Travis County Commssioners Court
August 5, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 41
Item number 41 is to consider request from Travis County -- for Travis County to join the Texas high speed rail and transportation corporation and take appropriate action. And do we have --
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> w-i-l-b-a-r-g-e-r.
>> there is a little booklet that is a power point presentation that if you need to or we may need to refer to that if you have any particular questions. Also, in this latest packet that just was handed out, there is an application from executive director michael barrens with txdot here in Austin. They have submitted with the conjunction with the thrcc an application to the secretary of transportation in washington, d.c. An extension to the south central corridor, which is in your map shown on the second page here. Which basically follows along the i-35 corridor from dallas down through Austin to san antonio. That corridor along with the brazos express down through bryan-college station, houston, harris county, that [inaudible] has been sent to washington requesting that an extension to the south central corridor along 35 be granted through bryan-college station down to houston, harris county. Again, that is the corridor that we represent, i-35 along down through bryan-college station, houston, harris county. What we're requesting is that Travis County consider joining this corporation. Basically the members currently that we had are houston, harris county, the port of houston, brazos county, bryan-college station, killeen, the city of killeen, dallas county, and tarrant county. Both dallas county and tarrant county have joined recently in the last month and a half. We would like for Travis County to come on board. We think that you play a pivotal role in what we're trying to do as far as planning for the future for high-speed rail and other, again, multi-modal transportation within these corridors, and we would like your consideration and ask that you join our corporation. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have and --
>> I have a few questions for you. Could you tell me basically what would it cost if Travis County decided to join this particular corporation? What would it cost Travis County?
>> for your membership?
>> yes.
>> the membership -- and again, the bylaws are included in your packet. The membership is based upon population both for cities and counties. For instance, harris county pays $150,000 a year to be a member of the corporation. The city of houston pays $100,000. Cities like college station and killeen are paying around 35,000. For Travis County, based on your current population, it's $75,000 a year to be a member of the corporation and to participate in what we're trying to do.
>> thank you. Secondly, can you tell me basically how -- if there is any relationship with the -- with governor perry's proposal for the transtexas corridor concept as far as also looking at high-speed rail and other modes of transportation in that particular corridor? Is there a relationship with ha you are doing here?
>> we have coordinated with txdot. We do not totally agree with the proposals that have come out with transtexas corridor. We feel that the governor and his vision is good for the state of Texas and we applaud his vision for the future in transportation. We differ in some respects, but we -- as I mentioned earlier, we've been working with txdot, and they have basically agreed with what we're proposing with respect to the -- this extension of the south central corridor to meet the needs of the brazos valley area down to houston, harris county, and to tie that area to the rest of the state along i-35. So it does not match exactly with the transtexas corridor plan, but we have worked with txdot and they have agreed with what we're proposing to do relative to the corridor along i-35 and down to houston, harris county.
>> okay. Thirdly, with the advent of the house bill 3588 sponsored by representative krusee, there were a lot of discussions on modes of transportation for the entire state, not only within the r.m.a., Regional mobility authorit involvement, but it would look at other modes of transportation, including rail. So I'm trying to look at this to try to see if there is an encroachment on several add advents that may be in the makings and are these proposals in concert or in conflict with those type of modes of transportation that -- well, one by law, state statute, a bill, in fact, h.b. 3588, for example. I think that's good to know. And if you can maybe hit on some points on that as far as the overall transportation scheme of things as far as building is concerned.
>> sure. One of the things that this corporation prides itself on is being a grass-roots-type coalition of cities and counties, and the reason we're incorporated back about a year ago in October was basically for the cities and the counties that are along this corridor to work together to basically dictate what needs to happen with respect to transportation within the corridor. A multi-modal transportation. We're looking -- this corporation, even though it says high-speed rail, we'll looking at both surface transportation, freight rail, commuter passenger rail as well as high-speed rail. So we're looking at all modes of transportation and looking to coordinate the planning and the development of the corridor so that you get the best mix of multi-modal transportation that you can within the corridor, and that transportation is dictated by you, Travis County, harris county, brazos county, tear rapbtd, dallas county, and others that will join bexar county, we're talking with them right now, they are going to consider this as well. We want to be able to ensure that the transportation that is ultimately developed for the future meets the needs of those corridors, and not necessarily be dictated from the top down but from the bottom up. We feel like that's the best way to meet those needs in the future.
