Texas Department of Transportation Commission Meeting
Hilton Garden Inn
800 North Main Street
Duncanville, Texas 75116
Thursday, January 25, 2007
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Ric Williamson, Chairman
Hope Andrade
Ted Houghton, Jr.
Ned S. Holmes
Fred A. Underwood
STAFF:
Michael W. Behrens, P.E., Executive Director
Bob Jackson, General Counsel
Roger Polson, Executive Assistant to the
Deputy Executive Director
Dee Hernandez, Chief Minute Clerk
PROCEEDINGS
MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. It is 9:23 a.m., and I would like to call
the January 2007 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission to
order in Duncanville, Texas. We welcome all of you who are attending
our meeting today.
This is the first time in the history of the Texas Transportation
Commission our meeting has been held in Duncanville, Texas, and we
are excited about being in the southern part of Dallas County, also
known as the southwestern extension of Parker County.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: This is also a very big day for the commission as we
will welcome two new commissioners who are attending their first
commission meeting with us here today. On my far right is Fred
Underwood from Lubbock, Texas, to his left is Ned Holmes from
Houston, Texas. We're very excited to welcome both of you to the
commission and we look forward to your wisdom and leadership in
helping us work with the communities across this state to solve the
problems that confront the transportation world, both now and
tomorrow and on the long horizon.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: It is our practice to take the commission meetings
on the road three or four times a year. It gives us a chance to see
firsthand how local communities and regional leaders are dealing
with the transportation problems across the state. I would also hope
that it provides some insight to local and regional leaders into how
we conduct our business, how we make our decisions, and the
difficulties that the state faces in solving some very serious
problems.
Before we begin our meeting today, it is also our custom to ask you
to join with us at the dais in removing your cell phone, your
Blackberry, your pager, your electronic device -- gosh, there's so
many of them now, I can't name them all -- and please just open them
and put them on the silent mode or turn them off so that people
delivering messages won't be interrupted by the annoying chirp.
Thank you very much.
Please note for the record that public notice of this meeting,
containing all items on the agenda, was filed with the Office of the
Secretary of State on January 17, 2007.
It is our custom to open these meetings with brief comments from
each commissioner, and we tend to do that in the order of
appointment, the most recent appointee beginning. Now, Mr. Underwood
and Mr. Holmes were basically appointed at the same time, so we did
a coin toss -- they didn't know about it -- and Mr. Underwood is the
freshman now and he'll lead us off. Fred, whatever you have to say.
MR. UNDERWOOD: Just honored to be here, looking forward to hearing
the testimony and whatnot, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Ned.
MR. HOLMES: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm delighted to be here. It's
going to be a big learning curve, I think, for both Fred and myself.
We look forward to working with each of you, and we appreciate
getting to go out into various communities to see the issues that
exist in those communities. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a good
tradition for this commission. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: Mr. Chairman, and to the fine folks and visitors here
in Duncanville, thank you for your hospitality. I have had the
opportunity to be down here a couple of times and visit the
facilities at the intermodal and the expansion of the rail yard and
the economic development opportunities, Senator West, and we've got
Loop 9 going to be built through this part of the world, new rail
facilities -- hopefully, we think, Trans-Texas Corridor rail line.
It's going to open up this part of southern Dallas County and change
it forever.
I again thank those here today and look forward to a very productive
and interesting meeting. Thank you.
MS. ANDRADE: Good morning. I also would like to thank everyone for
joining us at our first commission meeting for the year of 2007.
Mayor Green, thank you so much for your hospitality. I felt very
welcome from the minute that I arrived. Bill, thank you so much for
giving us an opportunity to share a dinner with your staff. It
always is very rewarding for us to be able to personally thank the
staff for the great job that they do.
I guess to this community, I want to congratulate you and thank you
for staying committed to preparing this region for the growth that
Texas is experiencing. We certainly appreciate that.
And I look forward to taking care of business, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to personally welcome Commissioner Underwood and Commissioner
Holmes. We've been waiting for you and I look forward to working
with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Hope. I associate myself with all the
remarks of my fellow commissioners, and I would like to repeat,
Mayor Green, how much we appreciate your hospitality and how much we
appreciate the warm hospitality from citizens and leaders from Cedar
Hill, Lancaster, DeSoto and Grand Prairie. I've also met many of you
in the last day and a half and we really appreciate the turnout and
the attention you've paid to us.
For those of you who haven't seen our meetings, you wouldn't know
this; for those of you who attend these meetings regularly, we're
going to alter how we approach things a little bit today because we
have a few special circumstances.
The first special circumstance is we are not only in Duncanville for
the first time but we're in a great transportation senator's
senatorial district for the first time. Even though he has pressing
business in Austin, Texas, he does us great honor by taking time to
journey back to his district and share a few words with us as we
open our meeting here.
And I want to tell you, if you don't know us, we don't waste our
energy complimenting people that we believe really aren't focused on
transportation. We don't say negative things, there's not any reason
to tell somebody they're great if they're not great. But in the case
of Royce West, the transportation world in general, and the
Transportation Commission specifically, has a great transportation
leader, a man of vision, a man of courage, a man who understands
that if you're going to get to the top of the mountain tomorrow,
you've got to start with the first step today.
Senator, you're here with us. Would you like to come maybe chew on
us a little bit?
(General laughter.)
SENATOR WEST: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my mayor,
Mayor Green, other dignitaries that are here. New members of the
commission, looking forward to sitting down and visiting with you as
you go through the confirmation process.
When I think about this commission over the last 14 years that I've
had the opportunity to serve as the senator for the 23rd Senatorial
District, I was not aware until we spoke yesterday, Mr. Chairman,
that the commission had not met in the great city of Duncanville,
and really the southern sector, and it's history. I look forward to
the commission meeting in sunny South Dallas at the Martin Luther
King Center as you put together your schedule for 2008.
Transportation, one of the huge issues that we will be grappling
with during the legislative session. Should there be tolls, should
there be free roads, Trans-Texas Corridor, Loop 9, all of those
issues fall on your watch and require, obviously, the things that
you're doing: great discussion, great input from the citizenry from
the state of Texas, and then decisions on your part.
As my part as a legislator, I know that we will be looking at policy
issues that ultimately will fall in your venue, so to speak, and
then you will promulgate rules and regulations to make certain that
you carry out the intent of the legislation that comes out of the
legislative body.
As we look at this particular area, Texas can no longer afford to
try to build to Oklahoma in North Central Texas. We must, and I
appreciate the focus that the commission has provided in the
southern sector of Dallas County -- and you said the northeast
sector of Parker County?
(General laughter.)
SENATOR WEST: But Loop 9 is very important, as you well know, and as
we debate the Trans-Texas Corridor, that's very important in terms
of the future of the state of Texas, because as we look at it, we're
debating issues for the transportation needs for the state for the
future. Mike, we're looking at energy needs for the future, the
state of Texas. So there are a lot of issues that require the
collective wisdom and expertise of the persons here that are not
necessarily tied -- I shouldn't say are not necessarily -- are not
tied to political affiliation, red jerseys or blue jerseys, but the
growth of the state of Texas.
And as you deliberate on these issues and bring in the rich input
that you have here, and as you award contracts to persons that will
carry out the intent and help us build the future, let's make
certain that we do it and that all Texans are involved in that
process and that when future generations look, they will say: Job
well done, commission, job well done, governor, and job well done,
leadership of the state of Texas.
So welcome to the 23rd Senatorial District. I look forward to
working with you in the future endeavors as we address
transportation needs in the state of Texas. Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Senator.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going to continue altering our normal course
of business, and it will become plain as to why we're going to do
that in just a moment. However, in order for the next unusual thing
to occur, we have to do a usual thing, so at this time I want to lay
before you, members, the minutes from the last meeting and ask you
if there are any additions, deletions, or if you're prepared to
approve the minutes from the December 14 meeting.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
We, in this world, rely upon visionary legislators, a visionary
governor, 14,700 hardworking employees, and a few old sore heads to
carry out state policy, but the reality is we can't be successful in
our mission without the aggressive support of hundreds of thousands
of volunteers across the state, volunteers to us in the sense of
city council persons, county commissioners, regional mobility
council members, community clubs, neighborhood associations, and on
and on.
Years ago, the commission determined that we should have a medal of
honor for those who rise way above the normal wonderful volunteer
inputs that we receive across the state, and that we should
recognize with that medal of honor those individuals at the
appropriate time. Seldom do we go on a road meeting and make the
award in the person's sort of backyard, but the person that we would
like for you to help us recognize has such impact on the
transportation policy of this state from a volunteer perspective
that we all, collectively, months ago, almost a year ago decided
that this would be the appropriate venue in which to make that
award.
Now, normally I just announce it or we do it at a different meeting
and the executive director takes over and he reads a few words,
because we rely on the executive director to do most of the business
of the commission. But in this case, the person who receives the
award is someone very near and dear to me, and that person is near
and dear to me because we began our relationship six years ago,
yelling at each other about why I was wrong and this person was
right, and about why this person was wrong and about why I was
right, and about the different challenge the southern sector faces,
versus the western sector, versus the northern sector, versus
Houston or Lubbock or El Paso or San Antonio. And from that
beginning, although we still disagree about a lot of things, from
that beginning, a true friendship based on common interest
developed, and that's a great thing when you're in public service to
have that occur.
And I'm not the sole determinant of this, this is a recognition
that's determined by senior staff and by the commissioners together,
so it's not just me saying thanks to my friend.
And that's all I want to say. I want to turn the rest of it over to
Michael.
MR. BEHRENS: Thank you, Chairman.
The award we're talking about is the Texas Road Hand Award. This
award was started in 1973 by Luther Deberry, who also served as
district engineer in the Dallas District back early in his career,
and he created this award as a high tribute to public-spirited
citizens who freely give their time to champion transportation in
their area.
Since that time in 1973, the department has given out 208 Road Hand
Awards. If you come down to the Greer Building where our offices are
in Austin, you will see the plaque that has all the names of the
Road Hand recipients.
I'm going to talk a little bit now about today's honoree. He is a
true friend of transportation. He has led, supported, and dedicated
himself to the growth and expansion of the Dallas area. He's a
dynamic civic leader who has been a driven advocate for improvement
of transportation-related issues in North Texas. He's given many
long hours of personal time and is highly regarded as a resource for
transportation matters in this area.
In 1989, the lack of representation for cities in southwest Dallas
County came to his attention. To ensure equal representation on the
Regional Transportation Council, he devised a plan whereby smaller
cities would be given a voice. He is one of the original founding
members of the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition. He has worked
with regional and community leaders to offer suggestions for
transportation enhancements in Dallas County's southwestern region.
He continued to represent transportation concerns of southwest
Dallas County through lobbying to improve parts of US 287 and US 67,
and worked hard to expedite enhancement funds for I-35 East and
I-45.
On the state level, he has served as president of the nine counties
that comprise the Texas Municipal League's Region 13. He served
appointments on their Finance, Administration and Personnel
committees, and was appointed to the National League of Cities
Transportation Committee.
Nationally, he has served on the Southwestern Regional Selection
Panel for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, and the
Selection Panel for American Political Science Association
Congressional Fellows.
He currently serves on the Trans-Texas Corridor Advisory Committee
and on the National League of Cities Transportation Committee.
Without question, his greatest accomplishment is his contagious work
ethic which serves as an example to all community leaders. For 18
years he has served as a Duncanville City Council person, has been
mayor pro tem of Duncanville for six terms, is a member of the
Regional Transportation Committee of the North Central Texas Council
of Governments, and has been secretary of the Dallas Regional
Mobility Coalition.
In his many years of elected office, he has had extensive experience
in transportation and other issues facing local governments and has
become known in transportation circles as a road warrior. He
continues to promote a better understanding of transportation
issues, mobility improvements and community needs, paving the way
for a promising future. He is a solid and valuable transportation
supporter and epitomizes the TxDOT mission. His dedication to
improving the transportation system we have today will always be an
inspiration to all of us.
It is with great honor that I announce the addition of Grady W.
Smithey, Jr., to the prestigious roll of Texas Road Hands.
(Applause.)
MR. BEHRENS: Grady, let me read this Road Hand Award. It certifies
that Grady W. Smithey, Jr., is a certified member of the Texas Road
Gang, having proven ability and displayed the stamina to toil long,
strenuous hours for Texas transportation. Be it known that in
recognition and appreciation of proven labor, the Texas Department
of Transportation shall post your name on the indelible roll of
honored and distinguished Road Hands. Signed by the chairman and the
commission and myself.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITHEY: Well, I'm humbled with this award. I'm from Hill County
originally, Mertens, Texas, a town of less than 100 people a lot of
the time. Mertens, Texas, we lived 2-1/2 miles south of town on a
mud road when I was growing up in the '40s when my dad was in the
service in World War II. When we wanted to go to town in the muddy
time of the year, we had to roll up our overalls up over our knees
and wade in the mud for 2-1/2 miles to get to town.
The best thing that ever happened to us was when the Jim Rankin
legislation passed in the late '40s and they paved Farm Road 308
which goes from Milford at 35 on down to Elm Mott north of Waco.
When that section was paved, we could get to town any time. We
didn't have to roll up our overalls and wade through the mud, we
didn't have to tie our Broughams -- which is what we called our
shoes in those days -- over our shoulders. It was the greatest,
greatest thing that ever happened, so I guess early in my life I
began to understand the necessity of transportation improvements.
And I really do appreciate this recognition, I'm overwhelmed. I've
tried to do what I can. I have been a polarizing influence, frankly,
in many cases because I've pushed transportation so hard, but I tell
you what, this is a great day, and I thank every one of you.
Commissioners, I thank you so much, and Mike, I thank you so much
for this award, and it will get the place of honor on my wall at
home. Thank you again.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: If you're going to address the commission today, I
need for you to do one of two things. If you're going to comment on
an item that's on our posted agenda, I need for you to complete a
yellow card which can be found in the lobby to your left. If you're
going to comment on something not on the agenda at the end of our
meeting in the general comment section, if you would, please, I
would appreciate your completing a blue card, such as the one I have
in my hand, and you can find it, again, to your left in the lobby.
In any event, out of respect for the audience and the participants,
please try to keep your comments to around three minutes, unless
you're a member of the legislature or John Wiley Price, who we ask
to come and visit with us any time for as long as they want, because
we always learn from our county commissioners, our county judges and
our legislators. I do note for the record that Mr. Price is here,
and Mr. Price is also a great friend of transportation in this
state, has been a very active and visionary guy trying to solve
problems in the southern sector in the northern part of our state.
The first item on the agenda, we've done that. The second item on
the agenda is the federal legislative program --
MR. BEHRENS: Comments from our district engineer and local folks.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The second item on our agenda will be comments from
our district engineer, Bill Hale, and I suspect Commissioner Price
and our local employees in the Dallas area. So Bill, I apologize for
cutting you off. The truth is I left my glasses in my truck and I'm
sitting here trying to remember what that script said.
MS. ANDRADE: Do you want to borrow mine?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm fixing to go get mine. Mine are industrial
grade.
(General laughter.)
MR. HALE: I appreciate it, Chairman, I appreciate it, commissioners
and Mr. Behrens, and on behalf of the Dallas District, we welcome
you to Duncanville for your commission meeting. I greatly appreciate
that you've chosen to come to the Dallas District which you have
done here in your process.
It's very appropriate that you chose Duncanville and Dallas County
that have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate strong
transportation leadership in this region, specifically with Loop 9,
State Highway 161 -- which is a comprehensive development agreement
we're in the middle of at this point -- Southern Gateway, a roadway
facility including 67 and 35, the Gateway Horizon.
Because of the continued and steady leadership, this region is
poised for strong and sustained development and growth. It
significantly contributes to the southern Dallas County region. They
stand together, they work together, and they have come together
strongly in this area.
The leaders of the southern Dallas region are forward-thinking and
strong-willed, they're not afraid to step forward and ask difficult
questions and give plain-spoken feedback, they demand fairness, and
they take a stance on what they really believe in, and they listen.
Consequently, they have become and do remain key players in
important transportation decisions throughout the region, key
contributors to solving tough Metroplex transportation problems.
They make me proud to be one of the two DFW district engineers.
I earned my stripes here in the Dallas area. I started out in
Waxahachie, working in Hutchins, and then went to Abilene and then
came back. I grew up in south Dallas so I feel proud; I was a Grove
Rat from Pleasant Grove. Anybody who lives in Dallas knows what I'm
talking about.
(General laughter.)
MR. HALE: I know this area, I know the leaders of this area, and I
understand their problems and issues. I seek their counsel and
consider it strongly. They are truly transportation partners.
To conclude, I don't want to speak a whole lot here, I'm not good at
making big presentations, but I would like to show a presentation
that we've put together in our district. Our district has put
together a strong presentation for this area, and if you'll look
over here, you'll see what we've got.
(Whereupon, the video presentation began.)
SPEAKER ON VIDEO: "Transportation, it is the force that guides the
economic compass navigating today's business environment. Because of
necessary transportation infrastructure, southern Dallas business is
prospering today.
"TxDOT's early responsibility was getting the farmer out of the mud
and to the market. Today's goals include: reducing congestion,
enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity, improving air
quality, and increasing the value of transportation assets.
"Here in Duncanville in the southern Dallas region, we're doing just
that with a new set of tools aimed at delivering a faster, better
product, solutions to benefit local transportation leaders. TxDOT
and the southern Dallas region are open for business. Economic
expansion is underway and you're part of the solution."
SPEAKER ON VIDEO: "Open for business, that's a new and different
term for TxDOT. In the past, TxDOT has had the resources to manage
the entire state's transportation system. Our future needs will have
to be met through a cooperative partnering with local communities.
"In 2003, dramatic transportation legislation sketched a new image
of the future of transportation. It contained a variety of
initiatives altering the highway planning processes and provided an
opportunity for communities to select the projects that best meet
their needs. In addition, it brought new tools to the table for
transportation officials and community leaders to utilize in
managing highway projects in their area. Among those new tools are:
the regional mobility authority, toll roads, pass-through financing,
the State Infrastructure Bank, and comprehensive development
agreements.
"Two projects that are important to the development of the southern
Dallas region are the Southern Gateway project and the Gateway
Horizon project.
"The Southern Gateway project will develop long term improvements
for the Interstate 35 and US 67 corridors. While the design year for
this project will be 2025 and 2030, the overall goal of this effort
is providing transportation solutions that will endure the next 50
years.
"The Gateway Horizon project is a long term transportation solution
for the US 67 corridor between FM 1382 and the US 287 Bypass,
involving the cities of Cedar Hill, Midlothian, DeSoto, Ovilla, and
Grand Prairie, located within Dallas and Ellis counties.
"These two important projects are not yet funded but TxDOT is open
for business to work with local transportation leaders to find
funding solutions.
"TxDOT is also open for business to partner with local communities.
One example is the Link Park project. The Link Park project is a
cooperative partnership between TxDOT and the City of Grand Prairie.
