questions.

MR. SKOPIK: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If you don't know the answers, that's fine. And even if you give me a wrong answer and have to come back and correct it, that's okay too. You know, no one's grilling you here. We're partners working on solving a problem.

About what would you guess the cost per mile for the $1.6 billion over 12 years, the cost-per-new-lane mile is? Would it be logical for me just to take the 94 and divide into the billion-six?

MR. SKOPIK: That would be an average, but the way we're really looking at it, at this point, the urban area construction is certainly a lot more expensive. And I think our latest numbers is about $20 million a mile for the urban areas. The rural areas -- I guess you could take what's remaining off that. You figure your urban areas, the mileage you have, and rate that at $20 million a mile, and then what's left, you can divide that mileage to get what we're averaging on the rural areas, because the rural areas, it varies so much.

Even in a rural area we have some what I'm going to call urban-type conditions at some of these little communities like the city of Troy and Salado, where it's going to be the cost of urban construction for maybe a mile or two, and then when we get outside of that, maybe we'll settle back down to a 10- or $12-million-a-mile cost. So --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So the --

MR. SKOPIK: -- I could get that for you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- of the 94 miles -- you've got good staff behind you -- about how many miles of that is going to be urban miles?

MR. OBR: Urban miles be, I'd say, between 30 and 40.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's say 35 is an average. Let's say 34 to make the numbers look good. So that's 60 rural miles and 34 urban miles. The 34 urban miles, it may be $20 million a mile. Sixty rural miles, it may be $2 million a mile, $3 million a mile?

MR. SKOPIK: No. It's going to be more than that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It looks like it might be about $5 million a mile.

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, how much the rural areas would be on average, once you figure that. I lost my math here. Let me think.

MR. OBR: The rural areas, we just had a two-mile section that's in the northern Waco area that was just six-lane freeway with two bridge structures in it, and it was at $10 million a mile.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.

MR. OBR: So, essentially, we're taking that six-lane freeway section forward through the rural areas, so it's going to cost us at least $10 million a mile in the rural area.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Member Nichols, I do have several questions, and please feel free to interrupt or relieve me for a moment while I collect my thoughts. It won't bother me a bit.

Now, if the commission called you tomorrow and said, Give us a firm price to build a six-lane highway with a median wide enough to accommodate two rail corridors and with no access road -- we just want to get from point A to point B, 30 miles away from the closest city. Go out -- we'll use my hometown as an example. Go west of Weatherford 30 miles and build a six-lane road from that spot 82 miles north to the Red River.

Based on your experience and without trying to, you know, slice it too thinly, about what would the cost per mile be? Six lanes, median wide enough for two railroads, no frontage road; just six lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: And you're talking about an area that would be predominantly rural for the entire length --

MR. WILLIAMSON: The whole length of the deal.

MR. SKOPIK: -- because you'd be --

MR. WILLIAMSON: No cities.

MR. SKOPIK: You wouldn't be going through any cities.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And no rebuilds, no following existing routes. Just --

MR. SKOPIK: Right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- go out there to Graford, Texas, and build to the Red River. About.

MR. SKOPIK: I think we're going to still be in the 8- to $10-million-a-mile range.

MR. WILLIAMSON: For six lanes.

MR. SKOPIK: For six lanes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Now, tell me -- talk to me about time. How much time would it take to build that 82 miles under those conditions versus 82 miles under the conditions you've taken so much time to outline to us today through these urban areas?

MR. OBR: If I could comment just on the fact that the State Highway 130 experience -- that's the issue that we're going to run up against, the planning that it takes to do an environmental impact statement on a new-location corridor is, I believe, from what I understand, it took ten years to plan that corridor to go around Austin. And what you're trying to do is -- the comment we're hearing from the public in our 18 public meetings we've had on the interstate corridor is, Move them trucks somewhere else.

Well, as soon as you start pointing to where else you're going to put them, you're going to run into the same opposition there. They, in no way, shape, or form, planned on moving their housing or their homes out into the country to have another interstate corridor go through it, when you've got one through Central Texas now.

