Travis County Commissioners Court
December 23, 2008
Item 23
23 is to consider and take appropriate action on a resolution supporting the Texas rail relocation and improvement association's pursuit of legislation during the 81st legislature that would provide funding and assistance for the relocation of freight rail line outside of urban centers and the creation of intercity commuter rail lines in the Austin-san antonio corridor.
>> I've put this on to -- for consideration for us to add to our legislative wish list of things that we would be supportive of.
it's my understanding that txdot didn't include it in their federal wish list to fund the relocation of the freight rail, so hence the resolution.
>> I have some questions that I need to I think need to be a part of whatever we're doing here.
the question is, number one, the rail that we specifically have in purpose of moving, is that the rail line going down mopac?
>> yes.
that's the rail line that runs down mopac and then just to the west of i-35.
>> and I guess my question, though, is that particular rail line, is that owned by union pacific?
>> uh-huh.
>> my question then, has union pacific been notified as far as getting -- being a part of whatever is being recommended here?
>> my understanding, and ross I'm certain knows better than i, but my understanding is that union pacific has been contacted over the cowrs of years and are well aware of this desire, but have said heck, no, we won't go until the state pays for a new line for us.
>> right.
and I guess secondly, they have not responded, I guess, one way or the other, as far as moving.
and then secondly, the relocation of the line, where are we talking about the location when we say -- where are we saying to relocate the line to?
where it's going, the destination?
>> that's a good question.
>> that's part of what I need an answer for that because what I've heard is that they would like to take that freight union pacific rail and move it to the east side where, of course, I think the state representatives and those elected officials and also the community need to be aware, if that is the relocation point.
another point is that we had a work session here scheduled just recently, and it was postponed.
and there was a rendering about rapid rail, whatever, and I think it was connectivity maybe from waco, from dallas I think all the way down to points south, maybe to san antonio.
on the i-35 corridor per se.
my question is where does all of this lead us?
and if we're going to pursue resolutions, I think -- in my opinion I think we need some answers up front.
number one, if this is something that the court is going to support, I think we need to have more information.
is union pacific willing to relocate.
that's the first one.
and number two, is where is the destination of the new line going to be located.
it's been rumored and discussed that specifically on the east side of town for the relocation of that line for freight with union pacific.
now, I need to know what the answers are to those questions.
can you help me out, sir?
>> I think so.
I'm ross malone, president of the Austin-san antonio corridor council.
we've been working on this for several years.
the lead agency is the Austin-san antonio intermunicipal rail district that was created by the legislature.
txdot has done a study of the entire rail work of the state and has identified about 16 and a half billion dollars' worth of projects all over the state that they refer to as chill point projects.
the relocation of the union pacific out of the Austin san antonio corridor is just one of those projects.
what we're trying to do is to get funding into something that was created in 2005 that the voters approved, which is the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund.
it was created by the legislature.
the idea was that you would create bond program over time that could perform some of these relocations in areas where you have high traffic, a lot of grade crossings, sometimes hazardous materials moving through the inner city.
in response to the second question about where it would go, txdot has done a series studies along the Austin-san antonio corridor and has identified I believe it's about six different alignments, Commissioner, where the line might be placed.
there's one existing line that they are talking about possibly improving, that is adding tracks and create separations to it.
I can't tell you right now which line would be used, but I don't believe -- any new -- I have not seen any new alignments proposed by txdot that are inside Travis County.
they go outside of Travis County.
so if that answers that part of your question.
>> outside Travis County?
>> outside Travis County.
>> any particular -- the six lines that it may be --
>> they've looked at six possible alignments.
>> any of the six possible alignments within the area that I just spoke of in eastern Travis County?
>> I don't know the answer to that.
>> we need get an answer to that one.
>> I'm sorry, didn't you say all six of the alignments that you know of, all of them are outside of Travis County?
>> yes, but I don't know whether there's a line that could be improved that's still in Travis County.
I just don't know the answer to that.
>> I need to get an answer to that.
and number two is that this associated funding that you brought up, do we know how much money is available at this point as far as the funding to proceed with such a project to tie in to -- to do the relocation and not only that, but to deal with alternative use of that vacated freight line?
do we have any idea of how much funding that the state has available has available at this point or whoever has the money?
