Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

9:00 a.m. Thursday, November 15, 2001

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ROBERT L. NICHOLS, Presiding Member
RIC WILLIAMSON

STAFF:

MIKE BEHRENS, Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
HELEN HAVELKA, Executive Assistant, Engineering Operations
 

PROCEEDINGS

MR. NICHOLS: We'll declare this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission open, in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law. Today's date is November 15. Time is 9:12. Let the record show that a public notice of this and all items on the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 2:47, November 2.

Do you have comments you'd like to make?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I apologize for the little bit of a late start. We had a -- I think a little bit of a transportation problem getting Commissioner Williamson here. He did not get here by state transportation, state-supplied. He arrived by state-approved transportation.

Before we get started, I'd also like to say -- remind everybody that today is Texas Recycle Day, November 15, to try to create awareness around the state of every opportunity to recycle goods. It's good for the environment; it's good for the economy. The Texas Department of Transportation makes a great effort to recycle goods itself, and is one of the higher ranking agencies in the state with that regard.

Before we get started, I'd also remind anyone who would like to address the commission to be sure to fill out a card that's on the counter out there. If it's an item that's on the agenda, it will be a yellow card. If it's an item that's not on the agenda, it will be a blue card. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. We'll have to limit those comments to three minutes, with the exception of state elected officials. They can speak as long as they would like.

And we begin this morning with Item Number 1, a public hearing regarding our highway project selection process. Call on Jim Randall.

MR. RANDALL: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jim Randall, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division for the Texas Department of Transportation.

The notice for this public hearing was filed with the Secretary of State on October 3, 2001, and published in the Texas Register on October 12, 2001. And I am pleased to make this presentation on behalf of the commission.

This public hearing is conducted annually in accordance with the Texas Transportation Code, Sections 201.602 and 222.034. Section 201.602 prescribes that the Texas Transportation Commission is to hold annual hearings concerning its project selection process and the relative importance of the various criteria on which the commission bases its project selection decisions. The commission will receive data, comments, views, and/or testimony from any person, organization, or group, and their representatives.

Section 222.034 states that the federal aid for transportation purposes administered by the commission shall be distributed to the various parts of the state for a funding cycle through the selection of highway projects in the state in a manner that is consistent with federal formulas that determine the amount of federal aid for transportation purposes received by the state. The distribution under this section of the Texas Transportation Code does not include deductions made for the state infrastructure banks or other federal funds reallocated by the federal government. The commission may vary from the distribution procedure provided it issues a ruling or minute order identifying the variance and providing particular justification for the variance.

The commission will consider comments made at this hearing and written comments following this hearing until January 29, 2002. You can send written comments to the address or email shown. A minute order describing the commission's decisions relating to the project selection process and the distribution of federal aid will be made at a subsequent public commission meeting. I will show these addresses again at the end of the presentation.

You can refer to a public hearing document that was made available to those who requested it and follow along during my presentation. If any of the folks in the audience did not get a copy, they're available in the foyer.

TxDOT is multimodal and relies on the following modes of transportation to address the needs of the public, including: transit programs, aviation programs, highway programs, rail and water transportation. I'd like to point out here the programs will be developed for rail and water transportation in the future, as TxDOT becomes more involved with these modes. But now I'd like to further discuss transit, aviation, and highway programs, and I'll start with transit.

TxDOT does not now own or operate transit services in Texas. It does, however, have a financial interest in the most public systems through the allocation of federal and state funds. Funds are allocated to urbanized areas: those areas of 50,000 or greater population not served by a transit authority; non-urbanized and rural areas; and for elderly and disabled transportation.

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

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

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

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

TxDOT addresses the needs of general aviation through the Aviation Facilities Development Program. This program provides assistance to public entities for the purpose of establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, or repairing airports, airstrips, or navigation facilities.

The planning process, which is documented in the Texas Airport Systems Plan, or TASP, identifies those airports and projects which will best support the attainment of the airport system plan objectives. The primary objective of TASP is to develop a statewide system of airports that meets the goals of providing adequate access to the population and economic centers of Texas.

Adequate access expressed in terms of driving time between activity centers and appropriate airport facilities: Scheduled air carrier service should be within a 60-minute drive for virtually all Texas residents. Business jet aircraft access should be within a 30-minute drive of significant population centers or mineral resource centers. Light piston-engine aircraft access should be within a 30-minute drive of agricultural centers.

MR. NICHOLS: I guess so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm just curious, Jim. What is a mineral resource center?

MR. RANDALL: I would assume that that would be a -- one of our -- not knowing the airport -- the aviation program, I would assume that would be one of our maybe refineries or something like that?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. So a processing plant, as opposed to  --

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- the wells or the mines themselves.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. That makes sense.

MR. RANDALL: I don't know -- if Dave Fulton was here, he might be able to enlighten us on that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that would make sense, if that's what a mineral resource center is. If it's where the minerals are actually mined, it would be kind of hard for us to achieve that.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

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

Highway programs make up the majority of transportation programs TxDOT develops. These are the programs most familiar to the citizens of Texas. The projects in these programs are financed through federal aid and state funds. Both these revenue sources are sponsored, in large, by the motor fuel tax. The federal portion of the taxes collected in Texas go back to the state with restrictions on its spending.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, is the current federal transportation bill that authorizes the development and construction of federal aid projects. TEA-21 was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president on June 9, 1998. This bill spells out the current restrictions on federal aid funds.

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

In the past, TxDOT created separate funding categories for each of these programs in order to assure that the construction spending was within the federal limitations. Setting up categories in this way has the benefit of assuring projects qualify for federal funds from the project's inception forward, but this process also has the following disadvantages: The same system was used to grade state-funded programs; therefore, 34 categories were created in all, with some of the federal and state categories overlapping in their strategies to improve the transportation system. This also made the programs and the project selection process confusing.

Recently, TxDOT staff requested the Texas Transportation Institute to perform a survey of TxDOT district planning and metropolitan planning organization personnel, as well as county judges. The survey focused on the perceived limitations in TxDOT's project selection and funds distribution process and suggested improvements.

The report results in specific recommendations that TxDOT will use to improve highway construction, project programming, and the general understanding and acceptance of TxDOT's procedures.

In addition, Governor Rick Perry has requested the Texas Transportation Commission to simplify the project planning process and deliver highway improvements in continuous and complete corridors, thereby increasing efficiency and decreasing inconvenience to the motorists.

TxDOT is now proposing to change the project selection process based on these recommendations. All the pertinent changes are included in the public hearing document.

The primary focus for these changes include: Simplifying the process by reducing the number of highway funding categories from 34 to 12, using less confusing terminology regarding project authority levels, and providing better education and training on the new categories and their guidelines.

The proposed changes will be incorporated into the 2003 Unified Transportation Program. In order to simplify the process, TxDOT now proposes to consolidate eight existing maintenance and rehabilitation categories into one, Category 1 - Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation.

In addition, we propose to collapse 12 statewide mobility categories into the following three: Category 2, Metropolitan Area Transportation Management Areas, or TMA, Corridor Projects; Category 3, Urban Area Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4, Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects.

Category 5, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, or CMAQ, will remain. This is true for other categories, including Category 7, Surface Transportation Program, or STP, Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety; Category 9, STP Transportation Enhancements; and Category 12, Strategic Priority.

TxDOT proposes to combine three bridge replacement and rehabilitation categories into one, Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation.

Category 10, Miscellaneous, will combine our existing Miscellaneous category with the State Park Roads Program.

And finally, TxDOT proposes to combine four mobility categories into Category 11, District Discretionary. These three major mobility categories will focus on providing continuous and complete corridor improvements throughout the state, although a corridor project selection process has not been formulated at this time. The exact process or formula will be determined by collaborative effort between TxDOT staff and our transportation partners, including the metropolitan planning organizations.

We invite the public to comment on the selection criteria for these three categories through written correspondence regarding this hearing.

The remaining portion of this presentation is intended to fulfill the requirements of Section 201.602 and 222.034 of the Texas Transportation Code and describe how the previously mentioned federal aid funds will be incorporated into the new categories.

The Interstate Maintenance Program funds will be incorporated into the new Category 1, Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. The Interstate Maintenance Program funds are allocated to the state based on the following weighted percentages: 33-1/3 percent based on the lane miles of interstate system within the state, 33-1/3 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on interstate system within the state, and 33-1/3 percent based on the state's contributions to the Highway Trust Fund due to commercial vehicles.

TxDOT proposes to allocate its Interstate Maintenance Program funds to the TxDOT districts based on the following criteria: 45 percent based on the equivalent single-axle loads per interstate highway section -- this criteria is an indicator of the amount of commercial truck traffic operating on the interstate highways within a district; 10 percent based on the interstate highway lane miles within a district; and 45 percent based on the interstate lane miles within a district with substandard stress scores.

The reasons for the variance from the federal funds -- federal formula are: individual TxDOT district or regional contributions to the Highway Trust Fund cannot be quantified; the federal formula does not account for pavement distress; the federal formula does not account for the volume of commercial truck traffic; and the federal formula does not account for the region's need to build new interstate or add capacity to the existing system.

National Highway System Program, or NHS funds, are allocated to Texas based on the following: 25 percent based on lane miles of principal arterial routes within the state; 35 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on these principal arterials; 30 percent based on the amount of diesel fuel used with the state; and 10 percent on the quotient obtained by dividing the total lane miles on the principal arterial highways by the population.

