Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

Thursday, February 27, 2003

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

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

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. It is 9:08 a.m. and this meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order.

Welcome to our February meeting. It is a pleasure to have you here today. I will note for the record that public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the office of the Secretary of State at 4:10 p.m. on February 19, 2003.

Before we begin it’s our customary habit to ask my colleagues up here if they have any observations or comments that they would like to make. Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I'd just like to welcome everyone here. We realize a lot of you have come a long way, some of you a very long way, and we appreciate it. You've taken the time out of your day to express the needs and wishes of your community, and we listen to it very carefully. On your way back, be careful. The roads are good but the weather on them is not necessarily good. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad everyone is here and we're particularly pleased that state leaders who have done so much for this state are with us today, and in particular Senator Ratliff. It's always a pleasure to have the senator in these chambers.

MR. JOHNSON: My observation goes somewhat along with Robert's, and that is we often think of the Department of Transportation in terms of roads and bridges and construction zones and orange cones, and we sometimes fail to notice the breadth and depth of this department, but when there's a week of weather like we've experienced this week, it makes me thankful for the men and women of this department who work very hard on your behalf and our behalf to make the roads safe and passable in some pretty extraordinary conditions, and they go unnoticed most of the time.

But I think you'll agree with me that they deserve our thanks, especially in times like we've had this winter season.

Before we start with our delegations, we have some elected officials who have taken time out of their very busy schedules to visit with us this morning, and we know that they have a lot of meetings and duties across the street, and to give them an opportunity that they may get back to the meetings and the work at hand, we would ask that you would indulge us and them that they might start the meeting.

I know Senator Estes and Representative Farabee have asked to make comments for the record relative to some of the commission's considerations and business, and so if there are any others, I would ask that you also make yourself available so that we could begin with you.

I know, Senator Estes, if you would start and if there are others that would like to address the commission and the meeting at the outset and then get back to across the street, we would be delighted to accommodate you. Senator, welcome.

SENATOR ESTES: I'm Craig Estes, senator from Senate District 30 and resident of Wichita Falls. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Williamson. Nice to be here with you. I really do appreciate the commission and TxDOT and the staff for the support and vision for addressing the state's transportation needs. As a new senator, I'm learning lots about our transportation infrastructure and our dreams for the future, and it was also a pleasure to meet with you in Abilene a while ago and visit with you.

We really do benefit from citizen involvement in this process and there are community representatives here from Wichita Falls. I'm sure many of them you know, but I would like to ask everyone from Wichita Falls to stand and be recognized. Thank you.

VOICE: They did not make it through the ice.

SENATOR ESTES: Well, we've got a few. So we're glad to be here and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the needs of Wichita Falls and speak as a resident of Wichita Falls. I really want to express thanks, first of all, for the recently completed US 287 overhead freeway project -- that has really helped in an area where we've had some tragic accidents over the decades, and it's a wonderful addition to our city -- and very soon to be completed extension of the Kell Freeway. And I know that these projects would have not been possible without your support and we really want to thank you for that. These projects are vital to the safety and the quality of life and even our economic vitality to all communities across the state.

What I want to do just very quickly today is ask your continued support, and number one on our list is to make sure that the interchange between Kell and Central Freeway is completed to finish off this project. As in many other places in the state, we've got little exit ramps that drop off to nothing with a barrier there. And this project was started -- I remember very well when this project was started. It was in 1967 and I was 14 years old; I'm 49 now, so it's time to finish it up. And I remember those homes that were moved out of the way to make room for the project. That's been a long time and we need to finish it up.

So please remember that this is going to provide a lot of help for us, it's going to improve NAFTA trade routes, it's going to improve lots of things for us. It's our number one priority on the planning organization and the Wichita Falls Commission on Highway Needs. It's also supported by the Cross Plains Rural Transportation Council, and I'm really told that the Rural Transportation Council -- which consists of nine counties and there's 51 incorporated municipalities in the region -- is a fairly unique group that gets together and assesses the needs and prioritizes the needs over a nine-county area. So I really enjoyed working with them.

It's ready for letting today. All of the right of way and utility adjustments and the construction plans, as you know, are 100 percent complete and it's being supported financially by TxDOT's local funding. So we'd appreciate the commission's consideration for funding the interchange in the upcoming United Transportation Program.

So thank you for the opportunity of visiting with you today and it is a pleasure to work with you. Come see me any time.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, wait. Not only are we blessed with Senator Ratliff but we're blessed with the great senator of Parker County as well as Wichita Falls.

SENATOR ESTES: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: My senator

SENATOR ESTES: Happy to do it. And my Senate District 30 is a very interesting district from the western part of the district to the vital transportation needs on the eastern part of the district, and I'd be happy to visit with you any time about needs in Parker, Wise, Denton, Collin, Grayson County.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It is a pretty diverse Senate district.

SENATOR ESTES: We've got lots of transportation needs, and just please know that I'm open to working with you in any way possible.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good to see you.

SENATOR ESTES: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Would you enlighten me where Parker County is?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Fort Worth is a suburb of Weatherford. We allow Fort Worth to come right up to the edge of our ETJ and then stop.

MR. JOHNSON: Is Representative Farabee here? I didn't see you back there, Representative. Welcome.

MR. FARABEE: Thank you. I'm short and I'm easy to miss. Mr. Chairman, it's great to be here. Commissioners, thank you for your time this morning.

In the interest of time -- and I know you have a full schedule -- I'll be brief and say I echo what Senator Estes said. The only thing I would add is that in the next 2-1/2 weeks we'll open the extension to 82 -- or Kell Freeway as we call it locally -- and it's beautiful. The folks have done a marvelous job. We're very proud of it. And as we look back toward downtown we see the overhead and it's awesome. The safety issue, when you see the big trucks rumbling through town that no longer have to go through all the traffic lights -- as they have to, I know, in Amarillo and other communities -- but the safety issue is paramount. So it's a plus and we thank you for that.

But as Senator Estes pointed out, the interchange, if someone is coming in from Oklahoma, I know they see God's country before them, but if they don't get down below and go through those lights, then it's problematic to take 82 from what is 44 and then turns into 287. So what we would ask is that you favorably consider in the future -- and that's our number one priority -- that interchange that would allow those vehicles that are up out of the way and being safe have an opportunity to make the interchange and then take 82 to the west.

So anyway, thank you for being here, thank you for the projects that we've had. We are very blessed up there, and I'll be heading home today just to remember how blessed I am personally. But thank you for what you've done for us, but that is our priority next is that interchange that, as Senator Estes pointed out, has been on the drawing board for us for some time. We've committed 30 percent local match and even with an open mind -- it's that important to us -- we have an open mind on what we have to do to make that project happen.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, thank you for being here and drive safely.

MR. FARABEE: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Are there any other elected officials that would like to address the meeting at this time?

CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT/TITUS COUNTY

(Mayor Jerry Boatner, Mike Fields, Terri Lee, Senator Bill Ratliff, Rep. Mark Homer)

MR. JOHNSON: Our first delegation this morning represents the City of Mount Pleasant and Titus County, and I understand that Mount Pleasant's mayor, Jerry Boatner, will get us started.

Mayor, we're delighted that you're here.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and greetings to you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, and Executive Director Behrens. We're very pleased to be with you today. Good morning.

My name is Jerry Boatner and I'm the mayor of Mount Pleasant in the County of Titus. As a city or county, we cannot recall the last time that we have appeared here before you in Austin. I think it would probably go back to the '70s. I was talking last night with Commissioner Nichols when he was on this side and we would come down with our easels and our white poster board.

We thank all of you for the excellent service that you and the Atlanta District, led by Bob Ratcliff, have brought to the state and to our county over the years. Bob Ratcliff and Dennis Beckham are here from Atlanta and I'd like to recognize them at this time right over here.

Now I'd like to present our delegation. We have our County Judge Danny Crooks and our county commissioners; we have our city council and our city manager; and we have members of our chamber of commerce, its transportation committee, as well as others in our community that make up the balance of our delegation. Would our entire delegation please rise?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Senator, I think half the population of Mount Pleasant is here.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR BOATNER: We've done our best, Commissioner Williamson. As you may know, we lost 15 to 20 of our delegation. They made decisions about the untimely weather and some of them weren't able to project that they were going to make it, so we would have had a few more, and we appreciate the ones that did come. They're a hardy bunch.

State Senator Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, formerly known as Lieutenant Governor, has been a chief supporter and is here today with his wife Sally. Senator Ratliff right here.

State Representative Mark Homer of Paris has recently adopted us into his district and we're proud to have him here. Representative Homer.

And State Representative Brian Hughes of Mineola has joined us today. His district begins just a couple of miles south of the proposed relief route, and he's most interested in the project. Representative Hughes.

We are here today to ask for your support of a US 271 relief route around the west side of Mount Pleasant and to tell you how we reached this point today. In 1995 the city and the county together asked that TxDOT assist in the planning and development to improve mobility on the west side of the city, namely a relocation of a part of FM 127. The study indicated that the preferred alternative for this 1.6-mile section of FM 127 was to connect with US 271 near US 67 and Interstate 30.

Already $2.3 million has been secured for the construction phase with Congressman Max Sandlin's assistance. It was approved for long range planning in 1996 and later received congressional high priority funding in TEA-21. Soon afterward it was upgraded to CONSTRUCT status. Because the proposed relocation of FM 127 did follow a viable corridor for a US 271 relief route around western Mount Pleasant, the Atlanta District requested and received approval for PLAN status on an entire western relief route for US 271 in 1998. Since that time many optional route locations, as shown here, have been studied.

The city, county and the chamber have worked closely with TxDOT engineers to choose a preferred route during the location study leading to a preliminary schematic. This US 271 relief route would benefit the Texas Trunk System whose primary goal is regional mobility. US 271 is on the Trunk System and is also the route of the north-south East Texas Gulf Highway from Oklahoma to the Gulf. A through highway would benefit greatly from this controlled access relief route.

