APR96TRN.doc
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Thursday, April 27, 1995
200 East Riverside Drive, Room 101
Austin, Texas 78704
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
DAVID M. LANEY, Chairman
ANNE S. WYNNE
DAVID BERNSEN
STAFF:
William G. Burnett, Executive Director
Russell Harding, Director, Staff Services
Wanda Burton, Executive Secretary
I N D E X
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Public Hearing - Aviation Program 9
Approval of minutes of 3/30/95 meeting 12
Presentation by the City of Pharr 14
Contracts 45
Programs 50
Routine Minute Orders 53
Environmental Projects 57
Transportation Planning 92
Multimodal Transportation 95
Transportation Corporations 97
Building and Ground Improvements 97
Ferryboat Construction 98
Promulgation of Rules and Regulations 99
District/Division/Special Offices Reports
Bryan District 103
Information Systems Division 112
Dallas District 113
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. BERNSEN: I would like to call the meeting to order. Before we get into the meeting agenda, on behalf of the Commission and for everyone in the audience, I would like to welcome and introduce our newest member of the Transportation Commission, David M. Laney of Dallas. I would also like to announce that by letter dated April 20, 1995 to the Secretary of State, Governor Bush has designated Mr. Laney as the Commissioner of Transportation, and I would, therefore, at this time pass the chair to Mr. Laney and like to tell him personally that, on behalf of myself and Commissioner Wynne, we welcome you to this Commission.
I think that you will find that, as I believe and I know as Commissioner Wynne believes, that this is the best department with the best staff and the best employees of any agency in the state of Texas. I think that you will find that they are the hardest working, dedicated employees in the state, and that we like to believe, and I think you will see as you stated to me privately, that we feel like we have the best transportation system in the United States, and it is through the efforts of the employees that have spent their lifeblood working toward that goal on behalf of the citizens of the state of Texas.
So I welcome you to the Commission, I look forward to working with you and serving with you. Congratulations and welcome. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Thank you, David. I want to respond by saying I have been in the saddle for less than a week and I have had a lot to learn and I will have a lot to learn for a long time to come, and I have had tremendous assistance by the executive staff at the Commission as well as from Ms. Wynne and Mr. Bernsen and I greatly appreciate your assistance to date, and I look forward to working with both of you and the remainder of the staff and getting to know the Agency and those who have interests affected by the Agency over the years to come.
It is, I think, the best transportation system in the country and our commitment is that it is going to get better.
I want to take a moment and digress because I have noticed in the audience a number of younger women on this Take Your Daughters to Work Day, and I am delighted to see so many daughters, and hopefully in years to come we will see even more. I think there is nothing better than to introduce young women of the state of Texas to the opportunities and to the issues and roles played by those of you who brought your daughters to work and those that you introduce your daughters to. I think Ms. Wynne wanted to say something as well in this regard.
MS. WYNNE: I did. I wanted to take a minute to read you all a letter that I got just so, David Laney, you will know how exciting this meeting is going to be. This is the impression of somebody that has been to a meeting before, and this is from a very mature young lady who writes to me: "Dear Ann, What has been going on? Right now I am sitting at your big desk informing you that the Texas Transportation Commission meeting does not need to be on April 27. That is the day I come with mom to work. It would be better to be at school than to have to be at your meeting."
MR. BURNETT: Got my vote.
MS. WYNNE: "Your options are: change the date of the meeting, make the meeting half a day long, call my school and get me out another day. You need to do at least one, at the most. If you can't do any of these things, then you don't make a very good commissioner.
"I hope I have informed you enough that you will do something about this problem. When you have made up your mind, you need to write to me as soon as possible and give it to my secretary. That would be Ms. Pellegrino to you, my mom."
This is from Marcie Pellegrino, who is sitting right behind us today, who had the pleasure of joining us this time a year ago, and we made such a good impression on her that, as you know, she would rather be at school. So we will see what we can do to make it short and liven it up.
MR. LANEY: That is great. Thank you for the letter. In that order, I think we have control over it: make it short and liven it up.
A minute more on Chairman Bernsen's role. By all impressions and reputations that I have garnered over the last months as I have moved slowly into the direction of this position and ultimately into this position, I have had reported to me nothing but compliments and statements of very, very high regard for Chairman Bernsen, and so I have got some big shoes to fill and we have got a lot of work. I look forward to working with you, David, and I look forward to your guidance.
And I think probably more on behalf of the staff from whom I have had these impressions and from Ms. Wynne, I think I would like to say we appreciate and express our deepest gratitude for the role you have played and as effective as you have been over the time you have been in this position. I just hope I can do as well. So my compliments for your accomplishments because they seem to have been recognized throughout the state, throughout the staff and the Commission members.
(Applause.)
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much.
MR. BURNETT: Chairman, if I could say something. I would like to say, on behalf of the staff of the Department and the 15,000 employees, to Commissioner Bernsen, that since he has been with the Department in 1991 and since he has chaired this Commission since early in the spring of 1993 and has helped guide this Department through a change where overnight we lost nearly 14-, 15,000 employees and we lost 13 of our 25 district engineers and seven of our 17 division directors in the complete administration of the Department, I would like to say, David, on behalf of all the employees in the Department that it has been our pleasure to serve under your leadership and we look forward to continuing to work with you as a member of the Commission, and we thank you for everything.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much. It has been my pleasure.
MS. WYNNE: Can I just add one more thing here, too, please? There is somebody else that has been serving and that is David's wife, Dinah, who is here today, and you have put up with a lot -- from all of us --
MR. BERNSEN: That is the truth.
MS. WYNNE: -- in the last four years, and particularly in the last two. You talk about a sacrifice, this lady has made one on behalf of the state, so we say thank you to you for sharing him with us.
MR. LANEY: And as I said, I have got big shoes to fill, but I am glad I don't have to answer to Dinah.
PUBLIC HEARING
MR. LANEY: Our first matter of business today is to convene a public hearing to receive comments from any interested parties concerning the proposed 5-Year Aviation Capital Improvement Program covering 1996 through the year 2000. Public notice of the hearing was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on April 5, 1995 at 8:44 a.m., as required by Chapter 551 of the Government Code. I will call on Tom Griebel to present this matter.
MR. GRIEBEL: Good morning. I am Tom Griebel, the assistant executive director for multimodal transportation, and I am very pleased that this is the first item as a member and as chairman that you get to deal with the aviation mode in our first agenda item.
TxDOT is required to prepare and update annually a multi-year aviation facilities capital improvement program, the CIP, which is a plan for non-reliever general aviation airport development in Texas. The CIP is a detailed listing of potential projects based on anticipated funding from both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation.
The CIP identifies specific projects for development during the upcoming five years, 1996 to 2000, and is constrained by the availability of funds. The CIP is a tentative program. Some of the projects in the CIP may not be implemented during a period for various reasons, including non-realization of anticipated funding, a lack of sponsor interest, shifts in priorities or interim replacement of program projects with projects not previously identified.
The 1996 to 2000 CIP includes $123.4 million of non-reliever general aviation improvement projects. Over the five-year period this represents a projected funding of 54.2 million in federal funds, 57.9 million in state funds, and 11.3 million in local contributions. We have made a significant change in the CIP this year. We are suggesting that TxDOT no longer contribute the 5 percent share of the non-federal cost of federally-funded projects, and this will be, with few exceptions, for projects that we previously committed to.
Currently and previously the ratio is 90 percent federal, 5 percent local and 5 percent state, and then for state-funded projects that was 90 percent state, 10 percent local. What we are suggesting is that we establish a consistent 10 percent local contribution and by doing that, that would free up approximately $500,000 in state funds that could be used on other projects and essentially extend our ability to do other projects and require local governments to come up with what was previously the state-funded project.
A copy of the CIP was mailed to all airport sponsors for review and comment. Those comments are due in today, and comments in this hearing or any written comments will be considered and appropriate revisions made. We will bring the CIP back to this Commission in May for final adoption. And I am not aware, Mr. Chairman, if there are any sponsors or interested parties that wish to comment on the public hearing. If there are not, I can explain why. Most of those are worked out at the staff level with sponsors. There is ongoing dialogue with various members to reconcile this CIP.
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Tom. Are there any comments from the public?
MR. BURNETT: Chairman, we have no one signed up to speak on this item.
MR. LANEY: Thanks then, Mr. Griebel.
We will now conclude the public hearing and proceed with our regular meeting.
(Whereupon, the public hearing portion was concluded.)
MR. LANEY: I need to note for the record that a public notice of this meeting containing all items of the agenda was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State at 10:30 a.m. on April 19, 1995.
As I mentioned earlier, I assumed this role less than a week ago, and as you all know by the size of these notebooks, we have a lot of preparation and work that goes into these on the front end of the meeting and the lion's share of that work on the Commission level, from a guidance and leadership standpoint, was handled by Former Chairman Bernsen. I am now going to -- although presiding as chairman -- going to turn the meeting over to Chairman Bernsen to work his way through, as is his usual custom in these meetings, and if we can be of any assistance as chairman, let me know.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, Chairman Laney. The first item on the agenda today is approval of the minutes. Could I hear a motion on that?
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. BERNSEN: Second?
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BERNSEN: The second item would be the presentation by the City of Pharr, and as I understand it, Jake, will you be leading the delegation?
JUDGE RUIZ: Yes, I will.
MR. BERNSEN: Good to see you again.
CITY OF PHARR DELEGATION
(Judge Edgar Ruiz, Representative Roberto Gutierrez, Representative Renato Cuellar, Representative Sergio Munoz, Senator Eddie Lucio, Ernesto Silva)
JUDGE RUIZ: Good morning. Thank you for placing us on the agenda and thank you for the time. Commissioner, welcome and congratulations to you for your role. My first order of business is to invite you to the Rio Grande Valley to Hidalgo County.
MR. LANEY: Accepted.
JUDGE RUIZ: Thank you. The Commission has been there several times in the years past, and I encourage you to do that. I think you would enjoy that trip and it would enlighten you.
The MPOs commissioned by the Department of Transportation statewide has sort of said we need a regional international project to actually review border crossings, the Rio Grande Valley into Mexico. The MPO has taken that charge very seriously. Consequently, there have been several studies that have been presented to this Commission, one of which we want to present to you which is the Bridge Corridor Study that gives a very close review of international border crossings, in Hidalgo County, primarily, along the Rio Grande, and most directly, the most recent bridge built along the US-Texas border, which is the Pharr International Bridge. You will find that this study gives a good short-term and long-term improvement priority that actually will ensure not only the proper flow of present traffic but the growth of traffic to come.
Highway 281 is probably the main thoroughfare between the US and Mexico. Not only does it connect three international bridges and a ferry in Hidalgo County, but it gets traffic from the other three international bridges from Cameron County and even as far as Laredo. There are the many crossings that go into Houston, into San Antonio, into Corpus, and therefore, into Dallas also. So consequently, there is a major, major improvement necessary for 281.
I would like to focus basically on one issue that is highlighted in the Bridge Corridor, and that is a high water bridge or a bridge that needs to be built over a floodway levy, a man-made barrier that exists between the International Bridge of Pharr and the City of Pharr where Highway 281 and Business 83 or Highway 83 meet.
This is a man-made barrier that actually threatens the actual success of this Pharr International Bridge. It provides for a very serious bottleneck of flow of traffic ongoing and the projections that are to come. But more importantly, it really actually prohibits the overall regional planning of this particular growth of the area. So consequently, as you go through, in your leisure time, over this Bridge Corridor Study, the highlight will be this bridge that needs to be built immediately.
I think that what we are here to do is to ask that this project be placed in the highest priority on your future plans for the Rio Grande Valley, and that, again, construction begin as soon as possible.
Today, supporting, of course, this corridor study over and above, are many members of the MPO of the Rio Grande Valley, but more importantly, we have the mayor of Pharr, Victor Garcia here, and of course, the commission from Pharr: Theo Palacios, Pepe Salinas, Raul Martinez, and Ray Zuniga, and we do have various other elected officials from the Rio Grande Valley supporting, and of course, business men and women from this area supporting this Bridge Corridor Study and the future construction of this high water bridge over this particular area.
I am now going to ask some of our state representatives from our delegation to come up and say a few words.
MR. BERNSEN: Judge, for the record, we know who you are, but the court reporter needs to have your name.
JUDGE RUIZ: I am sorry. My name is Edgar Ruiz, and I am the county judge from Hidalgo County. I thought everybody knew me.
MR. BERNSEN: We do, but she needs to write it down for the record.
JUDGE RUIZ: State representative Roberto Gutierrez.
MR. GUTIERREZ: For the record, State Representative Roberto Gutierrez, representing District 41, the City of McAllen and the City of Pharr.
First, I would like to thank you all for giving the City of Pharr some of your time today. I also want to thank the Commission for taking up the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge Corridor Study and say that I appreciate the efforts of the Texas Department of Transportation district office in working with Pharr on this study.
Commissioner Laney, I welcome you to your first meeting with the Transportation Commission, and I congratulate you on your appointment as chairman. In appointing you to the Commission, Governor Bush let us know that you will base your decisions on everything that is fair and that you are a very objective individual. I know that you will base your decisions on the best interests of the State of Texas and its citizens. We in the Rio Grande Valley only look for what is fair, just and good for the people of this state and of this nation.
With this in mind, I ask you to remember that designs to implement NAFTA is a high priority on everybody's list. This study will help ensure the future economic growth, political stability in our nation and the neighboring countries. Governor Bush said, and I quote: "During the next decade the Texas Department Commission will literally pave the roads to economic opportunity as NAFTA encourages trade between Texas, Mexico and Canada."
The Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge opened January 10 of this year and has already exceeded its traffic projections. The City of Pharr built this bridge by first making a partnership with Mexico. This partnership has ensured us that the bridge will tie to the existing Mexican highway system. We now need road improvements that will show that we are serious about fulfilling our side of the bargain; that is, to provide safe, efficient passage across the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge into the Valley, and from there throughout Texas, thus giving support and advancement to the NAFTA and speeding the economic success it will bring to our nation.