And we did a bypass route value engineering study for the city of Troy two weeks ago, and it was a new location route without frontage roads, about a little over three miles in length, just to get around Troy without the cost of going through Troy. And it was -- those three miles, in comparison, it was a 50 percent higher cost for those three miles to bypass the city of Troy than it was to stay within the city of Troy, because you're still having to acquire homes; you're still having to buy the right of way. You've have to relocate utilities or utility corridors that don't exist --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but I'm not -- I didn't ask you about a bypass, and I'm not interested in a bypass.

MR. OBR: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to know how quick you'd build this six-lane road in comparison to how quick you're going to build this same 82 miles on this existing corridor, just build.

MR. OBR: Construction time --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Drive the first stake.

MR. OBR: Be the same, in my opinion, because you're rebuilding an entire freeway where it is on the existing I-35 corridor and relocating that corridor to somewhere else. You've still got the same pavement time frames, the same bridge time frames. The same components are going to go into the new corridor that are going to the existing corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we could -- in my example, you could build that 82 miles from Graford to Red River just as fast as you could rebuild the interior of existing -- an existing urban corridor like the 35 corridor.

MR. OBR: Maybe even a little quicker, because you have to phase the existing corridor, because you've got those 10-, 15,000 semis per day out there that you're having to keep moving while you're rebuilding the existing corridor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So I could conclude that certainly it would take no more time. It should take about the same time, and maybe take a little less time.

MR. SKOPIK: I would agree with that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Going back to the -- by the way, my compliments on your presentation. You laid out for me exactly what I expected, and I thank you.

If you went 30 miles east of the existing Interstate 35 and built a parallel highway, would the need to replace some or all of these 200 bridges be diminished? In other words, if the commission said to you, We don't want to expand 35; we don't want to keep investing money in the same mess; we want to parallel it, and we want you to rethink then what 35 looks like going through Waco, would there be any of those bridges that you currently have scheduled to replace not necessarily need to be replaced as a result of that decision?

MR. SKOPIK: Oh, on the current route. Okay. If there was no expansion necessary, certainly a good many of the bridges need to be replaced, because of their age and condition.

And I guess another assumption that would have to be made is if we built this other corridor, what kind of traffic could we continue to have on the existing corridor? The same level, including trucks, you know, what -- because one thing that's really -- and I don't mean to deviate from answering your question, but that's really tough to answer without kind of making a lot of assumptions here about what's the existing corridor; how's it going to function; is it going to be more of a regional/local thing, and the local -- I mean, and the, I guess, through-the-region traffic is going to head on this new route?

Because if we have still a considerable amount of trucks, particularly, carrying goods and services, that's where these bridges are really taking a beating. They're already 40-plus years old. More and more of them are qualifying more and more for these Federal Bridge Replacement Funds, and that's what I alluded to, so that's going to help us a little bit.

I think at this point, to answer your question, I'd have to say that still 50 percent or more, but at least 50 percent of the structures that we plan to replace -- and right now we say we've got about 200 -- is that right? -- I would say that over the next ten years, we need to replace at least 100 of them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So at least half would have to be replaced, but somewhere between and half and probably a quarter we wouldn't have to spend the money replacing those bridges.

MR. SKOPIK: At some point, we would, but it'd be over a longer time frame.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not immediately.

MR. SKOPIK: Maybe over -- that would occur over the next 20 years, perhaps, rather than the next ten.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Going back to one of Mr. Nichols' questions on the right of way matter going through, particularly, the urban areas. You estimated the cost of that right of way and you conveyed to the commission that the purchase of that right of way using those costs would allow us to expand ultimately to an eight-lane/ten-lane. When you did that, would there be any access road left through the urban areas?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes. We -- in what our proposal had -- is here outlined today, it still retains access or frontage roads throughout the corridor as they exist today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So the urban --

MR. SKOPIK: They're just relocated.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You relocate, you mean you --

MR. SKOPIK: They're moved out further away so that we have room on the interior to do the expansion.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. So when you move them out further away, are we going to have to buy a few buildings?

MR. SKOPIK: There could be some businesses or residential properties involved. That's one thing we're looking at real hard, to minimize that impact. And that's why those numbers are so variable right now from 100- to $200 million in terms of the cost and, you know, approximate parcels, because ideally what we're trying to do is some areas we'll be widening on both sides, or gaining additional right of way on both sides, to minimize that impact.