The US 271 relief route is needed because Mount Pleasant, like many cities, has experienced real growth and traffic congestion along existing corridors. Since the current route of US 271 was upgraded through Mount Pleasant in the 1960s and county population has almost doubled, the traffic count has also doubled itself.

Pilgrim's Pride moves hundreds of large trucks daily through this corridor and more growth is on the way. Soon hundreds more trucks per day will move through Mount Pleasant going to and from Interstate 30 and from the local plant to the new distribution center a few miles south of our city on the Titus County line.

As the traffic volume has grown, the traffic has slowed. In the '60s there were no traffic signals along the current US 271 corridor; today there are seven signal lights. Let us show you the current corridor's bottleneck where Ferguson Road meets South Jefferson Avenue. This intersection has a traffic count of just over 30,000 vehicles daily just south of this center. This is 7,000 more each day than travels Interstate 30 in Mount Pleasant in a 24-hour period; the interstate count is 23,000.

Much of the through traffic at this intersection is large trucks and the controlled access relief route would remove much of the congestion, providing safety for the remaining sizable traffic count. Here we look at the intersection as it tries to stop and start and regulate the flow of traffic. We see that trucks of all sorts must use this intersection as they come through Mount Pleasant, and we see that backups in traffic, like this one, with the intersection in the distance can and do happen at all times of the day.

From 1996 to 1998 the current five-mile stretch of US 271 through Mount Pleasant had a total of 321 accidents. While there were no fatalities, 219 of these accidents did cause a total of 367 injuries.

Another choke point along US 271 is at FM 127 which leads to Pilgrim's Pride processing plant. Here we look up FM 127 where more than 4,000 persons work at the largest chicken processing plant in the United States. With a US 271 relief route, all of the trucks and many of the cars would be removed from this FM and the current US 271. Once the relief route is in place, FM 127 from the current US 271 to the new relief route would be accepted by the city and the county for jurisdiction and maintenance.

In summation, the vision for a US 271 relief route fully developed would include grade separations at intersections and railroads, as depicted here. This would be a controlled access route and be consistent with all TxDOT current policy. The benefits of this US 271 relief route would include excellent mobility, improved safety, and economic growth that will help fund future Texas needs.

The City of Mount Pleasant is prepared to contribute $1-1/2 million toward the entire project; already with the help of Congressman Max Sandlin, this project has received $2.3 million in federal funding; and Pilgrim's Pride will contribute $200,000 to improve mobility west and south of Mount Pleasant. Together, this is $4 million to join with any TxDOT funding. We are continuing to work closely with Congressman Sandlin to seek additional funding through the current cycle of the Transportation Reauthorization Bill.

Mount Pleasant and Titus County respectfully request that the Transportation Commission authorize $53 million in funding for the US 271 relief route in Titus County. We are appreciative to your attention to our request here today and are hopeful that the US 271 relief route can become a part of TxDOT's plan for Texas. This is a project that is fully supported by our city government, by our county government, and by our business community led by the Mount Pleasant-Titus County Chamber of Commerce.

Now, if I may, I would like to call on County Commissioner Mike Fields in whose precinct the relief route would fall. Mike.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you coming back to the podium?

MAYOR BOATNER: Yes. After these two speakers I'll be available for comments or questions.

MR. FIELDS: Thank you, Mayor Boatner.

Mr. Chairman and commissioners and Executive Director Behrens. The project outlined here today, US 271 Relief Route, would make a big difference in the future of our community. We also feel it would be good for Texas. There's an obvious problem with the growing traffic count, not only along US 271 but across the State of Texas, and we certainly understand the limitless challenges that you, as leaders of TxDOT, are facing.

But in studying this quadrant of our county -- which I do quite a bit -- I must say we have an unusual number of large trucks, thanks to a growing industry, Pilgrim's Pride. With this relief route we could remove all of their large trucks and put them safely in and out of our town on this new controlled access relief route. The US 271 relief route will greatly improve the Texas Trunk System and the north-south mobility that will serve the traveling public.

The diversion of our through traffic vehicles, both large trucks and standard vehicles, will allow the current US 271 to function as it should. TxDOT projections show that the current 30,000-vehicle traffic count at the Ferguson-Jefferson intersection will exceed 45,000 vehicles daily in less than 20 years unless we take action. To us, this is a very important project, and hopefully, with your help and our contributions, we together can solve a really significant and growing problem.

Thank you for allowing us to come before you today. We appreciate all that you are doing for Texas. Thank you.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you, Mike.

Our final speaker will be Terri Lee who is president of the Mount Pleasant-Titus County Chamber of Commerce.

MS. LEE: Thank you, Mayor Boatner.

Mr. Chairman and commissioners and Executive Director Behrens. The one way that Mount Pleasant and Titus County and the State of Texas have been able to sustain continual growth over the years is by planning ahead. We know that you and TxDOT face the same challenges that we do: making good choices with the resources that we have available.

Today our goal is to effectively plan ahead for our area's mobility and hopefully together we can begin. We have worked on this project with TxDOT's local and district offices and Congressman Sandlin's office beginning in 1995. We realize that the US 271 relief route is not a small project. Our hope is that our vision for this relief route and good planning will lead to steady progress on this need in the coming years.

The Mount Pleasant-Titus County Chamber of Commerce stands ready to work with our city and county governments and with the state to improve the mobility and safety needs in our region. We know that this is good for business and good for a growing Texas.

We appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today and we invite you to come to our corner of Texas and see the progress and growth that we are enjoying, much of which flows from the excellent work and planning of TxDOT, both in Austin and at the local level. We are grateful for all that you do. Thank you.

MAYOR BOATNER: Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to entertain any comments or questions, either now or after our elected officials speak, as you prefer.

MR. JOHNSON: Do you want to go now or do you want to let Robert?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll go ahead and then let Robert. This is his part of the state.

Do you want to go first or do you want to go last?

MR. NICHOLS: It doesn't matter to me. You've got some elected officials that want to say something.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, excuse me.

MAYOR BOATNER: Either way is fine with us.

MR. JOHNSON: Why don't we let them speak.

MAYOR BOATNER: Okay, and then any questions that may arise would be fine. We'd like to first call on our State Senator Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, please.

SENATOR RATLIFF: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Chairman, members, Mike.

I hope that it doesn't go unnoticed how seldom you see me about highway projects in my district. There's a method to that madness because I guess I probably know as well or better than anybody how many demands there are on your resources and how difficult the decisions are. But I did want to come this morning, and I wanted to ask you to give special attention to this project.

This project means a great deal, not just to Mount Pleasant and Titus County, but to all of the 1st Senate District because of the mobility of the entire length of the 1st Senate District.

I did want to mention one possibility to you, that during the preliminary meetings on this project when your Atlanta employees and officials came over to discuss it with us, I tried on them, and they were reluctant to bring it to you because it would be a variation to some of your recent policies.

It would be very possible in this particular case to construct this facility simply using two which would become future frontage roads with a wide median in between set aside for the main lanes with the exception of the north and south extremities which have to cross railroads. And of course, the south extremity is the expensive part where you have to have an interchange with the current US 271.

Mr. Ratcliff was justifiably concerned about bringing that to you because I know of your feelings about frontage roads in general. It does seem to me that we could save $10-, maybe $20 million on this project by having an at-grade design for the bulk of this project, setting aside the center for future controlled access in the middle.

The city has told me that they would be glad to commit to taking those frontage roads as city facilities at such time in the future. And by the way, we feel like that could be 15-20 years into the future. It would be a way to stretch your dollars; it would stretch your dollars, I think, to a very considerable extent. And I think it would provide us with the kind of relief that we need. As a matter of fact, this facility, even in that configuration, would be about like the rest of US 271 in our area.

So I just throw that out to you as a possible way of making this allocation a little less painful for you and yet to get this project underway for the people in our area. And I do appreciate your attention. I know the difficulty of your decisions, and the reason that I have been so scarce in my attendance here is because I trust in your fairness to distribute those resources according to the needs of the people of the state.

Thank you very much.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you, Senator Ratliff.

And now, Representative Mark Homer of Paris.

MR. HOMER: Thank you, Mayor Boatner.

Commission members, thank you for allowing me to come before you today. It's always a pleasure to visit with you.

I just want to echo Senator Ratliff's statements that I know how difficult your task is and your limited resources and I know that the decisions you make are those that you feel are best for Texas. But with that said, you have heard some compelling reasons for the need for this route in the Mount Pleasant area, those dealing with safety and the efficiency of moving the traffic.

And without going into further detail any more than you've already heard, I just want to echo that my full support is behind this and I hope that you'll give it all the consideration that you possibly can. Thank you.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you, Representative Homer.

Any questions or comments we'd be happy to entertain if there are any.

MR. NICHOLS: I had two or three.

MR. JOHNSON: Why don't you go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: Do you want me to go first?

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's your area, Robert. You tell me.

MR. NICHOLS: The first question. I couldn't help but notice in the audience it looked like you had pretty much a majority of the commissioners court as well as the city council. I was curious whether or not you had posted a meeting for today.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR BOATNER: Now you bring up the problem. I think we're covered.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm just kidding you on that.

I've traveled this route a lot -- I think I mentioned that last night -- and it is a very awkward intersection that has evolved with a fair amount of traffic going up a northern artery to an interstate, and it looks like you have laid out the best potential right of way or configuration for the location of that, and it appears that there may be some options of different ways to configure the roadway in there initially that might have some initial savings.

I know I've seen projects like this in the past that it seems like if you can just get it started, get the right of way and get a road through there, some of the other improvements, whether they be grade separations, later additional lanes, later whatever, if you can ever get that original fingerprint in there, then the rest seems to evolve over time. The hardest is making that first step. And I couldn't help but notice, it looks like five miles, 4.9 miles?

MAYOR BOATNER: Right at five miles, yes.

