Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

RIC WILLIAMSON, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. JOHNSON (not present)
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 is 9:17 a.m., and I would like to call the November meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to order.

It is a pleasure to have everyone here this morning and I appreciate you making the trip to Austin, Texas and taking the time to be with us.

Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting, containing all items on the agenda, was posted and filed with the Office of Secretary of State at 1:15 p.m. on November 10, 2004.

Before we begin today's meeting, as we always do, please take a moment, Ross, reach into your pocket, take out your cell phone or your PDA or whatever else you carry that might make noise, and take just a moment, as I'm going to do, to go to the silent mode.

Robert, did you change your phone?

MR. NICHOLS: I don't have one. We haven't got to wireless in east Texas yet.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: I thank you for doing that.

As is our custom, we will open the meeting with comments from each commissioner, and we traditionally start with the commissioner from the far west stretch of our great state, Mr. Houghton. Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all. Good morning, my fellow commission members. And first of all, a very happy Thanksgiving a week from today. I think we'll be out of here by then.

(General laughter.)

MR. HOUGHTON: And another historic day, we've got the Grand Parkway folks here and talking about another mobility project in the Statewide Mobility Program I hope we will pass -- and I assume we will -- and the Unified Transportation Program which will be historic in the size.

But I welcome you all and I look forward to the holiday season and sharing it with you all here. Thanks.

MS. ANDRADE: Good morning. I'd also like to welcome all of you to Austin and thank you for your interest in transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to getting our business done and moving transportation forward in Texas. Thank you.

MR. NICHOLS: I'd also like to welcome everybody. Appreciate those who have driven a long ways to be here today, or maybe have flown.

There are several items -- one in particular I think is somewhat historical that's on the agenda today that we've been working on for a number of years, and I'm so glad to see it finally come together and glad you're going to be here to share it with us.

As we approach the holidays, drive careful. Thanks.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And again, thank you for being here as well, and thank you, commissioners, for your comments.

Let me remind everyone that if you wish to address the commission during today's meeting, I need for you to complete a speaker's card which you can find at the registration table to your right in the lobby.

If you're going to comment on a posted agenda item, I need for you to fill out a yellow card and identify the item on the card, please. If you're going to comment on something not an agenda item but simply offer comments in the open comment period, I need for you to fill out the blue card.

In any respect, I need for you to try to limit your notes to three minutes except for the Honorable Ms. Riddle which all members of the legislature are allowed to talk for as long as they wish in this commission, and we hope we'll be hearing from you at some point.

Normally I would say that the first item on our agenda is to approve the meeting minutes, but Mr. Monroe, would it be appropriate for me to do something else before I did that?

MR. MONROE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Simmons, donde esta? Steve Simmons?

Did you tell him, Mike? Did you give him an excuse not to be here?

MR. BEHRENS: No, I didn't tell him. He'll probably watch it on TV.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You know when they put the House proceedings on TV in 1992, the biggest concern of then Speaker Lewis was no one would ever go to the floor, they would just watch everything from their television, and I think that's probably also the case with state agencies.

Well, we may draft Mr. Fulton in Mr. Simmons' place. Can he carry a tune?

MR. BEHRENS: We'll try it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You either tell me he can carry a tune or you're fixing to be the guy in the barrel.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, there's Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Simmons, even though we are on nationwide TV and our every move is being catalogued by our friends at Corridor Watch, we're going to take a light moment and allow you to lead us in an early rendition of the birthday song for a colleague who is a great friend of all Texans and certainly a great friend of transportation.

MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Steve Simmons and I'm not a singer, so I will step away from the microphone to lead the group.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're ready, go ahead.

MR. SIMMONS: Thank you.

(Singing birthday song to Robert Nichols and applause.)

MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. I think there's a violation of my personnel records that have been exposed here. I was born in 19 -- I forgot. It was a great year. I appreciate it, thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Happy birthday.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, the first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the October commission meeting. Do I have a motion?

MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a second?

MR. NICHOLS: 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: The motion carries, the minutes are approved.

We will now receive the annual report from the Grand Parkway Association, the person who represents the Grand Parkway Association, Mr. David -- you know, I've always stumbled over this – is it Gornette or Gornet?

MR. GORNET: It's Gornet.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for clarifying that. David.

MR. GORNET: Thank you, commission members. I'm pleased to be here today. This marks the 20th anniversary of the Grand Parkway Association. The commission acted in October of 1984 to allow the formation of the association, and here we are today 20 years later still working hard on this project.

We have two new commissioners to brief today; I also have with us today State Representative Debbie Riddle through whose district part of the project is proposed to go, and she may take the opportunity to speak with you all further about the project and her support and concerns about it.

The project, as you know, is a loop around the metropolitan Houston area; it's been divided into various segments. Each of those segments I'll go through individually on the status.

The challenges we face is this 182 miles of new location highway: we have 20 miles that were open to traffic, those opened in 1994; 12 miles of which are under construction, about two miles over on the west side of town and ten miles on the east side in Segment I-2; 108 miles, Segments B, C, E, F-1, F-2 and G, are under study; 42 miles, Segments A, H and I-1, currently have no activity in them.

And to put this in perspective, this would be similar to proposing a new road and dealing with the challenges from Houston to San Antonio -- not quite 182 miles but further than Houston to Austin but closer to the Houston to San Antonio range, and how do you plan, execute, develop and build a new road of that magnitude.

Segment D is the portion that's open from US 59 to I-10. Some of the past activities, obviously the construction of that, we're continuing to meet with Harris County, with TxDOT -- part of this is in Harris County -- with TxDOT, Fort Bend County as they discuss the improvements to this facility through toll financing.

The state last year let a contract to construct two overpasses on the north end where we had frontage roads for safety purposes. There was significant traffic congestion and higher than state average accident rates in that area, and these two overpasses will help relieve that congestion and improve the safety of the facility.

For the future, we will look forward to completion of those mainlanes and continue discussions of using toll financing, either through the state or through one of the local entities to complete that piece of the project.

Segment I-2 over in Chambers County, the darker blue line there is what's under construction, the yellow line is a piece that was approved that follows Spur 55. The construction was let in August of last year and it's anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2006.

We will, after that's open, be looking at the yellow segment and as traffic volumes increase, propose improvements to that. We're also currently working with TxDOT to toll that segment when it opens. The construction was let without toll facilities planned in there. TxDOT and Harris County are both currently looking at how would you implement tolls on that and proposing the public involvement and also the detailed engineering that would go into that to facilitate toll collection when the facility opens.

MR. NICHOLS: Is that the piece of property that originally went through U.S. Steel's property?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Now, there were some critical dates in that original agreement that had to be met to still be able to obtain the right of way.

MR. GORNET: That right of way has been obtained; all those dates were met; it has been conveyed to the state.

Segment C in Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties, we've been working on this since 1998. The environmental statements have been on hold for approximately one year pending the outcome of some of the toll studies. Federal Highways has had concerns over how do you address tolling in this. The draft environmental impact statement said that it might be a toll road and now that we have more definitive actions, we are going to revise the FEIS before we issue it to more specifically state that this will be developed as a toll road.

The FEIS is scheduled for release in April of 2005, going forward to a record and decision this time next year, and then start construction as soon as possible.

Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G that go from on the west and north sides of the Houston metro area, started in 1999, they cross US 290, 249, 45 North, on up to 59 North. As you note from the information you have before you, there have been a number of public meetings as we've gone through the sifting process of looking at a very wide study area and narrowing that down to a corridor and then to specific alignment alternatives.

On Segment E we held our public hearing in 2003. The FEIS is being prepared right now, with more definitive discussions of tolling. Harris County Toll Road Authority has also been talking to TxDOT; there's been no definitive proposals made yet about developing this jointly between Harris County and TxDOT, but that is being looked at.

MR. NICHOLS: I think we may have some more questions after she speaks.

MS. RIDDLE: We can let him finish.

MR. NICHOLS: But on the F-2, I think that's where some questions may be coming up.

MR. GORNET: That's correct.

MR. NICHOLS: This indicates that we're still dealing with an area for a corridor as opposed to a specific location.

MR. GORNET: The draft environmental impact statement that was released in January of last year recommended a specific alignment which is the route that the public can see here in the purple line here.

We've held two public hearings; we've had tremendous amount of input from the citizens there in the area. We are going back and writing a focused supplemental environmental impact statement that will revise land use issues that were brought forward. It will also look at other alignment alternatives that have been proposed through part of the public involvement process.

MR. NICHOLS: So you still are open to alignment alternatives?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: Okay.

MR. GORNET: The SEIS, we anticipate releasing that late in the spring of 2005. As soon as we got some clear weather in Houston in early October, they flew new aerial photography to put into these environmental documents. The stuff we had was two years old and because of the rapid growth, particularly in this F-2 area between 45 and State Highway 249, we're updating, at the request of the citizens, the aerial photograph so that they are assured that we have the most current information available to us.

Segment G is another segment just to the east of this, 45 to 59 North, and that segment connects. Where we've had the DEIS prepared on that, we're going back, because of the comments we've received on the F-2 segment, and updating this one, again including the new aerial photography and all the current land use to make sure that we take and we build on those comments and concerns that have been raised and address them proactively in this document, in the DEIS rather than have to go back and try to do an SEIS on that.

