Travis County Commissioners Court
March 22, 2005
Item 26
26. Discuss and take appropriate action on Travis County comments to campo board of directors regarding draft 2030 transportation plan. We do have a couple of residents here on arterial a. Let's just discuss arterial a then.
>> that's right.
>> and because I know mr. Hutchinson was here this morning, we didn't get to this item, but give them a chance to give comments and let's get staff comments first on arterial a, then listen to the residents.
>> all right. Actually, joe gieselman with the transportation natural resources department and elaine sheely with the department as well. Arterial a is in the current campo transportation plan, it is proposed to remain in the transportation plan and that is our recommendation as well. That arterial a remain in the campo transportation plan. Go ahead, put that one on.
>> [indiscernible] last week.
>> I know, there's several arterial a's. This one is in northeast Travis County, parmer lane, 734 and u.s. Highway 290 east. It's an important arterial for us in many reasons. Prior to the existence of arterial a, we had springdale road as being the arterial and as you know, springdale road goes through the existing neighborhood of walnut place, walnut trace, walnut place. Over the years we have tried to shift that traffic out of that neighborhood. Because of the truck traffic coming in from the surrounding industrial areas. Traffic coming from the north. It's just a natural path. And lacking -- why don't you put that more south. North-south.
>> it is. [multiple voices]
>> it was, okay, I知 sorry. There you go.
>> south and north or north to south?
>> that's it. That's fine. I知 sorry. I went to the university of Texas, that works well for me.
>> all right. [laughter]
>> there are two existing arterials out there right now, dessau road and harris ridge parkway. And dessau road is a six lane divided arterial, harris branch is a four-lane divided. Bu there's seven miles -- they're seven miles apart. Typically arterial system is usually about a half a mile to a mile apart in a corridor that allows enough capacity for trips to be generated into a corridor. So we are really missing an arterial in that vicinity. And it shows up on the local network. We've had nothing else but local two-lane county roads up there. So we have proposed arterial a to bleed off some of the traffic that's developing in the corridor. You have got samsung, which is a major employer on parmer lane. You also have what's called pioneer crossing, planned unit development. It has about 3200 single family homes under development. And all that traffic has got to go somewhere and that is -- that is what what arterial a is intended to do. Not only take the truck traffic off those, county two-lane county roads. But also to provide a new arterial to get that traffic out of the area into the rest of the urban area. Now this is probably going to be easier said than done. We've got any number of design constraints in terms of actually building arterial a. You've got some floodplain of a tributary to walnut creek. You have got some -- some electric -- lcra electric transmission lines. You have got a landfill. And you've got developing plats. It can be done, but it's got to be done with intent. Half of this roadway is in the city of Austin full purpose annexation area. The lower half is in Travis County unincorporated area. In order to make this thing happen, we have to be on top of our form when the subdivisions come in for review to make sure all of the pieces line up. I think we also have to probably take an affirmative action as local governments to -- to make the road come into being. It's -- in particular I知 talking about the landfill. The landfill right now has a permitted landfill site. This is waste management. Because of all of the other constraints this route will go through the landfill site. It's got -- it's got effectively destroy two future cells of the landfill. That's about two million cubic yards of waste material that will have to be moved to another location to facilitate arterial a being -- becoming a reality. Waste management is aware of this. They are willing to move those cells to a new location. And as you might be aware, they have purchased a property due north and they have proposed that they would relocate those two cells to that property. There is also an electric substation that feeds to be a-- needs to be avoided, one of these large transformer type of things that the city of Austin knows. That in this legitimate is also avoided. We try to move that through here as best we can because we do think that it's an important road to build some day? We are proposing at least two lanes of this roadway be put in the county's bond election in November of '05. It was a candidate project in our last bond election twowp, we just didn't have enough bond money to go around and it got left behind on the lasting around. But we do feel that -- that the urbanization continues to happen in this corridor. Sooner or later that road will be needed on the ground. So today all we're asking the court to do is -- is keep it in the plan, so that it will enable us to -- to extract right-of-way when subdivision plats come in and also allow it to continue to be a candidate for public funding if it gets that far. Because if it taken out of the plan at this point, then that's -- that's pretty much it. This arterial a would run from parmer to the east.
>> I might add that the Texas department of transportation is currently designing improvements to 290 east that includes an interchange with the proposed arterial a. So they are already in motion. Of course they are following campo plan just like we do. But what it takes is all the government entities, the city of Austin, the txdot, Travis County, working together to implement the plan. It's typical when you don't see what's happening on the other side of the fence.
>> is a not part of the campo 2025 plan.
>> it is.
>> on okay because this chart that I知 looking at is saying -- oh, that's if it was different. Okay. It's in there. We're just kind of trying to reaffirm that it needs to stay in there. But also to talk about the --
>> it's been the subject of the debate primarily because of the landfill.
>> we can't give up on this.
>> mr. Hutchinson, any comments on arterial a? You are ms. Thorenson, not ms. Best, I知 getting it right for you.
>> good morning, Commissioners and judge, john hutchinson waller place neighborhood president. Basically we are here to support mr. Gieselman in his move to keep it in the plan. Basically, as he was talking we have the pioneer project which is going to put in 3200 new homes with the count of let's just say on a conservative side of 8 cars a day, 24,000 new cars. Right now we are at 7,000 plus cars on springdale road. A number that luckily has gone down a little bit since we have gotten most of the trucks outs of our neighborhood, thanks to you guys giving us the signs and some enforcement that has been sorely needed. That aside we still have a lot of people cutting through our neighborhood. It is a two-lane black top. Saturday before last I -- I pulled to the end of my street, a lady went past me in our pt cruiser between 65 and 70 miles per hour in a 30 zone. Coming back home, some lady in a honda accord, came down the street so hard she nearly bottomed out. She wasn't paying attention, she was looking in the passenger seat. She was playing with papers. We have people doing 60 and 70 miles per hour in a 30 zone. If we give them arterial a. Another route for them to go, which is what we really need, and there's an interchange with the new 290 that's coming. Most of the traffic takes going to come out of these new developments, which is just the unthat mr. Gieselman is talking about, 3200, we already have 3207 houses under construction on springdale road, which is going to give us another 1600, to 1800 cars a day on top of the 7,000. We also know that harris branch's northern side is going to be expanded more. We know that there are more houses going to be between the pioneer and the harris branch projects. So -- so I don't know what the final tally is going to be, because there's a lot of bare land out there. It's all prime. This is the land that jackie goodman and beverly griffith have all said this is the preferred growth corridor for Travis County. They want people to build out here instead of building over the balance copies or the water projects, edward's aquifer thing and basically we are trying to -- you know, they are going to build all of these houses, there needs to be a way to get the people out of there. I talked to george zapalac the city of Austin two weeks ago. His thing basically was well they will build and some day a road will appear. He didn't have any desire to help or force the builders into building new roads. I think if mr. Gieselman's office and if county were to work with them and get arterial a built in, there would be a way for all of these people to come out of those northern neighborhoods. We are getting people cutting through from taylor, from hutto, from thrall. I have people that work at txdot that come in the back way to stay off of cameron road, stay off of i-35, because it's faster to come down through the back roads through my neighborhood and then go up 290 to txdot. These are friends of microchip, I cut through your neighborhood every week. It's no big deal. I high pressure hope that you keep in the campo plan as your representative for the neighborhood. I have talked to a lot of people at the txdot meeting last fall. They are all going when are they going to start on this. They are going to help get the people out of our neighborhood. Thank you all for considering it. I hope that you will see it our way. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I am joyce thorenson, john said everything that needs to be said. We just want to reiterate that we are very much in favor of this road being built. Thank you so much for helping to keep our neighborhood safe, slowing down our traffic. I知 really looking forward to help our traffic circles, I hope they work. Thank you.
