AUG27TRN
BEFORE THE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING
Dewitt Greer Building
Commission Room
125 East 11th Street
Austin, Texas
9:00 a.m.
Thursday,
August 26, 1999
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
DAVID M. LANEY, Chair
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
JOHN W. JOHNSON
STAFF:
CHARLES W. HEALD, Executive Director
JOSIE PELLEGRINO, Executive Assistant,
Engineering Operations
I N D E X
AGENDA ITEM: PAGE:
CONVENE MEETING 6
1. Approval of Minutes of the July 29, 1999 regular
meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission 6
2. Reports
a. Various Counties - The Corpus Christi
Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from
the intersection of US 77 and IH 37 to
US 181; FM 511 from US 77/83 to the Port
of Brownsville, and US 83 from Brownsville
to Laredo - Presentation of findings of the
US 83/Port Roads Feasibility Study Report 7
b. Austin-San Antonio Corridor Commuter Rail
Study Feasibility Report - Comments from
Jeff Judson, Texas Public Policy Foundation,
and Bennett Feinsilber, Brontexi Corp. 14
3. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations Under Title
43, Texas Administrative Code, Part I, Pursuant
to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Government
Code, Chapter 2001:
a. Emergency and Proposed Adoption
Chapter 30 - Aviation (MO)
New ((30.401-30.405 (Regulation of
Aircraft on Water) 35
b. Proposed Adoption
(1) Chapter 9 - Contract Management (MO)
Amendments to ((9.10-9.20 (Highway
Improvement Contracts) 37
(2) Chapter 18 - Motor Carriers: Vehicle
Storage Facilities (MO)
Amendments to (18.87, Notifications
Regarding Towed Vehicles; and (18.96,
Disposal of Certain Vehicles 41
(3) Chapter 28 - Oversize and Overweight
Vehicles and Loads (MO)
Amendments to (28.13, Time Permits;
(28.30, Permits for Over Axle and Over
Gross Weight Tolerances; ((28.41-28.45,
Permits for Oversize and Overweight
Oil Well Related Vehicles; and
((28.62-28.64, Permits for Oversize
and Overweight Unladen Lift
Equipment Motor Vehicles 43
3. c. Final Adoption
(1) Chapter 2 - Environmental Policy (MO)
Amendments to (2.61, Purpose and Scope;
and (2.62, Definitions; New (2.71,
Adopt-an-Airport Program (Public
Participation Programs) 43
(2) Chapter 28 - Oversize and Overweight
Vehicles and Loads (MO)
Amendments to ((28.90-28.92 (Port
Authority Permits) 44
4. Programs
a. Adopt the FY 2000-2002 Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (MO) 46
b. Various Counties - Approval of adjustments
to participation ratios for projects
located in economically disadvantaged
counties (MO) 51
c. Webb County - Authorize the department to
enter into an agreement with the City of
Laredo to apply for a United States
Economic Development Administration grant
for development along the IH 35 frontage
roads near the Uniroyal Interchange (MO) 53
5. State Infrastructure Bank
Cherokee County - City of Jacksonville - In
accordance with 43 TAC (6.32(e), consider
granting final approval of an application
from the City of Jacksonville to borrow
$350,000 from the State Infrastructure Bank
for the cost of purchasing right of way for
the extension of US 175, and authorize the
executive director to enter into a financial
assistance agreement with the City of
Jacksonville pursuant to 43 TAC Chapter 6,
Subchapter E (MO) 53
6. Aviation
Approval of the Aviation Facilities Grant
Program for FY 2000 (MO) 54
7. Public Transportation
South Plains CAA (SPARTAN) - Authorize
discretionary state funding to replace vehicle
destroyed in an accident (MO) 55
8. Contracts (MOs)
Award or rejection of contracts:
(1) Maintenance 56
(2) Highway Construction 57
9. Routine Minute Orders
a. Speed Zones
Various Counties - Establish or alter
regulatory and construction speed zones
on various sections of highways in the
state (MO) 59
b. Load Zones
Various Counties - Revision of load
restrictions on various roads and bridges
on the state highway system (MO) 60
c. Highway Designation
Jim Wells County - Designate the former
location of US 281 in the City of Alice,
as Business US 281-R - From US 281,
approximately 1.0 mile north of FM 3376,
southward to present US 281 at FM 625, a
distance of approximately 7.8 miles (MO) 60
d. Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease
(1) Dallas County - SH 114 - Northeast
Corner at SH 161 in the City of
Irving - Consider the sale of a
tract of surplus right of way to
the abutting landowner (MO) 60
(2) Johnson County - SH 174 - Southwest
Corner at FM 731 in the City of
Burleson - Consider the exchange of a
tract of surplus right of way for needed
right of way (MO) 60
(3) Kaufman County - SH 205 - Northwest
Corner at US 80 in the City of Terrell
Consider the sale of a surplus
engineering and maintenance site (MO) 60
e. Donation to the Department
Clay County - FM 1197 at Turkey Creek -
Consider the acceptance of land donations
(R. Knox Egan and Evelyn Wilson Egan) (MO) 60
f. Authorization of Building and Ground
Improvements
Potter County - Southwest Corner of
IH 40 and Spur 468 in the City of
Amarillo - Approval of funding for
land acquisition for a new Texas
Travel Information Center (MO) 60
9. g. Eminent Domain Proceedings
Various Counties - Request for eminent
domain proceedings on noncontrolled and
controlled access highways (MO) 61
10. Executive Session Pursuant to Government Code,
Chapter 551 62
a. Section 551.071 - Consultation with and
advice from legal counsel
b. Section 551.072 - Discussion of real property
purchase, exchange, lease, donations
c. Section 551.074 - Discuss the evaluation,
designation, reassignment, and duties of the
individual district engineers, division
directors, and office directors
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 62
ADJOURN 73
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. LANEY: Good morning. The August 26 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission is called to order. Public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Secretary of State's Office at 10:59 a.m. on August 18, 1999.
Let me start by saying we've been lucky on the coast with respect to the hurricane, but TxDOT was ready, willing, and able, and delighted to know they didn't have to put their forces into action. So we were awfully doggone lucky in terms of bridges, roads, equipment, and lives. I think we'll be readier for the next one than we were for this one.
Any comments from either of my two compadres?
MR. JOHNSON: I have none.
MR. LANEY: None? Okay. We don't have any delegations this morning, so we can go ahead and get started with the regular agenda. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the July 29, 1999, meeting of the Commission.
MR. NICHOLS: I move we accept.
MR. JOHNSON: I second.
MR. LANEY: We have a motion and second. All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Approved.
I think at that point we're to you, Wes.
Let's go ahead and do the reports. Item 2(a) -- let's go ahead and ask Al Luedecke to present the first report.
MR. LUEDECKE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Al Luedecke, Director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division for the Department, and we're pleased to bring to you a very brief report today on a study that's been underway for a while, US 83/Ports Road Study, as we've come to know it.
In the area of background, these three corridors we're going to discuss today were part of an amendment to the 1995 NHS Appropriations Act that was a follow-on to what was then called ISTEA, and it added three roads to a distinguished number of corridors, high-priority corridors, that ultimately were identified as Interstate 69. These additions were made too late to the Corridor 20 and Corridor 18 panels, but -- and so they were put together as a study to be studied individually and separately from those larger corridors that they were involved in.
The objective of the study was to determine if a freeway was feasible, and the process was the same for each of the individual corridors analyzed. The idea was to assess the current and future needs of the corridor, determine if a freeway was feasible, and then if so, develop an implementation plan. The three corridors, as I said, were analyzed separately, and recommendations and improvements were made as an individual corridor in each case.
The analysis included data gathering and establishing alternatives and evaluating the alternatives based on the mobility, which would be, of course, traffic and safety and level of service, the environmental impacts and potential problems that might be involved with each one, how constructable each of the projects were -- in other words, could they be built -- and the public support for each of the alternatives.
The first one we looked at was the Northside Highway and Rail Corridor location that's in Corpus Christi. It's approximately 12 miles long and runs between I 37 on the west and US 181 on the east, between Nueces Bay to the north and the Tule Lake Channel on the south, seen as the dark blue in this particular drawing.
The advantages to this route: It would provide access to northern portion of the port, would provide an alternative connection between I 37 and US 181, and would serve as a bypass for the Harbor Bridge, which is the bridge from 181 down into Corpus Christi, and would also serve as a relief rail for the rail bypass in the Tule Lake Bridge, which is in the channel.