Segment B, another interesting segment down in the south side of Houston, going from 288 to 45 North. You can see there's still a relative spaghetti bowl of alignment alternatives that are being looked at. We have input from State Representative Bonnen, Brazoria County Commissioners Court, City of Alvin where they all have expressed support for a particular segment.

Currently our engineers are finalizing the input on that as well as the traffic numbers for both a toll and free road scenario. We fully anticipate it will be a toll road but the numbers are going to be in there because our current metropolitan plans and air quality conformity still model the Grand Parkway as a toll facility. When they're updated, we'll have the information there -- our model is a free facility; when they're updated, it will reflect the toll numbers that are in there.

Then Segments A, and H and I-1 -- A being the short segment over there from State Highway 146 to I-45 South in Galveston County, and H and I-1 that go from 59 North around, across 1960, US 90 and down to I-10, traversing Montgomery, Harris, Liberty and Chambers Counties -- they don't have any current activities on them.

That is an area that in my conversations with District Engineer Trietsch, he would like to see us do a tiered environmental impact statement on that so that we can avoid some of the issues that have come with the rapid growth in other areas of Houston.

The tiered environmental impact statement would allow you to go out and acquire the right of way today but it does not give clearance for the construction of the road. That way the right of way can be acquired, any development that does occur is complementary to this is where that facility is going to be, rather than us trying to snake our way around already existing development and intruding upon that development.

A summary of the activities we hope to have completed in 2005 is going to be the release of: the FEIS for Segment C, the FEIS for Segment E, the FEIS for Segment F-1; the SEIS, the supplemental environmental impact statement, for Segment F-2; the DEIS for Segment G, the DEIS for Segment B.

We will also be working with TxDOT and local authorities to complete the toll studies for Segments D and I-2 as to how do you implement toll collection on those facilities that are currently under construction; initiate the Tier 1 environmental impact study for Segments H and I-1, should the commission direct us to do so; and also initiate an environmental impact study for Segment A over in Galveston County that would at least have all the studies underway for the 182-mile project.

And that is the end of my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: There's the alignment issue on F-2 I think the state representative was going to address.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. HOUGHTON: And I think Robert talked about earlier, those are not set in stone yet as far as those alignments.

MR. GORNET: That's correct, they are not set in stone. We have a number of alternatives that are shown here. Some citizens have suggested some that would go even further north off of this map, further up into Montgomery County, and we are working with the citizen groups to look at these alternatives and all that will be discussed in the supplemental environmental impact statement that is being prepared.

Specifically, I believe -- I don't want to misquote Representative Riddle, but she would like to see routes analyzed that would go up and use FM 1488 in Montgomery County, maybe following the proposed route of the Grand Parkway to State Highway 249, then angle northwest along 249 through Tomball and up to Magnolia, and then follow 1488 or some other route modification of a route similar to that so that it can avoid impacts to this rapidly growing area of Harris County which she represents.

MR. HOUGHTON: Does that impact the other alignments on either side, the east and the west side?

MR. GORNET: It could have impacts, particularly on the east side over on Segment G, and it likely should have impacts.

We did look at those routes that are being proposed very early on in the study in our phase where we had the study areas. We discussed alternatives that would go further north and decided that those got out of what we refer to as the travel shed, the traffic demand areas that were using this.

The state currently has a study going on on FM 1488 and that being about ten miles north of where we are serves different traffic generators and users up there, and that the area that F-2 goes through serves another different set of users, and that it's appropriate to have both of those facilities.

MR. HOUGHTON: And when do you think all of this will be completed? Crystal ball.

MR. GORNET: Doing it as a toll road allows for this to be expedited, and given that we can get the environmental processes complete, I'd like to think that this could be open to traffic for the entire 180 miles in 2017.

MR. HOUGHTON: Okay. If not?

MR. GORNET: If not, it could be quite a while. I think a lot of it rests on the environmental process here, sir, and being able to find solutions that work with the citizen groups and address the regional needs.

MR. HOUGHTON: Okay. Thank you.

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Gornet, I have two questions. On Segment F-2 you said that you had a large turnout at your public hearings.

MR. GORNET: Yes, ma'am.

MS. ANDRADE: What was voiced? What was their major concern?

MR. GORNET: The majority of the citizens there were voicing concerns that they don't want a highway near their homes. We had the spaghetti bowl of alternatives that were there, the route that was being recommended. Large subdivisions; were three-quarters of a mile away of existing homes; there are some new homes. Subdivisions have been platted right in the alignment that we're going through, and that the route that we proposed would obviously have a great impact on that now platted subdivision, the subdivision that didn't have homes in at the time that the route was proposed.

In general, they felt that they didn't need this type of transportation improvement in their community and that it would be there to serve others and not serve them.

MS. ANDRADE: After they learned what we were doing, did they feel better? I mean, were they walking out feeling like they had gotten the information they needed?

MR. GORNET: No, ma'am.

MS. ANDRADE: No? Okay.

And second is without considering the tolling, right now you're saying maybe 2017.

MR. GORNET: Without tolling, gosh, Mr. Behrens, I don't know when there might be funds available to address the needs without tolls.

MS. ANDRADE: It certainly has accelerated the project.

MR. GORNET: Yes, ma'am.

MS. ANDRADE: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: I was going to wait for my comments.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I will wait until after the representative speaks, also, and plus Ted and Hope may have other questions after she speaks.

But I do have a question for you, David. I know for steady on three years now, in talking with you we have conveyed, I hope, two clear messages. One, we don't see how this gets built unless it's a toll asset.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Whether that's HCTRA or the TTA Division of our department or perhaps a joint venture with the private sector, we just don't see how it gets done.

Second, under any circumstance that one of the most expensive problems that the state faces every year is the legacy of having not been forward-thinking enough to require right of way for expansion. As the price of gasoline continues to stay high, more and more Texans will ask of their local and state leaders for a consumer-oriented public transit system. If we don't have the right of way to construct that system some day, we will have not done our jobs as public servants.

So I just urge, every time I see you, think bigger, not smaller for the right of way. You know, the crush of the now is always seemingly more painful than the howls of protest for the future, and no one ever wants to give up much of their land or have it taken away from them, and we understand that. But the requirements of the public sometimes override all of our individual wishes. And please tell all who participate in your venture that we need a right of way big enough to contain those 6 million Texans that will move to the southeast Texas area over the next 30 years.

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir. And I feel that we are responding to that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And we don't take it lightly; we know that.

Well, would you like to step back then for the Honorable Ms. Riddle?

MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We haven't had a chance to get to know one another, but we appreciate your service to the state.

MS. RIDDLE: Well, thank you. Thank you very much for your service to the state, and thank you for allowing me to come before you today so that the voices of my constituents in District 150 can be heard.

First of all, I would like you to be aware that neither my constituents nor I am opposed to the Grand Parkway. The concerns of my constituents, however, are regarding the alignment that is proposed. There are several reasons for their concerns.

This is not simply a not-in-my-backyard concern. The people of my district are forward-thinking, and they too, Commissioner, would agree with you that we need to be forward-thinking and not backward-thinking in obtaining right of way. As a matter of fact, that is one of the primary things that they have stated is a tremendous amount of frustration that the State of Texas 20 years ago did not begin purchasing that right of way. Because of the tremendous growth in our area, so many lives, so many families and so many people are going to be disrupted.

Having said that, I would like you to be aware that the alignments -- and I have the map here -- do not just come within a matter of what was it, a quarter of a mile, did you say?

MR. GORNET: The existing subdivisions.

MS. RIDDLE: Of the existing subdivisions I would respectfully disagree with that. According to my map here -- and I could stand to be corrected, and come up here and correct me or show me, that's okay, we can be a little bit less formal -- there are several subdivisions, one in particular Mossy Oaks, it would come through that subdivision. That is not within a matter of a quarter of a mile or so much of a mile, it would come through it with one of the alignments.

With one of the alignments it would come through the property of a brand new Catholic school, a private school and their property, which is just slightly north -- it's right on 2920, just slightly north of 2920 in the F-2 segment.

There are people who have had their homes there for 30-35 years, they have built the community, and to have the Grand Parkway coming in such close proximity, and their concerns for the environment are real. It is not just simply an inconvenience, it is a true concern.

One of the concerns that they have is flooding, with all of the new building and with all of the new construction that is going on with new subdivisions.

I was sworn in, it will soon be three years ago, as state representative for District 150; this last session was my freshman session. During my campaign many of the areas that are now subdivisions, up and running and going as subdivisions, were pastures. It's a rapid growth.

And so some of the alignments that we now have or that is on my map that I have, they now are going either through or right next to subdivisions that didn't exist when this was done. I'm glad to find out that new aerial photos have been taken so that we can work with updated material, because one of the complaints of my constituents is that old information has been used and that old information is no longer accurate.

So the concerns regarding the flooding, the concerns regarding the environmental impact, and the concerns regarding just the cost of what it's going to take to come bulldozing straight through the middle of property that is now the property of the Catholic school. And I can show you on this map, I'd be happy to do so; I don't have the overhead that Mr. Gornet has, but I'd be happy to meet with you and show you.