TxDOT proposes to use its NHS program funds to fund the following three specific categories: Category 2, Metropolitan Area (TMA) Corridor Projects; Category 3, Urban Area Non-TMA Corridor Projects; and Category 4, Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects.

The reason for the variance from the federal NHS program formula are: individual TxDOT district or regional usage of commercial diesel fuel cannot be quantified; the federal formula does not account for pavement distress; the federal formula does not address TxDOT strategy of system development and preservation; the federal formula does not address specific TxDOT district or regional needs, such as congestion relief, improved operations, and pavement rehabilitation needs.

The Surface Transportation Program, or STP, funds are allocated to Texas based on the following criteria: 25 percent based on the total miles of highways within the state that qualify for federal aid funds; 40 percent based on the vehicle miles traveled on highways within the state that qualify for federal aid funds; 35 percent based on tax payments from within the state into the Highway Trust Fund.

TxDOT proposes to use its STP funding in the following four categories: Category 7, STP Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation; Category 8, STP Safety; Category 9, STP Transportation Enhancements; Category 11, District Discretionary. Categories 7, 8, and 9 are required sub-allocations of the STP program funds.

The reason for the variance from the federal formula are: TEA-21 requires TxDOT to suballocate the funds in a manner that differs from the federal distribution formula.

And finally, the Highway Bridge Program. The Highway Bridge Program funds are allocated to Texas based on the relative share of the total cost of deficient bridges as compared to the totals of other states.

TxDOT proposes to use the Highway Bridge Program funds on projects in Category 6, Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The ranking and selection criteria for this category can be found on page 10 of the public hearing document.

The reasons for the variance are: the federal allocation formula does not address the selection of the most functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges, and the federal formula does not assure required minimum funding levels for off-system bridges are achieved.

An important factor in the project selection process is the amount of funds available to build projects. In order for TxDOT's project development process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be selected several years in advance of their actual funding. TxDOT uses funding forecasts to predict future revenues from federal and state sources, and the programs or selects projects corresponding to the anticipated funds. When the dollars become available, the program projects are then funded and constructed. In other words, programming is a commitment to construct the project when the forecasted funds become available.

TxDOT's proposed programming levels for fiscal year 2006 can be found on page 13 of the public hearing document. These are programming levels for highway programs only. The values are subject to change as the funding forecasts are further refined.

Once again, I would like to call your attention to the public hearing document that was made available in the foyer. This document contains the information regarding each proposed category including the TxDOT category name and number, the entity responsible for project selection, whether the program is treated as a bank-balance program or is authorized as individual projects, the allocation and ranking formula that is involved, and a brief summary of the type of work the program addresses.

As promised, here are the addresses to send written comments. Again, the deadline is January 29, 2002. On behalf of the commission, I'd like to thank you for listening to this important information, and this concludes my presentation.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Jim.

Do you have any comments or questions before we get into the public comments?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Only that I'm real proud at what they've done so far, and I'm real pleased with it.

MR. NICHOLS: Couple of questions I had before we get into the public comments. The -- okay. After today's hearing, the public will have how many days to send in written comments?

MR. RANDALL: They'll have 75 days. They'll have until January 29, 2002.

MR. NICHOLS: And the formal approval of this after all that is --

MR. RANDALL: Will be in February 2002 at that commission meeting.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to compliment your group and administration for the rework of this very complicated and important process.

For the public, an awful lot of what was said today is very significant in the fact that we're trying to take a process that has evolved very logically but had become very complicated for the public to understand, even professionals out in the field. We're taking 32 of our funding categories and bringing them down to 12.

We're trying to put more authority, as well as responsibility, at the district level, closer to the projects, so that we can tackle entire projects, whether it be a metropolitan, urban, or rural connectivity project.

So -- and rather than telling that district which segment you will do first, we're going to commit to the entire project and then let that district determine which is the best way to put it together and which funds, and so on, in their area.

It's very significant. I think it's going to be a great -- but -- so, with that --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chair, do I understand that by January 2003 or thereabouts when we journey across the street to explain our program that our friends in the House and Senate will hear us using common words like "plan," "develop," "construct"?

MR. NICHOLS: (Laughs.)

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. That -- once y'all approve what we've presented here at the public hearing, we'll draft the 2003 UTP, and in that draft that goes out to public comment, that's when the folks will see our new terminology to try to make it more understandable to everybody.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I say that not -- I mean, laughingly, but seriously, Senator Duncan, that one of the complaints that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Johnson and I heard during this last session is, you know, You guys bring us papers, and it's written in a language we can't possibly understand. And so I think what we're going to bring you in January of '03 is something that we can all understand. Your project's either in the development stage or the planning stage or the construction stage, period.

MR. NICHOLS: I think also -- you may not have touched on it, but I think we're going to be working to put all of this in a very simplified booklet -- hopefully, it will available sometime in the spring or early summer -- that will explain all this in terms and pictures and kind of do a statewide, regionalized approach, so that somebody can look into a region and see what we're doing not only currently but with some of the plans in the future.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm particularly excited, Chairman, that this approach apparently offers a possibility of less disruption to the traveling public on a corridor basis. I think that's wonderful.

MR. NICHOLS: So we'll get into our public -- yes, sir. Okay. First card I've got is Senator Robert Duncan.

Senator, we certainly do appreciate the work you've done in support of transportation over the years.

SEN. DUNCAN: Well, thank you. We appreciate the work y'all have done to allocate transportation needs across the state. We know it's a tough job.

But, you know, I'm excited about today -- as I was perusing my Texas Register and I saw a notice of this hearing -- you know, they need pictures in that book.

(General laughter.)

SEN. DUNCAN: No. I really became excited at this concept, because I do believe that, Commissioner Williamson, you're exactly right: The complexity of highway funding, I think, even confuses legislators, believe it or not.

And I do believe that the goal here is appropriate. I'm excited about it. I have been briefed on it, and I commend the commission for taking this bold step, and the staff for the hard work that they've done here.

The new district that I have -- and I'm particularly interested. I just wanted everybody to note that the proposed new district that I have has 18 percent of the state's land mass in it. So that -- I think 18 percent of the state's highway funds then probably ought to be going there. I'm not sure if that's how this new plan works, but --

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: So using the -- some of the urban complaints recently, we should allocate based on road miles.

SEN. DUNCAN: Yes, well, or land mass. Land area would be a -- I think, with all seriousness, I do think that this plan would work well, will work well. There were a few questions that I had that I just raised, rhetorically, or at least at this time, that perhaps should be addressed.

First of all, I want to say that it looks like this plan, for projects like the East-West Freeway that you have been supporting and working on in Lubbock, I think that for that type of a project this plan works very well. I think it would give us the ability to tell our constituents in the Lubbock and in the West Texas region that that highway has -- it will be completed at some date in time and not -- we're not having to go piecemeal to construct that, which means efficiency not only in your highway-dollar allocation decisions that you make, but it also means efficiency in our communities, because of the decreased congestion.

And when you speed those things up, it just -- highway construction costs a lot of dollars that we don't see, economic development dollars or just retail dollars. So we see speeding these projects up and being able to put them on some predictability with regard to completion is a good idea.

The concerns I do have is -- and I look -- referring back to the East-West Freeway issue -- Lubbock would be a region that would basically be kind of like a UIL realignment issue. When you have these -- when you transition from urban to metropolitan, Lubbock is right on that cusp. And the question I would have is is what if you have your funding -- if you gain your funding while you're in an urban category but then you transition to a metropolitan category, do those funds transfer, do you maintain your status quo, or do you lose when you get elevated up?

MR. NICHOLS: We've got -- Jim Randall could probably answer that, but as I understand it, once a commitment is made on a project, then that project -- it's project-specific.

SEN. DUNCAN: So the project's grandfathered in --

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

SEN. DUNCAN:  -- regardless of the transition.

MR. NICHOLS: If there is a commitment on a project, it is grandfathered in.

He's shaking his head yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. Senator, traditionally on almost all the changes that we've made, and certainly all of the remarkable changes we've made in the last six months, we're attempting to hold to the standard that if we gave our word, we keep it.

SEN. DUNCAN: Well, I assumed that was the case, and I just -- but I wanted to at least raise that --

MR. NICHOLS: Point on the record?

SEN. DUNCAN: Well -- exactly.

(General laughter.)

SEN. DUNCAN: And you've been there; you know. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

The other thing is is that how is the money going to be allocated between the three categories. Population seems to be a driver. You know, with more corridors than money, it will tempting also to do things like perhaps fund a percentage of a corridor as opposed to -- like 70 percent or 80 percent as opposed to 100 percent. And I would encourage you to do the best you can to fund 100 percent of these corridors so that we don't get back into the same mode of, Well, how -- when are we going to get the rest of it done.

The whole advantage of this, it seems like to me, is to put a beginning and an end to a project, which I think all of us would like to see, and would make these -- make our constituents, I think, feel more confident in what we're doing. So I encourage that, as well.

But I really want to put -- I want to go on record as supporting this concept wholeheartedly. We really believe in what you're doing here, and I think it will be best not only for rural Texas but all Texas. So thank you for your work. And if you have any questions of me, I'll be happy to address them.