MR. NICHOLS: And with pulling the right of way and utilities out, it was almost $10 million a mile for a four-lane divided, and I know in the past, the math I've seen, that seems pretty high for a lane construction cost. But I'm sure -- of course we've got the district here -- there's probably some pretty good factors in there for the interchanges themselves.

MAYOR BOATNER: The south flyover amounts to about $15 million.

MR. NICHOLS: The anticipated traffic, they do an estimated traffic -- in other words, if you build it, all of that traffic is not going to move over, but your through traffic which is a lot of the heavy trucks will move over which will get them out of your city. But the anticipated traffic after construction was about 5,000 vehicles a day.

MAYOR BOATNER: To start with.

MR. NICHOLS: Something like that, and then it would start growing. And you might could, if we could just -- I would like to see some different options from the district as to if we just built it without the grade separations to get it going, what would that look like; consider what Senator Ratliff was talking about, if we did the two lanes further out and left the space in the middle.

I've seen the state do that; it seems like a very foresighted approach. Even take a look at getting enough right of way for a four-lane divided and what would it cost just to get the initial two lanes in. Just let's see what all those options are.

MAYOR BOATNER: A simplified bypass with a bigger plan for the future if needed.

MR. NICHOLS: Because $50 million is a huge bite.

MAYOR BOATNER: Oh, we're fully aware of that.

MR. NICHOLS: I would like to see what some of these other options might be, and I don't know if I'm directing that to Mike -- he's nodding his head back there; he's got it.

MAYOR BOATNER: Phases and steps at a time makes sense to us too. We realize the total figure is not small.

MR. NICHOLS: And I would like to commend the community for being willing to step up to the plate. That's a lot of money for Mount Pleasant.

MAYOR BOATNER: Well, it is for a town of our size. You look at larger towns that offer up less; we've stretched a lot there for us.

MR. NICHOLS: There's so many people who come and say we would like something but if they're not willing to step up to the plate, I call it a vested interest, it's a lot easier to ask for something. But when a community is willing to put up some of its hard assets also, that means that it has gone through the local process of being strongly supported by all areas of the community.

Anyway, I'd like to compliment you on a great presentation.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Good to see you.

MAYOR BOATNER: May I comment on one thing you mentioned? In defense of our county, they are committed to TxDOT for some 100 percent of right of way over the next eight to twelve years, 100 percent to the tune of $1- to $3 million.

That's the reason their name is not up there as a contributing party because we work in partnership, and they're working on those projects, we said let us do all we can on this one. Together we're working with TxDOT every time projects come up.

MR. NICHOLS: And I said from the community.

MAYOR BOATNER: Yes. They weren't a line item and I wanted to explain why they were not.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. That's all I have.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric?

MR. WILLIAMSON: A couple of things. Mayor, I noticed that you used in your presentation the nomenclature that the department is adopting for its strategic plan and its budget; you used the word PLAN and you used the word CONSTRUCT, as opposed to Priority 653, Category 972. I'm just curious did you find it easier to comprehend how we'd lay our money out.

MAYOR BOATNER: Well, the words tell the right thing. I had been emerged into Priority 1 and 2 and those things, and when I went to Atlanta with our proposition, they said, we've got new terminology. And they say it does change every so often, doesn't it. But yes, PLAN and CONSTRUCT does make sense to us and it tells us a little more. I had to re-adapt and we did, but it made sense this time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're kind of curious because we're currently going through a process with primarily the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee on how we've tried to simplify our plan and line it up with our appropriations bill and then line it up with the DEs in the field so that when you see the word PLAN in Mount Pleasant, you know that it means the same thing to you that it means to us that we're representing to Senator Ratliff it means.

MAYOR BOATNER: It looks like a good positive long term nomenclature, I would say.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The second thing I wanted to ask you about is actually a request, and it will take me a moment to explain why I think you should do it, and I hope you agree with me.

We're doing a lot of different things at the department now, a lot because the legislature has asked us to and a lot of it because our cash flow does not allow us to meet the appetite of the entire state. So we're trying to develop new tools that allow us to deal with a huge urban problem in Dallas and Fort Worth, Houston, Beaumont, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, Brownsville, while at the same time we deal with our ex-urban problems Mount Pleasant, Weatherford, Victoria and so on, and at the same time not leave our rural routes behind. It's a difficult task. And there are some financing mechanisms that would be good tools for Dallas-Fort Worth that wouldn't do anything for you but would in the long term free up tax revenues to be invested in projects like this reliever route.

And if you could, find it in your mind to call the congressman who is very influential in transportation matters. We have asked our delegation in the current reauthorization bill to allow donor states, like Texas, to be able to quickly erect toll booths on existing roads where we believe that will control congestion in urban Texas and raise revenue to address urban Texas' problems. I don't think it would ever affect you unless you drove into Dallas and had to use one of those roads, but it would be a great tool for our urban congestion problems.

And right now we could do it. It just takes a long time to get permission and the funds that are taken at that toll have to be used just for that road. So it's not like we're asking for totally new ground, but what we're asking the delegation to do is give us and the communities the opportunity, like we did on Interstate 10 west of Houston, to look at an existing congested area and say: Look, we need to put toll booths on these two lanes and build two more to raise revenue to pay for these roads in Houston, and at the same time to influence traffic in a way that we're not as congested in west Houston as we might be.

And it helps tremendously if a mayor from Mount Pleasant calls an influential congressman and says: The commission has asked me to call you about this, and if it's something you're not uncomfortable with, we would appreciate it.

MAYOR BOATNER: So it's the authority you seek, really.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, all we seek is the authority to do it quickly.

MAYOR BOATNER: To apply it to existing and not just new.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Right, and not to go through a long tortuous process that takes forever and limits the revenues from that toll booth to just that road. We think a case can be made for tolling the interior lanes of Interstate 30 through Dallas and Fort Worth and using the revenue to expand 20 around Dallas and Fort Worth. We think we're best-suited to make that decision, not the federal law that says: Well, if you toll 30, you've got to spend it on 30. Well, maybe spending it on 30 doesn't make sense.

MAYOR BOATNER: To relieve it, though.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I submit to you that it's in your interest that we do that.

MAYOR BOATNER: I can see that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Because if we can raise revenue that way, it frees up other revenue for ex-urban and rural Texas.

MAYOR BOATNER: Those propositions most likely fall in the highly urbanized areas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. It wouldn't make any sense to put a toll booth on 30 around Mount Pleasant; you wouldn't make any money; you couldn't pay for the toll booth.

MAYOR BOATNER: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But we would appreciate it if you would think about that.

MAYOR BOATNER: I'd be happy to discuss that with Congressman Sandlin because, as you say, he has real interest in this area and influence there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And then finally, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that was one of the most well-organized, to-the-point presentations I've ever seen before this body. Didn't waste any time; got right to the point.

MAYOR BOATNER: Had lots of good help. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: It was extremely well organized and well presented, and the thought that you are looking ahead is something that so much of the state and so many communities and counties need to be doing -- and most of them are recognizing the shortage of funds that we have that is not unknown to everybody across the state.

I had a question. This project, is there the potential to do it in phases? As Robert pointed out, a $53 million bite is what I call the pig in the poke.

MAYOR BOATNER: Sure. That was one thing I was going to comment back on Commissioner Nichols' comment in phases and stages certainly make sense because we realize the sum is quite huge. Alternate propositions, as Senator Ratliff might mention, are ways to get there in steps and stages. Yes, that would be a way we'd like to work with your department and with Atlanta, if that makes sense to you all, as we go forward together.

MR. JOHNSON: I think what the senator has brought forward in terms of an idea -- and we can investigate that -- and similar ones where we can do things that will satisfy the short term needs and address the long term, get us started on the long term goal is the appropriate way to approach this. We deflect to Robert because he's an expert. I know he goes up there to get chicken wings all the time.

MAYOR BOATNER: He knows all the ins and outs up there.

MR. JOHNSON: He's very familiar on some of his chicken wing forays up there.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Again, an excellent, excellent presentation; well organized and well delivered as any that I'm familiar with, and I want to congratulate you and the entire delegation.

MAYOR BOATNER: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: We're honored by your presence, and as you're aware, we don't make decisions immediately, but you planted a seed which hopefully will sprout with some results. It's so important that what you bring to us are the priorities from your areas, and we can't get to every spot in Texas and so it's nice to know what the priorities are transportation-wise in places like Mount Pleasant and Titus County.

MAYOR BOATNER: We're like Senator Ratliff: we don't come too often and we try to have some forethought with it.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we're delighted that you've come today.

At this moment we'll take a brief recess so our friends from Titus County and Mount Pleasant can get back to commerce and industry.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CITY OF PORT ARTHUR/JEFFERSON COUNTY

(Leslie McMahen, Mayor Oscar Ortiz, Senator David Bernsen, Walter Crook, David Moore)

MR. JOHNSON: The meeting is reconvened. Our second delegation this morning is representing the City of Port Arthur, and I understand that Leslie McMahen, who is the city's director of public works, will speak first. Welcome to Austin, and the floor is yours.

MR. McMAHEN: Good morning. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here.

MR. JOHNSON: You've brought a very distinguished delegation.

MR. McMAHEN: Right, and I'm going to try to get everybody to stand up, if they would, and just briefly name them off. We have: Mayor Oscar Ortiz; two of our councilmen, Tom Henderson and Bob Bowers; we have David Bernsen, former state senator and commission member; we have Walter Crook, Beaumont District Engineer; Steve Fitzgibbons, our city manager; and several other friends that I see; Verna Rutherford from our chamber of commerce.

MR. JOHNSON: Just a moment. Commissioner Williamson has a comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad Port Arthur is here. My longtime friend, former House member colleague, and now Senator, Kyle Janek called me yesterday and said, I'm trying desperately to get over there and introduce the delegation from my senate district; I have some committee assignments that are equally important to Port Arthur; I have to make a choice. Would you, old friend Ric, when the time comes, get down off the podium, go down in the audience, and introduce my delegation for me?

