Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 11, 2010,
Item 23
Now, let's call back to order the voting session of the travis county commissioners court. We did post -- item no. 23 to begin at 1:30. Consider and take appropriate action on a resolution requesting that the capital area metropolitan planning organization, campo, transportation policy board, remove state highway 45 southwest between loop 1 and f.m. 1626 from -- from a, the proposed 2035 transportation plan; and and b all proposed funding from the campo transportation improvement program. Commissioner huber?
>> thank you, judge. I have placed this -- this agenda item on today for our consideration based upon where i believe the -- the campo 2035 plan is going at this point in time. My biggest concerns are that we need to be sure that as we grow, and build our roads and our mobility systems, that we are doing it responsibly. And i believe that this particular proposed highway has many, many unanswered questions. As it relates to -- to is it ist a response piece in our growth plan at this point in time. The campo modeling does not take into effect or account specific locations of projected population growth. As a commissioner for precinct 3, i am -- i am very aware of the number of subdivisions in western travis county, out highway 71, that have been approved and final platted and are ready, but not yet built out and are ready to go when this -- when this economy turns around and projected population explosion we are anticipating takes effect. I've heard from real estate industry professionals, that -- that this corner of the county is going to be the first to grow and grow fast. The counts for that projected growth is not figured into the 2035 plan in a meaningful way when it comes to the volume of impact that it will have on mopac. The projected -- the projected improvements to mopac and the 2035 plan are managed lanes. They won't deal with this projected growth just from travis county that's planning to come in. There's a subdivision at the south end of mopac. I believe it's called wildfire commons. Which is projected to -- at buildout to put over 30,000 vehicles on mopac. I frankly can't believe that project can't be built out because -- unless 45 southwest is built because its market plan probably includes traffic coming from 45 southwest in hays county. The other part of this plan is people in shady hollow, brodie lane have a huge, huge problem with congestion. I have not seen a study yet that 45 southwest will solve that problem. There's not been a satisfactory study done that demonstrates that the hays county people that might use 45 southwest as a toll road can afford the tolls. We already have a history of -- of expending money on big roads like 130, that supposedly would take the traffic off of i-35 and it's not happening. I just cannot see us in this economy walking down a path to spend 80 to $100 million on a road that people are demanding to build it now that doesn't have those questions answered. I know many of you -- feel very strongly about the need for this road. It's been promised for 20 years. Or 25 years or longer. And my heart goes out to you for feeling that way because you do have problems. But i -- i purport that in this economy, and with -- with the numbers that we're seeing, that the solutions are not there in this road at this time. So this is why i have put this on -- on the agenda for consideration. You want me to read the resolution now or later or --
>> well --
>> what's your plan for action?
>> if you would like to read it.
>> sure, the resolution is -- whereas better integrated regional planning is the basis for a high quality of life and whereas the construction route of -- of s.h. 45 southwest is over environmentally sensitive land and whereas the limited allocation and future transportation funds requires greater need to prioritize projects for sequencing of need and better coordination with other infrastructure, including available water supplies, and whereas the 80 to 100 million cost of constructing southwest s.h. 45 southwest does not responsibly fit within the framework of current need, and whereas the construction of the proposed s.h. 45 southwest would promote further residential and commercial development over the barton springs edward's aquifer, and whereas as recently as 2009 the Barton Creek edward's aquifer was at the critical stage drought rationing level, and proposing additional development would increase future risk of inadequate water supplies in times of drought. And whereas the highly promoted limited access to s.h. 45 southwest begins at bliss spiller road and the portion of s.h. 45 between bliss spiller and f.m. 1626 fronts the proposed commercial development area potentially increasing congestion. Whereas much of the traffic on brodie lane is generated internally by brodie residents and the positive impact of congestion on brodie of the proposed s.h. 45 southwest has not imant phid. Whereas there is no definitive study demonstrating that the construction of s.h. 45 southwest would significantly relief the congestion on brodie lane. And whereas s.h. 45 southwest is one of several toll roads planned for western travis county and no study has been performed for any of the planned toll roads that evaluates the affordability and favorability of tolls by area commuters. And whereas building s.h. 45 southwest would contribute even more traffic congestion on mopac. And whereas due to constrained transportation funding, there is added emphasis on the prioritization of transportation and mobility projects. Construction of the improvements at the y at oak hill and additional capacity improvements for mopac south of lady bird lake take priority over and must precede any consideration of the construction of the proposed 45 southwest. And whereas conditions and priorities change over time, and it is important to recognize new data, and exercise flexibility in making wise decisions for regional growth, and whereas travis county recognizes the safety, the traffic safety and congestion on brodie lane need to be resolved and will continue to work with area residents and other jurisdictions to identify and implement solutions. Now therefore be it resolved that the travis county commissioners court no longer supports the building of s.h. 45 southwest and does hereby direct its representatives to pursue removal of s.h. 45 southwest from the list of projects in the campo transportation improvement plan and the campo 2035 plan. I move approval.
