Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

Thursday, October 28, 2004

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

RIC WILLIAMSON, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. JOHNSON
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
HOPE ANDRADE
TED HOUGHTON, JR.

STAFF:

MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, P.E., Executive Director
STEVE SIMMONS, Deputy Executive Director
RICHARD MONROE, General Counsel
ROGER POLSON, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director
DEE HERNANDEZ, Chief Minute Clerk

PROCEEDINGS

MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning. It's a great morning. It is 9:09 a.m., and I would like to call the October meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order. We welcome each and every one of you; it's a pleasure to have you here this morning.

In a little while we will receive presentations from two delegations, the Texarkana Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Gulf Coast Regional Mobility Partners. We welcome members of those delegations from their respective hometowns to Austin, Texas.

Please note for the record that notice of this meeting was filed with the Office of Secretary of State at 10:51 a.m. on October 20, 2004.

Before we begin, you are all prepared for this. Before we begin our meeting today, let's all take a moment to place our pagers, cell phones, Dewberries and all other electronic devices that would make noise and disrupt us on the silent or vibrate mode, please. Thank you.

As is our custom, we will open with comments from the commission and this morning we'll begin with Commissioner Houghton. Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: Good morning, everyone. We've got a standing room crowd only again; we've got two delegations; mobility plan is going to be discussed. Looking for some great new ideas, great thoughts and partnerships with the rest of the state of Texas, and I welcome you all. Thank you.

MS. ANDRADE: Good morning. I'd like to welcome our delegations and our guests and thank them for their interest in transportation, and I look forward to moving transportation in Texas forward today. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I'm glad to speak in front of Commissioner Nichols because I'm going to steal something that he's going to say, I'm confident of this.

It's nice to see so many people here who have such a great interest in transportation and quality of life in this state, and special thanks to the people from the Texarkana area and the Greater Houston area for their hospitality last night. It's nice to convene in a less business and more social setting and get to know one another and visit about local priorities, and last night was really an enjoyable experience in that regard.

Thank you for your interest in what goes on in this state, and this is going to be a very full agenda and a very active day.

MR. NICHOLS: You did get part of mine. Thank you.

I'd like to also welcome you here. I hope you feel welcome, hope you feel comfortable in making comments of your thoughts and ideas and concerns on transportation. We very much appreciate all of your input and the time that you've taken out of your day to come and work on projects of transportation for your communities.

There are several items in this book that I think we have worked on for a number of years that are really quite monumental, so to me it's a very exciting day, and I'm glad you're going to be here to share it with us. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, members.

Again, welcome everyone here. I need to say a couple of things to sort of establish the tone for the day, if I might.

First, it seems as though every meeting for the last 18 months has been an important meeting and I went back a few nights ago and looked at the agendas for the last 18 months, and in fact, almost every meeting the last 18 months has involved the adoption or the beginning of something that had a marked impact on the transportation world in our state.

This meeting today perhaps more so than the others because we are either concluding or beginning our discussion and deliberations on some of the more controversial paths that the state has chosen to take to address its infrastructure needs.

It is instructive for me to say to myself and to everyone present all Texans should be heard, all Texans have an opinion, no opinion is worth more or less than the other. Some things everyone in the audience will agree with us on, some things some in the audience will disagree with the commission on. We understand that.

We understand that in a republican democracy, in an environment where men and women are elected to represent groups of people in making decisions, that not everyone is made happy or satisfied with the decisions of those elected officials or their appointees.

Our great state will continue its advance towards civilized perfection if we all conduct ourselves in a civilized and mature manner, if we all understand that we might disagree but that none of us operate from the perspective of self-interest or wishing to inflict pain on others.

I say these things because the decision to embrace the use of debt and the use of toll collection to finance infrastructure for the future is painful for some people and some people disagree. Some people agree that tolls, Mr. Johnson, represent double taxation. I know that citizens from your part of the state believe that they have been forced to build toll roads in the Houston area for the last 20 years because the state has not allocated an appropriate share of its resources to that area.

I know personally, as a citizen of North Texas, leaders in North Texas feel that same way. At the same time there are citizens in other parts of the state that are now being exposed to decisions about toll roads who feel they are soon to be double taxed because they've been paying gasoline taxes all these years for their roads.

The harsh reality is the tax system we have to pay for infrastructure allocated on a user basis only pays for about 48 cents of the new roads you build, and perhaps we haven't been strident enough in repeating that over and over.

That's another way of saying that the legislature and the governor, in their wisdom, could choose to double the gasoline tax and double the vehicle registration fee and we would have enough cash flow to build the new roads that we say we need. But the governor, this governor and five governors before him, Democrat and Republican, and this legislature and five legislatures before them, including myself, have chosen not to do that.

We believe in this society men and women elect men and women to reflect their wishes and they must be reflecting the wishes of the citizens they represent in choosing not to double taxes to buy and pay for this infrastructure, chose instead to give us the alternative of empowering regions and local leaders to make individual decisions about constructing toll roads, with the economic partnership of the state, to address the future needs of the state.

It's not that any of us -- what's the word -- look forward to paying the tolls, just as any of us look forward to paying greater taxes. It is the case that the transportation infrastructure of this state has deteriorated to the point that someone has to act and someone has to lead. The alternative is to experience the same transportation crisis of the other nine industrial states in this nation and none of us want that, I don't think.

So as we go through the day, as we hear from esteemed elected leaders, senators, House members, city councilmen, county commissioners and judges, let us all remember that the worst thing that can happen in Texas is to be divided north against south, black, brown and white against each other, rich against poor, city against country. That's not how you keep your great state intact.

At the end of the day we will have made some decisions that will irritate some people and decisions that will not be unanimously endorsed by all the citizens of our state, but we've made those decisions based on what we think is the best long-term interest of every citizen in the state, the least of them and the most of them.

Having said that, we have a long agenda, there is no question that we'll take a break for lunch, hopefully after item 7, sometime around 11:00 to 11:30. We will certainly try to collect our guests present from the House and Senate to speak before that occurs. We have some other guests from out of town that will need to speak before that time.

Mike, I'll try to stay on the schedule. I'm going to turn the agenda over to you and let's move as quickly as we possibly can.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Chairman. We'll then go to agenda item number 2 which is Aviation. That would be a minute order recommending funding for airport improvement projects for this month. David?

MR. FULTON: Thank you, Mike.

For the record, my name is Dave Fulton, director of the Aviation Division.

This minute order contains a request for grant funding approval for seven airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all grant requests, as shown in the Exhibit A, is approximately $4 million, approximately $1.5 million federal, $2 million state, and approximately $400,000 in local funds.

A public hearing was held on September 24 of this year and no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Questions or comments from the commission?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?

MR. JOHNSON: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a second?

MR. HOUGHTON: Second.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.

Mike, why don't we go back and approve the minutes. I inadvertently skipped those.

MR. BEHRENS: That would be fine.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we need to approve the minutes from the September 30 meeting. Do I have a motion?

MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a second?

MR. NICHOLS: Second.

MR. WILLIAMSON: All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries, the minutes are approved.

Mike, back to you.

MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 3, we're having a discussion item we've had for several commission meetings, and this will be a presentation by Coby Chase from our Legislative Affairs Office to go over some recommendations on our legislative agenda for the upcoming session. Coby?

MR. CHASE: Good morning. My name is Coby Chase; I'm the department's director of Legislative Affairs.

Once again, I'm before you to lead further discussion of the Transportation Commission's legislative priorities for the upcoming 79th Texas Legislature. And I've given you a copy of my prepared remarks, and I can either summarize them or I can go through them, depending on the wishes of the chair.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please summarize them succinctly, though; don't leave anything out. We set this up, as you know, for the purpose of continually advertising to the members of the legislature, to the public that watches transportation throughout the state what we think the legislature ought take up in the next session so that there's no secrets and no one is caught by surprise.

MR. CHASE: My staff has recently completed its research on the matters you've asked us to investigate. We now have a clearer picture of the issues I would advise the chairman recommend to the legislature. I will separate these into two broad groups: those that I recommend going forward with and then those I would not. I will begin with the bigger picture items.

As we have all been discussing for some time, there is general sentiment to revise some of the provisions of House Bill 3588. Those fall along four major lines: financial, rail, toll conversion, and comprehensive development agreements.

On the first there are four financial issues: that statutory capital and toll equity should be repealed; it should be clarified that all toll revenue from TxDOT projects is to be deposited into the State Highway Fund, not just the revenue from bonded projects; the present laws governing the use of any surplus toll revenue from TxDOT projects should be expanded.

Presently, any surplus revenue must be used in other turnpike projects in the region. It would be beneficial to allow surplus toll revenue to be used on a non-turnpike project within the same geographical area, or, for instance, rail.

Fourth, state law should be amended to allow TxDOT to enter into pass-through toll financing agreements where we build the project and local public or private entities repay us.

There are three rail issues: the statutory cap of $12.5 million per year in expenditures for non-Trans-Texas Corridor rail projects should be repealed, as should the $25 million per year cap in expenditures for Trans-Texas Corridor rail projects; there is also need to clarify TxDOT's contracting authority for rail -- currently law requires the department to use the low bid process and does not always take into account other factors which should be considered like best value, or put another way, CDA-type process for the construction of rail.

Third under House Bill 3588 is toll conversion. Toll conversion revenue for TxDOT or a county is currently limited for use on that converted segment or an extension of that segment. It would be beneficial to allow the revenue to be used on other transportation projects in the region.