Resulting from ten acres of needed right of way for the construction
of the State Highway 161 project, 62 acres of mitigated new parkland
was created to bridge the Mike Lewis Park and the C.P. Waggoner
Park. The 1.5 mile long linear park runs adjacent to the Trinity
River and features interpretive signage, lighted trails, and
overlooks to the Trinity River. The urban recreation area avoids
environmentally sensitive areas while improving the quality of life
for the citizens of Grand Prairie.
"Another project crucial to the development of southwest Dallas is
the State Highway 161 project. Due to innovative funding solutions,
including revenue tools made available through House Bill 3588, the
construction schedule for SH 161 can be accelerated. Without
tolling, the SH 161 main lanes would be scheduled to begin
construction in sections from 2009 through 2014. Construction would
not likely be complete for all sections until 2016. In addition,
other projects in the corridor would go unfunded. With tolling, the
construction of the SH 161 main lanes will begin much earlier and
all sections will be open to traffic by 2010. As a result of
tolling, gas tax funds previously obligated to the SH 161 project
will now be used to build a number of Near-Neighbor projects in the
area.
"The Loop 9 vision had its beginning in the 1950s. Thanks to
proactive efforts of elected officials and local transportation
leaders, Loop 9 has remained a southern Dallas County priority.
Based on their efforts, the region can leverage past investments and
take advantage of the new project delivery methods, including
private-public partnerships, and make Loop 9 a reality.
"The Loop 9 corridor project is a critical transportation project to
the continued development of southern Dallas County. TxDOT has
joined Dallas County as a partner in completing the draft
environmental impact statement by March of 2007. Due to the work
already completed on the study, the region, and especially southern
Dallas County cities, may be able to capitalize on an opportunity to
get the project built faster as a potential connector to the
Trans-Texas Corridor.
"TxDOT is open for business. These problem-solving approaches are a
new way of doing business. You're in the driver's seat when it comes
to deciding how to meet transportation needs in southern Dallas."
(Whereupon, the video presentation was concluded.)
MR. HALE: And that last part about the City of Champions. I don't
know if you followed high school athletics, but Cedar Hill won state
in football this year in Class 5-A.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: And if you follow this whole area, the top ten teams in
basketball are from this area, and then they've won state in a
couple of areas besides that. Duncanville, a couple of years ago,
won state in football.
I'd like to recognize at this time Scott Dorsett, Rhonda Schmid, and
Brian Barth for this presentation they put together. They worked
with me and my staff here, they did an excellent job.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: That Barry White voice was Scott Dorsett speaking.
(General laughter.)
MR. HALE: Before I get to any other presenters, I'd first like to
acknowledge the presence of another TxDOT district engineer here,
and that's Larry Tegtmeyer from the Wichita Falls District.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: At this time I'd like to introduce Mayor Green from the
City of Duncanville. It is my pleasure to begin presentations by
local leaders by introducing the mayor. Mayor Green and the City of
Duncanville Council have been instrumental in shaping transportation
solutions for the southern Dallas County region and the Metroplex
generally. Mayor Green and the City of Duncanville have played a key
role in the State Highway 161 CDA and associated
Near-Neighbor/Near-Time projects, and Loop 9.
(Applause.)
MAYOR GREEN: Good morning, Commissioner Williamson and members of
the commission. We truly appreciate you being in Duncanville today.
We bring you greetings not only from Duncanville but all of the best
southwest cities and the cities located in southern Dallas County.
We're here today to tell you -- you stated earlier that you're
delighted about being in Duncanville -- we're doubly delighted that
you're here. We want to tell you that we truly are open for
business. Transportation will totally reshape our area.
We trust that yesterday on the tour of South Loop 9 that you saw the
potential of what's going to happen out here with the intermodal
facilities, the business establishments that will be coming in
because of all of the transportation activities related with it.
So again we say to you thank you for being here, and if there's
anything we can do to make your stay more pleasant, please let us
know.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mayor.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: And that singer was John Cougar Mellencamp.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We thought it was you.
MR. HALE: Could have been.
(General laughter.)
MR. HALE: Our next speaker is another key transportation leader in
this area, Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price. Commissioner
Price is representing the Dallas County Judge Jim Foster today in
speaking before the commission. Commissioner Price is a six-term
Dallas County commissioner, having served since January 1, 1985. He
has served on many, many boards in his role as a Dallas County
commissioner, including the membership of Loop 9 Policy Advisory
Group, and very instrumental in getting Loop 9 moving.
(Applause.)
MR. PRICE: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you very
much for not only the opportunity but for being in what we consider
to be the best county in Texas. I auditioned for singing that with
the "American Idol" but I just didn't make the cut.
(General laughter.)
MR. PRICE: But I want to say just real quickly, and want to thank
Mayor Green for this hosting, but I would like to ask the other
elected officials -- I see a number of individuals, our partners who
are here with us this morning, members of councils, mayors, and I'd
now ask them to stand at this particular time. From both Duncanville
and City of DeSoto, I see mayors and council members, Lancaster --
they're all here this morning. I'll ask them to stand. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. PRICE: I'm asking them to stand, Mr. Chairman and members,
primarily because without them not only Loop 9 but south Dallas
County would not be open for business.
In 1991, the Dallas County Commissioners Court in a bond program
took on this effort, and let me thank you for recognizing our
friend, Grady, today. Grady is -- there are a lot of things you can
say about Grady, but one thing you've got to say is he's committed
to transportation. So I thank you for your recognition of him.
But in 1991, Dallas County realized that there needed to be someone
to talk about navigating this process, and all of our cities have
signed on.
But let me just tell you about your staff real quickly. Bill Hale
did not say enough about it. Let me just say that this particular
district in TxDOT has been exemplary in being the kind of partner
that has made us go to this next level. And I just want to say thank
you to he and his staff.
But in that '91 vision, this intermodal and economic engine was all
Dallas needed, and for those of you who took the tour yesterday on
40 miles of what we consider to be the most limited access virgin
roads in this country, we know that Loop 9 is well on its way.
So on behalf of Judge Foster and my colleague, and in his absence
this morning -- the truth of the matter is I really have him tied up
in a closet -- this is his district, Commissioner Ken Mayfield, but
I decided I needed to really substitute for him today.
(General laughter.)
MR. PRICE: Let me just say thank you very much for being here, thank
you for being a real partner with us. We're on the right track,
TxDOT is with us, and the citizens of Dallas County are going to be
better off. History will be the vindicator of all of our deeds
today. And we just want to say thank you very much for being here
with us.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Commissioner.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: Now, no local presentation would be complete and balanced
if you didn't have the next man come up here, so I won't introduce
him, you probably know who he is. Michael Morris will come up here
and talk. He's a leader for the entire region, including Fort Worth
and our area.
(Applause.)
MR. MORRIS: Mr. Hale, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Holmes, welcome. I think
you'll see from our region it isn't just about Dallas and Fort Worth
coming first or south Dallas coming first, it's Texas coming first,
and I think you'll see a willingness on the part of this region to
assist you anywhere in the state in the best interests of the state.
Mr. Behrens, hello again. I hope you would extend to Commissioner
Johnson our region's very sincere appreciation for his years of
service on the commission. As chairman and as a commissioner, he was
very supportive of everything innovative and stood firm as we made
some of these changes.
My name is Michael Morris. I'm the director of transportation at the
North Central Texas Council of Governments. We are the MPO, the
metropolitan planning organization for the Duncanville-Dallas-Fort
Worth region. We have 40 policy members on our particular council.
Almost all of them are elected officials except for the
transportation providers that sit there, including your two
districts, the Dallas and Fort Worth districts.
There are seven points that I'd like to make, and I don't have a
long presentation for you. You were recently in Denton and we're
coming back to see you in March. Amadeo Saenz, Mr. Behrens and I
were in Washington, D.C. earlier this week. I think Amadeo had three
presentations to give at the Transportation Research Board; I had
three. Everybody in the country is anxious to hear what is Texas
doing and what's going on in Dallas and Fort Worth. You should be
very proud of all the hard work that got to this particular point.
The rest of the nation literally is watching what is going on in
Texas and in Dallas-Fort Worth as a model for how transportation can
be built in the rest of the country, and the key to that, as already
alluded to, is a partnership.
You should throw your name badge away. Yes, I work for a
metropolitan planning organization but we're working for the
customers in the region, and this region operates as one team. Yes,
you have TxDOT employees and transit authority employees and toll
road employees and MPO employees and city employees and county
employees, but you have all these employees with common purpose
implementing services for the customer.
The second thing I want to flag is the new mobility plan that the
Regional Transportation Council approved last week. We obviously
don't have time to go through the whole plan. What I'm focusing on
here is the increased revenue from the new tools that the
legislature has given us and all the new policies and initiatives
that this commission has. It's a hard number to see, and the bottom
of it is we anticipate $16.8 billion worth of enhanced revenue
stream from these particular initiatives.
I won't go through them all, just from a large perspective. The
green lines on that map are existing tolled facilities within the
region. The blue lines are the new toll roads we're partnering with
you and the North Texas Tollway Authority through the protocol to
build. You see the outline of the regional loop, the big circle --
or donut, as the chairman indicates -- as a tolled facility as part
of that particular initiative. And then the red lines are when we
reconstruct our existing freeways, we will put a managed, tolled HOV
facility in the center of that corridor as a way to get guaranteed
levels of service for the customers within the region. In most
corridors that priority is given to the commuter, in some corridors
that priority is given to the truck, depending on what the right
tool for the right job is.
The third point I want to make -- and I want to shift a little bit
to land use -- you guys at the state you often don't have an ability
to have land use as a part of the tools in your toolbox and you
often have to leave the transportation investments. At the regional
level, working with our commissioners and our cities, especially
cities who have land use control, the region is using land use as
part of the initiative in solving the mobility, safety and air
quality problems.
The Regional Transportation Council has focused on south Dallas
County for some time. They very much are interested in increasing
development in this part of the region because if south Dallas grows
and we can put 50,000 or 100,000 more persons here, it reduces the
pressure of the suburban ruralization heading towards Oklahoma, of
which we do not have the revenues to sustain that huge mass of
suburban and rural development within the region. It's not in the
best interest of the rural elements of the state and it's not in the
best interest of the urban elements.
Passenger rail system, light rail system has been built. Cockrell
Hill Interchange introduced 6,000 new jobs south of Interstate 30
which is a partnership between the county and the Regional
Transportation Council. On Interstate 20 we have reliable
transportation by creating frontage roads where if an incident or an
accident or construction, we then use the frontage roads as part of
that. The benefit of that, and one of your five goals, is economic
opportunity. By building that particular frontage road system which
is under construction creates increased access which creates job
opportunity along the corridor.
The Regional Transportation Council has funded specific sustainable
development projects which are either high density developments
around passenger rail stations or mixed-use developments increasing
the ability of walkable communities and other initiatives. The new
intermodal facility, with a partnership between the RTC and
Commissioner Price in building transportation, to gain access to
that new intermodal facility.
So even though it's not a tool in your toolbox, I want you to
realize that you'll never solve the transportation problems without
putting land use and land use policy development as part of that
particular tool.
I want to focus on five specific projects, they're all listed here.
Dan Kessler, if you'd go over and point to 161. I just want to touch
on five projects. 161 is a project that is under construction from
funds by the Regional Transportation Council. That initiative is a
toll road; that toll road will go through your comprehensive
development agreement process. That facility is on schedule to move
forward after our 121 procurement goes through which has a deadline
any day now.
Loop 9, you've already heard about. That's the first leg of our
regional loop system. We have a partnership between the districts
and the Regional Transportation Council to environmentally clear the
rest of that particular corridor, using assets and capabilities that
are in your toll road division, again, an example of a true
partnership.
The Trinity project which is a bypass around downtown Dallas is a
tolled facility. If that facility is not constructed, we cannot
bring radial improvements into the downtown area because we need
more downtown capacity there. The senator that you heard from led
the study on the gateway for Interstate 35 coming to the south.
And then the 67 corridor, Bill and I are working hard, probably
through the Trinity and/or the 161 concession fee initiative to
start making improvements to the Interstate 35-E corridor down at
least three or four or five miles to get rid of a dangerous curve
that's existing in that particular corridor. It's the most congested
part of the corridor and it's obviously a high accident location, so
you should hear soon initiatives to build that particular corridor
from the north to the south as part of that particular initiative.
And then, of course, we have 67 further to the south as part of that
particular mix.
So projects are proceeding, leveraging is occurring, I think it's
all very positive. You've heard status reports on that in the past.
The fifth item is with regard to the Super Bowl initiative in North
Texas, probably more through administrative work of Mr. Behrens than
any policy change you had to make. As you know, Mr. Holmes, you held
the Super Bowl in your particular region, it was a terrific success.
Dallas-Fort Worth is now going to compete with cities across the
country to hold a Super Bowl in Dallas-Fort Worth. It is part of
your economic opportunity; $3- to $4 million of new revenue is
brought to the state to host a Super Bowl. We look at it as an
excuse to build the transportation facilities that we're building
anyway as part of that.
There's four things that are going to be needed, and again, I don't
think it's by policy, we'll be working with Mr. Behrens. Attorneys
have drafted up a resolution -- I'm not convinced we need a
resolution to do it.
The first is if the league brings vehicles down 30 or 60 days before
that they don't want to be charged excess vehicle registration fees
through your Department of Motor Vehicles -- it's a standard
agreement in order to get it.
Second, the RTC and TxDOT are building the Dallas Traffic Control
Center and we've already funded the Fort Worth Traffic Control
Center. We want those traffic control centers up and operating on
that week that the Super Bowl is here, and of course, why would we
build them if we weren't going to operate them.
The league has written to us and wants special attention that it
could be an icy situation. Again, why would we de-ice all the
roadways every day, and then when the Super Bowl comes, we would
forget to do so. We need some commitment in case of an ice
situation.
And I'm going to talk about transit in a moment. We will have
dedicated lanes for bus vehicles, so we're going to buy some
concrete, New Jersey Barrier, probably by the Regional
Transportation Council, and at least on Super Bowl day, maybe during
that whole week, have at least one lane dedicated to transit
vehicles to get to and from their destination so they're not mixed
in the congestion so they can cycle back and make another trip.
So these are four very standard operational elements, you supported
them in Houston, and we'll work with Bill Hale and Mr. Behrens to
find out what's the best mechanism to make sure our application
doesn't get rejected, and attorneys can review either the resolution
or an administrative letter to do that.
The sixth point is I want to again reiterate that our region stands
ready, especially during this legislative process, to talk about the
financial crisis on transportation in the state and the success
early implementation has made. There are some forces coming back to
either criticize the protocol, or maybe toll roads aren't good, or
some other situation, and I think those are all very legitimate
policy matters.
As a technical person, the only concern I have is if they translate
the facts or the data, since I was your person who led the Texas
Metropolitan Mobility Plan for the eight largest metropolitan
regions, I want to make sure that those facts are not manipulated in
that particular debate, and stand ready to either testify or work
with your staff in making sure those facts from the eight largest
regions -- including Lubbock and Houston and San Antonio and El
Paso, your regions -- are fairly and accurately represented in that
communication to the legislature.
And then the last point I want to make, and I've made it before, I
think it's very important to talk about transportation improvements
for people who already have transportation, but we have a lot of
people in this state who don't have transportation. You have put in
the lead Commissioner Andrade to lead the whole transportation
operation seamless investment in the state, it's a legislative
mandate. She has asked me to help her and we have completed those
plans and you heard that report in December.
January starts the first month of the implementation of the new
seamless policies and programs for integrating transit operations in
every inch of this great state. And just the same emotion that this
commission has led to the financial crisis on roadways, I know you
will support Commissioner Andrade as she leads the same type of
emotion and leadership necessary to deliver a seamless transit
system for all users of this state, especially those that don't have
the ability of driving or taking that particular automobile. You
heard some of those presentations in December when we presented it
to you, but I wanted you to know we're now past the planning phase
and we're now moving into the implementation phase.
So things will get a little ticklish as we tell transit operators
who are not sharing vehicles, or maintenance of vehicles that aren't
being held to the correct standard, or taxicab policies that aren't
modern enough to create seamless ability for people to go to their
health or cancer treatment or something else.
So this region is moving forward, you've got 24 other regions moving
forward. This is our first month of implementing new strategies.
You'll hear from different parts of the state some old-fashioned, we
like it the way it used to be, and hopefully give us a chance to
tell you why new ways and new systems will deliver more seamless
transit for all Texans.
With that, Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to take any questions over
all of the region or our focus on this part of our particular region
today.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Michael, as always, we appreciate so much you
spending your time with us anywhere we are. We'll start at the end,
Fred, is there anything you wish to ask?
MR. HOUGHTON: Michael, tremendous job, as usual. At the Denton
meeting -- and I don't know if you have it on your computer -- you
showed the effects of a concession on 121, what it would do for the
region. You don't happen to have that slide with you?
MR. MORRIS: No.
MR. HOUGHTON: Sorry you don't have that.
MR. MORRIS: I didn't think I'd be invited back to south Dallas
County if I brought the Denton County map.
(General laughter.)
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, it will illustrate a point. You know what the
point is.
MR. MORRIS: Yes.
MR. HOUGHTON: And let me just finish the point. There has been
legislation introduced by a senator that would reduce concessions
from 50 years to a maximum of 30 years, and what kind of effect do
you believe that could have or would have on that concession
payment?
MR. MORRIS: Well, the Regional Transportation Council debated it,
and they liked 50 years and they passed on a policy that they'd like
you not to go past 50. They very much know that if you start
handcuffing that process that it has huge implications on the
revenue side. We think by you permitting the government side to
regulate it by setting the tolls and the policies and the business
terms that I think the concession duration is less critical.
Now, the concession duration would be very critical -- and this is
not well understood after coming from Washington -- if the private
sector had full authority to do whatever they wished in the
corridor, then I would think the concession period would be a very
significant policy question. But in your particular case, the way
you're implementing this, as you have asked the local policy
officials, the government officials to set those particular business
terms -- from what the existing rates are, are you interested in
time-of-day pricing, and what the inflation is over time, and
methods of interest -- it's a regulated commodity.
So the RTC felt 50 years was very comfortable, they're more nervous
on shorter terms, and I think the private sector would be too, by
the way. The other problem you have with 30 years is the private
sector could easily get into a transportation facility and it still
be in its existing design life -- you know, pavements last 40 years.
So you could have a private sector vendor basically milk all the
capital asset inventory value out of a particular project, turn it
back over to you at 30 years, and it has still a 10-year design
life.
I like the beauty of the 50 years is because in your procurement
procedures that pavement quality is being monitored and that private
sector vendor has a responsibility of turning over a new asset, and
I think that new asset should be closer to its design life which is
50 years than it is 30 years. This way you're not inheriting back to
the gas tax side the reconstruction or rehabilitation of a lot of
these particular pavements.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, and to follow that up, just to illustrate the
point on the concession -- on the back of a napkin obviously you
have anticipated a certain amount of dollars coming out of 121 --
what are the new investment in free roads that you will be making in
the region?
MR. MORRIS: Well, I'm going to ask Dan to go up there.
MR. HOUGHTON: I mean, the cumulative number.
MR. MORRIS: Well, if you go to 121 -- just so the new commissioners
can see where it is -- the blue line 121 in Collin and Denton
counties, that project is due any day. I probably don't want to say
publicly because we're so close to it, but we, staff, anticipate --
and I'm not revealing any documents -- a several billion number,
just a big number. They're in the audience and I don't want to
influence their decision.