>> well, if I understand the question correctly, any money coming from the rail relocation fund has not been financed yet, so there is no money there.
the Commissioner referenced a request that txdot has made as part of their legislative appropriations request that would put $100 million in there over the next two years to begin funding a bond program over time.
the rail district itself has raised about $10 million and has a funding stream, identified a funding stream committed to by the two metropolitan planning organizations of Austin and san antonio that equals about $50 million plus federal funding over the next four years.
>> one concern that you brought up and kind of raised a flag with me.
and that is I've really been having a problem with and that is the problems of hazardous materials, rails, trains and stuff do derail.
and if they are packing out -- transporting hazardous material, whatever relocation that is suggested -- now, I really would like to know what type of mechanism of mechanism will be in place, what type of buffer areas will be in place close whereby residents would have some kind of evacuation plan, it's always been we move forward, but then again when disaster happens, then we are behind the eight ball.
so ultimately we should have done this or we should have done that.
>> I couldn't agree with you more Commissioner, that's one reason dwr y.
the relocation act was done.
the existing line that runs down the union pacific tracks through mopac here in Austin is now about 130 years old.
over time we don't think it makes a lot of sense to continue moving the amount of freight that we're currently moving and the types of freight that we're moving through some of the most populated, densely populated areas in the state.
it makes more stoans build new lines that are safer, faster, more efficient, grade separated wherever possible, so you reduce all that accident risk.
one of the requirements of the Texas rail relocation improvement fund is that the county in which the rail line is to be relocated has to approve, the county Commissioners court has to approve the relocation in their area.
so I think eight of those protections are built in to the existing law.
>> then if that's the case then, we do not know -- there are more than Travis County that would be involved with it, but there are other counties.
>> yes, sir, it would be many counties.
>> so my question is has this been presented -- if we're going forward with a resolution, is this a resolution per county as you approach this, because there's a lot of connectivity as far as counties are concerned.
and number two is will there be some type of, again, acknowledgment of where these lines will potentially go.
right now, I don't know -- and I haven't got a definite answer from you because I think it's something that needs to come to us, but I guess the other counties would also be involved since the Commissioners court have to make a decision on this, would also have to know that same type of information that I'm requesting.
and --
>> yes, sir I think the difficulty here is that the state has actually studied the relocation plans and they've looked at various options and they have half a dozen or so options out there.
it's a study that was published and reported on about two months ago.
I can't tell you which specific alignment would be chosen because they haven't reached that yet.
>> that's part of my problem.
>> let me go back and finish your other question.
there are right now right now between 40 and 50 counties that have passed resolutions like the one before you today.
>> but I guess as far as the Commissioners -- that's cities.
>> cities and Commissioners court.
>> my whole point, though, not knowing where the relocation is, I don't want to support anything that's going to land something in my backyard, especially if the folks haven't had an opportunity to know what it is, the safeguards, the things that I mentioned, all of those things.
I don't want to write a blank check and say okay, here it is.
we'll move the rail, union pacific off of mopac and move it right over there -- someone each suggested that it may be close to sh 130.
I don't know how true that is, but I need to have that information to let those folks know who are suspicious of what's going on, where this is going to go.
>> isn't this one of the -- of the six, isn't one of them within the 130 footprint?
>> you know, Commissioner, I think that the state anyway has concluded that the 130 footprint doesn't work for topographical reasons.
>> I know there are some grade challenges.
>> we need to have something, though, to that regard, otherwise it's hard for me to -- I'd like to maybe -- I don't know how long to wait on this.
how long will it take you to get an answer for me.
>> it will be a public process that will on go on for a couple of years.
there will have to be vn environmental assessment, you will have to get environmental clearance, you will have to go through the nepa process.
it will take years.
the only thing I can tell you, Commissioner, is that from the plans, from the roots that txdot has so far identified as potential, none of those are in Travis County according to my knowledge.
>> I would like to have that in writing, what you just said.
so if my constituents call here, I say listen, according to whomever, in writing, it not going to go.
>> I'd like to give that to you today.
>> if you can do that.
that way I want the resolution to be contingent on that.
>> just so you're clear, Commissioner, we don't make that decision.
>> well, see, that's part of the problem.
>> the decision will get made through the federally approved environmental process.
>> that's part of the problem I'm having because sh 130, even though it may be grade problems, there are similar situations that may quom date some of these situations, maybe still within Travis County.
so I'm having some very difficult, difficult problems with this, especially if my constituents are saying this and saying that and Commissioner Davis don't have the answer for them.
so you've got me in a tough situation here.