And second, there is still the definition of toll conversion, the matter is still under internal discussion.

And last there are a couple of recommendations on comprehensive development agreements. Right now they can only be utilized for toll projects; they may be beneficial to other types of projects. The department's ability to use CDAs expires in 2011; that Sunset provision should be eliminated.

You have recommended to us that regional mobility authorities be allowed the capacity to develop transit within their geographical jurisdiction, the idea being that RMAs should be permitted to integrate all of their region's public transportation strategies under the oversight of one authority.

Our recommendation to you is that an RMA that wishes to offer transit services in an area served by an existing provider would be able to do that by entering into a voluntary agreement.

You have recommended to us that the department be granted the authority to acquire property in advance of finalizing the environmental process. This should be pursued. TxDOT should be granted the authority to acquire property from a willing seller in advance of the environmental work being completed. Again, this should only be in the form of a willing seller; no condemnation authority is contemplated in this recommendation.

In addition, the department's use of this authority should be limited in such a manner that acquisition of the property does not influence the final determination of a route.

You have recommended to us that local governments should be granted clear authority to regulate development identified transportation corridors. We believe this should be pursued.

This is a two-stage process: first, TxDOT should be granted the authority to enter into agreements with local governments for the purposes of identifying long-range transportation needs of the area and establishing future transportation corridors; following that, the local government should be granted the express authority to regulate or control development within that corridor.

You asked us to investigate enhanced department authority to relocate existing rail lines. In addition, you asked for a funding source to accomplish this. We absolutely believe that this represents a critical need and should be pursued.

We currently may only provide for rail relocation on a very limited basis and only when necessary for a highway project. TxDOT should be granted clear authority to enter into contracts for the relocation. In addition, the legislature should provide the funding to capitalize a rail relocation fund through which TxDOT may issue bonds. In our recently adopted legislative appropriations request, the department has asked for $200 million in General Revenue for this purpose.

In addition to the rail relocation fund, the commission has recommended that we look into three different loan programs, two of which will require statutory changes.

The first is the establishment of a State Infrastructure Bank program that is capitalized with state dollars and offers loans for roadway projects. The department's presently federally funded SIB has numerous strings attached to it that are proving inflexible, not the least of which is the inability to increase its size with more federal dollars. This seems to be more of a noose than a string, quite frankly. Startup capital placed into the SIB would come from the State Highway Fund.

The second is the establishment of a state-funded SIB for capital investment loans to public transportation providers. In the LAR we have asked for $40 million from General Revenue to capitalize this fund. We recommend that these two statutory initiatives be pursued.

And the third is simply an appropriations request for $4 million from General Revenue to be placed in the existing Aviation Loan Fund. This request has also been put forward in our LAR.

The last significant issue pertains to the Texas Mobility Fund. Its full promise won't be realized if select fees are allowed to determine its size. We should join like-minded supporters in asking the legislature to make the decision to direct more state resources to the fund. About $400 million in annual transportation-related fees go into General Revenue that could be redirected to the Mobility Fund.

Some examples are motor vehicle certificate of title fees, certain motor carrier permit fees, and personalized license plate fees. In addition, certain overweight truck fees and fees for taking a defensive driving class could be increased and allocated to the Mobility Fund. Increasing these fees could raise another $50 million annually.

I recommend to you that the commission stake out a clear position on directing as much of this revenue as possible into the Mobility Fund.

Now I will proceed to a discussion of five items of an operational nature that I recommend be included in your report to the legislature.

There is a definite need for the department to clarify its authority and responsibility regarding construction of our department-owned building facilities. The department's authority in this regard has never been clearly specified in law and instead has rested mainly in attorney general opinions.

I recommend to you that the department seek clear authority for us to construct, finance and manage our own buildings.

Secondly, prior to this most recent session, there were interpretations of law which provided that when TxDOT sold its property, the proceeds would be deposited back into the State Highway Fund. That was amended during the last session to provide that these proceeds would go into General Revenue. It seems that the agency has a responsibility to protect the funds that the public believes are being spent for transportation purposes.

I recommend to you that as we pursue this, it apply not only to the sale of property of TxDOT but also the Department of Public Safety, that property, of course, also being paid for with constitutionally dedicated gas tax money.

Third, it has been recommended to us that we expand the number of courts authorized to hear eminent domain cases. Because of the large number of public improvement projects that are underway or in development in our populated areas, it would be more efficient to allow state district courts, in addition to county courts at law, to hear eminent domain cases. This issue has repeatedly been brought up in light of inefficiencies in the Harris County Court system.

We recommend that this issue be addressed and clarified for all counties in Texas.

Fourth, the agency has recommended the department's authority regarding the award of contracts to the second lowest bidder be expanded. Right now the department may award small maintenance contracts under $100,000 to the second lowest bidder if the lowest bidder fails to accept the contract. Although this authority has been utilized in only a limited number of cases, we agree that the dollar amount should be increased to $300,000.

Lastly, you asked us to look at personnel issues which could assist the agency in recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce. Cathy Williams and the Human Resources Division led an effort that arrived at two recommendations which I believe should be included with the commission's recommendations to the legislature.

The two are: paying a night and weekend differential for those employees who are required to work nontraditional hours, and then modify the statutory requirement that we post jobs above a B-13 pay grade outside the agency. This threshold should be raised to a B-17 in order to provide greater flexibility for reallocating and realigning the department's resources for effective management.

And now I'd like to discuss three issues that you've asked us to research that I recommend not be pursued, at least legislatively.

The first one is incentives for economically disadvantaged counties to participate in toll projects. This needs to be done but I do not believe that a statutory remedy is necessary. The department is in the process of proposing revised local participation rules that should move this along the right path.

I recommend that we pursue an internal remedy before asking the legislature to intervene.

The second issue pertains to the department's involvement in the Border Colonia Roads Program. There is no denying the fact that counties are not spending the funds as quickly as envisioned. A lot of this, however, may simply be the traditional problem with implementing any new program and not necessarily something wrong with county oversight.

One of the thoughts floated in our discussions is that TxDOT could design, let and inspect these projects with greater speed. We certainly do this better than just about anyone else, but shifting work from the private sector to border districts that have already stretched their limits doesn't seem like the right move, at least not right now.

This initiative will never develop into a healthy program unless it's given time and proper oversight for a while longer. Unless there is compelling evidence of insurmountable inefficiencies between now and January 1, I recommend that this issue be addressed internally and in conjunction with the counties.

And third, you asked us to look into the possibility of funding highway initiatives in Mexico. Although this is clearly worthwhile, there is a federal constitutional hurdle. The United States Constitution provides that no state shall enter into an agreement with another country without the consent of Congress.

This would need to be explored before staking out a program in state law. If you have any further direction regarding this, let me know now or sometime later.

That concludes my recommendations. If it is the commission's desire, I can prepare a draft report for your consideration at the December commission meeting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, let's address it this way. Ted, are you ready with any questions or comments you might have?

MR. HOUGHTON: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I was going to say I would prefer, if you're ready, just go ahead.

MR. HOUGHTON: The rail projects, Coby, when you're talking about them, trying to look back at your numbers again, on the funds we're asking out of the legislature.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. HOUGHTON: Rail relocation, the department is asking for $200 million in General Revenue for this purpose?

MR. CHASE: Yes.

MR. HOUGHTON: How far does that go?

MR. CHASE: Well, if it's the ability to issue bonds against that or if it is a loan, but if you can issue bonds against it, I guess it's a times-ten multiplier, it would be about $2 billion.

MR. HOUGHTON: $2 billion. What's the fix statewide?

MR. CHASE: I don't know off the top of my head what the rail needs are statewide, but I imagine we could go through $2 billion rather rapidly.

MR. HOUGHTON: That seems to be percolating to the top as the issue in the very foreseeable future is rail relocation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: This may be mea culpa. I think I suggested the $200 million figure when we were preparing our LAR because we had to have a starting spot.

Is it not the case, Mike, that we're doing a study right now to define those dollars?

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct, and we did talk about we can bond and get $2 billion. Just looking at some of the estimates we have on some rail relocation, we could probably do three to four of those with that $2 billion.

MR. HOUGHTON: Three to four communities or three or four rail relocations?

MR. BEHRENS: Three or four rail relocations, let's just say they were $500 million a pop.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We've all been working on this for quite a while.

MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, you have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I suspect that the total number is somewhere around $10- or $12 billion.

I don't know, Robert, you've been on this hard for a year, what are your thoughts?

MR. NICHOLS: It's a little bit early to try to pick a number but it is quite a large number because it's going to be extensive in each of the urbanized areas. But if you start with a working number of about $10 billion, recognizing you can't appropriate that much at one time, then the best approach is to take a logical revenue stream. If you chose $200 million a year, then you could start taking a bite each year or that could be set up like the Texas Mobility Fund just for rail relocation where you could issue out in bonds that revenue stream and tackle a billion at a time or $2 billion at a time which I think is becoming quite aware is desperately needed in many of these urbanized areas.

Not just for safety but to improve the mobility of the freight capacity which is needed and also possibly picking up the right of ways, either for commuter light rail or additional toll lanes but still be able to service those industries. So it's going to be a real issue and it's not regionalized in one area of the state, it seems to be everywhere.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think the approach the governor has chosen to take in this matter, like the other large issues he's tackled the last four years, is unlike what other states have done. Other states have done it sort of piecemeal. I think the governor's viewpoint is if you're going to attempt to negotiate a transaction with the Union Pacific to move the rail out of downtown Houston, downtown San Antonio, downtown Austin, downtown Waco and Fort Worth, and the best approach is to relocate it at once and way away and acquire their right of way for other transportation uses.