>> thank you. You are aware that part of the -- part of the issue, part of the issue that we have is what waste wants if we continue on. That they want to be able to go to the wilder tract and that's okay with you?
>> no. Was that part of the deal?
>> let me tell you, I mean what I知 -- from what I understand, if they start putting garbage in those two cells it's over. Because the cost of taking and doing remediation with that garage is cost prohibit active. I can assure you where we are fixing to find ourselves is what they want is some, you know -- quid pro quo with regards to -- I know that you are really between a rock and a hard spot. You don't want that to happen. But just beware that's -- pause that's -- I guess you can butt a bridge across the mississippi, you can put a bridge across that part of the landfill, but it is a very, very expensive proposition if we can't use that property without it having first been in the landfill.
>> well, frankly, I知 only speaking for myself, I would like to see that road between us and the landfill. It would be kind of a permanent dividing line. On the other hand, I don't want them to put more garbage there than they are already permitted for. But I realize that would be taking aways some of their permit space.
>> also, in that regard, there's a meeting that joe gieselman and his staff is supposed to be arranging between wmi, your neighborhood association, dealing with arterial a and dealing with the kind of impact that arterial a is going to have on the community as far as the landfill is concerned. Of course, there are some folks that -- that are in opposition of arterial a.
>> yeah, I --
>> of course I知 hearing the support for arterial a --
>> I don't have control over anybody else.
>> right. I appreciate what you and john are bringing to the table. But let me say this: is that there will be a meeting, joe, if you will let them know, I think that I have already instructed you to do that, but when that meeting is supposed to take place, to look at those concerns about the swap. That's what we are doing, you are swapping --
>> I guess I would just be interested in seeing what the proposal is.
>> right. Well, that's --
>> I realize that there is [multiple voices]
>> folks opposing arterial a altogether because of the circumstances of the -- [multiple voices]
>> I can tell you on a day-to-day basis, that the traffic affects me every day. You know, as long as I知 home.
>> joe, when do you think that meeting is going to take place? When is that supposed to be? Ballpark?
>> couple of weeks.
>> couple of weeks. So look forward to everybody participating, john, all of you all, neighborhood association, everybody feed to be at that meeting with wmi, also county staff.
>> we'll be there.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> okay. Do you want to start progressing through the rest of the plan?
>> yes, sir.
>> all right. What we tried to do is structure the -- the letter to -- to senator barrientos, the chair of the campo board and the -- in a legislative format, we go page by page, striking what we want to delete from the plan, underlying what we would like to add and so we'll just go ahead in that record so -- in that order so we will stay in some sequence. The main menu that almost every wants to talk about is the roadway table. But let us get quickly some of the other policies before we get there. But the first one is on congestion management. Cop investigation management is like better utilization of lanes, improved intersections, things that basically squeeze out the capacity of -- of your existing arterial system. We have no problem with doing that. But the -- but the plan seems to require that of all of the roadways, we would add the phrase where feasible and appropriate because in some cases it's not. And --
>> [indiscernible]
>> we are on page, the first page of the memo, page 54 of the plan.
>> thanks. The second comment has to do with the environmental justice in title 7 of the civil rights act, 1968, there are some statements made in the plan. We have just really just asked the county attorney to take a look at that, we're not as familiar with this as perhaps the county attorney is, see how it would apply to this transportation plan.
>> when are we going to try to get these two campo.
>> we are actually trying to get them to campo as soon as possible. As you know, they are scheduling the adoption of the plan on April 11th, I think it is. So we have -- basically from now until then to -- to -- to reconcile our comments, perhaps other local jurisdictions, I believe we are the first local jurisdiction to make formal comments on the campo plan. You understand that Round Rock is taking them under consideration, the city of Austin may or may not actually make formal comments, but there are some issues that we would like to work out.
>> do we plan to discuss this item today [indiscernible]
>> that's up to you. If we can get through it today. That's fine. If you want to roll it for one more week, that's also fine.
>> my suggestion would be maybe to take another week on it.
>> that's find.
>> do we know when the technical advisory committee is meeting? Because that is an important meeting.
>> it is meeting on the 30th and 30th of this month.
>> so that's -- we would still have one more Commissioners court meeting. Because I think that's a real important place to make sure that we have your comments before the tac, so we would still have next Tuesday.
>> all right. There are -- there are some of these comments that you are comfortable with moving forward with, we could already begin to discuss them with the tac members before the meeting. But --
>> I see we have cover -- what we have covered already seems to make sense to me.
>> the next one is on the land use, page 82 of the transportation plan. There's a statement that would lead you to believe that the envision central Texas has been adopted. We have no problem necessarily with envisioning central Texas, but we believe the statement is broad, overstated and we would amend the change to say identify ways to target future transportation investments to support regional land use and growth management policies. We would strike the word including the vision that was adopted through the envisioning central Texas process. Because we believe there's probably still more work to be done in that area before that is perhaps universally adopted by all of the local jurisdictions. Changes changes
>> it's kind of for our investments to support the network of roadways that are commonly adopted in the transportation plan. In the same manner we obligate private development to build sections of the arterial network, but only if they're in the adopted transportation plan. Again, this is the transportation plan that everybody should be following, whether it's capital metro, txdot, local jurisdictions, private. So in the end we have a usable system that everybody has helped to make happen. We would like the working of that transportation plan to be altered slightly. To use the word thoroughfare. Thoroughfare is the word used in state law and there are two particular laws in the local government code that make specific reference to the regional transportation plan as adopted by the metropolitan planning organization. One says that if there's any contract between the transportation plans of the local jurisdiction, in that event the campo plan rules. So that's important for us so that if there's conflict between the city of Austin and Travis County, the campo plan is going to take precedence. And we want campo to understand that function of the transportation plan. There's another section of the law that allows local governments to exact more than # 20 feet of right-of-way to preserve corridors for highways, but only if it's in the campo transportation plan. So again, we want the tables to reflect where txdot needs more than 120 feet of right-of-way so we can help them preserve that corridor for that purpose. So we actually made changes to the appendix. What we tried to do, and we have -- in this particular situation we saw very traumatically on gattis school road. That crossed three jurisdictions. You had Round Rock, you had the extra territorial jurisdiction of Round Rock, you had the extra territorial jd of hutto -- jurisdiction of hutto and the unincorporated area of Williamson county and the unincorporated area of Travis County. Unfortunately, we did not have common construction standards will you that whole thing, so where we might be constructing a sidewalk in Travis County's unincorporated area, the minute you get to Williamson county line, they may or may not pick that sidewalk up. This is crazy. We ought to have uniform standards for what this arterial should look like. How many lanes, what the median looks like, whether there's bicycle facilities associated with it, whether there are sidewalks associated with it. So that it's not facilities that don't match up in jurisdictional boundaries. So we are recommending that an in appendix h that we have a common standard that we all would agree to use when it comes to building the arterial roadways. We are recommending that we use the city of Austin design manual for that purpose, the transportation design manual. The city of Austin and Travis County currently use that for subdivisions within the extra territorial jurisdiction. Travis County uses it on its cip projects, as does the city of Austin. What we're asking the other local jurisdictions to do is use it as well for their planning purposes and for their capital improvements.