Two of the most critical elements in the design to implement NAFTA are the US Highway 281 corridor, the high water bridge. Not only are improvements necessary to go forward with NAFTA plans, but US Highway 281 is a hurricane evacuation route and is, thus, an important safety issue for the area.
In closing, I would like to ask you to turn your attention to Mr. Silva as he explains the importance of the high water bridge. I respectfully request the Commission to issue a minute order approving funding for the improvement he will detail, and thank all of you for the time. And again, Chairman Laney, welcome, congratulations. I am looking forward to working with you and the other two commissioners. Thank you very much.
MR. LANEY: Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, Representative.
JUDGE RUIZ: State Representative Renato Cuellar is also here.
MR. CUELLAR: Thank you, Judge. I also want to commend you for your new position. You happen to be the fifth chairman that I have worked under since I have been here in the legislature. It has been a very, very interesting experience working under our past chairmen, from Chairman Lanier, Steadman, Stoker, and to you, too, it has been a very interesting experience.
It is an honor for me to be here today with the City of Pharr. I am one of three state representatives that have represented Pharr. We have the Honorable Tony Garcia, who worked on this project long before I came here, and you have presently Representative Gutierrez.
The Valley works on a regional basis but I can assure you that this high water bridge is very much a part of the puzzle that is needed to make the Rio Grande Valley whole. You have the studies. I cannot say enough good things about the Department of Transportation -- which I helped to create which changed it over from what it used to be to what it is today -- for the work that they have done in the Rio Grande Valley. They have so many projects going that it would take a while to list them all. And it has been done because the state has seen the need, under our past governor and today our present governor, to make certain that this country enjoys the kind of business that is there.
If you can go and sit at one of these bridges for two hours, two and a half hours, three hours, to try to get across, then you realize the importance of the Pharr Bridge. Pharr has the only clear shot down to Monterrey and up to Canada that exists in the United States. The sister city of McAllen has a bridge there but it is right in the middle of the city.
Pharr has an opportunity to do things that no other city has done -- maybe Laredo will have the same opportunity -- to build around a new bridge, and the Department of Transportation has done a tremendous job but there is still a ways to go. All I can tell you is the City of Pharr has not only put its money and its efforts into this project, they have put their heart into it. Pharr has done things that no other city has done to merit the opportunity that you have of giving them the right to be a part of the growth of this country.
I will echo what Chairman Bernsen said: We not only have the best transportation department in the United States, it is in the whole continent. Mr. Chairman, again, it is a pleasure for me to work for you. There is no sense in me getting into statistics. All I can tell you is the Department has done their work, you have the district engineer from our area, Amadeo Saenz, who is here, and I can't say enough of the work that they have done in our area, but all it is is good business.
Now, we can say about trade with Mexico, about the vegetables and the produce and the other kind of business, but people is what is important, and if they don't have a way to come across -- and if you have ever seen one of our storms down there -- you may not use this bridge except every three or four years, but then it is very important, it is very necessary for evacuation, for people coming in. And I, again, will echo what the representative from the district said: that you give a minute order ordering that money be appropriated for this project.
I want to thank you, and as you can see, the people of Pharr are solidly behind this, the people of the Rio Grande Valley are solidly behind it, and I hate to get in front of my senator, but he is a senator that every time I think I am working hard, I look up ahead and there is my senator. He was with the vice-president yesterday. Thank you very much.
JUDGE RUIZ: State Representative Sergio Munoz.
MR. MUNOZ: Mr. Chairman, David, Anne. My name is Sergio Munoz, and I am the representative for District 36. I want to thank the Commission, I want to thank the staff, Mr. Burnett, and especially the staff down in the Rio Grande Valley, Amadeo Saenz and everybody else. They have done a great job. I would like to personally say that when we talk about bureaucracies and the inability of many townfolks to be able to deal with them, I find that, in my three years in the legislature, that it has been a pleasure to work with TxDOT and pretty much refute the myth and allegations that bureaucracy is inaccessible. That is certainly not the game here or the order of business at TxDOT.
I would also like to thank some of the people that have served on this Commission that were instrumental in bringing light, and with your help, of course, David and Anne, to the Rio Grande Valley. We cannot give enough credit to Henry Munoz from San Antonio and Ruben Cardenas from McAllen because through their help and your initiative, of course, we have begun to look at South Texas as the corridor of trade and certainly the front door to Mexico, Central and South America and not just the back door as many people considered it.
Let me just say that the puzzle is not complete. Building the bridges in Pharr is a great accomplishment. Getting the money for the corridor and our high water bridge will certainly finish that puzzle. We ask for every help that this Commission can give us in making that dream a reality.
In closing, let me just say that let not the threats or the courts of inquiry diminish the great need to further establish a firm transportational infrastructure in the Rio Grande Valley that will open the roads of progress from the south, central, and Mexico to the commercial trade centers in Texas and throughout the United States and Canada.
Mr. Laney, David, Anne, thank you and have a good day.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, Representative.
JUDGE RUIZ: Our state senator, Mr. Eddie Lucio.
SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Judge, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Chairman Laney, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to join my colleagues and officials from Pharr, Texas and the county judge, state representatives from the Rio Grande Valley as we talk to you this morning about a very, very important issue.
Chairman Bernsen, I can't say enough about the support and the commitment that you have given the people of South Texas. We thank you for that publicly this morning.
Commissioner Wynne, the same for you, ma'am. You have been very committed, as well, to look at projects throughout our state, realizing that South Texas certainly is a key to NAFTA.
Also, Bill, I can't leave you out. Every time I call you are there. I appreciate the response you keep giving us as well.
I have enjoyed working with TxDOT through the years since 1986 when I have been in the legislature. We have been able to see a lot of changes, a lot of changes that have brought improvements and opportunities to South Texas, in particular District 27 that I represent.
The high water bridge is primarily a safety factor, if we want to look at that, because it is the use of a road hopefully that will be connecting the residents of Las Milpas, which is located in that area with high population, and Pharr, which is located between a flood plain, and this is very important for us to understand that in case of emergencies, that certainly is going to be a factor in trying to save and help human life. Of course, another big factor, and one that we certainly talk about consistently is that the road improvement -- is that it will assist the growth of trade and the flow of traffic between Texas and Mexico since it is currently constrained by the limited number of roadways leading to international bridges in that area.
The high water bridge will be linked to the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and other nearby border crossings to promote the sale of Texas products in Mexico. That is extremely important. And finally, not only will the residents of these communities in the Rio Grande Valley benefit from drastic and much needed improvements in safety, but they, as well as Texans throughout the state, will enjoy the economic prosperity this project will bring in terms of jobs and improved trade on exports from Texas to Mexico.
I realize now, more than ever, as a member of finance that in terms of supply and demand, the demand is very high in terms of the needs that we have in our individual districts. And the supply stays steady; it doesn't increase at times. And I realize you have a big job when people from all over the state come before you to discuss the projects that are important to their area and the emergency status of each and every one of them. This truly merits your consideration as it, again, deals with a very important subject matter: NAFTA. It merits your consideration, obviously, as it deals with a very much more important factor as far as I am concerned, and that is safety. And I just urge you this morning to do everything you can to look at the reports that have been handed you, the testimony that has been given you and to try to bring the infrastructure equal and to par, I guess, to the rest of the state because we certainly would like these improvements to take place at this time.
My commitment to you, as I have said in the past in a very sincere way, as a member of finance is to continue to find the resources and make those resources available to you so that you can more adequately, more efficiently, more effectively, serve the people of the state that you represent. Thank you very much.
MS. WYNNE: Thank you, Senator.
MR. LANEY: Thank you, Senator.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE RUIZ: Thank you, Senator. I think he brought a very good point in the sense that we as a community, all communities around the state come and ask you for various projects, all sorts of projects, but at the same time, we also go back to the Legislature and say, you have got to fund the Department of Transportation. We understand it is a double-edged sword here.
Let me introduce from the City of Pharr's administration, Mr. Ernesto Silva, who will give you some fine points, technical points in reference to the project.
MR. SILVA: Thank you. We are going to set up some visuals, so while they are doing that, I am going to go ahead and hand out a couple of the packets.
I would like to say that I do have something in common with you, Mr. Laney. This is my first time making a presentation before the Commission, so we are both here for our first meeting.
At this time I would like to recognize our delegation that has made a 5-1/2 hour drive to Austin in order to be here with us today, and if they may all rise. The delegation consists of both civic leaders, the chamber of commerce, and residents from our community.
I would like to go ahead and get started. To kind of set the mood for my presentation today, I would like to share with you something I experienced before I left to Austin to come and make this presentation. I was at home packing and my son came up to me and said, Daddy, are you going out of town again? And he is five years old. And I said, Yes, son, I am going to Austin, I am going to go make a presentation before the Texas Department of Transportation.
And he said, Well, Daddy, what is that? I said, Well, you know every time it rains? He said, Yes. And I said, You know at night when I have to get up and I have to leave because I have to go back to Pharr because there is going to be some flooding? He said, Yes. I said, Well, I am going to go over there and I am going to ask for some money so that we can build a bridge. And he said, Is this bridge going to be high? And I said, Sure, son, it is going to be a high bridge; it is going to be a high water bridge so that traffic can get from the southern part of Pharr into the central business district.
And he said, Daddy, do school busses go through there? And I said, They sure do. He said, What would happen if the water hit the school bus and would the people be dead? And I said, They sure would. And he said, Well, Daddy, I hope you get that money. So here is my five-year-old son and I am kind of setting the mood here because basically the safety factor is the most important factor that we are going to be looking at today, not necessarily the Pharr Bridge. The Pharr Bridge is already open and it is in operation.
The high water bridge itself has been in the planning stages for over 17 years. The design of the bridge is being undertaken at this time and will be completed by December and we would like to go out for bid in December. However, our experience has been, with the interchange there at US 281 and 83, that it takes longer to get funding than it does to design a project. It was over 20 years before we received this $27 million for the interchange at the US 83 and Expressway 281, and we are just hoping that we are able to avoid that same incident again. We would like for this bridge to be designed and constructed in the same year.
I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to come here and speak before you and make this presentation. I am going to use the visuals so I will need a mike. I have provided the maps in the packets, so if you would like to refer to those instead of looking up here, that would be fine.
First, I would like to start by looking at US 281. All the circles in red are existing international bridges, all the circles in blue are proposed international crossings. The US 281 begins in Brownsville, heads westwardly into the community of Pharr and then north out of the Rio Grande Valley. The only other corridor leaving the Valley is US 77; however, we do have a problem in this area, the Harlingen-San Benito area, which is flood prone. If you recall, approximately two years ago this area was flooded and the roads were closed for approximately a week; that is, the expressway system closed.
There are only two expressways in the Valley: that is 77, 83 and a portion of US 281. Any time this area is closed, and now with the hazardous waste routes and the hazardous waste that is coming to and from Mexico and the United States, if this area had a problem and was closed, all the other traffic from South Padre Island, Brownsville, and all the other areas of Harlingen and Sen Benito would have to be rerouted on to US 281, come up US 281 north, and head out of the Valley; however, during a hurricane, the high water bridge located at this point here on US 281 would be flooded.
This area on US 281 has been known to flood at least once every three to four years. That is when the IBWC redirects its water to the floodway system. We know for a fact that that is only when they redirect water, however, the area floods any time when we have heavy rains; therefore, that particular road has to be closed, that section of US 281 is impassable. That leaves the area, the central business district of Pharr and the southern area of Pharr known as the Las Milpas area -- and some of you have been there when you went down there for the ground breaking for the bridge.
We have 15,000 residents in Las Milpas, we have 28,000 in Pharr. Once that bridge is closed, once that road is flooded, our residents are without help from the central business district. It requires us to go to McAllen, 10th Street, to drive around and come back down, come around into McAllen, come down south, and come back into the area in order to provide services.
Also, school buses, in the morning they leave at 5:00 in the morning to go pick up kids and bring them into the schools. We have three school districts in that area, so we are working with three different school districts, three different sets of drivers, three different sets of rules. Every time it rains, we have to send our crews out there to make sure that that road is clear.
Your staff down there does an excellent job, the maintenance crew does an excellent job; however, as you well know, you only trust yourselves, so we call our crews and we send them out ahead of time to make sure that a bus driver is not going to take that chance, that one chance and try to drive across to get down to the southern part of our community.
The Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge is located here, traffic comes across the bridge, goes north on 281 to head out of the Valley. The top priority of this study is for the high water bridge; however, we would like to ask that the study itself be accepted by you today so that the City of Pharr can continue to work not only on preserving right of way but also to find funding from other sources besides TxDOT. We would like to go back to the federal government, sit down with the secretary and ask him to provide additional funding specifically for our project.
I bring this up because we had a meeting with the secretary two years ago. His recommendation was to have the MPO authorize a study, which it has; have the MPO approve the study and accept the study, which we have; and then he said, Take it to TxDOT and have them accept your study as a plan, as a regional plan, and then you can come back to us and request your funding.
And that is what we are doing here today. We are asking for the top priority, the high water bridge to be funded, we want that to be funded out of your discretionary funds. I believe it is NAFTA funds eligible, it is hurricane evacuation route eligible, and HS eligible, so you have three different sources where you can select the funding from.
To point out the rest of the study, the study asks for three other thoroughfares to be approved. The thoroughfare coming from the bridge going north is Jackson Road up to Nolana which is already a five-lane road. All of these improvements that we are speaking about, we are not talking about expressway bypasses, we are talking about five lanes. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. These are five lanes: four lanes with a continuous left-turn lane.
That would head north. Traffic coming across the bridge would head westwardly, come north heading west out of the Valley or heading into the McAllen medical area and also the shopping area in McAllen. That is the first project, which is $15.6 million.
