Travis County Commssioners Court
June 8, 2004
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 10
Now, item no. 10 is to receive presentation on 2030 transportation plan from capital area metropolitan planning council.
>> morning, judge. My name is michael olek. I'm the executive director of the capital area metropolitan planning organization. With me is steven greathouse, who is the editor of the campo long range plan. What i'd like to do today is represent to you this public review draft of the plan and i'll make a brief presentation since judge, you and the campo board members have heard it before. But I did want to come and present it to you. We're setting up the powerpoint now. Let me just say that campo is the capital area metropolitan planning organization. We are the long range planning organization for the three counties of Williamson, Travis County and hays counties. And basically we do two things. We prepare a long range at least 20 years, 25-year transportation plan for those three counties. And then the board also adopts that plan and they also approve any federal transportation funds that come in to the region. And I think many of you can -- many of you are aware of campo. There are 25 metropolitan planning organizations in the, over 300 in the nation as a whole. As I said, our boundary is three counties, Williamson, travis and hays. We went to that area almost a year and a half ago. In the future we may include bastrop and caldwell as well, but that has not been determined. Our size is determined by our board and by the governor. Our board membership, 23 members, three of the Travis County Commissioners, the judge and Commissioner Daugherty and Sonleitner are on the board representing elected officials throughout the three counties. Basically what the campo plan does is it sets the first stage for projects to receive federal transportation funding. Every five years campo prepares and adopts a long range plan. The current plan was adopted four years ago this month, and it went to the year 2025. And once that plan is done, then the agencies that build projects called transportation providers, such as txdot, the regional mobility authority, transit agencies and cities and counties then develop the projects, and if they're eligible for federal funds, they apply for federal funds for those projects. So the plan is really the the document and projects get built with federal fund. What we're doing right now is this plan is -- was presented to the campo board in may. It is scheduled for adoption next April, 2005. This is the first draft. We expect to prepare a second draft this fall based on the input that we get over the next few months. We have to do the air quality analysis on the project oof that second draft comes out the end of this year, then we'd have hearings on that and adoption in April 2005. We have to adopt a new plan by June of 2005 to be within the five-year limit. The challenges we have are high population growth. The growth rate in the three counties has been very high. We're assuming that will continue through the year 2030. The population of 2005 was 1.26 million. To figure out what that is, it's good to look at dallas-fort worth. The dallas-fort worth metropolitan area in 1990 was two and three-quarter million people. So 50 years after -- it would take us 50 years to catch up with the dallas-fort worth area, but that's what was there. Any transportation projects, we're facing obstacles, lack of money. We face the difficulty not in my background of transportation project construction and the air quality is an issue. This shows the volumes on highways in the three county area, i-35 of course is the biggest one. The thicker the line, the more the traffic. So i-35 is very heavily traveled and congested, as is loop 1, 183 and then ben white to the south. We also have a lot of people commuting from one county to the other to go to work. This is a lot of the large majority of the jobs of the five-county area are in Travis County, so a lot of people live in surrounding counties and commute into travis. The population in 2000, as I said, 1.6 million. The January 2002 estimate is essentially one and a quarter million. The last plan we did was for two and a quarter million in 2025. And based on the new forecast from the state data center, we're doing a plan for two and three-quarter million people. Both travis and Williamson county are projected to add 600,000 people. So the growth in the two counties will be even, but Williamson starts with 250,000, so they go to 725. Travis starts with 12 and would go to 1.1 and a half million people. So that is the the population that we are preparing this plan for. We also must assume where those people are living and working. And we do that. There's 16 sub areas shown here. There's also over a thousand traffic zones. These maps show what that growth means. In 1990 there were 790,000 people in the three counties. At the bottom of the map is san marcos, Travis County, Austin are here. Round Rock is here. Georgetown and taylor. Each dot represents 500 people. If you go forward to 2000, this is what it looked like the last census, 1.16 million people. If you set it ahead to 2007 with one and a half million people, this is what it looks like. If you go to 2017, our next forecast year, that's 2 million people distributed -- this is the residential distribution we assume. And then 2 and three-quarter million people, this is what it would look like. I think this forecast or this assumption is a major factor for transportation planning. If you will allow me to just go back in time to 1990 and then run this again so you can see what that means. And that is a phenomenal growth rate and has a big impact on transportation need, on