>> and I think my final question, which is question 4, is that -- and you did hit on that, and I was going to ask that same subject matter, and that is the commuter rail district. As you know, last year this commisoners court did support creation of a commuter rail district, and that was based in contingent I guess on other entities that are allowed under law to actually create a commuter rail district. And since we -- the Commissioners court has already appointed persons from this particular dais to serve in that capacity on the commuter rail district, I'm wondering again, and it was a -- looking at other entities within this rail district to ensure that those particular things may be addressed. So I'm looking at this to see if there has been any involvement with your organization as far as the recently established commuter rail district that of course Travis County has become a part of.
>> we are conscious of that district. We have briefly talked with them. Again, we're in the formative stages of this corporation. We're in the process of gathering momentum. We've been working with the state, with the federal government, with the secretary of transportation, his office, as well as the f.r.a. We feel like we're not in competition with them. We want to work with them and to help support the development within the corridor. They probably -- as far as commuter rail goes, are probably further along than we are as far as detail. We are in -- as i've mentioned, we just were incorporated in October. We've been working through the process of, again, gaining membership and then working with the federal government and txdot. We plan to work, for instance, in harris county there's several different initiatives that have begun in harris county relative to commuter rail, and we are working with judge echols in harris county and his public works directors and others to make sure we coordinate what we're doing with what they are doing. We're hopeful that what we're doing will bring dollars potentially for planning and development for all the different things that we're looking at, all the different modes that we're talking about, and we feel like that hopefully by doing that and having a coordinated effort, we can actually bring more dollars to Texas and that's what we're trying to do is bring more of our gas tax dollars back to Texas to be used in Texas for planning and development for the future. So not only for high-speed rail, but eventually commuter rail, surface transportation, freight rail, whatever the need is, that's what we're going to be looking at. And coordinating with txdot, f.r.a. And others, the railroads, we've been in contact with the railroads. And then in the application by txdot there are some letters in there from the union pacific railroad and the burlington northern and santa fe railroad that indicates that they are willing to, you know, work with us in this effort. But again, we're -- we will coordinate with all the different agencies involved in transportation, the n.p.o.s, c.o.g.s and others as we go about this process.
>> thank you.
>> I feel like I'm at the same place we were many years back related to sh-130 and interstate 6. As much as everybody said, it's all about bringing more dollars to Texas, the reality is we were all in competition with one another. And I wish you the best of luck, but at this point this is really something extraordinarily geared to houston and dallas and tarrant counties and in between brazos. And really where Austin has centered its attention and time and effort is not included. We may be a step 2, 3, 4, but we're not step 1. And so to me this seems premature to come to us at this point because it's extraordinarily clear from your application that the main focus here has to do with harris county, connecting down to the port, either the port of houston or through beaumont, get the connector, as you should up to killeen in terms of the movement of things from fort hood, get it down to the coast so we can deploy. And to get to those population centers. But it isn't about Austin. We have been desperately trying to get rail, commuter rail, discussions to occur here, and I appreciate the fact that you are in wonderful cooperation related to the union pacific. We have not been that fortunate here in Austin because the u.p. Line right now goes through the heart of residential neighborhoods. And it is problematic in terms of having freight rails sitting next door to homes and idling trains, and we're not getting much movement there. And the way that the rail comes through Austin, you are not going high speed anywhere. We're trying to get our efforts to get the u.p. Line from bexar county to Williamson county vacated, for lack of a better word, because of all the dangerous crossings we have going in comal and hays counties, and there's still a few left here in Austin and Williamson county. But that's where our focus is. So to me it's like -- and the brilliant folks over at txdot did not put in the r.f.p. For sh-130 where we're all spending mega bucks to have the grades work so that freight rail can even go in there or high-speed rail can go in there. So to me this is an interesting effort. I wish you luck, but I don't see if there is being asked an investment of $75,000, which everything I can read is not for studies, it's lobbying efforts up in d.c. To try and bring dollars back, and I would see this as being in direct competition because i've been in d.c. Lobbying for money related to commuter rail within our corridor, which is not in any other corridors you are talking about, it is talking about houston to Austin and houston to dallas and houston to san antonio. But we are interested in san antonio to Austin and beyond. And we may be, in your viewpoint, but it isn't today. And so I'm kind of where we were with the super highway. There may be an appropriate time for us to be involved, but I don't see that as being today, but as you move along, there may be a time for you to come back when Austin-Travis County is more here. But we're not really part of what you all are talking about right now in terms of phase 1, and you have to get phase 1 before you can get to phase 2 and 3. That's kind of where I'm coming from.