I said, Kyle, I'm going to tell them how great a senator you are, but if I did that, then I'd have to do it for every delegation that came down here that was represented by somebody I served with. He said, Well, will you at least be nice to them? And I said, Absolutely.

And I just want you to know that he is a longtime friend of this commission member and a good guy and a good senator, and he's leaving you in capable hands here while he takes care of the finance business for your part of Texas -- which is equally important.

MR. McMAHEN: Right, and we certainly hope that he will be able to make it but understand he's on the floor right now, so we'll see.

Our presentation to you is concerning two projects that are very important to the City of Port Arthur and to Jefferson County and certainly south Jefferson County also, those two being the widening of FM 365 between US 69 and Spur 93, and a companion project being an overpass on 365 at Spur 93 and the Union Pacific Railroad. Of course, we have submitted a fairly detailed packet to you, as required, giving a lot of details and we certainly won't go into all of that this morning, and also I'm sure that our Beaumont District has given you even more details.

So we're going to try to hit the high spots and let a couple of other speakers go into some of the reasons why we think these projects are excellent.

Obviously we're here to request the Transportation Commission's support of these projects, again, which are very important to the City of Port Arthur as far as the transportation network in the city and south Jefferson County also. We're requesting approximately $4 million in additional funds for the widening project which would be added to the Beaumont District's discretionary funds that they've already committed to the project, and in addition, to the local sponsors' funds that the city and county have committed.

Also, we're asking approximately $11 million in funding for the overpass project for which neither the Beaumont District or the local sponsor has any funds committed at this time. In making this request, we certainly don't come to you empty-handed, as our fellow delegation from Mount Pleasant also came with something on the table.

The work on this widening project, in particular, started back in about 1991 where the city had a very rough schematic prepared for the widening project within the limits that we spoke to; however, that project pretty much died on the vine at that point in time, but we never gave up on it. Since 2000 the city and Jefferson County have spent $889,000 for the schematic and PS&E for the FM 365 widening project.

We were notified Tuesday that the schematic is at the Beaumont District awaiting Walter Crook the district engineer's signature, that his staff has finally approved that particular schematic. And with the finalization of that schematic, we can also have the plans, incorporate the minor detail changes, and those plans will be finished. In addition, the schematic for the widening project also includes the proposed overpass project.

The city alone has spent another $19,000 for additional right of way work and approximately $133,000 for plans to relocate city utilities for the proposed widening and the overpass projects. The city also took it on its own to spend $15,000 for a feasibility study to determine what intersection treatment was best for the 365-Spur 93 intersection. That particular study showed that the overpass at that intersection was the most benefit-to-cost ratio project of the several alternates that could have been done.

The city has also on its own committed to spend $550,000 to do the PS&E work for the overpass project and that work is probably about 30 percent complete at this time. In addition to that, the Beaumont District is committed to do the geotechnical work and structural design for the bridge section of the overpass, and I believe that's to the tune of about $300,000 with their money.

We've shown up here basically the widening section and also the proposed overpass project which we moved approximately 200 feet to the north to not only improve the curvature in the highway at that point but also to avoid many of the features at that particular intersection. By doing that, it did do away with some problems that we would have encountered had the overpass been put on the existing alignment of 365 west of Spur 93.

The widening of FM 365 could be done as a standalone project except for the following reasons: It would leave a bad highway-railroad intersection to deal with; in addition to the widening project, it would require a traffic signal at that location due to traffic situation and congestion in the area; and also, if the widening project was done by itself, it would include a significant amount of pavement that would have to be removed when the overpass was constructed in the future.

It's our feeling that the two projects would best be done at the same time, either as separate projects or combined into one project. The City of Port Arthur and the Beaumont District support the consolidation of the two projects, hoping that they can be done at the same time, and with the effort that the city has been putting into doing PS&E work, that these projects can be moved up considerably.

In summary, we're requesting approximately $15 million for the two projects, subject to the cost being determined by the final PS&E work for both the proposed widening of 365 and the proposed overpass at Spur 93.

With that, I'll introduce Mayor Oscar Ortiz of the City of Port Arthur, and he'll have some general comments.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Good morning, gentlemen. Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson, Mr. Behrens. I want to thank you so very much for allowing this delegation from the City of Port Arthur to come to you to talk to you about the widening of Highway 365 and the overpass at Spur 93.

I have three letters here that were sent to me: one from the Honorable Congressman Nick Lampson; one from the Honorable Carl R. Griffiths, Jr., County Judge; and also I have one here from the Honorable Kyle Janek, Senator, our state senator. I'll be reading these letters to you and hopefully they'll make an impression upon you as they made on me. These gentlemen have taken a lot of their time and effort to promote this project.

"Dear Mr. Behrens: I'm writing today to respectfully request your assistance with the request from the City of Port Arthur and Jefferson County. Currently there is a proposal before TxDOT for the widening of Highway 365 between Highway 69 and Rodair Gully, with particular focus on the section between Highway 69 and Spur 93. However, I'm requesting your cooperation to move forward with another facet of the project that would create an overpass on Highway 365 and Spur 93.

"As you're aware, the City of Port Arthur has undertaken a feasibility study to determine if an overpass on Highway 365 over Spur 93 and the Union Pacific Railroad was a viable alternative to other types of intersection improvements. At the conclusion of the study, the results yielded was a definitive determination that the overpass portion of the overall project would yield the best results and was clearly the best alternative.

"Though I am unable to attend the hearing before the Texas Transportation Commission, I wanted to convey my support for the project and respectfully request that the Texas Transportation Commission support the designated project, including the overpass on Highway 365 at Spur 93 and provide the additional funds needed to complete the project beyond the funds that are available at the TxDOT Beaumont District level and at the city level.

"Please feel free to contact me if I can provide you with any information or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Congressman Nick Lampson."

I'll be giving you a copy of each one of these letters.

Our second letter is from the Honorable Carl R. Griffiths, Jr., County Judge.

"Honorable Commissioners: On February 27, 2003, a delegation from the City of Port Arthur will be appearing before you to request your support and funding for the proposed project of widening Farm to Market Highway 365 between Highway 69 and Spur 93.

"The City of Port Arthur and Jefferson County have hitherto partnered in the development of the schematic plans, specifications and estimates for the widening project on behalf of the state. This work was taken on with an intent to help advance this project to an earlier starting date that wouldn't have been possible if TxDOT was left to secure the same services.

Between the two entities, we have spent $889,000 for the schematic and PS&E for the widening project. The City of Port Arthur has further committed $550,000 for the schematic plan and specifications and estimates for the overpass project at Spur 93 with the understanding that the Beaumont District TxDOT office would provide geotechnical and design service for the overpass structure.

"I wish to lend my voice to the City of Port Arthur's efforts to seek your support for funding of these worthy projects that will greatly enhance the transportation network in south Jefferson County. In addition to increasing the ease and safety of travel across the county, the project would also maximize the state's recent investment in the widening of Spur 93 between State Highway 73 in Port Arthur and US 69 in Beaumont.

"Please feel free to call me should you require any additional information in regards to this matter."

The last letter will be from the Honorable Kyle Janek, our state senator. I would hope that if anybody sees Senator Janek come in to please tug my coat and I'll step aside and let the senator come in here and make his remarks.

"Dear Commissioners: Please allow this letter to express my strong support for the City of Port Arthur's request to widen Farm to Market Highway 365 between US 69 and Spur 93, as well as the proposed overpass on FM 365 at Spur 93.

"This project is critical to the transportation network in Jefferson County. Currently traffic congestion on FM 365 at Spur 93 during peak hours is very high. The proposed widening would improve safety in the area and improve traffic flow.

"I hope my schedule will permit me to join the delegation that will represent the city at your hearing on February 27, 2003. Thank you for your attention to this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me."

Again, as Senator Janek said, we have a tremendous problem for traffic on 365, and I think one of the big reasons why is because we've had so much development come up on Highway 365. As you know, we now have a Super Wal-Mart that shows up there, a Lowes, Sutherland Lumber, an Applebee's Restaurant, other fast food restaurants, all feeding or adjacent to Highway 365. This has added to the tremendous congestion on 365 traveling east or west. If you were to go there at any time during the high peak hours, you'll find traffic backed up all the way from Spur 93 east to 6996; that's how bad it is.

It is so bad, gentlemen, that last year within a period of 90 days we had three fatalities -- three fatalities, three people lost their lives on Highway 365 in that area between 69 and Spur 93, and we attribute that to the tremendous traffic that's going on there now.

I'd like to also say that hopefully within the next week to two we're going to be making an announcement of a hospital, an $80 million hospital that would be built in that vicinity there behind Super Wal-Mart -- also a medical center. We will be designing a four-lane road to feed out onto 365. I don't have to tell you what kind of impact that's going to have on 365 when you have a major hospital like this which is being built by Iasis, a company out of Tennessee. This will be a tremendous impact on 365, and they don't expect to have this hospital completed until 2005. Hopefully we can get this highway widening started by 2005, but in the meantime, the traffic impact that that's going to have is going to be tremendous.

As I said, we had three fatalities there last year; we don't need any more. I believe the City of Port Arthur has made a good faith effort in the fact they've contributed a million-five, a million-six to these two projects. And I think Commissioner Nichols made the statement that they don't like to see cities come up here without having contributed. I believe that the City of Port Arthur has put its money where it's mouth is.

I believe, also, that the City of Port Arthur has been long in coming up here before you. I was talking to Mr. Walter Crook of the department -- I think it's been maybe 15-20 years since the City of Port Arthur has ever come before you for a request.

But I believe that this request is urgent; I believe it's desperately needed; I believe that it has come to a point where we need to do something with 365. If we're going to continue the kind of development we have in the city of Port Arthur, the development is going to impact this highway particularly.