congestion. We don't know if that growth rate will happen. We're assuming the high growth rate from 1990 to 2000 to be prepared for it in case it happens, but of course we don't know if that growth rate will continue. However, the first few years of this decade the population estimates that we're on track to reach the 2007 number, one and a half million by 2007. So that's added -- 1.16 and add one million new residents. What this means if this occurs is more congestion. It's very difficult to keep up with that level of growth. Air quality is an issue, quality of life and an increased cost. We essentially say we want to provide mobility and we want to maintain quality of life. The roadway system that's in the plan we would add about over 200,000 additional lane miles of arterial capacity. We would build over 1200 additional lane miles of freeway capacity. In terms of toll roads, which is an issue that's very much in the news these days, we assume the implementation of the central Texas turnpike project will be open in 2007. We also suggest that additional projects should be considered as toll projects. The plan that we prepare has to be physically con strained. We have to project revenues for txdot, capital metro, cities and counties out through the life of this plan, and show that what's in the plan has a reasonable chance of being funded. We can't do that without assuming some toll roads. And so in our work we've assumed toll roads as shown here, on loop 360, on 183 to the east, 71 to the east, 290 to the east, parmer lane, 290 to the west all the way out to dripping springs, and then an outer loop around san marcos. And then we've assumed in the plans that we have, the high occupancy vehicle lanes on i-35 and loop 1. This is the current proposal for toll road that's before campo as proposed by the regional mobility authority and txdot. It's kind of an independent discovery here. They prepare their roads and we prepared ours and they're pretty similar. But this is a near term amendment to the campo plan that could be voted on by campo at its July 12th meeting. And then under the central Texas regional mobility authority, this is what that would be as a result of that proposed amendment. On transit, we assume the Austin-san antonio pass 17ger rail, which is currently adopted. We assume the Leander to downtown rail line being tentatively proposed by capital metro. Bus rapid transit, express bus lines. Intermodal stations, park and ride and then the capital area rural transportation service. Basically because of the congestion in the i-35 loop 1 corridor and in the 183 corridor, that is the reason we feel transit is important in our plan. The blue shows capital metro service area. All the rest of the three counties is served by carts, the capital area rural transportation system. This draft could change on transit based on what capital metro is doing and what the commuter rail district is doing in the update of their study. Bicycle and pedestrian is another mode that we plan for. Campo sets aside 15% of fund for bike ped projects. The board recently reconfirmed that policy. Campo encourages local jurisdictions to establish a regional bicycle system. Freight is an important issue. We are trying to enhance freight mobility and reduce the conflicts between freight traffic and private travel. Land use is a major role in the transportation systems. The envision central Texas project showed that land use can be the most effective transportation measure there is because if there is mixed use development with residential, office, commercial in one location, it reduces the need to make all trips by automobile. Campo doesn't control land use, but we are encouraging mixed use and practices that reduce the necessity for car travel for every trip that is made. This is my joke slide. I say this is the high-tech planning tool, but basically the issue here is land use and transportation are very related -- we're a transportation agency. We take land use plans from cities and counties and then we prepare a transportation plan, but transportation can really affect land use as well. If the population growth occurs as we have projected, we will not be able to reduce congestion from today's level because that growth is just too high. So we're trying to make mobility improvements through the plan. Texas, there's a Texasuced by Texas a&m, the Texas transportation institute. Right now our index is 1.22. We're one of the most congested mid size regions in the country. That means it takes 22% longer to make a trip at rush hour than it does at non-rush hour. If this population growth occurs and we build nothing beyond what's under construction now, that would double. That would mean that a half our trip off beat is going to take more than an hour. Under the plan as it currently exists, our congested index deteriorates to 1.52. So we have again this population growth really has a big impact. The other things we look at are air quality, water quality and environmental justice. The aquifer is an issue, the contributing zone, the recharge zone, the down dip zone. We map those and need special care for projects in those areas. Refer habitat sites are important and then floodplains and water bodies. Environmental justice is a federal requirement and basically it says that in the distribution of transportation benefits, you cannot discriminate against ethnic, minorities or low income people. And again, any disadvantages of transportation systems, those cannot be disproportionally distributed. We define environmental justice areas as those where 50% of the residents are eth knicks minorities or live in families earning less than 80% of the county median family income and those are shown in the blue cross hatch here.