So clearly it's a lot of money. The flip side is, is the rate of return better than a lot of money, and if it is, well, then it makes sense. And that's been the governor's instruction: to do it in a way that it makes economic or business sense.

I think the $200 million, Ted, to get back to your question, it was the starting point to begin the dialogue with the legislature.

MR. HOUGHTON: Will this agency be the lead agency in those negotiations with the railroad?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would think the legislature would assign us that responsibility, yes, sir.

MR. HOUGHTON: That's my questions.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for Coby about the legislative report at this point? Hope?

MS. ANDRADE: Yes, and my questions are more directed to Mike.

On the incentives to economically disadvantaged counties, I understand that we're working on some internal measures to help. I just want to make sure that we develop some kind of comprehensive approach to address this and that we explore all internal avenues to acknowledge that these counties are different when we're looking at toll projects out there.

MR. BEHRENS: We will do that.

MS. ANDRADE: Okay. And on the Border Colonia Program, as you know, my concern was that the $175 million that we have is just not enough and so I want to make sure that the money that we do have right now that it does get used directly to the roads. And I would recommend that we work closely, and perhaps Amadeo can help us with that and in working closely with our district offices.

MR. BEHRENS: And we have been in discussions. I know Amadeo has been working with the water development board because of the utility construction. Some we've found out that they were coming after. There had been some road construction so we want to coordinate that to make sure we get the utilities done and then we do the road work and coordinate that.

MS. ANDRADE: I think we've had more authority than what we've used, and so I want to make sure that we use that to hold them accountable for making sure that these projects get done.

MR. BEHRENS: Correct, and we're looking at some of this legislates a little bit more oversight from TxDOT.

MS. ANDRADE: Good. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: John?

MR. JOHNSON: Coby, I don't have any specific items. This is, I believe, your third appearance, fourth? It's been so much fun, I missed one. I apologize.

Here's a broad-brush impression that I've gotten. Most of what we are proposing are facilitators, clarifications, operating efficiencies, and certainly in today's presentation on the financial side we talk about an increase in fees for the overweight loads going into the Mobility Fund, we talk about the $200 million from General Revenue to start the ability to relocate rail out of our cities, and there might be others, but those are the only two what I call financial drivers or revenue issues that I see in the program.

And yet if you look at the encompassing area that we are trying to assist, we're trying to assist ports; we're trying to assist transit; we've talked about the rail issues; and we have all the surface transportation, the roads in this state.

I'm somewhat in awe that we can try to get our arms around so much and the financial package seems to be less of a focus. But I think there's some good in that in that this transition that we're making, the chairman so eloquently talked about early on, a system we recognize that the gasoline tax: one, is inefficient, and two, that it's becoming a decreasing dependent source in being able to do what we need to do.

And so we are looking at leverage through bonds, we're looking at being able to amortize that leverage through user pay, and how significant that is in terms of being able to fund all the areas that we're trying to get our arms around.

Now, it's not an oil patch, an eight-eighths deal. We can't do it all; on that we need help. But I'm struck by this shift that is occurring and I hope that others come to the same conclusion that I have, that in my viewpoint it's not only the way, it might be the only way to equitably try to do what we need to do and then also fund what we need to do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Thanks. I'm going to step back just a second on rail and then come back to a different issue.

On the rail I just want to make sure that everybody in the audience is not left with the misunderstanding that we're talking about or proposing to remove all rail from cities. There's a big difference between relocating and preparing rail corridors, rail alignments in urban areas as opposed to just getting rail out of big cities, because it seems almost a paradox that rail was located because of industry need, creation of jobs and towns built up around it, and now there's this rail problem inside these cities.

Because of the way the cities grew and became trapped and landlocked with some of these things, there are opportunities for developing rail corridors in realignments that improve safety dramatically. I know in the Houston area, I think the number heard last night at one of the receptions was 752 at-grade crossings on public roads, state, city, stuff like that. Over time there's a lot of fatalities created on those things.

And if we could relocate and consolidate some of that stuff, then not only do we improve safety but we improve the capacity of rail distribution for industries who desperately need it. We don't want to harm that, so I just wanted to make sure we clarified that.

When you hit tolls, toll conversion issue, then there is a definition of toll conversion, and that seems to spark, obviously, pretty active interest around the state. And in a toll conversion, existing law that was passed is very clear how that is done, but I think the clarification of what is considered a toll conversion seems to be the issue.

We've taken a position on what we thought it was or feel like it is, and I think Chairman Krusee has already publicly said that that's going to be an issue, and in fact, he's trying to direct a lot of activity, so we know there's going to be a readdressing of that issue. So I don't know that we will be carrying the bill but we'll hopefully be involved in that.

The last thing, I think at our last monthly meeting, as Commissioner Johnson had said, we're looking for improvements in efficiencies and things like that we might could pick up through legislative actions. And we issue a tremendous amount of contracts, probably 90 percent of our entire budget, we issue out in contracts in one form or another.

And I mentioned something to the effect that while you study with all the different divisions and districts and things like that, if you can come up with suggestions of ways to improve our contracting and any of those things that might need to be addressed legislatively, that we'd urge you to bring them forward.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: John, you're correct, this has been monthly for four months. And it will be for one more month, Coby; we'll be prepared to do this one more time in November. I think I can safely ask you to begin building your draft report.

To remind the audience and the commission, we're going through this process for two reasons: one, we don't want our stakeholders, partners and those who stand on the other side of us from time to time to be caught off guard with what the department believes is the legislative package most appropriate for transportation.

And the reason we have a legislative package is because in the last legislative session, the legislature instructed us for the first time in the history of the state to prepare a legislative package and submit that to them. So this is in compliance with the law.

I have a couple of questions, Coby, that I would like for you to expand on over the next month, and by way of publicly stating where the chair's interest is. If we are to, for example, ask the legislature to repeal the statutory cap on toll equity, we should begin to warn the Office of the Governor and the legislative leadership of that and not let them see it for the first time in our legislative report.

We have a great network established with men and women across the street. We should take advantage of that network now and begin to warn them that we think this is something that should be addressed. We don't, again, want a senator or a House member or the governor to say that we caught them off guard with our viewpoint about something that at least in the past, Robert, was pretty significant to the legislature. Now, maybe it's not anymore, maybe the cap is irrelevant.

And similarly, I would ask -- you've been in the business longer than I have -- I would ask that you go through and sort of ask yourself: Okay, now this is one for which arguments were had, we need to warn Senator Shapiro, Senator Staples, Senator Ogden, Chairman Krusee, Chairman Heflin of this and not just wait until the document is drafted.

The other thing that I think is important is we're probably going to pick up some new stakeholders. We've certainly picked up some new Texans who sit on the other side of some issues in the last year; we're probably going to pick up some new stakeholders and partners. We might want to start compiling a pretty good list of who those persons are.

I think, for example, the Gulf Coast folks who are with us today are perhaps going to maybe give a different viewpoint of rail than we've had in the past. That would be an example of stakeholders that we would need to go ahead and start reaching out to in helping us prepare for the next session.

Other than that, I'd just say again I'm very pleased with your work, I think this process has gone as it should have gone. We'll go through it one more time but I think you can be comfortable in beginning to prepare your report for December's adoption. We were going to adopt it in November but we've only got three weeks to get ready and maybe it's best to wait until December.

MR. CHASE: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

Members, I overlooked a moment ago the required suggestion to the audience about our cards, so if you'll bear with me for a moment.

I need to remind everyone that if you wish to address the commission today during the meeting, I need for you to complete a speaker's card at the registration table in the lobby. If you're going to comment on an item that's posted on the agenda, I need for you to fill out a yellow card and identify the agenda item upon which you wish to speak. If you wish to comment in the open comment period but not on an agenda item, then there is a blue card at the table and we need for you to complete that card.

Regardless of the color of the card, to the extent that you're able, please try to limit your remarks to three minutes because we have a lot of people that have things that they want to say today.

Mike, I've chugged as long as I can, buddy, so you're going to have to get back here and do your role or we're going to have to take a quick recess. There he is.

I've cleared out the cards, Mike, we're back to you. There was no action necessary to be taken on the discussion item. You're fixing to give it back to me, aren't you?

MR. BEHRENS: No. We're going to agenda item number 4 and we're going to have Phil Russell come up and discuss the recommendation of creating a regional mobility authority for Smith and Gregg Counties.

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, commissioners and Mike. For the record, I'm Phillip Russell and I'm the director of the Turnpike Division for TxDOT.

On June 23 of this year, Smith and Gregg Counties filed a petition for authorization to form an RMA. The petition identified the continuation and the completion of Loop 49 in Smith County as a four-lane divided highway, including an eastern corridor to extend into Gregg County as their initial project. The project will improve traffic flow throughout the region and eliminate the need to make connections through Tyler's urban center.

On September 7 and 8 and on October 7, the department conducted public hearings pursuant to the RMA rules to receive public comments on the proposed RMA formation. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Texas Register and in a newspaper of general circulation in the region.