>> how does it impact them, joe?
>> it will probably increase --
>> these are higher standards than they've?
>> yes, more likely than not it's higher standards for the smaller cities like Pflugerville, although it's probably not for Round Rock, it will be for Williamson county. So it's really not -- it may be a higher standard for some, but not all.
>> we expect a lot of discussion of that at tac meeting, a lot of communication going on.
>> the next section is on the bicycle and pedestrian policy. Again, this is one of these policies which is good in its intent, but to broadly applied when you look at the entire study area of campo. Which includes both urban areas, areas that are incorporated, and have urban densities, but also has rural areas like out where it's primarily farmland. What we're trying to do is make the transportation policy with regard to pedestrians and sidewalks make sense. What we're trying to say is that all the local jurisdictions should be reserving right-of-way that will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be built immediately with densities that weren't pedestrian bicycle facilities, where you actually had the demand for pedestrian and bicycle transportation that surely those facilities should be built right now. With that area -- that area is probably within the incorporated area, probably for some distance out within the extra territorial jurisdiction. And also within the distance of pedestrian activities like schools, parks, nursing homes, commercial centers. So what we're trying to do is adopt the policy to fit the need. And so what I would call a just in time investment in pedestrian and bicycle facilities. So it's not -- it's not build everything throughout the entire study area, reserve the right-of-way so you preserve the option to have it when the urbanization comes.
>> joe, under bp 3, I知 kind of focusing on the bicycle piece, on the part down below you used the words bicycle accommodations and defines what that might mean. But up above in the new language you say construct bicycle facilities. Why are we not using the words accommodations there as well, which is defined down below as potentially being either shoulders or bike lanes or wide lanes or whatever.
>> I don't know exactly what campo meant by the word accommodation. I知 only familiar with that term when it's used in the americans with disabilities act and I don't know if that was their intent. Facilities for me is the actual concrete, the thing that you build. And that's why I use that term up above when I知 talking about construction.
>> construction. And then down below it's really --
>> frankly, I suggested they change the term accommodation, but I don't know quite where they came by that term to begin with.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we're going both ways. We define accommodation as to what we mean by it, but also when we talk about facilities, I can understand you now saying it that way.
>> I fully intended to ask the tac why they intended to use that particular word in that case.
>> got it.
>> because I知 perfectly clear when it comes to sidewalks and they are absolutely covered by the americans with disabilities act. And any sidewalk we build will be a.d.a. Compatible, no doubt whatsoever. With regard to the next set of policies is dealing with freight. The plan is advocating the relocation of the freight line from the corridor to east of Austin. East of Austin is not yet defined.
>> that was an issue years ago and it hasn't gone over yet as far as finding the location. What's the deal on that?
>> a long time they were probably thinking it should go within the state highway 130 corridor. Although there wasn't another study done of that, and I believe the grades may have been problematic for getting a rail downtown the 1 flirt corridor. So -- 130 corridor. So right now they may not know where to put the corridors, although there are serious discussions going on on from the governor to the state about relocating rail lines out of the urban areas. Not a bad idea. But at the same time, they are perceived of the nature of the cargo being hauled by rails, in some case the railroads become a barrier. What we're suggesting here is that they locate those impacts and either avoid them or mitigate them in the process of moving these rails out of cities. And we're not just relocating the problem to another area of the county, but we're actually looking at taking care of some of those impacts so you're not taking it out of one residential area and putting it smack dab in another. So we understand the intent of what campo is trying to do with the relocation policy, but we also know that it would just cause more problem if you try to put it in another neighborhood, but east of Austin.
>> so I guess my whole point I guess in this part 3 portion of this policy change, it does still continue to locate through existing neighborhoods. And even though you said avoid and mitigate the adverse impact, but freight rail, you still are mentioning neighborhoods and we are still talking about urban areas. And again, my concern is, as you just stated, the freight that's being hauled, hazardous material and all this other stuff, it shouldn't be in nobody's neighborhood. But if they're still referring to neighborhoods as far as the policy change, it appears to me that we're not out of the woods yet on this thing.
>> it's difficult to say without knowing exactly where they propose to locate the line. East of Austin could be as fair out as taylor. It's really difficult to plan on this one.
>> that's where it seems like they are headed. There's a spur over to some little town called red rock that's not even in Travis County and there's an existing up line that it can on go up from there. But to completely -- we may dodge this bullet completely.
>> that's in caldwell county, I believe. But my whole point is still through neighborhoods and so I still have some concerns. If it's hauling hazardous material or any other cargo that -- and then when they say mitigate, I just wonder what will be the lessening of the impact. I don't care where it is, but it's still referring to neighborhoods and -- I wouldn't want that in anybody's neighborhood. But I want to make sure that referenced in that regard as far as what I just stated.
>> there are two more general policies before we move into the table of individual projects. The campo plan for the first time includes cost estimates for sections of roadways. But it's a fairly gross estimate of costs. I believe they use them for doing their financial constraint. As you know, by federal law the plan is supposed to be federally constrained. And by that exercise it may be worthwhile, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination the public should see these as being the actual costs because they're just too broadly done. And for that reason we would prefer that they do two things, either get better cost estimates on the individual type of road being done because I think it's misleading if someone went to this document right now and looked up these costs and thought that these were meaningful, I think they would be seriously mistaken. And so that's our only concern that they may be perceived as being more accurate than they really are.
>> joe, on some of these things that got numbers in them, and so others there's zeros. What does that mean?
>> I don't know.
>> the rally of the financial constraint is this, if there's no money to build it it doesn't get done. It's a planning document. There's always some kind of appropriation to back up anything that happens in this plan. That's where the financial restraint comes up. You want to let a contract, so who's paying for it, out of what pot of money? So if it's a Travis County responsible, well, we don't have a number, but at whatever point we do, it's either going to be paid for through the road and bridge fund or through taxes or bonds. I mean, you would attach a real price and the constraint is it doesn't get billed until you have an authorized budget to do so.