My only fear -- and I've expressed this to my council members -- that when Spur 93 is opened and it becomes a four-lane road and you have traffic traveling on there at 55 miles an hour -- which is what they're supposed to be doing, but you know and I know they're going to be doing 65 -- and you have the people coming up west on 365 doing the same amount of speed, the only thing you have to stop them at that intersection is a stop sign. I'm afraid, gentlemen, that we're going to have some fatalities at that intersection and that scares me as an elected official to think that we are at the point -- and I understand your shortfalls; I understand that you don't have enough money, that you're being cut and this and that, but I hope we never put a person's life and try to compare it to the value of a dollar because that's not what we're here for as elected officials.

And so I thank you. I hope that you'll consider our request; I hope that you'll understand that we came up here fully capable of doing whatever it takes to get this project done. And again, I want to thank you for your time and allowing us to come here.

MR. WILLIAMSON: May I?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a couple of questions to ask you, Mayor.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: But before I ask you, I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand you. You weren't inferring that this commission was less concerned than you about people's loss of life?

MAYOR ORTIZ: No, sir. I'm just trying to make you aware --

MR. WILLIAMSON: We take that very personally when someone intimates that the commission is not focused on that.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir. I think what I wanted to say was that in a time when we know that there's a constraint on money and we know that people are looking at money very hard and they're saying we need to cut here, we need to cut there -- and that's true, we do; we need to save the taxpayers' money and we need to try to spend it as wisely as we can wherever we can -- and I believe that this is one of the wisest places that money can be spent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I just wanted to be sure I understood your remarks.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you -- I probably missed something in the presentation and I apologize -- the location of this hospital you speak of, is it in the city limits?

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir. Actually, it will be facing 6996, the feeder road, but the entrance to it will have two directions: we'll be coming in east and west which will be an extension of Jimmy Johnson Boulevard; and then we'll take that road and feed it into the medical parking lot or into the emergency room and we'll have another four-lane highway running north and south from the medical center or the hospital emergency room to 365.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I'm kind of curious. The company that's building that hospital, did they have to get permission from the city to construct that?

MAYOR ORTIZ: Oh, sure. We're going to enter into an agreement, hopefully very soon, as far as what are the perks that they expect from us to build that hospital there, and I think we're 90 percent there. We've had conversations with them since October.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So if I understood your request to the commission, we need to move quickly on your request because the city has approved the construction of a major traffic generator where highways really don't exist.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Well, if you're referring to Highway 365 --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Or suitable highways don't exist.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Highway 365, of course we all know, is not suitable to handle the kind of traffic that it's handling now. My concern and the council's concern is that when this hospital is built, the impact is going to be on that highway from the hospital and the emergency room and the EMS vehicles that will be coming in there, it's going to be tremendous, it really is.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but my point is you see the dilemma you put us in.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're going to go build a traffic generator before the plan to handle the traffic is even done.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Well, again --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Of course, you're not the only person that does that; we see that every day.

MAYOR ORTIZ: I realize that, but I think this is a great opportunity for the City of Port Arthur. You have to understand the City of Port Arthur 7-1/2 years ago was a city that was basically pretty well broke. It had less than $4-1/2 million in its general fund; had no growth in the petrochemical industry; had no growth in the retail market; had no growth in the retail sales market; had no growth at all. Here we're sitting, a very unique city -- I think one of the most unique cities in the State of Texas and maybe in the United States --

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what Frank Collazo told me.

MAYOR ORTIZ:  -- in the fact that we have a Super Wal-Mart and a second Super Wal-Mart. How many cities do you know of in the State of Texas with less than 60,000 population that have two Super Wal-Marts? That's unheard of. I'm thankful for that, as the mayor of the city, that these types of industries have looked at us and said, Yes, we want to come into the City of Port Arthur. It puts a burden on us but I think we have to some degree met that burden by committing the funds that we have committed to this project. I'm just thankful that you gave us the opportunity to come here, I really am, and I hope that you gentlemen will look at us with kind favor.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, were you here when we were talking with the mayor of Mount Pleasant about the toll thing?

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We would appreciate it if you would give some thought to whether or not you could contact Mr. Lampson about the same thing. And by extension we hope the whole I-69 group is listening. Any help we can get. We're a donor state, we don't get back as much as we send, we don't complain about that up here, but it seems to us that a donor state is not out of line to ask Congress to allow us to erect toll booths on roads that already exist where we know it will help our situation. Any help you can give us ultimately will produce more cash flow for projects like this.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Commissioner Williamson, I mentioned to Executive Director Behrens before the meeting that I thought your idea of a toll booth was excellent. I lived in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois, and that's all there is over there is toll booths. Everywhere you turn and go and come off of a freeway, whatever, there's a toll booth; they hit you maybe five or six times in a very short period of time. But I think that's a good way to raise money and I'm not opposed to it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I don't believe the commission, and certainly the governor said, it's not our intention to toll everything that moves in Texas like occurs in other parts of the country, but the sad reality is our gasoline tax base doesn't generate enough for maintenance and the construction we need and we're just going to all have to kind of admit that and do what we need to do to help ourselves. It might affect you in your area because you are urbanized, but for the most part, we're trying to find tools here for interior Dallas, interior Houston, interior San Antonio, interior Brownsville, so any help you could give us, we'd appreciate it.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Believe me, Commissioner, we'll do whatever it takes to get projects going. I know that in the 25 years that I lived in Wisconsin, Texas always had a tremendous reputation for its highways, Texas has always been known for its highways, and I think that we have to just come up with different innovative ways to raise money to keep our highways up there.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, if we do this project, will you name it the Carl Parker Loop?

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ORTIZ: We already have a building in Port Arthur named after Carl Parker.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, you've already got one? Well, then we'll name it the David Bernsen Loop.

MAYOR ORTIZ: We have one already going through Port Arthur.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Another David? Well, I guess we're down to Frank. The Frank Collazo Shortcut.

(General laughter.)

MAYOR ORTIZ: Thank you, commission. I appreciate your time, and believe me, I understand the pressure you're under, and I congratulate for the tremendous job that you're doing here in Texas.

MR. JOHNSON: Did you have anything?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I had a couple of things.

MAYOR ORTIZ: I think we have one more presenter.

MR. NICHOLS: Oh, do we?

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes. Former Senator Bernsen.

SENATOR BERNSEN: Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very, very brief because I think, as I recall, there was green, yellow and red lights from time to time when I used to sit up there.

MR. JOHNSON: It's always green for you.

SENATOR BERNSEN: First, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Mike, it's good to be here. It's good to be back and see so many of what I consider family and friends and it's one of the reasons why when the mayor called and asked me to come up here, I said for sure because it's been a while since I've been up here. And also, I was mindful of the fact -- as the mayor briefly mentioned -- that, if my memory serves me correctly, Port Arthur has not been up here in a number of years. Somebody said 15-20 years, something like that.

But this project is very, very important, not just to the City of Port Arthur but to the transportation system of southeast Texas which connects east and west. Unfortunately, this map does not show the total picture. We are looking, as you go up the screen, back toward the State of Louisiana and heading back east, and as you come to the left side of that map, then we're headed toward Houston.

There are essentially two east and west roads currently: I-10 which runs, obviously from Houston, through Beaumont, then over to Orange and then to Louisiana, and as I recall, has the highest traffic count of any highway leading into the State of Texas, or did a few years ago, and I"m not sure if that's still the case today.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know why that is, don't you?

SENATOR BERNSEN: Yes, I do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's all those fuel trucks that aren't paying tax at the rack going over into Louisiana.

SENATOR BERNSEN: Well, there's a lot of buses coming up from the central area and going over to some boats over there in Louisiana as well, but that's for another issue another day.

But Highway 73 that connects with I-10 at Winnie, the big city of Winnie, the home of my wife -- actually, she's from Stowell, Texas, but that's another story too -- but 73 goes to Port Arthur and then bends around to Orange. 365 comes from the mid-part of Jefferson County so you have I-10 to the north and Beaumont on to Orange, and then you have Highway 73 from Port Arthur that connects into Orange to the south.

This artery is very, very important for a number of reasons, and we've started the process back a number of years ago that if you go back to the east, we have a flyover at 347, we four-laned it to 69, and the next progressive step would be to four-lane 365 from Highway 69 all the way down to Spur 93 and then continue it on out to I-10. It will take some time and effort and we understand that.

This particular project, or the next project, I believe, is the widening of that section of the highway from 69 to Spur 93. It's approximately $6 million-$7 million, I believe, and the city is in the process of putting up close to $2 million -- which I think shows a good faith effort -- in terms of right of way and the engineering.

The mayor was talking about that particular area that's represented on the map is an area of high growth for a number of reasons, not just the hospital but the entire mid-part of the county is growing to the west. So this project is very beneficial in terms of safety, economic development, as well as the continuation of a vision for the entire southeast Texas to provide another corridor from east to west which then relieves the congestion on I-10 as those oil tankers are going over to Louisiana or people are going over to try their hand with Lady Luck over in Lake Charles.

But nevertheless, the traffic count is tremendous there and this is one way to begin to relieve the congestion on I-10. It is a very necessary project for all of us, not just for Port Arthur but Nederland, Port Neches, and Beaumont as well.

I will say this, Commissioner Williamson. You talked about Senator Janek. Senator Janek does have a staff member in the office, Daniel Delgadillo, and so he has been working with this delegation as well as the other House members as well, and I think this is something that all of us can support. And we need just a little bit of help in the scheme of things in terms of dollars and cents in the overall view of the State of Texas.

The $4 million that we need for this project, while it may seem small in the context of the entire State of Texas, it speaks very, very large and is very important to the people of Jefferson County, and specifically the people of Port Arthur.

MR. WILLIAMSON: If we do this, will we go ahead and build a casino on the Texas side?