At the public hearing several individuals spoke in favor of the creation of the RMA. Several individuals also submitted written comments, most in favor and one opposing the development of toll roads. Resolutions supporting the RMA were received by commissioners courts of Smith and Gregg Counties and a joint resolution of support from the cities of Tyler and Longview.

By approving this minute order, you would authorize the creation of the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The area that encompasses the NET would be the Smith and Gregg County lines. The initial project that would be developed, maintained and operated would be the Loop 49 project. The initial board of directors composition would be of seven members; six directors would be appointed by Gregg and Smith County commissioners courts, and of course the chair would be appointed by the governor.

We have Mary Owen here and I think we have several others in attendance. I think from my perspective, Mary and the group have really done a fantastic job of educating the public and really being accessible to those folks in Smith and Gregg Counties.

So with that, I'd be happy to open it up to any questions you might have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we do have three commenters/witnesses. What's your pleasure? Do you want to dialogue with Phil first or would you like to hear the three persons who wish to comment for the record?

MR. NICHOLS: I want to hear the comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Judge. Once again we get to see your smiling face. Judge Dempsey. You're wearing out that path between Smith County and Travis County.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Well, thank you again. Mr. Chair and members of the commission, it's always a pleasure to be before you.

Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt had court this morning and sends his regards and his apologies that he can't be with us, but had he not had that conflict, he certainly would have been here.

I appreciate your comment, Commissioner Williamson, at the beginning of the meeting today with respect to what we all hope to accomplish as Texans and that is at the end of the day we work together, all of us, toward the betterment of the state of Texas.

And I think that's what we've done in Smith and Gregg Counties. Historically, neighboring counties don't always get along, as you know, but we've moved past that and we have worked together in Smith County and Gregg County to come together for the benefit of our region and actually present what we believe to be an excellent project as far as our RMA is concerned.

As was indicated previously, the public hearings have shown overwhelming support for the development of the RMA and the tolling of the portion of Loop 49. We will continue, both counties, to assist TxDOT in the acquisition of right of way.

And I'm not going to belabor this, I think you've heard from me previously. I just want to thank you again for your consideration and the opportunity again to address you all.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, dialogue with the judge.

MR. HOUGHTON: Just congratulations again.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Thank you very much.

MR. HOUGHTON: What's the count now, Phil, on RMAs?

MR. RUSSELL: That would be five.

MR. HOUGHTON: Welcome to the family.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't know if they were going to make a comment. I wanted to congratulate you also and thank you for the work that you have done throughout not only your county but with your neighboring counties. I think it's a real accomplishment to go from where you began to where you are today, and I know what you're looking forward to is where you're going tomorrow. So congratulations.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Judge, hard work occurs here but it also occurs back home, and we appreciate the hard work of everyone in both places.

JUDGE DEMPSEY: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Our next is Sue Cooper. I think Sue is not as comfortable about the proposal as perhaps others.

Sue? And we do welcome you; we appreciate you taking the long drive from Whitehouse.

What's unique about Whitehouse?

MS. COOPER: I don't really know, but I've been there in Smith County for 50 years so I don't really want to leave.

I was not prepared to give you individual handouts. I have a 56-page written comment that I would like to present to you for your review. Obviously you can't do it right now; I wasn't prepared to do that. But in this comment I would like to share with you thoughts that people in Smith County have shared with me, thoughts that I have gleaned and learned over this very short time period of a learning process on what an RMA is, on the tolling of Loop 49.

And I'd like to say before I get started -- because I have my written comments so I don't get off track -- I am a property-owner, lifetime resident of Smith County, born and raised in Noonday. The Loop 49 project crosses our family farm. We are in favor of Loop 49; we would like to see Loop 49 completed yesterday, but I hope you realize my comments are coming from my heart, coming from my concern for the little people of Smith County, concern that everyone has equal access to Loop 49. Since it is Tyler's first expressway, it is very much needed to be available to everyone.

And that's where my comments are coming from, not from a personal benefit gain or lost end point but for the good of everyone in Smith County and that region.

My name is Valerie Sue Bedford Cooper. I'm a property-owner on Loop 49; I'm a 50-year resident of Smith County -- I'm older than 50, though. I'm a former high school math teacher at Whitehouse ISD; I'm currently employed as a mechanical integrity coordinator and certified API 510 pressure vessel and API 570 piping inspector for the Longview Operations Center of BP American Production Company that was formerly Amoco Production Company and Oil Company.

I am an active user of Texas public roadways, driving in excess of 45,000 miles per year in my company vehicle and personal vehicles. I'm very appreciative of the Texas highway system, especially when I drive in other states.

My reason for being at this commission meeting is to request that you not approve the NETRMA at this time. The residents of Smith County and Gregg County are not informed of this RMA, and when they are informed, the majority do not approve.

My first knowledge of the NETRMA was at the public meeting on 10/7/04 in Tyler. During the first part of this meeting we were told this was our last chance to make public comments on the NETRMA and it was too late to make a written comment. I spoke against the RMA based on the information read to us by Mr. Doug Woodall, and that's the only information I had.

And I'll just add here the reason I spoke is because other people that I grew up with in the community were on the agenda to speak but they chose not to because they felt intimidated, and I felt like somebody needed to speak up for those people.

My comments, I'm sure you have because they were recorded by a court reporter, and as I said, they were based on very limited knowledge of what I heard that day.

Since the purpose of the RMAs was to pay for transportation projects with fees or tolls, I am against the RMA. When I finished speaking and returned to my seat, a member of the Chamber of Commerce tapped me on the shoulder and said, You do know this is not going to raise taxes. And of course, you know what I thought.

The second half of this public meeting was supposed to be an open-house format for any questions, comments and concerns for tolling on Loop 49. As described in the letter dated 10/7/04 by Mr. Randall Redmond -- and this letter is included in my written comments -- this did not happen.

After TxDOT made several presentations, ending with the lady from Texas A&M -- I'm sorry I don't remember her name -- that described surveys, focus groups, roadblocks, and surveys of truckers on tolling of Loop 49, Mr. Woodall adjourned the meeting by telling us we had ten days to fill out our comment forms and return them to the TxDOT office in Tyler.

I stood up and asked the lady to tell us what the truckers said because that was one of the main points in my previous comments is I felt that truckers would not use the toll road. She informed me that the private truckers said they would not pay the toll but corporate truckers would pay the toll as their companies would pay that toll.

Several other people tried to ask a few questions before Mr. Woodall ended the meeting. By no means were all the questions or concerns addressed. Being a school teacher, I like answers.

After the meeting, I had a lengthy -- in fact, they closed the doors on me -- I had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Doug Woodall and asked many questions. I was concerned how long the toll would be on Loop 49. He stated he estimated Loop 49 would generate $100 million per year in tolls and said why would we want to give up that money. I was shocked with such a statement as I could not see how that amount of revenue could be generated from tolling Loop 49, and I told Mr. Woodall I was more concerned about Loop 49 going bankrupt by not generating enough tolls to fully fund the project.

I was also concerned about the functionality of Loop 49 being reduced by tolling. One of the main purposes we had been told for Loop 49 was to reduce congestion on Loop 323 and Broadway and improve movement around Tyler. I stated my concerns and beliefs that people would not use a toll road and that Tyler's first expressway should not be tolled. Mr. Woodall said I was not the only person stating that Tyler should first have an infrastructure of expressways before building toll roads.

I also told him I was concerned with private property rights after hearing RMAs had the right to condemn property for transportation projects, and I had read on the internet that day about I-69 making millions of dollars by leasing the right of ways to fast food chains, service stations and truck stops. Obviously the right of ways were bigger than the roadway.

Mr. Woodall confirmed that RMAs could do the same, even put up hotels on locations they deemed to be service centers for the transportation project. He assured me this could not happen to our property because we were too close to Tyler, but this could happen in remote areas.

He also told me that RMAs could go away if they had no projects to generate revenue by tolling, but if Loop 49 was tolled, the tolling process would have to be administered by an RMA. He provided me with his only copy of the July 2004 TxDOT brochure on RMAs, this nice color printed brochure that I have right here.

I read this brochure and had many more questions and concerns on the roles and authorities of RMAs. I called Mr. Woodall in the Tyler TxDOT office the following week after October 7, but all were in a training session till the end of the week.

I then called my state representative Leo Berman to ask him questions regarding the RMA's authority. Representative Berman was not familiar with my questions but he called me back the next day with the answers that he gleaned and funding information that I requested.

When Mr. Woodall returned my call on October 14, I asked him how I could comment and request this NETRMA not be formed. He said I could attend this meeting today but I would not have much impact as one person. He said I might have more impact if I had a petition signed by the landowners on Loop 49 requesting this RMA not be formed.

I faxed a request which is included in the written comments to the TxDOT office that afternoon. I requested a copy of the sign-up sheets of all three meetings -- there were two in Smith, one in Gregg, including the one I attended on October 7 -- and I also requested a list of the landowners and addresses so I could contact them.

The following day on October 14, I picked up the sign-up sheet for the October 7 meeting; I have the receipt for that in this handout. I was told the Attorney General's Office would have to approve my request for the landowners; I was told that Mr. Woodall had the sign-up sheets for the prior two meetings.

Since I was not going to be able to get a listing of the landowners on Loop 49 in a timely fashion, I proceeded to write a one-page summary sheet on the tolling of Loop 49 and the NETRMA based on the facts I had learned from Mr. Woodall and the July 2004 RMA brochure.