>> I知 not sure I understand fully what the federal government is looking for in the financial constraint, but I think having worked up enough project level cost estimates, they are very difficult to do, even when you have these steering plans in place, much less at this level where it's just a -- some of these things won't get done for decades. And to think that you know what it's going to cost 10 10 years from now to build these roadways, you don't. You absolutely do not know. It's too variable. We're having difficulty in predicting what the cost of asphalt is going to be in three years. I can't imagine somebody trying to do that over more time. [ laughter ]
>> I know the corps of engineers does this, I think txdot does it also. They basically have to have three studies before they do a project. And the first one's called the reconnaissance level study, which is really just -- is this something we're even interested in doing. And that's literally a quick and dirty. If it passes through the reconnaissance level review, they then do the feasibility study, which is the first time they actually start looking at any sort of realistic project specific numbers. And then if it's determined to be feasible, then they actually do the project and that's where you get the actual engineering and go to bid. It's clear that these are reconnaissance level numbers. They're just doing this as sort of their literally ballpark figures. Ballpark figure for this. And maybe what they ought to do is say that in this document. These are not even feasibility level numbers, they're certainly not actual construction plan numbers, they're just reconnaissance level numbers. And with that disclaimer, maybe nobody's going to be tempted to put too much weight on them.
>> I don't want to have that number even associated with a project table. And these aren't even in projects. Projects are when you actually have funding and you're moving forward to a construction time. If they had a bid number, like all those aggregate cost x billion of dollars, then I would believe that no one could associate that this number is what it really costs to build this section of roadway. I agree with your analysis.
>> they may have some reason they need to tack a dollar number on a project, but if that's the case, then they ought to at least say this is just a reconnaissance level number, just out of all fairness.
>> they do have a footnote on the table that says all cost estimates provided for information purposes only and are aggregated for use in the financial analysis of the 2030 plan. But still fact that it has it in here gives it credence that it doesn't deserve because of the way that it was. And the previous plan did not have an itemized list in the plan itself. It was a financial document that was a separate study that was a financial plan. And -- but this table we use very frequently on a daily basis. And we give it out to -- we allow developers to see it and people who are also building roads. So this table is extremely important for implementation and needs to have a lot of credence to it.
>> for example, I知 just looking on the last page on the technical corrections, they're saying that -- (indiscernible) -- is only going to cost $1.6 million. How I wish that were true. Can we sign off right now? May I please have that road? Because it's blatantly not true. That one is being blown to bits because we have legitimate right-of-way that we need to get that has houses on them right now, so it's like -- can you ask him if we can have that $1.6 billion road because I would like to buy that right now? It doesn't exist.
>> and these also may just be construction dollars and not total project cost dollars.
>> which is also equally as misleading.
>> yeah.
>> they ought to say what it is. Now, do the feds require some sort of estimate?
>> the feds require the plan to be financially constrained. In other words, you don't get to put a whole bunch of stuff in there that you can't possibly fund. So this I think is a gross estimate of fundability.
>> do we know what financially con strained means? Do we agree on what it means? I hear it at campo all the time. We don't use it much here in the courtroom. And when they say it, the thought I had was really that the project had to match the budget. It's kind of like balancing the budget. You don't go out with two million dollars and build a two and a half-million-dollar project. And the feds -- if the project would cost three million bucks, the feds want to know that and they don't want you to exceed it. But constrain could also mean other things. Maybe we could come out of this with a definition that we all will use.
>> that probably would be a good idea.
>> and take it to the advisory committee.
>> I think having a good understanding of why we even talk about these estimates, cost estimates at this level, would be a good -- at least a footnote.
>> dallas and baisht and harris county have to do the same stuff. I would love to know what their mpo's do because they've got an even larger --
>> what they do and what they call it.
>> but it's a federal term and there is a definite definition.
>> it may be that we have to -- when planning cost estimate, is that federally required?
>> no. Does it say per lane mile price that campo applied on it just so that we disrint to make individual estimates of each and every project or the campo staff didn't have to do that. But it's not normally put in the road table.
>> I would think that at the least if you -- any time you use an estimate it seems to me that you ought to put a date there.
>> right.
>> if we had estimated three years ago any kind of road project would have cost substantially more than -- that's when times were good. It would cost less, no, it would cost more. Work was plentiful and bids were coming in incredly high, right? So an estimate then probably would exceed what the actual costs would be today. So I知 just suggesting that when you generate the estimate, it may be a good idea to put somewhere the date of the estimate, especially in a 25-year plan.
>> there's a lovely point in time when the eastern alignment of sh 130 through Travis County was smimented at -- estimated at $39 million. It was settled out at 180.
>> it's obvious. All those numbers are are things to put on a page to hand in to the feds so that you comply with what the npo's are supposed to comply with. That's what they are. Let's call it what it is.
>> do we want to be more meaningful than that?
>> we would love for it to be, but do you know what? I don't think that we have the staff, nor do we have the time, and we will probably find out the same thing, that we don't really have a clue. Look at what's happened with sh 130. Going from 39 to 180. There's no way that we could have come up -- I mean, you --
>> that's going to 10 years, though.
>> what?
>> that was over 10 to 15 years. That was a long time.
>> but point is that we're so far off because the variables move so greatly in all this, just like you were saying. Well, if you don't find out about where the development is going to be and can you connect these lines and this and that, because unfortunately, people get out and get things started in the development community -- and the development community is pretty famous for that. They say I知 going to get things started and then i'll get someone to build me the road. I mean, the process needs to have more detail than what we have without a doubt, joe. But it's one of the complaints that i've had with the whole campo process. People are -- I bet you people are doing what we're doing here. And we would be expected to pass this thing in April. And no one has a clue what -- if these things are anywhere near accurate other than the fact that we know they're not. Now, could we have a 22 billion-dollar plan plan? And it's fiscally constrained given that that's what we think we're going to do. God, we would probably all in 20 -- in another 25 years, judge, I don't know whether i'll be looking at the campo plan, but I can think back to what happened in 2005, I知 sure we will all be disappointed. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to get as accurate assessments as we can on this stuff, but you can go through this thing and some of it is just laughable.
>> I think elaine said it. We've not had this before. Why are they doing it while still needing to satisfy this nebulous thing called a financially con strained plan? So we need to meet that definition, but I don't think this column is what does it, and we've never done this before. So why are they doing it now when clearly in the past we had to have a financially constrained plan? I think it's more harm than good in terms of this column. But we have to meet that definition, whatever that means.
>> we'll find out in the meeting tomorrow?
>> we'll a find out more about this.
>> whether this is required. That may satisfy. And if it's required, whether a certain title must be on it and whether it must be called a certain thing.
>> green land.
>> and it does seem to me that if you look at some of these estimates and you know they were generated five years ago, that tells you a little bit. 10 years ago it tells you a whole lot more.