>> you say we define. Is that the federal definition?
>> no, that is the campo staff's proposed definition.
>> what's the definition of that -- what's campo's deaf definition?
>> the federal does not have a uniform definition. There is no uniform definition. Every metropolitan planning organization makes up its own definition. And we look at what is done in other metropolitan planning organizations. Go ahead.
>> yeah. Basically the definition is left up to the individual metropolitan planning organization to make. And this is at least for low income purposes, this definition is based on what the city of Austin does. Dallas does things a little bit differently, and sort of each organization defines things differently. For low income purposes, the 80% of median family income because that tends to be a cutoff point for so many other -- for everything else as a standard. Cut off point, but it's really left up to the particular region to make a decision on how they want to define environmental justice.
>> the draft plan that we have right now is not physically constrained. The cost right now is something like $14 billion and we can only identify about $8.3 billion in revenue. This does not include toll revenue. We have not calculated that as yet. So we have more work to do on this plan. Basically all mpo's across the country are looking at a funding gap when it comes to producing a fiscally con strained plan. So one of the things that we are charged with doing actually by the Texas transportation commission is identifying potential funding sources in a separate document called a Texas metropolitan mobility plan, which we must give to the commission identifying ways that we might fill the funding gap. And there are many -- besides toll roads raising the existing taxes and fees, perhaps a gas tax increase, (indiscernible) within the campo region. We are not adequately funded to deal with the population growth that we're expecting.
>> nor is anybody else.
>> correct. We're in the situation. Gas taxes have not been raised since 1991 and 1992, federal and state. And so we're -- all metropolitan planning organizations in Texas and otherwise are having to deal with this situation. And what the message is coming down from the legislature and from the Texas transportation commission is to think about toll roads. Anything that is a limited access facility, think about making it a toll road. So that concludes my presentation. We're presenting this review draft to cities and counties and organizations, taking input. We're working with jurisdiction staff, county staff and city staffs to review this. They were involved in the formation of it, but now we're going over it again to make sure that we are consistent with city and county plans. And as I said, we will -- based on that, we will present a second draft at the end of this month and we'll probably be discussing the comment on this first draft with the campo board in August or September. That concludes my presentation. We'll be glad to answer questions.
>> going back to your presentation where you were referring to your challenges, your lack of money. Did you also have another challenge, well, not in my backyard is one of them, but also the one that refers to air quality issues. And this is as recent as I guess yesterday or this week, I guess, is the u.s. Supreme court ruled -- to override the environmental impact studies on trucks leaving mexico to do trade here. (indiscernible)... It would cause additional problems as far as air quality and the degradation as far as the air quality is concerned. My question to you is at what point will the campo plan include and increase in that type of traffic, nafta, which will of course end upcoming down i-35, because that is the main route I guess all the way to canada. Will the campo plan include air quality issues that will address those type of situations?
>> yes, Commissioner. In the next draft of the campo plan out this fall, we will analyze the air quality impacts and based on that extreme court decision we have to -- we may have to assume that the preliminary information is correct, higher emissions from trucks. And that will affect areas all across the state, not just the Austin area. So we have to figure out that calculation and figure out how that changes our air quality. All motor vehicles under u.s. Control are getting cleaner over time and with the federal standards. So with the growing population, we can see long-term emissions going down. We have a critical period over the next seven to 10 years when emissions for the average vehicles are still pretty high. But we have to account for this -- the supreme court ruling and the emissions on the highways, and we will do that this fall. We're doing the second draft of this plan.
>> the other thing that could be addressed is freight rail because that takes the trucks off the roads.
>> yeah, that's correct. There are a lot of changes proposed, and we have to try to predict what those will be and take them in account. And of course, we redo our plan every five years, so as conditions change we monitor the growth rate, we see what's happening with emissions by freight rail and we make changes.