In some areas, we're able to move completely on to acquiring this right of way, or at least we think we can, all to one side and miss most of the improvements. So we're only taking land. So it's kind of a balance of the engineering issues, in terms of curvature, and design requirements, versus trying to minimize that impact on that right of way or the improvements that are out there and the businesses, particularly, to keep the cost down as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No more questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience.

MR. JOHNSON: Let me interject one thing. On our calculations per mile, very simply, if there are -- we assume 90 miles and we assume 30 of those miles are urban, and they cost $20 million per mile, that's $600 million, which would leave $900 million for the other 60 miles at $15 million a mile for the rural.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Interesting.

MR. JOHNSON: That's very simple -- it's very inexact, but it's very simple.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I need to yield, Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: I had a question and a comment. On the traffic volume, it said in the rural areas on 35, it was roughly 40- to 50,000 vehicles a day, and in the urban areas, I think it said 50- to 60-, in that range.

MR. SKOPIK: 50- to 80-plus.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. If -- thinking in terms of the through traffic -- in other words, as you enter the county, the traffic is trying to go all the way north to flow through there and get on out, as opposed to the traffic that's beginning or ending in that area. What percent of that traffic would that be, the through traffic? Is that --

MR. SKOPIK: Of those number --

MR. NICHOLS: -- 10,000 a day or is it 20,000 a day?

MR. SKOPIK: That's local or that's through?

MR. NICHOLS: That's through, just trying to get through there.

MR. SKOPIK: Oh. The through numbers are, I would say, much higher than that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: 70 or 80 percent, wasn't it?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, because really -- and I kind of like to look at it, if you take the extreme ends of -- or really take the Williamson-Bell county line, you know, you're basically -- that's a transition zone, pretty much rural. And you're either going to Austin or to the south, or you're coming north either to the Waco area or Temple-Belton area, or you're going, you know, out of state or to the DFW area.

But that's a pretty good number, I think, that I'm going to call just not local traffic. And that number, at the district line, is running about between 40- and 45,000. And you could take off some for local, but I still say I think it's -- like Ric said, we're probably looking at 80 percent or more of that traffic is through traffic.

MR. NICHOLS: Of the -- what you would call the rural.

MR. SKOPIK: Of that rural number.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Okay.

MR. SKOPIK: And likewise, at the split, the split's a good example. The numbers are pretty similar at the split as they are at the Bell-Williamson county line where people leave the Hillsboro area and are either going to Dallas or Fort Worth. And those numbers, when you add what's on I-35E and what's on I-35W, if I remember this right, we're running in the 45,000 ADT range when you add the two splits.

MR. NICHOLS: So it would be reasonable kind of working off what Williamson was talking about, if a parallel corridor was built at a reasonable proximity, just outside the edge of the populated areas, and successfully connected on each end, north and south, it would be a reasonable assumption that a big -- 30,000 or so of these vehicles a day possibly would move over just to get out of that congested area.

MR. SKOPIK: I'd say 70, 80 percent would be a good number --

MR. NICHOLS: Which would --

MR. SKOPIK: -- at this point --

MR. NICHOLS: -- drop that volume --

MR. SKOPIK: -- without really looking at [indiscernible] odd lane. I understand.

MR. NICHOLS: That was my question.

MR. SKOPIK: I didn't really think about that today, but I'll certainly go back and check myself.

MR. NICHOLS: That was my question.

MR. SKOPIK: That's something we need to do.

MR. NICHOLS: And then my comment is, I think you've done very well. This is your first presentation before the commission that I can recall -- I may be wrong -- since I've been on, and I hear a lot of very nice things about you coming from your district, from the work that you do. And to come up to the podium expecting to make a presentation and then get hit with this many questions is a pretty good shock. So, hat's off to you.

MR. SKOPIK: I love talking about it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a few more things. The last few questions I got will probably call for your opinion, but I think the commission respects the opinion of its district engineers. You're out there; you deal with the problems every day. There's no reason for you to have not formed an opinion about the best way to do things.

