Travis County Commissioners Court
March 22, 2005
Item 33
33. Consider and take appropriate action on request from city of Austin for Travis County to support a toll road study and scope.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...we already have the one already. It's already in our backup.
>> okay. You already have it. If you don't have --
>> last week I did send -- ms. Huffman sent me the exhibit and also the resolution and I shared that with the court last week. This is fine, though.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. My name is alice glasgo and I知 the director of planning for the city of Austin. And I知 here today on behalf of the city to speak to item number 33 where the city of Austin is requesting your participation in funding for a study relating to the toll roads for the phase 2 plan. The city council on March 3rd adopted a scope of work to which the city council asked the city manager to solicit proposals based on the scope of work for a consultant to respond to the various questions that city council asked regarding toll roads. There were 10 items that were listed in the scope of work, and i've handed that out to you. They are -- they relate to, for example, how does the Texas public transportation and ctrma have the two toll plans submitted in 2004 by the other seven Texas metropolitan areas and what approaches are other metro areas taking. That's one example of the several questions asked. There are two numbers for me to read unless you would like for me to for the record. But basically the intent and purpose of the study is to provide an independent look at the phase 2 toll plan. There has been a variety of claims and counterclaims regarding the proposed toll plan, and we expect the study will provide an objective factual basis for evaluating those concerns. So that's really the basis of the study. And the proposal has been put out there. The public financial management that handles our financial measures for the city is coordinating the proposal. So far we have -- we have received two -- we have not reviewed those proposals. We expect potential proposals to come from the Texas appraisal institute, the Texas a&m university, the center for transportation research and several private sector firms. So what we're asking the other participating entities is to participate by providing $20,000 each to the total amount that the city council allocated, the city council appropriated $100,000 in the event that the other entities are unable to contribute to that funding. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
>> well, isn't that our first question that we ought to kind of decide do we have $20,000 to appropriate to a study?
>> especially since we did a 1445 study last year and we asked for the city council for assistance in what was a required study of our subdivision requirements and we got the cold shoulder.
>> I know it's a real important study and there are a lot of issues to discuss, but before we get into an hour, hour and a half discussion, I guess to me it's important to know if the money is available and if we think that we will appropriate to the study, then I guess I would want to know more, but if we're not, then i'd like to save some time.
>> it seems to me that a lot of these questions would have been important months ago. And I don't know that the answers really will help me any. The two questions that I think are most important are in a little memo that I just distributed that I put together yesterday, after reading the materials that ms. Huffman sent over, I have not read mr. Stephens memo, he just saw it a minute ago when you handed it out. He e-mailed it after 5:30 yesterday and I didn't see it. But in my view the most important question is, one, what non-toll options exist to significantly relieve traffic congestion in Travis County between now and 2030? And 2030 is the 25-year campo plan. For each such option describe the following, the estimated cost of construction, the estimated cost of maintenance and the sources of funding. That's what it boils down to basically. Whether there's another way without toll roads, and if so, I think we ought to find out. And I asked this question many times before and got no answer. And if the county spends money, I think we ought to spend money answering this question because this gets to the heart of the matter. The other question that's important to me is to describe the manner in which alternative free roads may be constructed to give residents the option to avoid using added toll lanes. And when this idea was introduced to me for the first time, I was assured that residents who chose not to use toll roads would have free roads available. And residents simply do not believe that. So the question in my view to a transportation expert would be: how should we construct free lanes and toll lanes in a way that the average citizen really has free choice? And to me from a common sense perspective, if I知 running late and need to get to the airport and a toll road will get me there in 10 minutes it may be worth a buck or two. But if I leave in ample -- if I give myself ample time and enjoy a leisurely drive to the airport --
>> when it's 5:00 in the morning and there is no traffic.
>> I want a free road.
>> and judge, just to kind of add a little carrot to your item 2, is there space to build more roads? Where is that space going to be found to build more roads?
