Travis County Commissioners Court
December 1, 2009,
Item 19
Number 19 it's on consider and take appropriate action on request for statement of Travis County position on Texas department of transportation plans regarding proposed improvements to f.m.
1626 and f.m.
967 in hays county.
two, brodie lane and Travis County.
i should add that I receive add notice of public hearing for the -- the whole court, from txdot.
we were just going to put that on our agenda as a quorum of the court may attend.
also, to give notice to Travis County residents of this -- of this public hearing by txdot in hays county.
the more we thought about it and the potential impact on brodie lane in Travis County the more convinced we became that we probably should put it on the court's agenda for discussion, so if we want to take some action the thinking being that the residents who are impacted, one, to give opportunity to give comments if they wish to and, three, for those who wonder what our position is we may want to give them that.
>> that's pretty much it.
again to reiterate, this is a public hearing being posted by the Texas department of transportation on Tuesday, December 8th at 6:00.
an open house forum at the elm grove elementary school school in buda, Texas.
i put together a -- a resolution, a draft resolution if the court wants to make testimony at the public hearing on behalf of the Commissioners court.
i put together a resolution that kind of lays out where -- where we have been with this whole issue of brodie lane and state highway 45 and now because of 1626 improvements if we were to make a position, what would that position be.
so I have tried structure the resolution in sync with our past actions and statement of policies with regard to -- to all of those issues, transportation issues and -- in southwest Travis County.
so by and large, the -- the dilemma that we have is not that -- not that we oppose 1626 or the need for improvements to 1626, we fully realize that hays county is doing something that they feel is necessary to accommodate what is going on in that neck of the woods.
they have a tremendous amount of growth occurring.
it's actually probably one of the fastest growing sectors of the metropolitan area.
we find that true both in Williamson county and hays county.
it's by nature it's next to the urbanized areas, really starting to pick up.
as a result, they need additional transportation if you are.
1626 is one of those, kind of a north-south spine parallel to 35.
what txdot and hays county are proposing to do is widen it to a four lane roadway.
all of that is well and good but what happens to the traffic when it hits Travis County.
therein is the dilemma.
in the transportation plan of campo, we had envisioned that state highway 45 southwest would have been constructed and the nature of that traffic, the regional traffic would go on to 45.
i don't think it was any intention on anyone's part that brodie lane would become the de facto route for all of this traffic to take and that's kind of what's happening because the rest of the network hasn't been approved.
so by improving 1626 without improving anything else, it just funnels more traffic down brodie lane and we know that arterial cannot take much more than it's already received.
the resolution just says don't dump any more traffic on brodie lane.
don't design this in such a way that you end it a brodie and funnel it all down brodie lane and expecting that to take the brunt of the through traffic into Austin.
if it can be done without doing that, great.
we also reiterate the fact that we believe 45 should be completed.
if it were completed, it would take some of that traffic off of brodie lane and also accommodate the additional traffic coming down 1626.
short of that, the other interim improvement would be to further upgrade 1626 into manchaca and then improve manchaca road down into Austin.
that would be another alternate route.
but overall the tone of the draft resolution is don't dump any more traffic on brodie.
>> but the manchaca option as you just mention -- is mentioned.
>> it is mentioned you.
>> don't describe that in the resolution.
>> pardon?
>> we do describe it in the resolution?
>> no.
>> let me --
>> first I have seen it --
>> [multiple voices]
>> did this come out earlier or was this just distributed just now.
>> came out yesterday.
>> let me read the -- the now therefore, I think that's pretty much the gist of it.
>> > is this the same one that we were e-mailed?
>> yes.
the --
>> okay, now --
>> says basically now therefore be it resolved that the Travis County Commissioners court opposes any design or improvement to 1626 that would increase traffic on brodie lane.
and, two, oppose the widening of f.m.
1626, unless, a, state highway 45 southwest project is funded and completed concurrently, or, b, as an interim measure, txdot widens f.m.
1626 to four lanes to f.m.
2304 manchaca road.
widens f.m.
2304 to four lanes, from 1626 to raven croft drive, that is actually widening manchaca itself, and then finally, restricts traffic movements turn on to brodie from 1626.
so basically we're saying either take that traffic down 45 or take it down 1626 to manchaca.
those are your two alternatives if you do it at all.
>> I'm not sure we place enough emphasis on that.
i -- I guess that I would have that in one of the whereas clauses as well as in the therefore clause.
>> I'm open -- I just crafted this and I expect it to --
>> when I read it I -- it's one of the last lines, I guess it's pretty important.