The constituents are truly concerned, and this isn't just a lynch-mob mentality, these are well-educated people who have played a major part in building the community, and they're proud of their community. They're not backward-thinking, but they want this done with prudence and wisdom.

And that's why I'm here today, to say let's work together so that we can make the decisions together for not only the future of my district and for the future of my area -- I'm a native Houstonian, I want to see Houston continue to grow -- but also for the future of Texas.

My mother used to say that there's a solution to every problem. I may be naive but I believed my mother, I think there is a solution to every problem.

And the constituents that came in such mass that we actually had to postpone one of our meetings because there was not enough parking and there was not enough room, speaks to the fact that my constituents are activists, they're concerned, and they care, and they too want solutions, proper solutions, and solutions that are met with wisdom.

And so I request of you that we do continue to work together. And I want to, I want to continue working with the Grand Parkway Association, I want to continue working with Senator Lindsay, I want to continue working with David Gornet.

And I must compliment him because he has been most gracious. From the very get-go, whenever I had questions, whenever I needed information, he was Johnny-on-the-spot, coming to my office, bringing maps and able to sit down and explain. And I think that that is something that we can continue to do.

But the F-2 segment is an area that does dramatically and potentially can detrimentally affect a lot of Texans, and that is something that I just hope that together we can avoid. And I believe that we do have answers and I think that together we can come to those solutions for the better.

I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, Ted.

MR. HOUGHTON: I'll ask David. Is there solutions that we do not disrupt private schools?

MR. GORNET: Any of the alternatives, the ones that we're looking at, the ones that have been suggested that go further north, all have disruptions associated with them. Obviously our attempt has been to minimize those disruptions.

We felt that the route that we proposed did minimize those disruptions, and she is correct when she pointed out that -- the large neighborhood that I was talking about, we're a quarter of a mile, three-quarters of a mile away from them; we do go through the Mossy Oaks community, which is a much older community and has very established homes.

But no, we do have impacts. I've not identified any. If we follow routes that are proposed that go further north, TxDOT is challenged on FM 1488, they're trying to get 180-foot right of way in there, and there's all kinds of schools and cemeteries and churches and businesses and homes along there. And to go to a wider, say a 400-foot footprint up there -- which is what we're proposing down in the Segment F-2 -- would exponentially increase those impacts.

Unfortunately, as she pointed out, this is an area that 20 years ago would have been appropriate to acquire the right of way and say -- again, just like we're going to try to do on the east side of town -- this is where the road is going to go, and then when it's needed, we have the right of way there to go out and build it.

But no, sir, I've not found anywhere that doesn't either go through homes or businesses or a school.

MS. RIDDLE: It's more than just one neighborhood that we're talking about. With this particular map, one of the alignments -- may I step to the dais just briefly to show you?

MR. WILLIAMSON: You're a House member, you can do whatever you want.

MR. HOUGHTON: She got re-elected too.

MS. RIDDLE: Thank you, sir. I'll give that message to the Speaker.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Would you like somebody to hold the map while you point at it?

MS. RIDDLE: Mossy Oaks is right about here, but this is not the only problem. As you can see -- let's start with this first alignment coming here -- as you see with this Alignment D coming this way, this was not originally proposed but this is now platted and up and running, this is the Bridgestone area, and these people were vehemently opposed.

The Save Our Springs organization was formed specifically to have the citizens' voices heard on this because of the tremendous concern at what it would do to Spring, Texas.

At any rate, this now is one of the considerations, and you can see what would happen here.

After that, another alternate route came this way and this is the Alignment D coming this way. Now, this is along Boudreaux Road. Right now a new subdivision is Miramar Estates here. Boudreaux Road, and if it comes up this alignment, it is not three-quarters of a mile away. This is the gate that goes into that subdivision; there are backyards that come right here. So we're not talking how much of a mile; we're talking a few feet. Okay?

This would just decimate the property value, and that may not be an issue here, but this would just decimate the people, their properties here to have to have this come on Boudreaux here.

This is another subdivision here, and as you can see, it comes right to Boudreaux. So this is one of the alignments coming right along this way; this is Kuykendahl.

Now, The Woodlands -- and you're familiar with The Woodlands -- The Woodlands is further north up here, and a large reason for the Grand Parkway, I understand -- and David, correct me if I'm wrong -- is to help alleviate the traffic from The Woodlands.

Well, what this is going to do is import traffic into my district. I am told that the purpose for this is to help alleviate the traffic. I do not understand, and neither do my constituents, how one can alleviate traffic and import traffic at the same time.

If the Grand Parkway comes along this alignment, The Woodlands people are going to be coming down Kuykendahl. It is slated in the future to widen Kuykendahl, but I'm not so sure why we have to have that coming down this way. It would seem like it would make much more sense to go around.

Now, you talked about the traffic shed. Is that correct? Was that the term?

Okay. The primary traffic -- and David, correct me if I'm wrong on this -- with all of the people in my district, the vast majority of trips that are taken per home, nine out of ten trips per home, are short-travel trips, they are not long-travel type trips. Is that correct?

MR. GORNET: Your district I've not studied, but in general, probably seven of the trips are short trips.

MS. RIDDLE: Okay. The vast majority of trips that are taken in my district are short trips, whether it's seven out of ten, eight out of ten, or nine out of ten. I can tell you most of them are going to the grocery store, most of them are going to the doctor, to soccer games, and that kind of thing. Those trips are done down Kuykendahl, Gosling and these are these arteries going in other ways.

Also, for subdivisions coming along Kuykendahl, that is their only access. If we create such a congestion on these streets here, it could pose a life-threatening problem for emergency access, and that is an issue that we'd need to look at as well.

Because if we are going to start importing traffic into this area -- and David was right saying that my constituents feel like that they're going to have to be the sacrificial lamb, they are going to have to be the ones who experience the pain, if you will, for the convenience of The Woodlands coming down, for a road that they are not only not going to use that much. There's not going to be that many on-ramps, not that many off-ramps, and most of their trips are short trips.

And so it would make far more sense to determine -- I drew kind of a little red thing here that could be an alternate. I don't like the idea of this in here, period, but I think that if we could have an idea working together with something of this sort, that could take it further away from the subdivisions.

It would not go through Mossy Oaks, it would not go right smack-dab in these people's front yard except for possibly right here and maybe we could dip down a little here, but you can see the distance between their very yards right here. So we're not talking a quarter of a mile. It would help this area here and it would avoid North Hamptom area here.

And I must say when I hold a town hall meeting -- and I would think that most state representatives would concur -- when you hold a town hall meeting, wouldn't you agree that you're real fortunate to get 20-25 people?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Be a sellout crowd.

MS. RIDDLE: It would be a sellout crowd, wouldn't it. I mean, you've got to really pump it just to get that.

Well, when I held a press conference -- and I didn't even advertise this -- I held a press conference so that I could give the correct information to my constituents. You know how rumors travel and you know how people get concerned. Well, I want my constituents to be working with truth, I want them to be working with accurate information, so I held a press conference, didn't publicize it. 155 of my constituents showed up at a press conference.

At two public hearings we had how many showed up?

MR. GORNET: We had 1,050 register at the first one, we had 650 at the second one.

MS. RIDDLE: 1,050 at the first one, and the second one was held 15 miles away at a place they didn't know where to find, and still 650 showed up. So this is a real concern.

And I want us to work together. We don't need to be the bad guys and the good guys here; I think we can all be the good guys.

Does this help?

MR. HOUGHTON: Yes. Thank you.

MS. RIDDLE: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Ms. Riddle, don't run off.

What else, Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: That's all.

MS. ANDRADE: I certainly think you represent your constituents very well. Congratulations.

MS. RIDDLE: Thank you.

MS. ANDRADE: And I certainly would encourage that the communication keep on.

I wanted to ask Mr. Gornet, are you continuing public hearings or were the two the only ones that you're going to have?

MR. GORNET: We will have another public hearing after we -- right now we're getting into the development of the alternatives, analyzing them for the impacts and all that might be associated with those. As we move further on in that development process and are ready to publish the document, I'm sure that we'll be meeting more with Representative Riddle and we will have another public hearing as part of that process.

I've got to identify an area large enough to hold everyone again.

MS. RIDDLE: The greatest challenge that we have with our public hearings is finding a facility large enough to hold everybody.

MS. ANDRADE: That's great that you've got interested residents, and it's unfortunate that we didn't look at this into the future and be able to do exactly what needed to get done, and someone is always going to get hurt for that.

But I would certainly encourage the communication, and I can't encourage you enough to keep up the public education as to what's going on because unless we have another solution, you know, Houston does have a congestion problem that we do have to work with.

MS. RIDDLE: Well, I concur completely. As a native Houstonian and one who has to drive in that traffic, I fully understand, and so do my constituents. And that is why I have made every effort to make sure that my constituents are working with correct information, not rumor, that we are working with reason and not shooting-from-the-hip kind of anger.

But I must say that people are usually willing to get out and fight for a cause sometimes or raise up in arms and defend their country; we understand that. But when people perceive that their very homes could be in harm's way, then yes, they are going to rise up and defend, and that's what my constituents feel like they must do now, and they want to have your ear. But I must also add that they want to work to come to a solution.