The second project which is Military Highway, $4 million, would be to improve Military Highway from I [phonetic] Road over to Hidalgo. That is very important for both the Pharr Bridge, the Hidalgo Bridge, and the McAllen foreign trade zone. Access from the Pharr Bridge would bring the traffic up on Military Highway up to 10th Street, up to 115 and into the McAllen foreign trade zone.
Also, any time the McAllen-Hidalgo Bridge would be closed for any reason, or the congestion would be so bad, then traffic would be rerouted over to the Pharr Bridge. Vice versa, any time the traffic on the Pharr Bridge is congested or the Pharr Bridge is closed, the traffic would be rerouted over to the Hidalgo Bridge. That has already happened twice; we only opened in January. The reason being we had a couple of bomb threats during the uprising in Mexico.
So the bridge closings, you have to redirect all your traffic to the other bridge, so it is important that we have a network there that can provide access to and from either of the bridges.
We do have a grant application at the federal level so that we can have a congestion management system in place so that traffic coming to the bridge can be redirected using the electronic message boards that are in place in other parts of the area of the state.
The third improvement is the improvement of I Road, which is not on the state system at this time. Most of that particular road is a caliche road or a dirt road. It does not cross the floodway; therefore, at this present time the city of Pharr is going to undertake a study to do a route determination study in order for us to determine where the right of way needs to be for this particular road.
What this creates for us, if you look at the map here, is a system to provide access both to the east for those people heading to South Padre Island, Harlingen, those people that are going over to the shrine. It is pretty interesting that the shrine in San Juan receives 10,000 visitors that sign every weekend in San Juan. It receives 40,000 visitors on Easter Sunday; 60 percent of those visitors come from Mexico.
So it is important that we have an arterial that can carry the traffic to this area to the expressway over to San Juan, it is important that we have access to the Hidalgo Bridge, it is important that we have access to Jackson Road so that those people who are heading west can get on 83 and head out to Laredo, and it is very important, not only for safety, but also for those travellers that are heading north to San Antonio to be able to stay on US 281 and come out of the Valley.
How does this tie into the entire state system? If you look on the United States map, Monterrey, Mexico, located at this point, the road into Pharr is here. This is US 281 heading all across the United States into Canada. It is a straight shot from Pharr to Manitoba. However, if you take the US 281 and you are able to provide a system of circulation of traffic and trade between the two countries, you could bring the traffic up 281, bring it to 59 and go from 59 over to Houston, 37 over to Corpus, 59 back to Laredo, or you can come up to San Antonio, take I-35 north and come all the way into Dallas/Fort Worth, Oklahoma, Kansas, take that area, you can do the I-69 tying it into 59, connecting on to US 281.
So this project, however important it is to the community of Pharr, is also very important to the rest of the country. The trade between the two countries is only going to increase, the flow of goods from Mexico has only increased since the devaluation of the peso because their products are less expensive. Where are those products going to? They are going to San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Omaha, Indianapolis, New York, Los Angeles, so we need to provide the infrastructure necessary to have the goods moved from the border to our expressway system.
As I mentioned earlier, all of these roads are five-lane roads, none of them are bypasses. People ask why. The reason is we don't have the traffic flow to show that an expressway is necessary. If we came before you today and asked for an expressway, your answer would be no. We would be asking for somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million, and we would never be able to compete with any other section of the state.
We are taking the approach that it is not only going to benefit the community of Pharr, it will benefit the community of San Juan, Edinburg, McAllen, Hidalgo and Pharr, and provide access to and from the bridge and to other markets in the state and the country. So that is our request today: for us to receive funding for the high water bridge on US 281 and also for us to have our study accepted by you so that we can continue to work towards receiving funding from other sources. And I will take any questions that you have.
I would like to mention -- say just one last word, that we do have a very good partnership with you, with your staff down in our area. The City of Pharr has committed itself on every project and we always acquire the right of way for TxDOT. We are working on acquiring the right of way for Jackson Road at this time. The City of Pharr will be acquiring the right of way. It is an effort between the county, the City of McAllen and the City of Pharr. The high water bridge, the design is in the works and we will be starting the acquisition of right of way shortly, and the City of Pharr, once again we have agreed to acquire the right of way, the necessary right of way.
I can only praise the staff down there. I work with them very closely because they are located in my community, so I just drive down the street and I go meet with them. And I don't say this because I am here asking for funding, but that is the honest truth.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you. Any questions?
MS. WYNNE: No, sir.
MR. BERNSEN: I would like to make a couple of observations. I want to thank Judge Ruiz and all the other elected officials and citizens who came here today, Representatives Cuellar, Gutierrez and Munoz, and Senator Lucio. I will start this at the end and say we are very proud of Amadeo Saenz and his staff, and we encourage you to continue to work with him and his staff and also our staff here in Austin.
I have been to Pharr, I have felt the warmth and hospitality of your community. I was there for the opening of the interchange, I was there for the breaking of the bridge. It is a very exciting time for the Valley and for South Texas and for the state.
I want to echo a couple of things that speakers talked about and say this, that the projects down there are not only important for the state, they are important nationally and internationally. When we first started building the projects down there, there was some question about the projects being local. I think everyone has come short philosophically, I should say, and say that we have to start thinking in terms of corridors, and that includes the bridge, it includes the connectors and the roadways from the river, all the way to the river to the north and then on through the United States and then south into Monterrey and into the heart of Mexico.
I think this is important -- I am speaking for myself now -- I think this is a very important project. I think it is something that we need to look at in terms of safety and also in terms of evacuation and in terms of corridors because it is very important. You have to get the commerce and the people from Mexico across bridges and then you have to connect them to these corridors, and vice versa from the United States down to Mexico.
Senator Lucio has been very, very supportive, as have the other members, and this is not an original with me, but it is something that as we go through the process of trying to divide the dollars, it is like they say, that everybody wants to go to heaven but they don't want to die. It is essentially the same thing with these projects, that right now our staff is struggling and the Commission is struggling that we can build 40 percent of the projects that need to be built each year, and so we are losing ground. And it is hard for us to -- one of the hardest problems, at least for me personally, is to try and divide it up because you have very important projects that are necessary to our system, as does Dallas and Houston and everyone else.
And so later on -- not this session because they said no taxes, but at some point in time we are going to need your help to go get some more dollars to build the highways and the bridges, and you have been -- the South Texas Delegation and all the elected officials have been very supportive of that, we appreciate your help, but at some point in time we are going to have to go do that if Texas is going to maintain the edge of having the best transportation system. It is very important, I think, to the state and we need your help.
Bill, I have a question. They were asking to approve the study. When you said talk to the secretary, you are talking about Pena?
MR. SILVA: Pena.
MR. BERNSEN: What is the status of that in terms of them being able to go get additional money?
MR. BURNETT: Chairman, what staff would recommend to the Commission is -- we have seen the study before and we have worked with the city, and I know Amadeo and his people have looked at it -- would be to allow our transportation planning division look at it between now and your Commission meeting in May to make sure that it is consistent with the statewide regional plans and the local plans, and then that we would bring you back a resolution saying that you accept this study. That would be staff's recommendation to you, Commissioner.
MR. BERNSEN: All right. And then we will, as we go through the hard decisions -- it is something that we struggle with -- we will look at this project very, very carefully because it is an important project and we will look at that and see if we can find the -- it is not a question of whether or not it needs to be built, it does need to be built, we have to see if there are funds available and we will work diligently with you, and I applaud your efforts to continue to work together. But it is an important project and I appreciate everyone.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, there may be the possibility that staff can approve it without Commission action, and if you would rather us do that, we would be glad to do that. It would expedite it a little bit. If you would like to have an official record of this Commission, we can bring it back in May, but we can look and see if we can approve it without the Commission.
MR. BERNSEN: I would just think that if time is of the essence, then staff can go and do that. Judge, I am not sure how -- if time is of the essence and the staff says that yes, we should approve it, then let the staff approve it and maybe we can ratify it.
MR. BURNETT: We would glad to do that.
MR. BERNSEN: Is that okay?
JUDGE RUIZ: That would be fine.
MR. BERNSEN: On behalf of the Commission, I appreciate everyone travelling here and I look forward to seeing you again.
JUDGE RUIZ: We hope to see you soon in the Rio Grande Valley. Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much.
MR. LANEY: Let me add one thing, if I may, just in case there is any concern. I know Mr. Munoz was here some time ago and I succeeded, to some extent, the position that Mr. Cardenas had and there was clearly a focus of both of them on the Valley and these bridge projects. Let me just assure you that from the first minute I had my conversations with the governor, his focus is, too, on that same area and he knows mine is as well. Senator Lucio has heard that in spades, and so there shouldn't be any concern that you have lost a position on this Commission with interest in the Valley area. It is still very strong and there won't be any ground lost in terms of the level of focus, interest and involvement in the Valley simply because I am from Dallas.
Also, Mr. Silva, I commend you on your presentation and now that you are experienced, we look forward to seeing you again here sometime.
MR. SILVA: Thank you very much. We appreciate the time.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much. Any other questions or observations?
MR. SILVA: Mr. Chairman, if you will excuse us, we can move out.
MR. BERNSEN: You bet. Thank you.
MR. LANEY: Thanks for coming.
MR. BURNETT: If it pleases the Commission, what we would like to do now is -- I guess, first, while some of the crowd is clearing out, I think we would like to point out to you, I think all of you have mentioned this morning how we believe we are the best DOT in the nation, and I would like for Russell to introduce to you some people here from the Ohio Department of Transportation who are here trying to see how an effective and efficient transportation agency works so that they can take this back home with them, so Russell.
MR. HARDING: Bill, Mr. Chairman, Commission members, we were contacted by the Ohio Department of Transportation. They are going through some reorganization and restructuring. They sent a delegation down to visit and they are here at the meeting. We have: John Platt who is the chief of staff; Cheryl Werley, chief legislative officer; Michelle Holdgreve, assistant legislative liaison; Tom Hedrick, planning and design engineer -- he is from one of the districts; Terry Pace, administrative assistant to the chief of staff; and Holly Mitchell who is executive secretary of the office of transportation.
MR. BERNSEN: Thanks for coming. We are glad to have you, and come visit any time.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, if we could now, if we could move to item 3, Contracts, and we have Bobbie Templeton, the assistant executive director for field operations, to present these items to you for consideration.
MR. TEMPLETON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Moving quickly to Tab 3.a.(1), we have the state-let maintenance contracts. On April 12 we let eleven of those contracts and received 3.3 bids per project. The total of those low bids was 2.747 million; that was 7 percent under the engineer's estimate. We have two contracts in which DBE and HUB firms were the low bidders for a total of $542,000 or 19.73 percent of the letting in this category. All of these are awardable and we recommend that they all be moved, with your approval, to contracts.
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab (2) we have the building projects. We had three building projects let on April 4, we received three bids for each one of those projects. The total of those bids was 1.928 million or 1.4 percent over the engineer's estimate or over the estimate for these projects. We have one contract in which a DBE or HUB firm was the low bidder, a total of $464,000 or 24.1 percent of this category of projects. All of these projects are awardable and we make that recommendation.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. TEMPLETON: Behind Tab (3) we have the construction projects. These were let on April 12 and 13. There were 77 of these projects and we received 4.5 bids per project. These projects totalled out at $90.5 million which was approximately $5 million under the engineer's estimate. Five of these projects were won by DBE and HUB firms for a total of $1.436 million, or 1.57 percent of the total letting. In addition, we have goals for those projects to be filled with subcontractors totalling 10.7 percent, and that amounts to $9.7 million or the 10.7 percent of this particular category. All of these projects are awardable and we recommend that you do that.
MS. WYNNE: So moved.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion, comments? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. TEMPLETON: And while we are at the construction category, I would like to bring you an updated report on the DBE incentive specification that we have been using since September. In the month of March we had eleven contracts still pending. We have increased the DBE performance $1.144 million, and that will produce an incentive of $84.2 thousand for the month of March. The other eleven will be finished soon and that number will go up from that.
For the fiscal year to date, we have increased our DBE performance through this incentive $9.7 million and we have paid out $738,000 in incentive payments, so it is working. We are still dealing with the Federal Highway Administration on adding that to the federal aid projects as this is only for the state-funded work.
Moving to Tab (4), we have locally let maintenance contracts. These were let between March 8 and April 7. There were 103 of these projects and we received 3.3 bids per project. These projects totalled $5-1/2 million and the low bids were approximately $758,000 under out estimates. Twenty-six of these contracts were successfully bid by DBE and HUB firms for a total of $1.05 million, and that is 19.02 percent of the total letting. We have five projects in this category that we are recommending rejection on. The first is on page 1. It is the Reeves County project, the fourth one from the bottom. The low bidder on that bid inordinately low and has informed us that he will not be able to perform that project. The project will be of such size that there is not a performance bond, so it would be of no benefit to let that particular project go to contract. It is recommended that it be rejected and re-advertise it as soon as possible.
On page 2 we have a project in Smith County. It is the fifth project from the bottom, a slope stabilization project. It is 73.6 percent over the engineer's estimate, and we do not think that is a competitive bid.
On page 3 we have a Nacogdoches project, the first on the list. It is 49 percent over the engineer's estimate, and again, it is too high to go to contract, and we propose to relet that project.
On page 4 we have a project in Harris County, it is the fourth project from the top. It is a bridge repair project, repair the bridge slab. It is 33 percent over the estimate, and again, we feel like we do not have good competition there.
The last project to be rejected is in Freestone County. It is on page 6, the fourth project from the top. It is a driveway installation, and the bid is 14.95 percent over the estimate. The reason this project is not considered for award is that the contract may not be needed because of impending changes to the Department's driveway policy, and they wish to hold off on this particular contract.
With the exception of these five projects, we would recommend that all of these projects be awarded to contract.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. TEMPLETON: Moving on to Tab b. which is an assignment of contract, we have a firm, Reece Albert, Inc., who has purchased another firm, Midland Paving, Inc. Midland Paving had a project ongoing at that particular time in Midland County, it is on State Highway 349, and the two firms would like to reassign that contract from the Midland Paving name to the Reece Albert, Inc., name. It is in order for us to do that, and we would recommend you approve that assignment of contract to Reece Albert, Inc.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. LANEY: All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, Bobbie.