I distributed this petition on 10/17/04 to friends and neighbors to circulate in the community. Included are 266 signatures of Loop 49 landowners and Smith and Gregg County residents. I originally only intended to do Smith because I didn't want to go to Gregg County, but I had a meeting yesterday at my district office in Longview and got everyone in the office to sign.

I also included these co-workers in Longview that lived in Gregg. They were all opposed to the RMA based on my fact sheet which I agree might not be exactly factual. It's based on what I knew at the time. All were opposed to the RMA and had not heard of it until I showed them the petition and the fact sheet on 10/27/04, just yesterday.

I also included in this the written comments from two of my sisters, Jessie Enright who lives in Lafayette, Louisiana, and Regina Kirby who lives in Tyler, on the RMA issue. We kind of got conflicting instructions on the October 7 meeting and didn't know whether it was too late to comment on the RMA or not too late, we can only comment on tolling, so it was kind of a confusing time. We didn't know what we could and could not comment on.

The tolling issue comments that were returned to Randall Redmond on 10/18/04, I made copies, circulated them in my neighborhood. These were what we were asked to turn in in ten days, our comments on the tolling issues, not on the RMA. We were asked not to comment, it was too late.

I attended the Tyler MPO meeting on October 26 and presented my fact sheet and petition opposing the RMA and the tolling of Loop 49. A member of the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of tolling and made a statement: We do not want people to bypass Tyler but to come to Tyler to shop.

If Tyler does not want a fully functional Loop 49 that will allow truck and local traffic the option to bypass Tyler when needed, then you should consider a better use of tax dollars than funding a tolled Loop 49. There are many worthwhile projects listed in the MPO that are as not yet funded.

But I would prefer that you consider not forming the NETRMA at this time, consider other options for funding a fully functional Loop 49 as an expressway that will be accessible to all residents of Smith County.

Now, I have other attachments. I know I've exceeded my time limit but there are 56 pages in here, including the petitions signed by the residents that are concerned about the NETRMA. I also included the fact sheet, and I was approached by members at the meeting on October 26 and given information that my fact sheet may not be actually correct, because every time I discuss it I get new information.

So I'm open to information, the people of Tyler need information, and I think they welcome information. But 266 people have signed the petition, and if you would like, I can read you what the petition stated.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll be able to read that and it will be read into the record.

Members, an articulate and well thought out message from Ms. Cooper. Are there questions or do you have any dialogue you wish to have with Ms. Cooper? Mr. Nichols?

MR. NICHOLS: (No audible response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: First of all, thank you for being a part of the process and expressing your opinions. They are important, the opinion of everyone is extremely important.

The question that I have -- and I believe Mary Owen is here.

Mary, are you here? Would you come forward and shed a little light for me? And then I was going to ask Sue a question.

Also, thank you for being a teacher and the many contributions that you've made to your community.

Mary, under traditional funding -- which is the way we've been going for years and years -- how long would it take to complete Loop 49?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mary, please identify yourself when you answer the question.

MS. OWEN: Yes, sir. I'm Mary Owen, the district engineer for the Tyler District.

Our current projections, our hopeful projections are 2033.

MR. JOHNSON: So that's 29 years from now.

MS. OWEN: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHNSON: And if this RMA is approved and successful in its development of Loop 49, how many years would that take?

MS. OWEN: We're projecting 2012.

MR. JOHNSON: So that's eight years; 29 to eight.

You made the comment about trying to figure out an alternative way of doing this other than making it a toll road, a tollway, and I think illustrative of what Mary said, if we go the traditional route of funding, it's going to take a long, long time, and if we don't, if we go the RMA route and it becomes a toll feature, we can save a huge amount of time.

Is that an important consideration to you and to your neighbors and the people that you work with?

MS. COOPER: I think Tyler needs an outer loop desperately because our inner loop is just a city street with red lights at every intersection, and that's obvious. But also, the people of Tyler need to have access to the outer loop for it to accomplish its goal, and I feel like a lot of the people, we don't know what the structure of this tolling would be, we don't know the amounts, there's a lot of unanswered questions.

I would like to see us consider other options. We could do nothing and continue with the time frame and build it as budget allows in 2033.

MR. JOHNSON: By my calculations, both of us will be 25 years older when it's finished.

MS. COOPER: Hopefully.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hopefully, exactly.

MS. COOPER: Another option, I looked at the internet at the sales tax, the tax option that we have, we have different categories, there are categories. Not all of Smith County has used up the total tax that is allowed; Tyler is very wisely using their projects to pay as they go, they have the tax rate.

I was hoping we look into some options in making a county-wide tax of an eighth of a percent to go towards this funding so that everyone would have equal access. This is Tyler's first freeway, if you will. We do not have other access routes for the people of Smith County to take.

If it's a tolled route, that will, by virtue of economics, eliminate some people. And this is of benefit to all the citizens of Smith County, all the citizens of the region, to Tyler especially, to allow open access, and we need to look at those options.

Most large cities have toll roads but they have other freeways for people to choose if they don't want to take the toll, because the tollways are always less traveled, less traffic because you can choose or not choose to pay the price. And in Tyler we won't have that choice if it's a toll road.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to, Ms. Cooper, thank you for taking the time to be here. You obviously have dug into the issue, are trying to learn all the facts, have picked on a number of key issues and key facts. And I want you to know that we hope you feel welcome here and comfortable here; we appreciate you coming.

I have about three or four areas I was going to mention. First of all, on the RMA itself, some people think in terms of an RMA being possibly a cruel beast out there that's beyond control that we're all sitting back hoping they don't do these kind of things. It's not. It is a governmental entity; it is totally controlled locally, your people in Smith County and Gregg County -- the way this is set up, will have absolute control of the RMA. It's a local entity.

The board members who are voting on these actions are local people who are appointed mostly by the county commissioners court and the chair appointed from a local pool of people by the governor. And once they're appointed, the county court, if they don't like the way they're going, can remove anyone of them at will. The people of Smith County elect the commissioners court. So you've got due process locally for absolute control.

If the citizens of that county don't like the way they're running it, your commissioners court can change that RMA any time they want. So it's not an uncontrollable beast. And if you go and study all the powers of a county commissioners court or a city council, it would frighten you also.

But the comfort level should always be to know that it's local decisions and local control, and the legislature and the governor supported that type of entity because they felt like on these type of issues local control was very important. So first of all, kind of keep that in mind.

Secondly, on the choice of wouldn't it really be better to build it as an expressway without tolls versus with tolls, that is the statewide issue that has strangled the state for two decades. I think generally, if given the choice, everybody would choose a non-tolled expressway as opposed to a tollway, everybody would take that choice.

The problem is there is no money, not enough money to build it. You just heard 28 years and that's without inflation and that's also assuming that 25-30 years from now that the fuel consumption per mile in automobiles is the same as it is today which is primary basis of our income to build roads. We know when I was a kid you could buy gasoline for 20 cents a gallon -- I'm showing my age -- 19 cents if you really checked around, and now it's two bucks a gallon, give or take. That's ten times.

Who could have imagined when I was a kid gasoline was going to be ten times per gallon? And at $2 a gallon what's going to happen when it's $20 a gallon?

What's going to happen is people are still going to drive or they're going to take transit, but what they're not going to be doing is consuming gasoline nearly as much or at all. It may be all electric, it may be some combination, it's going to be electric, fuel cell, who knows. I have all the confidence in the world that technology and market driven forces are going to take us where they need to go.

But the one thing I do feel comfortable with is that our future, the way our current funding is based on gallons being consumed of gasoline is slowly going to disappear which is what we've seen. So we're going to have to have some type of a user fee to pay for these things.

The third thing was one of your early questions I think was a key important question and it was a legislative question of philosophy, and that is when the road is paid for, will the toll booths come down. I mean, when the department, working with the legislative body several years ago, got into the issue of allowing us to participate in toll roads to the extent that we do now, panels of committees and state legislators, House representatives and senators would ask that question.

Half the panel would say we want those toll booths to come down when it's paid off; the other half would say no, we need to have that option to use that money because we might need it to expand the road or build some of these other roads.

And here came the conflict, and people like myself and some of the other commissioners were put in the middle of that to be asked the question: Which way do we think it should be? And the answer that I know I gave and I heard other people say was regardless of what law they pass today to assure you the toll booths come down or that they might stay up, that decision really is going to be made 30 and 40 years from now by whoever the elected officials are, and it certainly won't be most of the ones that are there now. So that real decision is going to be made 30 or 40 years from now when the toll bonds are paid off.

Our responsibility is utilizing the tools that are available to us, knowing all the options, this is what we need to do to get the infrastructure built today to get people moving, commerce as well as people moving today, and put the generation that follows us in a position where they have a choice. Because if we sit and wait 29 years to build that loop, assuming people are still buying gasoline at $10 and $20 a gallon, what's going to happen is the Tyler Loop -- which was the freeway -- is choked up from local traffic.

You've got, I think, in the neighborhood of 50,000 cars a day and you know how choked up that thing is from 3:00 to 6:00 or whatever, but in 15 years, half the time the waiting period, you're looking at an easy 25,000 vehicles per day increase. It's going to happen in 15 years, not 30. And when you jam another 25,000 cars on top of the 50,000 on that existing loop, it will be an absolute quagmire, and not very long from now.

So something has got to be done today, and that's kind of the choice that we are given. Somebody has got to take a tough choice, and that's where we were faced. We laid the choices and the tools out to your local elected officials. Our department has tried to lay out to the public, as well as to the county commissioners courts and the city councils, what their options are, and it's important for people to know the truth as to the reality of the problem as opposed to some rosy thing so they can make some serious decisions.