But you see that red corridor? That's the Interstate 35 NAFTA
corridor. Right now we have no money to make that particular
improvement. So we went to those communities and said, If you permit
121 to be tolled, we're going to come in and make improvements to
Interstate 35 all the way from Dallas to Denton, we're going to come
in and help on the gridded thoroughfare system in Collin County just
like you have it gridded there for a system in Dallas County.
Dan, look at southwest Dallas County and show them the grayed-in
thoroughfare street system. You see that gridded system there? This
part of the region, and why we want to infuse so much development
here, already has a very good thoroughfare street system, it doesn't
have a very good freeway system. Notice when you go to Collin County
-- which is one of the fastest growing counties in the region -- you
don't have that thoroughfare street system, you don't have the
backbone as part of that.
So you're correct, Commissioner, you toll facilities in order to
build infrastructure in that particular community. Now, also, for
example, we're building passenger rail. DART is building passenger
rail from downtown Dallas to Carrollton. Dan, if you'd show them up
the 35 corridor. And then the Denton County tollway authority is
going to go from there all the way to Denton.
So one of the items which is kind of innovative -- and you've
certainly been nudging us in this direction -- is to flex some of
that money that you're going to get from the toll road side to help
fund the passenger rail side of that particular investment. We have
Tower 55 which is now being declared as the largest bottleneck on
the rail system of this country in downtown Fort Worth. Horribly
difficult to flex money on the goods movement side; you have that
same issue in Houston. By tolling these particular facilities, we're
potentially flexing funds to partner, not exclusively, to make those
particular investments.
MR. HOUGHTON: So we're getting dollars out of the dirt, dead capital
out of the dirt and putting it to use into economic opportunities,
reducing congestion.
MR. MORRIS: In my remarks in Washington -- and we take it for
granted here -- what's critical is this state permits us to use
transportation investments to grow transportation systems. In other
parts of this country, they're using transportation assets to solve
non-transportation problems. And we can't permit our transportation
values to now start solving other financial issues that the state
has. We take it for granted, but there's lots of discussion in other
parts of the country of solving retirement funds and other things on
the back of your transportation wealth.
MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you, Michael, for a great job.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me just tag on -- I don't mean to jump ahead,
Hope, but Michael said something that triggered in my mind -- it
seems like we almost always end up using you for a lesson.
MR. MORRIS: My wife does too.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: But we have in the audience today two new
commissioners and we have at least three faces that are sort of new
to this discussion that have the opportunity to listen to some facts
unfiltered through others. And one of these persons made a point to
me in the recent past that perhaps the biggest concern is that the
concession -- and perhaps the biggest criticism -- is that the
concession model implies a toll rate very high in the future in
order to pay for the tax roads or the Near-Neighbor/Near-Time-Frame
assets that will be built, and is it really fair to make our
children pay a higher toll rate than they would otherwise pay if it
were a government-owned toll road and that weren't the case.
And I've kind of wrestled with a businesslike way to answer that
criticism. My instinct is that there is a businesslike way, and the
only thing I can come up with is there's got to be a value
associated with the reduced congestion on those
Near-Neighbor/Near-Time-Frame assets, there's got to be a value
associated with the cleaner air that comes with reduced congestion,
there's got to be a value associated with the safety element and the
economic development element. I just don't know how to quantify that
beyond what we're doing at the department to try to quantify it.
But is it not the case that we've done studies on all of these
concessions and we have a pretty good idea of the residents of a
percentage of the users. For example, we kind of feel comfortable
that between 50 and 60 percent of the users of 121, as we know it
today, live in Collin County, and that if we invest 50 to 60 percent
of the concession in Collin County, can't it be fairly said that the
people paying that toll are getting benefits?
MR. MORRIS: Well, I think three things jump out, Mr. Chairman. First
look at gasoline tax -- and you've said this, too, and I just remind
people of this. Whenever people don't like a particular option,
their words should always be: Okay, then what is your
recommendation? And then you quickly hear "gas tax." Okay, a gas tax
is: a) horribly regressive because it is very difficult for the
lower income person to pay it even though the higher income person
is buying approximately the same amount of fuel consumption; the
other problem is it has a horrible equity problem.
There's a good chance in this state you could pay lots of gas tax --
say there's a nickel increase, so for the next ten years you pay a
nickel increase, it's possible, because of the cost of these
particular projects, you wouldn't see any capacity improvements as a
result of you paying. You might see some maintenance improvement,
but large particular projects with gas tax money are very limited.
So you could pay gas tax in Parker County but if you didn't travel
on Interstate 30 widening, you wouldn't have seen any of those
particular benefits.
In the case of the toll roads -- which I think is a better business
argument -- is you don't have to get on the toll road. Our elected
officials like toll roads because it gives people choices: if they
want to stay on the gas tax system which is being maintained by gas
taxes -- because as you know, your gas tax now can't buy any more
capacity; Mr. Bass did a nice job of showing that to you in December
-- that if you wish to just travel without paying, then you don't
pay.
So here you've given a choice to the constituents of a region: we're
not going to increase your tax; if you wish to increase your tax
yourself, that's okay, but you don't have to pay more for
transportation if you don't wish.
Now, most of our region will opt in favor of paying that user fee
because they have a responsibility, either of putting in hot water
heaters or goods movement getting to just in time delivery or people
trying to get to work. They're opting in of their own choice, so
they get the benefit of the transportation facility
And by the way, moving 60,000 or 100,000 people to a new toll road,
the person who has opted not to pay the higher tax also is
benefitted. That person is also benefitted because you then flex the
funds in what we coined this Near-Neighbor/Near-Time-Frame period
building other transportation projects for those particular
constituents, and often those are on what we normally call gas tax
roadways. So they may get a passenger rail system out of it, or
partnership towards it, or they get their thoroughfare streets
developed -- that I think we have to do in Collin and Denton
counties -- and they didn't even necessarily travel on the toll road
but they're going to get benefits from that particular item.
The third thing that comes to mind is I don't think tolls are
regressive. One of the presentations I gave at the Transportation
Research Board is look at what the individual homeowner is facing in
their daily life: if they're five minutes late picking up their kids
from daycare, it's $15 every ten minutes, or whatever it is; if
they're in a blue collar job and they're late twelve times for work,
they end up losing their job. So in a household's perspective, it's
the opportunity costs that tell me why I want to get on a toll road.
It isn't just about catching the airplane, it's getting to daycare
on time so I don't have to pay that cost, or getting to work on time
so I don't have to lose my job.
And if toll roads are so horrible, why in regions like ours and
Houston are so many people using them? It is because on the days you
need it, you get on it, and on the days you don't need it, you can
travel on the rest of the system, and it really is an individual
responsibility decision, in my mind. You're avoiding the regressive
gas tax on the person and you're giving them a choice to decide if
they wish to travel or not on that particular facility.
And our elected officials, I think, have gone through, starting back
in '91 when we started pushing toll roads, all the way from this is
double taxation -- I haven't heard the words "double taxation" in
our region in two or three years, except in Collin County.
(General laughter.)
MR. MORRIS: But it takes a long time to walk you through these
business elements. And I heard an earful, other states elected to
borrow money, they didn't want to increase their gas taxes, so they
borrowed to the hilt. Trust Fund is going to go negative in 2009,
meaning the revenues going into the Trust Fund -- you're already
seeing the rescissions that are before you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You speak of the Federal Highway Trust Fund?
MR. MORRIS: Yes. These states are sweating bullets now because they
borrowed money on an anticipated revenue stream that Washington
cannot keep up with, where this state elected not to borrow the
money and go ahead with a very modern partnership with both locals
to get support and then the private sector to bring financing. And I
tell you, the rest of the country is extremely jealous that we now
can go ahead and build $16 billion worth of more projects in
Dallas-Fort Worth and other states are sweating bullets thinking
they may go bankrupt in 2009 if their rescissions go any further
than what they're experiencing right now.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So if you were a business leader in north Dallas or
Collin County and you were really concerned about the state's
seemingly aggressive drive towards public-private partnerships and
CDAs, and your only concern was I'm concerned that because the
private sector has got to make a profit and because you guys want
all this cash up front that the tolls are going to be too high for
the next 30 years, the answer to that is the cash that's taken in
the concession is immediately invested in transportation assets
directly related to the area that most of the toll payers live in to
reduce congestion, improve air quality, and enhance safety in the
areas.
MR. MORRIS: Build more projects and build them faster, 15-20 years
in time.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And it is not a minor matter as the Federal Highway
Trust Fund goes less and less positive, as it turns out, to shift
the risk of transportation construction to someone else.
MR. MORRIS: And Mr. Chairman, don't underestimate the safety
benefits. We could show you Farm to Market Road 423 that's a
two-lane roadway in Collin County that's going to have 40,000 cars a
day on it, it is a death trap. And I can't imagine that existing for
10 or 12 or 15 more years, where as part of the 121 project we're
going to go ahead and update to a six-lane, divided thoroughfare
that people can travel on for free.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I'm sorry that I jumped you, Hope. I never
miss a chance for a teaching moment.
MS. ANDRADE: That's okay. Michael, as always, I just want to thank
you for what you do for this region, and on behalf of public
transportation, for the role that you play on this public
transportation effort, thank you so much. You've brought us here,
and these are exciting times, because, you're right, now we're
implementing them. But there's a lot more to do.
MR. MORRIS: Yes.
MS. ANDRADE: You know, public transportation sometimes is not just
the choice but it's the only way to get some of our citizens in
Texas around. So thank you very much.
MR. MORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: We'll have a party up here when we find out what that
concession fee is.
MR. MORRIS: Maybe one or two.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we hope we have a party. Now I'm back to my
regular order, we will, by the way, take your admonition to heart
and we will be as aggressive and emotional about the transit side as
we've been about the road side.
MR. MORRIS: One thing I would encourage you to do, as people come
before you -- and you're not getting delegations anymore to ask for
more because that's all held in the regions now; you're going to
have status reports from different regions, I think we're starting
in March -- I would litmus test each one of them with not just what
are you doing on innovative finance, what leadership are you playing
in your own region -- it's not as sexy, it's not as exciting, people
don't wear $600 suits in the transit operations business -- but what
are you doing to deliver seamless transportation for all citizens of
Texas.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a good suggestion.
MR. MORRIS: If you could help do that as they come forward, that
will help us, as staff, try to press central purchasing of equipment
or common purchasing, or maintenance agreements, or a whole host of
upgraded scheduling software. There's dozens and dozens of things
that are going to be implemented. And you don't have to tell them
what the right answer is, you've just got to keep pressure on that
they've got to make improvements that make sense for their part of
the state.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Michael. We appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MR. HALE: Finally, I'd like to ask your indulgence for a moment.
I've got a group of TxDOT employees here that came up here, and I
want to recognize them, if I could. They're from Navarro County, and
this group was awarded the Texas Public Employees Association Unsung
Heroes Award. When the governor authorized county judges and mayors
to order mandatory evacuations during Hurricane Rita, this group was
part of the group that was in line along 45 to take care of that.
With a massive flow from the Gulf region northward in this area, and
we were required to have contra-flow through the 45 area coming up
I-45 through Navarro County, we had a unique challenge there, we had
no frontage roads in some of the areas right there and we had it
under construction with two lanes of traffic in one direction in the
opposite that it should have been, and we had one lane in the other
direction, and we had to get it to where we had two lanes in each
direction at a curve.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Where was this?
MR. HALE: This was down in Navarro County on Richland Creek, we were
under construction around Corsicana.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Interstate 45?
MR. HALE: Interstate 45.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Did you say there weren't any frontage roads?
MR. HALE: Weren't any frontage roads in the area.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you told me Interstate 20 through
Duncanville was the only place there weren't any frontage roads.
(General laughter.)
MR. HALE: Which caused a problem because it had to go way out of the
way for a detour. We had the construction. I talked to the area
engineer down there, Darwin Myers. We had it under construction so
we had to move traffic under bridges and on the opposite side of the
roadway to come out to where we had two lanes of traffic coming out
of town, and we had to turn around and do the same thing going back,
flipping traffic to make sure we had two lanes of traffic. So we had
a balanced lane maneuver on contra-flow coming out of the Gulf
region, and then we turned around four days later sending them back
down to that area.
And this group went out there and took care of that. They worked the
construction zone, moved a single southbound lane to northbound
traffic side. While converting the traffic to try to keep it
flowing, they provided water and gasoline to stranded motorists,
giving direction and travel information, serving a displaced and
sometimes irritable public -- a lot of irritable public, and 14-hour
days for seven consecutive days.
The result was the public was served by outstanding public servants.
They were recognized and thanked by county, DPS, cities and citizens
and the media, and they received the Unsung Hero Award which was
richly deserved. It is my honor to ask this group from TxDOT from
Navarro County Maintenance Section, led by Darwin Myers, to stand up
and be recognized.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: The next agenda item is our federal legislation,
Coby Chase. Coby Chase is our director of legislative affairs, and I
believe, Coby, we have a discussion of our federal legislative
priorities.
MR. CHASE: We do. Good morning. For the record, my name is Coby
Chase, and I'm the director of the Government and Business
Enterprises Division at the Texas Department of Transportation.
Today is my third appearance before the commission to discuss the
formulation of your legislative priorities for the first session of
the 110th United States Congress. Initially, this was to be my final
discussion of your 2007 federal agenda, but in deference to the two
new commissioners, I've requested to extend our conversation another
month. My intent is to make sure that all of you have time to review
the issues we have raised and ask us any questions you may have
before you decide whether to adopt the draft agenda.
A new timetable for adopting the 2007 federal program also allows us
to continue receiving public comment on our priorities. The draft
agenda will remain available for public feedback on our website,
www.txdot.gov, until the close of business Friday, February 2, a
week from tomorrow.
Today I will provide an overview of the agenda in its current state
and report to you on some of the reaction we've received so far, the
public comments we've received so far. Next month the agenda will be
brought to you for final adoption.
Since we last met, the 110th Congress has convened with new
majorities in both chambers. Congressional transportation committees
have a long history of bipartisan cooperation with conflicts arising
out of regional- or population-related factors more than partisan.
However, with the Highway Trust Fund likely to bankrupt near the end
of this decade -- actual predictions vary from 2008 to 2010 --
MR. WILLIAMSON: May we hone in on that for a moment?
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Michael Morris alluded to this. Some of the people I
hoped would hear this are perhaps not here anymore, but when we say
the Federal Highway Trust Fund will bankrupt, and what Mr. Morris
meant that was negative, is receipts from the federal gas tax will
fall below distribution as required by the states.
MR. CHASE: Yes. What it means is when they passed SAFETEA-LU, what
they had promised to distribute to the states, there will not be
enough gas tax receipts to fulfill that promise.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Those receipts will not be enough to supply that
amount of money.
MR. CHASE: Right now in the United States Senate, Senator Johnson is
circulating a letter and convincing his colleagues to put pressure
on Appropriations to honor those levels, and our Senator Hutchison
has signed on to that effort to do that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Senator Hutchison signed on the letter?
MR. CHASE: Yes, she signed on to the letter.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, our hat's off to her.
MR. CHASE: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's send her a letter and tell her that: Our hat's
off to her.
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir, we will, absolutely.
And as I've been around the Federal Highway Trust Fund a number of
years, in the past it's gotten close and I think a lot of people
would hit the alarm button, but this time it really does seem that
there is a problem, there truly is a problem.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So it's like a Chapter 11 bankruptcy: you just can't
meet your debts. It's not a Chapter, what is it 5, where you
liquidate?
MR. CHASE: Correct, yes, sir.
Our concern is that the new Congress might express a preference to
rely heavily on the gas tax. We must educate both sides of the new
Congress on the benefits we have already seen from new programs,
such as design-build contracting and environmental streamlining.
More importantly, we must move quickly to defend SAFETEA-LU's new
programs that are starting to show promise, such as private activity
bonds and transportation development credits -- two things that we
worked long and hard on with a number of people in D.C. to
accomplish in SAFETEA-LU.
As you review the 2007 draft report, you will note that all of the
items reflect our commitment to achieving the department's five
goals of: reducing congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic
opportunity, improving air quality, and increasing the value of
transportation assets. On that note, I will restate our call for a
national transportation system with real defined goals; those goals
do not exist currently. This underpins the actions we intend to take
on the federal level this year.
Under highway funding priorities, improved funding flexibility. When
we talk to our federal partners about the future of funding Texas's
transportation infrastructure, the watch word will continue to be
flexibility. We are continuing our work with the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission -- or as it's
called, the 1909 Commission -- by reiterating our message that we
must upend traditional thinking and embrace innovation to achieve a
more results-driven funding process with clearly stated goals and
objectives.
As many of you know, our own Steve Simmons, our deputy executive
director, was named to the 1909 Commission's Blue Ribbon Panel of
Experts. This technical advisory panel will hold its first meeting
in Washington on February 6, and I'm sure we couldn't have a better
representative than Steve -- of course we can't, he's my boss.
(General laughter.)
MR. CHASE: Transportation infrastructure investment. It's not news
to anyone in the room today that transportation is in need of
additional sources of capital. SAFETEA-LU expanded our ability to
issue debt and eased a variety of associated restrictions allowing
for greater private sector involvement. Now we are committed to
moving a step further to allow for expanded means of private
investment, including working with Congress to utilize equity
capital for transportation investment and amending the Tax Code to
exempt partnership distributions or corporate dividends related to
investment in toll roads from income taxation.
While we are committed to engaging the creativity and innovation of
the private sector to help us develop and manage our transportation
assets, including inviting foreign investors to spend their money in
Texas, the state's roads will be built by Texans, used by Texans,
and owned by the State of Texas in every single circumstance. I want
to repeat that because there is continued concern that Texans may
sell its roads to the private sector or even a foreign country. We
own our roads; that will not change, not now, not ever.
MR. HOUGHTON: Coby, I hate to interrupt you, but I think three of us
are not working with any of your notes, so we're not following
along.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Give us a moment and we'll get caught up. As always,
you're just too fast for us.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, we don't have your notes.
MR. CHASE: Well, you know, a blessing and a curse. I am on page 6.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Note: Speaker may deviate from prepared text. Now I
understand.
MR. CHASE: That would explain everything.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this mean you're a deviant?
MR. CHASE: No. It doesn't say the speaker is a deviant, it just says
the speaker may deviate from prepared text.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Holmes and Mr. Underwood are probably wondering
right about now.
MR. CHASE: Yes. Welcome to the commission.
(General laughter.)
MR. CHASE: At the bottom of page 6 under Private Activity Bond
Refinement, that's where I'll pick back up again. One of the keys to
our successes with the tools we were given in SAFETEA-LU is the
expanded use of private activity bonds. PABs, as we call them,
reduce financing costs due to the exemption from federal taxes and
are used to attract private investment for projects that have a
public benefit.
Late last year the U.S. Department of Transportation informed us
that Texas can move forward with plans to raise more than $1.8
billion for work on State Highway 121 outside of Dallas, so once
again, Texas is leading the way, and once again, the Metroplex is
leading the way for the nation in applying these new innovative
tools.