So I thank you.

MS. ANDRADE: Good. Thank you.

MS. RIDDLE: Yes, sir?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Go ahead, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: First of all, thank you very much for coming here today. This has been very good. And I know when we were talking earlier, you were a little hesitant about kind of jumping into all this, but I'm really glad you did.

I guess, Mr. Gornet, my comment is I hope in your public hearings that we're not just having meetings to tell people where it's going to be, that we truly are considering all possible alignments and working to try to work out something that will minimize the objections and concerns, and I hope that we continue doing that.

We see a lot of broad issues and then we see specific issues. This is a specific issue but it relates to a much broader issue and I think this is important -- you may can help us, Representative Riddle, in that I remember a number of years ago as we were trying to advance this project, we knew that the rapid growth in that region was moving so fast that the sooner we could lock in a route, the less likely -- because all of the available space is disappearing before our eyes.

And at the time we began trying to find a corridor through that area, by the time we get one picked out and go through the very lengthy environmental process -- which you don't want to rush, you want to do it right -- a new subdivision has come in and our available land disappears while we're studying it.

And it's not just a Houston problem and it's not just a Grand Parkway problem; it is a statewide problem. In all of our areas where we have rapid growth, that is where we need the transportation capacity, so that's where the growth areas are is where the greatest areas of need for capacity are.

We have expressed for a number of years, as an agency, the need for advance acquisition. If we know that we've got to get through there -- in other words, if we moved north or if they found a place to wiggle through to the south, if they can go in there and buy some of that land before it gets developed, it would be cheaper for the state and less disruptive for everybody.

But our process, part of which is legislatively set, prohibits us from doing that.

MS. RIDDLE: May I work with you to change that?

MR. NICHOLS: That was a big hint I was throwing out there.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Yes, we would certainly encourage any support in that area that we can get.

MS. RIDDLE: We have a session coming up and I would be delighted to work with you on that. That is something that my constituents have been asking me, and I'm sure you've received those same questions as well, David, as to why wasn't the land purchased 20 years ago.

MR. NICHOLS: Because it's basically against the law.

MS. RIDDLE: Well, then we need to change the law, don't we.

MR. NICHOLS: Right.

MS. RIDDLE: So my office is always open to you, my door is always open to you, and let's work on that, because I think that we have now reached a point in our state where we need that kind of flexibility. I agree with you, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I echo Robert's remarks, Representative Riddle, we thank you for taking time out of your day to be with us.

And Robert hit on one point and the other that commission staff might be by to visit with you about is the notion that we ought to be able to develop the ability to identify probable growth corridors and allow the counties themselves to plat those corridors out, as they do now, their five-acre or whatever it is, subdivisions with the water wells and the septic tanks and such. I don't think that's an onerous thing for the real estate industry.

In fact, a lot of real estate people might appreciate it if the county had the authority to go out and say: Some day TxDOT or we are going to build a road here, so we're going to plat it as a public corridor, now you guys can develop on both sides and get ready for it. That's another aspect of it that might be helpful.

MS. RIDDLE: Well, I think that that is certainly a consideration that is worth study. I was a realtor for 18 years and I was a realtor in my district for a very long time, and the toss of the dice mentality that we have to deal with is scary for folks coming in and either developing the land or purchasing homes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And for good or bad, I don't know which it is, the reality is the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Antonio-Austin, and Pharr-McAllen population is just exploding, and somebody has got to step out there and say we need to provide for these transportation assets before the people get there.

MS. RIDDLE: Well, I agree because if we could have planned in advance, we would have avoided so many of the problems that we're facing now. So I think in order to avoid problems in the future that we need to be able to do that, and I would gladly work with any of you in making that happen.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, thank you so much for being with us.

MS. RIDDLE: It's important for us to work together.

But I must say one of the reasons for the rapid growth is because I represent such a wonderful district and everybody wants to move to the district.

(General laughter.)

MS. RIDDLE: But thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

And David, do you have anything else you need to share with us?

MR. GORNET: No, sir. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, we appreciate the report, we appreciate your remarks. We always weigh carefully what a sitting member of the House or Senate have to say, and we appreciate your time.

I was chuckling, Mike, whoever prepares my script for me, I've got to quote from this. I say, "Good morning, and welcome to Austin, David." And then I allow him time to report. And my next words are, "All right, thank you for the report."

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: We're also planning to take a short recess, but you know, I think that a couple of the commission members need to try to be away as soon as possible, and unless you object, I'm going to go ahead and keep rolling through the agenda for a little while before we take a break, if it's all right.

Mike, why don't we take up item 3 and see what happens.

MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll go to item 3, our Aviation item for the month of November, and Dave Fulton will present some airport improvement projects.

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

Item 3 is a minute order containing a request for grant funding approval for eleven airport improvement projects. The total estimated cost of all requests, as shown on Exhibit A, is approximately $5.5 million: approximately $1.7 million federal, $3.3 million state, and approximately $600,000 in local funding.

A public hearing was held on October 22 of this year and no comments were received. We would recommend approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Before we vote, Dave, to your knowledge would the distribution of these funds in any way directly benefit any members of the commission?

MR. FULTON: No, sir, not to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Not to your knowledge.

Questions, members?

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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. Thank you, Dave. It's good to see you always.

MR. FULTON: Thank you.

MR. BEHRENS: Moving on to agenda item number 4, it's a discussion item. Something that we've been doing now for the last several months is discussing our legislative agenda for the upcoming session, and this will be led by Coby Chase, our Legislative Affairs director. Coby?

MR. CHASE: Good morning. My name is Coby Chase and I'm the department's director of Legislative Affairs. My appearance before you today will be brief.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, no, there's no way.

(General laughter.)

MR. CHASE: Well, it's my intention to be brief, at any rate. I'll be here as long as you need.

I'm here to present you a draft report regarding the Transportation Commission's legislative priorities for the upcoming 79th Texas Legislature.

And now I have to do something a little personal. Since this is our first official broadcast on the web, I promised my wife I'd say hello to her because she was going to watch me and tell me just how much fatter I look on web TV.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Can we all say hello to Julie?

MR. CHASE: Yes, say hello to Julie.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, Julie.

MR. NICHOLS: Hey, Julie.

MR. CHASE: Well, thank you very much. She'll appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: How's the baby?

MR. BEHRENS: How was your Las Vegas trip, Julie?

MR. WILLIAMSON: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?

MR. CHASE: I did pretty well, Mike, I'm glad you asked. Look at that, that was worth the whole trip, it really was. When you can get something like 50 of these for $10, you give them out to all your friends.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I hope you haven't got Jefferson wearing one of those.

MR. CHASE: Yep, I sure do.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The original Elvis.

(General laughter.)

MR. CHASE: We have gone through this before so I'll get right to the substance of the report and the recommendations. While I plan to move through these fairly quickly, you may slow me down at any point if you have questions. And this month I brought visuals so those in the viewing audience can at least follow along with the topics.

Let me start with the Significant Legislative Issues. First of all is House Bill 3588. As we have all been discussing for some time, the commission and the legislature needs to revisit some of the provisions in House Bill 3588. I'll touch on the larger ones; there are a few which are more technical in nature and I will not bring them up here today.

First there are four main financial issues.

The first is the statutory cap on toll equity should be repealed.

Second, it must be clarified that all toll revenue from TxDOT projects is to be deposited into the State Highway Fund, not just revenue from bonded projects.

Three, present laws governing the use of any surplus toll revenue from TxDOT projects should be expanded. Right now, any surplus revenue must be used on another turnpike project 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 on rail.

Four, 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.

Next there are two rail issues, still within the context of House Bill 3588.

The present statutory cap of $12.5 million per year in expenditures for non Trans-Texas Corridor rail projects should be repealed. In addition, the present $25 million per year in expenditures for Trans-Texas Corridor rail projects should be eliminated.

Next there is a need to clarify TxDOT's contracting authority for rail. Current law requires the department to use the low bid process, nothing innovative in the delivery of rail projects. And we would like to see that changed into something that operates more like a CDA, or a comprehensive development agreement.

The third big area is toll conversion and toll conversion revenue. Toll conversion revenue for TxDOT or a county is currently limited for use on that converted segment or an extension of that segment. It should be beneficial to allow the revenue to be used on other transportation projects in the region in addition to the converted segment or extension.

Second, and this is important, the report contains no recommendation regarding the definition of toll conversion, none at all. It would seem -- and this is my opinion and the opinion of my staff, and we can do whatever you would like in this report because you'll ultimately adopt it is -- I don't know if drawing a clear line right now as to what would constitute a toll conversion, and what wouldn’t, would be productive. There are many stages in the process of a road: is it when somebody thinks about is when the first design dollars are applied to it, the first planning dollars applied to it, or when tires are actually moving across the road, what actually defines a toll conversion.

I think there's going to be some interest next session in that -- I know there is. There's been one bill filed to define toll conversion and really all it does is prohibit one specific road in the Houston area from being converted to a toll road.

And I think also, kind of standing from the 30,000 feet level and looking at everything, the process seems to have worked, in our opinion, no road has been converted to a toll road; the process as defined in House Bill 3588 is not broken.