>> may I try to answer that for you? The application is basically to -- the south central corridor, and if you look on the first page of your --
>> I saw it.
>> the united states map there, you can see there are 11 different corridors throughout the united states that have been designated.
>> you bet.
>> and south central corridor in Texas and the gulf coast corridor in Texas. South central corridor basically in Texas goes from north of dallas, fort worth, down through Austin to san antonio, and the gulf coast corridor goes from houston, harris county east through louisiana, mississippi, alabama and on up to southeastern -- up to coast. What we're trying to do, and the obvious leave-out is the portion between houston o'hare reus county and the i-35 corridor. And that is basically what this application is for is to get that extension in place so that we can compete nationally for rail, high-speed rail and other commuter rail dollars that are out there and available to corridors within the united states. But in order for us to do able to compete on a national level, we need to have that extension and that connection of the south central corridor down to houston, harris county. And that's exactly what this document does. But that does not mean that we're not looking at Austin, Travis County, bexar county, dallas, fort worth, waco, killeen, temple area in order to get the funding that we need, we need to get the designation. At that point then we go back and we begin the process of planning of the whole corridor. And again, we're taking the first small steps to make that happen. And as you mentioned, i-69, the 130 project, it takes years to get these things done. What we're trying to do is to plan ahead. The city -- the very same thing that you mentioned about your u.p. Line running through residential areas, through areas that where people live and work, is one of the reasons that we were asked to pursue this by the city of college station, Texas a&m university, bryan and brazos county. They had the same situation. The u.p. Runs through residential areas, right past kile university and they were concerned they need to do relocate the u.p. Line out of those areas where people could, as you mentioned, be hurt or, you know, from a quality of life issue, the noise and the sound and the vibration of freight going through. So that was one of the reasons they wanted for us to participate in this and to look for ways to help them come up with the funding they needed. They already had some dollars. Senator graham had actually given them or provided some funding for the relocation of that line, but as you know, it's very expensive to do those kind of things. And so they needed more help. And so, again, that kind of was what started this in the first place from the brazos valley area. And then we went and talked to judge echols down in harris county. He was very interested because they have 1800 at-grade crossings in harris county that they would like to deal with with respect to safety issues. So, again, what we're trying to do is provide the local entities an avenue to basically influence what's going to happen to them, and again grass roots up as opposed to the top down, and that's where we're coming from. And that's why we need you now to begin your input, to have input in that planning and development process.