SENATOR BERNSEN: We can talk about that. I'm not sure we need to be on the record while we do that, but I will be willing to sit down and talk about economic development and Pleasure Island or anything else.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We could call it the Kyle Janek Casino.

SENATOR BERNSEN: Well, we'll talk to the senator about that and talk to his staff member about it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to really get my tail chewed out after this meeting.

(General laughter.)

SENATOR BERNSEN: This is on television too, isn't it?

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and to present the case which I think is a worthy case and a necessary one for the reasons we've stated. Whatever you can do -- and I certainly understand the dilemma and the strings that tug you in so many different directions, and having sat where you are, I know that it's a very, very difficult task.

So we come to say that we're willing to help to the best of our ability for $2 million to help with this project, but we need just a little bit of help from the state so that we can enjoy the prosperity of our part of the state and also help with the safety as well.

Thank you for having us. Am I the last one or is there somebody else? We'll answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions?

MR. NICHOLS: A couple of comments and then a couple of questions.

Number one, Mr. Chairman, not only was Mr. Bernsen former chairman of this commission and state senator, he also went to Lamar.

SENATOR BERNSEN: That's right. Lamar Cardinals.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We have another Cardinal in the audience?

SENATOR BERNSEN: That's it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think we're the only two commissioners on the Transportation Commission who went to Lamar.

SENATOR BERNSEN: Absolutely.

MR. JOHNSON: Are you implying that he's educationally impaired?

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, John. You just got me off the hook.

MR. NICHOLS: Shouldn't have brought it up. Anyway, I spent five years down there.

SENATOR BERNSEN: I was on the five-year plan.

MR. JOHNSON: It's a great university.

MR. NICHOLS: Appreciate all the contributions that you have made to transportation in the past.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And to the state.

MR. NICHOLS: And to the state, yes.

SENATOR BERNSEN: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: What was the actual timing on that major hospital?

MAYOR ORTIZ: We hope that if they start construction this year, they're looking at a completion date of 2005.

MR. NICHOLS: So they've basically already started. Are they starting this year?

MAYOR ORTIZ: They just told me yesterday when I talked to them that they're hiring an architect.

MR. NICHOLS: The commitment is already made; they're going to build it.

MR. McMAHEN: The timetable that they've given us is probably opening in March of 2005. And if you'll look back on the map up in the upper right-hand corner, they're going to be right at the convergence of those two dotted lines which we represented as the streets.

MAYOR ORTIZ: They're going to use up about 30 acres in there for the hospital and medical center.

MR. NICHOLS: So the second question was, for the City of Port Arthur you're saying this is probably your most important highest priority is the widening?

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes.

MR. NICHOLS: It's very obvious you need an overpass; you've got a train and an intersection there.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: That track is used a lot too.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir, sure is.

MR. NICHOLS: And on an unrelated issue, but still on a project that affects you quite a bit, where are we on 87? Remember 87 -- which I know, Senator, you used to ask me about. The right of way and environmental and I think the county -- of course, y'all can't speak for the county, but that was a project that was very important to the City of Port Arthur also.

SENATOR BERNSEN: It started when I was about seven years old.

MR. NICHOLS: I know the hurricane knocked it out. What is the status on that? Because that's kind of your only other route out.

MR. CROOK: Good morning commissioners, Mr. Behrens. Walter Crook, District Engineer out of Beaumont.

At this particular stage the county is involved in preparing all environmental documents. They've hired a consultant that's in the process now of preparing that document. Based on a minute order that Mr. Franklin Young, who was the district engineer back at that time in 1992, had passed that the county would be responsible for all environmental documents, mitigation, wetland permits, then at such time would come back to the commission and ask for funding on that project.

Congressman Lampson has been involved for the last four years on that project to try to speed it up. We're still at the same phase we were a couple of years ago, still working with the Corps of Engineers in recent days.

MR. NICHOLS: That's about where we were when I got on the commission, that the county was going to do the environmental. It was a very important project for the City of Port Arthur and Jefferson County at one time because I remember going to a lot of meetings on it, but it seems I haven't heard much lately on it. But they were in the environmental process five-six years ago.

MR. CROOK: Now the Corps is working with the county on some research as far as the erosion protection along the beach. That's one of the other problems.

MR. NICHOLS: Are they going to let us move over 3- or 400 feet?

MR. CROOK: That's the issue of moving it over about 200 feet inland, but the resource agencies, Corps and all are wanting to look at what kind of protection are we going to provide for additional roadway, plus the refuge area that's adjoining that particular project.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm assuming that the City of Port Arthur is still very interested in that project also.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: That's all I had. Thanks.

MAYOR ORTIZ: Chairman Johnson, could I make just one remark and I'll be glad to sit down. I know that you don't realize the makeup of the City of Port Arthur, and I'll give you a little bit of it. It's 60 percent plus minority population in the City of Port Arthur: 44 percent African-Americans, 32 percent Anglos, possibly 8 or 9 or 10 percent Hispanic, and so forth down after that, Pakistanis and so forth. But even yet with that type of makeup and the tight tax base that we have in the City of Port Arthur, we still manage to work our budget to be able to come up with enough money to get involved and to come to you and say that we're committed to this project.

We're willing to invest our dollars, even though we have other needs and other necessities in the city, maybe more so than other cities with the makeup of our population. But we're still committed to this road because we know that in the City of Port Arthur right now we have over 11 percent unemployment. We know what this development at the north end of town will do, the jobs that it will create. We also know the jobs that this construction of this road will create. And so we're looking down the road realizing that all these things are going to add to the benefit of our people, hopefully, giving them the ability and the opportunity to have decent jobs, decent paychecks and all the things that people in America have a right to.

So we feel that this project will create so many different avenues for our people to be able to improve their lives, and that's really what I'm concerned about as the mayor of this city: to make it a better place for our people.

And again, I want to thank you so very much. I realize we've gone over our time, and again, I thank you so very much for your kindness.

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

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, one of the reasons I probed the mayor about the planning and the timing of the hospital is I don't see much difference between it and Toyota. And what I was trying to imply, Mayor, the quicker now that we're brought into the economic development efforts in the state, the quicker we can adjust -- and we will adjust. We were brought into Toyota early and we were able to adjust our planning to help attract them to San Antonio.

We would feel no different about Port Arthur or Jasper or Bon Wier -- yes, I am familiar with your city, I'm real familiar with it; I hold my breath for 2-1/2 minutes every time I drive over that bridge; I know about your city.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: My point was it's worse for us to find out about it at the end; it's better for us to find out that this is what you're doing and we need to help, because we're the government and we're here to help.

MR. McMAHEN: Commissioner Williamson, your comments are well taken. As the mayor stated, the city for the first time in a long time, is blessed to be having a lot of development come about, and I guess people want to be where they want to be, and the hospital chose that location, but obviously the hospital was not necessarily the seed that caused us to come up here.

Like I say, we've been working at this project for a long time. The congestion probably on 365 was beginning to get bad at the time we first looked at the schematic in 1991; it's gotten a lot worse since then just with the great economic conditions in the city and in the county -- we have to say that that's everywhere.

But a lot of businesses and commercial or otherwise are beginning to look at this section of Highway 365 as the place that they want to be. Obviously, that puts a burden on us and on you to accommodate those needs.

And your other comment that you made about the funding certainly is well-taken, that our commitment to the Beaumont District was not just to beg money from the state, but to look to any other place that we could to get funding, locally, federal, state, wherever, and obviously, as we've demonstrated, the city has put a lot of their own money into this to push this project forward, hopefully with your help and help from the federal government. We'll try every place and everything we can to get whatever funding is needed for these two projects.

MR. JOHNSON: Robert, did you have anything else?

MR. NICHOLS: Yes. It occurred to me to ask another question. Port Arthur has zoning, I assume?

MR. McMAHEN: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: For proper land management and stuff.

MR. McMAHEN: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Have you all considered or even kicked around the idea of adopting some type of idea of access management in your community? We've got about 41-43 cities that have adopted access management principles in their communities -- which as you're developing and build some of these new things, it helps you manage access so that you still have flow and economic development but also picks up safety -- because I've heard safety -- and it might be something if you have not adopted it that you might want to start kind of looking at it. It will help you quite a bit on the movement of traffic and utilizing not only the land areas but also traffic systems that you do have.

MR. McMAHEN: Well, the access management was one of the last issues that we dealt with on the schematic right at the intersection of 365 and 69.

MR. NICHOLS: If you have not adopted it, I would encourage you to at least start studying it and considering it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hear, hear.

MR. McMAHEN: The only thing that we can say good, I guess, in particular about the hospital situation is that the streets that are going to be going into the hospital generally have followed master plan routes or routes that have been indicated for a considerable length of time. But again, people like to be where they want to be for whatever reason, and it's up to us and others, as necessary, to accommodate those desires.

Again, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning and look forward to working with you and others in bringing these two projects about.

MR. JOHNSON: I had one observation and then one footnote. The observation is that obviously the addition of this medical center will be a great resource for the community and probably very much needed and will be very much appreciated. And as Ric pointed out, I think one of our functions is to assist areas to enable them to attract resources to the community that creates better quality of life and also economic vitality -- which apparently this one does.

As a footnote, I don't want anybody to misinterpret the tone of my comment about Lamar University. It is an outstanding university and does a great job for southeast Texas but it is also a resource for this entire state.

MR. NICHOLS: I'm still offended.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'm not worried about you.

SENATOR BERNSEN: And I'm also offended.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I'm not, so it's okay.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: We have somebody who has asked to speak in opposition to this request, and if David Moore is here, we would invite him. And if there is anyone else who would like to speak in opposition, we would request that you would fill out a yellow card and turn it in at the registration desk, and then it will come up here and we would get you an opportunity to do that also.

David, if you will for the record state your name.

MR. MOORE: David Moore.

MR. JOHNSON: And the purpose of your comments.

MR. MOORE: Good morning. Committee, thank you very much for giving me some time.