>> with the growth and the continued predictions that -- and the continued congestion that we're experiencing on our roads is of course a significant increase in the cost of doing business. And I think we've heard that from the business community. But again, I guess I'm just kind of looking forward to see exactly what we're going to do about that because, of course, we, Travis County, have basically been involved with a new inspection type program to ensure that we can clean our air up. And of course, there are federal dollars that may be lost if if we go beyond our air emission standards if we're not in compliance. So all of these things that we're talking about today, there may be some contingent factors that may need to be looked at, and that is to not exceed those standards that would also jeopardize us receiving federal dollars to do such projects as you have mentioned before. And, of course, to offset those things, I think we need to be pretty prudent, pretty up front and forward about it on how we're going to deal with the air emissions here in this region. And everybody else willing to join the campo region. And as you stated earlier, we have three counties now that we may look to increase to five. And is everybody on the same page? And that's a big concern of mine is will everybody be willing to get on the same page to reduce the harmful air vehicle emissions that will cause us problems. And that's a challenge in itself. And I know that. But it something that I think really should be looked up and given the proper attention. And I know y'all probably will or that campo will look at. So I just want to bring that to your attention. Thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> how long has campo been here?
>> since 1973.
>> and you've done a pretty good job of sticking to the regional plan?
>> yes, sir, we have. We have -- especially in the last five or so years we've gotten a lot of funding to build more highways. So we've done a good job of sticking to it. Of course, it has to be amended from time to time as conditions change, but it's basically a good umbrella document for transportation and the full three counties. Even for those projects that are not federally funded.
>> what would you say would be campo's number one accomplishment today?
>> I think it is to have all of the local elected officials from the three counties sitting together looking at the future, what is expected in the transportation, trying to deal with those and coming up with solutions that the region can support. Which is basically the intention of congress when they passed the law in 1970 requiring that mpo's be formed in order to receive federal transportation funds.
>> have you gone before the city council yet?
>> no, sir, we have not.
>> any more questions or comments?
>> I have a few.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> this is a trip made by people, not vehicle trips. The -- and we've broken this down by five ways of traveling. One is non-toll roadways or free roads, if you want. That's about 90%. Toll roadways in 2030, about 5% of person trips would be there. Walk is 2.8, bike about 1. Transit about 2%. Today transit is right at 2 or 3% of all person trips carried in the three-county area.
>> do you know what that would have been in 1990? What that public transit percentage would have been?
>> stevie is pulling it out of the plan. I'm sorry, we don't have that.
>> I can tell you that it hasn't moved very much. I mean, 2%, I mean less than 2%, something that I think that we need to understand in this community and I think that it's something that campo needs to sing loud and clear, we have continued to spend monumental increased dollars in public transit and we have really not moved any more percentage of people out of the way that they have traveled in the past than the way that they travel today. That is something that I think that campo lacks in letting everybody understand exactly what we're talking about because we are really to the point now where it's where the rubber meets the road. And that is is that we don't have enough dollars in this community to take on what we know is our biggest concern. And Commissioner Davis, let me tell you about the best thing you can do about trucks that are going to come out of mexico and they aren't going to have the e.p.a. Standards that we have in the united states is getting them in here and getting them out of here. And the way you get people in and out is you give them a comprehensive enough of a road system that moves them versus having them stalled on i-35 and sitting idle. We have got to look where our dollars that we have in this community that we can apply to areas where we know that benefit, that great benefits are created. That is something that i've never heard as part of a campo presentation or a discussion. We all know that the statistics are staggering. You can see the dots there, I mean, from -- you know, from the 2002's to the 2015's to the 2030's and it is irrefutable that we are going to grow. Unfortunately exponentially. So I think it is paramount that we understand that we have got to take dollars where they are available and apply them in areas where we know that we get bang for buck. It should be very telling in this community that you have seen public transit go from a $40 million budget to a $140 million budget in 18 years and you have not seen a percentage increase of people using that mode of transportation versus what we continue to see which is people using the road. Now, if there were a trend that you could show where that is, you know, reversing, it would be something. Unfortunately dallas doesn't do it any better. I mean dallas has spent billions of dollars on alternative modes of transportation, and I will tell you that their numbers equate to the same numbers as we do. You are not taking, you are not adding percentage-wise numbers of people out of their cars into all of these other modes of