>> yeah.
>> I would have it earlier in the resolution and plus I would -- I would mention it a second time in the therefore clause is what I'm thinking.
but to under the circumstances clearly if you make these improvements to 1626, and -- and 967, you really are getting traffic to brodie faster and probably more of it.
>> that's right.
>> that's what we are saying.
>> it almost looks like it's set up to do that, by ending it at brodie, like okay you improve that intersection and where else does it go.
>> ?
>> joe, where are -- that's been a hot button issue for quite some time, that area, especially with the traffic coming out of hays county.
coming up into Travis County going points north, taking the brodie lane which actually goes through I guess a neighborhood, shady hollow.
right?
is that shady hollow.
>> shady hollow is one of the subdivisions, you have got others.
there's been a pretty hot button issue.
of course there have been other angles and approaches to try to resolve I guess what's coming out of hays county.
coming up into Travis County.
points north, points west, up against mopac probably.
one of the concerns I think that we would introduce, some time ago, was the -- was the -- the s.h.
45 southwest.
of course, what is the latest disposition on that s.h.
45 southwest?
what happened to that?
>> money.
>> all right.
money.
>> it all boils down to money.
>> money to fund it and because I think that was one of the -- I think that was one of the areas that were considered to be a toll, wasn't it, at that time?
still is.
>> that was one alternative, yes.
early on it was actually to be funded with the state, the traditional gasoline tax sources and then when the toll road started becoming into play, overall was also proposed as a toll road, I think all of those options were on the table.
>> I have heard pros and cons, environmental community looking at the recharge area of the -- of the edwards -- of the edward's aquifer and of course all that recharge area and of course vehemently oppose the extension of s.h.
45 southwest.
and then on the other hand, you hear folks that say, well, we have to have it because of the relief fact tore that was offered -- relief factor offered for persons to get to where they are going without the necessary need to deal with a lot of these things that are dealing with f.m.
1626 and stuff coming out of hays county actually for folks to travel.
i know that there were some things that were done previously to support some of the efforts that the shady hollow folks had brought to us and they came down in droves I mean people testifying saying this and that and improvements, lights, safety features, a whole lot of other things to slow down the traffic coming down brodie lane in one of those subdivisions.
i guess those things have been adhered to.
i'm really not sure.
but I do know that there was a -- safety issues going through the neighborhood.
so I guess my question is because of the funding as where this thing hasn't necessarily gone away, it's just a lack of finding money for the efforts at the southwest 45 -- 45 southwest?
s.h.
45 southwest?
can we basically be comfortable with that statement?
>> well, it has not completed the environmental clearance.
but I think -- from what I understand after the subcommittee of campo looked at this, the funding is probably the more significant hurdle at this point in time.
there's federal funding has become very competitive.
less available.
in light of the
>> [indiscernible] need, partly a matter of priorities.
also a matter of just -- just --
>> my point --
>> funding that's available doesn't go as far as it used to go.
>> I guess I'm having some concerns about that because this -- if funding was so hard to find at that time to do something of that magnitude, how could they find funding to put the toll and flyovers in an area, like on 290, for an example, funding, the money was there for that, it's not here for that.
it just don't mix here.
you know, we find funding for the east side to put a toll on, but we can't find funding for the west side to deal with the same situation that would have been a toll.
there's inequity here when it comes from east to west as far as funding is concerned.
apparently they found the money for the east side to put a toll there, 290, all the way to call the manor express.
they found money for that.
can you answer that question for me?
how did that happen?
>> the -- my understanding what they found money for as the interchange of 290 and 183.
not the entire toll road to manor.
i think there's still some -- some lack of funding, even for that.
>> but it's a funding issue
>> [multiple voices]
>> all of the toll roads that is probably the one and only project that was funded with the latest funding sources.
i wouldn't say that it wouldn't be the desire of txdot and/or the toll authority to do both these projects at some point in time.
what is more important, I think, is probably traffic volumes, forecasted growth in these corridors, all of those probably determine how they set priorities on what gets funding first, second and third.
i would think that probably all of these agencies would wish to fund all of them if they could.
but there's just not enough to go around.
so there -- they are probably looking at where there is traffic congestion today, how much traffic is there, the sheer volume of it, what can they see happening in that corridor in the foreseeable future.
all of those things are taken into consideration.
i would also probably think in this case the environmental impact is also a consideration.
>> mr.
bunch?
are you here on this item.
>> pardon?
yes.
>> we would like your comments.
>> okay.