MR. HOUGHTON: Can I ask you a question on private activity bonds?
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Was it flawless when we made that application to the
Federal Highway Department of Transportation on 121?
MR. CHASE: Was it what?
MR. HOUGHTON: Flawless. Did we have to jump through certain hoops to
meet certain requirements for the use of those bonds?
MR. CHASE: I believe so, yes. I would defer to James Bass on that.
MR. HOUGHTON: Bass is giving me a thumbs up in the back of the room.
MR. CHASE: It was flawless, or there were a lot of hoops.
MR. HOUGHTON: There were a lot of hoops.
MR. CHASE: It was flawless.
MS. ANDRADE: Coby, I have a question.
MR. CHASE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ANDRADE: So when we draw down these private activity bonds, it's
for a specific project.
MR. CHASE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. CHASE: To make sure we can maximize the use of PABs, we want to
improve both the legislative and regulatory environments to
encourage transportation investments. Actually, they're very healthy
tools but they can be fine-tuned or upgraded. We are working to
address an obscure provision in the U.S. Tax Code that may
inadvertently curtail our use of PABs just a little bit. It doesn't
prevent their use but it does appear that it limits their full
potential. The provision would invoke arbitrage limitations on
project revenue, such as concession agreements. There are also
issues with regard to the sale of bonds and its application to toll
a right of purchase and the use of PAB funding for reimbursement for
existing project development.
So we will continue to work with our financial partners and others
to make sure that when we say TxDOT is open for business, we will
have the most attractive environment possible for the investments we
need to meet our mobility needs.
I should note that our work on PABs and other financing issues will
not solely benefit Texas. The rising tide of investment in
transportation will lift the boats of state DOTs across the country.
And we will be working with other states on refining these PAB
issues, it's not something Texas will do alone, but it will require
a lot of work with other states and spread our resources thin.
Tolling authority expansion and public comment. SAFETEA-LU also
expanded the ability of state DOTs to utilize tolls and we will
continue to advocate for the reduction of restrictions on tolling
nationwide. I doubt it will surprise you to learn that the issue of
tolling drew a number of comments from the public. The discussion of
tolling is valuable because it shines light on people's broader
concerns about mobility in our communities.
We received several comments from Texans who said broad-based
tolling would not be necessary if the state's highway fund had not
been raided -- I'm using their words; it was an often repeated term
-- had been raided to pay for other government priorities.
Respondents also lamented that we are in our current state of
affairs because the gas tax has remained unchanged for years.
We are still confronted by the argument that tolling state highways
constitutes a double tax on the state's drivers. I think the ball is
in our court, as an agency, to continue to explain to the public the
integrated role of multiple funding sources from taxes to user fees
in paying for transportation, whether it's activating a TxTag or
putting a quarter in the fare box on a DART bus.
One concern that I had with some of the replies was the repeated
myth that TxDOT could swoop down on a city and impose tolls on their
existing roadways. Please allow me to repeat, Texas state law
prohibits the tolling of an existing lane of road without local vote
or approval.
We wrote back to several citizens who told us they opposed efforts
by state or local agencies to buy back portions of federally funded
interstates so that they could be tolled in order to fund local
mobility projects. The Houston-Galveston Area Council took the time
to note their support for allowing buy-backs, while restating their
belief that existing lanes should not be tolled.
We asked people who wrote us whether they thought it would be an
acceptable policy option if the purchase was first approved by the
county's voters, or the conversion to a toll road. The most common
reply to that proposal was a flat rejection of tolls of any kind.
Knowing that it would require voter approval anyway -- that's what
state law requires -- they just rejected the entire notion of a
toll, so it was just rejection of tolls more than it was anything
else.
On the other hand, one commentator criticized us for not being
assertive enough in calling on the Congress to allow tolling --
which is kind of alarming telling that to a Texan, or at least
TxDOT. The alternative, it was written, was that public officials
would have to answer to voters as being part of the problem of
inadequate roads and congestion. That was kind of an interesting
comment.
Design-build contracting. TxDOT worked hard during SAFETEA-LU to
allow for the use of design-build contracting. Although the
currently proposed rules from the Federal Highway Administration
actually impose cumbersome restrictions that would further delay
critical projects, TxDOT has worked closely with its partners in
Texas and across the country to effect a positive outcome on the
next set of rules. We expect them to be released by FHWA early this
year.
Authority to purchase federal contracting dollars. We are also
interested in the possibility of purchasing unused federal
contracting dollars from other states that risk those funds lapsing
due to the lack of sufficient non-federal funds to match these
dollars. We would propose amending federal law to provide a state
authorization to purchase another state DOT's unused federal
contract authority prior to its lapse date.
Last month Chairman Williamson asked whether any states risked
having their federal funds returned to the FHWA. Currently there are
no states in that position. There were a number of years ago when we
first proposed this, but right now there aren't. The states have
found themselves in this bind in the past.
Next topic, reform enhancement funding. One financing challenge we
are confronting has received a considerable degree of discussion.
The Federal Transportation Enhancement Program forces TxDOT to use
10 percent of our surface transportation program funds on projects
like bike paths and historic preservation. Obviously, several groups
around the state were disappointed with TxDOT's recent decision not
to move forward with funding for enhancement projects. As you've all
said, we did not make that decision lightly, it reflects the funding
challenges we face as a state. We will continue to ask the federal
government for more flexibility within the program than has been
given in the past.
On the matter of how we respond to Congressional Demonstration
projects that come our way, we've asked for public input and your
guidance. We have received very little public comment on this
matter, but what we did receive was supportive of our position that
demonstration projects should comport with local planning processes.
The Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance accurately noted that
while many authorization earmarks do more harm than good, other
requests -- those that reflect a region's needs and priorities --
through the appropriations process can be helpful. The reality is
that these projects can be corrosive.
I know you've said that you're taking a long hard look at whether or
not some criteria need to be met before you will release any funding
to demonstration projects in an effort to focus our resources on
meeting our goals. We are still looking for the commission's
guidance on this matter.
And now I'd like to take a moment to review some of our intermodal
priorities.
Federal aviation reauthorization. This year Congress will begin its
work on an aviation reauthorization bill. Our priorities will stress
the need for a more stable source of funding for our general
aviation airports and oppose the diversion of funds from the Airport
Improvement Program to other initiatives that should not be financed
out of the pockets of general aviation facilities.
Water Resources Development Act. Congress will take another stab at
reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act in 2007.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson -- whose district we are in at
the moment -- of Dallas now chairs the Water Resources Environment
Subcommittee in the House and we are hopeful that this will be the
year WRDA -- as it's called -- passes. TxDOT has a list of priority
projects for Texas, but more importantly, we want to ensure adequate
funding for the continued operations and maintenance of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway.
On transit issues, we are working closely with our state's public
transportation operators to make sure that they have the resources
they need, including possibly creating regional maintenance
facilities that would relieve local providers of many of their
training and maintenance costs. I would also note that several
people who took the time to comment on our federal agenda strongly
endorse supporting more public transit to relieve congestion across
our state, and we certainly agree.
Also, we will raise the issue of funding for rail relocation with
Congress. SAFETEA-LU included a modest rail relocation program but
the federal government has yet to provide funds for it. We will
continue to push to fund the program as well as receive federal
support to meet our rail needs in any way possible.
On the border we will continue to expand and improve our
infrastructure to facilitate the secure and efficient movement of
people and goods. We are committed to working with our partners at
the state and federal levels to ensure that traffic moves through
our ports briskly while doing our part to ensure that our borders
are safe.
This concludes my report on the commission's draft legislative
agenda. This is an ambitious agenda for what many in Washington
might call an off year for transportation. We'll be out talking
about these issues in a different environment than the one we've had
over the past several years.
I will say again that what has not and will not change is our
commitment to working with Congress and our federal partners to
achieve the commission's goals for our state's transportation
system. Priority one will be to protect the gains we've made and
build on those gains, and there's plenty of work to go around.
We look forward to input from all of you and additional comments
from the public before we return next month to finally adopt the
report.
Those are my prepared remarks for today. As always, I'll be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, before we pose questions or have dialogue
with Coby and with each other, no doubt, Coby, because of some
recent press inquiries I've had, and the new commissioners might be
asked about our federal lobbying effort, it probably would be
appropriate to speak just a moment about the commission's commitment
over the past years to employing people to represent us in
Washington, D.C.
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Anything you wish to share with us?
MR. CHASE: We have a multi-billion dollar portfolio in Washington,
D.C., we're one of the biggest of the big, and that attracts a lot
of attention and it requires a lot of full-time support. We work
with other states, we work very well with our Congressional
delegation, we work with the United States Department of
Transportation, but we have limited staff and limited time and
limited personality sources to do that, so we have engaged the
services of different firms to help us with our message in
Washington, D.C., and the successes have been very, very good. We're
very pleased with the amount of money we pay versus the things we
see in return for the state.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we engage only Democrats?
MR. CHASE: No.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we engage only Republicans?
MR. CHASE: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we engage only Liberals?
MR. CHASE: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we engage only Conservatives?
MR. CHASE: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We engage the full range of people who represent our
interests?
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we've always been public about that.
MR. CHASE: Yes. It has been addressed a number of times in public
settings.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And in the last authorization bill, what's your
estimate of the net gain to the State of Texas as a result of that
effort, dollar-wise? Don't you hate it when I ask questions you
don't know are coming?
MR. CHASE: Hate is such a strong word.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I can't win, Jackson.
(General laughter.)
MR. CHASE: It would be in the billions of dollars, but it's kind of
funny, people who are casual observers of what happens in Congress
make the mistake of measuring success by the number of pork barrel
earmark projects that happen to appear without taking the time to
understand what that actually does.
We measure success by: the fact can we build our projects faster;
can we bring private activity bonds here to the Metroplex region to
get that infrastructure moving along quicker; do we have more
flexibility in how we spend our money. And they're things you never
read about in the press that occur. Why did donor states get a
better rate of return this year? Nobody asks me that question. And
it's because of the people we employ and Texans who don't take
credit for some of the work that they do.
Transportation development credits -- which is something you'll
learn more about as time goes on -- used to be called toll credits.
The more tolling that occurs in a state, it frees up some
flexibility to do things, and I personally feel it's going to be
very important to transit providers in the states. Design-build
rules, this sounds abstract and kind of odd, but if the federal
government would just recognize that states have a process that
keeps us all out of jail and keeps everything legal and above board,
we can do this a lot faster.
It's those kind of things. It's not just the partial investment in a
project that's going to cause us to have to spend many, many
millions of more dollars, it's the tools that we're using today that
makes Texas the model that we are. It's keeping a congressman from
Minnesota from clobbering through all the tolling programs in the
last congress to make sure the states couldn't do anything. So it's
lots of things.
It's hard to give an exact dollar amount but you could easily
estimate it over many billion.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Some of it might be used to counter -- I like the
word you used "corrosive" -- to counter the corrosive effects -- and
I know it's going to be a shock to you, new members, that this
happens -- of people who come to Texas, collect money from cities
and counties to go to Washington, D.C. and purposely try to route
money away from our apportionment to their special projects without
even telling us what they're doing.
MR. CHASE: Absolutely.
MR. HOUGHTON: Speaking to that, though, have we come up with a
policy yet that that will count against the allocation to those
regions?
MR. CHASE: I'm not aware that that has occurred.
MR. HOUGHTON: I know we've been talking about it but we have not
yet.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Amadeo, are you here? Have we begun to talk to our
MPO partners about that?
MR. SAENZ: (Not at a microphone.) No, sir. We're waiting to kind of
get some direction from Coby and the commission.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, they can go to Congress all they want to and do
these things, but I think that should have an effect back home.
MR. CHASE: There's a misconception/misperception -- whatever the
word is -- that they're bringing money home to Texas. They're not.
They're pre-dividing money that was already coming to Texas that
would be spread out through the system that everybody would benefit
from.
And if I may editorialize for just one moment about this lobbyist
discussion. It seems to be capped in terms of the effectiveness of
the Texas delegation. We're the most effective delegation in
Congress, no two ways about it, but they represent only about 6
percent of everyone up there in Congress. They are maybe not
outgunned but certainly outnumbered. It isn't like the Texas
Legislature where every single member of that body wakes up every
day thinking what he or she can do to better Texas, only 6 percent
of Congress thinks that way every morning. And so we have lots of
places where we have to continually fight the battle on behalf of
Texas, and bringing in some very good talent to do that has been a
tremendous asset to the state in advancing our priorities there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And Amadeo, I wouldn't want to mislead you, we don't
want to be arbitrary about that, we want to engage our MPOs in that
discussion. I think they're all familiar with the problem we face,
but we don't want to just unilaterally apply that standard, we want
to engage them in a dialogue about it.
MR. CHASE: And let me say something on behalf of MPOs -- unless one
in the room wants to correct me -- all my conversations with almost
every MPO in the state at different times, I don't think that they
would disagree with the demonstration projects, I think they feel
exactly the same way we do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you need to say something, sir?
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. For the record, Amadeo Saenz. Our approach is
to approach it very similar to what we did when we put the working
groups together: bring the MPOs in and then sit down and discuss the
problem and have them come up with some potential recommendations
for us, as well as some recommendations that maybe we can suggest
and then put together a package for you all to consider.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are we not bringing the MPOs and the RMAs together
shortly?
MR. SAENZ: We have a meeting with the RMAs and the MPOs, I believe,
on February 12. We had it on earlier but we were kind of iced out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that might be a good time to bring it up and
start the dialogue.
MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir, we can do it then.
MR. WILLIAMSON: For the benefit, then, of our two new members, this
is now your opportunity to ask questions or to speak what you think
you believe in about these matters in -- I think our general counsel
would say -- a legal and above-board and open meetings type way. We
can't make a decision on a discussion item but we can dialogue, and
in particular we can dialogue with staff. So whichever one of you
wants to go first, if any, please have at it.
MR. HOLMES: I think there's a general impression in some parts of
the state that the special earmarks for demonstration projects are
additive to the Texas share, and have we begun to inform those
various groups that that is not the case, and we have good
documentation that they can understand and believe that?
MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.
MR. HOLMES: That would seem important.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, I feel very uncomfortable saying much to
you about how we operate because you've been on one of the larger
agencies already, both of you are independent business people, you
don't need me telling you how to do things, but we're generally on a
first-name basis and we generally interrupt each other and kind of
talk like this. So I'll just interrupt, Ned, and say our experience,
this is really a bizarre situation.
You would think that every congressperson and the two United States
senators would know instinctively when someone is employed by --
I'll just use your hometown -- the City of Houston and they're paid
$50,000 to go to Washington, D.C. and get a demo project for $4
million for a bridge, you would think that whoever they are talking
to would know, well, the $4 million is coming out of the common pot.
But it's almost like we tell them and we tell them and we tell them,
and they don't know it, and then the $4 million gets cut out of the
common pot for a $50 million project and then that congressman or
senator calls and says, When are you going to start the bridge?
Well, first you cut the pot $4 million -- in other words, you took
money away from Duncanville for Houston -- and then you want us to
put $46 million more with it to finish your project; why didn't you
call Ned and ask him about it? Well, you know, Joe came down and
told me it's what the City of Houston wanted.
It's just bizarre. I don't know any other way to describe it.
MR. HOLMES: I think there's a general misunderstanding. I certainly
shared in that misunderstanding until we talked about it a couple of
days ago.
MR. CHASE: If I may, in your previous life as the chair of the Port
of Houston Authority, and I talked a little bit about the Water
Resources Development Act, and whatever the port's priorities are in
Washington are our priorities, but we fall behind them on that, and
that bill is called WRDA, and in WRDA, that's how they fund projects
but it's a very different dynamic. They're entirely funded through
WRDA, it isn't like you've got to come back and match it '90
percent, or go take it away from the Port of Corpus Christi to
finish yours, it's a very different dynamic.
The Surface Transportation bill operates on a very -- it's not a
zero sum game, it's a constant sum game. We're not taking from
California or New York or Minnesota, we're taking from other people
in Texas to build things. And that was Commissioner Houghton's
question: How does this impact the money that the MPOs got together
and guaranteed to distribute to each other? Well, it's got to come
from somewhere. If Houston, for instance, had all the demonstration
projects in SAFETEA-LU -- I'm exaggerating, for anybody listening
behind me -- it has to be paid for by somebody else in Texas, and
that's kind of the problem we have.
I just want to leave with the impression we will be fighting for
those earmarks in WRDA because it's a very different system.
MR. HOUGHTON: I did note that the president mentioned earmarks in
his speech on the State of the Union.
MR. CHASE: Didn't he also mention cars that don't use any gasoline
too?
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes.
MR. CHASE: There you go. There was a little bit of something for all
us in that one.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: You know, it's kind of funny, we started four years
ago from the dais, Fred, about our belief that the collections from
the gas tax receipts were going to go down, inevitably go down, and
we've recently had our figures about the future challenged by a
report done by someone on the outside with some help from some
inside experts, and we got to looking into their report and we
realized that it was based upon an assumption that the gas receipts
would continue to go up and that miles per gallon would not get any
better -- which caused us some pause. And as we worked through that
particular report and tried to explain it to our partners across the
street, the president gives the State of the Union and informs us
that not only are miles per gallon going to get better but 20
percent, or whatever, of our fuel is going to suddenly come from
something that is not taxed like gasoline is taxed.
So anyone that's in the transportation world that has any doubts
about the shift away from a fuels-based revenue system to a
user-based revenue system probably ought not to have doubts much
longer.
MR. CHASE: The world is changing. It used to be very easy, you'd
just go back there and look at CAFÉ standards and they never moved
but they never looked ahead either, and what industry looks at are
figures that will really show you how fuel efficiency is going to
be, and we have to pay attention to that because still the bulk of
our money right now under the current gas tax system comes from
rewarding the consumption of gasoline not for how much congestion
you cause or using a system, using the road system, it's how much
gasoline you can consume. So my Expedition pays more to be on the
road than your Yugo does -- if they even make Yugos any more -- and
causes the same amount of congestion, probably more because I can
carry more people.
So that's kind of the big picture problem we struggle with, but most
recognized experts in the industry, at any rate, are looking at
vastly different miles per gallon than what is kind of a lagging
indicator CAFÉ standards.
MR. HOLMES: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a study where industry
looked at the increasing efficiency of the national fleet, as it
were. I would enjoy looking at that -- or maybe I wouldn't enjoy it
but I would like to look at it, anyway.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, the problem is any report that relies upon a
projection of the CAFÉ standards as a basis for concluding that gas
tax receipts are going to go up because mileage is not going to
improve completely ignores the impact on Michael Morris's household
budget when gasoline went from a buck fifty to three bucks. I mean,
I am -- as is probably well advertised -- a big believer in market
forces, and I just think it doesn't matter what the CAFÉ standards
are projected to be. When Lawrence Olson is paying three bucks a
gallon for gasoline, he's going to drive fewer miles and he is
ultimately going to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. That's just
how people react, you know.
MR. CHASE: And in the last four or five years this became reality,
it's still something that is still fairly new by all of these
standards, but it's a very different reality than it was five years
ago and not everybody has kept up with it.