Traffic was modeled for a four-lane, controlled-access facility, but as we got into the study, we determined the traffic didn't warrant a freeway. Early in the analysis, it was determined that a freeway was not feasible, so the remainder of the analysis was done based on a two-lane cross-section.
A grade-separated railroad crossing was recommended to increase safety on the far western end, where the railroad crossed over the proposed roadway. To minimize impacts of proposed alignment on the wetlands north of the railroad, it was recommended that the railroad be realigned slightly to allow the roadway to go in its path. There were really no significant environmental impacts in this particular area.
The cost for this facility is estimated roughly now at just over $33 million. There was no benefit-cost ratio on this, because the freeway wasn't feasible; it didn't fulfill that requirement. And the proposed cross-section is now two 12-foot lanes with a 14-foot center turn lane, and the Port and folks in the Corpus Christi area have agreed to this particular cross-section.
The project was given $8.25 million in demonstration or high-priority corridor money in TEA-21, and the Port has begun the design work and EIS studies, and the district has developed a funding package with the MPO to be presented later on in this year.
The implementation plan would consist initially of placing soil on the alignment to begin the compaction of that embankment over time -- this is right at sea level, and compaction of this material takes quite a bit of time to get it stabilized -- and also the construction of a new road from Interstate 37 to Navigation, an upgrade of Navigation Boulevard, which intersects Interstate 37.
The next corridor we analyzed was FM 511, which is located in Brownsville. It's approximately ten miles long and connects US 77/83 to the Port of Brownsville, and it serves as an arterial connection between the Port and 77, which is becoming a major NAFTA highway. It's currently two 12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders, and there are no traffic signals, but there are three four-way stop signs at US 77, 1847, and State Highway 47, currently on a 100-foot right of way.
The existing level of service was found to be acceptable for this facility at A and B, with a small section between 77 and 1847 at CD, which is adequate. However, when we looked at the year 2020, the no-build or as-is condition would cause this facility to go to level of service E, which is generally unsatisfactory. 2020 traffic on the freeway would run approximately 20,000 over the length with a level of service at AB.
Again, no significant environmental issues. The alignment stays to the south of Palo Alto Battlefield, which is a historic site, and is compatible.
The cost for the facility is estimated at just over $65 million. Our benefit cost ratio is 3.89 because of the expected increase in traffic; therefore, this is an extremely feasible project and has been identified as a trade corridor.
Implementation plan would be to build either the main lanes or the frontage roads until such time as traffic warrants and money becomes available to continue the facility to its full controlled-access status.
The final corridor analyzed was US 83 corridor. It begins at US 77/83 interchange in Brownsville, continues west to the I 35 interchange in Laredo, a distance of about 204 miles. Of the 204 miles, 31 miles are in Laredo District, 173 are in the Pharr District, and existing road cross-sections range from one-way street pairs in Laredo to the controlled access facility in the Valley. So it's truly a very varied highway.
Existing level of services range from AB in the rural sections, particularly in the Starr County area, to E and F as you near the urban areas along in the Valley and, of course, in Laredo. In the future, no-build leaves the level of service at E and F over nearly the entire corridor. The preferred corridor shown here has relief routes around Laredo, Zapata, Roma, Rio Grande City, La Joya, Sullivan City.
The cost for this facility is considerably more, just over $623 million. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.97. This is a trunk system route, of course, and is Phase I corridor. Laredo's outer loop is covered under the Border Task Force Initiatives and will be considered as a separate item.
Again, this is an extremely feasible project. Because this is Phase I trunk route, the implementation plan will begin with a conversion of the route to four-lane divided, then to freeway traffic as traffic warrants and money becomes available.
With that, that's a brief rundown on the report. You have copies of the executive summary in your documentation. The report is in its final stages of editing and preparation and will be out hopefully about the middle of next month. We would hope to bring this back for your approval at the next Commission meeting, and I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Al. Does anyone have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: Your comment on the study results in the Phase I corridors on the trunk system -- the report is basically confirming, also supporting, that they complement each other? It works well?
MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, they do. The idea of the Phase I trunk system -- the difference here is that instead of developing ultimately to a four-lane divided uncontrolled access facility, we should be developing to a controlled access facility in the ultimate. Much of 83 in the urbanized areas is controlled access, and particularly in the Valley, and in need of expansion in some areas.
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: I don't have a question, but my observation is that given the dynamic of what's going on down in the Valley area, this is an extremely timely study and hopefully will result in some projects that are much needed and will benefit the area considerably.
MR. LUEDECKE: Yes. I believe they will. The issue, of course, is the funding, but the district engineers along the border are extremely dynamic people, and I would expect to see quite a number of projects as a result of this.
MR. JOHNSON: One point of curiosity, and that is, why the disparity in the cost -- benefit-cost ratio? I assume on 83, because the cost is so high that --
MR. LUEDECKE: The high cost is what did it. And there's quite a bit of it that, quite frankly, in Starr County and between Laredo and, say, Roma it's extremely rural, and the traffic growth will not be near as fast there. The traffic you're going to see there, particularly NAFTA-related traffic, we're not quite sure how that's going to develop with the work that's going on in Tamulipas State to bring traffic around to the Valley by all the work they've done in the mountain area there in the Sierra Madres.
We're not sure how that's going to shift just yet, and I think that probably has a -- plus the fact that so much of it was already controlled access, that a lot of it is expansion.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. LANEY: No more questions?
(No response.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Al. We appreciate it very much.
Next we'll go to Item 2(b), reports relating to the San Antonio Corridor commuter rail study feasibility report. Mr. Jeff Judson wanted to make some comments, representing the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Mr. Judson, let me just urge you to keep it at about 15 minutes, please -- the combined commentary, please.
MR. JUDSON: All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
My name is Jeff Judson. I'm President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. We're a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research institute. We accept no government funds. We do no contract research. We're an independent research organization that just does research on important public policy issues.
The -- we have begun doing research on transit projects like commuter rail, and our first research on this type of thing was a performance review we did on VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority in San Antonio. And since then, we've conducted performance reviews of Capital Metro here in Austin, Houston METRO, and DART in Dallas, and I've provided copies of those for all of you all. Each of those discuss not only transit but also the issues of light rail and commuter rail, which really get more into the areas that you all are involved in on a day-to-day basis.
We've analyzed the efficacy of light rail in Dallas, and light rail proposals are being considered in San Antonio, Houston, and Austin currently. Today, we're releasing this analysis of the Carter-Burgess feasibility study of the commuter rail proposal between San Antonio and Austin that you all sponsored.
We feel that public transit does a very good job of providing mobility to the transit dependent: the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. But as it seeks to expand into light rail and commuter rail, it's really seeking to supplant roads, road expansions, and private vehicle use; and, therefore, we think it's real important to present these findings to you all today.
Let me also state at the outset that I really couldn't disagree more with the conclusion of the Carter-Burgess report that commuter rail is in any way a feasible option for the corridor. Their study says that "While travel by private automobile is the dominant mode of transport, future expansion of the highway network in this corridor will be unable to keep up with the anticipated growth. As such, it is necessary to explore and evaluate any and all viable transportation alternatives within the corridor, including commuter rail service."
They then go on to conclude that commuter rail is indeed a viable option for dealing with congestion with the corridor.
So let me give you a summary of our findings, and then I'll graphically present them in a little bit more detail. And let me also say that statistics can be used and misused, and they can be selected so that they paint a particular picture. I'm going to try to slice these statistics in as many ways possible so that you'll know we're not trying to cook the numbers here.
Our study shows that the ridership projection is reasonable. They project -- Carter-Burgess projects 8,000 daily riders when the project opens, increasing to 11,000 in 2020. This could possibly be a little bit conservative. However, the ridership projection is inconsequential. Interstate 35 has a daily volume of over 200,000 vehicles, 330,000 people per day. Commuter rail would have little impact on traffic congestion. Less than five-tenths of 1 percent of traffic in Austin and four-tenths of a percent on traffic in San Antonio would be removed. That's less than one out of every 200 automobiles.
Commuter rail travel times would be longer than automobile. Capital costs would be near $500 million. We feel that's a very low figure; we think it would probably be double that. And the commuter rail line will be costly to operate, more than double the average cost per passenger mile of other new commuter rail routes around the United States.