>> thank you, members of the Commissioners court.
bill bunch with save our springs alliance.
obviously, our primary concern about the 1626 project as well as 45 southwest is the threats to the aquifer and barton springs and I hoped that y'all would share those concerns with us.
at least to the degree that they really need to be studied carefully on both of these projects.
on this resolution, which we only found out about yesterday, the sharp eye, andrew hawkins in our office, with judge's help got a copy of the resolution late yesterday.
so we're still sort of trying to respond.
but we -- we agree with the key thrust of this resolution.
that we don't want hays county rushing forward to build this huge project that then, you know, almost dead ends into other roads that aren't up to that same sort of capacity.
so that kind of poor planning should be avoided and I think that's what's intended here.
our concerns, though, about this resolution are that it's still ignoring the other issues and protecting the aquifer.
if the 1626 project is built as they are proposing it, which is just a massive expansion and 45 is built, then you are talking about dumping a massive amount of traffic.
on to south mopac and essentially diverting traffic that currently stays off the aquifer on to the aquifer.
that means that you are going to have to build an overpass at lacrosse, an overpass at slaughter, you know, there's a whole sort of domino effect that comes from that that's not been thought about or paid attention to, to date, by anybody.
i understand that this was sort of put on the agenda very quickly, because of this December 8th public hearing.
the comment period goes until the 18th.
on the e.a.
the e.a.
still hasn't really been circulated to the public.
so we're going to be asking that that comment period be extended for at least 30 days, if not 60 days.
so that the community actually has the time to, you know, get their hands on the document and make meaningful comments.
it would be great if your environmental staff could help, you know, evaluate that as well, whether, you know, it's looking at these issues that -- the traffic issue on brodie, which is a serious issue, but also these other issues.
another critical issue that y'all need to keep in mind, which I think continues to be forgotten, is your federal and dangerous species act 10 a permit that you hold in conjunction, partnership with the city of Austin, requires you to protect flint ridge cave.
now, for whatever reason, that legal commitment was in place when the right-of-way was bought to go right over that cave.
so there's a fundamental problem there of -- of making statements, which I think this -- as mr.
huselynn said, what you all reiterating that you really want to build this roadway if only you had the money.
and I hope that you won't be making that statement.
because it's really time to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
i think this was a bad idea in '86 when it was first laid out.
it's a worse idea today.
you know, 23 years later.
and it's definitely time that -- to step back and take a larger look at it.
we understand the traffic on brodie is a serious issue.
let's do help figure that out.
but let's not proceed with a statement that's essentially saying that's the only problem that's out there.
that's the only issue that's out there.
and by gosh if we just had all of that money we could build 45 right away and everything would be good for Travis County.
and the citizens in Travis County.
we really think it take that's broader look.
so -- so one potential would be that you -- that take you the additional time that I think that you have at least until the 18th, to put something in the record.
perhaps join with folks in the community to ask that that window be extended.
and that -- that we really try to look at how we can help the brodie situation without falling back on the same old and unaffordable answer, which is go build some more roads.
the world has changed and we really have to move towards being smart about our transportation solutions that fit a budget and that protect our most vulnerable water resources in this instance that also address our other sort of socio-economic concerns.
so --
>> build, I --
>> appreciate your consideration, thank you.
>> bill, I heard you and you heard me saying earlier that money was found to do something on the east side, they found the money to do something over there, it's a toll, designated toll, it's going to be one.
they found money to do that and at the same token, that's why I asked the question the way I did, was because of the fact that -- that it was a hot -- this is a hot political issue over there, it is.
let's face it.
of course there's, you know, probably the disposition of folks that don't want to do it because of political situation, political repercussions of the effect of what happen.
i don't want to treat west Austin any different than I treat east Austin.
my concern is still the same.
it's going to stay the same.
protect east Austin as you protect west Austin.
it's very important for us for our protection also, that's why I posed the question to joe gieselman about the money, so I hope that you understand where I'm coming from.
>> absolutely, we appreciate that a great deal.
even though it's not in the aquifer watershed, s.o.s.
has put in a considerable effort on 290.
>> yeah, I know.
>> to make that a better project.
one that's more affordable and more protective of the neighborhoods and the businesses in that corridor.
>> well -- anyway.