So I think there's still a lot of discussion that needs to be had; however, if it's the commission's desire, we will attempt to put a definition in this report. So that's something we're going to have to tackle. My recommendation is wait and see at the moment.

Continuing on -- and you can stop me for questions at any time -- and still within the confines of House Bill 3588 are two recommendations on comprehensive development agreements.

First is CDAs presently may only be utilized for toll projects. The ability to use CDAs for other state projects would enable the department to obtain the most efficient means of developing projects, providing the best value to the department.

And second, the department's ability to use comprehensive development agreements expires in 2011; that Sunset provision should be eliminated.

The next issue, RMAs and transit. Regional mobility authorities should be allowed to provide all forms of public transportation services. This proposal would allow RMAs to integrate all of their region's strategies to improve mobility under the oversight of one authority on a voluntary basis. An RMA that wishes to provide transit services in an area already served by an existing provider would be able to enter into a voluntary agreement to do that -- again, the key word is "voluntary."

Advance acquisition.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hang on a second, Coby.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we touch anywhere in the report on permissive legislation that would allow NTTA to convert to an RMA, for example?

MR. CHASE: Not directly, no. In my opinion, I don't know what the harm of that would be. It would make sense that if you ran a regional toll authority, you'd want as much flexibility as you can, and it seems like RMAs have that.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think we suggested it to some of the NTTA leaders during the last legislative session that it be on a permissive basis, and they still -- you know, all of us get emotionally different during legislative sessions, and the reaction wasn't favorable even though it was permissive.

I'm just wondering in the spirit of not hiding the ball, if we believe it's a good thing to lay the groundwork for NTTA and HCTRA, and indeed CTRMA and the Alamo RMA -- I named your RMA for you, Tom, the Alamo RMA -- and all the others that we have formed, well, those that fall within other toll authority statutes, it may be not a bad thing for us to recommend to the legislature that permissive language be passed making that transition easier.

Otherwise, we're all hearing the stories, our friends at NTTA want a monopoly on toll roads in their areas, and the judge in Collin County doesn't want the transit systems busted up, and all of these things that distract us. Maybe we need to advertise to our partners at the local and regional level that we don't want to make them do anything; we just think it's good to lay the groundwork to voluntarily do things, and if they choose to do it, fine, and if they choose not to, that's okay too.

MR. CHASE: Something that would allow them to convert.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What I don't want to do is create an atmosphere of adversarial nature with, particularly HCTRA and NTTA, DART, I want them to process that in our first legally authorized legislative recommendation that we're recommending permissive things and cooperative things and partnership things, doing things together as opposed to our way or the highway -- pardon the pun.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't want to interrupt.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please do.

MR. NICHOLS: I was going to back up a step further related to toll conversion which has been a very confusing issue for the public. And we do know for sure that that's going to be an interesting topic that's going to be discussed and kicked around quite a bit at the legislature -- as it should be so it is totally clarified in everybody's mind.

But one of the confusing parts of that issue has to do with whether or not -- and I think that what we have been basically saying is that if you're currently driving on lanes that are non-tolled, what we have been working with pretty much across the state is that we've only been tolling the expanded lanes and the new capacity or new locations.

I'm a little concerned under your toll conversion revenue that in here is a suggestion that toll conversion revenue for TxDOT on that converted segment, if you ever did really have a true conversion by the definition we are using where you literally put toll booths across lanes and just tolled them, the current law says that you can use it to expand or extend -- in other words, it stays basically on that highway.

If we go in there and start trying to suggest or recommend that they expand that law so that if you do that it could be spent somewhere else, I think we're sending a confusing issue because basically what we're not doing is doing conversions. We're tolling new capacity and new locations, we're not tolling conversions, by our definition.

And if we go in there and ask for the revenue of conversions to be used on things other than that highway system, I think we're going to have a really confused number of members, because right now today in that big master plan that we've got for the whole state, there are no lanes currently that we are talking about going through a conversion on.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I understand what you're saying, but perhaps that problem is easily addressed by the suggestion two pages earlier where we just simply ask the legislature to define all revenues flowing to TxDOT are Fund 6 revenues and can be spent according to the constitution and the law.

MR. CHASE: And what we contemplated in this, as we were moving to this recommendation, was once you've converted a road to a toll road, a toll road is a toll road, and it should probably have the same flexibility as a new-start toll road, especially in the hands of TxDOT or the county. But I certainly understand.

MR. WILLIAMSON: All of us on the podium understand the intensity with which people have reacted to the conversion myths, but we've continued to believe it is valid to have that option out there for local governments and regional governments to turn to if that's all that's available to jumpstart a project.

In fact, the governor has made it clear to us he would never approve any conversions, but that's okay. And if that's his position and that's the way he feels, that's fine. That's no reason to take away tools from a community, from a county judge, a city council member or whatever.

What's interesting is in the conversations that have occurred about conversion -- Mr. Nichols makes a good point -- first, people are of the impression that we're out there converting lanes, which we're not.

And second, what's become crystal clear to me is the lack of true information many in the transportation world have about the relationship of tax payments to the cost and maintenance to a new road.

In fact, we've instructed Amadeo, I think, to prepare an extensive study on how much does a taxpayer really pay for a new road, what percentage of the cost ends up being allocated to the road.

Preliminary estimates -- in fact, I don't want to put words in his mouth. Amadeo, are you here today?

What's the preliminary estimate for the average road? I'm not talking about the ones that we know pay off like slot machines, Katy Freeway west of Houston, but for the average road. MoPac South is an example; that would be a good one that's current to the discussion.

MR. SAENZ: Some of the early numbers that we're looking at, they barely collect enough money to take care of the maintenance and operation.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So on a percentage basis, if you take the construction costs and the maintenance costs over a 40-year life, and you allocate the motor vehicle tax, the federal reimbursement, and the vehicle registration fee each year, based on the miles driven across that road, what percentage of total cash is recovered through taxes?

MR. SAENZ: About 50 percent.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So about 50 percent of taxes paid by Robert and I to use a new road built in our district cover the cost of building and maintaining the road on a 40-year life.

MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. Those are some of the early numbers; we're still playing.

MR. WILLIAMSON: There are exceptions. Some roads, such as we know Interstate 10 west of Houston, because of the high traffic volume and the way it's built, taxes probably will recover its cost and maintenance.

MR. SAENZ: And of course we have roads that we need for connectivity that never collect any revenue to pay for themselves.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: I didn't disagree with anything you said, but one piece of that was that 50 percent of its cost was to maintain it over its lifetime -- the word "lifetime." When we did some lifetime studies, doing a 40-year lifetime of a new road, what it costs to preserve it, what it costs to build it, the thing that surprised me and most legislators that I've shown it to is that the preservation costs of a new highway over a 30- to 40-year period of time is actually several times the original construction cost. It costs more to preserve it over 30- to 40-years than it ever did to build it by several times.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, most of us that have been having to deal with this realize that something had to be occurring like this because you couldn't have this -- our construction of new capacity has gone to almost 5 percent in the last ten years, and so there had to be something to account for that, and the accounting for it is more and more of our cash has gone to maintenance of existing infrastructure.

Well, at any rate, my point, Coby -- and I didn't mean to digress to Amadeo's part of the world -- we've asked Amadeo to do an extensive study so that House members, Senate members, the governor, anyone else interested in transportation can kind of look at something and see the argument of you're taxing me twice to pay for the road just doesn't bear out in most cases.

That shouldn't change the fact that a conversion -- the point that Mr. Nichols brought up, a definition of conversion isn't appropriate. We just ought to be able to have the information for people to make good decisions about it.

MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Please, Hope.

MS. ANDRADE: Not on toll conversion, but Coby, give me just a simple example on the RMA and transit. When you say an RMA that wishes to provide transit in an -- already served by an existing provider would be able to enter into a voluntary agreement with the governing body and transfer its operation to the RMA, I want to make sure that people understand that.

MR. CHASE: In the case of perhaps, I guess, Central Texas, if the Central Texas RMA and Cap Metro want to enter into a voluntary agreement to handle regional transportation, kind of the idea of an RMA, and the philosophy that the agency is going is regions handle their transportation as a region, and that's not just roadways, and if it makes sense -- I'm under the impression that, for instance, CTRMA and Cap Metro work very well together; that's bridged a lot by Representative Krusee who keeps that relationship strong and going. But there may be a discussion at some point, and I'm not saying that there is one here in the Austin area, I don't want anyone to believe that at this point -- is that it might make sense to have the RMA operate the bus system.

And it might make sense if the RMA is operating a toll road and financing -- using any profits, so to speak, to finance a transit system or the transportation project, it may just make sense to that community. But this wouldn't force anybody to do it.

MS. ANDRADE: So it would help the local transit companies if the RMA wanted to share their revenue or put their revenue to public transit, and it would strictly be voluntary?

MR. CHASE: Yes, ma'am, absolutely.

MS. ANDRADE: Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Continue, Coby.

MR. CHASE: As was just highlighted in the previous agenda item, advance acquisition, 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 from a willing seller; no condemnation authority is being recommended here.

And I think the discussion on the Grand Parkway highlighted the need for doing something like that.