>> it's only going to cost 14 million. Cool.
>> joe, on that 14-million-dollar figure, is that something that -- as far as the funding mechanism of it, is that pretty accurate as far as what we're taking forward to the committee and stuff like that? Because if these numbers are reflective of that, are these the numbers that you're going to be going by? That's what I知 trying to tie down. And not only that, but in the Travis County comments section, that should be discussion because that meeting has to take place, and you know I didn't support that tract expansion at all. So it should probably come up under discussion. In the comments section. But are these figures, the $14.6 million, will that figure change? The $14.6 million, is that a figure that is going to be taken forward? In order, these figures that we're looking at here, will they be taken forward as far as some of the things that have been funded? Are these the numbers?
>> we would do our own estimate of the cost. We've actually done enough engineering probably to do a much better cost estimate on that particular roadway as we would do for all of our cip projects before we ask the court for bond money. These are as tom said, reconnaissance numbers. They're a satellite-type view of the world. Before I actually build it, you have to get much closer to the ground. That's what we did when we prep a bond program. What we do is actually run -- not actually an engineering number, but much closer to an engineering number. To answer your qui, we will not be using these numbers for the bond program.
>> okay.
>> one last comment on the general nature, and that is on the plan amendments. The plan would not allow you to amend the plan until the year 2008. We believe it's unnecessary. We believe that the elected officials should be able to change the plan any time they want to because at any point in time there may be parcells that you want to change, and I think you should have the discretion to do it. It's as if this court would not allow yourselves to make a policy decision until the next term of office. It's kind of like it doesn't make sense to me. And that's why I don't think it has any reason for being in the plan.
>> it's worse than that because some city councilmembers would never get the chance to vote on it until another term or they may be term limited out and never get to vote on some of this stuff. I think it's wishful thinking that we don't have to do it.
>> I think the intent here was to raise the bar on -- if it was on trivial amendments, that's fine. But to say no, you can't change it until 2008 is -- it just doesn't make sense. All right. Moving on to the table then. If you would look at attachment a, now we're getting into specific projects in the plan. And you may or may not agree with some of the proposals that I知 about to articulate here. The first one is that we would delete reference to arterial roads in precinct 1. That would include 183, 290 east, that we would not -- that we would ask campo to take those facilities out of the plan as toll roads, but only in precinct 1.
>> is that a good idea?
>> it is. I would like to give Commissioner Davis the opportunity to say he is personally against and would like to vote against any kind of toll road designations in precinct 1, but the other is related -- this has already moved along past this point, I know, but I want to be able to give -- if Commissioner Davis would like to have a specific vote saying I really don't want these toll roads. We're past this point.
>> well, maybe, but -- I guess my point is the cost to my community as far as dealing with these tolls. And i've heard from several persons in this community. And of course, these tolls aren't supported. I'd like to ask this question: is there any other -- I guess in Travis County is there a toll that have been taken off or out of the campo plan other than these tolls in precinct 1? In other words, we're requested that they be removed, but has there been removal of any toll on existing roads that was previously proposed and for whatever reason taken in or off of the thing?
>> we swapped out a project. The william cannon overpass got taken out. And what we swapped back in is that we now have a designation of managed lanes in the mopac corridor from town lake north to parmer lane. So you took away a toll designation in one part of the mopac corridor where you simply before had hov lanes, managed lanes. This is something that could be hov or could be tolled. So that was a swap out of a project. One got taken out and one got added in.
>> one was a toll and the other situation was --
>> well, it is likely -- it is the only way it will be built is as a toll. There's just no money.
>> and I guess my only point is I guess -- I guess the point is that the tolls such as 290 east, such as 183 south from i-35 being a toll, a lot of folks in my community travel those roads to and from work. And i've heard from several of them. And I guess my point is that I definitely wouldn't support a toll not only in precinct 1, but I really can't support a toll on any existing road in all of Travis County. And that's my point. And I think that there's been a lot of out cry from the community. I know there has been in mine -- about the tolls. We have three toll roads over there that affect us. Of course, sh 130 was something outside of this. Everybody knew it was going to be a toll. And of course with these other two right in conjunction with sh 130, 183 and also 290 east, are something that the community just can't bear that type of setting. So of course I知 not going to support the tolls, not only on existing roads and not only in my precinct, but it's not going to be support odd existing roads in any part of Travis County. So that's where I知 coming from.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> back to your discussion this morning when the city asked you to participate in their toll study. I mean, -- and your response was let's get past that. If you're interested in looking at an alternative funding sources, then let's do a study, but right now tolls are in. And this is -- if not tolls, then I don't know what the alternative is right now to not having tolls. And txdot has not come forward and said that we're going to raise the gas tax so we can not have tolls and fund it through another user charge.
>> but we have not closed the door.
>> we have not.
>> there is sort of a equitable implementation of tolls in central Texas amendment, right?
>> yes.
>> that campo passed.
>> that is correct.
>> and so we're all committed -- I think that passed unanimously. We are committed to doing it in an equitable manner.
>> no pay, no play.
>> but as to the tolls of existing roads, we sort of said let's put it on hold for a short time. And luckily they will give us an opportunity to see how the tolls work on 183-a, 130, 45 north and 45 southeast, the roads that were constructed from the beginning, conceived of from the beginning as tolls. So we will be able to see the toll experience before we have to address adding capacity to existing roads and whether to eliminate it. And our community is as much in opposition at that point. And I think that we ought to react accordingly.
>> the one misimpression that is always out there and I知 going to keep hammering on it until I知 blue in the face, no free road is being converted into a toll road. Right now on 183 you have signals, and there are sections of freeway, but you will under no circumstances be forced to get on to a toll road to take highway 183. It's just not true. What we're talking about is the tolling of new capacity that today does not exist. It's not there right now. And we have a lot of discussion about 183 because everybody was very concerned about the situation right now you get to bypass mlk, 969, you've got a froa section. And that was going to be preserved in the frontage roads. That that bypass there at 969 was going to still happen. So nobody is being forced on to a toll road who has a free road. 290 east once you get past 183 is nothing but stop signs. That's it. You will still have the opportunity to be on a frontage road with -- status quo. I keep telling folks, what road today are you taking to get from here to there? And they tell me and I say continue to take that road. You will not have to get on to a toll road.
>> but using part of this whole thing, if you take 183 as an example, are the toll lanes going to be main lanes that exist right now that you go on that you do not have to encounter lights other than -- and even there there are two or three lights that you have could encounter. But people are confused about are you tolling an existing road? And I知 going to tell you it's all aboveboard. That's part of the reason this plan is so controversial. In my opinion you are not going to go and toll something that is now a free road. You are noit going to do that. You are going to have an added capacity road that will be tolled of the main lanes. I mean, Commissioner Davis, have you spoken with representative dukes? Because she is supportive of this.
>> that may be, but that don't mean I have to support it.
>> I know you don't, but you're making it sound like --
>> but I知 speaking for the people that put me here.