In your opinion, if the commission at some point in the future made the decision to slow down or perhaps even stop its expansion or rebuild of this 94 miles and instead said, Go east 30 miles and build new, would that offer temporary relief to the current flow of traffic you were having to fight through the reconstruction projects that you've got going on?

I'm not complaining about it. I mean, I drive through it twice a week. Y'all do a great job of routing traffic. If you could get everybody to slow down to 55 miles an hour, it'd be better.

But if you said -- if the commission said, you know, Finish what you're doing now, but don't start any more; instead, go east and build new -- is it your opinion that the existing traffic flow on 35 would then have some relief from the disruption of the construction projects?

MR. SKOPIK: Certainly they're going to have relief if they've got an alternative facility. Like a brand-new one would -- like you've envisioned that's got --

MR. WILLIAMSON: But I'm talking about like right now, whenever I -- for example, we were all slowing down to -- or we should be slowing down to 55 through Hillsboro. Well, I guess it actually starts out at Hillsboro and goes all the way past.

MR. SKOPIK: Actually does.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And so if the commission said, Let's don't do any more construction from a year from now forward, and instead let's take that money and go east and parallel, so all of a sudden you wouldn't have construction going on on 35 anymore -- is it reasonable to expect the flow of traffic on 35 at that time -- waiting for the new highway to be built, would there be less disruption than there is now?

MR. SKOPIK: Certainly there's going to be less localized disruption. But I really don't think -- I think there's some other issues that are out there.

We -- to build a project as you've described, just thinking about the time frame that's going to have to take place before you're going to have usable segments to -- you know, I know you couldn't expect to get the 94-mile segment done before you open to traffic, but you'd have to have some reasonable-length segments at some -- with some connection points or something. I'm trying to envision how that would work.

But you've got to get some traffic over there. And in the meantime, my concern is this existing corridor. We're keeping it pieced together. It's worn out.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So there's some projects that have to be done -- in other words, there's some work we're going to have to do on 35 whether we built a --

MR. SKOPIK: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- parallel or not.

MR. SKOPIK: We are going to have to replace the pavement throughout most of that 94 miles. It has to be done. We're operating -- some of that pavement, a good portion of that is US 81. It was never -- we didn't have the chance that some of the other districts -- where they built a brand-new interstate. You know, it was eight-inch concrete pavement, but it was brand new.

But we've taken an old highway years ago and just kind of said, You're I-35. And we built some interchanges, bridge overpasses, and it became a freeway. And I just -- I don't want to lead you to believe that there wouldn't be a sizable investment necessary.

And keep in mind that pavement cost generally, it's been my experience, constitute approximately 50 percent of the total cost of any highway project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there -- to your knowledge, is there a HAZMAT route around the Temple-Killeen-Belton area?

MR. SKOPIK: There is -- for the Temple area, they do have a loop, and they do have it designated, if I remember right. In fact, we've got signs.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if I enter -- for example, if I enter the southernmost edge of that urban area --

MR. SKOPIK: The Belton area?

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- and I have hazardous material, am I in urban environment for a while until I have to make that loop?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, you are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And what about Waco? Same thing?

MR. SKOPIK: Waco, yes. You're in a little better shape, but you're still -- that loop brings you back into areas that are really developing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if, for example, I wanted to look at 20 years or 30 years from now, as we're doing on Ports to Plains here in a little while, if I ever get off of the this jag, if I wanted to look at the urban environment from San Antonio to Denton, and if I wanted to say that that stretch of urban Texas is not unlike the -- Mr. Chairman, help me here; you travel on the East Coast -- perhaps New York City to Philadelphia corridor perhaps? That's about the same length? No? Maybe longer --

MR. JOHNSON: No. That's shorter.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But if I wanted to look at that and say --

MR. JOHNSON: Boston to Philadelphia.

MR. WILLIAMSON: -- Boston to Philadelphia -- say 60 percent of our citizens either now live or will live 40 miles either side of that strip of road, and guess what, we've got hazardous material going in and out of those urban areas all the time. That would be an accurate statement, would it not?