>> second.
>>
>> [ applause ]
>> both the motion and second are out of order at this time.
>> okay.
>> any other comments from court members until we listen to members of the public? We have six seats available. We request that you keep the comments from three to five minutes if possible. And you don't need to complete the citizens communication form that we use, to speak during this hearing. And so you are free to come forth and what we will do is start at the left and go to the right. And as you speak, we would like for you to vacate your chair so that another speaker can come forth and we can move expeditiously through this proceeding that way. So if we start here to left here, your full name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> test. My name is john beal, i'm president of the save Barton Creek association, i have a short video to play. And the video man --
>> all right. Media, there it is, right there. That is not the video.
>> but you are looking good.
>> [laughter] can we go with the video?
>> home to one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the united states. Just minutes from downtown, people find enjoyment in the pristine water. As they have done for generations. In just 20 years, austin's population has doubled. Drawn by a quality of life unequaled in most urban areas, austin's growing population now threatens to destroy the qualities that brought people here in the first place. For a long time austin has stood divided. Between those who feel that development in sensitive areas should be curtailed and others who believe that growth is inevitable. Recently, the conflict has escalated. Barton springs is rich in myth and tradition. A place that many called the soul of austin. Long before the first settlers arrived in the mid 1800s, tonkowa and comanche indians camped at the water's edge. Legend has it that the springs were formed when a rainbow split open the limestone rock. Every day thousands of gallons of fresh water rise from deep within the earth. For early settlers, bartons was an oasis, even in times of drought. In the 20s and '30s, the springs were home to youthful life guards and bathing beauties, water pageants and evening dances, devoted swimmers and local philosophers gathered at the springs year round. For others the springs were resolved for more solemn rituals.
>> to me, barton springs, is -- is a little bit of what heaven ought to be like. It's a place that has a -- has a quality about it that's almost spiritual in nature.
>> we have a wonderful quality of life in austin, there is a great place to live. Some people say as a result we just ought to freeze dry austin, let's don't change it at all. It's great today and so let's keep it just exactly like it is. I can understand why somebody would take that position. But it's not a very realistic view of what the world is. The austin that we woke up to this morning was different from the austin that we knew when we went to bed last night. Communities are dynamic organizations, we're going to change, i think the challenge for austin of us is to cause that change to be positive.
>> the developers own this land and naturally they want to profit for it. Could we buy it from them? I think all of the land over the aquifer should be owned as a preserve. Maybe that's -- that's pie in the sky dreaming, but i would like to see it happen.