>> I understand that. And so have i. But let's at least make sure that everybody is on the same page and knowing what the definitions are because the definitions are the things that's confusing everybody.
>> and representative dukes was supportive of this because while there are some segments of 183 that are funded to be upgraded, there are other segments that are there is no money attached. There is specifically no money attached from what I call the spaghetti bowl there at the montopolis bridge to get to the airport. And one of the reasons that representative dukes was supportive of this was that the toll revenues coming in for the 183 segment would also enable improvements to be made all the way to the airport which right now do not exist. And one of the important things she got through, and I think it was unanimous, was the idea that no tolls will occur on these segments as they come in until the completed destination has occurred. So let's just say that little piece from 290 down to loyola or 969 gets done. It not going to be toiled until you have -- tolled until you can get to the airport. The higher segment has to be completed.
>> it's that way on 183 and that way on 71 both.
>> absolutely.
>> so that's the -- you said that we don't have an alternative. Txdot told us we have an alternative. The alternative is to build roads the way that we have built them and that's in 20, 25 years or 10 or 15 years. I mean, we had the meeting with oak hill people just in the last couple of weeks, and bob day said you want to take 290 west and 71 and all the direct connect links out? That's fine. If you want me to do that, if you want to do that, we will not start this fall, you will not have this thing going in five years, you will have it going in 10 to 12 years from now, and that stopped that community. The few representatives that were there said no, no, we don't want 10 or 12 years. The choice here between -- by the whole toll package is do you want to build a comprehensive road system faster in this community? And if you do, the only alternative way do that is to do it -- if you're going to get the state dollars on the state roads is to do it from tolls.
>> but I still think that we have to insist that we add this new capacity in a way that will make clear to residents that the alternative free road is in fact an effective way to get from a to b. Because I think people have a hard time visualizing it and I知 not sure I agree with the way they're planning it. And I know we have an opportunity to have some community input about how that's done, and we may have to insist that we kind of change our way of doing that. But I saw -- when we put in the requirement that we complete these roads before we consider adding any sort of tolls is that my thinking was that would give us in our community a way to respond to tolling of some of these roads from the beginning. And two, give us a chance to work with the state miles and be on the exact design of free capacity roads. So it's not going away, but I think it needs to be put on hold. The other thing is I知 not sure it would be equitable for us to cut out a quadrant of the county because people are complaining county-wide. And I think that the response of the majority of campo was to make some changes to the plan and to put some stuff on hold to give us all an opportunity to see what the legislature would do because there are several deals over there that govern what we do anyway. And see how some of these new toll roads impact or utilize whether they generate the revenue, how they're operated. I haven't seen the boths in person, but I assume they work.
>> and judge, I understand what you're saying. However, I need everyone to understand what I知 saying also. And to give you an example, there's a new proposed bill that's coming out, house bill 3363 that's been drafted and sponsored by representative coalman because of this incident, because of what we're talking about and you guys got e-mails on I知 sure. We've been talking about moratoriums about the cost and the ambiguity of what we're dealing with. And I知 looking at tolls regardless of whether -- people are still saying to me, Commissioner, that's an existing road, why should we pay a toll? And of course, why put tolls on existing roads? New roidz I don't have a problem with, but on existing roads there's a lot of problems with not only my precinct, but also this county. And there ain't no doubt about it, and this is why when I looked at mine, I saw toll on it, there's no way in the world I can support the campo plan that have toll designations on existing roads. And I知 trying to make myself as clear as possible that I知 just not going to support it. And so -- but everybody has their say and their opinion, and why they do -- why they vote the way they do. And i'll reserve my right to do just that.
>> so the comments on this sheet, what are you expecting us to respond to?
>> you're doing a good job right now. This is the very nature of -- I知 not sure exactly what I would say right now on this particular issue of striking toll roads out of precinct 1. I hear a variety of comments here. I知 not sure how -- this is probably going to come in the form of several motion oz this particular issue. One would be to strike it out of precinct or an alternative that might get to the one of -- get to the issue of what you're speaking of, judge, deferring on the larger issues of free roads or how it is said in the plan. But I can't --
>> my motion is that we delete reference to moving the toll designation from precinct 1 roads and that we split the campo position that toll roads must be implemented in an equitable manner and that we support the delay already in place of a recommended tolling of added capacity as an opportunity to see how this tolling system develops. That's kind of a three or four part thing, but I think that for us to take this position for precinct 1, we need to take it county-wide and reverse our previous position.
>> judge, i'll second that.
>> and my only thought on that is that existing roads through the county, existing roads that will have tolls place odd them throughout Travis County, I cannot support, which include precinct 1 and the rest of them county-wide. I can't speak for other people's precincts, and I dare not do that, but I can speak for mine. But if it's for the other I知 not going to support it if you have a toll in your precinct on existing roads. I知 not going to support it. That's where I知 coming from.
>> the motion is intended to clarify my intention that even as to existing roads, we would toll only added capacity, but do a much better job of saying that's what we're doing. That's the problem.
>> it is the problem.
>> it seems to me that your design has to be something that the average person can look at it and tell. And it may be that the roads that we chose -- the words that we chose were not the good ones. We had a good purpose there. The question is not how do we aleve congestion if there's a new way to do it with funding, then you would choose the roads with the most congestion, which is what we did. There are other candidates where maybe we could go in and add lanes and make sure we just toll the ones that you add by leaving the others existing there. So the motion is to try to clarify that. In my view it's hard to do it without a specific positive project. If we move on mopac like we plan to, that would be one where truly there was no intention to go in and add one or two new lanes. But if we add them now and fund them creatively by managed lane, toll lane, however we see it done, otherwise there's no money for it.
>> just in perspective, in terms of what were the comments that were put into the public record at the public hearing on this at campo, we had a ton of people, far more than any others, saying please just keep moving ahead on the toll road thing and don't make any changes to what we already thought long and hard for. We need to move past that decision. And that is reflective of the comments that were put in and the majority of the e-mails I知 getting.
>> was that for the one that I知 asking to have removed also?
>> yes. Because you can't pick it apart.
>> I can't support the --
>> it's cool.
>> we still have tolls throughout all of Travis County on the existing roads. That also includes precinct 1.
>> no existing roads are going to get tolled am. Judge and Commissioner Davis, the best example to understand what this is right now is just drive sometime in the next couple of days, go to ben white boulevard and as soon as you go on the east side towards the airport, look and see what they're doing. The lanes that you are on right now are the lanes that will stay free. And everything that is being built in the middle is an added capacity road. That added capacity road is the main lanes that would become toll roads if you choose to use it. It's hard to see that on 183 because they don't really -- they're not in the -- they're not in the construction phase. But 71 east of the airport, east of 35 is a great visual. If you're having a hard time understanding that. Now, maybe you're not for that, but if everybody in this town would go out there with the intent of looking at that and seeing what it is, it would remove that question about what is an existing road? What are people talking about?