>> i'll go even a part 3 on this. To me I think the presumption has always been that the only thing we're talking about is the I am improvement of the state highway system. And I don't think that's where our particular role is. To me we ought to be talking about one of the things in terms of what non-toll options exist, and under what you've got here in terms of the free roads, judge, to me that ought to be what's within the purview of our arterial network within Travis County's jurisdiction. And I think these are logical questions that need to be worked through and presented to our bond committee about the kinds of things that we ought to put before the voters about what can we do in our jurisdiction, the kinds of things that work well? I am very struck by a comment that bob day made when he was visiting with the momac neighborhood talking about the mopac corridor. And he says one of the biggest challenges we have in the Travis County area is this, there are too many things for people to just get around town that the only option out there is that you have to get on a state highway. And if you think about that, why should you have to get on a state highway just to get downtown. There are ought to be other kinds of things that work and move traffic. I think about that because I was a city person. Do I get a mopac and really for like two exits or do I take lamar or something else that will get me where I need to go and are there things that we can do to relieve congestion that way?
>> yeah. And that's the other thing.
>> it doesn't have to cost any money to control that. It might be questions that we answer for ourselves as we go forward with our bonds.
>> and that means local projects. And I think that when we put the bond committee together, we said that we had done enough for the state highway system and that we needed to know talk about local projects. So that we don't let those go as we address the wider issue or the state systems. And that's my concern. So I want to -- do I want to spend our county money for another state project or state plan versus sending our local money on local projects?
>> I try looking in the -- I知 tired of looking in the rearview mirror. God bless them, this study was already rejected at campo saying no thank you. And at a large part we were told by bob day that this kind of an independent study asking these kinds of questions would harm and potentially jeopardize our funds at the state level. And we chose not to. To me this is looking in the rearview mirror. And I think what the judge has laid out here are some questions that we ought to be asking that look forward and stop trying to rehash what is political history about what did or didn't happen, and these ought to be things that we're asking ourselves as we move forward through our bond program. And to focus on the things that are within Travis County's jurisdiction as opposed to this global consultant study. If the council wants to do it, fine, but I don't think it moves forward. It only continues to just revel in the past. It's behind us. I知 sorry, Commissioner, go ahead.
>> I have several questions for you. Thank you for appearing. When I received this memo from ms. Huffman via the judge's office, I of course looked at it and I had some thoughts and some questions, and thank goodness john was able to answer a lot of these questions, but there were still some about whether or not it would be appropriate for someone to be here because I felt like it would be a good chance to exchange questions and answers. I guess my first question i'd like to ask you is that this particular study that's being requested, if it is a pro rata type request, if the other entities such as Williamson county, ctrma, Travis County, campo, of course, the city of Austin are proposing this particular study, if the other entities do not participate, then we're talking about $100,000 that would be spent by the city of Austin for this study. My question is: the results of the study that may come back and suggest that there are some things that may need to be modified according to what the study suggested means the old view in looking at our whole system within the campo plan. If that is the case that there needs to be modifications to that plan and the results of this study gets back in June -- I believe that's when the date is, June.
>> correct.
>> July.
>> it's June 30th.
>> okay, thank you. Thank you. June 30th.
>> it's at the beginning of July.
>> the beginning of July. And the result of that study suggests that there need to be significant changes to the campo plan which is going through a process now as far as leading towards its acoption doption, is there any way the campo plan can be modified according to the study? Has that been taken into consideration?
>> not yet. I believe that it would be up to the campo board. My function here would be that whatever the results of the study might be, but our city council and the four members who serve on campo would share those results with the campo board and it would be up to the campo board to decide what -- what as a body they would like to do at that point.
>> so I guess right now we have another item on here, item 26, which is basically looking at the campo plan itself, the thing that we like to see and the things that we do not want to see in it and stuff like that. And my concern is that things that come out of this study won't change anything for me, and I just don't know that, but I知 willing to look at trying to find a funding source I guess to help in the process. This is pro rata, so I知 figuring if it's a five-entity participation, that means to me that I believe that it would be about $20,000. But, of course, I really don't know exactly all of the ramifications as far as the scope, how would it really come back as far as being measured, but I do believe that there is really a necessary deal for a study, especially when you're dealing with tolls that are being placed on existing roads. That is something that in my opinion is not acceptable. But again, I think the study maybe suggests that there are other ways of what kind of impact would it have on such suggestion as that. Of course, I don't know what the answer is and nobody else does until the study's done. And I guess my next question is if no one else participants -- are we the first entity you've gone to for participation?