>> in the mid '90s, three of the five largest chip fabrication plants in the world were being built here in central texas. Those billion dollar high tech projects are now obsolete and they have all been sold or closed along with the companies that built them. The powerful economic forces of the business cycle, the laws of supply and demand have a much greater impact on our business and development projects than any of our conservation initiatives. Barton springs is an economic asset, just as important as our new airport, a new shopping district or a new road. Because we compete for talent on a global basis. People, especially young people and the companies who hire them, come here and it's not because of Barton Creek mall or interstate 35. I believe we should preserve our beautiful places north, east, south and west. And -- and if we do so, if we can preserve these beautiful places, our economic future will be secure. To every complex problem a solution exists that is clear, simple, and wrong. Some say that state highway 45 is a simple solution to the traffic problems on brodie. This is not true. How accurate are the predictions of the traffic growth that will continue? What studies show that shady hollow and hays county residents have it worse than other places in the county. We have limited financial resources for transportation. How responsible is it to spend $100 million on this road compared to the other projects that we have. What we're creating an i-35 bypass, seven miles shorter than state highway 130 do to traffic on mopac? In a few years, won't the lone star rail district have commuter stops in both kyle and buda? Where would water come from for this area? Wells dried up during the recent drought. How much more water can be pumped out of the barton springs and trinity aquifers? Would this road promote responsible growth? In our region? In conclusion, how should we plan for the dwindling supplies and increasing cost of oil? Should we ignore the effect of -- of sprawl? On climate change?
>> thank you for your time.
>> thank you, yes, sir.
>> i'm dan crow, i live in -- in south austin just above zilker park. I wouldn't be here today if barton springs was open. I would be swimming.
>> [laughter] but -- but it isn't open because of a sewer spill on the circle c and that was a decision that we were assured had adequate safeguards years ago. But the building of this road is just another step toward more times when we won't have that facility available. If we build it, they will come. When they come, they bring pollution. It's the nature of our human activity. And even if you are not environmentally inclined, i can tell you i lived in san antonio for most of my life. And we built roads and freeways and loops ever since i can remember. And the traffic is worse today than it was the day before and the day before and the day before. And i have been in real estate all my life. And i know as soon as you build a road, you buy some property there or if you can in advance of that, so you can put in some businesses and some houses and some -- and some activities that -- that are commercial in nature, one way or the other. It's just -- it's not a bad thing. It's just the way things are. And that's why i hope that we will look back and see that building more roads doesn't make for convenience and in this case it makes for a lesser -- a lesser degree of the good life here in austin. Thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Crow.
>> good afternoon, all. It may seem like it right now, that -- but i really don't intend to become one of the regulars who speak every week on every issue. Travis county spent --
>> name, please.
>> state your name, please.
>> i'm so sorry, pam bagget, on the shady hollow homeowners association direction.
>> thank you.
>> travis county spent $3 million in voter approved bonds to purchase the 45 southwest right-of-way. Typically, your bonds have a 20 year payout. So that means that every citizen of travis county, no matter whose district they live in, are still paying for that purchase. Now that the land is in government hands, it's been removed from the tax rolls, again that's a concern for all travis county residents. This and the fact that 45 southwest is -- is part of a comprehensive mobility plan for travis county, makes this roadway of importance to all of your constituents. Travis county entered into an agreement with hays county to manage that part of the land acquisition that is in hays county. In turn, hays county has paid travis county for that purchase. Do you know whether the terms of that agreement bind travis county to continue with 45 southwest? Does travis county have a legal right to pull 45 southwest from the campo 2035 plan? Commissioners, your own transportation experts said last week, and this is from the transcript, the staff position is you need all those roadways to serve various functions. Brodie lane was original constructed as an arterial to serve traffic that comes from that area, manchaca likewise, except for the fact that manchaca and 1626 are state facilities, so they serve a slightly higher level of function in terms of regional traffic. 45 being a state highway then was to serve the larger regional traffic. We believe the network of roads that are needed in that area require all three to be used in various ways. So i think that we would look at the corridor as a whole and i believe that the capacity ought to be there in the corridor, 1626 being a part of it, but 45 also being part of the solution. I mean, your question is where will the traffic go? Is 45 preferably to proceeddy and manchaca road? Brodie and manchaca road? I think the regional traffic answer to that question would be yes, it would be more appropriate for that traffic to be on 45. Now, that is your own experts telling you that they have the studies to validate the need. Commissioner huber, you are quoting in this morning's statesman as denying that you shold the shady hollow neighborhood that would -- your quote is they say i did, but i did not, huber said monday, before the campo hearing. I said, you are probably going to get your road. I don't make promises until i have the information. Did the -- did the paper quote you correctly?
