Travis County Commissioners Court
April 5, 2005
Item 23
Number 23 is to discuss and take appropriate action on Travis County comments to campo board of directors regarding draft 2030 transportation plan. And the campo meeting is Monday night.
>> this is the same letter that you had on your agenda before. But I do want to step through some changes that we made as a result of our two meetings with the technical advisory committee. We did discuss some of these items and I believe that we have come to perhaps better wording on some of them. On page 2, Travis County was recommending that we move forward a common cross-section and right-of-way width that would be part of the plan so that we could all basically sing off the same sheet when it came to building these roadways when they cross jurisdictions. I think we've got pretty much a unanimous okay from the technical advisory committee, although they said that will take some time. Basically all of the local jurisdictions, georgetown, Round Rock, Williamson county, all of the folks that use this plan thought it was a good idea and were willing to work toward it. They just weren't willing right now to check on what design standard that might be. So the way this is worded it now says r 10 the policy would say coordinate the development of regional design guidelines for right-of-way widths and cross-sections to reduce potential mismatches at jurisdictional boundaries. So that's -- I believe that's probably adequate for us to get the ball rolling and it make take several months. The action item that goes with that would -- would say coordinate the development of regional designs, guidelines, for right-of-way widths and cross-sections that can be incorporated into the campo plan as appropriate. So we look forward to some months down the road. We will come back to campo with what we work out in subcommittee at the technical advisory committee. The second change is on the pedestrian and bicycle policy. We did -- we did basically come to a mediation on that particular one. What it says is that the pedestrian facilities, the policy would apply to roadways in the plan, first of all, within urban and suburban areas. So we will go full tilt with both bicycles and sidewalks, pedestrian ways, within the area likely to be urbanized within the plan period. But what that does is it does not force us to build sidewalks in rural areas. Okay. That's -- that's basically the intend behind Travis County was to achieve here. It also allowed the jurisdictions, in particular this one is -- where txdot was, where it used to say 20% of the construction cost, when you are talking about millions of dollars on a state facility I thought that was kind of excessive. So that the wording was changed. That would allow the jurisdiction to demonstrate that the pedestrian facility was not feasible due to excessive costs. It's a little less rigid with regard to what that criteria might be. And then finally, the wording on -- on adjacent to the roadway, a lot of the flexibility to be and/or within the vicinity of the roadway. This was basically a Pflugerville item that said look we provide pedestrian ways not adjacent to the roadways, they typically go down the tributaries of creeks that have a fairly comprehensive pedestrian system that it is just not next to the roadway. We had the and/or because capital metro wanted to make sure that there was pedestrian ways adjacent to the roadway where they were providing transit service because that is the way some people get to transit service that ride the bicycle. That is the reason between and/or so basically we are trying to meet everybody's needs with regard to where they put these pedestrian ways and for what reason. The same is pretty much true of the pb 3, which is on the bicycle ways. And finally on pb 4, we just basically clarified there that -- that we are talking about controlled access facilities. Controlled is the appropriate word instead of limited access. And by controlled access facilities we mean both roadways and railways. They create the same barrier, in fact. But there was quite a bit of discussion on the -- on the construction implications of the policy. And so -- so added to that, the jurisdiction constructing the policy can demonstrate the -- that providing the connection is not -- feasible to do an excessive cost and not warranted to do sufficient demand. There again, it's -- I don't want to go through a long discussion, but when they are talking about building a pedestrian way over a limited access facility, first of all, in most cases you are talking about 300 plus feet of right-of-way to create a pedestrian way. And the -- the geometrics of the roadway either have to be raised or lowered in such a way as to contact date the height of a pedestrian facility. The implications of that are -- are substantial. I mean, you are talking about designing a highway now with grades that are -- you have to -- in other words to get that grade you really have to start almost a quarter of a mile back to get to that grade. So we try to impress upon us how -- how perhaps an insignificant policy is having a substantial impact on them, so they wanted some flexibility to meet the intent but not be locked in. In every case. Then finally on the -- the cost -- we commented that the cost estimates in the plan were not -- the foot ote was the transportation planning cost estimates were rough figures based on the average lane per cost mile of roadway and other factors and are used only in the financial analysis of the 2030 plan, specific project cost estimates develop through the future engineering studies may vary considerably from the planning costs used in this plan. So just puts everyone on notice the nature of the cost estimates that are used in the plan, we thought that that was at least a heads up to anyone reading the plan. Then on the table itself, we did add a footnote referencing the -- the seven -- actually all of the resolutions passed by the campo board on -- on July 12th, 2005. With regard to the toll roads.