They reached out into the community, I know they worked with the chamber. I actually take the Tyler paper -- I take about four other newspapers too -- and I know this issue has been floating around for way more than a year in Tyler, not just like the last couple of months.

Something that you said that concerns me greatly was you said you had a lack of time to comment in some of these hearings, and I know there were a number of hearings. And you said you had a number of friends who went to those meetings who would have said something but they felt intimidated.

When you said that, do you think that they were discouraged to make any comments or frightened by the TxDOT staff, or do you mean that some people are afraid to get up in a public meeting and talk because they're somewhat bashful? Are they more like that, or are you actually saying that you thought our people didn't want them to say something and intimidated them? That's kind of a spooky thing to say.

MS. COOPER: Well, the person that I talked to who was on the agenda, he said, They don't want to hear what I have to say. And he wouldn't get up and speak. He said, They don't want to hear it. So I don't know if you want to call that intimidation or what.

And I'm just the opposite. I go: Well, if you won't speak, I will.

MR. NICHOLS: Good for you.

MS. COOPER: I had no intentions because I had no knowledge, but I've worked real hard in the last few weeks to try to get some knowledge, talking to Representative Berman and the TxDOT officials and trying to get some facts. Because I'm for Loop 49 being completed yesterday, but I want as many citizens of the county and the region to have access to it to do everybody good.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I want you to know that I hope you feel like you are welcome here, and we do appreciate your comments and hope you are getting some of your questions answered.

MS. COOPER: May I ask you a question? Does the RMA have to be the sole governing body of the tolling of the outer loop? Could it be done under TxDOT auspices and not an RMA?

MR. NICHOLS: There are a combination of checks and balances, several different checks and balances. And the legislature anticipated if you had a runaway RMA, for instance -- which is what you're concerned about -- any project that they have where they want to build a road that connects to a state system, they have to come to this commission and get approval. They can't just go connect. So there is an approval process in there.

If they need any funding for state equity to help support that road -- and in this case, that loop would, even if it's an RMA -- they have to come to this commission to get approval. So if it's a runaway thing doing bad things -- which you might be concerned about -- and somehow or another got away from your county commissioners -- which I don't think they would let that happen -- you've got another check and balance here.

And I know the Governor's Office or your legislators, like Leo Berman and other senators and stuff, if they thought something bad was going on, they would be calling. So you do have protections in there.

MS. COOPER: That was my concern was an infinite toll that never had an ending life, even when the loop was paid for.

MR. NICHOLS: And I hope I answered that question.

MS. COOPER: Well, not really, because part of the RMA is to continue that so they have revenue to generate other projects from what I've been reading.

MR. NICHOLS: And my point was that regardless of even if the legislature passed a law that said it had to come down 30 years from now, they could pass another law that says, Hey, we'll leave it up.

So the important thing is to get it built today so we can start moving traffic.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that, Ms. Cooper, one of the challenges of government in our state and our country is that there are, because we are a free people, there are never-ending questions we can all ask about a decision our government is going to make and we may feel like we're intimidated in some cases, the gentleman you spoke of, or we may be self-assured, as you are, and ask the question.

But the point is that in our organizational structure we're allowed to have never-ending questions and concerns about every decision government makes.

The flip side of that is at some point somebody has to say it's time to move ahead and note the concerns of the citizens and try to address them as we move, and in fact, my only suggestion to the persons from Smith and Gregg County that are here today is I think you would be a wonderful appointee to the board of directors of the RMA and I hope they give that some thought.

You know, the whole transportation world in Texas has changed a little bit. This governor believes in local control, regional planning, and state financing, and that's the environment we've been creating for two years now. It is driving decision-making at the lowest possible level, driving planning to the regional level, and driving state tax dollars to those regions to be partners in solving those problems.

These boards that constitute the boards of the RMAs ought reflect not only those who agree with the toll approach but those who have concerns about its impact on the working people of the area, on the retired of the area, on the property-owners of the area. So I hope the Smith and Gregg County leadership will take note of your articulation of the opposite viewpoint.

MS. COOPER: May I ask another question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please.

MS. COOPER: Is it possible, because my concern is for the working people that may not can afford the toll -- because I personally take tollways when I'm in Houston when I'm in a company vehicle and BP pays me back, when I'm driving my vehicle, I don't.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to answer my question as best I can in the context of we have another witness, we've spent a lot of time, we need to move on the agenda, but I'm going to try to answer your question.

Your question presumes that the level of taxes that same working woman pays would not have to change to build a tax road or a free road. You see, we've gone to great lengths for a year now to explain to the public there simply is not enough cash flow in the current system to maintain what we have, rehabilitate what we already have built, construct the Loop 49s across the state -- of which there are thousands -- there's simply not enough cash flow.

So our choices go in three directions: we can not build the capacity, we can wait until 2033 for Loop 49, that's one choice we have; we can raise taxes to create the cash flow we need to build Loop 49 as a non-tolled road; or we can implement a well-thought-out toll structure, borrow money against those future toll collections, and build the road we need right now.

You posed the question within the context that somehow there might be we like to call it the "Road Fairy" in Washington, D.C., bringing us money, or that there's somehow a pot of money someplace that no one knows about and we can go build 49.

Or frankly, the concern that we hear most often -- for which we're grateful you didn't share -- you just aren't sending us our fair share -- we hear that a lot. The reality is there is not enough cash to build Loop 49 as a non-tolled road.

So the real answer to your question is do we increase gasoline taxes from 10 to 20 cents a gallon on the same working people you're concerned about, do we force them to pay for the road through their taxes, or do we offer them the alternative of the existing road structure and stay off the toll road or pay the toll to use the road.

One of the things that's often overlooked in the argument about toll versus tax road is that when the RMA builds the toll road, a large percentage of the cars on the currently congested inner loop will move to the outer loop. The intended consequence of that toll road is that a percentage of people crowding the current existing loop will move to the outer loop.

I have several persons interested in an agenda item later on in the day that need some guidance. If you would indulge me for a moment.

It's the intention of the chair to pick up item 7 which I know many of you are here for at exactly 11:15. That's 44 minutes from now we will begin that process. For those of you who need to do other things and come back or need to change your schedule, 11:15 we will take up item 7, no matter what.

Now back to you. I'm sorry to interrupt our dialogue.

I guess my answer to your question, I grew up in a working family, a union family. We're well aware of the impact of the cost of government, whether it's higher sales tax, higher gasoline tax, or a toll.

I think our viewpoint is the RMA proposes an optional tax or an optional toll. You suggest that we either find some money that's not there or we force those working people to pay higher taxes to pay for the road. We just think our approach makes sense, but perhaps you disagree. But I hope you'll be on that board.

MS. COOPER: My question was can you have variable tolls -- local residents would use it much more -- have like a yearly toll rate versus passing-through rates.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely. There are so many options available to your RMA that they are totally in control of how the rates are set and how they're collected.

I have often suggested from this dais that one way to give comfort to working Texans who are fixing to have to go through this is to just issue toll credits to all citizens of the county once a year that says: Here's your $100, your first hundred bucks this year is paid for, and then after that you're paying like everybody else.

If you can make that work in your financial structure and get the debt -- the State of Texas doesn't care, and I guarantee you, Rick Perry would love to see that happen all across the state, as a governor, he would like to see that kind of consumer-oriented decision made by the RMAs.

But the important thing to remember is this commission is not in the business, once an RMA forms, we're not in the business of telling an RMA what to do, we're not in the business of telling an MPO what to do, we're in the business of empowering local leaders to regionally plan and use state resources to execute. That's the business plan.

We really do appreciate your remarks.

MS. COOPER: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're going to think carefully about what you've said.

MS. COOPER: Who do I need to give this to?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Staff will take that and make sure that each of us get a copy and that a copy of it is read into the record.

You were a very civil person. Thank you.

Jeff, tough act to follow, buddy. Where are you, Jeff Austin? If you can outdo Ms. Cooper, you're something.

MR. AUSTIN: Good morning, commissioners, Executive Director Behrens. I'm Jeff Austin, III, chairman of the Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce.

I respect where Ms. Cooper is coming from and she certainly raises some interesting topics which we do appreciate.

We're happy to be here before you guys to hopefully approve and ask for your vote of confidence to approve -- and lady, excuse me, Commissioner -- the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

This is exciting. You know, we have been down here, we as part of the Tyler community initially since 1985 with delegation appearances in support of Loop 49, asking for strategic priority dollars. Well, we're competing with a lot of folks across the state and we realize that there's not a lot of money available. Thank you to the voters of Texas, the commission and the legislature for giving us new tools.

When you were up in Tyler a year ago for the commission meeting, you spoke and you gave us some hints on how to be innovative and challenged us to be innovative and look at different alternatives. We listened. That's when we came back in June to petition the commission to form the RMA.

We've had several public meetings and public hearings. I'd like to give you the results of those that spoke at the public hearings on September 7, 8 and October 8: 25 spoke in favor of it and three were against. And this was a cumulative of the written comments and the verbal comments that were submitted. We see that as absolutely outstanding.

Public education has recently begun. We've started with new brochures -- hopefully you have a copy of these to be able to see these -- and we've actually started working on our logo for this with voting. And I guess it wouldn't be appropriate for something that's on the agenda to vote on the logo that you prefer, but as of 10/27 we've had 2,500 people vote for this, so you see the public support that is beginning to take place.