>> and I appreciate that, but what I am seeing is that you need us to bolster the application that is really going to help other areas, and you are coming to us now when the reality is you should have been working with the commuter rail district in terms of collapsing down all of the efforts made to this. I've been here eight years and 18 years as a reporter before that, I'm a veteran of many a rail dispute. And the super train thing, that corridor got taken up by dessau road. The opportunity with the union pacific, we can't get them to budge and we've got that going through neighborhoods. You are never going to get high-speed rail through the mopac corridor as it is right now. And again, sh 130, we've spent billions of dollars on a multi-modal corridor, and there was no accommodation on grade, so freight rail isn't happening there, high-speed rail isn't happening there unless you go through an extra ordinarily expensive change order, and representative krusee has been hitting his head against the wall in terms of dealing with the u.p. Those discussions need to have been occurring the last three years as opposed to what I see as a duplicative effort that is competing with the desires of this the can and others relating to commuter rail to move folks within our corridor and not that we are added on to somebody else's application so that we can make good things happen for harris and the port of houston. Which is important, but we got our own stuff that we got to keep our eye on the ball here. And $75,000 is a lot of money. And I cannot even -- none of the things that we belong to, the c.u.c., Good golly, we just -- that's a lot of money. And again, I appreciate your efforts, I understand where you are coming from, but to me I don't see this as being something that I could vote at this time because I don't see its relevancy for Travis County and for us to try and move folks within this corridor. I see this as being absolute competition and not at all collaborative. It's duplicative, and it's in competition. And I say that as somebody that's gone to washington, d.c. For the last seven years because i've been in the offices and i've heard it. This is a competing idea, not one that helps Travis County. I'm sorry. That's where I am.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> yes, well, I was just mentioning -- and what you were saying about adding on or whatever, basically our initial thrust was this corridor, and we began in October, as I mentioned, and we're working our way -- and we basically put together the brazos express portion of the corridor first because obviously we needed that corridor to begin with. Since that time and after the first of the year and since March, we've been working on the i-35 corridor and we've been in discussion with the county, all the counties up and down basically to get your support for what we're trying to do. So, again, it was not intentional that here today or here at this point, it was part of the overall plan to get it done. And again, we don't want to duplicate what you are doing. I mean, that doesn't do anybody any good. We want to coordinate, and as you mentioned, there's a lot of things that go on and we feel like through our efforts we can focus what needs to happen on -- in these corridors with respect to multi-modal transportation. That's what our job is to focus people's interests, get their ideas, input, and make sure we get the planning that we need at the state and federal level to make these things happen. If you just let it happen by itself, it's not going to happen, I can guarantee you. And so we feel like we can through this effort, we can focus and do the planning that's necessary to make it come to fruition at some point in the future.
>> Commissioner Daugherty.
>> dan, thanks for coming, and since I can segue into a rail conversation from just about any subject matter, I do have some comments that -- and I'm glad that I'm going to be on television today because I'm sure it's going to be earth shattering to some people. If it weren't for the fact that we were in the financial crunch that we are in, I honestly can say that this might be a rail, the word rail that I would say I might be willing to look at. And I do think that there are some issues. I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner in that I think that this does sort of get in the way of some things that we are trying to do. I am on the commuter rail district board. And, you know, still trying to make sure that we do that thing right and that we make sure that everybody understands exactly what we are trying to do. Although I did say to david and I haven't said this personally to judge echols, but I did call after we had a very nice dinner and they knew I was going to be a hard sell on a rail. But after thinking about it, there are some things that make a lot of sense. Now, obviously there are a lot of moving parts on this thing with regards to where this thing goes. Obviously all of us know that you can't bring high-speed rail down through neighborhoods, and I think it had some issues with that fact six, eight years ago whenever we started trying to look at the triangle to do the high-speed rail. But I -- I'm more concerned about the dollars that's being asked right now. I'm also very concerned about there's really no time line here. I mean what this really is is belly up to the bar. We can't tell you how long we're all going to have to belly up to the bar because sometimes this is a long process and we know that. Now, it made me a little nervous when the judge told me I don't know how many years I would expect you all to be in this. That's not very comforting to us. I mean even though he said you know what, there's only so many years I can tolerate being in Travis County bellying up to 150 grand. I suppose that should make me feel a little better, but I don't know, maybe he's got more dollars to throw around than what we do.
>> he has a toll authority.
>> a toll authority.
>> that he controls.