>> > be reflected in the table when talking about the toll roads. Those seven policies have a lot of different aspects to them, but we understood the court, wanted those to be -- to be embedded in the plan so people understood that the toll roads come in all shapes and colors. And -- but their condition lies some of the sentiments that were adopted by the board in those resolutions. No pay, no build, one policy on equity. We heard you say that's what we are talking about. The three alternatives, that's also one of the resolutions. So those are now reference understand the document under the table on -- on the roadways. When it came to arterial a in Williamson county, we left it in the plan. We had -- we had a lot of discussion on this arterial a in Williamson county.
>> left it in the plan --
>> we left it in the plan as a [indiscernible], we also said that we should be doing an arterial study that took into consideration everything that was going on up in that area, including whether or not there should be frontage roads along 183 a, if this arterial is deleted. From the modeling perspective, the plan was based on 183 having frontage roads. So implicit for the plan is the fact that we were assuming that some of that local free travel was taking place on the frontage roads of 183 a and we also had this arterial a in the plan. Now, we are faced with the prospects that number 1 there are no frontage roads on 183 a and we are also fixing to take this arterial out of the map. We are a little concerned about the shortfall over all in the capacity of the system in this area. So that's why we recommended that further study be done before you take any action.
>> actually, it's even goofier than that. Because txdot in realigning what goes north and what goes south is going to do this kind of wild switch back of how northbound traffic free up 183 will be handled in terms of a switch back at every ranch boulevard. There are frontage roads in the plan for 183 a, but only in certain segments of it. A really critical segment between brushy creek and 1431 there will be no frontage roads in that particular segment because of limitations on the right-of-way through a very urbanized area there. So there's some real mismatches here as to what is or is not happening. I had a meeting again yesterday with some of the folks involved here. The safest place to be is to keep arterial a in the plan until something in terms of an alternative about what's going to happen with all of that traffic is locked down. Because it would be dangerous to do otherwise. Because nothing is locked down in terms of -- of frontage roads at some point only on certain portions of 183 a. Those are not part of the original -- original bond issuance, so they are not coming. It is a disaster. It is the perfect storm of traffic fixing to hit up there. I think that was a very smart place to put it is keep it in there and do some quarter studies up there until we can lock down some other atives.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...not like we had related to a pre-existing highways that had certain kinds of traffic patterns. It really is quite different and there are huge segments of 183-a where there will be no frontage roads because there is no space. Couldn't put them there even if you wanted to.
>> well, I mean what I?m saying is that only adds to the confusion and to the people that are upset about toll roads because you were specifically told if you had a toll road, you would have a free alternative road. Now, you are right, I mean some of these --
>> those are the ones in terms of the four or five campo did after. Those were not part of the old central Texas projects which bonds were sold years before any of this stuff happened.
>> let me state here that the representative from the agency claimed that the existing 183 will be the free road in case of 183-a so they were quick to point out the free roads still exist. That the 183-a is a new corridor. The old road they are moving away from is the free alternative. But with that said, I think in the entire corridor, if you look at the entire corridor all the way to Williamson county, the issue for us was that we correctly estimate the demand and the capacity even what we modeled and what will take place if we delete one of the alternatives. We understand the difficulty of constructing the one arterial a in Williamson county because of all the constraints, but before we take it out we need to find out what's going to happen to that traffic. If you don't build it, it's not going to go away. Where is it going to go?
>> the point time making is that I?m in total agreement with you, joe. I mean 183 -- or arterial a needs to stay in. Here's another example of where people could use this in the same light. And that is 35 southwest. I mean it's 45 southwest and now it's going to be a toll road. Is the free alternative bogey lane? -- brodie lane?