MR. HOUGHTON: I have one question -- and this probably includes
James Bass -- regarding PABs. And James, you may want to come up
here and answer this since you have been involved in most recent
procurement of the use of PABs as to their positive effect on that
procurement to the proposers, if you can say anything.
MR. BASS: For the record, James Bass, chief financial officer at
TxDOT.
I think we shall soon find out what that benefit is and be able to
quantify it, but generally, what it allows the private sector to do
is to invest in public infrastructure, public works projects at tax
exempt rates, their debt is tax exempt, rather than having to do it
at taxable. What that does is lower their cost to do the project
which increases the value of that project in the investment and the
value coming back to the state, to the region to build other
infrastructure.
MR. HOUGHTON: Now, the concerning news was tax law, potential tax
law problem.
MR. BASS: Correct.
MR. HOUGHTON: Do we know any more about that issue?
MR. BASS: We have a Plan B and a Plan C to get around that. Plan A
is for Congress to do a technical correction to the bill, however,
we're not sure of the timing of that technical correction, so we're
moving and working on a Plan B and a Plan C if the timing doesn't
work out that we'll still be able to move forward and not diminish
the value of the project.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you like to share with us what Plan B and Plan
C are at the executive level?
MR. BASS: Yes. The issue comes into the arbitrage, as Coby talked
about earlier, on private activity bonds because, if you think about
it, the Treasury did not want this tax exempt benefit going to
people and then they just sit idly on the cash and then invest the
money in taxable securities and make money off the deal. What wasn't
really thought about is concession projects for transportation
projects, and if the commission or a commission-created entity
served as the conduit issuer and then received a payment for that
project, what they would look at -- and these are completely made up
numbers, not assignable to any project -- without PABs the up-front
payment might be $600 million and with PABs, private activity bonds,
it might be $900 million. The IRS would take that $300 million and
assign it as an investment to the commission or commission-created
entity and put us over this arbitrage limit, and so we're trying to
get that corrected.
Now, if we have a local government corporation made up of the
counties that are in that area where the project is, they can be the
conduit issuer, the state receives the money which flows back to the
region and there's no such limit on that. However, long term for the
program going forward, it seems more efficient to manage it as a one
central statewide conduit issuer for the entire state rather than
having to have different entities created throughout.
MR. HOLMES: Do I understand, in reading this, that the total PAB
block for the entire U.S. is $15 billion?
MR. BASS: Yes, sir. We received 12 percent of the national
allocation for our first project.
MR. HOUGHTON: Were we the first?
MR. BASS: We were the first, yes.
MR. HOLMES: Is there an opportunity for Texas to receive an
additional allocation?
MR. BASS: Yes. We have visited with the staff at US DOT on private
activity bonds, and they are anxious and excited to show successes
of the program, so Congress will continue the program, if not expand
the program. So they are anxious to see projects that are near-term,
ready to go that can use this and show the benefit to Congress to
hopefully expand the program. So we told them we would be happy to
work with them and to get them plenty of applications.
MR. HOLMES: Are there any other states that are close behind Texas
in having a project approved?
MR. BASS: I'm not sure about approval. I've heard of a couple others
that have been working on applications. Some others that are working
strongly in public-private partnerships are Virginia, Florida,
Georgia, as well, and then on the West Coast there's California and
Oregon and Washington as well. I'm not sure that anybody is pending
an approval, but to date we've been the only one.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's safe to say, Ned, based on our various
-- we all have lines of communication, and you'll develop them too,
across the country, but I think it's safe to say that we're of the
opinion that there's no state even close. I mean, we're way out
ahead of the pack.
MR. BASS: And I would echo what Michael Morris said earlier, at the
Transportation Research Board meetings or conference earlier this
week in Washington, D.C. there was a lot of discussion and a lot of
focus on what is going on in Texas and a lot of people wanting to
pull you over to the side to get more details and to learn what the
commission has done in the state.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And the legislature and the governor.
MR. BASS: Yes, sir, and the governor.
MR. WILLIAMSON: The floor is still open to members.
MS. ANDRADE: Coby, I have a question. As I travel throughout the
state, I think people have gotten the message about how we feel
about federal earmarks, but I think there's still a question on the
enhancement funding. It's not that we're anti-historic preservation,
it's just that we don't want it out of our TxDOT dollars because
they're limited. Are we doing a better job of communicating that
message or educating?
MR. CHASE: Well, I'm glad you brought that up. I didn't really go
into it in much detail, but we made some headlines and got a few
phone calls recently --
MS. ANDRADE: So have I.
MR. CHASE: Yes -- when the decision was made not to have an
enhancement program, and the reason for that is -- and I didn't
really touch on that enough here -- as the Congress struggles to pay
for things like wars in Iraq, wars on terrorism, hurricane relief,
whatever the case may be -- with no judgment on whatever it is --
they don't have enough to pay for all of those, and so they ask
different programs to send back money or rescissions. And over the
last year -- I would say now it's the last year and couple of
months, Texas' transportation share of that from the money that we
commit out to the regions was $305 million, and it's proportional,
it wasn't that percentage-wise we got hit any worse than say North
Dakota, or whatever the case may be, but it's a lot of money. And if
I had to guess -- and there's not much guessing -- they're going to
be asking for more money back so they can pay for their priorities
in the budget.
And the decision was made by the administration that instead of
either slowing down projects under construction or compromising
safety or maintenance, or whatever the case may be, states were
given the latitude to choose where the money came from with the
exception of a couple of categories of funding. And the internal
debate was which programs have the least connection to our five
goals, and it was the enhancement program. The enhancement program
was created in 1991 in ISTEA, and what it does is it takes 10
percent of all your surface transportation funding money, and if you
don't spend it, you lose it, but you can't spend it on congestion
relief, you spend it on tourism-related projects, hike and bike
trails -- no comments on that, those are very important to some
communities. But it does have the least connection to our current
set of goals, so it was decided that would be our rescission.
Now, we have spent a lot of time on the phone, a lot of
conversations back and forth with members of Congress about why that
occurred, and I think they understand it was not pleasant, but
nothing was going to be pleasant, and it certainly focused attention
on the funding crisis we have around the country
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But you know, Hope, I think it would probably be
instructive for Ned and Fred because I'm sure they're going to get
hit about this. You can take the same set of information and you can
interpret it many different ways, however you wish to, and I think
maybe sometimes people with evil in their heart try to interpret it
as something it's not in order to make someone look bad.
The reality is the enhancement program didn't exist until the
national highway system had basically been built across the country
and states woke up in 1990 and realized that to keep their
proportionate share of the reauthorization every six years, they
were going to have to invent ways to convert transportation taxes to
something else, and so one of the ways they invented to do that was
the enhancement program.
Now, there's some people in the audience, I'm sure, that are in the
bicycle world, there may be some people in the audience that are in
the museum preservation world, there may be some people in the
audience that are in the roadside park world, and they'll say, No,
Congress, they cut that money aside because they intended it to be
spent on parks. Well, no, they cut the money aside in 1991 because
the only way a recipient state that's not growing, that has its
transportation system fully built out could figure out how to defend
continuing to take 4 percent of the funds instead of 3 was to invent
other places to spend that money, to build a coalition to hold the
votes together to keep the apportionment like it is. That's the
reality.
So when the federal government comes along, they apportion it back
to us. What's the true apportionment to transportation, Coby, after
the transit reduction.
MR. CHASE: For every dollar we spend in gas tax, the state is
guaranteed -- barring rescissions, guaranteed 70 cents of that to
put back into the road system.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Back into surface transportation other than transit.
So right off the bat we send a dollar, we're guaranteed 70 cents
back, but then they take 7 cents of that and set it aside for
enhancements because that's what other states wish their
apportionment to be treated, forgetting the fact that the problems
we face -- while all of those things are nice and a lot of them I
actually like, the problem we face is congestion.
So when we have the opportunity, when we're fixing to lose $300
million out of our total pie and the federal government says you
choose where you want to take the loss, we chose to take it in the
area that had the least impact on foul air in Houston and job
development in Amarillo, and for that we have been complimented many
times.
(General laughter.)
MR. CHASE: Thank you so much. And since I do want to wrap myself in
the Grady glow, when I first took this job almost 13 years ago, he
was the very first local official I met and he hasn't stopped
talking since.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that all, members, for Coby? Thank you, Coby.
Please be sure all the members are fully advised before we have to
take a vote next month.
Michael.
MR. BEHRENS: All right. Thank you. We're going to move into the rest
of our agenda, starting with agenda item number 3 and this will be a
rule for proposed adoption. It happens to be on private activity
bonds, and James is going to lay that out.
MR. BASS: For the record again, I'm James Bass, chief financial
officer at TxDOT.
This minute order proposes a new chapter in the Texas Administrative
Code concerning private activity bonds. The rules will establish the
process and procedures governing the submission and evaluation of
applications for allocations of private activity bonds. This
primarily deals with third parties such as RMAs or other entities
within the state who want to receive an allocation from the US DOT.
The legislature saw fit for the commission to kind of oversee that
process so we don't have multiple projects in the state competing
for limited allocation. These rules would lay out the process and
the criteria upon which those applications would be reviewed.
If you approve, the proposed new chapter would be published in the
Texas Register in order to receive public comments, and staff
recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation of the
minute order, you've heard the staff's recommendation. What
questions or comments do you have for staff?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BASS: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 4 concerns Public Transportation.
I'll ask Eric Gleason to come up and present that. This concerns the
need for rural and urban transportation providers to replace some of
their existing vehicles. Eric.
MR. GLEASON: Good morning. For the record, my name is Eric Gleason,
TxDOT division director for Public Transportation.
This minute order awards $3,594,079 in federal funds and $736,136 in
transportation development credits to rural and urban transit
operators to assist systems with replacement of vehicles being
operated well beyond their useful life, contributing to high
maintenance costs, lower air quality, and chronic service
reliability problems. Vehicle reliability has been identified as a
key constraint in coordination of public transportation.
Federal funds for this minute order come from two sources: project
savings resulting in an unobligated balance of just over $286,000 of
federal funds transferred from the Federal Highway Administration
programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to purchase replacement
vehicles for small urban and rural transit systems, and just over
$3.3 million of federal Section 53 program funds to rural transit
systems covering the non-urbanized areas of the state. These 5311
program funds are currently held as commission discretionary funds
in accordance with formula provisions of the Texas Administrative
Code.
The award of transportation development credits is consistent with
the commission's expressed intent to make available development
credits for purposes including fleet replacement.
Funds are distributed to transit operators based on relative needs,
taking into consideration fleet depreciation and replacement costs.
A contingency list of projects is proposed to handle funds that
become unobligated throughout the course of implementation.
We recommend your approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you want to take a moment or you might want to
yield to Amadeo to take a moment to explain transportation
development credits? If you're familiar with it, you can explain it.
MR. GLEASON: I'm familiar with them in the application for transit
projects; the actual calculation of them I would have to yield to
either James or Amadeo.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And the only reason I interrupt to do this, members,
is this is kind of a significant step for the commission, this is
kind of he first time we've been this aggressive with these credits.
MR. BASS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You want to know how a state
earns transportation development credits?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the first question.
MR. BASS: By investing in toll roads, toll projects, a state can
earn transportation development credits, and for every dollar
expenditure on that facility, they receive a one dollar match of a
transportation development credit. That transportation development
credit can then be used within the many federal programs. Most of
them require a non-federal match, so in order to get $80 of federal
money, a lot of times you have to contribute $20 of either state or
local money in order to receive that $80.
What transportation development credits allow you to do is to still
receive that $80 of federal dollars and match it by $20 of
transportation development credits. now, you end up with $80 of cash
at the end of the day, but you've also saved $20 state or local
dollars over here that can be applied to other needs or priorities
within that region or elsewhere in the state.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Or another way of saying it is you end up with $80
of federal cash that you would not have otherwise received had you
not been willing to put up $20 of state cash.
MR. BASS: Or if you didn't have the $20 to put up.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, you either didn't have it or you had to take it
from your other congestion, air quality and safety programs to move
it to this program to get that federal match.
And the reason that this dialogue is important is twofold: it's the
first time we've been this aggressive with it; and second, it's also
a real world example of our investment in lobbyists in Washington,
D.C. This was one of our federal agenda items two years ago to get
the United States Congress to recognize a broad definition of the
transportation development credit on the assumption that we were
going to be building a lot of toll roads in Texas in the next ten
years and we were trying to get some federal advantage from the act
of doing that.
MR. BASS: And before that, the efforts of Coby and the rest of the
GBE and other team in D.C., if a project had one federal dollar on
it, it might have been a billion dollar project and for some reason
you might have used a million dollars of federal funds, you got zero
credit, and through the efforts of GBE and others, we can still get
credit for that on the non-federal portion. So out of that billion
dollars, if we only did a million, we still get $999 million credit,
that one million does not taint the rest of the project, and so
that's a huge advantage.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, James.
MR. HOLMES: Before you leave, James, just so I have it clear, did
you say that we get dollar for dollar credit on toll road dollars
that we spend?
MR. BASS: Either expenditures by the state or any toll authority in
the state, and not for the operations and maintenance of it, it's
either for the capital construction or expanding the capacity of it,
and there are some other rules, but for every dollar you spend, you
get a dollar of credit.
MR. HOLMES: Would that be the case if it were the North Texas
Tollway Authority or Harris County?
MR. BASS: Tollway Authority or Harris County.
MR. HOLMES: Well, what about private dollars?
MR. BASS: It would be the same. As long as it's a non-federal
investment in that toll road, you still get the credit for it. The
commission also has rules on the allocation or award of
transportation development credits in that the area in which they
were earned receives 75 percent of the credit, 25 percent goes to a
statewide pot, and then that region has three chances to utilize
that 75 percent. If they don't have a need for it or have any
projects -- which we highly doubt -- the remainder would go over to
the statewide pot that could be allocated at the discretion of the
commission.
MR. HOLMES: Is the only place that you can use the credits in the
non-federal share requirement, or is there another way to use the
credits?
MR. BASS: Primarily that's the only way that you can use it is to
serve as the non-federal portion in order to attract and match those
federal dollars.
MR. HOLMES: And is there a shelf life on those credits?
MR. BASS: No, sir. Once you have them, you have them.
MR. UNDERWOOD: Let me make sure I understand it. So private funds
actually give us federal credits. Is that correct?
MR. BASS: Correct. I think the broad policy is that the state or the
local region has decided to advance transportation through means
other than the federal program, and so they gave a way to encourage
that, that you could get credit for doing that because one of the
reasons you might not have the cash available to match the federal
dollars is because you've gone out and done something on your own
years ahead of time, and so they look and said, Yes, you should get
credit for those expenditures and be able to use that as a soft
match or an in-kind match in order to pull down current year federal
dollars.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And it's real interesting because this actually is
not only a way of taking highway construction investment and
generating something to also pump up the public transportation side,
we can actually use the credits for a whole host of things, not just
public transportation. The thing that strikes me is in your area,
Ned, there is an aggressive effort of your MPO to use CMAQ money to
build turning lanes and regulated lights and a couple of other
things that improve traffic flow and thus reduce air quality, and we
can use transportation development credits as the state match for
that federal money.
So it's very significant what we were able to accomplish in the last
Congress.
MR. HOUGHTON: Two questions. The balance will be 500,000 of credits?
MR. BASS: The statewide balance total is in the neighborhood of
$110- $112 million that we have now. There are a couple of years
that we need to report our activity and expenditures to the Federal
Highway Administration and that number would go up significantly.
MR. HOUGHTON: And when do you get credit, when do you actually get
that credit, when the road is opened?
MR. BASS: No, as you expend it, and then it's incumbent upon the
state to report those expenditures to the FHWA, and then once we've
sent that letter and certified to the accuracy of the numbers, then
we receive credit.
MR. HOLMES: When did this program come into effect?
MR. BASS: I believe it began either in the late '80s or early '90s,
and we in Texas began to use it right around 2000, but the numbers
are going to change significantly and expand enormously because of
the change in the rule just a couple of years ago.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. BASS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Continue, Eric.
MR. GLEASON: I'm done with my comments.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No more?
MR. GLEASON: No more.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Should we do this?
MR. GLEASON: Absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation of
this agenda item and you've heard their recommendation, and you've
heard staff testimony. Do you have other questions or comments about
this matter?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOLMES: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. GLEASON: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 5(a) under Transportation Planning is to
recommend approval to you of one member to the Grand Parkway
Association. Jim.
MR. RANDALL: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jim Randall,
director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.
Item 5(a). This minute order appoints a member to the Grand Parkway
Association Board of Directors. Section 15.85 of the Texas
Administrative Code states, in part, that the commission will review
an individual's application, financial statement and letters of
reference and may appoint members of the corporation's board of
directors.
Ed Poole, of League City, was originally appointed by the commission
on January 25, 2001 and has been nominated for a second six-year
term on the board. He has submitted the required information to the
department. Based on the review and consideration of all information
as documented and filed with the commission, and based upon the
board's recommendation, it appears that the nominee is fully
eligible and qualified to serve as a member of the board.
We recommend your approval of Ed Poole to the Grand Parkway
Association Board of Directors with a term expiring January 25,
2013.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation of
this agenda item and you've heard the staff's recommendation.
MR. HOLMES: Move approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: There is a motion and a second. All those in favor
of the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. RANDALL: Item 5(b). This minute order accepts the 2007-2008 Port
Capital Program from the Port Authority Advisory Committee. The
purpose of the committee is to provide a forum for the exchange of
information between the commission, the department and committee
members representing the port industry in Texas and others who have
an interest in ports.
Section 55.008 of the Transportation Code requires the committee to
prepare and update annually a two-year Port Capital Program. In
addition, the program is to be submitted no later than February 1 of
each year to the governor, the lieutenant governor, the speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the Texas Transportation
Commission.
The committee met on November 15, 2006 and formally adopted the
2007-2008 Port Capital Program and submitted the program to the
department. Staff recommends your approval of the 2007-2008 Port
Capital Program, as shown in Exhibit A.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation of
this item, you've heard the staff's recommendation. Questions or
comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
Are we not going to get to say hello to Mr. Poole?
MR. RANDALL: I don't believe Mr. Poole is here today.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is David here?
MR. RANDALL: He was here this morning. There he is.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Can David swear that Mr. Poole is a good guy?
MR. GORNET: Yes, sir, he is.
MR. WILLIAMSON: He didn't give you a lot of trouble the last six
years?
MR. GORNET: No, sir, he has not.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm glad you sat through all this, David.
Sorry, Jim. Go ahead.
MR. RANDALL: No problem. Item 5(c). This minute order reappoints two
public members to the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter
Rail District. Article 6650(c)-1 of Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes
allows the establishment of an intermunicipal commuter rail district
and grants the powers necessary to provide commuter rail service
between Austin and San Antonio. This statute requires the Texas
Transportation Commission to appoint two public members to the
district board of directors.