The commuter rail line will require a tax increase. It will not be as safe as other modes of transportation. It will be more costly than highway improvements, and there are alternatives that can reduce traffic congestion more effectively.
Let me begin by talking about commuter rail ridership and IH 35 vehicle traffic in 2000. You can just barely see the line on the bottom, the green line. That represents the number of vehicles that would be removed from the freeway from commuter rail in the year 2000. In the year 2020 it gets worse, because according to the Carter-Burgess report, the commuter rail system will lose market share. The percentage of people riding the rail, compared to daily traffic on IH 35, will actually reduce as a percentage.
Here, you look at the segments all along IH 35 from Round Rock to Kelly Air Force Base. And again, the commuter rail impact of -- this is peak-hour rail usage, and IH 35 freeway person volume, which is an important distinction to make. The commuter rail is in blue. You probably can't discern any blue on this chart, because the number of passengers and their impact on the freeway person volume is too hard to see. You can just barely see a widening of the line in Segments 5, 6, and 7, but essentially that's what we're talking about.
Then if you look at the growth in freeway traffic versus the growth in commuter rail ridership -- again, the yellow line is the growth in freeway traffic that's projected between the year 2000 and 2020. The line on the right, the little sliver, is the growth that Carter-Burgess projects in the ridership in commuter rail.
Now, you can discern an impact if you just compare peak-hour commuter rail usage and IH 35 freeway-lane capacity with a single freeway lane. There you can actually see a little bit of a commuter rail impact. But even during peak travel periods, commuter rail would carry and infinitesimal share of the travel market. Two-way commuter rail volume at the highest loading point would barely equal one-tenth of the hourly passenger capacity of a one-way, single lane on Interstate 35.
Again, the impact of commuter rail on freeway traffic with and without commuter rail -- here is a chart showing the market share of commuter rail in Austin in the year 2000, and here are the numbers that represent that. Basically, you're talking about 1,500 automobiles removed by commuter rail in central Austin and 910 removed at the most congested point in San Antonio, which is that five-tenths and four-tenths of a percent of traffic reduction.
Again, there is the market share in 2020 in Austin, which is an even smaller little sliver.
And here is -- this shows the reduction in market share between 2000 and 2020. Basically in Austin the commuter rail would lose 13.6 percent of the traffic market share and 6-1/2 percent in New Braunfels and San Antonio.
This is consistent with other modes of transit -- of public transit. This is the estimated transit market share for buses, and in the case of Dallas, light rail. They only carry 1-1/2 percent of traffic in Austin, 1 percent in Dallas, et cetera, less than -- so they really -- public transit in any major city in Texas doesn't have really a measurable impact on traffic reduction. Here is the traffic reduction attributable to transit. It's less than 1 percent in all four cities.
Travel time is a primary reason why people will not ride commuter rail. It's because if you were to walk straight onto the train and go directly to where you want to go versus taking your own automobile, it's going to take longer in commuter rail, based upon the Carter-Burgess report and the data that we added to that. Then -- but what makes it really worse is when you add in the access to the train. That's what really makes it an unfeasible option for people, because -- and we took it from UT Austin to southeast San Antonio, to the same points. If you were to drive it on the highway it would take a little over an hour and a half. If you were to drive to the train station, buy a ticket, get on the train, and then have to drive to another spot when you got off of the train, you're talking about an hour extra to ride the commuter rail line. And that is why people don't see it as a viable alternative.
Using the data in the Carter-Burgess report, it's estimated that the commuter rail line would cost 85 cents per passenger mile to build and another 59 cents per passenger mile to operate. This combined capital and operating cost of $1.44 per passenger mile is nearly double the average for new commuter rail lines around the United States.
And these are a listing of those new commuter rail lines. And we say new because the old ones are in New York and Chicago and places where you have very, very different development patterns. The new ones are the ones that are a better comparison with the one that we would be building in the corridor.
As far as cost comparison goes, we think that, according to the data from Carter-Burgess, the rail cost per new commuter is greater than it would cost to buy or lease any of those new commuters a new luxury car, and you would have money left over at the end. You're basically talking about $12,000 per new commuter. For every passenger that is riding the rail, you are spending $12,000 per year.
But more importantly, when you talk about each automobile driver -- because commuter rail passengers only reduce traffic congestion if they were former automobile drivers. If they were riding the bus, or if they were a passenger in another person's car, or if they would not have taken the trip otherwise if there hadn't been a train, then they're not reducing traffic congestion. And it is estimated that no more than 70 percent of commuter rail riders will be former automobile drivers; so, therefore, the cost per automobile driver attracted will be much higher, at over $17,000 a year.
This is enough to lease a BMW 700 series car for every new passenger -- every new automobile driver, plus enough to pay for the round-trip airfares for the BMW driver and four of his or her friends to the BMW plant in Germany. We think this is really ridiculous.
Let's look at safety. People think that commuter rail is possibly safer than driving an automobile. Not according to US Department of Transportation data. Commuter rail per fatalities, per 100 million passenger miles, are highest for light rail and commuter rail. They're almost double what a United States urban automobile is. And so even safety, particularly taking into account that there could be over 100 -- there could be, I think, near 100 grade crossings for this rail project between Kelly Air Force Base and Georgetown, and that's where the drop in safety comes.
If you look at a cost-per-passenger mile for new commuter rail and freeways, the comparison is striking. According to the Carter-Burgess report, a freeway lane could be added in each direction over the entire commuter rail route for $425 million; $50 million less than building the commuter rail line. This small difference becomes huge when converted to a cost-per-passenger mile. The capital and operating costs of the commuter rail line is more than seven times more than the freeway lane, which includes the private cost of vehicle ownership and operation.
Here you have those figures that show the differential in cost between a freeway lane going both directions and the commuter rail project.
This is the commuter rail ridership of all commuter rail systems in the United States. New York accounts for well over half. That's just that single system. Chicago is about a fifth. And all the four other historical systems: Boston, San Francisco -- again, cities with older development patterns -- account for most of the rest. Now, all five of the new systems all combined have that little sliver, and the San Antonio-Austin corridor would add very little to that little sliver.
We think there are much more realistic strategies for reducing traffic congestion than commuter rail. New highways can and should be constructed. There's plenty of right of way between San Antonio and Austin to add freeways. Even in places where you'd have to double-deck and things, it would still be far less expensive than adding commuter rail. Traffic bottlenecks should be removed where the freeway goes down to too few lanes. High occupancy toll lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes can carry significantly higher volumes than new commuter rail systems, and can easily be converted to general purpose lanes if we ever wanted to do that.
We are encouraging people to basically use the DeLay criteria. These were proposed by Congressman Tom DeLay to evaluate any transportation project, and we think these are ones that should be applied to this project. Basically, the effectiveness: The project proposed must materially reduce traffic congestion during peak hours. Commuter rail does not do that.
Cost efficiency: The proposed project must be the most cost-effective strategy for achieving the traffic congestion reduction, and the planning process must have included an objective analysis of all reasonable alternatives. We don't feel that the Carter-Burgess study is in any way an objective analysis.
So in conclusion, I would ask you all to exert your influence in Washington to stop the federal flow of dollars for these wasteful projects and put them into projects that actually will improve the quality of life and mobility in Texas and other states.
Please don't lend your endorsement to the Carter-Burgess study. I understand that TxDOT paid for it. The money passed through. But we keep hearing it referred to as the TxDOT study, as if you all have endorsed this project in some way. So I would hope that you can make clear that you are neutral or do not endorse it. And please do what you can to use scarce transportation money wisely in Texas, as I know you all try to do anyway.
My presentation is really separate from Mr. Feinsilber's, so I'd be happy to answer any questions now if you all have any.
MR. LANEY: Do any of you all have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: The report's pretty self-evident.
MR. LANEY: No. I don't think there are any questions. Thank you.
MR. JUDSON: Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Mr. Feinsilber, if you'll state your name for the record.
MR. FEINSILBER: Yes. I'm Bennett Feinsilber, and I'm from San Antonio. I'm representing AGC and also myself.
Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Nichols, Commissioner Johnson, and Director Heald. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak before you. You all may be wondering who I am and why I'm here. I'm a semi-retired former president of a heavy highway construction company, a U.S. subsidiary of a $34 billion European conglomerate.