>> part of our campo amendments that we said there would be two free lanes at a minimum, and if the only thing that they could push through that corridor because of all the cost features and environmental -- political and environmental features, if the only thing that fits is two lanes, it's free. Period. The two free lanes are the first two lanes that happen in that corridor there.
>> southeast?
>> southwest. Because Travis County put that on the bond issue and we bought that right-of-way and there was no a decision that was a toll road [inaudible]. Now, you can do extra lanes toll, but two lanes have to be free.
>> what is Williamson county's position on this arterial?
>> [indiscernible].
>> what's city of Austin's position?
>> they want to take it out of the plan. They basically tried for about a year and a half to make this thing work and they are just saying, you know, from their perspective it's just not going to happen for half a dozen reasons which I expect to articulate on Monday night. So they are saying we can leave tonight the plan, but it's not going to get built. And they are convinced of that so they are just being honest, let's take it out of the plan because it's not going to happen. I'd have to say there's pretty good reasons why it's not going to get built. But that doesn't address the issue of, you know, what's your alternative.
>> your backup plan. And this platting that's going on right now on avery ranch so there is still the possibility of protecting the right-of-way corridor. And you get to the construction of this at a later point and you've got issues of proportion at, there's things to be said about that, but the new mayor of Cedar Park is fixing to come in, he's running unopposed, bob lemon, and he has communicated that he wants to keep 183 -- excuse me, arterial a alive so that they can revisit the issue. There's just a lot of jurisdictions involved here and this cannot be a quick and dirty, I give up and therefore we just --
>> controversial Monday night?
>> yes. It's just -- it's not necessarily controversial, it's just there's no easy solution. And so [inaudible]. And I think arterial study allows [indiscernible] until we do find a solution. The last two comments were on bullock hollow and city park road. We have let those in for further study, but we have left them in as a two main roadway in both cases.
>> what page are they on?
>> on the table on page 3. And those are [indiscernible] Travis County roadways.
>> one more time. Originally we were looking at minor 2 and it's still minor 2. And then throwing into an arterial study.
>> then is the arterial study allows us to go beyond the two? I mean would that --
>> if we came back with recommendation to go back to [indiscernible], yes.
>> just so we have the ability to do that.
>> that's what the arterial -- the arterial study basically is a common sense we ought to do some further analysis on this. And then we did attach to the letter Commissioner Davis' letter for the record on toll roads.
>> okay, I?m kind of looking at the stuff here related to manor road issue and 38 and a half. It makes it sound like it's still alive in terms of these roads still being part, which are basically neighborhood streets, and if this were west of the interstate, we wouldn't even be talking about this stuff. They are heavy neighborhoods.
>> this was discussed and there could have been a debate on whether or not to take this out and for what reason. There is quite a bit of new development that will occur at the airport site. Campo's staff is concerned about the -- whether or not the travel demand of that new development is being met if you take these roadways out. The city is saying we have an alternative and we expect -- no other alternative and expect capital metro to provide the transit service. We were basically saying, you know, [indiscernible] in this meeting to sort out the truths of all this so we're going to put it into an arterial study and want to see whether or not the city along with capital metro insisting to meet the development demand. Just the way it's saying, you know, let's not get into a big argument whether we go [indiscernible] transit collector street alternative, let's take a look at it. That's probably the best we could have done.
>> if we take a vote on Commissioners court, are these two the big collectors? I mean how does the -- technically the advisory committee override that decision? So on Monday night, the failure to represent the Travis County Commissioners court position if the vote were 5-0 to take them out. We told residents, I did, after seriously thinking about it that I supported taking it out.
>> this is one that we would take the advisory committee out and substitute in the Commissioners court's decision to take it out of the plan.
>> I mean I?m just really irritated beyond belief that the most comment that we got on our Monday night when we had the big hearing had to do with manor road and with 38 1/2 street. And the idea if we can't figure out how to handle that new development we intentionally force it through long established neighborhoods is just horrible. And it sends a horrible, horrible message and that is not what's happening on parts of 38 1/2 street running through other very established neighborhoods in terms of saying we can't figure out the triangle so we're going to [indiscernible] hyde park.