>> I think the circumstance, though, is that none of us know where the rail would be, the straight line would be -- the freight line would be relocated to at this point.
we're still in the early stages.
when mr. Ma loy speaks of putting $100 million toward this fund, we have to put it in context.
the red line is a -- the red line that cap metro has implemented at buildout will be a 350-million-dollar project.
so 200 million is frankly a drop in the bucket, so we are at the very, very beginning of real progress on the relocation of freight rail.
and we're at the beginning of a process that is likely to take a decade.
so we're unlikely to have any answer, any definitive answer on where freight would be relocated to for years.
>> couple of years.
>> thank you.
>> remember, Commissioner, that that's -- there's a 16 to 17 billion-dollar need statewide.
so $200 million put into that fund would fund the first two million dollars of that project.
>> try to put it in perspective.
I'll wait until you're done, Commissioner.
>> the other question I was asked was regarding union pacific.
we've been in serious negotiations with union pacific now for two years on a method for relocating them.
they've agreed that they will move, but they want the state to pay the majority of the cost because they feel that they could survive in their existing format for a long time to come.
>> but it's hugely advantageous to them to have a route in a very low population area so they can increase the speed of their freight, and hence the economies for them are very attractive.
to move it to a much less populated area.
and Travis County is frankly getting so dense that it would not be advantageous to them, and I don't think union pacific would advocate for an alternative route inside Travis County.
>> it would be safer, faster, more efficient to put them into a new corridor.
and currently I think their average freight speed movement through this corridor is about 17 miles per hour.
you put them into a new grade separated corridor, the speed goes up to 37 miles per hour and that takes trucks off i-35 because they get more competitive.
>> and grade separated means it's not part of the roadway.
correct?
>> it's where the rail crosses the road at the same grade.
they have a term of art in the railroad business, when a car and a train collide that it's an auto-train conflict.
and we lead the state in auto-train conflict in this corridor.
I would point out to you too that there's a national organization called the gateway and trade corridors association made up of transportation officials from all around the nation, and they just put this corridor on the list of top six projects in the nation that need to get fixed as part of the infrastructure stimulus package.
so there's a lot of interest in this not just in our corridor, but nationwide.
>> so on this resolution, Travis County goes on record as supporting what?
>> financing the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund.
it's asking the state to put money into that fund so that we can begin to remove some of these choke points and dangerous situations all across the state.
that's what you're asking the legislature to do.
and I'd also point out that on Friday, senator corona, who is the chairman of the senate transportation and homeland security committee, introduced senate bill 383 that would put $200 million a year into the relocation fund, taking that money from other vehicle, motor vehicle related sources of income.
>> so in terms of this resolution, the first therefore is in regard to funding improvements for those choke points, where we are seeing a serious safety issue or a potential safety issues.
and the second therefore, the resolution is to fund the relocation of freight, specifically to an alternative route.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> but there's an awful lot of in your resolution that has to do with inner city rail.
it's not part of -- we did a resolution on the commuter rail district to -- what was it, two years ago?
>> probably for the 2007 legislative session.
>> 2007 legislature, which I wouldn't know why we couldn't adopt that same language.
because really what ross wants is we need to fund the rail relocation provision part of this, and given the fact that I think it passed like 87% --
>> it's a constitutional amendment.
voters approved the constitutional amendment overwhelmingly.
>> so I wouldn't know why we couldn't mirror the resolution that we had from the district.
quite frankly, you know the opposition that I'm -- most people know that I will have is there's so much language in here about inner city rail, and the whole inner city rail thing and how it relates to your rail, how it relates to the t bone, how it relates to -- good god, there are so many rail lines that people have got going up and down i-35.
and yes, Commissioner Davis, make no mistake, the -- if union pacific relocates, it is 99-point # percent sure that it's going east of the interstate.
now, whether it's going east beyond Travis County, who knows?
but it's going east.
it's not going west.
so everybody just needs to be truthful about that.
>> I asked a question and --
>> it will be going east because --
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> of course the concern that folks are saying, well, safety measures.
and I don't want to rehash it, but hazardous material is a very serious problem.
of course, you can pass all the legislations that you want, but if there are components that do not protect public safety and you provide for that up front, instead of being in hindsight, foresight move instead of a hindsight move, I think we're better off.
and again, I can't support this today.
the reason why I can't is based on what I'm hearing.
it's going to be east.
until someone tells me that it's not within the boundaries of Travis County, going through the eastern part of Travis County, that's Margaret Gomez's precinct over there.
the constituents are very nervous with the way things have been going down, period, when it comes to transportation situations on the east side.
so there's a lot of legitimate concerns that they this have.
and I'm echoing what they're saying to me.