I think, if you look back over the history of TxDOT, one of the things we wish -- if we could travel back in time and change was the ability to buy larger corridors, because there's nothing cheaper than the land you buy today.

Next is local transportation planning authority. Again, that was also discussed at the county level on the last agenda item. Local governments should be granted clear authority to regulate development in identified transportation corridors.

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 the long-range transportation needs of the area and establishing future transportation corridors. Following that, local governments should be granted the express authority to regulate or control development within that corridor.

And I can't give you any better example than what just occurred with Representative Riddle.

Rail relocation. We currently may only provide for rail relocations 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 for the state's cost of these relocations.

Please understand that a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to obligate the state to retire the debt from those types of bonds.

In a recently adopted legislative appropriations request, the department has asked for $200 million in General Revenue as startup capital for this fund.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hang on a second. Did somebody start to say something down there?

MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, I did.

$200 million in General Revenue to look at moving rail before we have the authority, or in conjunction with the authority?

MR. CHASE: Well, they would have to move in parallel, definitely.

MR. HOUGHTON: And what do we estimate the cost of rail relocation around the state of Texas?

MR. CHASE: I can't do that off the top of my head, but I can tell you two things.

One, in the Austin area they are looking at moving the UP line off of MoPac and putting it east of town, and I could have this wrong, but I seem to recall that was at least $500 million.

And then right now in the city of Houston -- there is, I believe, a good story in the Houston Chronicle today about this -- the Greater Houston Area is looking at consolidating rail lines and moving them out of the port, kind of Alameda-Corridor style. And I would imagine that the state would want to be a partner in that, and that would cost -- I have no idea but it would cost a lot.

MR. HOUGHTON: So we would be the sole authority negotiating with the rail companies?

MR. CHASE: I don't know that. I would doubt it but I don't know that.

MR. HOUGHTON: Who would own the rights of way as they abandoned the rights of way?

MR. CHASE: I believe we would own them if we have a financial stake in it. But again, each deal is probably going to have to stand on its own, and a deal in one part of the state might look a little different than another.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I have some questions about this, but Robert, if you or Hope have anything you want to expand on.

MS. ANDRADE: No.

MR. NICHOLS: I do not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: First of all, Coby, I want to be sure your statement: Please understand a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to obligate the state to retire the debt. I think what you meant to say was to retire the debt related to strictly rebuilding a railroad as opposed to debt incurred to purchase UP's right of way, for example, and build a road on it, or both. Are we going to have to have a constitutional amendment either way?

Well, let me give you an example. Statutorily the legislature gives us $200 million from General Revenue and authorizes us to bond $10 billion against that to finance moving rail out of El Paso, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Weatherford, Houston, big cities in the state. Why would we need a constitutional amendment to do that?

MR. CHASE: I think that the amendment has to do with the issuance of debt, the amendment doesn't have to do with the ability to go in and play in the rail game, so to speak.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And in your visiting with different members of the legislature and staff, particularly leadership, have you sensed a growing interest in the notion of taking rail out of urban Texas?

MR. CHASE: Absolutely, and it's been interesting and it's been fairly recent too, and it's, I think, in large part because of the discussions here in Austin and the starting discussions in the Houston area. And I think it's people are over time understanding more and more the beauty of the California experiment on the Alameda corridor, what they did, understand exactly what happened there, we can make it a much more efficient process in Texas for doing those things regularly.

And I think people are paying attention to it, and I think, in large part thanks to the media, we've gotten a lot of attention on this. And with things, unfortunately, in San Antonio with tanker cars spilling and some deaths resulting and things like that fresh on people's minds.

MR. NICHOLS: I was just going to comment that in trying to come up with numbers like you were talking about, I think we are doing a study to try to make an estimate of that statewide if you did a similar thing in each of the urbanized areas, and I can just tell you it's going to be up in the $5 billion plus kind of a range. So you would have to tackle it with assigning certain revenue source and bonding, something like this, to begin the process.

But it will take more than that. It will take a cooperative relationship with the railroads themselves as well as the communities, because those rails are in those communities in most cases to service the industries and businesses that are there which those communities want to protect and keep successful also. So it will only work if we can come up with, in addition to revenues, a good working relationship with the rail partners in this state, but there are good opportunities there.

MR. HOUGHTON: In my travels of the state, there's one common denominator and I haven't heard any negative issues regarding our initiatives to relocate rail. That is latched on or grabbed on by the broad base of people out there: get it out of my backyard, get it out from behind the school, we'd like to have that gone.

Now, that's the public. Of course, you want to protect industry that it does serve, but it's spanning the gamut, it really has.

MR. CHASE: Right, especially in the urban areas when you're moving lots of goods out of ports and you could get rid of all the at-grade crossings.

Again back to the California experience, it would take literally all day or just about all day for a train to leave the Port of Los Angeles to get to the other side of downtown -- and you can see downtown from the port -- because of all the grade crossings. They just dropped it underground and moved right ahead and then get through in 15 minutes or 20 minutes or something insane.

In that case it was financed through a dollar tax per car until the debt's paid off.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hey, you know what we need to add to our list? I'm sorry to interrupt you.

MR. CHASE: That's okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Brainstorm. On our federal efforts -- and particularly with Dan back there listening, we can get him to help us -- we should see if we can get our advocates in the federal legislation to amend the law to authorize FHWA to take the money they would have reimbursed us for doing grade separations and permit us somehow to take that same money and do relocates.

In other words, don't we get reimbursed for a certain part of our grade separations, Mike?

MR. BEHRENS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: We ought to put that in our federal package, Coby.

MR. CHASE: I would only counsel that you think bigger than just the money related to grade; I don't know if, at the end of the day, that would be that big a pot; I don't know. I would suggest maybe argue for broader flexibility in being able to use your federal funding when it's decided in a community that rail relocation is necessary.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And I'm okay with that too, but if we can't win that battle, I don't want to wait six years for the little bit. And the little bit, Dan would probably support that, would be my guess. What does he care if it's the grade separation or the rail just gets out of Brownsville? Either way, for him, traffic is enhanced.

MR. CHASE: The clear authority would be great, because when I came onboard ten years ago we were wrestling with I believe it's a community called Manchester near the Port of Houston, I believe, and they would show you pictures that would just make you want to cry. These trains would park and just completely block in this community for hours on end. Ambulances couldn't get through, there were kids crawling underneath train cars to get to their school bus.

And Congressman Green, who was new to Congress at the time, was working like crazy to get money that we could spend so we could help alleviate that problem, and it's just been in recent years that we've actually been able to fix it. That kind of shows you the insanity of just staring at an obvious problem and a number of people can't do anything about it.

And so I would hope we would at least start by advocating for complete flexibility in these situations to move these things.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, I know that the commission is aware the governor and his staff are fashioning their transportation package separate and apart from these things, and a key component, I'm given to understand, that this package might have to do with rail.

We are not stepping on toes or overlapping. I mean, our agenda and his agenda, we need to move on ours irrespective of what he decides will be his policy for the next few years.

MR. CHASE: I would hope they're complementary; I would suspect that they are.

Moving on, loan programs, there are two we tackle in this draft report. The first one is the department should be authorized to establish a state-funded State Infrastructure Bank program that models the federal program to offer loans to eligible recipients for roadway projects and to bypass the tangle of federal strings that complicate the current State Infrastructure Bank.

Second is the establishment of a state-funded State Infrastructure Bank -- we have to find a new name for those, that's complex -- for loans to public transportation providers for capital investments. In the LAR we have asked for $40 million in General Revenue to capitalize this fund.

Next is the Texas Mobility Fund. The last significant issue pertains to the Texas Mobility Fund. The full promise of the fund may not be realized if all we can do is one $3 billion issuance over the next 15 years.

About $400 million in transportation-related funds which go into the state's General Revenue Funds should be dedicated 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 those funds dedicated to the Mobility Fund. Increasing these fees could add another $15 million annually for the Mobility Fund.

I will now proceed to a discussion of those items of an operational nature which are included in the draft report before you.

Department-owned buildings. There's a definite need for the department to clarify its authority and responsibility regarding the construction of department-owned facilities. The department's authority in this regard has never been clearly spelled out in law and instead has rested mainly on attorney general opinions. The department should seek clear authority for us to construct, finance and manage our buildings.

Proceeds from the sale of department property. In a similar sense there have been interpretations of law which provided that when TxDOT sold its personal real property, the proceeds from that sale would be deposited back into the State Highway Fund. That was amended during the last session to put these proceeds into General Revenue. This needs to be reversed and apply not only to TxDOT but to the sale of Department of Public Safety property as well.

Concurrent jurisdiction for eminent domain cases. The number of courts authorized to hear eminent domain cases should be expanded. 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 the county courts of law, to hear eminent domain cases.

Second lowest bidder. The agency has recommended that the department's authority regarding the awarding of contracts to the second lowest bidder be expanded from $100,000 to $300,000. This should speed up the issuance of small contracts.

Employee recruitment and retention. Finally, there are two employment-related issues contained in the report. The two are: paying a night and weekend differential for those employees who are required to work non-traditional 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.