As such, my company participated as joint venture partners in numerous large, foreign and domestic projects which included large rail projects, and including for a while we were part of the Texas High Speed Rail Project, and we also proposed on the Honolulu Rapid Transit Project. For the past four years I've been chairman of AGC of America's International Division, and as such, I represented AGC in numerous foreign venues.
I began working in the construction industry at age 14 for my father, who is an electrical contractor. And as luck would have it, my first job was on an underground railroad station. About a third of my working career has been spent on freight and passenger railroads. I'm a licensed professional engineer. I hold three degrees in civil engineering from the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science. In short, I'm qualified and knowledgeable in railroad construction.
A number of my friends in AGC have asked me to review this Austin-San Antonio commuter rail feasibility study, and that's why I'm here. And I'd like to recognize Mr. Robert E. Lee, who's our AGC area chairman in San Antonio, and Mr. Dean Word, who is the past AGC area chairman. And both are on AGC of Texas' executive committee.
As you know, AGC is both a public interest group, as well as a trade association. Nationally, AGC awards about 200 scholarships annually, worth about $1,500 each, and those numbers are growing. In the last 30 years, AGC has awarded $5 million in scholarships. Also, especially in Texas, our state associations and individual contractors are very active in charitable, religious, and public service activities.
As a trade association, we utilize our knowledge and expertise in public issues, especially transportation. Credit for much of the mobility we Americans enjoy goes to AGC and its individual members. The result is a transportation network and the benefit it brings being envied throughout the world.
The United States is a nation that moves almost everything on rubber tires: people, freight, livestock, produce, mail, raw materials, et cetera. Since the chaos of the railroad strikes in the late 1940s, highways have been the network around which our country has evolved. Some people want to reverse that and have us ride packed in rail cars to avoid polluting the air and crowding the roads, is what they say.
In traditional cities such as Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, because of very high population densities, passenger rail transportation has a place, albeit a very costly one at 50 to 60 cents per passenger mile. Even there, it only accounts for between 5 and 20 percent of people's daily trips.
I hold that many passenger rail proponents, and if I may, their bureaucrat allies, are, in reality, social planners who would force us into an apartment dwelling society, our lifestyles directed by government managers. I believe this feasibility study, lacking in detail, proof, and substantiation, is a case in point, improperly stating a commuter rail utility district, or C.R.U.D., is feasible.
The report claims feasibility, but the body and substance of the report shows the proffered commuter rail project is nonfeasible. The underlying basic premise of the study is to build on Union Pacific Railroad's right of way. The promoters of the study have shown no letters of intent, no memorandums of understanding, that the railroad will consider such course of action. My conversations with the offices of the railroad is they don't want anything to do with passenger rail, and this study even states as much. Is that a basis to assert feasibility? I don't think so.
Union Pacific understands that allowing passenger trains on its right of ways will seriously impede important freight movements and create safety hazards to passengers, railroad personnel, and communities along the way.
This print shows the various intersecting Union Pacific Railroad track systems. Please note how they criss-cross. It's impossible not to have freight trains crossing in front of passenger trains and vice versa, yet the report says there will be no such crossings. Furthermore, there are a number of large quarries along the Austin-San Antonio section. These quarries have major spur trackages along the main lines, and they enter the main lines.
The Union Pacific Railroad will handle 308,000 quarry car loadings in 1999. The major producers are shown on this slide. These rock trains, by necessity, will be crossing any passenger railroad track. What would happen is this two-car passenger choo-choo, as I call it, would be threading its way between these rock trains, and not to mention the increased Mexican freight traffic plus the 40 regular daily freight trains using this trackage. Somehow, this feasibility study has omitted this.
The study contemplates a new 110-mile single track between Round Rock and Kelly Field to carry two-way passenger trains at an average speed of 45 miles an hour, top speed is 79, utilizing sidings to allow oncoming trains to pass each other. The passenger track is to be continuous over several Union Pacific Railroad rights of way, in-between or on the side of existing and proposed freight trackage. The manner in how these prospective passengers will reach train stations and the operating characteristics of how freight trains traveling on the intersecting trackage and interleaf this trackage with the passenger freight is something this report doesn't touch.
The study states that the construction costs of the commuter rail will be $475 million, as Jeff mentioned, carry as many as 5,500 riders per day in 2020. But the projections are accompanied by full and proper disclaimers that disavow all liability to the authors.
The construction estimates are supported by a design basis that's vague and undefined. In instances where standards are referenced, it's not certain that those standards would be the governing ones when it's built. And the project's costs are provided in 1998 dollars. The report states they're escalated to the year implemented, with neither escalation rate or construction schedule defined.
Combined with the higher cost of construction and operating freight line, the final costs, in all probability, would be considerably higher. This is generally substantiated by a National Academy of Science study which shows the pattern for passenger line feasibility studies is underestimation of costs and overestimation of ridership. My own numbers, which indicate in current dollars, would be about $600 million.
Models for ridership in the report were apparently based on models for past estimates for larger metropolises, New Jersey Transit being one. In a number of instances, the report is self-contradictory and contains a number of uncertainties. There's no reference to the number of commuters between San Antonio and Austin using Greyhound buses, Amtrak, or private buses and if their proposed system were implemented, those operations would be cannibalized.
Nine train/car accidents per year are projected in the report at grade crossings for the proposed system -- these are upgraded crossings -- thus maintaining the present train/car accident rate occurring now on the existing freight trackages. No mention in the report of the extent of personal injuries, should any of the anticipated crossing accidents occur involving a passenger train. And recently south of Chicago there was a passenger train/truck accident at a guarded crossing where 75 persons or more were either killed or injured.
Construction costs did not show any items for railroad protective insurance, which is very high. And also not evident are construction and other costs put to local municipalities to conform to the proposed system. Overall, the absence of definition of construction costs renders the amounts, in my opinion, somewhat suspect.
The report states, and I quote it: "However, with the Union Pacific Railroad policy decision to discourage participation in commuter rail initiatives, the feasibility study concentrated on determining feasibility of building a completely new track within the existing Union Pacific right of way."
Now, to me that's Orwellian double-speak at its finest.
Some other examples of what I think is not sensible in the report: The report indicates the earliest trains can be running is 2008, yet it offers commuter rail to be the alternative while constructing third lanes on
I 35, and I 35 three-laning will be completed by 2002. In the executive summary, it's 13 trains. In Section 10, it's eleven trains. And in Section 12, it's 16 trains per day. It's just not a well thought-out report.
The design management costs are stated to be 15 percent of construction, yet the dollar amount used represents only 11-1/2 percent. And it's -- these things kind of creep in if you read if carefully. And what's very interesting -- this is a direct quote: "To receive 50 percent capital costs from TEA-21 prior to 2003, Congress would have to appropriate funds at a higher level than authorized under TEA-21."
TEA-21 expires in 2003, so where are the federal funds and what's the feasibility?
Some of the other assumptions which kind of negate the whole report: It assumes that the Union Pacific Railroad would allow the passenger rail facility to control all movements on its trackage, which is not going to happen. It assumes there's no contaminated material or toxic waste along the right of way, and irrespective that old railroad lines have been known to experience innumerable toxic spillages. It assumes passengers can walk across active freight lines at a number of stations, and that Amtrak and the C.R.U.D. will share train stations.
In summary, misleading studies are not new. In this instance, TxDOT, being the study sponsor, has allowed commuter rail advocates to seize upon the unwarranted statement in the study that commuter rail is feasible, using this TxDOT report to wrongly convince city officials that a C.R.U.D. should be established. And I respectfully ask this body to disassociate TxDOT with this study's improper conclusions that commuter rail is feasible.
I thank you for your attention.
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Feinsilber. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Feinsilber?
MR. NICHOLS: Not really.
MR. LANEY: So I take it, Mr. Feinsilber, we're to put Texas Public Policy Institute [sic] and AGC down as strong endorsements for rail between Austin and San Antonio?
(General laughter.)
MR. FEINSILBER: If I may, I'd like to give you a little bit of history --
MR. LANEY: That's great. Thanks.
MR. FEINSILBER: -- and the idea that this is the Golden Age of rail travel that we all went through, but I don't think that we can recreate that.
MR. LANEY: Thank you very much. I appreciate the time and the detailed presentations on the report.
Wes, do you want to go ahead and move into
Item 3?
MR. HEALD: Okay. Agenda Item Number 3, Promulgation of Rules and Regulations -- it's 3(a). Dave Fulton, Director of our Aviation Division, will present this. This has to do -- this emergency rules for proposed adoption has to do with the regulation of aircraft on water.