I'm in here because I'm in favor of the widening project of Highway 365 from Spur 93 to Highway 69, but I'm adamantly opposed to the proposed grade separation at this intersection.

My name is David Moore and I'm involved because I own seven acres at the southwest corner of the Spur 93-365 intersection. I own and operate a convenience store which I built in the year 2000. I also represent a Sonic Drive-In, a Pizza Inn and a Subway sandwich store, all of which are located at this corner.

The southwest corner of 365 and Spur 93 employs 59 men and women. As such, the remainder of the land has a high probability of being developed commercially. Crawdad's, Sonic, Pizza Inn, and Subway are the first new major employers to locate in the Port Acres area. Port Acres is a small community that was annexed by Port Arthur some 50 years ago. These businesses and myself took a large risk when committing substantial funds to purchase land, construct business, and make improvements to the Port Acres area.

There is no doubt that the proposed overpass will have a detrimental impact on the businesses and lives in the Port Acres area. The location will lose over 60 percent of its traffic.

When I initially inquired about the intersection seven years ago, the widening project of Spur 93 was mentioned and is now being completed. The widening project of Highway 365 was mentioned, but a grade separation that would absolutely bypass my land was not even fathomed.

Now you know why I originally took interest in this issue: it's about the money. My company supports 41 families in the Port Acres area and another 45 employees are related to the businesses on the southwest corner of this intersection at hand. Once I became involved, I wanted to know more: Why this intersection; why now?

Waymon Halmark, Jefferson County commissioner of Precinct 2, the precinct where this proposed grade separation will be built, called me to let me know that the City of Port Arthur was proposing an overpass at this intersection. Commissioner Halmark informed me that the City of Port Arthur asked the Jefferson County commissioners to share in the engineering cost of this proposed overpass at Spur 93 and 365.

The county commissioners voted against any support on this project for two reasons: spending $11 million today for a highway-railroad crossing that is so low on the cost-benefit index was not a viable project; the second reason was that a grade separation that would be taking a four-lane into a two-lane was not a viable project. They felt if it was four-laned all the way from the intersection back to Interstate 10 and then come back with the grade separations, then they would be for that project.

The commissioners court of Jefferson County is very well versed on this project. They've already committed a half a million dollars to the engineering fees for the widening project. They're in favor of the widening project and so am I. But when the topic of the overpass comes up, they show no support. The commissioners court is committed to the growth of Port Arthur and so am I, but like the commissioners, I believe we should widen the road and not build an overpass.

Why would we build an overpass? This intersection traffic load has declined since 1995. It is my understanding that the City of Port Arthur would like to design this grade separation and hopefully construct it before we have a congestion problem or a serious accident. They feel that future traffic projections would justify the overpass and there will be a dollar savings in the project doing it now.

Now it comes down to money. I agree there should be an overpass over every single railroad crossing in America, including Highway 365 and Spur 93, and in time maybe it will happen. But because this cannot happen now and there cannot be an overpass everywhere, there is a ranking system done by TxDOT rating all the railroad crossings in Texas.

This cost-benefit index is a number given to each intersection in the state, and it ranges from zero to 1200. The ranking at this intersection is 36; matter of fact, there are 37 railroad crossings in the Beaumont District alone that rank higher.

This intersection has had two accidents in the last ten years. It's not about whether it's a good idea or not, it's about whether Texas needs to spend their money. I understand that an overpass will not use federal funding but discretionary funds of TxDOT.

The Beaumont TxDOT has put up $2 million of their own and they're asking for $4 million more for the widening project; they're asking for $11 million more for the overpass; so they're taking a $6 million project and turning it into a $17-. This is a large difference of money for an intersection that hasn't warranted a traffic light. In the natural progression of things, one would think that a traffic light would come before an overpass.

$16 million for a four-way stop intersection that traffic has declined in the last eight years and has had two traffic accidents in the last ten years sounds like a lot of money. There are at least 925 intersections in the State of Texas that has a higher cost-benefit index than this one. I would imagine that all 925 of those would like to have a grade separation before there is an accident or too much congestion.

I'm also on the board of the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce. The Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce has not endorsed this overpass because it hasn't been presented to them. Let's widen the road, let's not build the grade separation. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Any questions, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have anything?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Pretty much been covered.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, David, for being here. We'll take your comments to heart. We appreciate the presenters' presentation, and Mr. Moore, your presence here.

We'll take a brief recess. We have a long agenda so this recess is going to be very brief so our friends from Jefferson County can get back to their homes and jobs.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

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

MR. JOHNSON: We will reconvene the meeting. The next group on the agenda is the Alliance for Interstate 69 Texas, and we're delighted that you're here. I know many of you have come great distances to be here. I believe that former Judge Helen Walker of Victoria County will lead the presentation.

JUDGE WALKER: Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Williamson and Executive Director Behrens. I am Helen Walker. I am board chair of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, and before we make our presentation, I want to introduce Representative Gene Seaman who wants to speak.

MR. SEAMAN: Good morning, commissioners and Mike. Thank you for all of the attention that you've given to the Coastal Bend area. I know that you've visited there; Bob you've been there so many times; and you've all paid so much attention to the entire Coastal Bend.

I want to report to you that JFK is coming along great; the Crosstown, Highway 35 at Rockport, everything is doing great. David Casteel is doing a super job for us. The JFK, we already have a good portion of the elevated part already in operation, so when Spring Break comes we're going to be able to use that, and the next three-foot tide, we won't be flooded out, so we're just really pleased with the great progress of everything.

And I also want to stress the genius of Trans Texas Corridor -- whoever wants to claim credit for that one. Governor Perry came down and presented that many months ago. I thought: Wow, what a futuristic, brilliant concept. And I really mean that. I'm behind it 100 percent, and I thought: Gee, why didn't I think of that?

Thank you for including I-69 in the priority corridors for Trans Texas. That is a very important step. I do have one concern I want to stress, that the environmental route studies get underway -- we're concerned about the kind of slippage of that; they keep sliding back -- so the environmental studies that we can speed up the process. And I just want to stress that one concern with the environmental studies and that we get this thing underway.

And thank you for the great job you guys are doing. Mike, you too.

MR. WILLIAMSON: It's always good so see a friend of transportation, and you've been a friend of transportation, and we appreciate it. We don't single out members who aren't friends, we single out members who are, and we appreciate your tremendous support.

MR. SEAMAN: Yes, sir. It's one of the greatest tools in Texas. We have the military in Corpus Christi and the Coastal Bend that's very important, our hospital and our education, but transportation, if we're going to look at the next 20-30-40 years, if we don't do the right job in transportation, we're dead. And I back that just 1,000 percent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I particularly appreciate your comments about the governor's corridor proposal. When he originally stepped forward in the state and said this is the way we're going to go, there was some understandable concern and trepidation. And there are still those who'd prefer to live in the past and build on the same footprint and continue to congest and continue to poison the air of areas that are already near non-attainment, and those are generally the individuals who have a narrow economic interest at stake and not the state's common interest.

And I think the governor was trying to say to the state almost two years ago now: The amount of cash flow available in this state and in this country for transportation projects is not what we wish it would be, and we can either stay in Robstown or stay in Weatherford and moan about that and build a few pieces of road at a time, or we can look in the mirror and say we have to do it ourselves, and it is in the best common interest of the state to do it this way ourselves and be about it.

And then when the next Toyota comes to Corpus Christi and the next General Motors comes to Laredo and the next Ford comes to Dallas, we'll all kind of look around and say: You know, we're glad we did that, we're glad we thought ahead. And we appreciate guys like you standing up and saying this is the way we have to do it.

MR. SEAMAN: And Ric, I can get passionate about that because I'm a businessman, like most of you, and when I look forward 10-20-30-40 years the population growth, or even the current crisis we have right now with moving military hardware through Corpus Christi, the port, and we see all of the things that are coming down the pike in the next 10-20 years, if we don't do these things, we're going to lose out.

And as I said, I can just be passionate about this and our economic development, our growth, taking care of our population, taking care of poverty, moving our people. When I look at our parking lot out here called I-35 and realize that we have to do other things, and if we can -- I don't want to use the word "manipulate" but encourage through tolls other routes in Texas, whatever we can do to advance these concepts, I think they're fantastic.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We appreciate your remarks very much.

JUDGE WALKER: Thank you, Representative Seaman.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and to report on behalf of the Alliance for I-69 Texas. As you know, we're an organization of cities, counties, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and now private sector companies from the Rio Grande Valley to the Sabine River.

I'd like to take a moment to ask some of the community leaders who are with us today from along the route to stand. I'm going to read this list. Some have had to move to other things, but first and foremost: Mayor Louis Bronaugh of Lufkin, the Chairman Emeritus of I-69; Mayor Roy Blake of Nacogdoches; Commissioner Susan Stasny of Bee County; Bill Summers, Vice President of the Greater Rio Grande Valley Partnership; David Pena of IBC in Laredo; Anne Culver, board member and executive in the Greater Houston Partnership; Adele Irvin also from Greater Houston Partnership; City Manager C.J. Maclin of Lufkin; City Manager Denny Arnold of Victoria; and Gary Bushell, our consultant here in Austin. If you all have stood already. Thank you.

We have one missing member today, and as I drove from Victoria yesterday, I noted what a good job TxDOT had done of de-icing the bridges and so forth. You missed one spot on 14th street between the Capitol and the Doubletree, and Judge John Thompson, our secretary-treasurer for the alliance hit that spot and fractured his ankle last night. So we're sorry that he is not here but he is resting at the Doubletree.

MR. JOHNSON: He was driving or he was a pedestrian?

JUDGE WALKER: No. He was walking, he was a pedestrian.

MR. JOHNSON: Mike, would you make a note of that, that we missed a spot?

(General laughter.)

JUDGE WALKER: Pedestrian accident.