>> and so I'm really very uncomfortable with the timing factor from this standpoint, but I will tell you that when there comes time when a few more of these questions that are really answered with regard to, you know, exactly what would this cost, I mean nobody has a clue as to what it would cost to do this thing. When you read all the backup material that we have that you all have put together and you get things from, like, the burlington northern, santa fe, and, you know, they are very -- you know, their comments are somewhat innocuous, and by design, I'm sure, about -- and not very definitive with regards to we're willing to, you know, to consider some right-of-way, and that's not to say you got to put the high-speed rail in the right-of-way that exists with existing lines, but it certainly would make sense that you are around those lines somewhere. So I'm -- I would love for you to take back the message that you at least moved Gerald Daugherty to the point of he wouldn't even consider doing something with rail to where there is some application if a few more things can be answered here. And I would really like that -- we've somehow got to come up with a time line. And that's what I would like for you to take back.
>> could I answer the time line.
>> sure.
>> I realize, and again, I know that question gets asked of us quite often by the people that have already joined the corporation members, and basically like you said it's hard to tell what the time line is because there's so many unknowns at this point. But in the bylaws, basically you are obligated if you so choose to join the corporation, you are only obligated for one year at a time. Your fiscal year basically from October through September -- October 1st through September 30th. If you don't think that the corporation has made progress or met the goals and objectives that it has set forth for that period of time, then you just do not reup at that next year when it comes for the budget process. So I don't think it ties you down to anything. We've intentionally made it that way so that members have the choice of being in or being out. And again, it puts the onus on us to make sure that we get done what we say we are going to do and to perform and to make sure that we continue to move forward and make progress in this endeavor.
>> well, one more time, I realize that that's what you all intend for people to do is to make an educated decision on how long do we think this is going to be. Quite honestly, I would not be interested in saying you know what, even if we had $75,000 laying around, I'm going to participate, and you know what, I'm going to participate for maybe a couple, three years, but if I haven't seen something that sort of definitively states, well, here's where we are going to be in three years, I mean so I could say, okay, I'm willing to pay money up to that point, and if that bench mark is hit, then I know we really have a real deal here. But the last thing I would like to do is to say, you know, theme-wise, idea-wise, I want to look like a participant, but this thing after a couple three years may just cost Travis County $200,000 and all of a sudden everybody just goes, you know what, we just don't have the muscle to get this thing done. And I know no one has a crystal ball so I'm not asking that, but with me it's more of a timing issue and with what we're looking down the barrel of budget-wise, I would probably not spend the $75,000 today. If I have it -- and I can find it for next year and this thing has moved along, I don't think that I philosophically will change my opinion about I'm willing to look at high-speed rail and the application it could have for our community.
>> again, and we had to do that and when we started in October, we basically the members on board at that point, we gave them some goals and objectives for this first year, and we have done that. We have met basically those goals and objectives to this point. And again, we have certain goals and objectives we're looking for in this next year. As far as funding, ultimately what we're trying to do is to get on the road map so that we can compete again for dollars from the federal government. Chairman young of the house transportation committee who we met with back in December and made -- judge echols made a presentation to him at that time, he's looking for three demonstration projects throughout the united states. Our first goal was to get this designation or this extension of the corridor down to haoeupb, harris county. Once we do that we're able to compete nationally. We're hopeful we're going to be one of those three demonstration projects for planning and development of high-speed rail for the future of this country and for Texas more particularly. Beyond that, we're looking at other -- don young also has ride 21, which is a new bill for funding of high-speed rail and other rail systems. We're looking for funding there. So ultimately we're looking for some federal dollars to help defray the cost as we go into this further. We're also looking for ultimately for the construction of this system. There's not going to be federal or state -- enough federal or state dollars to pay for this so ultimately you are going to have to do a public-private partnership of some type with a company coming in that would basically take over. Kind of that's what txdot and the transtexas corridor plan envisions is that there be a public-private partnership where the public comes in and says yes this is a good deal, we can make money and we can operate, build and fund this thing, and, you know, we pay the bonds and all that. I mean that's what we're ultimately looking for.
>> how many dollars have you accumulated to date that you have committed from all of the entities up and down the line?
>> around 500,000 total.
>> okay.
>> with all the members that we have to date. And again --
>> how many would that be total? I mean how many different he want at this time?
>> there's nine members at the moment.
>> and potentially you would see this -- what would you like to have if you had buy-in from all of the entities?