MR. NICHOLS: On your question or concern about how is the funding going to change, over the next -- first year of this change, going from 34 categories to 12, they are going to take the same allocation formulas and just squeeze them into those so that each area is basically getting pretty much the same as it was.

SEN. DUNCAN: Same as it is.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And then as we go into the second year using this, we're going to develop -- and he covered it -- a few of those categories, we're going to try to develop a means in which everybody can participate on how we arrive at some of those. So it's going to be a one-year study on that, hoping [phonetic] -- input and so on.

SEN. DUNCAN: So that will be something --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We recognize, Senator, that the worst thing that can happen to us, in effect, the largest central state agency distributing state tax dollars, is to pit Houston against Lubbock and Dallas against Rio Grande City. We know that's not good for us; it's not good for the state.

In fact, we work very hard every day to try to say to people who complain, This is one state, one people, sometimes my district gets more, sometimes it gets less, but we need to focus on the state's needs and not divide ourselves. So we hear clearly what you're saying. We're not going to let that happen.

SEN. DUNCAN: All right.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

MR. NICHOLS: Next is Representative John Shields.

MR. RAINES: I'm not Rep. John Shields, as you can tell. I'm one of his staffers. My name is Stephen Raines. And actually, and I'm going to submit comments on his behalf, if that's all right with you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

MR. RAINES: I'm just going to read them into the record, and then we'll submit the written ones later, if that's all right.

MR. NICHOLS: That's fine.

MR. RAINES: Thanks.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Transportation Institute's final report on TxDOT's project selection funds distribution process.

First of all, I want to thank you for all your help in providing the state discretionary funding for San Antonio and Bexar County area. Your most recent distribution of $144 million in strategic priority funding was helpful in a number of projects, and your assistance with Loop 410 and the Kelly Parkway is also appreciated.

In 2000, the San Antonio District had almost 1.5 million vehicles driving 35 million miles per day, representing 12 percent of the state's total vehicle miles traveled daily. However, we also have 10,366 on-system lane miles or 18 percent of the state's total lane mileage. That mileage is mostly attributable to the transportable planning and successful construction efforts of former TxDOT district engineers.

That extra mileage may also help explain why San Antonio was ranked 22nd best in mobility of the 70 major cities across the United States. Even so, according to some of the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization information we've received, San Antonions suffer from 26 million hours of delay annually and lose 38 million gallons of fuel are wasted idling in congestion. And our annual congestion costs are estimated at about $395 million, or $435 per driver.

To make matters worse, our metropolitan transportation plan projects that by 2025, San Antonio's population will increase 34 percent, from 1.5 to 2 million. Vehicle miles traveled daily will increase by 60 percent, from 35 million to 56 million miles per day. Traffic congestion levels will increase by 60 percent in spite of $9.6 billion in transportation investment, which would include 5.6 billion for roadways and $4 billion for transit.

San Antonio fully supports the recommendations that you have today and the idea to overhaul the project selection funds distribution process. The categories of the plan, develop, and construct that you were talking about earlier will not significantly be different from the long-range,Priority 2 and Priority 1 plan and be more plainspoken in their functions for citizens and leaders, as Commissioner Williamson said earlier.

I want to applaud the idea of collapsing the 34 separate funding categories into 12 and giving the local TxDOT districts extra flexibility to pursue mobility projects in accordance with the desires of the local citizens. I especially like the idea of abandoning a cost-effectiveness index that has prevented San Antonio from bringing corridors and projects critical to maintaining area levels of mobility forward from our long-range plan category to Priority 2.

Competition at the state level through the CEI process has seriously impeded regional efforts to try and keep pace with growing congestion. The transportation plan suggested by TTI to involve MPOs and the development of a new corridor selection process for the 2004 Unified Transportation Plan also will improve the process.

Please recognize that San Antonio's Priority 2 corridors and projects have been handicapped and that they were originally selected through the cost-effectiveness index process. This resulted in funding only small pieces of various critical corridors throughout the San Antonio area.

At expected of levels of funding, it will take San Antonio to at least 2013 to complete current Priority 2 projects. Accordingly, some catch-up mechanism should be considered for assisting these projects and the entire corridor to sooner completion.

There also needs to be a fair share on return of investment, which you talked about earlier, Commissioner. Metropolitan areas should be guaranteed a minimum return --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not a term I like to hear.

MR. RAINES: Okay. I'll keep that in mind.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I made it pretty plain that fair share can't be defined.

MR. RAINES: Absolutely. That's why we just want to make sure we understand we'd like a fair share and it's your idea to determine that.

(General laughter.)

MR. RAINES: We just like to make recommendations.

According to the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization estimates, the metropolitan area slice of the TxDOT Priority 1 funding has dwindled from '98 to 2001 from 92 percent to 81 percent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: In fact, let me just say right now, because John's a friend of mine, and I know you'll go back and report to him, and I hope he's a state senator someday, as apparently he wishes to be.

Here's the dilemma. Your testimony, first of all, you offer facts and figures, and I guess you're going to provide us a source for that at some point so we'll know -- unlike recent articles in the Houston paper, we'll know what your source is.

MR. RAINES: The source for the information in these comments we got from the metropolitan planning organization.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ah.

MR. RAINES: And their formulas for determining that, I think, they can probably provide to you, and someone will see to that --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh. So you're reading into the record as factual actually what someone else has provided to you, but you don't know what the source of that is --

MR. RAINES: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  -- other than -- you know, the newspapers do that a lot now. The problem with defining fair share is, you've just told us that you liked changing it to a corridor approach because the bits and pieces, the piecemeal process, drags things out. And yet the reason we find ourselves in the piecemeal bind is because every year, apparently, all of the constituent groups of the state want their fair share.

MR. RAINES: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we have this dilemma. You've got Houston, San Antonio -- although not Dallas anymore, interestingly enough -- coming to the commission and raising Cain about fair share.

MR. RAINES: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So we do things piecemeal so it is kind of fair share, and then people start raising Cain about piecemeal and never get anything finished.

MR. RAINES: You're exactly right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So you might pass along to John, we're trying to get to a point where it's fair share for the state and not for one piece of the state.

MR. RAINES: And I think that's what the comments he was wanting to make are. I think you've made a very good improvement in that process. We just want to make sure that our fair share is definitely our biggest interest here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I'm going to win.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Fair share. Hm.

MR. RAINES: The only other comments I had was with the passage of Proposition 15, hope there'll be more funding available in years ahead. And thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you want any future comments or information on these, please contact him at the office or myself. I can help you.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much.

MR. RAINES: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I appreciate it.

Next card up is Representative Gary Walker. I call him Chairman Walker.

Now, as I understand it, you did not want to speak, but you wanted to be shown as -- on record as in favor of this. Thank you very much. And, sir, we really do appreciate the help you've given us, particularly last session. I know a couple times they got in a pretty good pinch, you came in and raised up the flag, you helped, and I really appreciate that.

Individuals, as a reminder, as I go through these names and you come to the podium, state your name officially for the record to the mike. And also, there's a three-minute timer that's green. When there's one minute left, it turns yellow, and when the three minutes is up it turns red. Try to be fair to everybody. If we ask questions, then we extend the time on that.

Kevin Evans, from Lubbock.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Kevin.

MR. EVANS: How are you today? Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Kevin Evans, president of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor Coalition, representing them here today on this matter. Bring you greetings and regrets from our chairman, Randy Neugebauer. He is not able to be here. He's trying to make a living, and I keep chastising him as my volunteer chairman for trying to make a living, but he keeps telling me he doesn't care and that that's what they hired me for. So I'm happy about that.

I'd simply like to say, Ditto. As usual, Senator Duncan makes my job extremely easy. We certainly would echo everything that he has said.

Want to congratulate the commission, the staff, for doing an excellent job in taking what the senator described as a very bold step, and it is, in the right direction. Certainly we're excited about the continuous and complete corridors aspect, being a trade corridor that goes from Laredo to Denver.

Just finished up another summit conference in Lubbock. It very successful, very well attended. Know that many of you couldn't be here, but would like to tell you that your staff that participated in that did an absolutely wonderful job, very informative. And hopefully you'll make the next one.

Simply say thank you for making this effort. We will be submitting written comments, and we're very excited about the change in this process.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Larry Hertel, Lubbock.

MR. HERTEL: Yes. I'm Larry Hertel, city engineer with the City of Lubbock.

In a joint meeting of the Transportation Policy and Advisory Committees of the Lubbock MPO, there was a unanimous vote to support the proposed changes to TxDOT's project selection process. These changes to simplify the process and deliver highway improvements in a continuous and complete corridors are concepts that we certainly favor and support, and I'm just here to indicate the support of the Lubbock MPO and the City of Lubbock.

Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Bob Anderson, county commissioner, Hood County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My part of the world.

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this morning.

I'm from Hood County. County seat is Granbury, Texas, that lies just southwest of the Fort Worth-Dallas area. We have experienced a 40 percent growth in our population over this last decade, and it doesn't appear that it's slowing.

And as I sat and listened to the larger metropolitan areas and their growth and their challenges that they have, I just want to hold up the smaller areas that lie contingent with the Tarrant counties and the Dallas counties, that we are under great stress under a situation that is causing us a lot of problems.

We're experiencing 38,000 cars a day, plus -- at a business bypass split in Hood County. The bypass -- it was built in the mid-'70s -- is greatly congested.