MR. SKOPIK: Yes, sir. That should be a concern.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know this is out of your district, but based upon your experience in the profession, will this similar circumstance, set of questions, or set of problems have to be dealt with when the day comes for us to either parallel Interstate 10 or build Interstate -- the mythical Interstate 69 to Houston? Is it going to be much different, the problems we're going to face on that project and the problems we face on 35?

MR. SKOPIK: I can speak pretty well for Interstate 10. And I don't know if there's some fellow district engineers in here that cover I-10, but most of  I-10 has an adequate amount of right of way throughout most of the corridor. I'm thinking more of once you get outside of Houston headed toward the Yoakum District and then really -- and, of course, you have some problems when you get to the San Antonio area, but then once you leave that and go west towards El Paso -- in fact, some areas that you do not have frontage roads.

And so the issues are quite a bit different on the I-10 corridor for the most part, except for those major urban areas, than they are in what we're dealing with, because the situation you have -- and that's what I described earlier -- the right of way corridor that generally exists on those freeway sections is even more than what we're looking to buy and ultimately have. We're looking to get to about 350 feet wide, and that'll -- be a little variation from that, depending on terrain and that kind of thing, but generally, typically 350. We're striving to get to that.

And really, you look at the I-10 corridor -- you look at the I-35 corridor just in the Austin District, just south of my district, that corridor is 400 to 450 feet wide. So you can do a lot of things with those things. So I think the problems are not -- they're certainly different from what we're dealing with.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you for your presentation, both prepared and on the fly.

MR. SKOPIK: Thank you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Richard, thank you. It's an excellent presentation. Very informative.

Wes, I believe I can turn over the meeting to you now. Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Okay. I also would like to thank Richard and his staff. We charged Richard about two-and-a-half years ago to develop a plan for the expansion of I-35 just for the simple reason that we didn't feel like that we could not focus on at least two more lanes in the very near future, and with the understanding that we need to provide for -- at least the room for additional lanes at some future time.

And, Richard, you've done a marvelous job, you and your staff and your special project office that you set up.

And, Ric, I think it'd really be good if you could stop in Waco sometime and spend about two hours with these guys, and I think they will shock you with what a good handle they have on things.

And I can speak more freely than I could just a few months ago. I don't want you to even consider either/or. Let's do both.

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's -- I think you're right.

MR. HEALD: All right. Moving to Agenda Item Number 5, Dave Fulton, under the agenda item Aviation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If we parallel 35, there won't be any room left for aviation.

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Wes, commissioners. My name is David Fulton. I'm director of the Aviation Division. Agenda Item 5 is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for 20 airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all the projects shown in the Exhibit A is approximately $7.6 million: $4.8 million federal; $1.8 million state; and $1 million in local funding.

A public hearing was held on June 4 of this year. No comments were received. Our division would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I noticed there were a lot of the automated weather-observing systems. Is this a new program to get a lot of these installed in airports?

MR. FULTON: It is not. It's a program that was begun by FAA years ago, and they put in several units, and the National Weather Service put in several units. It's a highly desired program, because it is a safety program, and it fits well with this new non-primary entitlement, whereby right now 100 airports in the state receive dedicated funding up to $150,000.

Some of the amounts are very low, like 60-, $80,000, so the program fits financially quite well. It's a highly desired program, and it's a program that provides and enhances safety. So that's the reason it's become so popular. Quite frankly, it fits in this new entitlement program quite well.

MR. NICHOLS: That's why there's a number.

I move.

MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

Thank you, David.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. HEALD: Agenda Item Number 6, we have three minute orders under the item of Public Transportation.

Margot Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Good morning. I'm Margot Massey from the Public Transportation Division. Item 6(a) is a minor adjustment in the elderly and disabled program of projects from the El Paso District. Had an agency drop out. They had already identified priority replacements, so that is the recommendation before you this morning. We recommend approval.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions.

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. JOHNSON: Motion carries.

MS. MASSEY: 6(b) is the intercity bus program, which is -- these are federal funds under the Rural Formula Program of 15 percent set-aside according to federal law. We issued an RFP and got a number of 17 proposals. We're recommending six to you this morning, totaling just over $600,000 in federal funds, which is the available balance. And we recommend approval of these projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Margot,