>> we would like to have all of the --
>> how many would that be? Have you gotten a map and said there's 72 down through here or what is that number?
>> right off the top of my head, I don't know.
>> it includes all the major metropolitan areas within the i-35 corridor as well as the pwraz shows express corridor. It also includes communities such as beaumont, port arthur, jefferson county.
>> I would like to see a list of the potential -- I mean, here's how "-here's what there are number-wise.
>> we do have a list prepared.
>> and gone, it's a basically -- and again, it's basically not an alignment on the map because we don't have anything yet. That has to come out of the participation by the local entities, the cities, the counties. What we've done is looked at a corridor-wide, three-county-wide corridor that comes through from houston, harris county and down along i-35. We feel like those counties within that distance would benefit economically from having rail associated close to them and having access to a high-speed rail or commuter rail station near their county or near their community. That's kind of what we've done in a county-wide basis.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Gomez.
>> well, i've had most of my questions answered. There are just two things that still concern me. One is obviously the budget. $75,000 is quite a hit given the shortages that we anticipate. Even though we set aside some money for rainy days and those kinds of unforeseen events. So that's a big concern. The other one is Texas is a large, large state. That's why it's cut up into various areas. And when it comes down to county government, there's the south Texas district, there's the east Texas, west Texas, far west Texas and north Texas. But I think that's valuable in that it expresses what's happening here too. It's the interest. And those entities that you mentioned are interested in this because it obviously affects their direct communities. And so Commissioner Sonleitner is right, this is a different area. The Travis County, south Texas all have different interests. One of them is the 130, sh 130 because it would add so much to the safety of i-35, which, you know, everybody everywhere recognizes that it's the big problem in the state of Texas. And so I'm concerned about being in competition. We've been working on that sh 130 since I got here, that was in '95. We're into our ninth year. And where we haven't begun to see the end of that project where we will take traffic off i-35 so it can become safe for to local folks in Travis County. So I am not really in favor of doing this at this time. It's just not the right time. And then also the interests are not -- the interests are conflicting interests at this point. And then of course the budget. But thank you, though. I think that -- good luck with what you are trying to do.
>> the first time we were -- judge.
>> I -- are you done?
>> how critical are Austin and Travis County? To the t-bone. How critical are Austin and Travis County?
>> well, obviously the south central corridor comes right through Travis County. Ultimately, you know, to make the high-speed rail corridors work properly and to be able to compete on a national level, it needs to come through Travis County to get to san antonio and vice versa. From san antonio through Travis County to get to dallas-fort worth or houston, harris county. You know, when they first looked at this back in 1990, they looked at the golden triangle. That's what they first came up with. Later on as they went into further planning and development of the corridor system, they figured out that the shortest distance between three points is not a triangle, but a t-shaped corridor. And basically with high-speed rail, the time difference between this straight shot and a shot coming from san antonio through Austin over to houston or from houston through bryan-college station to dallas-fort worth, the time differences is pretty minimal. And so they later, as they were going through the planning and development process, recommended that this be the alignment. And so, again, it's critical that Travis County be part of this coalition and be part of the planning. Again, you know, we keep mentioning that 130 don't include or didn't take into consideration rail. We think that with local participation, local input from the counties and the cities along the corridor, that kind of planning will be improved and things will get done. As opposed to it being done without your knowledge and coming up and later saying, well, why don't you think of this, we think that Travis County and the city of Austin and bexar county and san antonio and all up and down the corridor need to be participants in the planning and development of these corridors, not just high-speed rail, not just commuter rail, it needs to be the surface transportation, the commuter, the high-speed, the freight, because it all is interconnected and intertwined. So if you don't do it from a multi-modal standpoint, you are going to end up some point down the road and you are going to have a conflict. And that's just our philosophy. We think we need to be planning the whole corridor together at one time almost so that you don't end up coming like a -- like two water lines coming down and oops, we didn't match. That's what happens if you don't do it from a coordinated standpoint. And to this point there's nobody in the state of Texas that's been doing that. And we feel like even with houses bill 3588, that is a step in the right direction to, I guess, give txdot and the t.t.c. More authority to look at it from a broader perspective, not just the highways, but also the rail, the port system, interm.o.d.a.l.ism, getting freight materials into and out of the ports. It's going to give them that capacity, but we also think the cities and counties need to be part of that and to provide them with information on specifically -- I mean, i've already heard several instance where you had specific things you want done here in Travis County and in the city of Austin. We think that the only way we can do that is through garnering the support of the counties and the cities along this corridor, getting our congressional support, our senator support, which we do have from senator hutchinson and senator cornyn, and all of us working together to get it done. And I think that's -- if we don't do it that way, it's going to end up just like business as usual. And we don't think that's the way it should be done in Texas.