MR. FULTON: Thank you. For the record, my name is David Fulton. I'm the Director of the TxDOT Aviation Division. This is a minute order to adopt emergency rules and to propose on a permanent basis rules for the regulation of aircraft on water. These rules are necessary to comply with statutory changes to Chapter 26 of the Transportation Code resulting from the passage of House Bill 1620 during the 76th Legislative Session.
House Bill 1620 provides that a governmental entity that owns, controls, or has jurisdiction over a navigable body of water may not, in an area in which motorized boats are permitted, prohibit the takeoff, landing, or operation of an aquatic aircraft or regulate or require a permit or fee for the operation of an aquatic aircraft without the approval of the Texas Department of Transportation.
The emergency and proposed section implement and administer the Department's responsibilities under
Chapter 26. The emergency new sections are required to implement the provisions of HB 1620, which requires that the Department adopt rules to implement the bill, and this law becomes effective on September 1, 1999.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
MR. LANEY: Robert?
MR. NICHOLS: Questions on the definition of navigable water to our counsel. The definition will be used in the proposed.
MR. MONROE: For the record, my name is Richard Monroe. I'm General Counsel of the Texas Department of Transportation. Anticipating that the Commission would have some concern about the definition of navigable water in the proposed rules, we would suggest one change there, that I tender for the Commission's consideration, that navigable body of water would be defined as "a body of water available for public use that has the capability of use by motorized boats. This term does not include a navigable body of water that the federal government owns or controls or over which it has jurisdiction."
And I would commend such definition for your consideration and approval.
MR. LANEY: Richard, I hate to ask you to do this again. Would you read that again?
MR. MONROE: Yes.
MR. LANEY: I'm sorry.
MR. MONROE: First of all, we're defining navigable body of water: "A body of water available for public use that has the capability of use by motorized boats. This term does not include a navigable body of water that the federal government owns or controls or over which it has jurisdiction."
MR. LANEY: Any further questions or comments?
MR. NICHOLS: I have no more comments. I don't know if anyone else does. If they don't, I also move that we adopt it with that definition.
MR. JOHNSON: I'll second.
MR. LANEY: Motion and second to adopt the rules as emergency rules. All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, David.
MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 3(b)(1), again, Rules for Proposed Adoption under Contract Management. Thomas Bohuslav, Director of the Construction Division, will handle this, and this brings us up to date with some recent legislation.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm Director of the Construction Division.
Item 3(b)(1) is for the consideration of amendments to Sections 9.10 through 9.20 concerning highway improvement contracts. More commonly referred to as the letting rules, these rules apply to highway construction, highway maintenance, and building contracts contracted under the Transportation Code, Chapter 223, Subchapter A. I'd like to point out some of the key changes to these rules.
These rules give the Department authority to add additional technical provisions for prequalification requirements for certain types of contracts, such as fiber-optic cable and computerized traffic monitoring work. The rules also give the Department authority to set appropriate prequalification requirements for building contracts.
We've also eliminated the certification of eligibility form for request for proposals, since the contractor now certifies that by signing the proposal. We've raised the threshold of labor of the audited bidder financial prequalification. It's been raised from $250,000 to $300,000, and this value will more parallel the prequalification requirements that we have -- that we address later in the rules, as well as the delegated amount given -- authority given to the districts for award of projects.
For weighed projects, the rule changes the bidding capacity limits from $100,000, $300,000, $500,000, and over $500,000 to $300,000, $500,000, $1 million, and over $1 million, respectively. These changes will allow for more competitive bidding.
In addition, the rules will allow the use of bid bonds for proposal guarantees for contracts less than $300,000. The rules add that checks or money orders greater than 90 days old will not be accepted, and will therefore -- the proposals will not be considered responsive.
The rules add a requirement that bids must include a Historically Underutilized Business plan to be responsive, and that's done to be in accordance with Senate Bill 178, passed this last session. The rules add a requirement that the addenda must be properly acknowledged in order to be considered responsive.
And in accordance with Senate Bill 555, the rules allow the Commission to award to the second bidder for $100,000 or less contracts when the lowest bidder fails to execute or withdraws their bid and the second bidder is willing to perform the work at the lowest bidder's price. If a contract is eventually entered into with the second bidder, the Department will return the lowest bidder's bid guarantee, and the lowest bidder will be considered in default.
Senate Bill 1195 of this last session reduces the retainage amount from 5 to 4 percent when recycled materials were used in a project, and amendments have been made in the rules to include that change.
The rules also allow for partial release of retainage prior to final acceptance of a project when the only work remaining is associated with maintenance, performance, or vegetation establishment periods. House Bill 2159 gave the Department authority for such partial releases.
The staff recommends adoption of the amendments as proposed. Do I have any questions?
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: I have a question.
MR. LANEY: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: On the acceptance of bid bonds for contracts estimated at less than $300,000, do we have a high percentage, or what percentage of contracts are less than $300,000?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Those are primarily maintenance contracts. Probably 80 to 90 percent of our maintenance contracts --
MR. JOHNSON: So quite a few.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. On the second bidder situation, is this on contracts of less than $100,000, or is the $100,000 the amount of the difference between the low bid and the second bid?
MR. BOHUSLAV: Could you ask that again? Make sure I follow your question.
MR. JOHNSON: Is the total contract amount $100,000 or less, or is that just the difference between the first -- low bid and the second bid?
MR. BOHUSLAV: The total contract amount.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Robert, do you have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No. They've answered all my questions already.
MR. LANEY: Okay. Could I have a motion then for these amendments?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Thomas.
MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 3(b)(2) and (3) -- Lawrance Smith, Director of the Motor Carrier Division, will handle these. These also have to do with upgrading some rules pertaining to recent legislation.
MR. SMITH: Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Lawrance Smith, Director of the Motor Carrier Division.
The minute order before you proposes the adoption of amendments to Chapter 18, Subchapter D, Sections 18.87 and 18.96 concerning vehicle storage facilities. The proposed amendments are a result of the requirements established under House Bill 1376 of the 76th Legislature, which address notification of owners of impounded vehicles by vehicle storage facility operators.
On July 15, the statutory Vehicle Storage Facility and Tow Truck Rules Advisory Committee met via teleconference to consider the proposed amendments. After reviewing the general focus of the proposed amendments, the committee unanimously voted to waive the preliminary and final approval of these rules.
At this time, staff is submitting the minute order for your consideration and recommends its approval.
MR. LANEY: Any comments or questions on the vehicle storage facilities amendments?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I move.
MR. LANEY: Do I have a motion?
MR. NICHOLS: I move.
MR. LANEY: And a second?
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Lawrance.
MR. SMITH: The next item, Commissioners, is a minute order before you that proposes adoption of amendments to Chapter 28, Subchapter B, C, D, and E, concerning oversize, overweight permits. The proposed amendment is a result of provisions of House Bill 1147 and House Bill 1538 of the 76th Legislature, and will also ensure the proper administration of the laws concerning oversize and overweight permits.
At this time, staff is submitting the minute order for your consideration and recommends its approval.
MR. LANEY: Questions?
(No response.)
MR. LANEY: Do I have a motion?
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Lawrance.
MR. HEALD: Okay. Agenda Item 3(c), and these are rules for final adoption. Dave Fulton will come back to the front. The first one has to do with Dave's Adopt-an-Airport Program.
MR. FULTON: Again, for the record, my name is David Fulton, Director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.
This minute order is proposed final adoption of an amendment to Chapter 2, Environmental Policy, to include rules allowing the Department to establish an Adopt-an-Airport Program. This program is designed to encourage communities to improve the appearance and upkeep of their local airport. It should also assist in increasing public awareness of community airports. The program, if approved, will be similar to the Department's Adopt-a-Highway Program.
The Aviation Division recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
(No response.)
MR. LANEY: May I have a motion for the Adopt-an-Airport Program?
MR. NICHOLS: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thank you.
MR. HEALD: Thank you, Dave. Again 3(c)(2) -- Lawrance Smith will come back up to the front. Recent legislation update. Right?
MR. SMITH: Final adoption. Again for the record, my name is Lawrance Smith, Director of the Motor Carrier Division.