I would like to point out that the commission asked that we look into some bigger, broader issues and Cathy Williams has done that. Those are being worked through the State Agency Coordinating Council, and we will be a part of a larger agency group that tackles those issues. I just wanted you to know they're not in this report, but they are being handled in a separate venue.

MS. ANDRADE: Coby, will we know what they are?

MR. CHASE: Yes, I can get those to you. I can't recite them off the top of my head; I brought them up a few months ago. I'll get those to your office; I promise you that.

Are there any other issues that we seem to have missed that we would like in this report?

MR. WILLIAMSON: We'll begin with Ted. Additional issues?

MR. HOUGHTON: What is the amount of dollars going into GR on sale of personal property today?

MR. CHASE: I can't recall at the moment.

MR. HOUGHTON: And obviously the change in the law would be if you're going to buy advance purchase right of way and some day sell off what you don't use, you want it to come back to the agency, as an example.

MR. CHASE: Correct.

MR. HOUGHTON: Just curious on what it was.

MR. CHASE: On page 30 and 31 of the draft report, it goes through a set of numbers of between $2- and $3 million a year, plus or minus, I think, if I'm reading it correctly.

MR. HOUGHTON: Excess property, excess real estate?

MR. CHASE: Right.

MR. HOUGHTON: And if you get bigger footprints on advance right of way, it's going to be a larger number as you sell those pieces off.

MR. CHASE: Absolutely.

MR. HOUGHTON: That's all I have.

MS. ANDRADE: Coby, the only question I have is on rail relocation. In my travels throughout the state, I'm also hearing a lot of relief that we're addressing this problem. So my question to you is, is $200 million enough?

MR. CHASE: Well, you would bond against it, and that would give you a kick start.

MR. NICHOLS: That's $200 million a year.

MR. CHASE: I think it's $200 million over the biennium.

MR. NICHOLS: Biennium?

MS. ANDRADE: See, that's what I was wondering.

MR. CHASE: That would be $200 million over the biennium; $100 million per year, $200 million over the biennium.

MS. ANDRADE: So $100 million per year.

MR. CHASE: Right.

MS. ANDRADE: Okay. So you're okay with this?

MR. CHASE: Unless I'm told I'm not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: He's not necessarily okay, but he's telling us that's a beginning. What Mr. Nichols is telling us, the problem statewide is at least $5 billion, and I suspect it's higher than that.

MR. NICHOLS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The flip side is we probably couldn't logistically move them all in one two-year cycle.

MS. ANDRADE: I guess the question is to Mr. Behrens, are we protecting ourselves. I mean, is that enough?

MR. BEHRENS: It's not enough, but it's a start, and you know, $100 million a year, we could draw down a billion dollars worth of bonds.

MR. HOUGHTON: I mean, does it appear to be enough for a two-year period?

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think the way this would, in theory, work, you know, we always talk about Austin and it's a bad situation, but let's pick San Antonio and talk about it.

In theory, what would probably work is we would have to reach some kind of long-term agreement with UP -- which I think Brother Nichols is working on -- that says we're going to commit to each other to study seriously how we'd relocate. In the end, what we're going to have to do or the State is going to have to do, is build railroads for UP and BNSF and Kansas City Southern to move and use in exchange for giving up their assets inside our urban areas.

We can try to slice and dice it and cut it any way we want to, and I think this is exactly what the governor is going to propose. But in the end, the railroads were here first, and they will tell you that, and as much as we don't like it or like it, that's the way it is, and there's no reason for them to move.

As we've talked about on this dais many times, there's really only three groups of people that have any value associated with that right of way: them, us, or local government in Bexar County. Nobody else has any interest in that stuff because it's narrow and it probably has some environmental problems.

But what would happen is we'd probably pick a project in San Antonio, negotiate with the UP, make our deal, and spend the next two years executing that deal, and then be back to he legislature for additional funds to take care of Houston or Austin, Fort Worth or Dallas.

So $2 billion is not enough, I think we all know that, to solve the complete problem, but it probably is a pretty significant step.

MR. CHASE: I think El Paso had kind of an ambitious plan at one point.

MR. HOUGHTON: It was $500 million -- it's study.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Next month when we discuss that we can use El Paso as the example. And then we can use Jacksonville and Weatherford, Robert.

MR. NICHOLS: We had a derailment.

The entire issue of us doing the studies and being involved, to me, if we kind of back up and look at the broader picture, it was only in very recent years, the last few years that the legislature established TxDOT to be an agency to have rail not regulatory but true rail involvement.

I know there's another agency that has the word "railroad" in it but they don't really do a lot with rail. I would never propose to change the name but it may come up one of these days.

Anyway, the legislature established for us to be the transportation-related entity to work with the railroads, so as we begin working in those things, that's why we are now really in-depth studying the issues. The communities themselves have had these issues.

If we try to go for too much money until something has been proven that we can do a successful job with it, I think it would be unrealistic. But if we can get a beginning amount of money as a revenue source to begin the process of working with the communities and the rail companies and show good progress, then I think that the legislature may be more responsive to taking a bigger picture at a later date.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Coby, I was reading -- I'm sorry, Hope, was there anything else?

MS. ANDRADE: No. Thank you very much.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Robert?

MR. NICHOLS: First of all, just to re-emphasize we don't want to cause confusion on this conversion thing. I know it's going to be an issue so just as a reminder on taking that other piece as a separate thing, I think it's going to be confusing.

On fees, you were looking at some miscellaneous fees, and I know there's a list and I've seen a list floated around that kind of stand out, but there is another fee you might want to identify and at least see how much money you're talking about.

About four years ago, the legislature, in trying to resolve a property tax collection problem in cities and counties related to mobile homes, wanted some entity to certify that taxes were paid before mobile homes were moved.

MR. CHASE: Right.

MR. NICHOLS: So they assigned TxDOT, of all people.

MR. CHASE: Oh, that's right.

MR. NICHOLS: Because the mobile home had to move on the highway.

So we got the assignment any time somebody wants to move a mobile home in the state of Texas, we had to assign employees to check with the counties and school districts and things like that.

Now, the legislature did realize there was a cost to that, so they attached a $20 fee to cover the cost of getting that. Instead of TxDOT getting the $20 fee, we only get 30 cents of it which doesn't even come close to covering it, and the rest goes to General Revenue.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds pretty typical.

MR. CHASE: Yes, it sounds like a repeated pattern of abuse.

MR. NICHOLS: Sounds like somebody in appropriations.

(General laughter.)

MR. NICHOLS: Anyway, you might take a look at that.

MR. CHASE: Okay.

MR. NICHOLS: I think the fee was there to cover the cost which was the intent, but in effect, we ended up having to divert other resources to cover that cost, and it would be logical to include that in the fee.

MR. CHASE: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think I've commented on most everything I wanted to, Coby. Go ahead.

MR. NICHOLS: I had one other item. For the last couple of months I've said something about contracting practices. I know that was an issue. I still want you to continue to look and see if there may be some opportunities.

MR. CHASE: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Particularly in context of what the Fed does and I think what other states do, we'd be interested in that.

The one thing that's come to me since you started this that I might like you to do some work on before next meeting so that the other members could see the results, I was reading an article in one of the multiple journals we all get about transportation and vehicles and things of that nature, and there was a pretty interesting article in one of these trade journals about the Arizona method of temporary license plates.

And the reason it caught my eye was I recently had an experience with an employee who had purchased a vehicle and kept the temporary plate on perhaps a little bit longer than he should have, and I realized that we still have cardboard plates that dealers put on cars when they're taken off the lot. Have we ever done any research on whether that's an efficient system, is it cost effective?

In the Arizona article I read, the director of motor vehicles out there alleged that the state ended up saving or recapturing around $20 million a year of escaped registration fees at the county and state level because of the old system that they replaced.

MR. CHASE: I know our Motor Vehicle Division has looked into this. The temporary tag you get when you buy a car, the dealer issues it -- I'm sure our Motor Vehicle Division could provide you a sample one -- they are insanely easy to counterfeit. Not only is it a revenue issue, these plates are used in the commission of crimes, they're used so you don't have to pay a registration fee, and all you need is a scanner and a printer at home and you can make your own.

And if I remember correctly, the Arizona system -- and I could be wrong -- is just so simple that there's no reason why you wouldn't do it.

Those temporary tags, all they do is they put a date, it expires on this date, and it doesn't say this is attached to a 2004 Dodge. You sign down at the bottom and an officer has to get up close and it's a huge problem to figure out if that plate belongs to that car.

In Arizona what they do is the dealer prints -- if I remember correctly -- prints out the plate right there, it's hooked into the motor vehicle system, prints it out right there. It says "This belongs to a 2004 Dodge"; it has a unique number like a license plate; it kicks out the serial number and a clear expiration date. And it's just printed out on a piece of paper and it's stuck in a plastic envelope and screwed onto the license plate cover, and so the officer can see from a distance that that's the right plate and can call in that number to see if it's legitimate.

And what they realized is they feel 100 percent compliance, that it cut down on people not registering their cars, they're collecting the revenues they deserved or that they were entitled to, and it created not just a bump but a sustained level of revenue for them. And the other side of this is, again, these are used quite frequently, from what I understand at any rate, in the commission of crime, and you could drive all the way to Canada with one of these with a dirty bomb in the trunk or whatever you want to do. They're just not that sophisticated.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Take a look at that and be prepared to educate the commission on some recommendations.