>> yes, they did. .but let me add something. I reserve the right to be flexible with new data. Had i said i supported it then and new data came up that -- what i thought changed it in a way that it was problematic for the county as a whole, i reserve the right as your elected leader to make what i think are sound decisions. Even if it means changing -- changing a decision at this point based upon new information.
>> well, karen, i say that because we have been friends, i'm disappointed in you almost to the point of tears. Do you deny that during a fundraiser at the umlauf sculpture garden that you told me that i would get my road? When i approached you and your campaign manager to complain about a conversation that i just had with brigid shea, did you not look me in the eye and say, you will get your road?
>> i do not recall that conversation, pam.
>> wasn't it at that point that your campaign manager said to me, we have to get her elected first.
>> i do not recall that conversation.
>> well, not only did this conversation occur, but i have repeated it in your defense to numerous neighbors who worried about your commitment to us. Judge, you said last week, and i quote again, i never thought that our approval of this project, meaning the 1626 and manchaca area, would eliminate state highway 45 southwest. The problem, though, is you're talking about elected officials voting on various options from time to time, and so you never can say what will happen when a certain issue is presented to us or to campo. If this court does not see fit to keep its promise to travis and hays county taxpayers, so be it. It costs the county nothing to leave 45 southwest in the 2035 plan. There is no benefit to the county to remove this road from the plan. It does not cost you a dime. It does not make you build it today. It keeps it alive. However, pulling 45 southwest from the campo 2035 plan ties the hands of future commissioners who may want to keep the promise. And why would you want to do that? Frankly, this agenda item appears spiteful and punitive. In summary, every travis county and hays county taxpayer has a dog in this hunt. Would it be illegal or just bad faith for travis county to -- to pull land off the hays county tax rolls and kill a roadway everyone so obviously wants built? Why would this court want to tie the hands of future elected officials who may choose to keep the county's promise to its citizens? And i believe that not everyone on this court wants to -- to do that. And i thank those of you who are seriously considering keeping the promise. Thank you.
>> thank you, morris pease speaking on my own behalf. I have a document here signed by the executive manager of the capital area metropolitan planning organization. It's a txdot document. It has roads, extreme importance of southwest 45, dated august 28th, 2007. We purchased the right-of-way for s.h. 130, travis county spent 90 million, williams so the county spent 45 million and the city of austin reneged on a previous commit made by gus garcia to spend $15 million, but they passed the city ordinance and spent 67.2 million on right-of-way for toll roads. Quite frankly commissioner huber everything that you have said i have factual documents to refute every single word that you have said. Time and time again we have heard that s.h. 130 wasn't build and we see all of these population maps and they do consider growth and i just can't say that i can support a word that you said with the documentation that i have. That's my opinion. I have the facts to back it up. We have an article here in 2008 that was -- that was issued tuesday january the 1st, in this is after these phase 2 toll roads. I, too, know what it's like to be lied to by a commissioner or at least not told what we ask a thousand times. I asked my county commissioner many times, on videotape, on access television, over and over and over again. Are you sure that you are not going to vote for phase 2 toll roads? And she did. Four out of five. So i know the frustration.
>> what was the fifth one?
>> huh?
>> what was the fifth one?
>> you have voted for four out of five, 45, you know, let's not --
>> 45 southwest? This is the discussion that i'm -- this isn't citizens comment.