>> are you working mostly with counties or are you talking with cities too?
>> we're talking with cities as well. We're meeting with the city of fort worth, the new mayor, moncrief, and also mayor miller. We've got meetings scheduled to meet with her as well, and we want to bring on the other cities. We're in the process of trying to set something up with mayor wynn as soon as he can kind of get his feet on the ground and the new city manager. And try to see if we can't get them involved as well. But again, we need input from the cities and counties, otherwise it's not going to happen.
>> do you have benchmarks in the packet of information you gave us?
>> benchmarks? As far as goals and objectives?
>> goals and objectives.
>> yes, sir, we do.
>> there in what you gave us?
>> yes, sir.
>> where, so we can -- I didn't know where to find them.
>> it's either in the first packet or --
>> is the heading goals and objectives?
>> work plan and scope of services. These are a lot of what we're going to be doing. Now, we can get more specific as to what we're doing or planning to do for this next year relative to t-21 reauthorization and that type of thing. We'll be having our next executive meeting and members meeting at the Texas transportation summit in irving on August 13th, the evening of August the 13th. And at that meeting we will be talking about, you know, kind of where we've come from and where we're going. And that will be presented at that meeting. And we would love for any of you to come be a part of that.
>> so senators cornyn and hutchinson are supportive?
>> yes, sir.
>> and that means what?
>> basically we have met with them. They have indicated to us they support what we're trying to do and they will work with us as we begin working with secretary mineta, the administration and congress and senate as far as looking for funding opportunities, looking for and supporting the extension of the south central corridor so that we can compete a national level. And as far as that goes, senator hutchison is also offering a new passenger rail bill that she has -- we've been working with her on, and there will be some high-speed rail funding opportunities in that bill for planning and development. So, again, trying to get to the point where we can get some of these funding dollars back to Texas. We pay those dollars -- and again, we're not competing with the highway funds. These would be different dollars than highway funding. We're not taking away from any of our highway funding that we would get back. These are dollars that are going to be set aside for high-speed rail, for commuter rail, for other types of rail components that if we don't compete for it and bring it back to Texas, it's going to go to one of these other 11 corridors throughout the country. And that's what we're competing for is to get those dollars back here so we can use them for planning of your commuter rail between Austin and san antonio, for commuter rail between brian and college station to houston, harris county, and then the high-speed rail as well. But we're looking at all of those intermodalism, port of houston, port of beaumont.
>> how urgent is it today? Or is it?
>> well, again, we would definitely like, and we feel that it's important to what we're doing to have Travis County be a member of this corporation. We need your support. We need your input. As you mentioned, there's several different opportunities here that would be helpful to what we're doing and what we're trying to do. We think we can be helpful to what you are doing by bringing the opportunity to bring dollars back to Texas for planning and doing work with commuter rail and other modes of transportation.
>> but our federal policy makers and funders looking at the various options and --
>> yes, sir.
>> -- and positive side?
>> as I mentioned earlier, house chairman young is looking at the demonstration projects for high speed rail. He is also looking at ride 21, which has to do with other forms of passenger rail. We've got -- there's other senators, other congressmen that have other separate bills where they are looking for potential funding that we would like to, again, acquire some of those dollars if at all possible. And influence those bills so we are in them. And also senator heurb I son is going to have her own passenger rail bill.
>> any other federal officials from Texas signed on other than the two senators?