MR. BURNETT: Now, Commissioners, we would like to go to Item 4, Programs, and we have Robert Cuellar, deputy executive director of transportation planning and development.
MR. CUELLAR: Good morning, Commissioners. Agenda Item 4.a. proposes a minute order which would authorize the funding of $5.3 million for the Houston Intelligent Transportation System Corridor. The federal legislation ISTEA designated the northwest quadrant of Houston as an Intelligent Transportation System Corridor. The funds being discussed are federal demonstration projects at an 80 percent federal and 20 percent state match. The staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MS. WYNNE: So moved.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Where is this, Bob?
MR. CUELLAR: It is the US 290 on the northwest section of town.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you. Any discussion?
MR. LANEY: Just a question. Are these programs available statewide?
MR. CUELLAR: No, sir. They were actually set up in Washington, D.C. as demonstration projects with a specific project in mind.
MR. BURNETT: And Bob, this federal money can only be spent on this project. Is that not correct?
MR. CUELLAR: That is correct, yes, sir.
MR. BERNSEN: Any other discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4.b. requests programming authority to the Laredo District for Surface Transportation Programming, or otherwise known as STP funds in the categories of rural and Urban/Mobility Rehabilitation Programs. Allocations to the other districts were made prior to the establishment of the Laredo District boundaries, so this minute order would allow the Laredo District programming authority within these funding categories. The staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MS. WYNNE: So moved.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4.c. would establish a district discretionary program for funding the plans, specifications and estimates -- otherwise known as PS&E -- work for project development. The project development plan task force report which was approved by the Commission earlier this year, did recommend establishment of this type of a program. It allows a district to be able to develop a project up to Priority 2 status. Still unchanged is the procedure that before these projects are authorized for funding, they still do have to come to the Commission for authorization. The staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4.d. authorizes two additional years of programming authority for the Interstate Rehabilitation and Preventive Maintenance Program and for the Surface Transportation Program Urban and Regional Rehabilitation Program. A previous minute order by the Commission in 1995 did set up funding for the fiscal year 1996. We are now asking for your authorization to go on and fund the other two years of the Three-Year Transportation Improvement Program. The staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. BERNSEN: Motion?
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 4.e. would revise the project selection criteria for the Urban Street System Program. It would enable cities to manage consultants and construction projects developed under this program. It still would leave the Department with the oversight and audit responsibilities for project development. The staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MS. WYNNE: You are sure?
MR. CUELLAR: Yes, ma'am. It is enabling; it does not mandate that we would. It would certainly be a case-by-case, project-by-project situation that we would rely heavily on the district's knowledge of what the situation is locally and whether the locals could adequately develop that project.
MS. WYNNE: Thank you. Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, Bob.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, Item 5., routine minute orders, and if we could get the Commission to take all of these in one motion. 5.a., Speed Zones, as attached are various highways in the state where we ask you to set either a regulatory or construction speed zone. Item b., as listed in the attachment are various highways and various bridges in the state that we need posted due to their conditions to where they can only carry certain loads.
Item c., Highway Designation. We are asking you in Aransas and San Patricio Counties to redesignate the business route and two state highway loops in and around the cities of Aransas Pass and Rockport; c.(2) in Fayette County on State Highway 71, we are asking you to redesignate the former location of State Highway 71 as Loop 220 in the community of Plum; in Gonzales County we are asking you to redesignate roadways in the city of Gonzales; in Hidalgo County at a new location in Pharr, we are asking you to designate a new location roadway to the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and to designate this as Spur 600.
Under 5.d., Disposition of Existing Right of Way and Property: in Bexar County, authorizing the Department to sell a surplus drainage easement on FM 1560; in Brazoria County on State Highway 332, authorize quit claim of right of way easement interest to honor the reversionary clauses in the instruments; in Brewster County on US Highway 385, authorize the sale of a surplus borrow easement; in Cherokee County on State Highway 110, authorize the sale of a surplus right of way easement that we have for a roadside park; in Tarrant County on Interstate 20, authorize the sale of surplus right of way no longer needed by the Department; and in Travis County on State Highway Loop 360, authorize the quit claim of surplus right of way in exchange for new right of way.
MS. WYNNE: Could I ask you a question?
MR. BURNETT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WYNNE: Would this House Bill 1262 they are talking about have an effect on this item?
MR. BURNETT: I think, Commissioner, as I understand the bill that is going through the legislature today, 1262, I believe that you could do this as you are doing this today. There would be some question as to whether these funds, when you did this, went to the State Highway Fund, Fund 6, or whether these funds went to Fund 1, General Revenue.
The other thing that Senate Bill 1262 does is that if you didn't want to do this and the General Land Office recommended to the legislative budget board and the governor's office that you do this, you wouldn't have any say, you would just be ordered to do this. Does that answer your question?
MS. WYNNE: Uh-huh.
MR. BURNETT: On Building and Ground Improvements, e., in Bexar County there at the district complex on Loop 410 in San Antonio, authorize the construction of a radio and traffic signal shop with an asphalt laboratory; and here in Travis County up at the Bull Creek Annex near Camp Hubbard is authorize asbestos abatement, hazardous materials disposal, and demolition of seven buildings that when we bought that property from Mental Health/Mental Retardation that we acquired.
Item f., Interstate, US Highways, State Highways, Farm to Market Road Projects: in Childress County authorize the widening of Farm to Market Road 164; and in Moore County on Farm to Market 119, accept the exchange agreement on the realignment and relocation of FM 119 to bypass a refinery owned by Diamond Shamrock.
Eminent Domain Proceedings, g., as attached, this is the Department asking your approval to proceed with eminent domain proceedings on various parcels of land that the Department needs for non-controlled and controlled access highways.
And then finally, Turnpike Projects, h., in Harris County this is to accelerate a section of Beltway 8 to Level 3 authority. This is the agreement we have with the Harris County Toll Authority. This was going to be done in FY '95 but Harris County Toll Authority is in a position to let this, Bob, I think in July. Is that right? And we need your concurrence to move it up today to Level 3.
And with that, we would ask that the Commission consider these and accept all these recommendations in one motion.
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: So moved.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, what we would like to do now is to go to Item 6., District, Division and Special Office Reports, if that is agreeable.
MR. BERNSEN: That is fine. I was thinking maybe we should take up 7.
MR. BURNETT: Why don't we skip to Item 7. That would be fine. What we would like to do now is go to Item 7., Environmental Projects. On Item 7., after the presentations you have several speakers signed up on (1) in Smith County and then on (2) in Cooke County and Wichita County, but to present this is Dianna Noble, director of the environmental affairs division. Dianna.
MS. NOBLE: For the record, my name is Dianna Noble. I am the division director for environmental affairs.
The first item on the agenda is the East Texas Rails to Trails project. This project was selected during the first call and awarded $1.164 million in funding. Concerns were raised regarding the completeness of the nomination package. Program rules require a resolution of support from each city and county with jurisdiction over any area in which activities associated with the project would take place. To date, appropriate resolutions of support have not been provided to TxDOT.
Meetings to allow for public involvement were held by the TxDOT Tyler District office. A steering committee was created to identify concerns and issues about the project. Sixty-five percent of those participating in the public involvement process expressed support for the project. No consensus was reached to resolve the identified issues and concerns.
Staff recommends to hold funding authorization until October 1, 1995. Staff recommends that TxDOT ask the nominator, the General Land Office, to obtain the resolutions. If the resolutions are not received by October 1, 1995, funding should be withdrawn. The project may be resubmitted for the third program call if all supporting documents are provided.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, we have --
MR. BERNSEN: We have some people that have signed up.
MR. BURNETT: Yes, sir. We have about seven or eight people signed up to speak on this item.
MR. BERNSEN: Okay. Call the first one.
MR. BURNETT: The first one is Lewis Dodd.
MR. BERNSEN: Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: Yes, I am here. I was just checking with Mr. Nichols.
MR. BERNSEN: Don't feel like you have to. I mean, if you want to, you can.
MR. BURNETT: We would remind the speakers that they have three minutes.
MR. DODD: My name is Lewis Dodd. I am representing Hill Country Heritage Association, Trans-Texas Heritage Association and Davis Mountain Trans-Pecos Heritage Association, and we are really very concerned about the abrogation of property rights with these rails to trails issues that come through. I submitted a little report that kind of gives a different perspective. In some of the steering committees that I attended, information was requested for possible problems that may have been experienced in the past with these rails to trails projects, and Mr. Musselman with the Federal Highways solicited it from the Rails to Trails Conservancy, and I wanted to show a different perspective and that is more or less what this report that I submitted to you shows.
Across the nation there are several states that have completely done away with their enhancement programs. They have had so much problem with the neighborhoods and the environments and the communities where these rails to trails projects go through. And we have had an ongoing battle, I think, with the property owners of seeing if TxDOT has followed their own rules and regulations, and some of this you will see in that report. It was submitted to the attorney general's office and the attorney general's office came back and asked your opinion.
And it is kind of like the Bob Musselman story again: it seems like asking a fox whether he has been eating the chickens, and the fox answers no with chicken feathers falling out of his mouth. It just seems like we can't get the representation of the private property owners and the communities through the state level, and this has reached the level now to where there is legislation on the senate floor which I think is now -- I mean, on the House Transportation Committee where representation on the local communities will be required even though your rules so state that the local community participation has to be approved before one of these projects goes through. Now the local landowners will be notified that a rails to trails project is coming through.
So I just wanted to give a different perspective on that from Trans-Texas and Hill Country Heritage Association. It shows just a little bit of what is going on across the nation. We feel the ISTEA funding could be more appropriately spent somewhere else, that perhaps it may be a little bit of an Empire Building type fund that needs to be looked at real closely. Thank you for your time, Commissioners.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much. Who is next?
MR. BURNETT: Kathryn Keller, Texas Farm Bureau.
MS. KELLER: Thank you. My name is Kathryn Keller. I am the associate legislative director for the Texas Farm Bureau, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before this Commission today and offer my comments relative to the development of the East Texas Rails to Trails Project.
Texas Farm Bureau does not have specific policy relating to rails to trails programs, but American Farm Bureau policy does oppose the National Trails System Act in favor of returning or selling abandoned railroad rights of ways to adjoining property owners. We further believe that local elected governmental agencies should assume responsibility for any projects that are undertaken. These agencies should hold public hearings outlining plans for long-term maintenance, and should request input from citizens before the property is transferred to any group.
We understand that not all governmental entities involved in the East Texas Rails to Trails Program approved the plan during the nomination process. The rules of the Texas Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program, as published in the Texas Register, July 16, 1993, require that nominating entities must submit a resolution or other official document from the governing body of each city or county with jurisdiction over any area in which activities associated with a project and related to the area's intermodal transportation system would take place. It is our understanding that none of the governmental entities involved with this project offered such approval.
Whenever rules and regulations are established by governmental agencies, those being regulated and directed are expected to strictly adhere to such rules. We believe it is imperative that the agencies comply with their own rules and we insist that it is done in this case. Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much. Any questions?
MR. BURNETT: Robert Nichols, chairman of the Steering Committee, East Texas Property Owners.
MR. NICHOLS: My name is Robert Nichols. I am chairman of the Property Owners Steering Committee opposed to this project. We would respectfully request that you take two actions related to this. First is to please reverse the action you took last year related to this project on the grounds that it did not, at the time considered or nominated, have the required local resolutions of support and still does not have them today. We would also request that you please clarify the portion of the rules that refers to what you meant by the local supporting resolutions and the projects or jurisdictions associated with this project. It is going to be very important.
We have several people from the affected area to talk about specific aspects of this today. Mine is on the sequence of events. First of all, the railroad began the process of abandoning this entire corridor in the 1980s. They told people that the policy was always to offer the adjacent property owners first right of refusal. There was also quite a bit of private reversionary land.
Knowing this, the individuals, businesses and communities along the routes started making a plan. Some of the communities formed steering committees and planning committees to set up the projects in the communities, local chambers of commerce set up their projects. In 1989 the ICC issued abandonment rights to Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Southern Pacific then began sending out purchase applications to all these adjacent property owners.
In late 1990 a new name appeared: it was Rails to Trails out of Tyler. They had a plan to take the corridor for their project. When it was realized that this project or this group could actually rail bank the entire corridor using federal law, the communities affected and the landowners and people turned to the only one that they knew might help them, and that was their local elected officials.
Over the next five-month period, 18 different organizations along this route voted some form of resolution in opposition to this project. The communities let the Rails to Trails people know, before they took any action related to acquiring this, that the communities did not want this project and would not support it. Knowing all these objections ahead of time, in February 1993 the Rails to Trails organization in Tyler rail-banked the 19-mile strip anyway. It was a classic case of a group from outside the community having a plan for a project they thought was more important than the communities had planned for themselves.
The TxDOT rules that were established required support from the local jurisdictions. Instead of filing to develop the whole trail, the application then was only submitted to file for development just north of Bullard to the Tyler area in Smith County and cut out Bullard and Cherokee County, or in effect, trying to discount a portion of the opposition on the whole project.
Months before you voted last year on this, we sent certified copies of all these resolutions to the TxDOT office in Austin. We then also hand delivered individual certified copies of all of these opposing resolutions to the Tyler District office. Somehow all of this fell through the cracks and you voted to accept this project last April anyway. Since then not one single political organization has changed its position and the Rails to Trails people have tried to get some to change it.
To talk about the opposing resolutions is Mayor Ray McCugh of Bullard.
MR. McCUGH: My name is Ray McCugh. I am the mayor of the city of Bullard, and Bullard is located halfway between Tyler on the north and Jacksonville on the south. It is the only incorporated city in this 19-mile rail-banked corridor, and as required by TxDOT's rules for enhancement programs, the local citizens requested and received resolution of non-support for the East Texas Rails to Trails Project.