Commissioner Nichols, you mentioned a while ago about the number of headlines and articles. We're excited because I know just in the Tyler paper alone there are over 30 articles that go back into early 2003 in support of this, plus with the media coverage that has been tremendous.

Why am I here? We want to continue to work with TxDOT and TTA to acquire the right of way and to select the appropriate projects that have toll viability within the Smith and Gregg County areas. We don't want to confuse those who may have conflicts of interest with adjacent landowners, we want to focus what's within the jurisdiction of the RMA to look at toll-viable projects within this region.

A couple of final comments. We have widespread support for this RMA, starting with the Tyler MPO, Tyler Chamber of Commerce, City of Tyler, Smith County, Tyler Economic Development Corporation, plus the similar entities from Gregg County, in addition to the neighboring counties surrounding as a region. We are excited about the possibility.

We as Texans and as a region have choices. The choice that we're here to make as part of the RMA is that the glass is half full and that we can begin our project sooner than later. That's what we're excited about and we hope to move forward and look forward to using the Texas Tag as we go across the state.

We also want to be a model to show how it can work, not all the reasons why it can't. It's still a new process, we want to be creative and flexible to help work with that model, and we're excited that we have all of our elected officials moving in the same direction as we've set priorities.

Again, we ask for your vote of confidence today to approve the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, questions or comments for Jeff? Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: Comment. First of all, thank you for all the work that you've done. I know you've kind of been everywhere on all those issues. I think your elected officials have done a fabulous job.

As I understand it, all that was technically required were resolutions from the counties which we not only have those -- there was not one dissenting vote -- but we, in addition to that, have resolutions from the cities and chambers and stuff like that, also which had no dissenting votes. Is that correct?

MR. AUSTIN: That is correct.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So there was not one dissenting vote in any of those resolutions. I think that's fabulous.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope?

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Austin, thank you, and congratulations, and thank you for the time that you spent with me and educating me on your project. We've come a long way, so keep up the good work.

But I do want to urge you to keep listening to concerns like Ms. Cooper had, and perhaps you can get her involved. But I do believe that tolling actually gives our working class choices. The other would not give them choices, they would be forced to pay the motor sales tax increase. So I just want you to keep listening to those concerns and keep giving the working class choices. Thank you.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments for Jeff?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Phil, do you want to close it out?

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I should also point out -- and I should have done this earlier -- that by approving this minute order you would authorize the creation of the RMA. As to the individual project, Loop 49, an RMA would need to come back to the commission to seek that final approval.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So as in the past, we create the RMA, they go back to the community, they pick their project, they study their project, they bring the project back to us for funding.

MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And no doubt you got a good relationship with the leadership of Smith and Gregg Counties during this process. You will pass on to those who weren't present how impressed the commission was with Ms. Cooper's layout.

MR. RUSSELL: I will certainly do so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a second?

MR. JOHNSON: Second.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Congratulations, Smith and Gregg Counties. Number five.

I want to announce to the audience at this time we will be changing our approach to our agenda. With the indulgence of our Financial and Public Transit staff, we're going to defer agenda item 5 until later in the day, we're going to take a short break to permit the Smith/Gregg delegation to exit without disrupting the next speakers. We'll then take up the Texarkana delegation, with the reminder that we we're going to start at 11:15 on item 7, and we hope the Texarkana folks will work with us on our schedule.

I need about four minutes, and four minutes in this case does mean four, and we'll be right back here, so four minutes we're going to recess.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Mike. We're welcoming the Texarkana folks.

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going to defer agenda item 5 and we're going to allow the Texarkana folks to play out. I know the many that are here for agenda item 7 need to start preparing, because in 29 minutes we'll start.

TEXARKANA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

(Judge James Carlow, Senator Kevin Eltife, George Shackelford)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Judge Carlow, are you here?

Judge, once again the commission welcomes you and all the folks you brought with you from upper northeast Texas.

JUDGE CARLOW: The right corner of Texas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir. The floor is yours, sir.

JUDGE CARLOW: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I want to thank you this morning for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding a very important project for northeast Texas.

For the record, my name is James Carlow and I'm county judge in Bowie County.

With me today in our delegation -- and I'd like for them to stand.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We saw all those guys last night.

JUDGE CARLOW: Yes, that's good.

We have with us in this delegation: Senator Kevin Eltife; Mayor James Bramlett who is the mayor of Texarkana, Texas; Mayor Henry Slayton who is the mayor of Nash and the chairman of the MPO; Texarkana Council members Bradley Hardin and Van Alexander; Nash Council members John Ratwood and Darrel Cox; we have executive director of the Arkansas Red River Commission, Mr. Bob Tellos; we have the city manager of Nash, Ms. Liz Lee; the Texarkana Chamber chairman, Howard Glick; the Texarkana Chamber president, Jim Cherry; Texarkana city manager, George Shackelford; the president of Texas A&M University Texarkana, Dr. Steven Hensley; Steve Harris who is executive director of the Nash Industrial Development Corporation; and several other stakeholders and people who own property along this corridor.

Improvements to the I-30 corridor are vital to provide for the present and future transportation needs of our region. I refer to this as the I-30 corridor, but 3-1/2 miles of this corridor also serve NAFTA traffic traveling north and south on 59. I-30 and US 59 traffic is flowing through a highly developed area of Texarkana. TxDOT advises is a level of service F area.

The Arkansas Highway Department is currently constructing the I-49 corridor that will connect to the east of our proposed project. A northern leg of I-69 is currently being planned and will eventually be connected to I-30 west of the proposed project.

The I-30 corridor through Texarkana is the northeast gateway to Texas, particularly to Central and South Texas. The corridor is of national significance because of the movement of people, freight and goods between the north and eastern United States and the interior of Texas. The location of the Red River Army Depot and the Lone Star Army Ammunition plant are located just to the west of Texarkana.

One of the new interchanges proposed in the project will provide access from I-30 to the new Texas A&M Texarkana University campus that will soon be constructed on the north side of Texarkana.

As far as I know there is no local opposition to this project.

At this time it's my pleasure to introduce Senator Kevin Eltife to speak on behalf of this project.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Senator Eltife, welcome, and you're always welcome here. You were welcome when you were a mayor and you're certainly welcome when you're a senator.

SENATOR ELTIFE: And you did us a good job when I was mayor. I appreciate all you did for us very, very much.

Thank you, commissioners and chairman and Director Behrens for the opportunity to be here, and Judge Carlow.

I want to start off by saying thank you to the commission for your service to the citizens of Texas. We know this body has a very difficult task in addressing all the transportation needs in our great state.

I also wanted to say thank you to the hard-working TxDOT staff. They do an incredible job around this state taking care of us, and we appreciate them very, very much.

As Senator for District 1 to ask for the commission's support of a project that is very important to the safety and economic vitality of our region and the state as a whole.

Although the cost and size of our projects may not seem large in comparison to projects in the metropolitan areas, we cannot overstate the enormous impact they have on our region. We feel it is comparatively equal to those projects of more metropolitan areas when you consider the population in the Greater Texarkana area, the region's limited ability to generate revenue, and what the Interstate 30 corridor means to this part of the state.

The project that our delegation will be presenting to you is not the only needed in the Texarkana region, but it is our number one priority. The project offers the best overall impact for the community and the state. It will greatly improve safety and mobility within the corridor, while supporting the economic development that is taking place.

This project will ensure that NAFTA traffic flowing through our area flows safely while continuing to support our economy.

Texarkana is Texas' great gateway to the eastern half of the nation. This corridor is the backbone of the transportation system and the economy for our area. In many instances it will be the first impression people have of Texas. It should be noted that in 2003 the Tourist Information Center on Interstate 30 in Texarkana served the third largest number of customers out of 12 centers across the state.

While other urban areas in Texas have the ability to partner with other urban or metropolitan communities within Texas, due to its geographic location, Texarkana's partner happens to be located in Arkansas. The people in northeast Texas, southwest Arkansas are united in seeing this project completed.

Our friends in Arkansas have already committed a portion of the funding for this project, and Bowie County Judge Carlow will be reading a letter of support from the vice-chairman of the Arkansas State Highway Commission.

I understand you have limited funds to use all over the great state of Texas, but I feel confident you will find exceptional value in the positive impact of this project.

I'm extremely proud of the cooperative work that has been done in the Texarkana community. I cannot say enough good things about the great mayor of Texarkana, Mayor Bramlett, and Judge Carlow and their effort providing leadership to get this project where it is today.

It will improve the overall quality of life of our citizens and the general public that travels through the Texarkana area.

We really appreciate having the opportunity to be before you today, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, do we need to talk with the senator?

SENATOR ELTIFE: You don't want to talk about funding, do you?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sixty-six days.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Okay, we'll be ready.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much for being here.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you very much, appreciate your time.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir.

JUDGE CARLOW: The letter that the senator was referring to is signed by Prissy Hickerson who is on Arkansas' counterpart to your commission. She lives in Texarkana, very much supports this project. Her letter is in your packet. She will be chairman starting in January of next year, so we're looking forward to that.

At this time I'd like to introduce the city manager of Texarkana, Texas, Mr. George Shackelford.

MR. SHACKELFORD: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.