Hood County recently developed a master transportation plan, and I appreciate the changes that have been made in the process. I think it'll be beneficial to us to complete -- help us complete this master transportation plan with the assistance of the state.

So I am in favor of this and hope to be coming before you very soon for proposals and assistance to develop this master transportation plan for our community. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Commissioner.

Tommy Eden, Austin.

MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commission members. My name is Tommy Eden. I am concerned about the need -- if you're dealing with federal programs, the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure whenever you do new construction. And I want to provide you with copies of the Federal Highway Administration's Design Guidance.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you ride your bicycle today?

MR. EDEN: Yes, sir.

I would like to point out to you on page 4, at the bottom of page 4, the policy statement, which generally states that bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be included in any new construction and reconstruction projects except where either bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law or where the cost of establishing these facilities would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use or where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need.

TxDOT's policy does not conform with this policy. According to TxDOT, the department provides for sidewalk construction on designated state highway system when replacing an existing sidewalk where highway construction severs an existing sidewalk system making connections within a highway right of way to restore sidewalk system continuity or where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict.

I would ask that any policies that you make conform with the Federal Highway Administration's requirements. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir. And I'm not going to try to respond to your concern at this moment, because I'm not that aware of this particular issue, but I am going to request to our executive director, Mike Behrens, that he have someone in the department check into this and respond officially back to you. So we have your address? This is your -- okay. This is your proper mailing address. And we will do that.

MR. EDEN: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

I'm showing -- now, I had a card for Sam Dawson, but as I understand it, you did not want to speak, but is that correct? Okay.

Now, I have no other cards from the public or this audience with regards to the public hearing. Is there anyone in here who wanted to speak who did not fill out a card? Please raise your hand.

(No response.)

MR. NICHOLS: If not, do you have any additional comments or closing?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Then I declare the public hearing closed. And we're going to take a short break to allow our next delegation to come in. So we're going to take about a three-minute break, three-minute recess.

(Off the record.)

MR. NICHOLS: We are reconvened. We very much appreciate the long distance you all have traveled to be here today. And I'm somewhat familiar with Big Spring. I used to buy a lot of polystyrene from up there.

MR. CROOKER: Oh, that's great. We were blessed with a five-inch rain yesterday, I understand. It's our first rain in so long I can't remember when it happened. It doubled our rainfall, I think.

MR. NICHOLS: You're Bill Crooker?

MR. CROOKER: Crooker. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Go ahead and start, sir.

BIG SPRING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(Bill Crooker, Senator Robert Duncan, Kevin Evans, Mayor Russ McEwen)

MR. CROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Bill Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County. Our purpose this morning is to present to you the need for a truck reliever route for US 87, the main north-south highway through Big Spring.

Big Spring is located at the crossroads of US 87 North-South and Interstate 20 East-West. 2000 census report shows 33,627 people in the county with 25,233 of these living in the city. This is a small increase over 1990.

Our first speaker this morning is our state senator, Robert Duncan.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you. It's a pleasure, once again, to be -- this is a dual appearance day for me, but I always enjoy being here again.

Big Spring is kind of right in the heart of the current Senate District 28, and something happened along the way in redistricting and it got -- I don't know what happened, but it got removed. We're trying to get it back. But I think this crossroads issue is very important for us to look at, especially when we're talking about east-west corridors and north-south corridors.

One of the primary -- and I think -- I always try to pick -- on transportation projects, I think y'all have noticed, I've tried to pick a few. I don't try to go for the whole bunch of them and be strong advocate for. This is one that I am a strong advocate for, because if you've been to Big Spring, if you're going north-south and you see -- if you go through the community there, you'll see that a truck has to go through -- if it's going north-south, going from Lubbock to San Angelo under the current configuration, or Amarillo, down that highway, which is a major corridor, and will be more of a major corridor with Port-to-Plains, it'll have to go through 52 intersections, eight signal lights, and two school crossings in order to get through the city of Big Spring.

That obviously is a safety issue that we have. It's also an environmental issue. It's also, as well, an efficiency issue for trucks that will be going that way. We know that this is one of the key, and probably one of the first projects, that ought to occur on the Port-to-Plains bypass, when we look at these bypasses.

The committee -- or the community is 100 percent committed to this. We don't even have to call it a reliever route. We can call it a bypass. The community has committed significant local funds to obtain right of way, and this is a high -- this is the highest priority in transportation in Howard County and Big Spring. And they have been strong supporters and participants in the Port-to-Plains concept that you recently approved with regard to the designation of that corridor.

So I'm here to ask that you -- specifically, I believe, the prayer should read -- select that this corridor or that this route be selected for phase 1 of the trunk system when the corridor -- when the commission prioritizes your Priority 2 corridors. So we would appreciate your consideration.

If there is any questions I can answer for you, I'll be happy to do so at this time.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

SEN. DUNCAN: Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Senator.

MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Senator.

State Representative David Counts could not be with us today. He has written a letter to each commissioner in support of the project, and I have given these letters to Helen.

Our speakers this morning are myself, Bill Crooker, county commissioner of Howard County; Kevin Evans, president of Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor; and Russ McEwen, our mayor.

The project began with a Lubbock to Interstate 10 Amarillo North Route Study Phase 2, by HDR Engineering, published in September of 1997. This study presented ten improvements possible for the Big Spring area. One of the ten, a truck reliever route to the west of Big Spring, received 123 votes from 300 people attending this public meeting in May of 1997.

A task group was formed in December 1999 to study and determine the most suitable route. The members were composed of city and county officials, chamber of commerce members, citizens, and representatives of TxDOT's Abilene District. After two public meetings in April 2001, a feasibility report outlining the proposed project was written and distributed to interested parties in May of 2001.

The proposed project includes phased construction. Phase 1 would be a four-lane divided highway with three intersections. There would be no frontage roads now or planned in the future. This would be in compliance with TxDOT's new frontage road policy.

Phase 1, the south section which you see on the screen, the reliever route is the pink line starting at US 87 on the south side of Big Spring, proceeding westerly, then turning north, going past the McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, where it meets Interstate 20 on the west side of Big Spring. This is approximately six miles.

The blue line shown is the existing Interstate 20 and US 87 North. Conceivably, a truck can enter the reliever route at US 87 South, take the new highway to Interstate 20, then take Interstate 20 East to US 87, and then continue on to the north. Thereby, using two existing roads, Interstate 20 and US 87 North, the truck can bypass Big Spring.

Phase 2, the north section, would follow the blue line beginning at Interstate 20, going in a north, then a east direction, connecting West 87 north of Big Spring. This would approximately be seven miles.

Howard County, by resolution, is willing to pay for the right of way and utility adjustments in Phase 1, estimated at $300,000. I have a copy of the resolution, and it has been given to Helen.

Incidentally, in our last project of widening US 87 back about 12 years ago, we committed to TxDOT about $750,000, and we're glad to do this. We understand the reasoning.

The 1999 ADT for US 87 through the city was between 11- and 13,000 vehicles per day. There are four factors, however, that will significantly impact the future traffic. They are US 87 is a high-priority corridor in the National Highway System; US 87 is a Priority 1 Texas Trunk System route; US 87 is designated as part of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by TxDOT; and US 87 is the primary route for the Texas Agricultural Corridor.

Route selection rationale is the east route, Farm Road 700 to Interstate 20, has become a main artery for local traffic, and many businesses have been located along this route, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter and a shopping mall. Current speed limit is 45 to 50 miles per hour. Overpasses would need to be constructed at seven intersections in order to move through traffic at 60 miles an hour.

However, the west route has the lower overall cost, has even terrain, passes within one-half mile of the McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, and would need no overpasses.

Our recommendations include the following: that TxDOT construct a truck reliever route west of Big Spring. We are seeking project-specific funding, and funding level will be $15 million.

The advantages are there's a strong public support for this project, as evidenced by the May 1997, September 2000, April 12 and April 24, 2001, public meetings attended by over 300 persons.

The preferred route has a minimal amount of right of way to obtain, while using the maximum amount of existing roadway. It frees the main north-south corridor through the community to local traffic. It will reduce traffic accidents and provide a hazardous cargo route around the city, which I think is very important.

A reliever route west of Big Spring would encourage industrial development at our McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, help fulfill Ports-to-Plains and Texas Trunk System objectives, has the potential of giving some relief to the heavy traffic on Interstate 35 corridor.

And now we will hear from Kevin Evans, president of Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

MR. EVANS: Thank you, Bill.

Gentlemen, on the map that you have there before you, you see a lot of green stars. Those represent reliever routes that are working at some stage or another in those communities along the route. And as Randy Neugebauer pointed out yesterday in a meeting I was at, some of those are in the matchbook stage, where they're still drawing pictures on the back of a matchbook, talking about it in the coffee shop. Some of them are in construction. Some of them in line to be funded. And then at the heart of our route in Texas, you have Big Spring. As you can see, they're fairly far along on their planning process.

We feel like we have a transportation crisis here in Texas. Proposition 15 -- and by the way, congratulation on all of your work on that -- is going to go a long way to help that and begin the process, we hope. But still, you can see the statistics there I get from Bill Webb, president of TMTA here in Texas: 31 million by 2025; 50 percent increase in the overall state; 50 percent of that will be in the DFW/Houston areas. They're going to need more alternative routes, more relief of some type. We hope to be that relief.