Smith County commissioners on the north voted first to not be a supportive agency of them. We have got a letter from the sheriff's department written in opposition to it, then starting at the south end of the corridor and coming back north, we have Cherokee County commissioners voted to oppose it, Cherokee County Sheriff's Department opposed it, Jacksonville City Council voted to oppose it, Jacksonville Independent School District voted to oppose it, Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose it.
Then we come up to the City of Bullard. The City of Bullard voted in opposition to the project, Bullard Independent School District opposed it, Bullard Community Library opposed it, Bullard Volunteer Fire Department opposed it, Bullard Park Committee opposed it.
Flint, the next little unincorporated city north of us, the Nazarene Church voted to oppose it, Flint-Gresham Volunteer Fire Department opposed it. Moving farther north to the community of Gresham, the Gresham Baptist Church voted to oppose it. And we also have other supporting people like from Rusk which is the county seat of Cherokee County, they voted to oppose it, the Industrial Foundation of Rusk voted to oppose it, City of Whitehouse opposed it, City of Wynona opposed it, Texas Farm Bureau opposed it, and other such as the Hill Country Heritage opposed it. And the Smith County commissioners voted twice more and still did not come up supporting the project. They said they would not be a supporting agency for it.
To date, none of these resolutions have been changed. They do, however, have a resolution from the City of Tyler, the MPO, Tyler Chamber of Commerce. None of these entities are within the boundaries of the rail-banked corridor, they are all outside.
Please reverse you decision to continue with this project. Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: To talk about the specifics of the rules is Stan Langsjoen.
MR. LANEY: Can I ask a question before you continue for a second? I will make my best attempt to keep the feathers from coming out of my mouth as I ask this question. Are there any supporting groups within the rail-banked corridor?
MR. NICHOLS: No, sir. Never has been, and there was not any prior to the nomination.
MR. LANGSJOEN: If I may, my name is Stan Langsjoen, and respectfully, I am honored to address this group. I will try to limit my comments to two areas: first, an observation that I would like to make to the Commission; and a request.
The observation is that the application that started this whole process for the East Texas Rails to Trails was defective. It was defective from the outset and it continues to be defective. The applicable rules that apply to the nomination process of course are found in the Texas Administrative Code and we have that excerpt here.
Section 11203 sets out in very clear and mandatory language what needs to be in that package. It sets out that at a minimum that package must and shall include documentation reflecting the local governmental support. And when we see what exactly that means, we look to the comments on this regulation and what we see is this is considered an essential part of the process and it recognizes this Commission's policy that the local governmental agencies have their say in whether these projects go into their various neighborhoods. And when we look at the initial package, that documentation is not there.
When we look at the documentation that we received from the General Land Office, the sponsoring agency, we see within their own internal memos that they knew it was defective when it was nominated and they did it with the understanding that East Texas Rails to Trails would come forward later and correct it. Well, to date, they haven't corrected that error. This is a fundamental defect in the package, and because it is fundamental, we would request that the package be rejected.
Now, the second thing I would like to address is what exactly this Commission uses as its interpretation of local governmental support. According to the regulations, that is defined as each and every city and county with jurisdiction over any area that affects the project has to document by resolution or other official document that they want it in their neighborhood. Well, the East Texas Rails to Trails Project, as it was originally described, is not simply a section from Tyler to Bullard, it is from Tyler down to Jacksonville. It is a 19-mile corridor, 19-mile project that is running on either side of the city of Bullard.
Now, when we get to the General Land Office documents again, we see that they recognize that it is multi-jurisdictional. It is inconceivable that a resolution from the City of Tyler at one end of this 19-mile corridor can satisfy the definition of local governmental support, and what we have -- if that is true, what we have is, in effect, people that are not politically or by election accountable dictating neighborhood land use and dictating federal fund use, and if that is true, what we have, in effect, is a form of taxation without representation
So we would request that this Commission clarify its interpretation of what is local governmental support in connection with this 19-mile project. Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: To talk about the specifics and the right of ways is Jan Hill of Flint.
MS. HILL: Good morning. I am Jan Hill. One primary concern I would like to address is the issue of right of ways. This issue has several different areas of concern dealing with plans of either communities, churches and our private landowners have made. When the railroad began to abandon, make plans to do this, the community of Gresham began to research what other business opportunities they could have, the local Bullard City Council began to look at other business opportunities, and landowners began to dream of expanding their grasslands for their cattle. The rail banking of this property put these plans on halt.
On November 28, 1994, the easement was requested using East Texas Rails to Trails format. They then said TxDOT would need to authorize this. TxDOT said East Texas Rails to Trails would need to do this authorization. To this date, this easement has not been granted.
A Gresham church cannot have the right of way to build a street from the highway that is needed. The proposed outer loop of Tyler would also need to build approximately 100 extra feet of bridge over this proposed trail. Another future church in the Flint area has been told not to cut or clear any further area of this. These two organizations need this to be able to view their property and/or have access to their church. One business has a temporary at-will crossing. What happens in five years if this is taken away?
Landowners fear for liability loss. They also are very concerned about the possible environmental issue. TxDOT has been quoted as Phase 1 of this, the cross-ties have been removed, the dirt has just been dozed over. What if erosion builds up and this leaks into our cattle ponds or our children that are playing or live near by have medical problems from this? We worry about these things very much.
So this poses a question for you. You are in charge of making the very best possible decision for this project. I thank you for your time, and I feel who could be affected more than us that live beside this project or landowners. Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: To talk about the social impact
in the areas is Reverend Roy Thoene of Gresham.
REVEREND THOENE: Thank you for allowing me to be here. I am Roy Thoene, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Gresham. I have been pastor there for 21-1/2 years. I know the Gresham and Flint community very well and I want to speak to you on three items. My church voted unanimously to be against the Rails to Trails as coming to our area.
Three items I want to talk to you about today. First of all is safety. We have one of the largest, the second largest elementary school, about three-quarters of a mile from our church. Every morning at 8:00 people have to pass through the four-way stop there at the Gresham intersection and every afternoon at 3:00. Let me tell you, if you have not seen something like that, you need to come. The other day a three-wheeler that was on the Rails to Trails came through, almost hit a bus. The new junior high school is fixing to come out there also. So this is an area we look at.
Number two is security. As pastor, I get calls all night because most of my people live on the trail -- a lot of them are older people of the community and widows of the community -- 11:00, 12:00 at night: Preacher, can you come down; somebody is on the trail, somebody has come in my back yard. And my wife and I get dressed and we go down there. Now, I am not downin the sheriff's department, because I have a son and I have a son-in-law who works with them. They are understaffed, and it takes them 30 minutes to an hour to get out there, and these widow ladies in their 80s and 90s, they are all shook up, so my wife and I go down there.
The lady that lives across the street from me was ransacked two times in her house. How did they get away is the Rails to Trails after the track has come up. Our church had a party not long ago, without us knowing it, a beer party on the church property. We caught them, but how did they get away? On three-wheelers on the Rails to Trails. You say, Well, Brother Roy, this is going to happen. It never happened before as long as the trail was there. These are problems that we didn't have before.
One lady told me the other day, she said, Brother Roy, I would give my right arm to have the railroad back. We can't have that; we understand that.
Number three, I want to talk to you about the privacy. People who have lived there for years, as well as newcomers who have bought land there to get in the rural area, do not have privacy because people walk right in the back yard and walk right through their yards and no privacy. One says: I feel like I am in a zoo; I constantly tell people to get out of my yard.
As I sum up, as pastor, you see, I not only work with the spiritual need of the community but also with the emotional problems, so I ask you to consider these three when you make your decision: safety for our children, security for those who live on the trail, and privacy, those who have lived there for years as well as newcomers. Thank you, and if we can ever help you, come to Gresham and we will show you the problem. Thank you.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much. Please do not delay this decision till October. The project proponents had plenty of time prior to the original nominations to get the supporting documents before it was ever nominated. The rules are very clear: They should have had it; they did not. Knowing a year ago that this was defective, we sat right here and explained this to TxDOT; they have had an entire year to get those resolutions.
They have gone back to Smith County. Smith County voted last November not even to support TxDOT hearings in the county; they actually rejected TxDOT's request for that hearing.
Knowing all that -- these people have been worked on for a year already; everybody would like this thing to be over. Delaying the decision for six more months is just going to cause another round of grief.
The second part of our question is very important. Your rules show that any party associated with the project or part of the Intermodal Transportation Act must have supporting resolutions also, and we think that means also the City of Bullard and Cherokee County.
Please make a decision on does that mean that or does that not mean that. The TxDOT's understanding right now is if one county supports it, then they can develop pieces of it. Do you have any questions?
MS. WYNNE: I have got a question of the staff.
MR. BERNSEN: No, thank you.
MS. WYNNE: Can I go ahead, David?
MR. BERNSEN: Yes.
MS. WYNNE: Bill, what would happen if we said this project needs to reapply as opposed to giving them more time?
MR. BURNETT: If the Commission withdrew the authorization for this project -- I mean, that is what you are saying: you would withdraw the authorization -- then the East Texas Rails to Trails people, community or whatever, would have the opportunity in the next call in December of 1995 to apply. The effect on it today, April 27 or whatever today is, is that, one, it no longer would be authorized and the Department; i.e., the Tyler District, would stop all operations on it, take what they have done and put it in the drawer, and Dianna's division would do the same.
The other thing it would do for the Department or for the State of Texas is the amount of money that you have set aside for this last April would be freed up, thrown back into the pot of money to be redistributed with the call in December.
Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
MS. WYNNE: Seems to me that is the better route to take. I can't quite remember what happened last April. I think there was some confusion about who the nominating entity was. And I think you all know this is the first time we have ever been through this process, so it has been learn as you go. And one of the problems is that if you have a project that goes through many communities, one of the things that we were trying to avoid is to have eight communities say yes and one community say no, and so we were trying to have our nominating entities represent the larger group.
You all don't have that problem. You have got all your communities, it seems to me, saying no at this point, so it seems to me that we ought to de-authorize this and go backwards.
MR. BURNETT: If you would authorize through me the de-authorization of this project, we would be glad to do that if that is the wish of the Commission.
MR. BERNSEN: I have some questions. These people have raised some valid points. I remember there was some -- and I don't remember which of you were here, but as I recall, my memory -- which has been some time ago -- there were some people from Bullard and my question to somebody was you weren't involved or not touched by this project, and I don't know if I remember that correctly or if the people from Bullard were here.
But I am concerned -- one of the speakers brought up the fact that there needs to be a tightening of what the definition of being involved with this project is, and I think that we need to provide answers for that and I would personally like to go forward any further to get that question. I know all the projects are different but I think they have raised some valid points as to which communities do you need to sponsor it: do all of them, part of them, one of them. And what does it mean by touch because there were, as I recall, some people who were in support of this and I think Garry Mauro in the General Land Office was pushing this as well.
And second, I need to ask this question. As I recall, we said that there were going to be some additional hearings because I think the people from Bullard -- specifically I remember them -- said that they were concerned about this and we said that there were going to be some hearings and if there is not support that we would come back and not do this project. And I don't have the transcript in front of me, but I think that is what we said.
MS. NOBLE: That is correct. We did have several hearings in Smith County.
MR. BERNSEN: Okay. And was the General Land Office and the other people notified that they need to get a local sponsor for this project?
MS. NOBLE: We have not officially notified them through a memo or a letter, but they were aware of the fact that we did not have the appropriate resolutions. They were part of the steering committee put together by the Tyler District office.
MR. BERNSEN: But they were made aware some time ago, as represented, that they needed to put together --
MR. BURNETT: Yes, Chairman. The General Land Offices were. I think, in the memorandum that they had blown up for you, it says in there that they realize that they as the sponsor -- the October 10 memorandum that they had up there in front of you, internal to the GLO.
MR. BERNSEN: Well, I think -- opinion of one -- that we have given the people that were supporting it sufficient time, I think there needs to be clarification of the rules, and I would be in favor of de-authorizing, or whatever you call about taking it off funding.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioner Bernsen, as you point out, I think you remember exactly what happened last April when we did this and there was explanation that we would go through the public involvement process, which we have gone through. At the November Commission meeting when we went through Phase 2 of enhancement projects, you instructed staff that before we go through Phase 3 -- which is tentatively scheduled to go in December 1995 -- that we go back in and review our rules and clean up anything we have that is not clear, fix our rules where there are inconsistencies or confusion factors, and that process Dianna's division is going through right now.
MS. NOBLE: We are currently going through that process.
MR. BURNETT: And we will go back out into the Texas Register and allow comments.
MR. BERNSEN: Good, because I think they have raised some valid points that we need to clarify, correct or improve on, and that is something that we need to do.
MR. BURNETT: To repeat what the staff recommendation is, and then we will accept anything that you direct us to do, the staff recommendation is to tell the General Land Office you have until October 1 to line up the local sponsors or the money goes away, so we need some direction from you whether you want to accept the staff recommendation or if you want to give us another direction as to, I guess for lack of a better term, pour the project out.
MR. LANEY: Hearing both the other commissioners speak, I would make a motion that we withdraw authorization of the project and instruct whoever might be interested in sponsoring this project to reapply with the proper support, at the same time clarifying the issues from a technical standpoint as to who the sponsoring agency was to be.
MR. BURNETT: We can do that, Chairman.
MR. BERNSEN: As well as the scope of the project. I forget which one of the speakers mentioned it, but whether or not -- you know, what communities are affected and what does a local sponsor really mean -- whatever it says in the record. I would second that motion made by Chairman Laney.
MS. WYNNE: One of you two call for a vote.
MR. BURNETT: We have a motion by David, second by David.
MR. LANEY: All those in favor.
MR. BERNSEN: All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
FEMALE SPEAKER: I know I am out of turn and I know this is not proper, but East Texas Rails to Trails is a sponsor --
MR. BURNETT: Can we get your name for the record?
MS. MEESE: Delia Meese, Texas Rails to Trails president. And all these complaints that these people -- I am sorry.
MR. BERNSEN: Excuse me. Has she signed up?