The proposed route for I-69 passes through 34 counties and impacts 14 Congressional districts, eight State Senate districts, and 48 State House districts. The alliance was organized in 1993, a decade ago, to develop an interstate corridor, and if you go down from the U.S.-Mexico Border, across Texas to the northeastern United States and Canada, we believe we're making progress, in major part because of the support we've received from this commission. We want to thank you for including the I-69 route as one of the four priority routes for the Trans Texas Corridor System last summer.

As you may recall, the Alliance for I-69 Texas was one of the first organizations in Texas to support the Trans Texas concept at a commission meeting in Lufkin a year ago tomorrow. A year ago today we handed Governor Perry a letter of endorsement for his farsighted and innovative concept.

We want to thank you for the support for the successful effort to have the Texas portion of I-69 included by the U.S. Department of Transportation as one of only seven projects in the nation for federal environmental streamlining. We look forward to working with TxDOT to quantify what these time savings will mean to the project.

Finally, we want to thank you for your commitment to fund the environmental route studies for I-69 in Texas. We understand that you hope to have those segments under contract later this year.

But of course, we're now in the new legislative year in both Washington, D.C. and here in Austin. For 2003 the alliance's legislative program is a simple one: Our legislative program in Washington and in Austin is your legislative program. On December 10, 2002, at our annual meeting, we endorsed your Issues Brief for the 78th Session of the Texas Legislature as our state legislative program. On February 4, 2003, the executive committee endorsed your policy goals for the 2003 Congressional Reauthorization of Federal Transportation Authority, and our consultants in Washington have been instructed to work to obtain those monies that you prioritized for the upcoming reauthorization period.

I'd now like to turn the podium over to Mayor Roy Blake of Nacogdoches to discuss how we see the Trans Texas Corridor concept making I-69 a reality. Before I do, I want to read and include in the record a proclamation from Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, representing our largest county.

"Whereas, the Alliance for I-69 Texas, representing public and private sector leaders from 34 counties in Texas, will make its annual presentation before the Texas Transportation Commission on Thursday, February 27, 2003, to demonstrate support for TxDOT's ongoing efforts to advance I-69;

"And whereas, the Alliance has endorsed TxDOT's state and federal legislative priorities and will work in concert with TxDOT to successfully advance legislation that will yield greater resources for transportation and project development flexibility;

"And whereas, Harris County supports the use of innovative financing approaches, such as toll financing, for the development of infrastructure;

"And whereas, 75 percent of all U.S. truck-borne trade with Mexico travels through Texas with nearly half crossing the border between Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the termini of I-69;

"And whereas, the development of I-69 is critical to the ongoing economic competitiveness of the State of Texas;

"Now, therefore, I, Robert Eckels, County Judge of Harris County, Texas, hereby proclaim Thursday, February 27, 2003, as I-69 Texas Day in Harris County, Texas, and further take this opportunity to reiterate Harris County's commitment to ensuring the timely development of I-69.

"Presented by Judge Robert Eckels of Harris County."

Mayor Blake.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you so much.

MAYOR BLAKE: Thank you, Helen and Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Williamson and Commissioner Nichols and Executive Director Behrens. My name is Roy Blake, Jr. I'm the mayor of the City of Nacogdoches. My text here says my name is John Thompson, so that just shows how we've had to change overnight. And I would like to make one comment about Judge Thompson; he is doing well.

But last night I called my wife before this happened, and there's a Deep East Texas Council of Governments meeting in Crockett that I'm a board member and had plans to go to that or here and was trying to make a decision, so sometimes the Lord makes the decisions for us so he must have wanted me to stay here for some reason. So we wish the best for Judge Thompson, and I think he's going to be fine.

It's an honor to be associated with and a board member of this Alliance for I-69 Texas. I'm a recent board member; I was elected December 10 when Commissioner Williamson, you spoke at our luncheon and gave a very informative talk that day, and I certainly learned a lot and continue to learn a lot about the transportation system and needs and mechanism and funding for the State of Texas.

And so it's been a pleasure for me to be associated with people like Judge Walker and Mayor Bernal and the others on that alliance and I've really enjoyed it.

The Trans Texas Corridor plan can cause Texas to lead the nation in the building of a transportation system for the 21st century. The Alliance for I-69 Texas wants to be part of that system. We were delighted when our route was made part of the four priority corridors last summer.

From its inception, I-69 was envisioned to move traffic of commercial trade as set out by the commission last summer in its implementation plan. That is the first priority of Trans Texas. While we understand that the conceptual route for I-69, as shown on the Trans Texas Corridor maps, is subject to the environmental route studies -- which are yet to be done -- we want to stress the importance of linkage to our Texas ports.

I-69 has always been envisioned as a corridor to support national and international trade. The alliance will support a route system that provides efficient and direct access to our Texas ports.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas supports the Trans Texas Corridor concept of building on new right of way outside of existing metropolitan areas while continuing to make improvements on the existing federal and state highway system which link our metropolitan areas.

In East Texas -- which I am most familiar -- we need to continue to improve transportation linkage between our communities by bringing US 59 to interstate standards, but the true through traffic which is not stopping in East Texas for pickup or delivery needs to travel on an express route as envisioned by the Trans Texas plan. The result will be segments of I-69 that have both a regional and an express component. We support building both and believe that we can build both.

But to do so will require new, innovative financing authority for TxDOT. The alliance will support additional congressional authority for TxDOT to impose tolls on existing interstate and Federal Aid highways.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We thank you.

MAYOR BLAKE: And we had that in there before your comments this morning. And we will support in the 78th Texas Legislature the state law changes necessary to make this system a reality.

Currently 75 percent of all U.S. truck-borne trade with Mexico travels through Texas, placing a tremendous burden on Texas infrastructure. Almost half of the total U.S. truck-borne trade crosses the Texas-Mexico Border between Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. While I-35 is a major artery for trade crossing in Laredo, we have all seen the tremendous strain that I-35 is under.

We are working closely with the I-35 group as we approach the congressional action of reauthorization of federal transportation programs. We agree with Bell County Commissioner Tim Brown, who is president of the North American Superhighway Coalition which advocates on behalf of Interstate 35, that these two interstate corridors will serve different NAFTA markets. We need both of these interstate highways.

In the 77th Texas Legislative session, the alliance testified in support of the Mobility Fund, Toll Equity, and Bonding Authority for TxDOT. We hand-delivered letters of support to every member of the legislature on behalf of the eventual compromise that the governor signed into law. We believe I-69 and the other priority routes of Trans Texas can become a reality and it will take aggressive use of these tools and enactment of some additional tools such as those mentioned earlier.

Thank you for your time and for your support.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MAYOR BLAKE: We'd be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may have.

MR. NICHOLS: I want to thank you for the work that you do independently. That's a huge route to keep a number of people in communities focused on one direction. Hat's off to you and appreciate the work that you do.

Also, I know you're very much aware of this, the six-year federal funding cycle either will or will not have construction funding for I-69 in it, and now is when they're writing that. If it's going to be there, it will be in there at the beginning; if it's not, we'll have to wait six more years to have construction dollars. So it's really critical, as we do talk to our delegation from Texas to the Congress, that they keep that in mind.

MAYOR BLAKE: Anything that we can do to help, we will. That was the message that we took to the Capitol here yesterday. Our philosophy is that what is good for the transportation system on a whole is good for our project as well.

JUDGE WALKER: And as we have stated, we do have consultants in Washington who are working with David Soileau and others to ascertain that we try to make sure that those requests from the commission go into the reauthorization period. And by the way, we like your new terminology; we like PLAN, we like CONSTRUCT even better.

(General laughter.)

MR. JOHNSON: Ric, did you have some observations?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a couple. First of all, I want to say again to the leadership and to all the gathered members how very much the commission appreciates your visionary coming to grips with we can either do it ourselves or whatever help they send us is okay. And it shouldn't be lost on anyone in the state, and in particular those who are interested in transportation along Interstate 35, that the governor and the commission goes out of its way to help people who go out of their way to understand what we've got to do and work with us, and it means more than you'll know -- well, it probably means more than you probably are going to know.

I have two questions I'd like to ask you about policy that we're talking amongst ourselves about and trying to advance across the street, and one is the concept of shadow-tolling, the idea that segments of 69 could be built almost by communities in a partnership with us that allowed the communities to raise the money locally and be reimbursed as the segment is being used. We wonder if you're familiar with that concept and if you may be willing to entertain that as an additional tool that the legislature might give us.

JUDGE WALKER: You know, I think that the alliance is committed to look for every tool. We did discuss that yesterday with Coby Chase and Jefferson Grimes in terms of how that could work, so it is a new concept for us, we only talked about it yesterday.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And putting toll booths on existing interstates, it won't work for everybody, it's not applicable in all parts of the state, but it occurs to us that there might be segments of the 69 corridor that would like to get started that would help, as you said, regionally and locally that would eventually become part of the whole thing.

And we might at the commission level, or certainly at the administration and the district level, find that is a handy tool to smooth out the cash impact on us such that we could get started now and pay for it over time as you primarily use that piece of the corridor until it gets built.

JUDGE WALKER: I think certainly we are open to that. We can't speak for the entire board but it will be something we'll be taking back to the board, and we are serious in helping in the legislative session. Gary Bashell is here in Austin; he can reach any of us anytime that we're needed to come to Austin and testify or whatever.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The second matter that I wish you would at least give some thought to, current law restricts our use of the exclusive development agreement to four projects by the end of March of next year. We've toyed with the idea of asking the legislature to remove the number and instead impose a dollar cap.

We understand the importance of the dollar cap. We don't want to go to turnkey and EDA 100 percent any more than we want to remain design-bid-build 100 percent.

So one of the things we're thinking about asking for is take the cap off but constrain us on a dollar basis, and then smaller attractive EDA projects can be brought to the commission and acted upon, again, segments of the 69 corridor. You might have an EDA that Sam puts together with somebody else and wants to pay for it with shadow tolls and a banker in Nacogdoches that wants to back it.

And you com