Truck crossings up, commercial mileage up -- all those things you're aware of. Trade traffic increasing. I like to use this slide because I got the information from Ed Wueste here at TxDOT, going from, I believe, around '99-2000 of $200 billion a year trade with Mexico to 800 billion by the year 2010 was the estimate we had at that time; current annual rate of increase about 15 percent.

There's going to be an increase in trade traffic in Texas. We don't -- we know we're not going to get the lion's share of that increase, but obviously, we are going to benefit and be responsible for a big part of that up the Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

TEA-21, Ports-to-Plains, and Big Spring share some common goals. Promoting safety for the route is a very obvious need. If you've ever been down Gregg Street, it is an amazingly long journey, and it is, even with the great improvements that have been made in recent past, still very dangerous and very tedious for trade traffic.

We will improve access along the route. The interconnection with I-20 will be greatly improved. Construction of the reliever routes utilize less congested border crossings. We're promoting that very heavily in Acuña-Del Rio and Piedras Negras-Eagle Pass -- alternative routes, economic development, and balanced growth.

Big Spring is at the heart of the Ports-to-Plains route in Texas, and they need a reliever route sooner than later. And you'll notice -- you may not have known that Michael Behrens was a doctor, but there he is performing a bypass operation for Big Spring.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me wait for the appropriate time to raise this question.

MR. EVANS: I didn't say "fair share."

MR. WILLIAMSON: I know. And we appreciate that.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I know that you never made that argument. Even in Ports-to-Plains you never made that argument. You made the argument that it was in the state's best interest.

MR. EVANS: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I personally appreciate that. I want to know if it's possible to bring the slide back up that had all the green stars on it. Can that be done?

MR. EVANS: May take him a second to run through them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I want to ask you, as a person who's identified -- among many, but you're prominently identified with the Ports-to-Plains concept -- has anyone involved in Ports-to-Plains started to discuss the possibility of a Regional Mobility Authority to expedite or to entrepreneurially plan to bring Ports-to-Plains to fruition much faster than we all realize is possible in the current funding scenario?

MR. EVANS: The board has not discussed it openly. Randy Neugebauer and I and, of course, Tommy Gonzalez, my predecessor, and one other board member locally have had that discussion just recently.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the reason I ask the question is one of the persons involved in it -- there's no reason to bring his name into it -- opined to me recently that if you took the tax base from Stratford to Del Rio -- not down to Laredo yet, but just from Stratford to Del Rio -- if you looked at the tax base of those counties and communities that would benefit directly from Ports-to-Plains, you could make a reasonable argument that a combination local government-state government-private sector partnership might could well pull off a transportation corridor that included concrete and rail that would result in tremendous economic benefits to those tax bases to the extent that those tax bases could afford to make some financial commitments to the whole project.

And I just want to encourage you to explore that. I mean, I think there's -- if Lubbock, Senator Duncan would argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains would provide X amount of economic growth; if Del Rio could argue that a completed Ports-to-Plains, at least at their border crossing, would result in X amount of international trade; if Stratford could argue that Ports-to-Plains would result in finished cotton crops or milo crops or whatever being processed and sent to market sooner, and then the argument is we will all benefit economically if we will invest, is it possible to figure out a local government-state government-private sector partnership that can make this thing happen a lot faster?

And I just would encourage you to do that.

MR. EVANS: We would love to explore it, and I will be visiting with you more about it in the future and get some more of your ideas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Proposition 15 gives us at the commission tools to do things that we haven't had in the past. And we are open for business, and we're thinking outside the box.

MR. EVANS: Appreciate it very much.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Kevin.

MR. EVANS: Thank you. And now I introduce Mayor Russ McEwen.

MR. NICHOLS: Welcome, Mayor.

MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the chance to be here. And, Commissioner Williamson, it's an intriguing idea that you have, one that I have not heard about up till now, but certainly does have great merit as I think about what we're trying to do in Big Spring, obviously, and then looking at what we want to do up and down the corridor. I think --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, Mayor, and I have to give credit where credit's due.

MAYOR McEWEN: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The man that appointed me to this position told me a year ago he had a vision for transportation in this state, and he intends his vision to be brought to fruition. And Proposition 15 is a large part of the governor's plan to rebuild the infrastructure of the state. And he was deadly serious when he told me that, and he's deadly serious now. He wants to get Texas moving.

MAYOR McEWEN: Well, obviously, you are too, and I commend you for that, sir.

We do have safety issues in Big Spring that are significant, as Senator Duncan alluded to earlier, as to the number of places that US 87 has crossings in our community. US 87 uses an existing city street that passes through the main business district in Big Spring.

And if you're familiar with Big Spring at all, you know that there are significant grade changes on this street that create hazardous intersections at FM 700, 10th Street, 4th Street, and Sgt. Paredez Street. At each of these intersections, trucks must contend with stoplights after traveling significant distances on fairly severe down slopes.

Approximately 1,750 trucks pass through Big Spring via US 87 on a daily basis. These statistics are provided by TxDOT, and they've indicated an approximate 5 percent increase in truck traffic on an annual basis.

It is our belief that there will be even a greater increase when US 277 between Del Rio and Sonora is finished and the extensive rebuild of US 87 at Tahoka is completed.

From an economic standpoint, this reliever route will come within a half mile of McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark with an exit running directly into the west side of this facility. With the Ports-to-Plains Corridor becoming a major trade route, the accessibility of an airpark, combined with the fact that Interstate 20 runs directly north of McMahon/Wrinkle Airpark, gives Big Spring two major opportunities for economic growth.

NAFTA will bring goods up this corridor that will need to be shipped north, east, and west. This suits Big Spring's location perfectly. We are in an ideal position to become a major warehousing and distribution location, because we will be at the crossroads of IH-20 and Ports-to-Plains.

Secondly, intermodal transportation makes abundant sense at our airpark. Using proposed and existing facilities -- these including a modern airpark with a brand-new terminal, a railhead that could be expanded, and the proposed truck reliever route -- it will give us an opportunity for intermodal transportation that has become very important in today's economy.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you today and would entertain any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Mayor. Is that the end of the presentation?

MAYOR McEWEN: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MAYOR McEWEN: Mr. Crooker has a short summary.

MR. NICHOLS: Any questions at this point? I'll reserve my questions to the end. Thank you.

MAYOR McEWEN: Thank you, sir.

MR. CROOKER: Thank you, Mayor.

At this time, I would like very much to have the Big Springers and -- the contingent from Big Spring and Ports-to-Plains persons present, please, stand up. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Did y'all drive in or fly in?

MR. CROOKER: I think they did both. I think the mayor said he came by boat.

MR. NICHOLS: By boat?

(General laughter.)

MR. CROOKER: At this time, I would like to extend my thanks and compliments to Bill Hale, Abilene District Engineer, and his staff, in particular Art Barrow, our Big Spring area engineer. They've been most helpful and supportive in this project. In this summary, I'd like to say my sincere thanks to each commissioner for your time and interest.

In closing, I would like to say this reliever route is a safety issue, an economic issue, and a trade issue. We urge you to do everything possible to bring this project to fruition in a realistic time frame. And I thank you very much.

And now we would like to entertain any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: Did you have any questions? I had a few. The original estimate on this was about -- it may be that Bill Hale, which we're very proud of, by the way, as a district engineer -- was about $49 million. Now, that's for an entire four-lane divided for that entire --

MR. CROOKER: Correct.

MR. HALE: [inaudible]

MR. NICHOLS: Into the mike. We can't hear you. I can hear you, but --

MR. HALE: Okay. The department -- that's for the entire phase or entire project from north to south of Big Spring.

MR. NICHOLS: On the west side.

MR. HALE: Right. And that first phase going up to 20, then over to 87, and on up out of Big Spring is --

MR. NICHOLS: It was proposed to be -- in that first phase, to be a four-lane divided?

MR. HALE: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. As opposed to if we acquired enough right of way for a four-lane divided and got a two-lane in there to start with, that would at least begin the process so we can maybe take this thing in smaller -- okay. That's what I was trying to understand.

MR. HALE: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Now, that -- as I understand it, this route is on Phase 1 Corridor, Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes, it is. We're asking for it to be on Phase 1 Corridor System.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

MR. HALE: Okay. It is.

MR. NICHOLS: It's on the Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

MR. NICHOLS: Jim? Where's Jim? Is it on the Phase 1 Corridors of the Texas Trunk System?

MR. HALE: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: I think it is.

MR. HALE: Yes, it is.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm pretty sure it is. We have -- and I think this is important for y'all to kind of recognize this. When we established the Phase 1 Corridors of the Texas Trunk System, it was to try to take logical alignments with geographical distribution around the state that would work for the entire state, and then line up some of these gaps and fill them in.

And when we established that several years ago, the idea was to have the whole thing, all those gaps closed in inside of ten years. And I think there's about seven years left of hammering those gaps. I drive around through there; I'm seeing some of them get closed now.

Now, we also recognized at that point that we did not address the reliever route issue on those corridors, that we knew that as we got into the Phase 2, for lack of a better word, that we needed to address those. We knew that reliever routes, the arguments of, you know, what happens to our retail, and all that kinds of stuff, would be more lengthy, that it would be a little more expensive. We could get the long stretches quicker, more dramatic, and start moving vehicles.