MS. MEESE: I didn't because I didn't realize it was going to be -- they were talking about non-project boundaries. They are not speaking of project boundaries, of their concerns and all these people who are not supporting it, and now that they have opened all these doors of non-project boundaries, then that is another issue that is very concerning. So I am sorry.
MR. BERNSEN: Okay. No.
MS. MEESE: You hear 19 miles and it is 9.62 that is Smith County only, and all those people that did not support it were four years ago that was done -- four years ago about land acquisition. This was not four years ago as not wanting the project to be supported or to be ISTEA funding, this was about land acquisition, and they are trying to confuse you on all this. I am sorry that this is happening.
MR. BERNSEN: Were you notified that we were having this --
MS. MEESE: TxDOT Tyler local district said they would be presenting and I would just be coming to listen. They didn't inform me that it was going to be a -- but you know, ignorance doesn't help at all.
MR. BERNSEN: No, but I think it is important to you. There have been some allegations brought that there is no local entity that has lent its support to this project. Is that true?
MS. MEESE: Again, we are looking at the criteria of the boundary lines, the 9.62 miles. There is nobody in Bullard or Cherokee that are in that 9.62 project boundary. If you look at jurisdiction, yes, Bullard has a jurisdiction a half a mile north of their town, but so does the City of Tyler, and the City of Tyler has all those people that they had said, the MPO, which is multi-jurisdiction that goes into Gresham.
MR. BERNSEN: Have they supported it?
MS. MEESE: Yes, sir. There is documentation in the project. Tyler City Council supports it, Tyler Economic Development Council supports it, and Tyler Chamber of Commerce supports it, and these are not actually in the boundaries but they are an extra-territorial jurisdiction, but the MPO has boundary area. They are not a governmental -- you know, they are MPO, but they go south into our 9.62 and they are inclusive of the MPO, and that is why we are considered multi-jurisdiction because we have MPO and rural and a Tyler jurisdiction area, and so it is not because we are multi-counties. Our project, it is only Smith County, 9.62 miles does not go into the city limits of Bullard. And they just talked about the points of people supporting the project. They said 65 percent of the people of the unofficial TxDOT conferences supported the project and they are totally ignoring that fact, that there -- you know, with the people who attended these conferences that the TxDOT local people did, wonderfully presented, had 65 percent of support for this project to be done.
The other thing that is in question that the other survey stated was they didn't ask support the project to be developed or not support the project be developed.
The question was, through these other people's persuasion and power, was support the project but also do you want this trail or not. This trail is already bought, land acquired, and ICC approved for rail banking, and they have 45 percent of the people -- excuse me -- 35 percent of the people saying they don't want the trail developed or they don't want the trail at all.
That is not the question here at all -- the trail is here, it is here to stay -- it is whether we are going to be able to utilize this wonderful funding to make it better for a transportational corridor. But even if that survey question is muffled in there, we still had 65 percent people wanting this trail developed into something more than what it is as a rugged corridor.
And I wanted these things clear because it was getting very muggled here and it is not appropriate to put all this muggled --
MR. BERNSEN: What is the word?
MS. MEESE: Muggled.
MR. BERNSEN: I think I am muggled right now.
MS. MEESE: I am sorry I am inappropriate and didn't sign up, but we are talking four years of life here, I guess.
MS. WYNNE: Let me just say that by our action today we are not saying this isn't a viable project. What we are saying is that the first set of hoops that we asked you all to jump through did not get jumped through correctly, and that could be as much our fault as it is the presenters because our rules may not have been clear enough. We are going to go back, we are going to clean up our rules so that you will understand, so that you all will understand. If there is a project that, by the way we define a project touching an area, if it is not within our definition of touch but you all still don't like it, then they will not be required to get your letters of support, so that is what we need to work out.
The reason why we picked October is because that is the time when we are going to start taking project calls for the third round of these, so I still think that we should do what we just did, you all go back and get reorganized, we are going to clean up our rules, and in October, if you can get the local letters of support as defined by our rules, then you can reapply.
MS. MEESE: Well, we do have the MPO and that is the jurisdiction, and we do have a state agency nominating us.
MS. WYNNE: I understand.
MS. MEESE: So I guess not much credibility, I guess.
MR. BERNSEN: Any other comments?
MR. BURNETT: If I understand, the direction from the Commission is to withdraw last April's action that approved this project for Surface Transportation Program enhancement funding and put that money back into the pot, and it is available to all that want to apply in the third call.
MR. BERNSEN: Yes, I think that is the gist of the motion. I want to say, also, for the benefit of everybody that -- what was her name?
MS. MEESE: Delia Meese.
MR. BERNSEN: Meesh?
MS. MEESE: Meese, M-E-E-S-E.
MR. BERNSEN: Ms. Meese, what I think Commissioner Wynne is saying and what the Commission is saying is that we need to go back to square one. It is still eligible and you need to get your forces together and come back before us. And to the people who testified, I think you have raised some legitimate concerns, but this may still come up again under the new rules.
MR. THOENE: Can I just ask one question?
MR. BERNSEN: Sure.
MR. THOENE: TxDOT said 65 percent were for it, and she talked about Bullard didn't have nothing to do with it. If you will look at the TxDOT report, the 65 percent came from Whitehouse, Lindale and other areas. When they came to that area, it was about 75 percent against it, so that is what I wanted to clarify to let you know. She keeps saying you can't bring Bullard in but they brought Lindale which is 30 miles away because it is still in Smith County, and they said yes, we want it. So that is what I wanted clarified.
MR. BERNSEN: Okay. We will clarify that with the rules and go forward. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: Dianna, if you would proceed then with (2), Cooke County and Wichita County, please.
MS. NOBLE: Agenda Item 7.a.(2). This minute order provides for the funding of two additional projects: one, the Gainesville Santa Fe Railroad Depot located in the city of Gainesville; and two, the Kemp and Kell Depot restoration in the city of Wichita Falls as part of the second call of the Category 4-B, Texas Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program.
As requested at the December 1994 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, more information has been obtained from both the sponsors of the Kemp and Kell Depot restoration project in Wichita Falls and the Santa Fe Depot restoration project in Gainesville. After a thorough evaluation of the additional research requested by the Commission, we have the following comments to offer.
One of the issues raised regarding the Gainesville Depot was where were they on their Phase 1 portion. Construction of Phase 1 is not due to start until 10/31/95, completion of the exterior is anticipated in one year, agreements have been signed, and the design and engineering plans are on schedule, architectural work drawings are ahead of schedule.
Regarding the Kemp and Kell Depot, in the first call the project was submitted as the Heritage Square Route Building and scored 150 by the Transportation Project Evaluation Committee. The project was to restore the interior and exterior of the building and add a parking lot. The intended use of the building was to remodel the interior to a full-service railroad theme restaurant and it was found partially eligible.
The Kemp and Kell Depot project was again resubmitted. Upon request, the building's use was clarified by the sponsor and the project was rescored by TPEC at a score of 160. It was determined that the depot would be used as a visitors' center, allowing space for a local events ticket office, train exhibit, and also providing a small dining area as in the original depot, with some space reserved for civic events on the second floor.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion?
MS. WYNNE: I will just open it up by saying that I have always liked these projects, and I think that when you look at the distribution of our dollars, East Texas benefitted far more than some other parts of the state. I have been in touch with people from both of these communities and I think the communities are behind them and are supportive and are going to spend the money wisely, and I think that these two should be approved.
MR. BURNETT: I can tell you, Commissioners, we have a speaker on each one of these, if you would like to call them up.
MR. BERNSEN: Is it in favor or it or are they against it?
MR. BURNETT: They both are in favor of the project.
MR. BERNSEN: Just hang on one second. Is there any other discussion? Then I would entertain a motion to --
MS. WYNNE: I move authorizing funding or continued -- I don't know. Did we not authorize it?
MR. BURNETT: You would be authorizing in Cooke County what we will call Phase 2 of the train depot.
MS. NOBLE: That is correct. They were not selected.
MR. BURNETT: It is additional funding. In Wichita County on the Kemp and Kell Depot you would be authorizing the initial funding for the project.
MS. WYNNE: Okay. That is my motion.
MR. BURNETT: Don't ever let me put words in your mouth.
MR. WYNNE: Only every other minute.
MR. BURNETT: We need a second.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MS. HAYS: Margaret Hays, former mayor of the City of Gainesville, working with the city now in charge of community preservation on this depot project. We appreciate the cooperation, the help we have received from the Commission. We wish to welcome Mr. David Laney as the new chairman. You are a neighbor of ours up in Dallas; we hope you will come up and see our depot. It is a wonderful building and we are looking forward to getting this restored beautifully and making it a very vital part of our community. Thank you very much for the consideration of all of you, Mr. Laney, Mr. Bernsen, Ms. Wynne, Mr. Burnett, Ms. Nobles, all of you. Thank you very much.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you. Good to see you again.
MR. BURNETT: Ms. Morris, would you like to say anything?
MS. MORRIS: Do you remember when Winston Churchill said, Never, never, never, never give up? Well, we are here to say thank you so very much. We really appreciate it. There were some questions raised during this process that we felt very sad about. I wanted you to know that today, just so that you never have to look back and worry about making the right decision, we hope, we brought the community support with us. We don't know who is running the city of Wichita Falls, but if I may just quickly introduce --
MR. BERNSEN: Say that again. You don't know who is running?
MS. MORRIS: We brought them all to see you, but we do have representatives from Senator Tom Haywood's office. Andrea Williams and Bruce Snyder, if you would just stand briefly. We have the mayor of Wichita Falls, Michael Lamb. Thank you. We have the city manager of Wichita Falls, Jim Brezina; we have the president of the Heritage Society of which I am the executive director, Bill McGregor, and we have the administrator of the city planning division and also the MPO director of transportation Steve Cease [phonetic], and we have several civic leaders, David White and Ken Vanlow. We are really grateful for the faith that you have had in us and we will not disappoint you. Thank you so very much.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you for coming and we look forward to seeing you.
MR. LANEY: We look forward to seeing the projects.
MS. HAYS: We received word that Senator Haywood was on the floor and he wanted to be here but couldn't. He was interested in both of these projects.
MR. BURNETT: Thank you, Ms. Hays.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. BURNETT: If it pleases the Commission, we will just continue down the agenda and come back to the reports toward the end of the meeting. Does that please the Commission?
MR. BERNSEN: That is fine.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioners, Item 8, Transportation Planning, Al Luedecke, director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division. The first item is consideration of a resolution.
MS. WYNNE: Did we fool you there, Al? Did you think you had another 30 minutes or so?
MR. BURNETT: Caught you asleep, didn't we?
MR. LUEDECKE: Wasn't quite asleep. We were planning, we were planning in great detail.
(General laughter.)
MR. BERNSEN: Good answer.
MR. LUEDECKE: I am not smart, but I can think on my feet, maybe.
The signing of the NAFTA agreement stimulated considerable interest in the trade corridors along the Texas-Mexico border and this interest is particularly high in Texas since the majority of the trade movements between the countries of Mexico and the United States happens here in Texas. There have been a number of delegations that have appeared before you in recent months to support various proposed corridors.
Last month a large delegation from the Midland-Odessa area represented by the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance, or MOTRAN, as it is called, presented a proposed corridor called La Entrada al Pacifico that might represent a portion of a corridor that is presently being studied by the Department in response to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. This ISTEA Corridor was loosely designated as beginning at the end of I-27 in Lubbock and ending on Interstate 20. It was later determined that the study should be extended to Interstate 10.
The MOTRAN group's presentation suggests that the route is developing from the Mexican port of Topolobambo to Chihuahua in Mexico, in the state of Chihuahua on to Presidio in Texas. From Presidio the route would go along US 67 to Fort Stockton and then on to US 385 to the Midland-Odessa area, and from there it would follow State Highway 349 to Lubbock.
The delegation requested support for the concept of the corridor, a study of the improvements needed to support the projected traffic and the placement of US 385 from Odessa to McCamie, and State Highway 349 from Lamesa to Midland on the proposed National Highway System.
We believe that the ISTEA Corridor study now underway will investigate the infrastructure needs of this corridor and we will make all of the information provided to you last month available as input to this study. Much of this information was made available to the staff at the earlier public hearings held earlier this year.
We have prepared a resolution for your consideration today that expresses support for the concepts presented in the proposed La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor and further instructs the Department to work with the Federal Highway Administration on seeking approval of those portions of US 385 and State Highway 349 described earlier as additions to the National Highway System, and we recommend your approval of this resolution.
MR. BERNSEN: Motion?
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: Any discussion? All in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. BURNETT: I would point out to the Commission, Charles Perry is here from MOTRAN and Kyle Womack from the Midland Chamber of Commerce, and some others.
MR. LEUDECKE: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
MR. BERNSEN: You bet.
MR. BURNETT: Item 9, Multimodal Transportation, Turnpike Authority.
MR. GRIEBEL: I am Tom Griebel. Item 9.a.(1) and 9.a.(2), authorize the Texas Turnpike Authority to expend monies from its feasibility funds. The Commission authorization of TTA's feasibility funds expenditure is required under Article 6674(b) of the statutes. 9.a.(1) authorizes TTA to expend $520,000 from the fund for the
purpose of evaluating the viability of developing a turnpike project between State Highway 78 and Interstate 30 in eastern Dallas County, and that is in lieu of the Department developing an extension of State Highway 190. And the minute order goes on to authorize us to participate up to 10 percent of funding of that feasibility study.
And I will go on to Item 9.a.(2), authorize the Authority to expend $400,000 to evaluate the feasibility of developing a turnpike project within the State Highway 130 corridor in lieu of the Department developing State Highway 130 which is also known as MOCAN. It is in Williamson, Travis, Guadalupe and Caldwell Counties and it is a relief route or bypass around the city of Austin. And I recommend your authorization of these two minute orders.
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second. Any discussion? All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MS. WYNNE: Jim Griffin, hurry up and spend that money.
MR. GRIFFIN: We will try.