Commissioners, you have minute order for final adoption of amendments to Chapter 28, Subchapter G, concerning Port Authority permits. These amendments are a result to complying with provisions of Senate Bill 934 of the 76th Legislature. The Commission heard the explanation of these amendments and proposed adoption at your June 24, 1999 meeting.
The proposed amendments were subsequently published in the July 9, 1999 issue of the Texas Register. The Department received no comments during the comment period. At this time, staff is submitting the minute order for your consideration and recommends its approval.
MR. LANEY: Lawrance, I've got a couple of questions. Do you have any sense of what the 15 percent amounts to?
MR. SMITH: The current 10 percent amounts to about $830,000.
MR. LANEY: No, no. I presume that's the 90 percent. That's the part we hold.
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. You're correct.
MR. LANEY: Other way around.
MR. SMITH: You're correct, Chairman Laney.
MR. LANEY: So, well, we can extrapolate from that that we're --
MR. SMITH: Right.
MR. LANEY: -- somewhere in the $80,000 range?
MR. SMITH: Somewhere in that neighborhood.
MR. LANEY: And have we used any of the funds that we've gotten?
MR. SMITH: So far, it's my understanding that District Engineer Amadeo Saenz has utilized $70,000 of the funds that have been generated, but he has five or six projects on the drawing board that are being ready to be let, the way I understand it.
MR. LANEY: Anybody have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions.
MR. LANEY: Can I have a motion --
MR. NICHOLS: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks.
MR. HEALD: Agenda Item 4(a) under Programs, Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2000-2002 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
MR. LUEDECKE: Commissioners, I'm Al Luedecke, Director of Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
As a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects under either Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Transportation Act of the 21st Century require each designated metropolitan planning organization in the state to develop a transportation improvement program, or TIP. According to federal requirements, the MPO develops its TIP in cooperation with the state and affected transit operators in their area, and it must be updated at least once every two years and be approved by the MPO and the governor.
Individual TIPs are also incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, and federal regulations also require the governor to approve the STIP, which is developed for all areas of the state in cooperation with the designated MPOs.
By letter dated February 17, 1999, the governor delegated to the Texas Transportation Commission those approval powers and responsibilities granted by TEA-21. Over the last two months, public meetings have been conducted throughout the state to receive comments on the various metropolitan urban TIPs. And in each of the Department's 25 district offices and headquarters office here in Austin, the rural TIPs were made available for review and comment by interested parties.
In addition, on July 27, 1999, a public hearing on the STIP was held here in Austin, and no oral or written comments were received at the hearing or from the district offices. The rural and MPO TIPs are fiscally constrained and consistent with the 1999 Unified Transportation Program and meet the requirements of Title 23, Texas Administrative Code, Sections 15.7 and 15.8, and corresponding federal rules and regulations.
The Dallas-Fort Worth area MPO wishes to continue its current TIP at this time under its current 1998-2000 approved TIP to work out some of their environmental -- or, I mean, some of their air quality issues. With the approval of this minute order, the projects in the 2000-2002 STIP, shown as Exhibit A up on the dais, may be advanced and implemented.
We recommend your approval of this minute order.
MR. LANEY: Robert, do you have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions.
MR. LANEY: John?
MR. JOHNSON: My question concerns the Dallas-Ft. Worth desire to remain with the '98-2000 TIP. Is that part of this STIP? Is that --
MR. LUEDECKE: Yes. Theirs would be not in this particular new one that you're approving today. They can continue at least another year with their current TIP. They want to be sure they have their projects lined out.
MR. JOHNSON: So this STIP does not include anything from Dallas and Fort Worth. Is that right?
MR. LUEDECKE: Not at this time. We would anticipate when they do get ready, we would bring it in as an amendment to the current TIP, hopefully by the end of the year.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. LANEY: We have one person signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Tommy Eden, representing Bicycle Advisory Council. Mr. Eden, are you here? Would you like to speak?
MR. EDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
MR. LANEY: Would you introduce yourself for the record, please, sir?
MR. EDEN: My name is Tommy Eden. I'm with the Bicycle Advisory Council.
Is this the issue that I was -- I didn't find the issue that dealt with a windfall for -- that's intended to be used for transportation throughout the state. I understand that the Austin area is supposed to be getting about $85 million worth for transportation improvements.
MR. LANEY: You're talking about the article in the American-Statesman that appeared with respect to the allocation --
MR. EDEN: That's correct.
MR. LANEY: -- of 4(c) money to Austin and a number of other metropolitan areas around the state.
MR. EDEN: That's correct.
MR. LANEY: Okay. If you want to go ahead and say a word or two about the allocations, feel free.
MR. EDEN: I'm asking that 15 percent of the funds that are available for transportation improvements be used for alternatives, for bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, CAMPO, has traditionally used 15 percent of their STP (4)(c) funds for bicycle and pedestrian alternatives, and I'm asking you to do the same with these funds.
MR. LANEY: Let me interrupt for a second. CAMPO is the right group to speak with. These are funds that were allocated to the local MPOs. They're in control of the MPOs, and in Austin's case, that's CAMPO. So they're the right forum to raise the concern with -- or the request to.
We really -- they aren't in our control now. They've been allocated to the MPOs. So I would urge you to take your requests to CAMPO.
MR. EDEN: Okay. My understanding was that these funds would be disbursed by this Commission. Is that incorrect?
MR. LANEY: Through the MPOs for their use.
MR. EDEN: I understand. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.
Okay. We've got a minute order presented by Mr. Luedecke. Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion, Robert?
MR. NICHOLS: So moved.
MR. LANEY: Second?
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks.
MR. HEALD: The next item is 4(b), and Mr. Luedecke will handle that also.
MR. LUEDECKE: We bring to you the fourth quarter program for disadvantaged counties to adjust matching fund requirements. In your books is Exhibit A that lists the projects and staff's recommended adjustments for each of them. The adjustments are based on equations approved in earlier proposals and earlier versions.
There are 25 projects in eight counties and the reduction participation for these projects is $4,809,000. We recommend your approval of this minute order.
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: One question. Al, the new percentages that you've presented, what period of time does that cover, where the percentage is used?
MR. LUEDECKE: The fourth quarter.
MR. JOHNSON: Fourth quarter?
MR. LUEDECKE: We'll be preparing new ones based on information we get from the comptroller's office very soon.
MR. JOHNSON: And those new percentages will be applicable in what period?
MR. LUEDECKE: Starting after this period. After --
MR. JOHNSON: Which would be the new fiscal year?
MR. LUEDECKE: Yes, sir, basically.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Any other questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I move we accept it.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: I've got a motion and a second for the approval of this minute order with respect to economically disadvantaged counties. All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Al.
MR. LUEDECKE: Thank you.
MR. HEALD: Thank you, Al. Item 4(c) will be deferred. That takes us to Item 5, State Infrastructure Bank. Thomas Doebner will be the presenter.
MR. DOEBNER: For the record my name is Thomas Doebner, Interim Director of Finance Division.
This is a minute order for your consideration for final approval for a State Infrastructure Bank application from the City of Jacksonville, for $350,000. They have agreed to terms of four years and 4 percent. The Commission gave preliminary approval to this about ten months ago. There were some environmental issues. Those issues have been resolved and staff recommends approval now.
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: I have two comments. This project was on the books years before I ever got on the Commission, and, number two, the City did pledge their full faith, and I was not involved in the negotiations.
MR. LANEY: Then let's note for the record that a Commissioner to my right is highly sensitive about this issue. But it's a very appropriate use of SIB funds for a very appropriate project. So I'm very much in favor of it, whether you recuse yourself from it or not. But there's no need to; you have no conflict.
So can I have a motion, Johnny?
MR. JOHNSON: I would so move.
MR. LANEY: I second. All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks.
MR. HEALD: Item Number 6 under Aviation, Mr. Dave Fulton will be the presenter, and this is the approval of the Aviation Facilities Grant Program.
MR. FULTON: Again, my name is David Fulton, Director of the TxDOT Aviation Division.
This is a minute order requesting approval of the FY 2000 Aviation Facilities Grant Program. The Exhibit A that's with the minute order contains a listing of 50 airport grants for cities and counties throughout Texas. The total cost for all the projects is approximately $13 million: approximately $6.3 million in federal funds, approximately $4.9 million in state funds, and approximately $2 million in local funds.
A public hearing for these projects was held on August 16, 1999. Two comments were received from individuals from Brenham in favor of their particular project. We would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. LANEY: Any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions. I move we adopt it.
