Travis County Commissioners Court
October 23, 2007
Item 17
17 is to consider and take appropriate action on candidate projects for fiscal year 2009 through 2010, surface transportation program, metropolitan mobility to be submitted to capital area metropolitan planning council.
>> you have, this is a carryover from la is week why we presented the list of candidate projects for Travis County. Staff has gone back to look at the criteria typically used by the campo staff to rate projects in a competitive process. We added our own points and came up with a list of priorities to recommend to the court. The first priority would be howard lane present cameron road to state highway 130. The second project would be freight barker from brodie lane to man check. 39 project would be slaughter lane east, and the fourth project would be wells branch parkway from killingsworth lane to cameron road. The other project, as you remember, is gill lan creek, actually in a separate category for funding for hike and bike path and it would be the one and only priority in that category of funding. In the backup we kind of give you the list of the criteria that we used and the points given. There's no magic to this. Just one way of looking at it. Certainly, the court can have their own sense of how they would allocate the points as well. So the this is just maybe a starting point for your discussion if you disagree with the way the staff allocated the points. But I think there's, I think they are fairly good priorities. I mean, it was a really kind of a judgment call between howard lane and freight barker I think they are both good projects. Freight barker is a little more on the safety side. And because it had prior campo funding, it's important. But howard lane also because of the gap to completion, this connection with state highway 130 is important.
>> judge, given the fact that there is a pretty limited amount of dough, the 44.41 million for the roads themselves, I mean, is your take that trying to get that divvied up, that we would be very likely to have anymore than one project?
>> probably not.
>> and so, given that campo agrees with this linup that we have, so to speak, probably we would only get the howard lane money?
>> well, I late to say that. We would certainly fight for both projects. I think you have a strong argument in that you already have funding for freight barker. So it's supplemental funding. In the event another project already funded doesn't make, I think we are set up pretty well to get additional, beyond expectations.
>> what would this do to, I mean the part of freight barker that we are out there designing and talking with everybody about, what effect would this have in the event that we did get some of this 44 million bucks?
>> we have funding to design the project as the ultimate section, and we only have funding, though build three lanes of what would be the ultimate four lanes with turns.
>> right.
>> the project will continue on, and we would be able to complete the right-of-way acquisition. We have funds for that. Complete the design and also complete a three-lane roadway section.
>> it would take it back to the three lane versus what we know we probably need capacity wise.
>> right. The advantage of building it the way the ultimate section s it's less expensive when you go phasing projects that cost mere. We do believe that volumes have increased over the last decade. Had this project has been around a while. I think it's probably the wise thing to do to build the whole section if we have the funds.
>> okay.
>> I have some questions about the criteria. First, I'm curious as to why safety and security would have a pint system of 15, in the point system would have a score of system as opposed to the higher scored criteria, connectivity, tdm, congestion relief and through put. Seems at least on first reading that that would have a higher potential score.
>> I really can't explain how the come --campo folks have broken out their numbers. In our conversations trying to understands, the best they could do is give us how much points were going to be assigned to each category. How you divvy up within the category, they still have to work that out themselves.
>> right. So this is a certain amount of guesswork on our part. I'm wondering if the goal in prioritizing these for our organization is to guess campo's point distribution or to lay down our point distribution.
>> actually, both. I mean, you understand that once it leaves us, we're in competition with everyone else. And these are the criteria that will be used.
>> although the reason why I raise it, as a member organization in campo, we may want to advocate for a higher score for safety and security. As I'm looking at it just running the numbers based on the table that you all gave us, looks like one in 100 people on freight barker involved in an accident, about one in 200 involved in one in wells branch, one in 300 on howard lane and one in 400 on slaughter lane. Which, that is I think a pretty remarkable spread between these projects, showing really the much higher priority, at least in terms of safety and security, for freight barker and wells branch parkway than howard lane and scraughter --slaughter lane in terms of that alone. I'm wondering if it should bear greater weight in our argument to campo.
>> actually, my an understanding--
>> we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now we are stuck with campo criteria.
>> that is exactly my point.
>> I am assuming they had reasons for coming up with thes.
>> that's what I'm asking. What are the reasons that safety and security would be rated lower than congestion reduction and reduced travel time? I'm just speculating here but I think one reason might be that they do like at safety projects separately from capacity projects. Capacity projects have a safety element to them. But if it is truly safety thing like freight barker was initially, it's dealt with as a separate category.
>> a separate category from the stpmm?
>> yes, there is actually a safety fund for high accident locations. If it really were of that separate category that there were so many accidents occurring there would be criteria to address those. It would step it up.
>> hmm. I think that has answered my question.
>> thank you. Can you all tell me the other counties that, the other interests that are sitting at the table for these sttmm allocation monies, do they have to follow the same criteria as I guess Travis County, especially if you still have to come up with 20 percent of the matching?
>> sure.
>> revenue?
>> all the projects are going to be weighed by the staff with the same criteria.
>> okay.
>> doesn't make any difference who you are, bastrop or Round Rock or Travis County.
>> 120 percent still has to be applicable.
>> the match is the same.
>> okay.
>> whoever sponsors the project.
>> regardless. Okay.
>> move approval of this.
>> second.
>> I have--
>> I do think we ought to put together a strategy to get two of these funded starting with who do we think our partners should be. On howard lane we think we have city of Austin support.
>> and tex dot as well.
>> I think we need to know what projects the city of Austin submits. Do we think the city will support us on freight barker?
>> it's partially inside the city. They would be a natural ally for the project, yes.
>> let's figure out how natural it is before the campo meeting. Commissioner eckhardt.
>> two follow-up questions. Does tnr believe that this is the appropriate triage on the element for stpmm funding?
>> actually, we were looking more to be competitive than necessarily questioning the allocation of points among criteria. So I think our main point was let's see if we can get some money. And if this is, if these are the rules, let's see how we can best play by them rather than challenge the rules.
>> uh-huh. But do you think--
>> diplomatic answer, joe.
>> do you think this is the appropriate distribution?
>> I don't have an answer on that right now.
>> okay. And as far as the tdm-tsm strategies category, if you all could, and I don't expect you to be able to do it here, but if you could learn me some on how they are measuring reduced miles traveled in that category.
>> I could bring leroy click over to your office to talk about that.
>> that would be great.
>> okay.
>> are you all here on project diamond back this afternoon?
>> I this monk things, judge.
>> this afternoon. Sorry.
>> yeah.
>> if they follow the county judge's lead, yes, may as well take them sort of close togethe.
>> appreciate it.
>> anymore discussion of the motion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. One thing, the other within one is in executive session. It will be 2:30 or so before we reach it, is my guess.
>> all right.
>> so if you, 2:30 or three will be a good time. Let's say 2:30. Let's assume the court will be real efficient today. 2:30.
>> thank you, judge.
>> I saw you all together I realized what item you might be here on. That passes by unanimous vote. Okay. There is, yes, 20 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following. A, request to approve a disclosure statement for members of the investment advisory committee and 20 b is to request to participate in the tex star local government investment pool. We'll get you next ms. Flemming. Good morning.
>> good morning. I'm the investment manager for Travis County and I have with me our financial analyst, crystal routen who has been working with me on this project. Proposal a is to approve a disclosure statement for the investment advisory committee. We have never had one of these before. But in discussing the tex star issue, we discovered that one of our outside board members is the president of the board of tex star. As you know, local government investment pools must have participant members on the board by law.
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, October 24, 2007, 18:30 AM