>> and that segment will not be tolled until 71 is completed all the way to the airport. And while there is a big chunk of it that is under construction right now, the section from where that section ends to the front door of bergstrom airport is not funded. And it's intended to pay for the upgrade of the entirety of the road.
>> i'd like to make a substitute motion. And my motion would be to -- for all existing roads in Travis County -- within Travis County, and there is a toll he is designation, that that toll designation be taken off the existing roads. That would be my motion.
>> is there a second? So this is except for the four new roads, Commissioner? Except for 130 --
>> 130 is not included in that motion. 130 doesn't exist yet.
>> what about 45 north and southeast.
>> I知 talking about existing roads.
>> is there a second? That motion dies for lack of a second. We're back to the Biscoe motion. Any discussion of it? I don't remember all of them, but I said three or four things.
>> i'll review the tape.
>> go to the tape.
>> very creative motion.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you.
>> all right. The next one would be on page -- I just want to there are a couple here. 2222 is in there as a metaphor. It does call for a corridor study. And this is -- this road in particular has received a lot of attention from the neighborhoods. They would like for that to be upgraded to a six-lane roadway.
>> this is one where only on a specific segment of it, it is from 620 to loop 360 only. We have already been here, done this on 360 getogto mopac. It is four lanes, staying four lanes. You will fall off the cliff. There just isn't any more right-of-way there. But on this particular one, and why I am going to be supportive of this going in, is that we have a very extensive traffic impact study that was done in relation to the purchase of the rieb lien ranch. What we found there, and they weren't just looking at what traffic is generated on 2222, they were also looking at what traffic is coming in from the steiner ranch area, what the river place area, from the volente area and out in the 183 area. Everything that funnels into that corridor. And what they found is that once you hit 360, 40% of the traffic wants to go straight ahead, meaning up 2222 traditional. And equally split, 30% wants to go north up to 183 and 30% wants to split and go over the loop 360 bridge. So this does seem to be a place where it's funneling in a lot of traffic in from three different directions up at the other end, and this seems to be a section where you kind of need the six lanes. Now, I wouldn't say six lanes divided just because of the safety issues. And at 360 it can legitimately funnel back down to a four-lane divided -- a four-lane roadway going up 2222 because you have such a substantial split of where the traffic is going. So I would be supportive of this going to a mad 6. It's need understand that seg. There and the traffic impact study, which is very complete, that was done on behalf of the ribelin ranch --
>> is there any objection?
>> and judge, that is consistent with I知 sure when they had the meeting with the 12 to 14 neighborhoods.
>> and the neighborhoods were very much asking for this. Commissioner, I will let you make your own motion.
>> no objection, just leave it here.
>> no, no, judge. We have to go to mad 6.
>> yeah, go to mad 6.
>> that's what I知 saying. All in favor?
>> although, Commissioner, let me tell you -- [overlapping speakers]. When we were there, when we were there before the people last week, I mean, bob day and everybody said without there really being a funding source for the thing, how fast do you want it? And it was brought up that the word toll -- because you don't talk to stolt or the highway commission -- txdot or the highway commission today unless you use that word as some potential. So it was brought up and they'll get to decide do they want it in five years or do they want it in 15.
>> well, this actually might be a very good road that the city of Austin -- and remember, this is their jurisdiction, thank god. That they may want to talk about a pass-through toll that they go ahead and get this section done and they get repaid back by all the traffic that's going down there.
>> I just want them to keep if in there.
>> 2222, river place boulevard?
>> actually, all of the segments.
>> all four of these.
>> mad 6.
>> and the corridor study they have planned, it may say that it needs to be mad 6. So they may very well decide that.
>> there's an arterial in there. We need to have it on the agenda next Tuesday for discussion because there are some relevant landfill issues.
>> and we'll just defer that until next week.
>> as I stated earlier, the discussion should be as far as Travis County is concerned.
>> but we are going to defer that item until next week?
>> okay.
>> yes.
>> next one is bouldin hollow between 620 and nueces bluff -- owe say sis bluff. The plan called for that to be a four-lane roadway and there's been some discussion about keeping it in as a two-lane roadway. And we have -- we agreed to tee that up for discussion.
>> okay. This is one of Karen's irritable ones because it seems to be part of my precinct. How I wish this could go to a four-lane roadway, but you've got cliffs on one side and Travis County owned habitat on the other, which includes a big chunk of bedrock to be able go in. You've got constraints at the corner related to we already took off of the woman's 7-11 there. And having to do this thing. And for what purpose? There's one small segment here and people are either turning left to go into the oasis and it has to continue on as a two-lane roadway simply because of the geography. We already shut down this segment of roadway to do the chicken lane once you got up at the intersection, and that was nine angry months of people having to go over the oasis bluff and coming out comanche trail. We don't get much out of this thing except for, what, four lanes, to save 30 seconds at the intersection? It doesn't make any sense.
>> so you're saying we're physically limited?
>> no, Commissioner Sonleitner is saying that.
>> and you notice that in terms of what is immediately to the south of there, they abandon all plans to put any kind of development on that stretch of bullock hollow because they couldn't figure out how to make it happen. They put it on the comanche side of the issue. It's all habitat.
>> since it's --
>> it can be done, but you think we ought to study doing it.
>> how about that? Could we put it as a corridor sudden?
>> I知 willing to do that. You're right, you're four lane and you take it down to two-lane, which is the reason why I知 supportive of not taking south lamar to sixth. Why do it? Only to get to the bridge and you have four lousy lanes at the bridge. But there is something to be said about i'd like to keep it open. I mean, if we get a corridor sudden is it for this.
>> I would say keep it as a minor two, but keep it as corridor study.
>> I still want to comment on that gig.
>> if you would like to go through that -- [overlapping speakers].
>> oasis bluff.
>> actually, those two are together, the bullock hollow are together. The next one would be city park road. Again, we're talking about a road that's partially inside the city, but partially inside the county.
>> do we know what we want to do? What does the city want to do?
>> they want to go to two lanes. The plan currently recommends two lanes.
>> do we recommend four?
>> I believe there could be a farm to mark road some distance back. I don't want to over do this.
>> maybe we can reach some sort of agreement.
>> I would call that more an intersection improvement in terms of how to widen that thing out and get more people to be able to stack up at the signal.
>> why don't we do that? We'll chat with them between now and next Tuesday.
>> this is much the same kind of issue that you've got to the bullock hollow.
>> you'll never be able to take that all the way back to emma long, but is there a distance.
>> we're going to drive all these in the next week from my office.
>> and the city of Austin?
>> and the city of Austin sproaping like a three lane, which would be a two-lane divided is what they're proposing.
>> two-lane with a middle turn lane?
>> right. That would take a lot of issues out of there.
>> may or may not.
>> lamar, this is the one that you just spoke about. In other words --
>> I call this the save sues si's -- suzi's chinese kitchen slash rib house,/matt's he will rancho. It will never happen. Save suzy's amendment.
>> the people want it left in the corridor.