On December 19, 2002, by Minute Order 109121, the commission
appointed J. Tullos Wells and Mariano Camarillo to the board of the
district for two-year terms. Both members were reappointed by the
commission to second two-year terms by Minute Order 109929 dated
January 27, 2005. As the expiration of their second terms approach,
both members are willing to continue with their service as board
members. Due to their exemplary service as the current commission
appointees, staff recommends that the commission appoint Mr. Wells
and Mr. Camarillo as members to this district for a third term which
will expire either in one or two years, as determined by the board.
These candidates are recommended for your approval.
MS. ANDRADE: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I've been working
closely with the Rail District and I'm very, very happy that these
two members are willing to serve again. This is getting ready to go
to the next level, this effort, and we need their expertise on the
board, and so I'm just delighted that they're willing to serve
again. So I would certainly recommend for approval.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Are Mariano or Tullos here?
MR. RANDALL: I don't believe so.
MR. WILLIAMSON: They're both good guys.
MR. RANDALL: Item 5(d). This minute order authorizes $2 million to
perform feasibility and route studies relating to the I-10 and US
190 corridors across the state from the Louisiana border to the New
Mexico state line.
FHWA originally initiated a study that will describe the steps and
estimates the funding necessary to construct a rural freeway route
from Augusta, Georgia to Natchez, Mississippi. If the corridor were
to continue through Louisiana and Texas, six military installations
could be connected along the route for military deployments. The
route of the corridor would generally run along US 190 at the
Louisiana state line and westerly to I-10 in El Paso.
To assess the impacts of this proposed corridor in Texas, it is
necessary to examine its feasibility, its connectivity to military
installations, and the potential for economic development. SAFETEA-LU
authorized funds for various high priority projects. Project Number
2533 directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of
I-10 and US 190 with a focus on congestion relief and the need for a
military and emergency relief corridor.
In order to fully address the feasibility and route analysis
requirements for this 800-mile corridor in Texas, it is estimated
the study would cost $2 million with $160,000 in federal funding.
Staff recommends approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: This has got John Thompson's fingerprints all over
it. Where are you, Judge? It looks to me like this runs through the
heart of your country.
MR. HOUGHTON: Right through Polk County.
MR. HOUGHTON: Does this amount to a Trans-Texas Corridor?
MR. RANDALL: I wouldn't go that far. We're looking at the
feasibility of the route, improvements to the existing facility to
make it a full controlled access and then with a possible rail
component alongside this corridor.
MR. HOUGHTON: Sounds like a Trans-Texas Corridor.
MR. RANDALL: Well, we're probably looking at a right of way of about
500 to 600 feet in width on this type of proposal.
MR. HOUGHTON: And we are conducting the feasibility?
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Any idea what this would cost if it were to be fully
constructed?
MR. RANDALL: That will be one of the results of the study.
MR. HOUGHTON: Back of a napkin?
MR. RANDALL: I don't think I want to go there.
(General laughter.)
MR. HOLMES: Is there any portion of the right of way -- or I assume
there is a portion of the right of way that is already in use.
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. The proposed route runs from I think it's Bon
Wier which is near the Jasper area in East Texas over across the top
of the state to about Sheffield where 190 meets Sheffield in West
Texas. So a large portion of it is already I-10 from Sheffield out
to the west to El Paso.
MR. HOLMES: And the study would include acquisition of additional
right of way to bring it to the required width?
MR. RANDALL: Yes, sir. We'd be looking basically probably a
benefit-cost ratio on this one.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation. Do you have any other questions or comments of
staff, any dialogue?
(No response.)
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. HOLMES: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Jim. That's a good project, I hope that
thing bears fruit. That would be a good project for the state of
Texas in 2075 to be finished by then. Our population will have
grown, Dallas and San Antonio will be meeting just about that time
right where that highway is. We need to build that guy.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item 6 concerns Toll Projects. 6(a) would be a
recommendation on requirements for certain vehicles to pay tolls,
talking about vehicle classes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this the one where we exempt all TxDOT employees
from paying tolls?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, absolutely.
MR. HOUGHTON: All 14,000?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll get in trouble for saying that.
(General laughter.)
MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Behrens and Roger. For
the record, I'm Phillip Russell and I'm the director of the Turnpike
Division.
As the executive director mentioned, this is the minute order that
discusses free passage. It is the follow-up minute order to the
discussion item we had at the December commission meeting.
Essentially, we've tried to take the guidance that you all provided
for us in December. We've worked pretty closely on this with the
Finance Division, Office of General Counsel, Turnpike Division, and
of course, Administration. To say the least, we've had some twists
and turns, and the minute order before you would do a number of
things, and I might just read through those.
If you pass this minute order, there are three or four major
elements that you would exempt and provide free passage. First off
would be authorized emergency vehicles when responding to an
emergency; second would be marked, recognizable military vehicles;
third would be department contractors working on that particular
project. We'll have various contractors, construction contractors,
consultants that will be working on that project that will be
exempted. Of course, we've got a contract with the Department of
Public Safety. I think we have twelve troopers assigned to that
project with their vehicles; all twelve of those troopers obviously
would get a non-revenue toll tag.
As a side note, this minute order would not provide free passage for
any TxDOT employees, even those working on the project. TxDOT will
be paying for those costs, regardless.
Also an important element, the fourth one, would be to provide free
vehicle passage in a declared emergency, and by passing this minute
order, you would empower your executive director to make that
determination. An example, again, might be hurricane evacuation
where obviously it's a critical emergency and we want to move people
quickly out. The executive director would have that ability to waive
those tolls so we can move people back and forth.
Commissioners, I'll be happy to address any questions you might
have, and I'm sure we'll have a few folks that want to comment as
well.
MR. UNDERWOOD: One question on the marked, recognizable military
vehicles, I'm new, so what is the CTTS?
MR. RUSSELL: The CTTS is the Central Texas Turnpike System, and I'll
be talking a little bit in later minute orders, but that's our new
toll road system around the Austin area.
The reason that's carved out, it's a little bit different. When we
initiated that project back in 2002, we created a bond indenture,
and essentially it said military vehicles will get free passage but
only in the case of war. It's pretty clear-cut, pretty
straightforward. Subsequent to that bond indenture in 2002, state
law was enacted and approved that would require free passage of all
military vehicles, regardless of whether it was in a time of war or
not. But since the bond indenture was passed first, that will take
precedence in that one particular situation, so it only applies to
the Central Texas Turnpike System.
MR. UNDERWOOD: Thank you, sir.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to have a question, members, but you've
heard staff's explanation and recommendation, please ask questions.
MS. ANDRADE: Do we have public that wants to speak on this?
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're so kind. Ms. Peters. How are you, and thank
you for your patience today.
MS. PETERS: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to
comment. If you'll let me digress for just one moment, I want to
personally thank you for honoring our dear friend, Grady Smithey,
today. Those of us in the region endearingly refer to Grady as the
"Mouth of the South" and if you've had the opportunity to engage in
conversation with him, you'll know within a minute's time that he's
earned that reputation. So thank you so much. I can't imagine anyone
more deserving of the Road Hand Award than our dear friend, Grady
Smithey. Thank you for that.
Chairman Williamson, members of the commission, on behalf of the
cities of Grapevine, Coppell, Carrollton, Lewisville and The Colony,
we appreciate the opportunity to address you regarding the issue of
waiving the payment of tolls for first responder and emergency
management vehicles. We've sent a letter to each of you. Thank you,
Mr. Behrens, for distributing that letter. And I want to take the
opportunity for the record to summarize our request to the
commission.
As transportation advocates, we appreciate the many difficult
decisions that you've faced as you attempt to solve the state's
transportation funding crisis. No one can dispute the fact that the
need to maximize the potential of each and every transportation
dollar that the state receives is paramount. The dilemma that you
face in how to increase transportation revenue reminds me of a
poster that hung in my daughter's kindergarten classroom. The poster
said "Being right is not always popular, and being popular is not
always right." Thank you for your willingness to serve the citizens
and the residents of the great state of Texas.
Regarding this particular agenda item and the policy that you're
considering, State Highway 121 runs through each and every one of
our cities, those of us up in the Denton corridor. Together with
Denton County, we've worked with our partners at the RTC -- there's
that "partner" word again, and we do take great pride in that -- and
the TxDOT Dallas District to reach an agreement to have State
Highway 121 become a tolled facility. Now that tolls are being
collected on a portion of State Highway 121, we're concerned about
emergency vehicles being charged for using the toll road.
We applaud the commission's resolve for consistency regarding this
statewide policy. The fact that there are no exemptions being
offered, even for commission members, is a marked improvement over
similar agency's policies and speaks volumes for the commission
members' sense of fairness and integrity.
We do respectfully request, however, that the commission consider
granting unfettered access to the state's toll road system for all
public safety and emergency management vehicles. We believe that the
benefits of exempting public safety vehicles from toll collection
far outweigh the loss of revenue.
Since the tragic events of 9/11, a new spirit of cooperation and
collaboration exists between all public safety agencies. The
interagency cooperation provides opportunities for
cross-jurisdiction teamwork between all agencies, including Homeland
Security. We believe that exempting all public safety vehicles,
marked as well as unmarked, from toll collection would enhance
agency cooperation as we cross jurisdictional lines, and we
certainly don't want our own public safety employees to second guess
whether it's appropriate policy to use a toll road in execution of
their duties.
One of TxDOT's five stated goals -- and yes, Bill Hale has done an
excellent job of articulating the TxDOT's goals to us and tying
those into our priorities -- is to enhance safety. We believe that
the presence of marked police and emergency vehicles on our toll
roads provides the traveling public with an additional sense of
safety awareness and acts as a deterrent for unsafe driving
practices, and we believe that our constituents would be supportive
of additional public safety on these toll roads.
In conclusion, once again, I want to thank you very much for your
time and allowing us to address the commission, and we would
respectfully request that you consider this policy change.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, questions or comments?
MR. HOUGHTON: Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You have been a strong and consistent advocate and
partner, and we appreciate your contribution.
Mr. Elliston.
MR. ELLISTON: Chairman Williamson and commissioners. First of all,
before I get started on my comments regarding this item, I was
certainly pleased to see you make recognition earlier of some of
your employees that worked during the hurricane. I will tell you
that as this group certainly deserves that recognition, you have
those same people across the state of Texas that those of us who
lived through that hurricane know what valuable service your
employees played in the public safety and the movement of the
evacuees, and sometime the slow movement, I might say, but it was
not due because they weren't working diligently to make that occur.
And I certainly applaud them and want to recognize them also from
the Department of Public Safety standpoint for their efforts during
that time period.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
MR. ELLISTON: As I begin my brief comments, I would ask that you
consider on this agenda item a waiver from paying tolls for certain
vehicles, most particularly those authorized emergency vehicles, and
then specifically Texas Department of Public Safety emergency
vehicles that are currently contracted to work on the toll road.
As I have heard already presented in the minute order that there
are, I believe he said, thirteen that are working there that would
be exempted. However, part of our contract with TxDOT requires
supervision of these individuals. We have a limited number of people
that are required for supervision purposes that TxDOT currently does
not pay any amount of compensation to the Department of Public
Safety to go out and do supervision of these employees. So I think
it certainly would be relevant or prudent for TxDOT to consider
honoring an exemption for some limited number of vehicles that would
be used in that operation to supervise these folks that work under
contract to you.
Also, I would ask that if you have not already done so, I would ask
that you consider Section 228.054 of the Texas Transportation Code
which exempts emergency vehicles from paying tolls on Texas toll
roads. Certainly that statute precludes any criminal charges from
being levied against any individual who drives an emergency vehicle
on the toll road, so I'd ask that you review that also.
I believe that emergency vehicles that drive on the toll roads
provide a valuable asset to the citizens that drive on the toll
roads, whether it's a marked or unmarked vehicle, and we just ask
that you consider that when you make your decision on this
recommendation.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you have questions of this witness, members?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Elliston. We appreciate your
testimony, and we take your testimony seriously.
Phil, help me understand, the minute order before us, in what would
Ms. Peters think it does not comport with the request of those five
cities?
MR. RUSSELL: I think generally, if you look at the first section,
authorized emergency vehicles when responding to an emergency, I
think perhaps that's the difference. Statutorily, the bond indenture
on the Central Texas Project talks about emergency vehicles
responding to an emergency, and I want to make sure I don't put
words in anyone's mouth, I think what I'm hearing in the concern
that those five cities have expressed is all emergency type
responders, police vehicles, fire department, EMS, whether it's
emergency or not -- I think that's the distinction that I'm seeing.
This minute order clearly doesn't talk about non-emergency
situations, it clearly is defined of those vehicles responding to an
emergency.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We spent quite a bit of time praying over this last
month, didn't we.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes, we did.
Let me ask you, Phil, since this is something new to us, we opened
our first toll facility just recently, what is HCTRA and NTTA doing?
MR. RUSSELL: It's kind of the two polar opposites, I guess. NTTA
provides a fair amount of flexibility in emergency vehicles and it
goes on beyond that, and we talked a little bit about that in
December. And I don't know if Allan Rutter or anybody is here from
NTTA, they can probably describe their process perhaps better than I
can.
MR. HOUGHTON: There was somebody here from NTTA. Are they still
here? I guess not.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, we've got a victim.
MR. HOUGHTON: Is that an NTTA employee?
MR. WILLIAMSON: He is.
MR. RUSSELL: And while he's coming up, I guess the Harris County
Toll Authority -- we did pull that up on the website -- it's pretty
conservative. The Harris County Toll Authority provides for marked
police vehicles are allowed all non-revenue.
MR. HOUGHTON: All the time marked?
MR. RUSSELL: All the time. If they're in an emergency situation,
obviously they don't have to slow down; if it's a non-emergency,
they're required to pull over and fill out a form. Unmarked police
vehicles apparently aren't allowed free passage, period. Fire and
ambulance, free passage traveling to an emergency but not returning
from the emergency. Volunteer fire departments are free when
responding to an emergency, but when returning from that emergency,
they would have to stop and fill out the paperwork.
MR. HOUGHTON: They physically stop?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let's ask the NTTA guy. How do you handle it?
MR. FELDT: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Kevin
Feldt, for the record, an employee of NTTA. Unfortunately, I don't
have all the particulars of our policy. I do know, as Mr. Russell
indicated, that it is much more liberal than what you have before
you. We do allow, for instance, a lot of elected and appointed
officials to have free passage on our roads.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Really?
MR. FELDT: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Elected?
MR. FELDT: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Who's the biggest user?
MR. FELDT: I believe TxDOT is one of our largest.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Who is the biggest elected user?
MR. FELDT: I do not know offhand.
(General talking and laughter.)
MR. FELDT: And we've recently changed our policy and I'm not exactly
sure of the exact extent of it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're kind to come up here. So basically, how do
you know?
MR. FELDT: We issue, as Mr. Russell alluded to earlier, a
non-revenue toll tag. It's a toll tag like any other toll tag,
except when you go through the gantries or go through the toll
booths, there is not a charge to an account, it just indicates that
that is a non-revenue free passage type vehicle.
MR. HOUGHTON: I don't mean to set you up like this, but I think the
number was like $1.2 million or so of revenue lost by the number of
free toll tags or uses of that free toll tag.
MR. FELDT: I'm not sure of the exact number myself, but I do know
that there were a lot of non-revenue toll tags that had been
distributed that should not have still been in circulation,
possibly. And we have examined our policy and re-established a
different policy now to kind of maybe collect some of those, and I
can't speak to the exact policy because I'm not completely certain.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, this begs the question, and Phil is going to
have to help you with this one. Phil, we're going to open up 121 up
in that part of the world, what are we doing about NTTA's toll tags?
Are we honoring their free, non-revenue paying?
MR. RUSSELL: Right, 121 is open, and as Mr. McCarley mentioned to
me, I guess in December, NTTA did send out a letter to all their
non-rev customers notifying them that it wouldn't be available on
the 121 project.
MR. HOUGHTON: How was that received?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know. I didn't receive one of those letters so
I don't know. But Commissioner, I think it was the right thing to
do. I think this probably may be the right move for NTTA to send
that out so that there's no misunderstanding.
MR. HOUGHTON: So we have HCTRA which is very restrictive, and NTTA a
little bit more liberal.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Would HCTRA be restrictive because of their bond
covenant?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know, Chairman. Of course, they work under a
bit of a different code section than we do, Section 284. It may
originate back to that 284 language, or it could be something
peculiar or different in their original covenant from the early
'80s.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me talk to Mr. Elliston again. There are a lot
of angles of this, and I must confess, I've thought a lot about this
over the last month. I think one thing that the commission is
concerned about, if you read the newspaper, you must surely be aware
that this commission generally, and myself individually, come under
a great deal of criticism for our single-minded determination to get
some roads built in the state, and we don't ever want to let
ourselves get in the same position -- and we mean no disrespect to
the NTTA, but we don't ever want to be in the same position they're
in by having to try to not explain what public officials have been
getting free tolls.
MR. ELLISTON: Yes, sir. Commissioner, first of all, I think I failed
to identify myself when I was up here a while ago, but my name is
Randy Elliston and I'm the chief of the Texas Highway Patrol for the
Department of Public Safety.
And we certainly understand the necessity to charge tolls on a toll
road. If you didn't charge tolls, then it wouldn't be a toll road,
and we certainly understand that there has to be a limitation to
that, but what we're asking for you to do is to make a decision that
we believe that the public would fully support in that emergency
vehicles -- and when you look at how an emergency vehicle is
defined, it is a police car or fire department vehicle, it doesn't
have to be responding to an emergency, it doesn't have to have its
lights flashing to not flashing. It's certainly ludicrous to say
that you can go to an emergency but you've got to pay the toll to
get back off the toll road. That doesn't make sense.
What we're asking is something that I think common sense everyone
would agree that it's good to have a police car out there. Not all
police cars are marked, and we're not asking that every police car
have a non-revenue toll tag, that probably doesn't make sense
either. But those who work in a close proximity to the toll road, if
they're in the jurisdiction of a local municipality -- and I'm not
here to really advocate for them but it seems to me that if the toll
road is in the corporate city limits of Austin, Texas, then an
Austin Police Department commander who is over that section probably
should have access on there. Even though he drives an unmarked car,
he has a responsibility to the citizens that are in his jurisdiction
to respond to certain things that go on that could absolutely be on
the toll road. So I don't think you would draw any criticism from
that aspect.
Now, public officials, elected officials, that's in your court, and
I can certainly understand that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I want to tell you, the road to Hades is paved
with good intentions.
MR. ELLISTON: Absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And so what will happen is first it will be the
chief and then it will be one of your commissioners, and that's kind
of how this stuff starts, and we're just tremendously sensitive
about that not ever starting. We don't want anyone to ever write a
story about us giving people taxable income that didn't get
reported, and that's what that is.
So we're really sensitive about this, yet I have to tell you that
when five of our most aggressively supportive cities for tolls tell
us they want us to rethink this, we've got to pay attention to it.
We can't be partners if we're not partners.
I have a question I want to ask you. How would you feel about the
legislature amending the criminal code to provide for a criminal
penalty for using the toll road for personal business in a state
vehicle?