I've been the city manager in Texarkana, Texas since 1989, and one of the items that the TxDOT Atlanta District approached us on -- I remember very vividly -- in '89 was the conversion of two-way frontage roads to one-way. The timing was just not ever good for that project, but we knew that we were going to have to do conversions at some point in time. We knew we'd have to do that because of safety and mobility; the traffic continues.

I'm running a video just so you can get a flavor of from state line -- actually Jefferson Avenue which is in Arkansas westbound to Loop 151. For your information it runs eight minutes, so we'll meet your 10:15 deadline.

Working with the TxDOT Atlanta District, we began constructing and improving sections of the frontage roads along the I-30 corridor back in '89. We planned for backage roads and parallel roads to the I-30 corridor. These backage roads direct local traffic to new businesses, relieving congestion along the frontage roads and providing the access management philosophy encouraged by TxDOT.

The City of Texarkana, Texas, has already contributed $11 million to the construction of frontage roads and backage roads. We're also committing another $3 million as our contribution to this project.

The I-30 corridor project includes: reconstruction and completion of the discontinuous frontage road system; conversion from two-way to one-way frontage road operations, per TxDOT current policies; reconstruction of US 59 and 71 interchanges with I-30; construction of turnaround structures; conversion of ramps and associated improvements to traffic control devices; and access management construction of backage roadways to relieve congestion, per TxDOT policy.

In 2000, TxDOT hired the engineering firm of Chain, Patel and Urby to prepare the schematics and options for the project. After obtaining the approvals from city council, the local business developers, the local MPO, TxDOT continued the process by placing under contract Carter Burgess to prepare the plans and specifications for the entire project. It's my understanding that this project can be let in 2006 as one project.

A few facts about the project area. I-30 was designed for a 20-year life and next February we'll celebrate its 40th anniversary. In 2002 TxDOT reported traffic volumes within the project limits ranging from 39,000 to over 61,000; 25 percent are trucks. To put that in a little perspective, in 2000 the urbanized area population for the Texarkana MPO is less than 70,000. It's estimated local trips constitute up to 15 percent of the mainlane volume between US 59 and State Highway 245 in Arkansas.

A 2001 traffic study concluded that conversion to one-ways would relieve congestion, increase capacity and improve safety in this corridor.

One segment within the project area is the

US 59/I-30 interchange reconstruction project and it is currently fully funded. My understanding is it's going to be scheduled for letting in 2006.

The Arkansas Highway Commission funded their portion of the US 71 -- which is state line  -- I-30 interchange, and the project is included in the 2005-2007 Transportation Improvement Program.

The City of Texarkana, Texas, is committed to donating any necessary right of way and continuing the construction of backage roads and additional local streets in support of this corridor project.

It's our opinion that TxDOT objectives and the objectives of this delegation will be met by implementing all of the components of this project in a single effort.

Some of the benefits of a single project:

The project will enhance mobility; it will improve the transition between interstate, state and local facilities; it will eliminate six signalized intersections; it will provide a continuous frontage road system; it will improve accessibility to major regional medical facilities that are located on the frontage roads.

The project will improve safety; it will eliminate 21 left turns in conflicting areas and associated right-angle collisions; it will replace the outdated cloverleaf and trumpet interchanges; it will improve designs for direct connects between highway facilities; it will lengthen the acceleration and deceleration lanes; provide separate local trips from thru trips; it will prevent exiting traffic from backing up on the interstate which is a very frequent occurrence; it will provide continuous roads will which will allow secondary lane should the mainlanes become blocked.

The I-30 corridor project will enhance and improve the existing system by: improving access management along the corridor; increasing the capacity of the corridor by constructing the one-way frontage roads continuous which will delay the necessity of adding additional mainlanes to the interstate; it will recapture interstate capacity for thru trips.

The accelerated project delivery would result in: obviously an economy of scale; savings for design and construction; reduction of overall construction time; and result in a decrease of driver delay time and associated road user costs.

The project will support economic vitality by minimizing the negative impacts of letting multiple projects over a number of years; it will improve the overall system of the transportation in the corridor; it will improve access management within the corridor through development of backage roads;

We believe that the majority of the project benefits are derived from the implementation of a continuous one-way frontage road.

We're here today asking for the commission's help. We've explored the tools made available under House Bill 3588 and we understand that it allows for advancement of projects such as this. We estimate that there are $45.9 million in Category 3 funding that will be available in the next 15 years. The Texarkana MPO is willing to commit its future Category 3 funding towards the construction costs of these improvements.

We also understand that the commission expects communities to offer some assistance in leveraging this project. Please remember that we've already committed $11 million and are willing to commit an additional $3 million to construct backage roads and other supporting roadways.

We realize that the selling of bonds will create debt service to those bonds, and we believe by combining the multiple projects into one project and accelerating the project, there should be construction cost savings sufficient to offset the debt service.

You may ask are we willing to put all of our eggs into one basket by committing all of the MPO's Category 3 funding, and the answer is yes.

We also recognize that one of the discussion items on your agenda today is safety bond projects eligible for funding with the proceeds of bonds. It's our understanding that conversion of two-way to one-way frontage roads is an eligible project under that safety bond program.

Any assistance that the commission can give to us is certainly appreciated, and we also want to thank the commission for the funding that you provided to us on Loop 151 a number of years ago. It has recently opened and is being utilized quite a bit by our citizens.

And also we understand that next month advanced funding for the 71/I-30 corridor which is the east end of this portion for Texarkana is going to be considered, and we certainly appreciate your consideration for that next month in November.

And we'll try to answer any questions you might have.

MR. NICHOLS: Ted, do you have any questions or comments?

MR. JOHNSON: I just have one question about the location of the new Texas A&M campus relative to the improvements on I-30. Can you help me?

MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes, sir. One of the bridges that's actually west of 59 corridor, 59 and I-30, there is proposed to be a new bridge and it will be what we hope to be advertised as the I-30 exit for the new Texarkana, Texas, Texas A&M campus.

MR. JOHNSON: Will the campus be north or south of I-30?

MR. SHACKELFORD: It's on the very north side.

MR. JOHNSON: So it will be between 59 and 989?

MR. SHACKELFORD: Actually to the east of that area. It's probably, as the crow flies, due north from Richmond Road exit off I-59, just due north. The city donated 300 acres to Texas A&M for downward expansion and to build a brand new campus.

MR. JOHNSON: My impression is that will have a remarkable influence on activity along this corridor and for the greater community, and I think it's wonderful for northeast Texas what's going on there.

MR. SHACKELFORD: Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: Ted or Hope?

MR. HOUGHTON: Can you describe to me again the leveraging effect that you're accomplishing?

MR. SHACKELFORD: The City of Texarkana, Texas, we've already spent right at $11 million in backage roads and we also did some expansion of the frontage roads that were not there, so we've got a hodgepodge of roads, no roads, roads. And the city over the last 15 years has constructed quite a bit, several miles of frontage roads, plus some backage roads to help relieve some of the congestion there at Richmond Road.

We're experiencing a rather large retail explosion right now at that intersection, and it's getting worse and worse, and hopefully some of the backage roads that we're putting in will help relieve some of that. But the other $3 million is for another bridge in that area that we're committing to, plus backage roads that are currently under construction.

MR. HOUGHTON: And then you're committing all the resources of Category 3 from the MPO to this one project. Correct?

MR. SHACKELFORD: That's correct, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Hope, did you have anything?

MS. ANDRADE: No.

MR. NICHOLS: Thank all of you for coming and the reception last night and for the presentation today. Had quite a few people here from the Texarkana and Nash areas and it's greatly appreciated.

Of the three requests, two interchange projects, I think as you mentioned, the US 59/I-30 I think is funded.

MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: The 71 interchange, as I understand it, is on the draft transportation plan to be voted on, I think, next month.

MR. SHACKELFORD: That's my understanding, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Which gets you down to the frontage roads. I know I was there six-eight months ago and drove that entire route with your district engineer, and while we drove we actually had the traffic count maps, and I personally was kind of amazed with the gaps in your frontage roads how that impacted the traffic count on the actual interstate itself.

It was very obvious that your flow was having to move onto the interstate and off of the interstate, and back and forth, and you were jumping between 30,000 and 50- or 60,000 cars a day depending on where those frontage roads stopped. So you're certainly on to something that needs to be done, not only from a traffic flow stand point but safety.

We have known and have been encouraging and working all over the state and our goal is to eliminate two-way frontage roads wherever possible that there's a lot of traffic. Not only are people going to not expect a frontage road to have two ways who do not live in your area. For those who are familiar with it, it's really not a problem, but it's the stranger in the community who pulls into a convenience store and then pulls back out -- I've done it myself -- in that second lane expecting to get back on the interstate.

So it's not only a head-on collision-type thing but somebody going the wrong way could easily go up the ramp and be facing the wrong direction on the interstate. And we have fatalities related to that. So you're on the right track to solve that problem.

I didn't realize it had been brought up 15 years ago. I know it's been an emphasis for the last five or six years statewide.

I would like to thank the community for your commitment toward access management. I think there's a recognition not only in Texarkana but in other areas of the state of how important that is for managing flow and safety and stuff.

And your commitment of funds from the city -- is that city or county?

MR. SHACKELFORD: These are city funds.

MR. NICHOLS: To build some of those backage roads. I couldn't help but notice in some of the diagrams I had and also some of the maps you had last night that you had some areas that were proposed where you had a gap where there was no frontage road, propose us to not only close the gap on the frontage road, but parallel to that you were going to build a backage road also.

MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes, sir.</