transportation. And at some point in time we have to stand up in this community and say now we're fixing to toll people in this community and there's some people that aren't for tolls. Unfortunately we have got to toll people. And let me tell you the main reason. In the last week, I mean, there have been two articles written about the hybrid automobile. We think that we are in trouble today with gasoline taxes. I mean there are up to two and three-year waits for some of these automobiles on hybrids. So the point is that if a hybrid gets you 50 to 60 miles an hour versus our conventional automobile that gets us 15 to 20 miles per gallon, it doesn't make any difference what size of s.u.v. You drive. You can drive a small s.u.v. That's a six cylinder that pushes the rpms and you don't get any better gas mileage than you do out of a v-8. We are in trouble with the number of gallons that's going to be sold in the future, and with those gallons -- gallon numbers going down -- it doesn't make any difference what we tax people. I mean we could tax people into oblivion and we are not going to have enough money to fix our roads. And to have enough money for roads. So I mean I'm going to work with you on this, mike, because I want that being part of this presentation. People need to understand that we do have huge amounts of dollars in some areas that we are not getting bang for the buck. And I will -- I want that expressed. When the judge asked what have we done with campo, I mean, hey, I sit on it now and I feel very, very compelled to be as proactive as I possibly can be for campo -- I mean in campo is the organization that is going to basically dictate where we build our roads or how many dollars that we apply to these roads, then I want us to be a lot better than what we've been because I don't think that campo has been -- and I'm not throwing rocks at you, mike. You get Marching orders to do your job. But if campo is the entity that is responsible for what we have today mobility-wise, it has made a flat f. I mean because it is absolutely deplorable in this community to try to get from point a to point b. And I want us to work hard towards those things and I think that we will come up with a toll plan. I think that we ought to visit other areas. I mean with me being on the intermunicipal rail board between Austin and san antonio, I do think that Commissioner Gomez made a good point. Freight rail is something that can have a huge impact on trucks off of the interstate freeways. But unfortunately freight rail can't deliver to your place of business. What it can do is it can bring heavy loads to central areas, but after that how do you get them to their points of destination. You have got to put them in a truck. You have got to put them in a vehicle that gets on the street and gets on the road. And so the only way that we're going to enhance our ability to really move goods is by coming up with the fastest way that we can build the most comprehensive road system in this community, and we have laughed at for 30 remember the time we fought mopac. I mean there were people that thought mopac in the same kind of mentality that fault sh 130. I thought you had to be brain damaged to fight sh 130, but we still have that mentality. I want campo to be aggressive. I want us to find innovative ways to come up with -- I am going to be one person that is going to be sitting on the campo board, mike, that is really going to want some effects, I mean, and especially finding dollars that are better spent in some areas than I think that we are spending them in other areas.
>> I just needed to add a little bit here that we can't -- I guess campo will be concerned about mobility of the vehicles and the people who go with it. But we also have to be concerned about in this community is the mobility of people who have been unable to move before. And capital metro is concentrating on training people in wheelchairs to use the bus system to be able to have that quality of life that people demand in order to feel like they are still not just existing in this life, in this world, but are actually, you know, being able to do things for themselves, go to the grocery store and not be dependent on anybody else. Believe me, if you work with elderly or disabled, they do have that feeling of wanting to be independent and being in charge of their lives. They really -- and no one wants to depend on anybody else. The other thing is that I think that we thought about that issue very early on because capital metro is probably one of the few properties that does have a totally toll system that is dedicated to make it simple or make it easier for disabled to get around in our public transit system. And to me that is extremely important. And so just an awful lot of -- yes, it takes money to do that is correct but I think that we have to -- we have to show that we respect humanity and wherever they are, and especially if they are in need of disability and the -- all of those things that go with it to enable them to be safe, to be able to get their shopping done, to be able to go see the doctor, the hospital, wherever they need to go and not have to be dependent on other people. But I think that that part as well needs to be told. That part of the story needs to be told as well so we can tell the whole story in its completeness and not just one part of it or the other. So --