MR. ELLISTON: I don't think that would be a problem. I would not
have an issue with that. I think the key comes down to we're not
asking -- and at one time, NTTA -- I don't know if they still do it,
but at one time, NTTA would allow a police officer to pull up in his
personal vehicle at a toll booth and sign a book and he'd be allowed
access.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But we're not interested in people stopping getting
on our toll roads, we want people to do 81 miles an hour and get the
heck out of the way.
(General laughter.)
MR. ELLISTON: I agree, I understand, sir, and I agree with that
totally. My point being is that we're not asking for that. What
we're asking for is an on-duty working policeman who is driving an
official police vehicle that needs to get on the toll road for
official business or while he's in the performance of his duties to
have access without having to pay a toll.
We've already had some comments from local police agencies. We're
under contract to you to work on Central Texas, that's going very
well, but we've had other agencies to come assist us on the toll
road who have been charged tolls, and they're saying hey, I'm not
coming back, I'm a sheriff's deputy, I'm going to have to pay that
out of my pocket, I'm not going to come out there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That is kind of silly.
MR. ELLISTON: Well, I agree, but also, I don't think he should have
to pay a toll if he's coming out there for that assistance.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thanks a lot. I appreciate that.
Have you got a question, Ned, of this officer?
MR. HOLMES: I'm not sure whether it's a question for Officer
Elliston or maybe more directed to our staff. Do we have a plan for
enforcing speed limits on the toll roads?
MR. ELLISTON: The speed limits are enacted by TxDOT and placed on
the toll roads. We're under contract with TxDOT on Central Texas,
just like we are with NTTA, and we do enforce the speed limits on
those highways, yes, sir.
MR. HOLMES: Are those vehicles expected to pay tolls in the process
while they're enforcing speed limits on those roads?
MR. ELLISTON: Not currently, no, sir. The black-and-white cars that
we have assigned to that highway do not pay tolls currently today as
they're working out there on that roadway. Now, to also further
answer your question, a sheriff's deputy within his jurisdiction
where a toll road is at, he could also enforce that, but what I'm
understanding is, marked units probably will not be tolled, that
will be okay. But for our units that are out there right now, we're
not currently paying a toll on a marked car that's enforcing the
rules or the laws on the toll road.
Now, we've had a few that slipped through on the Tyler toll road but
it was because -- well, we got that worked out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Any other questions of this witness?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Jackson. This is final passage. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: How much heartburn do we give you if we tell you
that maybe we don't want to pass this?
MR. JACKSON: Some. Technically, if you haven't passed the policy,
then everybody has to pay a toll. Another option is that we could
make a small change to the proposed minute order that would allow
you to go ahead and grant the waiver for the other categories and
punt on emergency vehicles.
MR. HOUGHTON: Can we not do a pilot of this for 90 days and come
back and see what's going on, see exactly what happens to us?
MR. JACKSON: Right now on the current indenture, current policy,
everybody has to pay. You need a policy. Yes, you can do a pilot
project but you need to adopt that as a commission order.
MR. HOUGHTON: Need to adopt what?
MR. JACKSON: If you're going to have a pilot project, that needs to
be a commission decision.
MR. HOUGHTON: That's my point: can I amend this?
MR. JACKSON: If you want to take the current minute order just as it
is, with the exceptions spelled out as they are, and then we can
either add language to say that this lasts for so many days, or you
can just let it ride as it is now and come back next month and do
something else.
MS. ANDRADE: But what happens in the meantime, they're going to get
charged?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But they're going to get charged if we don't adopt
the policy.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So if we don't adopt a policy, the ones that are
exempt now aren't going to get exempted.
MR. JACKSON: Another thing you could do, because there are other
categories we want to exempt as soon as we can, you can adopt this
minute order but take emergency vehicles out of it and say that in
addition to vehicles that are waived from payment by law, the
following vehicles are waived. So then you're recognizing the
statutory exemption for emergency vehicles, it's just we're not
providing the context yet and we can do that at a later date.
MR. HOUGHTON: If we provide that statutory language, "emergency
vehicles," and we say 90 days or whatever period of time, we're
going to look and see if there is increased usage because we can
monitor that, and come back after 90 days and say this worked or
this did not work.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, you could do that. And we can add that language if
you want to; you don't need to add any words to the proposed minute
order.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'd like to do that because then we're going to come
back and make us review this in 90 days.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We are keenly aware of your expertise in not letting
us do something we shouldn't do, so don't be afraid.
MR. HOUGHTON: My point is it makes us come back and review it in 90
days to say is it abused, is it working, do we have to amend this.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, we can do that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do you want to take a few minutes to prepare the
words while we continue to talk?
MR. JACKSON: I can do that. Make a motion to add language to the
minute order that this order expires 90 days from this date.
MR. HOUGHTON: I so move.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You want to take credit for this? You're not trying
to join the DPS Officers Association, are you?
MR. HOUGHTON: I'm already a member. I drive a yellow Hummer and my
license plate is --
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this cover EMTs in Parker County?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this cover ambulances in Bexar County?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this cover city police in Houston?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Does this cover the sheriff's office in Lubbock
County -- is that the county?
MR. JACKSON: Make sure we're understanding each other, what you're
doing is you're going with the minute order as drafted, you're just
limiting it to 90 days, so all those vehicles will have their tolls
waived if they are reacting to an emergency.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think what he wants is for them to be waived if
they're on official business.
MS. ANDRADE: Right, not just reacting to an emergency.
MR. HOUGHTON: Official business.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought you were telling us we could do it a
little fast.
MR. JACKSON: Then I would prefer what I suggested to begin with. If
you look on the second page of the minute order, when we start with
the order, It is therefore ordered that, you can say in addition to
vehicles waived by law. "It is therefore ordered that in addition to
vehicles waived by law, free passage on TxDOT toll roads shall be
granted to the following" and then strike paragraph 1, and then
renumber subsequent paragraphs. Staff will implement the definition
of emergency vehicles as you stated.
MR. HOUGHTON: And my math major is telling me it should be 91 days
because it coincides with the commission meeting. If we go 90 days,
then it pushes us into another 30 days. Just state what, the April
commission meeting?
MR. JACKSON: So this minute order expires 91 days from this date.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hold that thought for a second, don't make the
motion yet.
MR. HOLMES: I'm still trying to understand exactly what we're going
to accomplish. Did you say strike all of paragraph 1?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. HOLMES: As opposed to just striking "when responding to an
emergency."
MR. JACKSON: I would strike all of paragraph 1. We're replacing
paragraph 1 with the statutory exemption.
MR. HOLMES: And the statutory exemption is?
MR. JACKSON: For authorized emergency vehicles.
MR. HOLMES: Which means it's an authorized emergency vehicle, it
doesn't have to be on an emergency.
MR. JACKSON: That is subject to debate, and barring trying to define
that as DPS wants to or as TxDOT staff has proposed, I'm suggesting
that you punt and just refer back to the law and TxDOT will
implement the definition as stated by Commissioner Houghton.
MR. HOUGHTON: If you agree.
MR. JACKSON: Either that or give us 30 minutes to rewrite the minute
order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we spent a lot of time with this last month,
and I think we were convinced that we need to have a firm approach
to this, but you know, I've just to tell you, for me -- I can't
speak for anybody else on the commission -- when Carrollton,
Coppell, Grapevine, Lewisville, and The Colony write me a letter
that says this is what I want you to do, these have been some of the
strongest advocates of the 121 toll road. This represents, other
than I guess Frisco or Plano, probably 40 or 50 percent of the
people that are going to be paying tolls on 121, and they're the
ones that are going to lose from the loss of that revenue more than
anyone else.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to make another point. The indenture on the
CTTS is very restrictive. The language in paragraph 1 works for the
indenture, what DPS is promoting does not. So we either need some
flexibility in applying that or we really need to add a lot to the
minute order. You can always have two policies. If you want to do
what DPS has suggested, you can have a CTTS policy and a
rest-of-the-state policy.
MR. HOLMES: But in paragraph 2 you have an exception for the CTTS.
MR. JACKSON: We have a statutory exception on military vehicles for
the CTTS.
MR. HOLMES: But you could have that same exemption elsewhere.
MR. JACKSON: As I said, we can draw the minute order and separate.
It's been the department's position all along that we wanted to have
a statewide policy, but you have the option of splitting it up.
MR. HOLMES: Well, you have done so by virtue of paragraph 2.
MR. JACKSON: For military vehicles.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I think we want to end up 91 days from now,
first of all, we don't want to threaten the indenture of our Central
Texas Turnpike Authority, and I think we want to maybe add to the
legislative list, Coby, and go across the street and should be
trying for policy-making. We don't want to inhibit the use of the
toll roads by emergency responders up and down the line, we want
there to be a penalty if you cheat, and the penalty is a crime. Is
that not where we want to end up?
MR. HOUGHTON: I believe so. I think 91 days gives us something to
look at, to index to, and then we go from there. And I'd like to
leave CTTS aside and obviously live to the indenture. Wouldn't you
recommend that, Mr. Bass? Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Hopefully the law enforcement community will
understand we have to be careful about getting our bondholders upset
with us.
MR. JACKSON: So we want to add language for an expiration of 91
days.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's okay. And if you went with the rest of the
minute order as it is, we're okay with the indenture, we can see how
it works, or we can further amend the minute order to have a policy
for emergency vehicles for CTTS and a separate policy for other toll
roads.
MR. HOUGHTON: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's your recommendation?
MR. JACKSON: My recommendation is to go with the minute order as is
and add the 91 days. If you want to split them out, then we'd like
some time to make sure we get that right.
MR. HOUGHTON: I'll go with your recommendation.
MS. ANDRADE: But I want to make sure that if we go with this
recommendation, during these 91 days they're not going to be tolled.
Is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: There's two different recommendations. My
recommendation is we go with the minute order as is which means they
have to pay the toll if they're not reacting to an emergency. If you
don't want to do that, we need this language for the indenture for
the CTTS.
MR. HOUGHTON: And then we add the language to the indenture.
MS. ANDRADE: We don't want to toll them.
MR. HOUGHTON: Not in this 91 days.
MR. JACKSON: Then we're going to need some time to work on the
minute order.
MR. HOUGHTON: That's fine.
MR. HOLMES: Does that mean we not adopt it now, or that you'll bring
it back later in the meeting?
MR. WILLIAMSON: It means Mr. Jackson, who is the best there is, is
going to go work on it, and we're going to defer action on this
minute order for a few minutes and move to some other stuff. Thank
you, Mr. Jackson.
Let's move to the next item.
MR. BEHRENS: If you'll lay out 6(b) which concerns establishing some
administrative fees.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Behrens.
The next minute order is, just as Mr. Behrens suggested, on any toll
road we always have the greatest hope and desire that folks will be
paying those tolls, there will be certain situations where folks
choose not to, so this minute order essentially provides a
three-level, three-tier process to try to collect those tolls.
The first level would simply be in the case of non-payment, the
department would send out a letter requiring them to pay the
original toll as well as an administrative fee, and that fee in the
first level will be $5, so it would be $5 plus that toll rate.
If that's unsuccessful, the second level would turn it over to a
collection agency. The department's cost for that, the
administrative fee would be $25, and again, the cost of that
original toll.
And then the third level would be to go to the court system. Same
thing: the original toll would be required, the administrative fee
would be $100, and then of course, the court has the ability to
charge court costs and even a fine as well.
So the minute order before you would set these three levels. Level
one would be a $5 administrative fee; level two a $25 administrative
fee; and level three a $100 administrative fee.
Staff would recommend approval of this minute order.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, Phillip, what about a collection agency
collecting tolls for the department, will they have to pay tolls?
MR. RUSSELL: Ask me in about 31 minutes when Mr. Jackson comes back
with that minute order and I'll make that determination. I would say
no.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What about the judge in the court who is enforcing
the $100 fee? This is going to happen, you mark my words. Four years
from now somebody is going to be in here saying, Why do we have
those guys toll free? It all started with the DPS.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on this minute order. Do you have questions or
comments for staff or dialogue?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOLMES: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. And let the record reflect Mr.
Houghton returned and voted aye.
MR. BEHRENS: Phil, go ahead with 6(c).
MR. RUSSELL: The minute order under agenda item 6(c) relates to
video tolling. Chairman and commissioners, as you know, for some
time you've given us directions that you want to go towards an
all-electronic toll collection system to try to get away from manual
cash transactions.
On the Central Texas Turnpike Project, of course, we launched that
in 2002, we have two systems: a cash option as well as an electronic
toll collection option.
MR. HOUGHTON: Aren't we required by an indenture to do such?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir, pretty much so. Back in 2001 we wanted to go
to more of an all-electronic format. It's the same process, going
through the rating agencies discussions, it was pretty apparent to
us that we had to have a cash option as well.
MR. HOUGHTON: But technology has fast-forwarded.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely.
MR. HOUGHTON: And bankers are now concessionaires.
MR. RUSSELL: It's moving at warp speed. Between those time frames,
the West Park Tollway in Houston has come online where it's
all-electronic, no cash collection, and there have been a couple of
others across the country.
So what this minute order would allow us to do is enter into a pilot
program -- very similar, Commissioner, to what you suggested on the
first minute order -- that will allow us to start getting into the
idea of a third type collection, the video tolling where a person
wouldn't necessarily have to have quarters in his pocket, wouldn't
have to have an electronic toll tag, he could drive on that facility
and we would bill them by license plate.
Now, Attachment A would provide the cost for that video billing. It
is a little more expensive for us to go through, do that data
research, track that license plate to an address, send that billing
statement out to him. So Attachment A would provide what those
increased video costs would be on the Central Texas Turnpike Project
was 33 percent higher than what our electronic toll collection
charge would be.
Once again, staff would recommend approval of this minute order, and
I'll be happy to try to address any questions you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation. Do you have questions or comments?
MR. HOLMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I haven't quite followed the
Class 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. Those are the different classes of vehicles
predicated mainly on axles.
MR. HOLMES: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions or comments for staff?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's your pleasure?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you, Phillip.
MR. BEHRENS: 6(d), Phillip.
MR. RUSSELL: Agenda item 6(d) is our quarterly update to the General
Engineering Consultant's update. Commissioners, this GEC report
covers the time period between September 1 and November 30. There's
been quite a bit that's happened during that time frame. Many of you
all were involved. Of course, segments of the Central Texas Project
opened well ahead of schedule. We had openings on significant
portions of State Highway 130, State Highway 45 and Loop 1 on
October 31, and we also opened up a section of 130 in December. That
allowed us to complete those sections approximately a year ahead of
schedule.
The GEC reports that the project is -- and this would do James Bass
honor, I think -- approximately $381 million -- and James, I rounded
to the $381 million -- but the project is well under budget, remains
under budget.
The last two segments on State Highway 130 currently were opened
from the interstate through 79, all the way to 290. The third
section that will be opening on 130 will be from US 290 all the way
down to State Highway 71 by the airport; that will be opening on
schedule in September. And then the fourth section will be following
through from State Highway 71 all the way down past the airport to
US 183. We will also finish the completion of State Highway 45 back
to 620 in the December time frame.
So the Austin District, Bob Daigh, Tim Weight, doing a fantastic job
in completing the construction on this project. David Powell from my
staff and his crew are doing a great job in putting together the
toll collection system and really accelerating a lot of their work.
So staff would recommend approval of this minute order as well. I'd
be happy to address any questions you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation.
MR. HOUGHTON: Well, congratulations on bringing it in under budget,
but James, isn't that number shrinking? You were at $400 million at
one time.
MR. RUSSELL: We've actual vacillated, Commissioner, between about
$365- and $472- over the past three or four years, and of course,
one of my earlier admonitions to you all is that number will
vacillate up and down.
MR. HOUGHTON: I hold James responsible for it.
MR. RUSSELL: That's right. I have no idea what it will be the next
quarterly update, but it's still significantly under budget.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: We're going to go to agenda item 6(e), also concerning
a toll road project, and this is the Eastern extension of the
President George Bush Turnpike over on the east side of Dallas, and
this would be a recommendation for toll equity for that project.
James.
MR. BASS: Good afternoon. Again for the record, I'm James Bass,
chief financial officer at TxDOT.
The North Texas Tollway Authority has submitted an application for a
financial assistance of just over $160 million. The funds would be
used to pay for the costs and services associated with the
acquisition of right of way, relocation and utility adjustments for
the Eastern extension of the President George Bush Turnpike.
Staff recommends your approval so that we may begin detailed
negotiations with the NTTA.
MR. WILLIAMSON: James, how is this related to the protocol, or
Amadeo?
MR. BASS: Part of the $160 million is contingent upon an agreement
for revenue-sharing on the project, and that would be one of the
aspects of the detailed negotiations.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What's the relationship between this recommendation
and decision and the recently signed protocol between NTTA and
TxDOT.
MR. HALE: Part of the protocol has the issues on 121 and 161, and
part of the NTTA portion of this thing is the NTTA projects which
includes the Eastern extension of 190 and the ability to go ahead
and move forward with this project and share revenue on that project
is important, and this leads to the ability to negotiate the
revenue-sharing and take care of that, and it closes the final issue
that has to be worked out on the protocol with that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Houghton recently made me aware that recently
someone has filed a proposal to repeal the protocol, is that what
you said, or show a preference?
MR. HOUGHTON: Correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are you familiar with that legislation?
MR. HALE: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just curious how, if passed and signed by the
governor, it would influence or change this decision we make today.
MR. HALE: The agreements we have within the protocol would then, I
suppose, fall apart.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Bass?
MR. BASS: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I failed to mention this is the first
step of a two-step process, so before anything that was negotiated
would ever get executed, the commission would see another minute
order come before them. So this is a preliminary step in the
process.
MR. HOUGHTON: It's preliminary.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I was just curious, that's all. Thank you, Bill.
MR. HOUGHTON: Move to approve.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 7, under Finance is the
recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report.
MR. BASS: Item 7 presents the Quarterly Investment Report for the
first quarter of Fiscal Year 2007 which ended on November 30 of
2006. The investments covered in the report are associated with the
2002 project of the Central Texas Turnpike System and the lease with
an option to purchase for the Houston District headquarters
facility. The details of these investments have been provided to you
in the quarterly report.
Staff recommends your acceptance of the report and I would be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation. What questions or comments do you have?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 8 is a State Infrastructure Bank
application. This is one for final approval in Gregg County.
James, you might, for Commissioner Holmes and Commissioner
Underwood, give a little brief history on what we can do with the
State Infrastructure Bank.
MR. BASS: The State Infrastructure Bank allows the commission to
loan funds to cities and counties and other entities throughout the
state to help advance and fund transportation infrastructure. In
return, they are loaned and the commission then determines the terms
of the loan, interest rate and the length of the loan, and to date
the commission -- or as of January 1, the commission had approved 62
loans for a total of about $293 million. Some of those have been
paid off, some of those are in progress right now.
The available cash in the State Infrastructure Bank, the cash
balance is around $61 million. Some of that has already been
approved by the commission, it just has not yet been disbursed out
to the entity.
This particular item seeks final approval of a loan to the Liberty
City Water Supply Corporation in the amount of just under $570,000,
but also includes a 20 percent contingency, to pay for a utility
relocation along State Highway 135 in Liberty City. Interest will
accrue from the date funds are transferred from the SIB at a rate of
4.06 percent, with payments being made over a period of not more
than ten years.