MR. LANEY: Motion --
MR. JOHNSON: I will second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Dave.
MR. HEALD: Item 7 under Public Transportation, authorize discretionary state funding to replace vehicle destroyed in an accident. And Margot Massey will explain this one.
MS. MASSEY: I'm Margot Massey, the Director of the Public Transportation Division. The item we're bringing to you today is to request your assistance for a rural transit system in Levelland, who's had a difficult year with their fleet.
They had some vehicles delivered early in the year that did not meet specs and had to go back to the plant for some work, and then they suffered a tragic accident, lost a vehicle in early July and more importantly, a driver and a passenger were killed, which is a very rare occurrence in rural transit. And it's certainly been a difficult situation for that agency.
As we near the end of the fiscal year, we find that we have state funds available to replace this vehicle while they deal with the insurance and court action to follow on that. So we recommend your approval of $50,000 to replace this vehicle.
MR. LANEY: I think this is a good resolution of some difficulties facing Levelland. I think it's -- I appreciate your putting it together, Margot, and your creativity in finding the money elsewhere. So any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: I move we adopt.
MR. LANEY: We have a motion.
MR. JOHNSON: I'll second.
MR. LANEY: And a second. All in favor, please say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MS. MASSEY: Thank you.
MR. HEALD: Item 8 (1) and (2) -- Thomas Bohuslav will go over our contracts.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Good morning again, Commissioners. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm Director of the Construction Division.
Item 8(1) is for the consideration of the award or rejection of highway maintenance contracts let on August 3 and 4, 1999, whose engineers' estimate are $300,000 or more. We just had one contract that was 9 percent over. We recommend award of all projects listed.
MR. LANEY: Can we have a motion?
MR. NICHOLS: I so moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: Motion and a second. All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 8(2) is for consideration of award or rejection of highway construction contracts let on August 3 and 4, 1999. As shown in the attachment, there's a $544 million letting. It came in about .69 percent over.
We have five projects we recommend for rejection, the first project being in Dallas County. It's Project Number 3020. This is a landscape project, and we just had one bidder on the project. We'd like to weigh the prequalification requirements on it and go back and try to get more competition.
Again, project recommended for rejection is in Dallas County. It's Project Number 3124. It had one bidder, and it's 144 percent over. We'd like to go back and relet it and try to get more competition.
In Erath County, Project Number 3103 -- it's a bridge replacement project, and it's about a 35 percent overrun. And the City would like for us to go back and rebid the project and take out some of the dirt work -- earth work on it. They'd like to do it themselves; see if they could save some money on their part.
In Fort Bend County, recommended for rejection, again, is Project Number 3119. We just had one bidder on this project. It was 31 percent over. This is closing a crossover, adding some accel and decel lanes and adding a new crossover. We'd like to go back and relet. This was another project we hope we get our costs down.
Again, project recommended for rejection is in Harrison County. It's Project Number 3017. We just had one bidder on that project, and prices are really high. We'd like to go back and relet it and see if we can save some money on the project.
Staff recommends award of all projects, with the exceptions noted.
MR. LANEY: Does anybody have any questions?
MR. NICHOLS: No questions. There's going to be some obvious comments, I guess.
MR. LANEY: I don't know. Do you have any comments?
MR. NICHOLS: Congratulations on a record of letting successfully. That's the only comment I had.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: Y'all really did a -- and all the districts did tremendous work.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Design and the districts and the Construction and the other divisions, they did a good job putting it together.
MR. NICHOLS: Absolutely. Everybody pulled together. So my hat's off to you for a great job.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Well, and it's probably worth noting as well, for everybody's attention, that the number of bids per project on average was 3-1/2, which was encouraging, even with that volume of lettings.
MR. NICHOLS: I'll move we accept them.
MR. JOHNSON: I'll second.
MR. LANEY: I've got a motion and a second and a congratulations.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thanks.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: Thanks, Thomas.
MR. HEALD: We agree. This was a monumental month for us. Now then, I think it's time to focus our attention on performance.
Routine Minute Orders, this is Item Number 9, beginning with (a), Speed Zones. Establish or alter regulatory and construction speed zones on various sections of highways in the state. I will continue going through these unless you stop me.
9(b), Load Zones, revision of load restrictions on various roads and bridges on the state highway system.
(c), under Highway Designation -- this is designate the former location of US 281 in the City of Alice. There's a bypass around Alice now, so former location will be designated as Business US 281.
(d), Right of Way Disposition, Purchase and Lease, Dallas County, State Highway 114, consider the sale of the surplus -- a tract of surplus right of way to the abutting landowner. That's (d)(1).
(d)(2), Johnson County, State Highway 174, consider the exchange of a tract of surplus right of way for needed right of way at the southwest corner of FM 731 in the City of Burleson.
(d)(3), Kaufman County, consider the sale of the surplus engineering and maintenance site on State Highway 205 in the City of Terrell.
9(e), Donation to the Department -- this is in Clay County. Consider the acceptance of land donation from Knox Egan and Evelyn Egan on FM 1197 at Turkey Creek.
9(f), Authorization of Building and Ground Improvements in Potter County, approval of funding for land acquisition for a new travel information center on Interstate 40.
9(g), Eminent Domain Proceedings. This is various counties, request for eminent domain proceedings on noncontrolled and controlled access highways. And the list is in the briefing book.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that completes the routine minute orders.
MR. LANEY: Does anyone have any comments or questions on any of the routine minute orders? Robert?
MR. NICHOLS: I had a -- on several of the surplus property, on some of them it mentioned that we reserve the oil and gas; on some it did not mention that. I assume we always routinely reserve oil and gas on all properties that we sell.
MR. HEALD: Is Mr. Campbell here? Jim Henry, do you want to come up and try to address that?
MR. NICHOLS: Some specifically stated we would; others just omitted it. I assume --
MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Jim Henry. I'm the Deputy Director of the Right of Way Division. Mr. Campbell wasn't able to make it this morning.
On those, the ones that are specifically mentioned are the ones where the minerals were that the State owned already, and so if the State owns the minerals and we're selling our surplus property, then we would routinely want to reserve those minerals. The ones where it's not stated are the ones where the minerals are not owned by the State. Anyway, we didn't own them initially when the property was bought many years ago. So it's normally just not mentioned when we don't own it originally.
MR. NICHOLS: That answered my question.
MR. LANEY: John, do you have any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: No.
MR. LANEY: Okay. Can we have a motion to approve the routine minute orders in Item 9, please, Robert?
MR. NICHOLS: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. HEALD: Item Number 10, Executive Session -- and I don't think we -- we did not have any need to call an executive session.
That takes us to our open comment period, Mr. Chairman. We do have some speakers.
MR. LANEY: Okay. Let's begin our open comment session. Mr. Dick Kallerman, representing the Austin Sierra Club.
Mr. Kallerman.
MR. KALLERMAN: Thank you, Chairman Laney and Commission. My name is Dick Kallerman. I'm transportation chair of the Austin Sierra Club.
New things are happening in Central Texas, and I'd like to talk about that. As you know, we recently had the bad luck to have our air quality for the third year in a row go beyond federal limits, so we now are what's called a non-attainment area, and we'll be officially designated as such in July of 2000.
We joined some illustrious crowd in Texas. We're not alone; there are other cities and regions that are in the same position. What we've done is we've violated the Federal Clean Air Act, and so what that means is that our air is officially not fit to breathe.
So -- and Tommy Eden a little earlier mentioned that windfall of STP (4)(c) money, $57 million that is coming to Central Texas. And as I understand, the Texas Transportation Commission had recommended that that $57 million be used for highway projects in Central Texas. And I didn't hear any talk about other than highway projects, and these would be new roadways.
And in case you don't know it, you swing a lot of weight with CAMPO, and when the Texas Transportation Commission makes some recommendations, CAMPO listens very carefully. And even though we'll be going to the CAMPO meeting on September 13 and requesting that they do what they normally do with STP (4)(c) money, and that's cut about 15 percent of it for alternative transportation, particularly bicycles and transportation facilities, of which we have many, many requests open that haven't been filled -- we would hope that if you do get a chance to talk about that $57 million again with CAMPO, you also reinforce what we are saying, that some of that money should go to alternative transportation, particularly because we are now an air quality non-attainment area and that air quality is caused by automobiles, mostly. We have power plants and other things too, but mostly it comes from automobiles. And when you add another road lane you add more automobiles, and basically -- not basically, but more automobiles make worse air quality.