MR. BURNETT: Item 10, Transportation Corporations, Robert Cuellar.
MR. CUELLAR: Agenda Item 10.a. provides for the appointment of Ms. Lydia Scarbrough to the board of directors of the San Marcos Parkway Association. She would be replacing a board member who has stepped down, who has resigned from the board, and she would serve a term of six years. Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second. Any discussion? All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: Item 11, Building and Grounds, Larry Zatopek, director of the General Services Division.
MR. ZATOPEK: We have four minute orders for your consideration this morning. If the Commission would like, I can cover all four of them and you can take one action on them.
The first one is in Callahan County on the east side of US 283 north of Baird, and that is for the authorization of construction of a maintenance building.
The second item is in Jasper County, the north side of US 190, authorizing the construction of a maintenance and engineering building.
The third item is in Navarro County, State Highway 31, authorizing the construction of a maintenance and engineering building, also. And the last item is in Orange County, east side of State Highway 62 in Orange, authorizing the construction of a maintenance and engineering building. We recommend approval.
MS. WYNNE: I have got a question, a 1262 question. Does it deal just with our selling property or is it also our acquiring property?
MR. BURNETT: Senate Bill 1262 just deals with property that is presently in the possession of the Department.
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second. Discussion? All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: Item 12, authorization for ferryboat construction, Bobbie Templeton.
MR. TEMPLETON: You have a minute order before you to authorize the construction of a new ferryboat. This boat will replace the 1977 model which carries nine vehicles. By adding this new vessel, we will have all of our equipment that will carry 20 vehicles. The current model, the 1977 model, is getting quite expensive to maintain because of its age and because of the unavailability of parts. This new vessel will be named the "Arnold W. Oliver" and we recommend you approve the authorization of this construction of $1.4 million for this new ferry.
MR. LANEY: Do I have a motion?
MS. WYNNE: Move approval.
MR. LANEY: Second, but I want to ask you a question first. What do you do with the old ferry?
MR. BURNETT: We auction them and try to sell them.
MS. WYNNE: So does that mean Janie Briscoe's name goes out of existence?
MR. BURNETT: No. I think Ms. Briscoe is still alive, Commissioner.
MS. WYNNE: No. Our task is not to bury them. No. I mean, so it revolves. I figured that once you got your name on one of these guys, it was there forever.
MR. BURNETT: No, ma'am.
MR. LANEY: As long as the model lasts.
MS. WYNNE: That is right. Mr. DeBerry, you better hope your '87 model goes for a long time.
MR. LANEY: All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: What we would like to do, Commissioners, is go down to 13, Promulgation of Rules. I will tell you that we would like to take the proposed rules in one motion which is paragraph a., and the final adoption of rules, sub-letter b., in a separate motion. Number (3), Chapter 17, Vehicle Titles and Registration rules, those rules we ask you to defer for one month. We are in some conversations with the Department of Public Safety and others as to some rewrites that we need to do and we would rather bring them back to you clean than try to walk through them here today, if that is acceptable.
So with that in mind, Russell Harding, director of staff services, will do the proposed adoptions.
MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, this is a proposed amendment to our Department's rules on contested case procedures. What this will do is to provide the Department with the authority to require a party who appeals a contested case decision to pay for the cost of preparing the transcript and the record that has to be certified to the reviewing board. This is consistent with the practice of most state agencies and it is also recommended by the attorney general that we enact such an amendment, so we request the approval of the Commission for publication of this proposed amendment to the rules.
MR. BURNETT: I would like to take that, Chairman, if we could, in a motion by itself since it is a proposed adoption.
MR. LANEY: Do we have a motion?
MR. BERNSEN: So moved.
MR. LANEY: Second. Any discussion? All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: Now I would like to take Management, Contract Management and Aviation in one motion, if that pleases the Commission, and start with Tom Griebel, Chapter 1, Management.
MR. GRIEBEL: Item 13.b.(1)(a) and (b), two items deal with our advisory committees. The first item is twofold: it is the Aviation Advisory Committee. We changed the method of appointing them to staggered three-year terms; and the second item is to delete obsolete language for our Bicycle Rules Advisory Committee which is no longer in existence because we passed the rules.
The second item there is the final adoption of the Public Transportation Assessment Advisory Committee. It is advising the Department on the transportation study that we have underway. And Item (b)(4), the Aviation Rules are changes to change -- essentially non-substantive changes to change the name change from the Department of Aviation to the Department of Transportation in those rules for the aviation rules that we have underway. We received no comments on these rules and would recommend that you approve them.
MR. BURNETT: Thank you, Tom.
Bobbie, Contract Management, please.
MR. TEMPLETON: And for your final adoption, amendments to rules in Chapter 9 dealing with highway improvement contracts. These amendments propose to provide a definition for historically under-utilized businesses, provides that the Department will not issue a requested proposal form for a construction or maintenance contract if at the time of the request the bidder is suspended or debarred or is prohibited from remitting a project because of default, will clarify the selection procedure when a unit bid price has been entered for both the regular bid items and the corresponding alternate bid items, will comply with the Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6669(c) with regard to the utilization of historically under-utilized businesses, and finally, will clarify that the successful low bidder must submit information regarding the participation of DBEs and HUBs to be used to achieve the contract goal.
We recommend your final adoption of these rules.
MR. BERNSEN: So moved.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. LANEY: All those in favor.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. BURNETT: What we would like to do, if it pleases the Commission, now is drop back to Item 6, Reports from Districts, Divisions and Special Offices, and have Lonny Traweek, district engineer in the Bryan District, give you a short presentation on what is going on in Bryan.
MS. WYNNE: Did you say short presentation?
MR. BURNETT: Short presentation.
MS. WYNNE: Short presentation.
MR. TRAWEEK: Good morning. I am Lonny Traweek, district engineer in Bryan. It is a pleasure to be here this morning. With the mood this morning, I could pick a better timing, I think, but the first thing I would like to do is congratulate the new commissioner and welcome to our family. And next I would like to say that I have been in the Bryan District now for about 2-1/2 years. Even though I am not an Aggie, it is a great place to live.
MR. BURNETT: There is nothing wrong with not being an Aggie.
MR. TRAWEEK: So I understand.
MR. LANEY: Another six months and you will be.
MR. TRAWEEK: They are converting my family, I promise you. It must be in the water or something.
What I would like to do first is show you a little bit about my district and where it is. It is basically in a triangle between Dallas, Houston and Austin. It is made up of about ten counties, 3,000 centerline miles of highway. One of the main influences we have in our district is A&M University. It has got 10,000 faculty members, about 43,000 students, and it basically acts like our main traffic generator in the central business district for the Bryan-College Station area.
We have lots of other influences. You can list them there: Blinn College, the library, TTI, the MPO and Brazos Transit. Another influence we have got coming up is the George Bush Presidential Library, and it is under construction now, should be finished in about 1997 at a cost of about $82 million, and they are expecting between 350 to 500 annual visitors.
And today I would like to thank the Commission. A year ago the Commission gave us the project of George Bush Drive which was FM 2347, and it meant a lot to our district. The whole community thought this was an extremely important project and they were extremely excited when we got that project a year ago, so I really thank you.
This map is basically the Bryan-College Station area. The green represents A&M University holdings, the red represents the Wilburn Road Corridor, and as you can see, the Wilburn Road basically cuts right through the campus. This is an actual picture. This is Kyle Field to the left and the top is Wilburn Road. What you can't see, though, is the railroad track that runs parallel to Wilburn Road. The Southern Pacific there has basically 28 trains a day that goes basically through the campus and it cuts off the students from one side of the campus to the other and also it cuts basically the town in half because there is only one grade separation in that town and it is on the north end of town.
MR. BERNSEN: That is over by the baseball field, too.
MR. TRAWEEK: Yes. It is between the football and the baseball field, yes, sir.
MR. BERNSEN: I have seen A&M beat up on Lamar University a lot there.
MR. TRAWEEK: They have got a good team this year, too.
MR. BERNSEN: They do.
MR. TRAWEEK: We have got a consultant studying this project and hope to have some answers this fall, and I promise you will be hearing about this project in the future because it is a main concern in this area.
MR. BURNETT: We will hear positively about it?
MR. TRAWEEK: I hope it is positive.
Another thing that is important to our district is the National Highway System. The Bryan District has about 550 miles of the proposed National Highway System and right now we are doing some plan work and we hope to get some funding in the future, but this is our basic infrastructure for the whole district, so it is very important to us.
This map is a district map and this is the exact same map I showed the Commission a year and a half ago, the last time I was here, and let me explain it to you. Just look at the map and concentrate on colors and look at the red first. The red represents the farm roads back in the fall of 1993 that were basically beyond maintenance help, they needed total reconstruction. We had 450 miles back in 1993 that needed total reconstruction.
The yellow represents farm roads that were giving us havoc. We were using all of our maintenance funds just to try and keep from losing them totally. We had 350 miles back then. I showed the Commission this slide a year and a half ago --
MR. BERNSEN: Yes, and everybody else has been using your slides on farm to market roads. I think each time they just move it from district to district and say look how bad our farm to market system is.
MR. TRAWEEK: Yes. We got lots of extra money when we rented those out.
(General laughter.)
MR. BERNSEN: I understand.
MR. TRAWEEK: When I showed this to the Commission and showed them some of the worst roads in the state, I think --
MS. WYNNE: We call them the Trail of Tears, the Lonny Traweek Trail of Tears.
MR. BURNETT: We would point out for Commissioner Laney that Lonny inherited these roads, they did not get in that condition under Lonny.
MR. TRAWEEK: Thank you, Bill.
MR. LANEY: You just salvaged his reputation.
MR. TRAWEEK: That is why I mentioned I was only there for 2-1/2 years.
But the Commission did listen to us and the administration listened to us and Bill particularly listened to us. We were crying a year and a half ago and last year they came up with new funding for farm road rehab, extremely important to our district, and we were lucky enough to acquire about $18 million total for the farm roads. And this was the letting, the line across there, the last ten-year average, and the yellow is this year's construction. We used the $18 million that you gave us and I concentrated most of the funds that I had available, this year's letting, to farm roads because the farm roads were in that bad a shape.
And this is what we did this year and since the last Commission meeting that I was here. The green represents the farm roads that either have been completed or will be under construction by August of this year. We will have under construction 270 miles of farm road at the end of this year from what we had before. That is a tremendous stride, I promise you, and I thank the Commission. It is tremendous how much impact it had on the district.
MR. BERNSEN: Is Representative Ogden in your district?
MR. TRAWEEK: Yes, sir.
MS. WYNNE: Go back and show us what roads you have worked on where he lives.
MR. BERNSEN: I would like the list. I am serious; I would like the list. If you could provide it today or this afternoon sometime, if somebody has a list of the roads.
MR. BURNETT: Commissioner, you would like a list of the roads in Representative Ogden's district that Lonny has worked on this last year?
MR. BERNSEN: Yes, and also in the district as well, the $18 million that you spent on and we spent on farm to markets.
MR. TRAWEEK: Okay. Ogden represents basically the city area of Brazos County which is the Bryan and College Station area. We had the farm roads but we have also got two or three large projects coming up this August also besides the farm road program that we had.
MR. BERNSEN: Could I have a list of those as well?
MR. TRAWEEK: You bet, yes, sir.
MR. BERNSEN: And anything in his county.
MR. TRAWEEK: Yes, sir. You will have it this afternoon.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you.
MR. TRAWEEK: And this is the map of the pavement evaluation that we have as of today, and this, unfortunately, we have done all that work but we have still got a long way to go. Again, the red represents farm roads that need total reconstruction, no overlays or anything like that will do -- total reconstruction. The yellow, again, are the farm roads that we are just trying to keep from getting to the other stage. We have 330 miles of road that need total reconstruction as of August of this year and these do not include the ones that we are letting, and we have another 325 miles that we are really fighting to hold together, so it is not over yet.
This slide was one of the actual slides that I showed you a year ago, and I want to show you a little bit before and after to see where your money went. If you notice, there is a water tower in the background. The water tower is there at the same corner. It is quite an improvement for the locals. This is another actual picture that I showed you.
MS. WYNNE: We have seen it many times.
MR. TRAWEEK: Well, this one, if you saw the Independence, that is in my district.
MR. BERNSEN: I think Marshall Huffman showed us that picture.
MR. TRAWEEK: Again, this is an after picture, same sign on the right. These we have finished construction. We have many, many under construction now, and many that will be under construction this summer.
This picture Marshall Huffman I don't think got because we took this last week, unfortunately.
MR. BURNETT: Marshall Huffman doesn't have anything that green in Odessa.
MR. TRAWEEK: This roadway picture was taken last week, so we have still got a long way to go. These roadways I am showing you now are the ones that will not be under construction by the end of the year. I am only showing you a few here, try to make them very quick. But it really comes down to one thing and just like I told you last time, it comes down to money.
(General laughter.)
MR. TRAWEEK: And the guy in the blue suit there is me. If that is what it takes, I will be willing.
MS. WYNNE: Huey, Dooey and Louie up there.
MR. TRAWEEK: That is all I have this morning. Thank you very much. Any questions?
MR. BERNSEN: I want to make a comment. I didn't realize we had a famous person in the audience, but Denise Fisher, I appreciate -- I want to tell you, we had -- what do you call that conference now? We changed the name.
MR. BURNETT: Transportation Conference.
MR. BERNSEN: The Transportation -- it is not the Short Course anymore, it is the Transportation Conference, but I appreciate so very much you helping me find my way through Texas trying to find a road that was passable during the floods that we experienced last -- I guess it was October.
MS. WYNNE: October.
MR. BERNSEN: But I would call and say we are headed down I-10. She said, Well. I said, How about 290? That is under water. Highway 45 is under water, and she finally navigated me through someplace. I think it was through El Paso and then back down to Abilene, but I appreciate so very much your effort and it is good to see you and meet you.
MS. FISHER: My pleasure.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much.
MR. BURNETT: Thank you, Lonny.