>> campo has already turned it down, Commissioner.
>> campo has already turned it down. Okay. So anyone else you've gone to? What about Williamson county and also ctrma?
>> the requests have been sent to the other four entities, so we're waiting for responses from the others.
>> and john answered several of those questions that I posed, but my -- but the bottom line to me, and I知 not an expert on it, is if the results of the study reveal that there need to be significant modifications made to the campo plan, will there be enough support to make those changes from the campo board itself. And those can't be answered until later when we get farther down the road in this particular item and issue. I don't think it should preclude us from, in my opinion, to participate in this process.
>> I thought what was the most telling part of mr. Stephen's memo it basically goes through all this stuff and it's basically rewriting history and going back into history. And the last bullet point is to sketch out ideas for potential alternative components of the plan if time and funding permits. To me if that's the only thing they ought to be looking at is what are some potential alternative components, and that's in a way what the judge has laid out in terms of what you got there. To me this is one where they're saying only if time and funding permit will they look at that as opposed to -- i'll tell you what that is, pass-through toalg. Is the city of Austin willing -- I think the chance of Williamson county participating in this is slim to none because none of the phase 2 toll roads are located in Williamson county. None. Campo has already turned this down and the ctrma said we'll be helpful in whatever way we can, but it's slim that that means they're going to go ahead and approve the money as well. But to me it's like pass-through tolling. And nowhere does the city council at all talk about exploring pass-through tolling, which would be allowing the state of Texas to use the city of Austin's bonding capability and you get paid back. It's really a goofy expression in terms of pass-through polic tolling. It's really not tolling at all. It's not even on here. And the city has already said only if time and funding permits will we look at other stuff. To me that's the only question and you don't have to go to a consultant to get those things.
>> Commissioner Daugherty? And then i'll have a motion.
>> how you doing, alice? Haven't seen you in a long time.
>> it's a tough job, isn't it, ms. Glasgo.
>> someone has to do it. [ laughter ]
>> this is easy from what you usually have to do. [ laughter ] i've known you for many years and you're good at what you do. Let me say, I think that I understand why the council is asking this. I mean, there has never been anything as controversial in the milky way than the toll plan that Travis County has come up with. Now, I was one of the first to have major problems with it. We have altered that plan and we've altered it to the point where I think that we are at a spot where we need to move on. I do think that it's interesting that we would have campo turn down a lousy $20,000 when they spent $400,000 on envision central Texas, but I will talk to mr. Aleck about that. As we talk about the sources of money, let me tell you what, there are only about four or five sources of money about how we build roads. I mean, the reason that we're here is because txdot will tell you they don't have the dollars coming back from -- I won't preach to you. I don't know that I need to school you. You do need to hear it from my thought process and where it's coming from. Txdot, whether it's gas tax or whether it's just the funds that they have, and most of the funds that they have do come from the federal gas tax, that is what we are so local hadly behind in. -- locally behind in. Number two, local. That is we either do it with taxes or bonds. Now, we do have another source of funds in this community, and that is sales tax and that entire penny right now goes to our transit authority, and I applaud them for trying to do some things. Unfortunately, I think that that is one place where we need to get more of the dollars for things that we know that work. And Commissioner Gomez, let me tell you, it's not a question of -- I知 always amazed when people say why don't we build a toll road? My gosh, it's not like we have impervious ground cover all over central Texas. I mean, first of all, we could start building a complete loop at ben white and i-35 as opposed to a partial loop. We could connect roads to mopac. I know that that goes all over people about, my gosh, if you build a road that connects to mopac, somebody is liable to use it. Duh, yeah, they would use it. And those are the kind of things that we ought to connect 45 southwest. I知 happy to have southeast be the first road. But --
>> it's a state road.