But Phase 2 hearings and what that money is to be spent for is approximately scheduled to be next summer, probably at the end of the summer, somewhere in there. I'm not sure. And we had thought -- and we almost did it last time -- and I'm pretty sure that one of the big issues will be to take that funding source -- not a new funding source, but that existing funding source -- and take a percentage of that to apply to the reliever routes on the Phase 1 Corridors. The great bulk of the Ports-to-Plains issue is -- route is on that.

So we know we can't create a corridor and shove all that traffic through the middle of the cities that aren't prepared for it. But -- so that funding source -- that's a perfect place for a project like this. And if you believe in that and you want to have input into the criteria supporting that, you -- everybody in the state will receive notifications of those hearings that will begin sometime next summer. So that would be a good opportunity to get in for that also.

Secondly, I compliment you for a very good presentation. I used to -- as I said before, I did -- I used to buy a lot of polystyrene out in Big Spring, and I had forgotten all about that airport. But I lost an engine on my plane once and landed there, and I will never forget that airport. They treated me real nice there, so I appreciate it.

No other comments?

(No response.)

MR. NICHOLS: We thank you very much, and everyone who has driven so far, flown, or come by boat. We recognize that you come -- communities don't happen; they're built by people who are concerned. Y'all obviously are very concerned about the future of your community and have taken that extra step away from your daily lives and work to present your needs and dreams for your community, and we very much appreciate that. And have a safe trip back, and thank you.

We're going to take a three-minute recess, give them an opportunity to leave.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

CITY OF WICHITA FALLS

(Judge Woodrow "Woody" Gossom, Representative David Farabee, Brooke Boddy)

MR. NICHOLS: Next delegation, City of Wichita Falls. Welcome. Judge Gossom.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you, sir. Good to see you, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Good to see you again.

JUDGE GOSSOM: We enjoyed having you in Wichita Falls, and I hope you were able to travel back 281 safely.

I did want to tell Commissioner Williamson, the last time we were down here to talk about 281, he did ask if we could get right of way donated. Now, we've done that to the Wichita County line, sir. I wanted to let you know. We even got the road built all the way there too.

It does give us pleasure to come down and be able to visit with you all today. We hope we can drag some of this rain back home with us, just in case you get too much down here.

Mr. Behrens, it's good to see you. We haven't had a chance to talk with you since you got your new position, but congratulations.

I do have one small thing. I want to be sure you realize something. Everybody else got one of these ties last time. We want you to consider that tie [inaudible] necktie [inaudible] Wichita Falls in the center of that, we'd like you to proudly wear it.

At this time I would like to ask Representative David Farabee from Wichita County to come forward to speak. He'll be followed by Brooke Boddy representing Representative Hardcastle's office.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you, Judge Gossom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. And, Mr. Behrens, welcome. Good to have you aboard.

It's neat to have this opportunity today. Yesterday as I was driving in, I thought I could beat traffic through Fort Worth, so, Commissioner Williamson, I took 180 over at Mineral Wells and hit 171, and it took me about 45 minutes longer. So anyway, I got a taste of Weatherford, had an opportunity to go through your beautiful community and see your courthouse again. It's always a neat experience.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We hope you left a few dollars.

REP. FARABEE: Oh, yes, I did. Yes. I had to, at least -- yes, because there were just a few stoplights on that route.

As you will hear from our distinguished county judge and you will also see by the attendance of the numerous local officials in our region, these projects are important for our area. And I join Representative Hardcastle and his staff member today in affording my strongest support.

As you'll hear, the interchange at US 287 and US 82 and 277 is structurally ready to go. We had the dedication of that facility, our overhead, just this week, and it was a neat experience.

My hat's off to John Barton and Joe Nelson who do a wonderful job. Anytime I have a concern from one of my constituents on a transportation issue, I call them, and then within hours, within hours, I hear back from the constituent saying, They were the most pleasant people in the world to deal with. And so it says a lot for them.

But it was a proud moment for us to dedicate the overhead just this week. But that is our number one project, and you'll hear of some other projects as well that are important to us, such as the extension of US 82/277, which we commonly know as Kell Freeway, which is in progress.

But we need to continue the progress on that piece of transportation infrastructure, because of the new industries and businesses that are locating. We recently had one of the wireless companies that has located a 450-employee operation on that piece of highway and adds to the transportation needs. That -- in front of that is in progress, the construction, but as we move further west into Archer County, I think it's important that we also keep that project in mind, and that would be US 82/277.

But again, if I were to come before you today and tell you what I feel is our strongest need -- and I think you'll hear this again from Judge Gossom and other members of our group making presentations or that you'll visit with -- is the interchange of 82/287, now that we've got the overhead completed through the city.

So I want to say thank you to Commissioner Nichols for coming to Wichita Falls. Obviously the overwhelming support of Proposition 15 was buoyed by your attendance at that meeting. And also to Commissioner Williamson, thank you for making Weatherford a wonderful place to be last night as I traveled this way.

So are there any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: I'll probably save most of my questions till the end after we hear all the comments and the presentation.

REP. FARABEE: Well, thank you for your hard work.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you for everything you do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Will this be the only time you'll be at the podium?

REP. FARABEE: Today. I just wanted to get my fair share of time in today.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: On a personal matter, Mr. Chairman, I have three children, and I'm painfully aware that the road I travel through life will affect my children. And I want to take this moment to tell you -- I don't know you personally -- but I served on four intense and difficult conference committees with Ray Farabee, and I shared some acreage with him for a time. And I want to tell you that Ray Farabee paved the way for good thoughts about his family.

He was -- is, was one of the most dedicated and best public servants I observed in my years in the legislature.

REP. FARABEE: Thank you. And rest assured that he and I talked before I assumed my position. I asked him, you know, who are some of the shining stars you've seen come through the process, and he commented on your ability to take the budget and really work each agency to be responsible for their resources. And your name came up in that conversation, so he thinks highly of you as well.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I appreciate that.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MS. BODDY: My name is Brooke Boddy, and I'm here today for Representative Rick Hardcastle. And I first want to thank you for allowing me to come and speak and for you to hear my comments. He isn't here today due to a family illness that is keeping him in Vernon, but he did want me to share with you and that he is very adamant of his -- he has such a strong support for this project and that it does affect his district as well as Mr. Farabee's, in that House District 68 surrounds Wichita Falls on every side excluding Oklahoma.

But -- and all of the local highways feed into this area, and it is a safety issue as well as an economic issue to have this corridor fixed.

Actually, that's -- I just wanted to show his support today of this -- both of the priority of grades [phonetic] and to encourage your consideration. And I will pass it on to the experts over here that have a lot more information than I probably ever will.

But do you have any questions for me that I can answer on his behalf?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't.

Do you? No.

MS. BODDY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

JUDGE GOSSOM: I do want to thank Representative Farabee and Brooke for coming representing Representative Hardcastle. They are -- you know, in the redistricting process, one of the things we will hate to lose, we have right now -- we're very fortunate to have dual representation of two good state representatives there.

We do have a good delegation for the City of Wichita Falls, and I'd like to recognize a few of those people. First of all, we have City Councilwoman Linda Ammons. Also from our MPO, Staff Director Steve Seese is here. We have a committee that's a city-county committee called Transportation Needs Committee, and from that committee today we have Ms. Donna Adams, Mr. Paul Foley, Mr. J.W. Martin. And citizens we have Jon Moller, one of the people that's been a vital public support to this.

Also a couple of people that we have with us that we couldn't do without is our district engineer, Joe Nelson, has come. And from my days as a county commissioner to my days as a county judge, Joe has brought in and assembled a staff -- John Barton's here, Andy Petter. When you go out there, it's not how we can't do something; it's how can we do something. And that is a welcome attitude, and that has got to be -- come from the top down to get out to the field, and we appreciate it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean he asked, Why not, instead of, Why?

JUDGE GOSSOM: Really, why not get it done today instead of tomorrow.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I like that.

JUDGE GOSSOM: I like that. I like that.

At this time, I would like to -- we're going to show you a video. This is not going to follow the other information that you were sent by the delegation, so if I could ask you all -- I assume that's the screen you all use, and we'll follow through there and give you an idea of some of the highlights of our petition.

If you look at this, this is a slide showing the regional concept of what you have done for us already from Abilene to Wichita Falls in the designation of 277/82. If you look here, one of the things, thinking of the NAFTA concept, that right now to go from El Paso to Oklahoma City, one route's 819 miles, while another one's 799. The short route through Wichita Falls is 752.

As you fly here with me, you will see now a slide coming in from the north of the new overhead project. As you look at that, it gives you an idea of the expanse across the Wichita River and what happens there.

We now swing around, if you'd look -- this is the beginning of US 277/82, and if you look here and here, those are two very important ramps. And if you look up to the north, that's where we're going to be coming in from.

Right now, as you look at this slide, if you were coming north, you have to get off and take the lower route and come through here. You can't take this exit here. You can't come back this way. You're going to stay the lower route. These ramps are going to be very important as we come in for people to exit to US 82/277 going west or coming in from the west to be able to go north or south is important.

The last one will be the highest to come in. The view we're giving you here at this time shows you that when people have to go to the lower area that they're going to go through eleven traffic-controlled intersections. They're going to come here and have to make this turn and look up and see, Gee, I could've come straight through if that overhead would have let me get off -- we'll be there in a second -- somebody needs to push the accelerator just a little bit.