I'm just a voice piece for the people.
and I am echoing that.
so if I can have something in writing from you or anybody else who is a part of this that can point out some of the things that I'm asking today, well, that's later on.
but I'd like to have that so at least I can look at it and say yes, this is needed; however, on down the line, one, two, three and four.
>> we can do more work on this.
>> let me speak to the safety part.
the statewide leader of the coalition to get this passed is nelson wolfe, the county judge down there.
safety is his primary concern in this whole thing.
they've had terrible accidents down there.
and this is largely because of the antiquated infrastructure running through heavily populated areas.
eventually some day we'll want all that freight moved out of these populated areas.
it's going to happen.
the question is how long are we going to wait to do it and how much is it going to cost when we get to that point.
we have to move it and move it near term, the time is now and it will never get cheaper.
like I said, I can't tell you exactly where it's going to go.
my knowledge of the studies that have been done so far do not know shoa it coming in through Travis County.
but that's as much as I can tell you.
the final decision about where it would be rerouted is going to be a balancing act between the terrain, the physical terrain, and the nepa process, the federally mandated process that looks at the environmental factors, including social justice issues and things like that.
>> that's part of some of the situation even with sh 130.
going west or going east of (indiscernible).
>> I do think I can echo what commission irrelevant Daugherty said is I can't imagine it going west just because of the terrain to the west.
it not very likely.
>> it ain't going west.
>> let me ask, sarah, would you be opposed to changing the resolution that you wrote to the resolution that the commuter rail district put two and a half years ago?
>> I'd have to take a look at it.
and my concern in taking a look at it is I don't I don't want to hide the fact that one of the benefits of the relocation, the primary benefit is definitely the safety of the population, and running freight through majorly populated areas is a problem.
but the secondary benefit is also taking that freight off of highways, and once you do, you free up and asset that is ideal to moving commuter populations.
it's not like we're going to leave that asset on the table and ignore it.
>> well, yeah.
you don't have to worry about me in 10 days.
I mean, at this stage --
>> at this point we'll do further work and put it back on when appropriate.
>> that's fine.
>> the other thing that -- when the thing is brought back, I really ask, sarah -- and I respect where you're coming from on this.
I really hope that the one thing that you get in this resolution is that the rail relocation improvement fund will not come out of fund 6.
that was the -- as ross knows, that was the thing that I fought the hardest over.
I know what happens with these things.
the reason that whenever you start talking about that highway miles have grown or traffic has grown by 57%, and you've only increased the roads by eight percent.
that's not necessarily because people just didn't want to fund roads.
a lot of it has to do with the fact that you can't fund the roads is that you don't have the dough.
and we all know that fund 6 effectively the state sales tax is so inadequate to do what we really need to have done.
I really think that we have got to be mindful that if you're going to rob peter to pay paul on this thing, because I would really take you to task over whether or not you were really maximizing any sort of efficiencies by getting freight off of highways and moving it on to rail lines.
because you still are going to end up taking 95% plus of your consumer product via a truck.
now, maybe they oant won't be on i-35, but freight rail gets you from point a to point b and then dumps it, and then all of your consumer products get delivered via a road system, and that is a truck.
so if you're going to whack, so to speak, the funding that it takes to do these roads, and we all know that, hey, even I'm hoping that some of the obama dollars come flowing down here for the roads because we need it, but I really hope that that would be part of the resolution when you bring it back.
>> and we will bring it back and those are really good points regarding fund 6.
you're absolutely right, Gerald.
any comprehensive transportation plan for the state has got to include adequate fund fog our rubber tire infrastructure.
my concern is that at the state level our state transportation plan almost exclusively provides funding for rubber tire infrastructure.
the rail relocation and the improvement is the only substantive part of the state plan that isn't roadways only.
and frankly, it's that part that makes it more attractive to the obama dollars, not the roadway infrastructure.
>> Commissioner eckhardt will be getting with you.
we'll have this back on the agenda at the appropriate time.
>> thank you, judge.
>> appreciate your patience.
>> at least it wasn't a no.
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, December 23, 2008 4:27 PM