>> oh, yes. We have spoken with almost all of our congressmen so far. We actually back in March when there was a request for cities and counties around the country to submit projects for consideration in the t-21 reauthorization, we were able within about three or four days to put together a letter from six of our congressional delegation basically along the corridor. I guess ted edwards from waco, congressman carter from north of here were the closest at that time along the corridor. Since that time we've been able to put together our congressman -- I'm looking for my agenda here. We were up in d.c. Two weeks ago, met with congressman lamar smith, made a presentation to his office, and they indicated that there was some interest there from the standpoint of san antonio. We met with congressman charles gonzales from down in the san antonio area. Solomon ortiz, henry bonea, they've all indicated interest. We have talked to congressman lloyd doggett's office. We could not schedule a meet with him at that point in time. We tried to get in to see him and we will as we go through the process. But we have approximately right now there's -- if you count up the number of congressmen that are in the corridors, you are looking at somewhere in the 22 to 23 congressmen that have some part of this corridor. We have met with almost all of those at this point and there's approximately 18 to 20 of those that said that they would be willing to cooperate with us and to sign a letter to the secretary of transportation encouraging him to approve this corridor extension. So yes, we have been meeting and working with our Texas congressional delegation that are within this corridor. We even have talked to some that aren't in the corridor. Randy niggebauer, congressman thornsberry from northwest Texas, congressman stinhome and they've agreed to sign letters.
>> exactly what is the corridor extension now?
>> the corridor extension basically runs from the i-35 corridor approximately in the killeen, teufrpl area. Again, there's been no exact alignment. Down through bryan-college station, down to houston, harris county. The portion from houston, harris county over to beaumont, port arthur is already part of the gulf coast corridor and that's already included. So we're trying to connect the gulf coast corridor to the south central corridor.
>> what about the part that includes Travis County?
>> Travis County is already included in the south central corridor. But at this point in time there's nothing happening in Texas with respect to the planning and development of that corridor other than 130 and the transtexas corridor work. Again, we think we need to have input into that planning effort so that mistakes don't get made in the future.
>> anything else from the court?
>> one final question. You brought up that you need to do have input when we first initiated some of the questions I brought up. I was asking what your involvement was in those particular tiers of transportation endeavors we have before us in this particular area. And of course I guess my question for you now is what is prohibiting or is there any prohibition to prevent you from participating at the different levels such as transtexas corridor, such as the new house bill 3588, the r.m.a., Regional mobility authority, the commuter rail district that's been established. Is there any prohibitions that will not allow you to participate to get this particular message across to them?
>> not that I'm aware of. And what we want to do is use every mechanism possible to basically meet our goals and objectives for our members. And what we want to do is work with f.r.a., Txdot, with r.m.a.s if they should be created, with other organizations such as your commuter rail organization. We want to work together because it's going to take that. I mean, it's a huge effort and it's going to take everyone working together. But, again, if we're working on it in separate pieces, you know, it's not going to happen. It has to be coordinated and we have to work together in order to make it happen. And we feel like this organization would be capable of helping to focus and coordinate all these different activities to get it done. And that's what we're asking you to become a part of.
>> and you guys have collected $500,000 to date.
>> yes, sir.
>> what is the fee that [inaudible] international gets for working with this organization? Is there a monthly, is there a --
>> $600,000 a year is basically what --
>> that you all get -- so we haven't even collected enough money to even pay you all's tab yet.
>> right. And we've basically been working with -- and what our contract with the corporation in the beginning was that we basically would do whatever it takes to get it done. If we raise the money, we do, if we don't, then we eat it.
>> so right now practically, I mean the $500,000 that has been collected could technically go to you all's contract?
>> yes.
>> I mean so --
>> yes.
>> you do have a budget, though.
>> yes, sir.
>> can you send us a copy of that?
>> yes, sir.
>> anything further?
>> I would like to move that we not take this membership at this time.
>> I ask for a one-week extension.
>> okay.
>> anything else today? Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> send us a budget and let us take a look at it.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 6, 2003 4:52 PM