>> wait a minute. Roads are roads. We're saying we want to get people off the state roads. To get people on local roads, where do we have money to do local roads either?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> the money that you get from local roads has to come from most people will tell you local dollars. It's either taxes or it's bonds. And I am for if you build a more comprehensive road system and be that the state -- beef up the state roads, then you don't have to build as many local roads, then I think we're behind in most of the roads as well. So it gets us to tolling. And I can understand why people are asking if the turning plan for things that we need to do. I am convinced that tolling is just part of the solution. When I ask our district engineer before I voted to not continue the study, I did it solely based on my one question to him. If we continue down the path of not accepting tolling as at least part of our solution, is it going to jeopardize our Texas mobility fund dollars that the highway commission discretionarily gives us. That's $161 million. And he said, in my opinion, yes, it will have an effect on us, which is the reason that I said, well, I知 not willing to go forward with sending a message to txdot or the highway commission that we're going to mess around with this. I do think it needs to have a spot at the table. I told laura huffman, I said surprisingly enough, I知 probably going to vote for this because i'd like to have a spot at the table, but there are some questions, and where I知 uncomfortable, and we've talked about this a little before you got here today. If the questions are already asked, if the cracking of -- if the crafting of what this finding is going to come to the county, come to the city, then we haven't had any participation insofar as the kind of questions that we may want to ask. Alice, I知 not comfortable with some of the questions. I mean, I don't -- if somebody says how does Austin's level of tolling 50% of all highway lane miles compare? Somebody might be able to show me that we are tolling 50% of our highway lane miles. And I guess maybe if you get close to that is that you throw in sh 130. And if you throw in sh 130, then I don't know. I'd still like to see that, but there are some questions on here, alice that I would go, I don't know that I am going to have a lot of stock in whatever response is given to that. If the had the opportunity, judge, to weigh in on the modeling of whoever gets this contract, if we're not going to have the opportunity to do that, then that may be part of your moition. Alice, I understand why the city is going to do that. Everybody got the million e-mails. They were not going with it. I think they're trying to be sound. Unfortunately, I don't want it to get us to a spot where we have to move backwards on this. I知 happy to entertain this and see what the judge's motion is and see if I can --
>> it's a three-part keep the peace motion. Number one, let me say no to the invitation to fund this study. Two is that we indicate our interest in a study of non-toll options to relieve congestion. And address real alternative free lanes. And three, if the city of Austin is interested in this approach, then the county will send two representatives to collaborate with the city on an appropriate scope of work.
>> second.
>> can I make a clarification there? I知 with you. I think this is a great keep the peace motion. But when we talk about the non-toll options and the congestion strategies, are we including the state system or are we excluding that and looking at what are our arterial roads, etcetera, or is it blended? Because I will tell you we have just got -- we keep coming up with ways that we can try and substitute and spend money on a state system, and I think we've got to -- we owe it to our taxpayers to say have we done everything on the arterial roads that we are responsible for? And I知 looking forward to our November bond election because I think there will be a lot of things in there. Harris branch, certainly pecan...
>> I think that would be good.
>> I知 trying to leave it open.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> that's fine with me. I want to keep it open to discuss all non-toll options.
>> eliminates the state plan.
>> okay. Was there a second to that?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> I move that we participate with the city of Austin as they've requested in the amount of $20,000 for our pro rata share. If that is the case, I don't know what's going to happen with the other entities, but I would like the participation to see what the results of this particular study that's being conducted and the results of that study will be back on I guess June 30. So I would like to move for that particular motion that we support the study with the city of Austin as of this time. I guess we could always add on --
>> his motion is to accept the city's motion to participate in the study and commit $20,000?
>> yes.
>> let me ask, because I may be willing to seconded by councilmember that if, alice, you think that there would be an opportunity to pose a list of questions that would also be entertained in this study or is it too late? I don't know. Maybe that's a legal question.
>> unless... [overlapping speakers].
>> it's a ways down the road.
>> I think we just received two proposals. We have not -- we could always add an addendum to it. I don't see why not, thrls there are some -- unless there are some legal limitations that I知 not aware of. I can certainly -- I can take that back.
>> that can always be done, but it doesn't guarantee anything.
>> they want that up front.
>> i'd feel a whole lot better if they --
>> is that a motion?
>> it's lacking a second. The original motion is three parts, do we understand that? Any discussion of the original motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner and yours friewlly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, ms. Glasgo.
>> thank you.
>> please keep me posted on the progress of this. I知 really interested in seeing what the results of those are on this. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming down.
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