Now, if you'll look right there, there's a ramp to nowhere. It will come and land and come down and allow you to come in. The significance here of this slide shows you that you have an intersection here -- that's the interchange -- comes out here to Barnett Road and to Allendale Road. Both of these are level service of E or below, all -- and including this one -- for what happens -- then we come out here to Farm-to-Market Road 369.

This is what you're doing for us today. This is the beginning of the project that's going to take you out to those other two intersections I pointed out coming from the interchange.

If you note, those overpasses come in to cover those heavy traffic areas. In that area, current construction of the four-lane from Kemp to Fairway, we have seen the growth in this area -- you see the Lowe's sign there till Wal-Mart that's just out of your picture to the south. Across the way is a 200-unit assisted living center, a brand-new car dealership, a new strip mall.

Representative Farabee mentioned the Cingular Wireless with 450 employees in it. There's another 200-unit assisted living center there, and behind it a 400-unit apartment complex. As we pan back, you're seeing the addition to a subdivision that had been there for years that now is doubled, and back in the area you see a new school.

This area is growing significantly as we look at it. Those intersections -- we show you again -- if those are brought in to the program as the extension beyond Fairway, we will take away what is becoming the two most dangerous intersections in Wichita County.

I want to bring you back and talk to you just in a summary. What you see here, we can't get up to that brand-new highway you have built us there. That's the beginning of US 82/277, which will tie in to three other major highways there.

Once again, I'd like to point out those ramps to the right side and to the left are very important to have the safe traffic flow through Wichita Falls. With those put in, we will gain mobility and safety and actually economy for those people in the professional transportation industry.

MR. NICHOLS: I kept reaching for my seat belt every time I'd think it was --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Well, we had Les Finnell, former State Representative Charles Finnell's brother, fly that for us. We really should have had his wife. She's really a better pilot. But we couldn't say that; it was a free ride.

Let's tie together some things about this. You have much of this information already to you. Funding. Wichita Falls began this project with the purchase of the right of way in 1967. Since that time, we have developed an MPO group and it's come together with the City of Wichita Falls, and working with the endorsement of our district TxDOT office, there's a commitment of $5 million in future 4-D funds to the interchange. There's a commitment of $4 million for the final section of the main lanes.

Early completion of the overhead project, which without rain has gone very well -- I'm not sure the tradeoff's as good, but it's been great -- that project, with the overheads finishing early, will leave approximately $1 million in that fund, and we would like to see that put into that interchange project.

The interchange ramps and the new overpasses will improve transportation and efficiency for this very significant transportation corridor from the west of El Paso to the Northeast. It makes an excellent tie-in.

While we're doing this, we're going to replace the service lanes that were built in 1988 with the four-lane divided area. Those roads have decreased and their deterioration has been 68 percent in the measurements since 1993 to 2000. We're using service roads for main thoroughfares.

We have regional support in this. You have letters in the packet. We did talk to Representative Counts, and he unfortunately couldn't be here for Big Spring's presentation either. He sees both projects as vital to his district.

We want you to raise the priority of the second half of this. We want to see it go into Phase 1 and be a high priority to open that corridor from the interchange of the overhead highway of I-44 that brings together a tremendous hub of highways. You have I-44, US 82/277, US 281, and US 287 that would come into that area.

If you can do this for us, the effort that you gave to Abilene and to Wichita Falls when you approved the four-laning of 277 to Wichita Falls, we won't get them there and then bring them to a bottleneck. We could bring them to a safe way to pass through Wichita Falls on the commercial route they have picked that is the shortest from that direction going to Oklahoma City and the Northeast.

Thank you very much. We'd be glad to take questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any comments or questions? I had a couple.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So in summary, because of all the new construction on the freeway and the corridor, what the problem is is we need more construction.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm teasing with you, but I think y'all have done a very good job in putting together your projects and working with the district and showing the needs and stuff and participating. And you've done it with a united front from the Wichita Falls area.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And most everything that you're pointing out is of a regional significance. I have driven across this route three times in the last three weeks myself, and I remember before the flyover was constructed, I don't remember how many stoplights there were, but I swear --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Eleven.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I was going to guess 12 or 13. But I'm sure you know. Between the two of these, the interchange and the Kell Freeway, if you -- have y'all, as an area, tried to prioritize one or the other, if we could only do one of those two? I don't want to put you on the spot --

JUDGE GOSSOM: We have not formally done so. We knew you would likely ask that, and I tried to avoid that in my presentation.

MR. NICHOLS: I understand.

JUDGE GOSSOM: But the honest realization is the ramps are the most important. That's the significant congestion. But as you just pointed out, Commissioner, the success of the ramps has even made the other traffic problems. When we do this and you still have the crossings at Allendale and Barnett, which both have farm-to-market road designations -- those are the two most unsafe crossings -- it's going to become readily apparent that we need to get to the west of Farm-to-Market Road 369.

MR. NICHOLS: And as the missing gaps on that corridor are completed, you're going to have increased truck traffic coming the other way.

So I may have a question to our district engineer. On the missing gap or the two-lane gap that's going to four-lane between Abilene and up, what is the status on that as far as the construction estimated completion? Or is that -- oh. That's in the other district, isn't it, part of it?

MR. NELSON: Well, part of it --

MR. NICHOLS: Oh. Y'all work together.

MR. NELSON: In our district, we are still awaiting letting the first project and hope to be able to do that in 2003. And we are trying to accelerate the plans so that we will be able to let them in a little more rapid succession. I think our last project was to have been let in 2008.

MR. NICHOLS: The last of them?

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: So within a -- there'll be significant construction between three years from now -- two years from now and five years from now --

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- with an estimated completion of about seven years.

MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: And when that's completed, that's when you're going to start seeing more trucks divert up to that area, I guess.

MR. NELSON: We're seeing our truck traffic increase. I think everybody around the state is. But we have seen some pretty significant increases. Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Anything else?

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. We very much appreciate y'all taking the time to be here, and appreciate what y'all have done. And there's -- did you have something else? I see --

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir. I do want to give you a resolution from Abilene supporting this. The other thing, I'd like to just pull back in and kind of remind: I know we've been blessed by you all's attention to the area. But in the original investment put in by the City of Wichita Falls to buy the right of way in today's dollars now is a $20 million commitment for a project that started in -- as Arnold Oliver says, I was brand-new to the department, I went through, I retired, and eight years later it still isn't complete, but it sure is a heck of a lot farther along. We appreciate it.

Let me give you this resolution, and we're finished.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE GOSSOM: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: That's it? Complete?

JUDGE GOSSOM: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: All right. Thank you very much for the trip. I assume most of y'all -- drive safely. The street's wet; be careful. And I look forward to being back up in the Wichita Falls area. Y'all's hospitality is always very nice.

We're going to declare a three- to five-minute recess so y'all can have a chance to get up and go. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

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

MR. NICHOLS: We'll reconvene. Item Number 3, approval of the minutes from the October 25 meeting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So move.

MR. NICHOLS: Second. All in favor?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Aye.

MR. NICHOLS: Aye. Motion carries.

And now we have a resolution. Great pleasure. Kirby Pickett. Where's Kirby? What? There he is. Kirby, come up to the front. We have something kind of special for you up here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I went out and bought a pair of brown pants for you.

MR. PICKETT: Very good. I appreciate that, Commissioner.

MR. NICHOLS: Now, we've got -- we know how much you like informal -- things to be informal and casual and things of that nature. So today's we're going to do it in a very formal manner. A resolution, framed, sealed, signed. Stand up and read it:

Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission takes great pride in recognizing Kirby Pickett, an outstanding, dedicated transportation engineer, who has served the Department of Transportation for four decades, most recently as deputy executive director;

Whereas, Mr. Pickett earned a civil engineering degree, 1961, University of Texas and received his license professional engineer in 1965 and license in professional land surveyor -- I didn't realize that -- in 1980; devoted 40 years -- 40 years -- of his life to public service by holding various positions including engineering assistant, Mount Vernon; area engineer, Sulphur Springs; district design engineer and assistant district engineer of Paris, Texas; became district engineer in Waco District in 1986; performed exceptionally in fulfilling his responsibilities for all transportation projects and programs in the eight-county district;

Whereas, he was recognized by his peers as the Dean -- you have to be kind of old, as I understand, on that one -- Dean of the District Engineers, 1995; and championed the department's research program by pursuing his commitment to deliver quality transportation products and services, keen interest in and deep appreciation for the rich history of the department prompted his oversight in the opening of the department's historical exhibit in the Dewitt Greer Building;

Whereas, Mr. Pickett is an exemplary and distinguished gentleman, highly regarded by his wife Gerry and his son John as a committed and devoted husband and father; and

Whereas, Mr. Pickett will now retire -- although I understand you have to stay till the end of the month --

MR. PICKETT: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS:  -- although he will now retire from public service to pursue a life of private endeavors, the department and the Transportation Commission hereby recognizes and thanks Kirby Pickett for his professional career achievements and loyal service on behalf of the State of Texas. Signed by the entire commission.

So, congratulations.

(Applause.)

MR. PICKETT: Well, thank you very much. It's been interesting. In some ways, it seems like a very short time ago that I started. I think there are a lot of factors in deciding when to retire, and until August when Wes retired -- we have eight pictures on the back wall of previous state highway engineers. Until Wes retired, before they put his picture up, I had not worked for all of them. Gib Gilcrest left the department the year I was born is the reason that happened.