>> joe, am I correct that -- I'm sitting here thinking that txdot is -- is sort of on -- on pass/go on 1626 and 2304 and the other road?
so in my view, it's important for us to get them word of our opposition as soon as possible.
and I'm thinking that we could take the additional time to add to whatever the initial notification is.
and in my view they ought to know when the public hearing opens next Tuesday night, that Travis County is in opposition.
and we may want to refine the reasons.
and when we put this on, I kind of decided that waiting until Tuesday was too late because maybe we got notice to them, maybe not.
but if we took action today, even if we just say, hey, we are opposed to this because of the traffic that it would add to brodie lane, as you know it's been a big problem for us and we have been trying to work on various options to remedy part of it, I think the residents would -- would appreciate early opposition and I think txdot ought to know as soon as possible and if we want to say we will follow up with a document that sets forth the reasons why, then so be it.
and if we want to send the same document, by the way this is news to us and in our view we need to take additional time to look at some of the issues that it raises for us, you see what I'm saying.
>> that makes sense to me.
>> if I understand what you are saying.
>> if we do that what I'm saying is I would get word of Travis County's opposition to txdot as soon as possible.
at the same time, we ought to indicate that to the brodie area residents as well as the Commissioners court in hays county.
and they knew about this traffic issue same as we and last time they kind of -- they visited with us.
we had on the agenda an item in which residents had asked us to close brodie.
and so -- so, you know, it's been a big issue out there.
that was four or five years ago, right?
>> right.
>> where we had elected officials from hays county down to talk about that.
so I'm thinking that there is a great value in immediately communicating, hey, we oppose this, we just got word of it and our initial response is it will just cause nightmares for us on brodie and we need additional time to put together information that we can provide to support this initial opposition, but it's been a problem long enough for them not to be surprised that -- that when we saw it, it raises great concerns for us.
and we may each take additional time to try to figure out the reason that's we oppose -- the reason that's we oppose it.
i would just state up front if you oppose these two roads, in our view, it really will increase traffic on brodie lane which is already a problem for us.
>> right.
>> and I would get that word to residents as well as to the hays county Commissioners court.
>> could I respond just briefly if.
>> sure.
>> then if I understand what you are saying right, then what-- what I would suggest you think about is on the -- on the be it resolved provision, that you say that --
>> what I have in mind is taking a bit little more time on the resolution, but sending a letter.
>> oh, okay, right.
>> txdot, hays county Commissioners court, residents, on December 1st 2009 the Commissioners court looked at this public hearing and proposal from txdot.
>> right.
>> and immediately concluded that it was in opposition or we are in opposition, we need additional time to put together reasons why we will do that and send them to you.
>> right.
>> but we want to be on record as being in opposition.
>> right.
>> and the initial reason is that it exacerbates problems on a road that's been problematic for us at least for 20 years.
>> right.
>> it's been a while.
>> right.
>> then that needs to be resolved in conjunction with -- with figuring out what to do with 1626.
>> right.
then we take additional time on the resolution.
>> right.
>> > yeah, that sounds good.
because also you are not really concerned about design improvements.
>> it's in the 2030 plan.
>> 2030?
it's in the 2030 plan?
>> yeah.
>> it's in the t.i.f., but also the specifics of how they are phasing it, it's the phasing it that's a problem, they are only doing it up to brodie.
but I think that's a good suggestion if we did a letter that says that we oppose this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the effects on brodie and we'll get back to you with specifics as well as suggestions for a better way to skin the cat.
>> yes.
>> I move that we do that.
>> can you get that to the hays county -- and communicate that to the hays county Commissioners court court and txdot and follow that with --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> absolutely.
here's what I would like to know.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] what legal recourse does the county have to say, well, we don't appreciate or we disagree with you and at that standpoint -- what legal recourse in Travis County at that time take to stop the -- can Travis County take to top the project or make them do something different.
>> I'd have to look into that --
>> just because you oppose stuff don't mean no one hears you.
sometimes things go through whether you are opposed or not.
so I want to look at the legal recourse.
is there a legal recourse for Travis County on a road that comes into Travis County, the state has control, they want to do what they want to do anyway, what legal recourse does the county have.
>> we'll have to look into that.
>> let's look into it.
>> now, if we approve this motion, it will give us until the end of our meeting today to put a letter together.
what I have in mine is like a one-pager or page and a half.
see what I'm saying?
something real simple but clearly indicates our opposition.
and hopefully before the meeting is over today, we can look at a specific letter that we approve.
>> I'll have it to you in the afternoon session.
>> we will make sure you've got 15 or 30 minutes for lunch, joe.
>> [laughter] discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
now, joe, since we have you there, 22 -- and by the way, we tried to get word to different folk that we would -- what we would do.
i have 32 here and if that takes us to 11:00, 21 is what I have told people we would get to and waller creek I have for 11:15.
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 1, 2009 1:50 PM
