Travis County Commissioners Court
April 26, 2005
Item 34
Now, joe, we do have a matter here involving campo.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> what i'd like to do, I passed out a one-sheet summary. What it shows is the original policy as drafted, the draft policy of campo. It shows the federal highway administration policy statement, which was referred to in your e-mails and, as I understand it, was the basis of the campo draft policy. And then a clarification of that federal highway administration policy. And then finally the draft policy that the Travis County is recommending. I want to point out a few things in this comparison. And the reason that I was recommending the changes that we were, first of all, I believe that the statement, the original draft statement of the campo plan was too broad in its application of bicycle facilities. If you read the fhwa policy, they clearly intended that the bicycle and pedestrian ways be established on new construction and reconstruction in all urbanized areas unless one of the -- one or more of the following conditions are met. I think that was a very important omission from the campo policy. To the reason that I was recommending a change to the policy. This was not intended to be a surgical policy or even a -- a rural policy or even a suburban policy. It is generally the incorporated area of the city of Austin. That is where the federal government is saying you ought to concentrate your resources on bicycle facilities. I fully agree with that. That is where you have the urban densities that are going to justify that type of investment because you do have a demand for bicycle use in that area. It's not out in the rural areas.
>> that's not true, though. More people ride bicycles in the rural area -- if we really get down to the real -- I understand what they're saying, joe, and that is conceptwise what we would like to have, but miles traveled on a bicycle in Travis County, it doesn't even compete in the rural areas --
>> we are talking about transportation, not recreational use. And the federal highway administration does not build recreational bicycle facilities. These are transportation means. Bicycles -- truly, there are a lot of recreational uses of bicycles in the rural areas, no doubt whatsoever. We're talking about transportation policy and about the investment of public dollars in transportation facilities. That's the point I知 trying to make. Now, are there bicycle users on county roads? Absolutely. I知 saying in those cases we should be providing for some shoulders to accommodate that. But I think it's a much more for cussed provision of service than it is blanket. Basically what the draft policy would have us do is every time we reconstruct a county road, we would have to add eight foot of shoulders, four foot on either side. That's too broad, and certainly not consistent with the federal policy. And it goes well, well beyond I think where you really need to focus your resources. Now, do we need to add shoulders to hamilton pool road where we know there is a demonstrated need for such a facility? I would say yes. Where there is an arterial roadway in the rural area that's consistently used for recreational purposes or otherwise for bicyclists, when we reconstruct that road we should add shoulders to do that. Now, that is not cheap. We estimated as part of the southwest growth dialogue the cost of doing that on hamilton pool road. Our main problem is this: most of our county roads, and we have 1200 miles of roadway. We have about 50 feet of right-of-way. There's only so much you can get in 50 feet. It was never designed -- our system is not an engineered design system. This is what we got over 50, 60 years. So in most cases we have 50 feet of right-of-way. In that right-of-way right now we have perhaps 20 feet of paved service, no shoulders, goes right into a ditch and then you've got the fence line. So when you go in to reconstruct a highway, the first thing you want to do is get additional right-of-way both for the roadway and anything else you want to put into it. So really you should have probably about 80 feet of right-of-way on hamilton pool, not 50. That's another 30 feet of right-of-way that has to be acquired. That cost is probably anywhere between 1 and $250,000 just for the additional right-of-way. Now, when you go to reconstruct the roadway, the roadway itself is about $1.4 million to reconstruct the roadway. If you're just going to put two lanes back in with 11-foot travel lanes on for the vehicles. If you add bicycle shoulders or shoulders that can be used for bicyclists on both sides, that would add approximately $370,000 to the cost, or about 20% additional cost. So the provision of bicycle facilities on hamilton pool will probably cost about 20% more than if you did not put the bicycle facilities on there. But that number does not include the right-of-way that is needed both for the bicycle ways and for the roadway expansion. So what I知 trying to do I think in the recommendation to the Commissioners court is taylor the general policy of campo where the investment in bicycle ways is most appropriate.
>> and the technical advisory committee says what recommendation?
>> they know hear what is in your letter to senator barrientos.
>> where are they on your memo, though? We think campo and the technical advisory committee is in agreement?
>> yes.
>> and why wouldn't we call a meeting of those who have been sending us e-mails to explain exactly what we are getting to? What you just described to me makes sense.
>> I知 more than happy to meet with anybody.
>> I think they are coming with -- they have been left with the impression that we are trying to circumvent the requirement and get out of --
>> actually, if we went with the federal highway policy as explicitly written, it would be different than the campo draft policy.
>> we think ours is better because it's tailered to meet our needs?
>> it meets our needs and frankly, it's more come accommodating than the federal policy is.
>> what I知 saying is that maybe an in-person meeting, an hour long, where we advise those that want to come. Where we explain what our position is and why, because I知 getting from the e-mails that they are not quite understanding what you explained a moment ago. Now, it may well be that the in-person meet won't help that much, but I can guarantee you that at the next campo meeting where we're looking at a document for the 2030 plan, if we recommend this language change, then they will be there opposing it. So at least we ought to go through that. That may save us some time later on.
>> all right.
>> and also, the federal policy is a million ways of why you can say no. I think our policy was giving us more reasons to say yes. And you're right, it is not being understood. I haven't gotten all that many, judge. I've gotten only maybe about 20 related, but they are putting --
>> mine is more.
>> they are putting it save our hike and bike trails. I知 going, we are. That's the whole point here is more ways to say yes.
>> can we get the city transportation person to come to the same meeting?
>> or campo, I知 not sure who is -- I think it's really the campo staff. But we'll invite the city as well.
>> I think there are some bicycle advocates, tommy eden and some others that are raising questions, raising concerns. And I think if you can get some of the leadership within the bicycle coalition to the table and just have a good dialogue going, and it may be that you don't leave the room at the same place, but I think we need to get some definite exchange of information about what we're trying to accomplish here.
>> mr. Eden did reduce his ideas to writing. Have you received a copy of his recent memo?
>> I received a copy of his e-mail.
>> was the e-mail the same as the hard copy he handed out? I can't recall.
>> I don't recall. I just got the e-mail. I'll forward the other e-mails as well. It's just a handful, but they're still intuitive.
>> if one of us could find our hard copy and get that to joe. And I was left with the impression that we need to sit down with them and sort of explain what it is we have in mind and the reasons why. And why we think it's better for them and us.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> yes, sir. And then we get a report back. Now, this matter is back on campo's early June agenda, right?
>> I think so.
>> so we have a little time, but I would try to get this done within the next couple of weeks. Can we do that? So if there needs to be --
>> (indiscernible).
>> have you been given those e-mails?
>> no, I have not.
>> i've got mine all very easily cat gorized. I'll be happy to forward them on.
>> see what they're saying and try to respond to them.
>> I can get those forwarded to you.
>> anything else on number 34? Should we have this back on in two weeks, joe? Rather than two weeks. Two weeks, that will be may 10th. Okay? Thanks.
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, April 27, 2005 7:40 AM