>> just a couple of extra comments. I think if there is one transformation that's occurred at campo, it used to not be called campo. It used to be called the Austin transportation study and that was accurate in its naming because it was all about Austin. And if there is a change that has occurred, it is now that a.t.s. As campo is now speaking as a regional voice in terms of how the federal dollars are being spent. If you go back and look at the old a.t.s. Maps, literally it looked like if you got to the Austin city limits, you would fall off the face of the earth. And we know this from all the background work we're doing on the gattis school road situation. It didn't recognize most of Williamson county existing. It did not recognize hays county even existed. I think that's one of the valuable things it's brought is it's brought all of the transportation planners together to talk about and speak with one voice related to the spending of the federal transportation dollars. Without disrespecting campo, though, we can't read more into it than what it is. It is a planning organization. And it is not going to be campo that's going to dictate beyond planning and talking a lot of what you just talked about, Gerald, it is all about the corridors being protected, be about the overlaying of arterial streets and state highways, it is the planning documents to respond to population shifts and new job centers. How is the traffic moving within the region. But the real rubber meets the road, and I mean that in all senses of it, it still hasn't changed. It is the Texas transportation commission. What you see as the old highway department. It was not helpful when the city of Austin for 10 years blew off going to the old highway department to ask for one penny of state funds. And that decision between about '73 and '83 when Ron mullen took a small band of folks, I think it was about 10 people that went there to finally ask for the first time in 10 years for state funds, it is still -- we are still trying to get over that 10 years where everybody else went for money and Austin did not and that was their choice. But to get passed that. It is still going to be the Texas transportation commission, the Austin city council, the Williamson county Commissioners, the Travis County Commissioners, the hays county Commissioners and god bless Cedar Park, Leander, Pflugerville, the ctrm a and capital metro, they are the ones with the abilities to raise funds, leverage funds and get creative either through tolls or t.i.f. Loans or whatever to make this plan work. Campo is kind of our umbrella planning group, but where the rubber is going to meet the road is at all those other jurisdictions that truly have the power to make all these things happen because they are the ones dealing with the land planning decisions. The land planning decisions are not coming through campo. They just have to deal with what's happening out there and make the adjustments in the plan. There's my two cents.
>> any further comments?
>> if I could, Commissioner, about transit, I think that the question always asked is how do you determine if a transportation project is successful. One of the performance measures, I think, you know, a three-county split, that's one thing, but to me most projects operate in a kwaurbgs they don't operate over the whole three counties, and so I think have you to look at are they providing a solution in that corridor. I think the reason most metropolitan areas going to express or passenger rail is those projects are out of the mix of traffic. They can carry a lot of people relatively quickly. And so I think you need to look is it a corridor solution, just like toll roads, is it a solution in that particular corridor because really transportation is pretty localized. People make specific trips from point a to point b. I mean I do think we happen to have a realistic assessment of transit projects, toll road projects for the money we have, do they provide a solution. I just think that looking at the corridor is the place to look at that. But I do agree we have limited dollars so we have to look at the best way to spend them to meet our needs.
>> mike, no one in this community, Gerald Daugherty included, questions whether or not public transit is something that a major metropolitan area needs. I've never questioned that. I'm saying that the amount of dollars that you spend in an area, and we spend plenty of money in special transit. We do I guess a pretty good job. I mean I don't know. I mean I understand that a lot of special transit people have lots of concerns about the system, but I'm not here to discuss that. But I'm not saying that we don't spend money in those areas. And the number that is still irrefutable is that 2% out of the 100% is not very large. And when we continue to watch the numbers of dollars that grow in public transit and those numbers don't grow, and that's not an anomaly. That is something that is consistent in the united states of america. I mean it's as consistent in new york as it is in Austin as it is in miami. And we have got to sit back and realize that, you know, we need to pay attention to that. One other thing before you leave, I would really like mike for their not to be an awful lot of weight given to the envision central Texas study that seems to come up in a number of presentations whether it's our presentation, the campo presentation. I hear more about envision central Texas. Envision central Texas got less than 1% -- I mean participation with regards to what people sent their forms in for. I mean 1% is not a barometer. I mean the envision central Texas I mean findings I mean are totally subject to, I think, folly. And so I don't think that it's something that we need to put in our presentation in campo. And it's not just, you know, it's not just campo. I mean envision central Texas, envision central Texas. Mike, you've got enough information with campo statistics that envision central Texas shouldn't mean anything to you. And I'm -- and I'm not -- since I sit on the board, I don't like that part of the presentation being thrown in there like I mean boy, here's something that -- I mean here's some Marching orders that we ought to give. Land planning, we can do that without some organization being put into being that says, you know, here's a plan and here's what you ought to do. So thanks, mike.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you, judge, court.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 9, 2004 7:25 AM