Another thing that I noticed from the newspaper recently is that the Texas Transportation Commission is supporting some legislation at the federal level that would roll back some environmental activities that would take -- that the Clear Air Act was using to improve air quality. And I would hope that in that case too, the TTC would think first in terms of air quality.
So I guess I'd make just -- this morning I'd like to make a general overall request in that when questions of finance or transportation come before you, as they do all the time, of course, because that's your job, that you please make air quality your first consideration. And I think when you take a look at air quality first, you will see that alternate transportation to the automobile is probably the best choice. And, of course, we've got a long row to hoe on that one, as we earlier learned from fairly substantial movement against, say, commuter rail.
But anyway, consider that Central Texas -- we really should just be holding our breath here. But when money is to be spent and facilities built in Central Texas, please consider air quality first. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Mr. Kallerman. Let me respond if I can to a couple of things you said, just to clarify.
I've heard it mentioned now -- I think Mr. Eden mentioned it and now you've mentioned it -- the (4)(c) allocations to the various metropolitan areas around the state was not a windfall. It was part of our budget, basically, during the session. It was approved during the session. And really, it is an allocation intended to shift away from us and into the hands of the MPO, to some extent, a local control over these funds.
The approach we've taken with MPOs around the state, including CAMPO, has been to say to them not use those funds for projects A, B, C, D, E, and F or whatever they want to use them for. It's basically said -- we've said to them, You have presented to us what you consider to be your priorities. We would expect to see some of these (4)(c) funds on those priorities. So it's really a little bit of, This is what you've told us; now let's see some follow-through.
We have not stepped in and said, We want you to use these funds on A, B, C, and D. In fact, Austin, as far as we know, might use them on projects X, Y, and Z. So we're trying to shift to local control the use of some of these funds to some extent, although we do expect to see a lot of MPOs around the state put their money where their mouths have been as they appeared before us.
We do know that we exercise some weight when we speak to MPOs, and we are trying, I think, very deliberately to stay out of that.
Now, with respect to the violation of the Clean Air Act standards. We know that Austin and other cities have slipped into that situation, and the approach we're taking in Washington is not to roll back anything other than some results from a couple of District of Columbia Federal Appeals Court rulings that, in a way, took away flexibility of the EPA to allow the continued development of some projects during the conformity process, once someone is designated non-attainment, and in Texas that will be mid-2000.
The conformity process, as you may know, requires fairly complex emissions budget development, and then an entire process separate from that of demonstrating compliance with the emissions budget. That is a very, very lengthy process. And I know there are some folks that would love to see all development of all transportation projects stop in their tracks. I don't think that's your position, but I do think it's some people's position. That's not our position.
We would like to see projects continue to be developed and fitted within emissions budgets, but not to basically have the curtain dropped on all development during this emissions budget development process. And Austin is way behind, I understand, on that process, as well as the conformity process that follows the development of the emissions budget.
So I understand the position. We're sympathetic. There is a very important balance between safety and mobility and environmental concerns. That balance has been unstrung a little bit by the D.C. court position, and that's what we have concerns with that we're trying to have addressed in Austin. But I do appreciate your comments and the spirit in which they're made.
MR. KALLERMAN: Thank you for that clarification, Commissioner Laney.
MR. LANEY: Thanks.
Emily Goodman?
MS. GOODMAN: Thank you. I am a citizen of Austin.
MR. LANEY: Would you introduce yourself?
MS. GOODMAN: And my name is Emily H. Goodman. I am a bicyclist. I thank the Commission for listening to me.
We've heard the commissioners are being accused of becoming social planners in a very negative sense, but you know, any plan you adopt is going to have social impact. In that sense, you're forced to be social planners. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to do what the people don't want.
If you take present trends and project them to the future, it pretty soon gets absurd. If the highways and freeways get wider and wider, where are the houses going to be? Where are the agricultural land going to be? I mean, there's a limit to what we can do in the way of building more highways. However, we've also been told, and it's true, Americans seem to prefer so-called personal transportation.
Personal transportation doesn't have to be an automobile. It can be a bicycle. I know that, because I use my bicycle every day. I use it to go to work. I use it to the post office. I use it to the grocery store. I use it everywhere in my neighborhood. I don't go long distances. But the bicycle is a very practical means of personal transportation. Furthermore, it is preferred by many here in Austin.
You have -- you may remember the Lance Armstrong parade where, of course, there were all kinds of bicycles. But we have in Austin a very significant number of bicycle commuters, and you can have them in other cities in Texas. You can bicycle year-round. It's not like the Northeast, where there's a period that many people will not get on a bicycle because of the ice and snow.
Now, I believe, first of all, that breathable air is not a luxury but a necessity, and that we do have to use some intelligent means to encourage means of transportation that are not as polluting as what we've got now. The bicycle is an obvious example. What does the bicyclist face? The bicyclist faces barriers. The bicyclist faces inadequate facilities, faces roads that were designed without any consideration for bicycles. This should not be, and it should be a very high priority for your department and for CAMPO and every other MPO to try to eliminate barriers, eliminate hazardous conditions.
I've talked to many people who say to me, I don't bicycle because it isn't safe. I say, Well, you have to pick your route. But there are times where I cannot pick a route on which I'm really comfortable because of narrow roads, no bike lane, undesirable to bike on the sidewalk, et cetera.
I am a member of the Bicycle Advisory Council of Austin and we have developed some projects that are really quite urgent. There has been insufficient funds. I think that's why you're hearing from bicyclists right now is that we're very frustrated, that we believe in these projects, they are feasible, but the money doesn't seem to be anywhere and they go on building more highway lanes, which, as I said, is not going to promote clean air.
The bicycle commuters are men and women. They're various in age. They are all income levels. There are some very well-heeled individuals who prefer to bicycle. The enthusiasm is there. The bicycles are there. What is needed is to give bicyclists the kind of facilities they need to do what they really want to do.
MR. LANEY: Thank you very much.
Karin Ascot, again representing the Austin Sierra Club.
MS. ASCOT: Good morning, Commissioner Laney, fellow Commissioners -- Chairman Laney, excuse me. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
I am also speaking on behalf of the Austin Sierra Club. I'm the conservation chair. And first off, I would like to second everything that Ms. Goodman just said. We agree with that wholeheartedly.
Thanks for your earlier explanation about some of your policies and so on. I just wanted to draw everybody's attention to the fact that in today's paper, the results of a new study were released showing that 75 percent of our local oxides of nitrogen, the NOX emissions which are a chemical family crucial to the production of ground level ozone, 75 percent of these comes from internal combustion engines in the Austin area, basically our vehicles.
We've just been talking about it. Everybody knows now we've hit non-attainment. That's not just ugly; it's very dangerous. It's very unhealthy. And what we'd like to see is for this body to take a real leadership role in helping Austin, and all of the other cities of Texas which need this, to get away from these air pollution problems. And one of the best things to do is, of course, to support alternative means of transportation.
You pointed out that your recommendation to CAMPO was just a recommendation and so on, but you have a very strong voice. You're very powerful people, and if you were to take -- create a policy for yourselves and have the philosophy of supporting alternative transportation and anything that will help to reduce air pollution, you will really have an effect when you do that.
I think it's problematic that we've got these attempts -- well, these attempts to get legislation in Congress to kind of fight against some of the EPA regulations. I did hear your explanation, but I have -- my impression is that any new bill that's being passed in this issue is not going to be really so helpful to us if it's a federal bill, talking about how we design our transportation systems and so on.
People sometimes seem to think that the Clean Air Act was sort of imposed upon us by federal bureaucrats in Washington, but the Clean Air Act was something that the American people demanded because they wanted blue skies and healthy air. And the Sierra Club would like to see you working towards that as much as possible and encouraging maintenance of existing roads rather than construction of new roads, as well as more facilities for bicycles and pedestrians and supporting public transit.
Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Thanks for coming. We appreciate it very much.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak during the open comment session who has not signed up?
(No response.)
MR. LANEY: If there is no further business then I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. JOHNSON: So moved.
MR. NICHOLS: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. LANEY: The Commission meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: August 26, 1999
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages,
numbers 1 through 80, inclusive, are the true, accurate,
and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording
made by electronic recording by Penny Bynum before the
Texas Department of Transportation.
08/31/99
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.