>> we also discussed south lamar.
>> which one?
>> south lamar.
>> I?m tired of talking about corridor studies.
>> what did you and your committee do on that one, joe?
>> I believe that's still in there as was originally -- we didn't touch that one. We will go back and change the other two.
>> four or six?
>> four.
>> leave it as a four.
>> that's right.
>> I visualize expanding that to six lanes wiping out a whole lot of business establishments. [indiscernible].
>> the technical advisory committee is basically [indiscernible] all these agencies. Capital metro, txdot, ctrma, all the local governments. So that's who is sitting on that including the campo staff.
>> joe, in your earlier document on page 4 on the [inaudible], I just wanted the language that discussed the criteria that would be decided to look at the freight being relocated from the west to the east. Who sets that criteria? I mean who actually develops the criteria that will determine -- the adverse impacts of a proposed freightline to be moved from the west side to the east side?
>> that would be the campo staff.
>> the campo staff?
>> yeah. It's the transportation staff that advises the campo board.
>> I really would like to see what that criteria is when it's developed before it's acted on. Just make that a note.
>> we can bring that back to court if you would like to.
>> i'd like to see it.
>> all right.
>> before it's voted on. You know, before this thing is finalized.
>> provided that the board agrees with Travis County in this policy.
>> right, right, well, I hope they do. But if they don't, you know, [indiscernible] we asked them to because that's pretty significant especially if you are looking at bringing adverse impacts from one side of the city to the other. Out know, the criterion must be developed and I would like to see what the criterion is.
>> joe, we've got to make sure we've got -- I hate to use the word cheat sheet, but we need a cheat sheet to find where we are lined up with what is being recommended by campo. Is campo staff aligned in terms of what the recommendation is?
>> what was discussed this morning, we are.
>> I?m looking at 22, Gerald, as being one of those things. They are still saying it ought to be a madd four corridor study four-lane divided and I think we feel strongly and the tias will support an up grade to six. We need to have absolute clarity, 38 1/2 and manor. If we differ even just a comment or what the roadway is going to look like so we can be specific about the kinds of things we need to round up support for and get our allies on why we believe this is a better way to do it rather than what the staff has come up with.
>> well, the reason that we've left language in there about whatever campo has chosen to use with regards to allowing it to be studied, I mean that's the flexibility that you have. Taking something from a four to a six. But, you know, it's probably the best time for me to say this, the kind of questions that we have right now is the reason why I am going to ask -- I mean i've already sent a letter to the senator and copied mike allick on this that I am not ready to vote on this thing Monday. We are driving the roads in precinct 3 that you can't drive all of these roads in a short period of time. So I am going to be requesting that we delay this vote. I would like to have it for 30 days, but I understand that there is some movement that we may not have a may campo meeting.
>> well, we have to to get this adopted by June.
>> well, I don't know that for sure. I mean I?m going to inquire from the federal highway folks because we could vote on it in June. We're one day short because I think the deadline is Sunday night and we meet on the Monday night. But it will not be the first time that campo hasn't met a deadline if it -- I mean I?m ready to vote in may, but I?m just not ready to vote Monday night. And it's for questions like this that I want to make sure that I understand and I?m able to work with t.n.r. And get down. So I don't know what the protocol will be Monday night, but I would hope that if one voting member asks --
>> I think there are others that share your opinion.
>> -- that's what I would like to do.
>> joe, I would like to get clarification as well on page 3 of the charts of what we were doing with 1825 and the 1825 spur, the road that goes into Pflugerville. We were making the suggestion that those be downgraded to the madd four and the existing. Is that now part of the recommendation? Did they agree with us on that?
>> we do not specifically address those in our tac meeting.
>> it makes it look like that's now what the recommended --
>> that the Travis County's recommended.
>> I understand that, but that's -- we've got some mixing of what we've recommended versus the other. On the 2222 it says madd 4 and in our comments we said no, madd 6.