From the Information Systems Division, the division director, Judy Skeen.
MS. SKEEN: Good morning, Chairman Laney, Commissioner Wynne and Commissioner Bernsen, Bill Burnett, Russell Harding. Hello. I am Judy Skeen, the director of the Information Systems Division. I began my career with the Department as an engineering assistant in the Lubbock District in 1983 and I have been with the Information Systems Division -- or previously the Division of Automation -- since 1985. I have held several technical and management positions in that division and I was named director of the division in November of 1993.
I appreciate this opportunity to address you and I have a brief video to show you to acquaint you with some of the staff of ISD and to give you a visual overview of the functions that we perform to support the operations of the Department.
(Video was shown.)
MS. SKEEN: I would like to thank you again for this opportunity. If you all are ever in the neighborhood of 38th and Jackson, we would love to have you stop by and show you some of our operations firsthand. Do you have any questions?
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you very much.
MR. LANEY: Thank you.
MR. BURNETT: Last but not least, from the Dallas District, James Huffman, district engineer in Dallas, author of the new PDP.
MR. HUFFMAN: Chairman Laney, Commissioner Bernsen, Commissioner Wynne, it is my pleasure to appear before you today and give you an update on what is happening in Dallas. It has been over 18 months since I had this opportunity, so I will take advantage of it.
I want to say a comment about Michael Elmador [phonetic]; he was the young fellow here at the front taking pictures earlier. Michael was my photographer but the folks in Austin found out how good he was, and as usual, I lost him. Michael took most of these slides for us within the last year.
Mostly for the benefit of Mr. Laney -- I think the other commissioners are probably aware of the Dallas District -- but we are a seven-county area. Three of the 15 counties within the entire state that have over 200,000 population are located in the Dallas District, that being Dallas County, Denton and Collin Counties. Those three counties together have over 2-1/2 million people in them.
On the opposite end, though, you see little Rockwall County sitting there. Rockwall is the smallest of the 254 counties in this state, it has only 129 square miles, and yet, we have well over 30,000 people within Rockwall County.
I did this on purpose. Back in December I was at the meeting here when my old compadre John Kelly was here and he showed about 35 slides on the condition of the facilities within the San Antonio District, and mainly I just want to point out to you that John doesn't have a monopoly on outdated facilities, but I am not going to use 20 more slides to prove my point.
This is the area office up in Denton and it is just an example of the fact that we do need progressively to work on improving the working environment for our people all across the state.
This is a picture of the newly completed expansion at our district headquarters. We moved into this building in December. We had people in leased space all over Dallas and we have got all of them back on the campus now other than a study office for the LBJ Freeway project. Along with that building, we completed this traffic operations building that houses our traffic signals, our freeway lighting and our radio repair and installation facilities.
I wanted to briefly mention the State Fair of Texas exhibition. For the seventh year this past fall we had an exhibit for the Department at the State Fair in the Centennial Building. Our employees man this exhibition on a four-hour shift, three per day, and in 1994, last October, there were over 3.3 million people that went through the gates of the fair, and we know quite a few of those folks visited the exhibit and it does do a lot of PR for the Department.
The little video you see on the right, it continuously plays these public service announcements that we make here in Austin. Basically I am talking about the Tom Landry and Willie Nelson types, the Keep Texas Clean, and so forth. And last year we even did offer recruiting opportunities at this location.
I again want to talk about our motorist assistance program. I did this last time, I think, but it is considered by our Metropolitan Planning Organization and the area cities as probably the best expenditure we have as far as traffic management on the freeways in the Dallas area. It is fully funded by the MPO with Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds. We are very appreciative that they are allowing us up to 1.1 million a year; we are not spending anywhere near that for the operation. But right now we have 18 fully equipped vehicles, we have 24 project employees assigned to the operation, ten teams of two, that operate around the clock.
MR. BERNSEN: James, I want to say that I have had more people tell me how grateful they are for that system that travel the roads up there. We get letters all the time on it, but I have had people stop me and tell me that they are real thankful for what you are doing.
MR. BURNETT: James, you might mention to the Commission about one of the parties that your people helped a couple of months ago.
MR. HUFFMAN: Yes. Maribel Osso [phonetic] out in the Abilene District ran out of gas on Interstate 30 in Dallas.
MR. BURNETT: The district engineer in Abilene.
MR. HUFFMAN: She was quite pleased. She didn't know we had this service, and she called me personally and then wrote a nice letter that she did appreciate the service. This was shortly after she married and her husband's new car, the gas gauge wasn't working properly, supposedly.
MR. BERNSEN: Blame it on the husband.
MR. HUFFMAN: As with most districts across the state, we continue to have the problem of right of way encroachments. It is a problem we continually have to address. This being a new car dealership, and you see they continue to display their cars far out on the shoulders of our roadways.
The East R.L. Thornton contraflow lanes that have been in operation now for a little over 3-1/2 years, this is a joint effort between TxDOT and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit. This facility is being extended, with a contract that is ongoing right now, further east, and also, there are two more HOV facilities being constructed this year.
They are both under contract -- or I should say one of them is under contract and the other one is pending in June, being Interstate 35E north from LBJ Freeway up to near Lewisville, and then the second one will be on LBJ Freeway itself extending from North Central Expressway west to Stemmons or I-35E. And those facilities with be concurrent flow lanes where there will be a reserve lane in each direction.
Possibly this will be the last time I mention Freedman Cemetery. This operation was completed last December. We worked on this project for over nine years with the archaeological process. It cost the Department in excess of $10 million. When it was all over with, there were 1,156 actual reburials at this site, and where you see the little picket fence, that actually is the re-internment area. There was additional land we bought from the Resolution Trust Corporation that owned this property.
We are through with the site, we have moved out. The Dallas Arts Council will fence and landscape and provide appropriate monuments at this location. As a matter of fact, they have a national contest for the design to commission the monument that will be provided.
This is a picture in our Dallas District sign shop, and I show it for a purpose and to try to express to you the importance that we place daily on the needs of these operations. There has been quite a bit of controversy lately over the silk screening process that it takes to make these signs, but last year in 1994 we made 126,000 square footage of signing in this shop at an average cost of $8 a square foot for standard signs and $10 a square foot for interstate type signs. We are going through a process to provide better ventilation for the system and this year we are adding a computerized letter-cutting system that will make it even more efficient.
I sort of wanted to concentrate on signing because one of my high priorities is overhead signing and signing in general, and I strongly believe that we continually need to upgrade these signs. This is a sign on Interstate 30 westbound into Dallas from the east. You see the soccer ball on this particular sign. Last summer for the World Cup Series we did work with those folks in providing these special soccer balls on these signs. We made them, they paid for them, and when it was all over with, they actually became collectors' items. There was quite a hassle of people wanting to get hold of them, so we turned them back over to the World Cup, and I don't know how they ended up distributing them.
But right now we have four major contracts underway to replace overhead signs on four of the major freeways in Dallas: all of State Highway 183, all of State Highway 114, Stemmons Freeway on Interstate 35E from downtown out to Loop 12, and then north on Interstate 35E up to Denton County line. We are replacing all of them with high intensity sheeting, and what we are finding is that we are able to turn off the lighting on a lot of them because the reflectivity is so good and this represents an energy conservation measure and our signs are still functional.
This is a changeable message sign that is being placed on LBJ Freeway near Abrams Road. We have 13 of these signs being erected presently. They can be operated from either the district office or traffic control center, or if necessary, from a laptop computer at home. We plan to use them for emergency messages and for instruction messages. They are costing approximately $100,000 each. What they do is the strategic placement of them will allow motorists to seek an alternate routing whenever we have congestion or whatever might be up ahead.
This is another picture of one of them being erected on Woodall Rogers Freeway in the downtown area. Traffic here would be able to exit at Pearl before they hit the central interchange.
Leaving Dallas, going up into Collin County, the little community of Farmersville, and today under Item 4.c. you took some action on addressing the District Discretionary Program and I wanted to point out to you the good, really, that this program does. We have had this program available to the districts for many years.
This little sleepy town has only about 2,700 people up in the northeastern part of the district in Collin County. It has some claims to fame. Farmersville is the home of Audie Murphy, who was the most decorated American soldier during World War II. It had another claim to fame that most people don't know about, but Sam Harris was born in Farmersville in 1873, and after the turn of the century Sam became somewhat of a celebrity, travelling with the Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey Circus. He was billed as the biggest man alive; he weighed 731 pounds. And his grandson is a personal friend of mine over in Terrell, so this information I am giving you is correct.
Commissioner Bernsen, you and Commissioner Wynne will remember this particular FM up in Denton County. Last year you were lobbied quite hard from the folks in that area for this particular project, and today I want to assure you that that thoroughfare is underway. We started it last November, and it should be completed in the fall of 1996.
You have had a lot of concerns expressed, I know, to you about the amount of work that we have going south of the Trinity River in the district. I am going to show you shots here of four projects that are south of the Trinity River. They are certainly not inclusive of everything south of the river, but these four alone total over 93 million. This is a section of US 67 down near Cedar Hill that goes all the way down to Midlothian. This portion is completed, this portion to the south is nearly completed.
This is a section of Interstate 35E in south Dallas County. This was an old four-lane curbed section concrete pavement that was in terrible shape. There was no way we could get the funding in the near future to totally reconstruct it, because we know it would take at least six lanes and possibly eight in that area, but we were able to convince the Federal Highway Administration to let us do an interim project to remove that old curb, put a considerable amount of asphalt and concrete overlay on there, and it provided a very beautiful interim facility.
Also in southeastern Dallas County this project is Interstate 45, it has been underway for the past four years, it is 18 miles in length at a cost of $61 million. And recently completed within the last couple of months is the Ennis Bypass on US 287. This is where it ties into Interstate Highway 45. You remember about a year or so ago you were getting quite a bit of flak about the grade crossings that we were building on this particular project, and it has been very quiet since we completed it and it is working very well; we haven't had any particular problems.
Down near Fair Park this is the Fair Park Bridge on Interstate 30. It is ahead of schedule even though our area engineer has had to work and endure two state fairs plus the World Cup Soccer Series this past summer. That is about a $17 million project.
Back in the summer of 1993, with your discretionary process, you authorized the interchange of State Highway 190 at Central Expressway, a $48 million interchange. Eighty percent of this project has been constructed without impacting Central in any way. It is vital, the project will be vital in the event that 190 does become a toll facility. This is another picture showing Central and 190 coming over.
This is old North Central Expressway at Monticello Street. This infamous early 1950s freeway will be a thing of the past in not too many distant moons. This was the McCommas Bridge, which is a similar structure to the one you just saw taken Tuesday of last week. Nine years ago we were really concerned with how we were going to get these old bridge and frame concrete structures out. This one was built in 1948 with a massive amount of steel and concrete you see there.
This is the same bridge last Saturday morning at 7:00 a.m. We closed it to traffic at midnight on Friday night. Apparently it was the best action in that part of Dallas; we got a crowd of about 300 gathered on the banks to watch the activity. Also, it was apparent to us that this group favored beer and pizza after midnight, because they partied until about 3:00 a.m. before they scattered. But by 2:00 a.m. on Sunday morning the entire facility was cleaned up and the freeway was open again to traffic. This was our first one, and we will be doing about a dozen more of them before the project is completed, but we did find out we could get these structures out in a reasonable time frame.
MR. BURNETT: Do you charge admission, James?
MR. HUFFMAN: We should have, Bill.
MR. BURNETT: Or concessions.
MR. HUFFMAN: I should mention also this is the same day that Bill Garbade was involuntarily removing the structure up near Jarrell on Interstate 35.
MR. BERNSEN: We read about that.
MS. WYNNE: He had a different kind of crowd.
MR. BERNSEN: That did draw a crowd, too.
MR. HUFFMAN: This is Central Expressway near Mockingbird. I just wanted to emphasize to you that we are using every square foot of that very expensive right of way that we had to buy a few years ago. In that six-mile stretch we have got $335 million worth of work underway.
This is a close look at what is behind the retaining walls that are being built on Central. They are basically supported by these closely spaced drill-shaft concrete columns you see. And here is a picture of a finished section. You are looking at frontage road with the freeway up behind the retaining walls.
And his is another picture. This really gives you an idea of the improvements of the frontage road facilities on Central here.. You have got five lanes coming into the intersection at Royal Lane.
I sort of pass the credit for the design of these sound walls to John Kelly in San Antonio. He likes to take credit for them. This one is not finished, and I should point out the little squares that you see in there, they are not finished, because there is a teal-colored tile that goes over the squares. When it is all finished, that tile is supposed to match the bridge running out on the freeway plus the name of the cross-streets that, when you drive on the freeway, as you cross under them, you see them named.
This is a typical sidewalk. It reflects part of the $10 million special architectural treatment package that is being shared 50/50 in cost between TxDOT and the City of Dallas.
And finally, this is a completed section of Central. This is the Coit Road flyover. In the median there you can see some of the shrubs. This is actually a yucca-type planting in the median, and it has an irrigation system and all that goes with it.
I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you, and if there is any questions that you feel like I might could answer, I would be pleased to hear them.
MS. WYNNE: Thanks, James.
MR. BERNSEN: Thank you, James.
MR. BURNETT: Thank you, James.
Commissioners, we do not have a need for an executive session, and to the best of my knowledge, we have no speakers signed up for the public comment period.
MR. BERNSEN: I will make a motion to adjourn, then.
MS. WYNNE: Second.
MR. BERNSEN: All in favor say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
IN RE: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Austin, Texas
DATE: April 27, 1995
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 127, 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.
05/01/95
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
5926 Balcones Dr., Suite 115
Austin, Texas 78731
-----------------------
2
6
127
................
................
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.
Related download
- state of california
- welcome to lower macungie middle shcool
- texas school to sell it s rooftop
- literacy by design the bake sale battle level q
- wo 2709 11 30 fee determination u s forest service
- school commercialism student health and the pressure to
- charleston national community association
- construction auction davis auctions inc