But once they moved his over to the side wall and put Wes' up, I now have worked for all eight of the folks on the back wall, including, since September, Mike. So I think that was a good clue for me.

But anyhow, do appreciate the resolution. And I'm going to miss seeing what in the world y'all do next.

(General laughter; applause.)

MR. NICHOLS: Gerry, you want to come up here too?

(Pause for photographs.)

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Mike, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you to go through the rest of the items.

MR. BEHRENS: Okay. We'll start with Item Number 5, which is a report from the Grand Parkway Association, and Jim will introduce the folks from Grand Parkway.

MR. RANDALL: Jim Randall, Transportation Planning and Programming Division. Department rules pertaining to transportation corporations require that a corporation make an annual report to the commission on its current condition, status of projects, and activities undertaken during the preceding 12 months. Mr. David Gornet, director of the association, is here today to give you this report.

MR. GORNET: Good morning, Commissioners. I appreciate the chance to come and visit with you all and give a presentation on the status of the Grand Parkway Association and our project.

First, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce myself. Commissioner Nichols and I have met previously. Commissioner Williamson, I don't know if I've had the honor. I have 20 years' experience in transportation planning, have spent the past two-and-a-half years with the association. Previously, you all have heard from Ms. Diane Schenke as the past executive director of the association. She resigned this past spring to join the Nature Conservancy of Texas to go work on the green side and try to develop habitat, and she's looking forward to working closely with the association so that she can do mitigation projects and such to help preserve habitat while we can move forward with our transportation needs.

And to assist me, I have recently hired Ms. Robin Sterry, who -- formerly of TxDOT, she has 16-plus years' experience with TxDOT and most recently was the Houston District environmental coordinator. And when I was looking for someone to help assist me, I wanted someone that knew the project, knew the people, and knew the process that was involved, and she fulfilled all of that to a T, and so I welcome her assistance in us trying to push this project forward.

We'll go through a report on the status of the project. If y'all have any questions, please feel free to interrupt me at any point in time. Robin, first slide.

The Grand Parkway Project was first proposed in 1961 by the City of Houston as part of its master planning efforts. In 1968, it was formally included on the general study plan for the city of Houston for the 1990, their 20-year horizon plan.

In 1984, the Grand Parkway Association was established as a state transportation corporation. It's my understanding we are the last of the remaining state transportation corporations. And the entire loop of the Grand Parkway since 1984 has been designated as State Highway 99. We currently have open, from I-10 to US 59, about 19 miles of that.

Next slide. The purpose of the Association of State Transportation Corporations was to facilitate public-private partnerships between TxDOT, who had limited resources, and local counties, cities, authorities in the Houston region, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Harris County Tollroad Authority, and private landowners. The association works as a go-between between all these organizations to help move the project forward as quickly as possible.

Besides working that partnership, the Grand Parkway Association -- or the Grand Parkway Project enhances regional mobility; we address the existing and projected congestion; we look to minimize overall impacts to both the human and natural environments, work on hurricane evacuation needs for the southern area of the metropolitan region of Houston, and we try to exemplify responsible planning.

For years the Grand Parkway has been identified as a project necessary for the metropolitan area of Houston. It's been continued in the Houston-Galveston area councils' master planning efforts for 2020 and now in 2025. We work to preserve the corridor, provide for limited access highway, and ultimately we hope to reduce the time and cost of project implementation through our partnerships.

What we're trying to provide is not this, which is a picture of FM 1960, which is oftentimes what happens when we have a good road, but growth occurs so rapidly that we can't respond to those changes in a timely fashion. You end up with a lot of congestion in an unsightly fashion.

We're trying to develop a highway without billboards. We use scenic easements, when we can get those from the adjacent landowners, that's limited access with no driveways on and off, that meets the needs of our transportation system; that is, to provide mobility.

We're also trying to develop it with a minimum amount of frontage roads in accordance with you all's June action. This has been in place since 1984 for the Grand Parkway to try to minimize the amount of frontage roads so that we can, again, address mobility and not the access to the local properties.

What we have is a highway that has ramps on and off, but the major thoroughfares and ultimately the development will occur along the thoroughfare network, and the highway will continue to serve its mobility functions.

This is an overall map. Segments have been labeled, obviously, going clockwise, A through I-2. I'll go into details on each of the segments. That's the general map. We have segments A and B, which are in the -- A goes from 146 to I-45 in the League City and Dickinson area of Galveston County. As yet, we have no studies underway in that area, and we're not expecting to start a study in that area in the near future.

Segment B, the commission has recently acted on a partnership with Brazoria County. Galveston County is funding this out of its bond issue that it did last November, for us to initiate a study. We're now negotiating those contracts with a consultant and with the Houston District to get those approved.

Segment C, you all probably received some comments in years past on the actions that we're taking there and looking at alternate alignments that were close to Brazos Bend State Park, and those have received a lot of opposition. The blue line we're proposing there is a mile and a half north of the state park. It's out of the watersheds of the streams that feed into the state park and will minimize impacts in there. It still traverses a large part of the Brazos River flood plain, but unavoidably, we're going to cross the Brazos River down in there somewhere.

The remaining activities we have on C, we've already had the draft environmental impact statement, the public hearing. We're looking forward to publishing the final environmental impact statement this spring and getting a record of decision as soon as possible so we can move that forward.

Fort Bend County, last November, passed a bond issue that included $7.3 million of design money, and they're looking forward to participating and partnering with TxDOT to move into construction as quickly as possible.

Segment D is the segment open 19 miles from US 59 to I-10. That's had a tremendous amount of traffic growth over the past few years, 40 percent from '97 to '99. We do not have 2001 numbers yet.

The next segments we're looking as a package, Segment E, F-1, F-2, and G, that go from I-10 to US 290 to State Highway 249 to Interstate 45 North to US 59 North around the west and northern sides from the metropolitan Houston area. That study started in July of 1999. We're anticipating four environmental documents for that. It's possible that it could become a tollroad. The Harris County Tollroad Authority and TxDOT are participating in the funding of the route environmental studies for this.

There's also some interest in designating that as I-69. U.S. Representative Kevin Brady is very supportive of that being I-69, although that does raise some concerns with local citizens, particularly in the F-2 area, over the increased truck traffic.

The progress we've had on that -- we started in July of '99. We held meetings in August '99, February and June of 2000, and we looked at going from a wide study area, narrowing that down to corridors and then to specific alignments for consideration. Those alternative alignments through that whole area we presented in October, and we've been taking comments on that and refining that.

And in specific segments, on E we go from the orange alignments that were recommended ones to the purple one that is the preferred route that we're going to be documenting our draft environmental impact statements.

On Segment F-1, again, we had numerous alternatives and a preferred route that we intend to recommend.

Segment F-2 -- this is an area where we had a lot of concern, and you all probably got letters from -- and the laser pointer's not working very well up there -- south of where it says Spring Creek, west of the town of Old Town Spring, we have -- you can see with the greater number of alternatives, we were trying to find a solution that worked to avoid impacts to the businesses, to the homes in the area, as well as to minimize impacts to the developments that are oncoming.

That's a very rapidly growing area, and I've had statements made by the local citizenry, Why would you want to put a new road in the fastest growing part of Harris County. And I think they've answered the question for themselves, is because we need to look at transportation as an infrastructure, just like water supply or drainage, that they need to -- we need to plan for so that as the area grows, we can make those improvements.

Segment G from I-45 to US 59, again, the alternate routes and the route that we look to recommend as the preferred. The schedule of activities remaining is to publish the draft environmental impact statements for all four segments. They will be done sequentially, starting with E and then F-1, F-2, and G.

When I talked about those recommended preferred alternatives early, those have all been coordinated through continuous meetings with the resource agencies, have been as cooperative as you might expect on a new location highway project, as well as with the TxDOT district personnel, personnel in Austin, and Federal Highways. And we've come to consensus on what to recommend based on minimizing impacts to the human and the natural environment.

Again, we're going to publish the draft environmental impact statements, hold our public hearings, do the final environmental impact statements, and hope to have records of decisions on those segments in 2003.

Again, Harris County Tollroad Authority, the Harris County government, is very interested in moving this as fast as possible and would like to partner with TxDOT. And the passing of Proposition 15 will help facilitate that, and so that could move it into construction in as early as 2004, if the resources available are available with TxDOT as well as with the Harris County Tollroad Authority.

One segment we don't have any studies on, or two segments, are H and I-1. When we met yesterday morning with the Montgomery county judge who has part of segment H, he says, We need to do this whole thing. And I said, Well, Judge, when you talk to Gary Trietsch there in the Houston District, or if you have a chance to visit with any of our commissioners, tell them that, and we'll see how we can move to build the partnership to get that planned and move forward so that we can have the corridor preserved and be ready to address the needs of that area as it grows.

Segment I-2 is ready for construction. We're signing the donation deeds on that segment. It's currently -- it's programmed for April of 2003, and we sure hope to hit that target date -- for the northern segment in -- April 2002 for the northern segment, 2003 for the southern. And that will match with the agreements that Commissioner Nichols negotiated with the U.S. Steel Corporation two or three years ago, so that we can continue to get their funding and their donations.

That's the end of our presentation. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you have any questions?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You do work for this association.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.</