>> I can't speak for the city.
>> this is the city of Austin request here, and it's like it will never happen. It's their right-of-way yet.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...they are wholly undersized.
>> is the deal to loaf that --
>> delete [multiple voices]
>> ought to be just neighborhood streets.
>> cherrywood neighborhood.
>> manor road and 38th, so that's four of them.
>> uh-huh.
>> north lake creek parkway.
>> that one is where there is disagreement among different injuries dixs. This one -- jurisdictions, this one probably needs to go to arbitration. We have conflicting interest here. And some want to take it out, some want to leave it in. We just need a submit meeting so we can work on our differences.
>> we put this one on the list of let's see if next week we might because I知 trying to get with Commissioner boat right trying to put some people here to see if there are pieces people agree on, to focus on what's on the disagreed section.
>> both of the north lake creek parkway.
>> let's see if we can play kissinger on this one.
>> 328 or discussion.
>> yeah, 329.
>> 329.
>> we will see where we are next week.
>> okay.
>> next one picadilly, if you would like to comment on it, it's okay. It's not an arterial. These are neighborhood streets. Ought not to be in the plan. Delete. Okay?
>> yeah.
>> is that all right, joe?
>> okay. Now we are actually to the point where we are increasing capacity. This is a lot of areas where we believe the model probably underestimates because these roads were on the fringe of the study area. Typically the forecast model just doesn't -- just doesn't forecast enough traffic to be happening that far out. So they come back, it ought to be a two-lane roadway. That's where you have the gattis school road problems, 15 years you wish that you would have had four lanes, you didn't do it. Most of these are in that category where they are far out, county roads, we believe as a minimum they ought to be reserving the right-of-way for four lanes if not leaving it in there as a four lane in the plan. So you see the -- the -- a lot of these roads are out of your precincts, out in the hinterland, that would include the bee creek road, although bee creek road itself we may want to look at the actual legitimate of that roadway. It's a -- it's an old road that just kind of followed the cow path. It's got a terrible intersection with 71. There's no doubt that we need additional capacity out there. But I知 not confident that we ought to follow the existing legitimate because it's just not in the best place. So --
>> get away from it, joe, you are absolutely right. It is a --
>> it is a horrible, horrible road that the intersection with 71 being the absolute worst, the -- to realign that thing so it comes on the south side of that hill, which is obviously something that we are looking at.
>> the notion here would be that we need four lanes of capacity out there in the vicinity of bee creek and that's all that we are trying to say with this comment.
>> joe, at some point because the next ones coming down are county line road which is the one we picked up, I think somewhere we have to pick up some jurisdictional stuff here, the city of elgin has some very small pieces of that roadway. We need to have joint jurisdiction with elgin, even though they are in another county. This is Travis County's piece of elgin. They have some pieces of this where not only was there a new high school on the ground today, we have talked to mayor carlson, they are putting in a new elementary school on that same site as well. We need to pull elgin in.
>> suggesting where these are in another jurisdiction we shouldn't no comment until we talk with them?
>> no, no. I知 just saying that we need to -- maybe one of the comments is in consultation with the city of elgin, some of that say their e.t.j., their actual jurisdiction, but only for like 250 feet of the roadway. Well, we need to work with them, but we need to do the piece to protect the Travis County piece. Of these roadways.
>> I believe these are primarily right now in Travis County not -- not that they are not also in the e.t.j. Of elgin, but I think we probably have a majority stake in what happens in these.
>> they annex the high school site. That's why that little piece of the roadway is in the city of elgin.
>> huh, okay.
>> let me just go down the list heir because I知 not sure there's enough difference, maha loop, Pflugerville road east, pleasant valley road, slaughter, riddle, Williamson county road, all those of the same nature. They are on the edge, we are just suggesting instead of being minor two-lane roadways, they should be four-lane. At least for the right-of-way preservation.
>> okay. Any objections to those --
>> they are in there already.
>> joe, I知 sorry, one that should have been on the list, I apologize, I didn't catch it when I went through our subcommittee meeting, it should be one on the thoroughfare for discussion, I知 willing to have it be put on for next week, since it's not really laid out here. It has to do with 1825 going through Pflugerville. It's in the plan on a very short segment to be upgraded from a -- from a four-lane roadway to a mad six, which I think I mentioned that one during the work session, a very small segment there, it just makes no sense to all of a sudden fan out for six lanes and immediately crunch it back in to get it down to two lanes going through Pflugerville and the same situation with a little road called 1825 spur, which for some reason they want to take them a two lane roadway to a six-lane roadway for all of half of a mile. That one doesn't make any sense either in terms of -- I知 happy to bring those back next week as part of the discussion.
>> all right.
>> add those on.
>> again, roads that are out on the fringe of the county, these are all rural roadways. Just as an example, the turnersville road, that is on the hays Travis County line. And but is it also in the vicinity of state highway 45 southeast. Where they once -- once that freeway or toll road goes in, this road will start picking up some traffic, so it shows the campo plan is a two-lane roadways. And we're just concerned that -- that once the -- once the 45 goes in, all of a sudden you will start seeing traffic for a four lane. We are suggesting where you have the opportunity to do so reserve the right-of-way for four lane, don't go out and build a four lane, but just hold your options open. That would be true of these others as well. Owner ballerstead, billing school, blake manor, burleson road, county line road, doyle overton, [indiscernible], carlson, monte carlson or lockhart, pail face ranch road.
>> nameless.
>> row lane, as you can see those are out of the southwest Travis County. You know, that -- welch road, [indiscernible], and Williamson. All somewhat of the same variety. It's just a matter of -- of not -- no regrets, having the right-of-way -- you are not committing yourself to making any investments, hard cash but at least you will have the right-of-way to do it if that day comes. That day may be a decade or more away. But often what happens we get hemmed in by development that hits here and there and everywhere and then when we finally get serious about it, you find yourself constrained by all of these subdivisions that have not allowed you the capacity to expand if you wanted to. The rest of them are technical corrections which really just are errors. We knew that campo staff would go along with once they see it.
>> okay. So did you say that you are going to be meeting with some folks beginning tomorrow on some of these things, is that what --
>> there's a plan review committee meeting tomorrow.
>> okay.
>> the tac meeting on the 30th is supposed to last at least four hours, we are saying four hours to see what we can get resolved and even maybe vote on each chapter as we go through them.
>> our goal is to have this back on next week. Next week probably not for as much discussion as today. We left a few items sort of dangling. We will be able to pick them up, act on them one way or the other.
>> thank you all.
>> thanks for your hard work,.
>> anything else on this item today.
>> no, I just wish all of the other jurisdictions were do you know the same thing we are, because otherwise this campo plan adoption is going to be really difficult.
>> or very easy.
>> or very easy because they are not paying attention. It's a sad situation.
>> again, we try to -- try to provide leadership, Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> and I think we are.
>> that was number 26, right?
>> we are at executive session?
>> that will be back on next week.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:22 AM