>> we have madd 6 in the comments saying we support it being six lane.
>> what you've done on 1825 you've made it look like the campo staff is going with us on 1825 and --
>> this table should look like Travis County's recommendation all the way through. And to the extent that we agree with t.a.c., We have imported t.a.c.'s recommendation. We have differed on we have in manor road and 38 1/2. We will change those to Travis County. But I think those are the only ones at this point where this table doesn't reflect purely Travis County's position.
>> except we've got to have a column that said recommended 2030 draft. There has to be something that what is being proposed in the 2030 plan and if we differ it must be --
>> you are suggesting on 2222 that we strike madd 4 and put in madd 6.
>> I?m just saying pick one. If the staff -- if the t.a.c. Staff is recommending madd 4, we need to have a column that reflects what is being proposed in the master document. And if we differ, that ought to be in a separate column, but we can't be marking up the 2030 plan saying we've changed it when we haven't changed it yet.
>> well, that's -- I mean we have used the legislative format to show where we're striking a recommendation on the draft plan. We have it struck out. And we have underlined in bold what Travis County is recommending in its place.
>> and you haven't done it on the ones right above it on 2222.
>> that's the pointed I?m trying to make.
>> I?m just making sure we're consistent how we show this stuff.
>> and we will bring that over in the final draft for judge Biscoe's signature.
>> are we saying that -- you are going to come back and we will see a final version? Because I mentioned corrections here, the 38 1/2, 2222.
>> obviously if you adopt a motion, we'll get the cleaned up tkr-ft for signature, but this needs to go to campo -- I mean Monday night is the meeting. We will have this cleaned up as you have instructed us to and get a final draft that you can look at and Sam kind sign, judge Biscoe can sign.
>> I think in terms of campo members, all 23, 24 of us, it's going to be easier if we have a summary sheet, not trying to plow your way through the chart, a summary sheet of every place where Travis County differs and so that helps us focus as where we need to have motions, but it also helps everybody else focus. I can tell you I can't be looking at 14 different versions of the same charts coming in from the jurisdictions.
>> but that's what this is. This table lists all the changes that Travis County is recommending that are different from the plan.
>> there's got to be a way to summarize it in a summary document, joe, because like I said, how are we possibly going to be able to get similar kinds of charts and things from other jurisdictions and try and keep track of, okay, this page, that page, this -- we're going to be all over the place and Gerald is right we're not going to be able to vote on Monday night even if we wanted to.
>> everything we have in this table is Travis County initiatives. And it is eight pages long. So I mean I don't know how to summarize it any better than a table format because it's all just the way you see it in the plan as we suggested changing it. I can highlight some of the more significant ones.
>> that would be helpful.
>> all right. So that we focus on those.
>> move approval of this product with the changes approved today.
>> second.
>> judge, let me ask this. I mean voting for that -- I mean I have some real issues with 38 1/2. I?m sympathetic to the traffic going through neighborhoods, and quite frankly, if this is 2 city of Austin still, if the city of Austin wants to take every road off the table, well then let them take every road off the table. But --
>> after last week's vote [indiscernible]. Is to take both of them out. There was a motion on that and we voted on it.
>> I see this as being the county as a unit, our comments from, you know, the jurisdictional perspective. I don't see this as binding you as an individual board member that says well, I have a little slightly different version of that to be able to vote however you see fit. I don't see you as being bound to represent Travis County.
>> and that's fine. I mean I just -- I would disagree in that if we think that we're going to -- if the mueller traffic is the issue, the mueller traffic is going to remain an issue if it's up to capital metro to take people out of there via public transportation. That -- that is not -- in your words, that ain't going to happen. But I understand what we're trying to do here, judge.
>> but the large boundary on the airport tracts are airport boulevard, interstate 35 and 51st street and a whole lot of stuff in the back in terms of streets. None of them are 38 1/2 street cutting through the cherrywood neighborhood. It's outrageous they even think about doing that.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> joe, you are going to submit this letter.
>> I am.
>> with my position on the toll. Okay. That's part of the backup. Okay. Thanks.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, April 5, 2005 3:19 PM