Staff recommends your approval.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Members, you've heard the staff's explanation and
recommendation on this item. Do you have questions or comments?
MR. HOLMES: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 9 is our contracts that were let
this month in January, both our highway maintenance contracts and
building construction contracts and also our big highway
construction contracts. And Thomas, if you'll lay both of those
minute orders out.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Thank you, Mike. My name is Thomas Bohuslav. I'm
director of the Construction Division.
Item 9(a)(1) is for consideration of the award or rejection of
Highway Maintenance and Department Building Construction contracts
let on January 9 and 10 of 2007, whose engineers' estimate is more
than $300,000. We had 22 projects, an average of 3.8 bids per
project.
We have two projects we recommend for rejection. The first one in
Uvalde County, Project Number 4022. We only had one bidder for this
project; it was 161 percent over the estimate; the bid was about
$973,000. This is various locations in Uvalde County, rehab work. Of
course, this is a very high bid, we only had one bid. We'd like to
go back and consider some redesign and solicit more bidders to see
if we can get better competition as well.
The second project recommended for rejection is in Hidalgo County,
Project Number 4015. We had two bids on this project; it was 47
percent over the estimate; about a $900,000 bid on it. This is for
sweeping debris removal and we'd like to go back and see if we can
get more bids and maybe re-scope and see if we can get better prices
for that as well.
Staff recommends award with the two rejections noted.
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MS. ANDRADE: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Item 9(a)(2) is for the award or rejection of Highway
and Transportation Enhancement Building Construction contracts let
on January 9 and 10, 2007. We had 64 projects bid, an average number
of bids at 4.7 bids per project.
We have one project we recommend for rejection in Tarrant County,
Project Number 3006; three bidders; it was 74 percent over. It's on
US 183, work to rehab widening some bridges. It includes some
special painting on it that requires some special handling of the
disposal of the paint debris, and the district thinks that they can
go back and let that separately under a maintenance contract and get
that work separated out and make it a little less expensive and then
they can re-scope the project to do that.
Staff recommends award of all projects with the exception noted for
the Tarrant County project. Any questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thomas, I didn't remember my schedule. Did you make
it in to educate and inform the commissioners, or Commissioner
Underwood?
MR. BOHUSLAV: I did not. It was removed from the schedule after the
ice event.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we'll try to reschedule you where you can
share with both of them kind of how this whole process flows. Unless
they're different from the three of us, this is one of the most
overwhelming aspects of what we do. You know, you're presented with
this stuff not very far in advance of when you have to approve it,
so you've got to have some trust and faith in the process.
MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes, sir. Any questions?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion?
MR. HOUGHTON: So moved.
MR. HOLMES: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
MR. BEHRENS: Agenda item number 10 is our Routine Minute Orders.
Commissioner Holmes and Mr. Underwood, these pertains to donations
to the department; under eminent domain proceedings, it allows us to
move forward with those; routine things in finance; load zones, both
bridges and roadways, most every month of our commission meetings;
then we have some dispositions of right of ways, most of it surplus
property and doing some switch of some kind; and also it establishes
speed zones on various highways across the state, both for
regulatory speeds and then sometimes we decrease speeds when we're
in construction speed zone areas.
All of these have been duly posted, as we're required to do. One
thing, normally we ask all the commissioners, particularly when we
look at some of these right of way dispositions, to see if you might
be personally involved or have any interest in a business or
something like that. We have examined these, we don't think there's
any conflicts with any of them that we have this month.
So I would recommend approval of the routine minute orders. If you
have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But they can only guess, based upon their
conversations with you, whether you might own real estate close to
some of this stuff, so take a glance.
(Pause.)
MR. HOLMES: I think I'm okay, but maybe I should abstain from the
Harris County ones.
MR. WILLIAMSON: John Johnson did that frequently, if he wasn't sure
if he had some property close to it.
MR. HOLMES: I'd better abstain from Harris County.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Do I have a motion?
MS. ANDRADE: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: We're having discussion.
MS. ANDRADE: Okay, I withdraw.
(Pause.)
MR. BEHRENS: And Commissioner Holmes, it was short notice on this
meeting but as we get into the next meetings, there will be more
time for you to review these lists, whether it's property in eminent
domain or a right of way transaction.
MR. HOLMES: I'm nearly certain there isn't conflict of my being
subject of eminent domain, what I'm not certain of is whether it's
close enough to have some influence over it.
MR. BEHRENS: The safe thing to do would be to abstain.
MR. HOUGHTON: So would they abstain from the entire eminent domain
action?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, from the counties that they specify.
MR. BEHRENS: So this is under the eminent domain list you're looking
at? They could just call for a vote for all the regular minute
orders with the exception of the eminent domain ones and then have
that approved separately.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Commissioner Andrade moves all items except eminent
domain. Is there a second?
MR. HOUGHTON: I second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries.
Now Ms. Andrade moves any items of eminent domain. Mr. Underwood and
Mr. Holmes indicate they wish to abstain. Mr. Houghton seconds the
motion that we move the eminent domain with the abstention of Mr.
Holmes and Mr. Underwood. All those in favor of that motion will
signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Two abstentions.
And now we have a lot of people here to congratulate us on moving
enhancements to traffic congestion relief. Let's start with you.
Since I bought all those Nocona softball gloves for all those years,
we'll hear from Nocona. If I could --
MR. YOHE: We appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Plus I need for you to pronounce your last name.
MR. YOHE: James Yohe. I'm the economic development director for
Nocona. I've been there about a year and a half now, and you can
probably tell from the accent I'm not native to Texas yet.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So you got there before they finished the new
building.
MR. YOHE: Which new building?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The glove building.
MR. YOHE: The glove building burned to the ground in July.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But were they not rebuilding it?
MR. YOHE: No. They will hopefully be rebuilding it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought I saw something on one of the television
stations in Dallas that they were rebuilding the glove building.
MR. YOHE: They have to rebuild. The question is are we going to be
aggressive enough to ensure they continue doing it in Nocona.
MR. WILLIAMSON: How can TxDOT help with that?
MR. YOHE: That wasn't one of the agenda items. What I'm looking at
are a couple of things, of course, it's been mentioned quite often
as far as how important transportation is for economic development,
and I've kind of inherited a rather slow-moving project in the
extension of a four-lane highway on Highway 82 outside of Nocona
into Henrietta to give us complete four-lane transportation through
Nocona into the major transportation systems of 35 and Highway 44
and 287.
And so what I just wanted to do was, first of all, thank the TxDOT
office out of Wichita Falls for all their heavy work in working with
the train companies as far as an overpass which is the first portion
of that project that needs to take place, and of course, your help
in making sure that that stays at the forefront and any help that
they need in working with the train companies in getting that actual
overpass in Ringgold completed would be greatly appreciated.
I understand it's already been funded, it's just getting the design
finished and then getting it actually set up for construction, and
so we would appreciate all your help in being able to do that.
The second item is one, of course, that you've been hearing quite a
bit about, and I appreciate the efforts that you have to go through
as far as the reductions that are coming out of the federal
government and how you handle those. Realize from a rural
development approach those funds are extremely important in how we
are able to draw people and market our communities.
One of the main efforts, of course, within Texas in the enhancement
program is the Heritage Trail Program is funded through those funds,
and I've been introduced to that as far as the economic development
aspects and what they offer for being able to market and the tourism
that they can provide. In fact, I believed in it strongly enough
that I became a member of the Texas Lakes Trail this last year.
And I just want you to be aware it's not about a single bicyclist or
somebody that wants to use a particular area, but it actually allows
rural communities an opportunity to provide and market their
communities because tourism for rural communities is extremely
important. The days that we're going to have basically a Toyota
plant or some large manufacturer come in and help a small community
are long gone, and so therefore, one of our real main efforts has to
be providing new dollars in the community through actual marketing
of tourism.
So we'd just appreciate your continued thought about that as you go
through this process and understanding that it is a major impact for
rural communities.
And then the third one I thought about at the last minute -- because
I haven't heard from the gentleman that actually was pushing this --
there's an actual effort in Sunset on Highway 287 which is part of
our county, they're building a new rest area, one of the really
nice, large, internet-connected. The community of Sunset has been
working to try and actually include on that a regional farmers'
market as part of it. And I understand, of course, there's a public
safety issue from that, but your support and your conversations and
the attention that you could give to helping us move forward on that
and get approval for that would be greatly appreciated.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's kind of interesting.
MR. YOHE: It is, and we think it would be a great addition as far as
both attracting people to stop and giving our agricultural business
a market that's close by.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What part of Texas are you from?
MR. YOHE: I'm not. This is the first time I've lived west of the
Mississippi -- unless you include Bangkok, Thailand. I spent 20
years traveling around the world with the Air Force, and my wife's
family is in Nocona so that's the reason we're there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We're glad you're here.
MR. YOHE: And I'm looking forward to the other opportunities as far
as transportation and what can be done, as we go through and as I
get more and more involved.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You're very kind to wait through the morning.
MR. YOHE: I appreciate learning an awful lot and I've got a couple
of other things I'll talk to some of the other folks about. Thank
you.
MS. ANDRADE: Melissa Dailey.
MS. DAILEY: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Melissa Dailey
with Downtown Fort Worth, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. I'm speaking,
as many have, concerning the STEP Grant and requesting that those
funds be reinstated.
We have eight projects in Fort Worth that were part of the STEP
Grant application that involve streetscape, gateway improvements,
sidewalks and bike trails. Two of those in our downtown were for
important gateway projects: one on Lancaster Avenue and one at our
Northwest Gateway. And then we had a third that was to be for
streetscape improvements along the 7th Street corridor between our
downtown and cultural district.
We've worked for many years, as I'm sure you're probably aware, to
revitalize our central city and our downtown, and our city, as I'm
sure many other large urban cities, is challenged constantly with
trying to fund aging infrastructure and often doesn't have the funds
to do important enhancement projects such as these that the STEP
Grant funds.
The STEP Grant helps central cities and downtowns create vibrant,
walkable places. We ask that TxDOT have a balanced funding that
considers other modes of transportation, especially with our air
quality issues that we have, funding that doesn't just go to
vehicular traffic in terms of getting them from Point A to Point B
in the fastest possible way, but also contributes to sustainable
communities by focusing on other modes of transportation such as
bicycles and walking.
Enhancements like sidewalks, bike trails and streetscapes create a
livable, safe community, a sense of place, and encourage people to
walk and bike to their destinations. These enhancements also connect
our urban villages.
Mr. Chairman mentioned earlier that STEP funding has the least
impact on congestion. I would argue that we must focus on
alternative modes of transportation in the long run to reduce
congestion, and enhancement funding does this. We shouldn't solely
continue to focus on just building freeways to reduce congestion, we
should focus on other modes of transportation. A long term solution
to congestion is and should be multimodal.
Partnerships have been key to our revitalization. As has been
mentioned all day, partnerships are very important, certainly have
been key to the revitalization of our downtown and our central city,
and we request that TxDOT remain a partner in helping us create
sustainable communities with a sense of place. We ask that you
consider reinstating the STEP funding, and that if funding cuts are
necessary that they be made across the board in all projects rather
than simply eliminating the entire STEP program. Thank you.
MR. ANDRADE: Thank you very much, and thank you for waiting.
Mr. Burrus.
MR. BURRUS: It was a perfectly normal name until I was 13. My real
name is Gandolf Burrus and lots of people come up to me and say I
used to have a Labrador Retriever named Gandolf, so it has nothing
to do with the wizard; it is my name.
Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm the consultant to the cities of
Cuero, Belton, Temple, Walnut Springs, and Copperas Cove. Three of
those cities are Chisholm Trail cities and I have been asked by
those cities to come and express their support for continuing the
SEP program and not taking all of the cut out of one project.
As the gentleman who just spoke so articulately said, for the
smaller communities there's an enormous not just safety benefit to
these programs but an economic development component. In the city of
Cuero we held meetings in three county commissioners courts and
eleven school districts, securing support; nearly the same amount in
Belton. There's been a tremendous amount of work that has gone into
them.
The only other point that I wanted to make is that if the board goes
ahead and makes this decision, I think it's going to have an adverse
effect on your other grant programs. When the board puts out a call
for grants where cities are to, by public process, define their own
problems and propose a solution, I think TxDOT benefits by having
the most applications possible coming in. If you're going to award
30 projects, you'll find 30 better projects if you have 250
applicants to select from than if you only have 40.
Before the cancellation of the SEP program, I was working with
eleven combination school districts and cities to develop
applications for your new grant which was just released which is the
Safe Routes to School Program which comes out of the same SAFETEA-LU
money. Only two of those cities and school districts are considering
now going forward with those applications based on what they have
just seen happen.
So I know you have tremendous responsibilities, but we do ask, on
behalf of those five cities, that you consider an alternative
approach. And thank you very much.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you, Mr. Burrus. Thank you for waiting also.
Kristina Gaboury.
MS. GABOURY: I'd just like to thank you guys for the opportunity to
address you today regarding enhancements. I'm here on behalf of the
Texas Bicycle Coalition and cyclists all across Texas.
Eliminating enhancements funding has affected communities all across
the state. Obviously, I don't want to reiterate what's already been
told, but we've been collecting and delivering letters to the Texas
Department of Transportation from cyclists and concerned citizens
who support this cause. Enhancement projects are a way to build
communities and provide a healthier alternative form of
transportation for citizens.
I, myself, am an avid bicyclist and use bicycles for transportation
as well as exercise and recreation, so apart from my bicycle
advocacy role, the issue also affects me personally as well.
So in conclusion, just to keep this short, I strongly encourage you
to reconsider your decision regarding the rescission of funds for
enhancements and reinstate those funds. Thank you again for your
time.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank you very much, and thank you also for waiting.
At this time we're still waiting for Mr. Jackson to come back with a
revised minute order and waiting for the chairman to return.
MR. BEHRENS: It should be momentarily.
MR. HOUGHTON: While we're doing that, I've got a question that just
addressed us on the enhancement program. I would hope that in the
next couple of weeks when we face the legislature this will be
obviously subject matter, but we would like to also have you talk
about some of the things that happen over time as the legislature,
in their wisdom, has taken money from highway transportation
projects and has, for instance, funded school buses and emergency
medical transportation and the various other things.
What this commissioner would like to see you do is help us, since we
have significant budget surplus this time, get those monies back
into transportation. They are needed so we could, in fact, do the
things that we need to do and fund possibly enhancements. That's
just my feeling.
MR. BEHRENS: Bob, do you want to come up here and go through what
changes you made?
MS. ANDRADE: Well, let's wait for the chairman, let's give him two
minutes, because I promise you, if not, you're going to have to
start over.
(Pause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Jackson, what have you for us, sir?
MR. JACKSON: Bob Jackson, general counsel.
First, let me briefly tell you what we did and then we can read it
into the record. If you go to page 2 where we get to commission
action, paragraph 1, you take the same language in paragraph 1 and
we just added at the beginning "on the CTTS" to limit that policy to
the Central Texas Turnpike System. We added a new number 2 for non-CTTS
toll roads, and the policy there is waived and the key language is
at the end of number 2: "when the operator of the vehicle is on
duty."
MR. HOUGHTON: The key is "on duty"?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
And then we added at the very end, "It is further ordered that this
order expires April 27, 2007." If there is concern over whether
that's too long or not near long enough, the commission can act
beforehand with a new policy or it can extend this minute order. It
does need to do something on or before April 27.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Are we permitted to hear comments from the
witnesses?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Elliston, do you perceive that that addresses
your short term problem?
MR. ELLISTON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that does correct the problem
on everything except the CTTS, so sounds like that would take care
of it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we're in a difficult spot there and we're going
to have to figure out what to do about it.
MR. ELLISTON: I understand, and we'll just work towards resolution
on that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And we will. I think the entire commission is kind
of concerned about we want to approach this in the right way.
MR. ELLISTON: Absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We don't want to incent people to get that which a
normal citizen couldn't have, but Ms. Peters' comments about having
ambulances and EMT and DPS and sheriff on the road, those are well
received comments.
MR. ELLISTON: Absolutely. And I appreciate your willingness to
listen.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Ms. Peters, do you want to add anything to this?
MS. PETERS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We thank you very much.
MS. ANDRADE: Can I say something? Ms. Peters, I want to thank you
and thank the mayors that wrote this letter for reminding us that
safety is indeed a priority for us.
And Officer Elliston, thank you so much for the protection that you
give our citizens. And as I sat here and reflected on what was
written here, I was reminded of how safe I feel when I'm driving
home late at night and I do see police cars and troopers on the road
and it just makes me feel safer. So I want to make sure that we have
the safest toll roads in Texas. Thank you so much.
MS. PETERS: And once again, on behalf of the cities, and on behalf
of Denton County -- Judge Horn wanted to be here today to also
address you; she wasn't able to be here, she had a previous
commitment -- we want to thank you.
MR. HOUGHTON: She did express herself to me yesterday.
MS. PETERS: And having a 15-year-old daughter who is now on the
road, if I were you, I'd bump that enhanced safety as being the very
first on your list -- has a whole new meaning. Thank you very much
for listening.
MS. ANDRADE: Thank them very much.
MR. HOUGHTON: Did you want to give the DPS your license plate
number?
MS. ANDRADE: When I met them, they said they knew me.
(General laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Now we've got to establish a couple of things for
the record, members. One, we have probably the very best
transportation lawyer in the country as our general counsel. He
could go many places and make a whole lot more money than the State
of Texas pays him; he stays here because of his love of the job.
So Bob, we don't take lightly wanting to do something different than
what you recommend, and you know particularly I don't take that
lightly. With three lawyers in my family, I'm driven to always
follow counsel's advice.
I think we let you down by not paying a little more attention to
this a couple of weeks ago when we had the first discussion about
it, and this is not the norm for us and you shouldn't expect it to
be the norm. We appreciate the way you handled the situation.
And Phillip, you've heard clearly where the commission wants to be.
Our concern is not that we have too many law enforcement on the
roads, our concern is that we never ever are subjected to the
criticism that we're showing favoritism to persons in government
over the citizens of the state.
And Coby, if you would, start working on language that we can take
to the policy-makers across the street about criminal sanctions as
opposed to some sort of over-bureaucratic regulations.
Anything else?
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: As amended, do I have a motion?
MR. HOLMES: So moved.
MR. HOUGHTON: Second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of
the motion, as amended, will signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.
(No response.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you,
staff. We appreciate it.
Michael, what further business, sir?
MR. BEHRENS: That completes our agenda.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Do we need to go into executive session?
MR. BEHRENS: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: We want to thank, once again, the city of
Duncanville, the communities of the southern sector of Dallas
County, and our staff for their patience, and we stand adjourned as
of 1:10 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
MEETING OF: Texas Transportation Commission
LOCATION: Duncanville, Texas
DATE: January, 2007
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 178
inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete transcript prepared
from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Brenda
Thompson before the Texas Department of Transportation.
1/30/2007
(Transcriber) (Date)
On the Record Reporting, Inc.
3307 Northland, Suite 315
Austin, Texas 78731
125 East 11th Street . Austin, Texas 78701 
Copyright 2012. Texas Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved.