MR. CHASE: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I want to thank you for your hard work. I know this has been laborious for you and Jefferson and the staff, but I say one more time, the Socratic Method, we don't want any secrets. We want our world to know what's coming in and what we believe in and don't believe in so that we can have a proper dialogue and perhaps not be fighting with each other.

Members, I think it's appropriate at this time to take a six-minute-and-three-second potty break, so we'll come back in six minutes and three seconds.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me announce for the benefit of all listening or all present, to assist you in your planning, we're not going to take a lunch break today. If we go longer than is tolerable, the commission members will order out sandwiches and one at a time they'll take care of their lunch, but we're going to press on today. We have reasons to need to be through earlier rather than later.

Mike, I think we were at number 5.

MR. BEHRENS: That's correct. We'll go to agenda item number 5, Transportation Planning, and Jim Randall will present three items, the first being to authorize the 2005 Statewide Mobility Program which is a part of the 2005 Unified Transportation Program. Jim?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens, and Julie. My name is Jim Randall with the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Item 5(a), the minute order we bring before you today approves the 2005 Statewide Mobility Program of the Unified Transportation Program, or the UTP. The UTP is the basic transportation planning document that guides and controls project development for the department.

In order to align the UTP with the simplified budget strategies outlined in the strategic plan, the department has divided the UTP into two documents: the Statewide Preservation Program known as the SPP, and the Statewide Mobility Program known as the SMP. The SMP is part of the BUILD IT budget strategy and contains all the department's categories which enhance the transportation system.

Additionally, the 2005-2007 Aviation Capital Improvement Program, as recommended by the Aviation Advisory Committee at its August 20, 2004 meeting, is being submitted for your consideration.

Also included in the SMP are public transportation project listings and program information for 2005 through 2008. Actual transit program allocations and grant recipients will be approved by future minute orders.

A 30-day comment period regarding the draft 2005 SMP ended October 29, 2004 with one comment received. Staff has reviewed the comment and recommends a project substitution in Category 3, Urban Area Corridor Projects, for the Pharr District.

As a result of the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan, the metropolitan planning organizations and TxDOT's districts representing the eight largest metropolitan areas prioritized projects within a fiscally constrained program. Category 2 of the Statewide Mobility Program was a result of this coordination.

The entire 2005 UTP is the culmination of at least four years of work and restructuring the UTP in coordination with the MPOs, regional planning authorities, county judges and TxDOT staff.

With approval of this minute order, the department may continue project planning and development for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, we, surprisingly enough, have no witnesses, so the floor is open for your questions and dialogue with Jim. Take a moment to absorb.

I know we have a variety of handouts and they will explain the information as we talk about it here this morning, but just to emphasize the way we've approached this is to understand what we're doing here, we've said had the governor and the legislature not acted, had the people not amended the constitution, and had the commission not moved forward on new mobility, new construction in the metro areas, on these items we would have spent around $6-1/2 billion?

MR. RANDALL: About $6.8 billion, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Which would have been out of our normal cash flow of state gas tax, federal gas tax reimbursement, and our share of vehicle registration fees.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As a result of the Mobility Fund and the Safety Fund, thus far, and we haven't used the Ogden-Pickett Bonds to their fullest, but as a result thus far, coupled with the tremendous effort that's been made or put forth by Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, and a good effort by the others, the total amount of new construction we should be able to achieve is going to be something on the order of $14 billion?

MR. RANDALL: $15.4 million -- billion. I'm sorry.

MR. BEHRENS: With a "B."

MR. WILLIAMSON: So over the next ten years is it an accurate statement that the amount of congestion relief dollars flowing to the metro areas will better than double as a result of the plans and the actions we take today?

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir, and the leveraging that they're doing with these projects.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And all of the projects that were identified or would be identified and placed into the ten-year plan, of all the projects, 90 percent of those will be accelerated to begin 50 percent faster.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: As a result of that, projects that lay out at 12 and 15 and 16 years, in theory will now move into these six- to 12-year cycles.

MR. RANDALL: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So this would be the single largest step this state has ever taken to address congestion in the metro areas of the state.

MR. RANDALL: It's a good day to be a Texan.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I would say we're moving forward with this one.

Ted?

MR. HOUGHTON: Well, you kind of covered everything I had to say. Do we get a button that says "90-50"?

MR. RANDALL: No, sir.

MR. HOUGHTON: That would be a nice shirt: "Don't Mess With Texas 90-50."

Tremendous work that the regions have done to accelerate these programs to use the tools that were provided during the last session. I congratulate all the MPOs and I call them the champions in the state that have rallied around these new tools.

Like I said, a historic day today. I look forward to it.

MS. ANDRADE: Jim, it certainly is a great time in Texas.

I would like to thank you and your staff for meeting with me and helping me understand this since it's my first time around. And I agree with Ted, everybody should be congratulated on being visionary and creative, and we did, we took advantage of every tool that's been given to us. So now let's make it work.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, ma'am.

MS. ANDRADE: Thank you very much.

MR. NICHOLS: I certainly didn't have any questions but the comments I was going to make, when we opened the meeting and the chair asked for comments, I said there were going to be some historic things today, and this is it. I mean, it is really huge, it is what we call a big deal.

And it's a number of things that have all come together that everybody has been working with for a number of years, all the way back to reducing the categories of funding, simplifying the process, going to an allocation basis on new construction or expanding capacity in the urbanized areas.

It incorporates the local input, having the MPO working with the district, them selecting the projects and rearranging the schedule of the projects, true local control, local input.

It incorporates the tolling which just a very few years ago we were prohibited from using state funds on toll projects. It incorporates the Texas Mobility Fund, it incorporates the proposition bonds. It has taken all of this stuff over a several-year transition and that which has passed, put them together, and a lot of people worked very hard, a lot of people have had real visions on this, and the result is as defined by the chair: we're going to do more than twice as much in true congestion relief in urbanized areas and we're going to do it in half the time. That's almost like a multiple of four that otherwise would not have been done.

So hats off. It's a great day for Texas.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me exercise the prerogative of the chair and take a moment to use you, Jim, as a way of speaking to our greater audience across the state and to those in the room involved in transportation every day.

This process started in particular when the local toll component began. There were several communities in Texas, I think we referred to it earlier in the year as having engaged in an intense conversation about transportation in their communities, and it wasn't without pain, it wasn't without some perhaps yelling and screaming.

We took no joy in seeing the roughness in El Paso; we took no joy in seeing what leaders in Austin had to go through as CAMPO worked through their plan; a little lesser extent in north Texas, I think that Michael had done a good job of preparing the region; almost no roughness in Houston other than the State Highway 249 conversion topic because they're used to toll roads; perhaps some angst in San Antonio, but not a lot; I think Corpus Christi went fine and I don't think there was much problem elsewhere in the state.

But we were urged by many people in the transportation world at the local level and by some politicians either directly or indirectly through their press releases and off-the-cuff statements about tolls, to insert ourselves into that local process.

The guy we work for made it very clear that he believes in regional planning and local execution and he would stand with us and take the criticism until this process was over because he has faith in city council persons and county commissioners and transportation planners and citizens who participate in this process.

And just as Governor Perry predicted, the worst parts of every plan that people spoke of were ultimately removed in the local process. We stayed out of it, as he instructed us; he stayed out of it. The result was a pretty robust and forward-thinking plan for each of the metro areas that combines local commitment, state resources to create a partnership to address these problems.

And I think the commission and hopefully the legislature, and I know the governor take great pride in the work we've done and the work our local leaders have done to address our problems ourselves. We're not waiting for the "Federal Road Fairy" to show up, we're not waiting for the miraculous change in this state's philosophy in the passage of a huge gasoline tax. We are moving forward to fix our own problems, a true Texas tradition, and I think we should all be proud of that.

MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your work. Do I have a motion?

MR. NICHOLS: So moved.

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. Congratulations, Texas.

MR. RANDALL: Okay, sir. Item 5(b), this minute order authorizes the executive director to develop an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the City of Austin for a slope stabilization project on US 183 at Boggy Creek.

Extensive stream bank erosion has occurred along the creek in the vicinity of the US 183 crossing. Immediate mitigation steps are necessary to prevent further damage from undermining of the channel lining at the end of the Corps flood control project completed in the 1980s.

Erosion has exposed a 48-inch wastewater collector and the pier system and abutment slope protection of the US 183 bridge structure.

The city will be the project sponsor and has coordinated with the Corps to identify federal cost-share funding opportunities and an acceptable stabilization approach. The Corps will provide up to $1 million in funding and will manage the design and construction phases.

The total cost of the project is $2.2 million. The Corps will provide up to $1 million. The department will provide an amount not to exceed $600,000 in Category 11 Austin District Discretionary Funds for the portion of the project associated with the bridge structure. The city will be responsible for the remaining $600,000 in addition to any cost overruns.

This minute order will expedite the agreement process by authorizing TxDOT to develop an agreement involving the city and the Corps. No new TxDOT fun