>> i know what it is. Yeah, i know what it is. It is -- it is untruthfulness by our elected officials, that is frustrating, as is the traffic. But also i know the techniques that elected officials use, interrupting. But the -- the -- the memos that we have from the county, the txdot documents that we have march the 5th, we see that these groups that the environmental groups they show up at txdot, this is one thing that i would like you to listen to, commissioner eckhardt, because i think that you miss the point sometimes. I really truly does. Tac and tr 4 those things aren't important. When i go down to txdot, at these txdot meetings, i see the people that are in this room, they show up, sierra club, texas tomorrow, central texas transportation coalition, houston tomorrow, independent texans, all of these groups show up. When i go there, time and time again, i see full complements of williamson county staff there. They don't spend their time going to these tac meetings, they go down where the decision actually made. Just like these environmental groups. They go down every month. Buses full of people. Coming as far away as el paso, county commissioners, mayors, state representatives. Senators. They go down to -- that we -- c where the decisions are made. T t c. They are not blind sided by things being pulled from the agenda like the cameron road ramp that i knew and other people knew for several months it wasn't going to has. You get old information at the tac and i think basically the county is very uninformed in doing their business. We have this report made by you, judge biscoe, it was to senator watson on this southwest 45. We basically have the money. We've had the money and another agenda item here is on thursday, they are having an agenda item, the main reason that i'm bringing this up, i'm not just talking to you folks up here on the dais, i'm talking to the people that are behind me, interested in wanting to know how to do something about this. If they are really interested in stopping this, they need to go down to t t c and demand they don't do any pass through projects. This is a big frustration, a disconnect that the citizens of this county have with this court we see you spending this massive amount of money out here on 973 and manor. This is something that we just can't -- it's mind boggling. I have newspaper articles going back for years, this is not -- sure, commissioner davis, you are going to have people in -- in your precinct that are going to want this. There is an area in the city of austin, there is an area in travis county that you are not going to find enormous support for in building a road. And especially in these economic times. But there's nothing out there. There's not even water to supply the -- the roof tops that they are putting in out there. When we hear that you are going to spend $49.4 million on a project out on 973 and manor, well, there's nothing out there. There's not even a water supply to support that -- the number of roof tops, those five subdivisions. Then when we look at some of these subdivisions like shady hallow, in my opinion they look like crap. There is a lot of frustration on people when they see money being spent when we are told that we don't have money, then doing also a very poor way of financing. Pass-through financing, quite possibly the worst type of financing that any governmental body can do. To build a project. But in closing, i just wanted to say that this -- this county is not conducting its business and i think this is a sense in my opinion of failed leadership. I just really do believe that. I have a conviction that this is nothing more than failed leadership. Y'all know this road was promised over and over again. It's in.
>> there's knots a soul that's not for building it. I know there's some people that are here that are not. I think that everybody in this county that is not -- we have seen this with developers, at campo meetings. Nobody shows up, then the chamber wants toll roads and the only people they can find they flood or pack whatever it is the capitol, whatever place that they have this in, hundreds of people came out and speak spoke, over well over 100 people spoke against toll roads. Farmer, chamber, everything they could get they filled up this room. That's what we have here. The sum total of people that are against this are in this room. And the vast majority of the people that are too busy trying to keep their head above the water in these hard economic times, i don't even live in this part of the county. I live in north austin, i'm saying everybody that is against this that -- that does want y'all to pull this southwest 45 is probably in this room. And that's it. That's probably the sum total of the people with that position.
>> let me make a correction, though. That is the water that i should you brought up as far as precinct number 1, for a for years i had meetings sitting right here with several of the ccn's out there, i can go through all of those. But the meetings were conducted with those particular ccn's, who are the water supply corporations out there that do supply water for that whole area. We had several meetings for a number of years. In conclusion for those particular meetings, they testified and submitted data to me and others that participated, and to travis county, that supported the --
>> [indiscernible] we can deal with the growth, we can deal with the growth. That was from them.
>> [indiscernible], lcra folks were there, city of austin, who is another, ccn, on and on. I can list several. In this particular general area --
>> i don't want you to cut you off.
>> let me ask you this --
>> [multiple voices]
>> yoong -- i don't want anyone thinking that it's a misnomer for us to bring water to an declare we anticipate growth. The -- the desire -- the desired development zone, all of their with the city of austin also a part of, but we also recently received water. Commitment from -- from a blue -- blue water, which is out in burleson county. Bringing in about 18 million-gallons per day of new water to this same general area to support the roof tops, to support the -- the industry there. South -- southwest water supply corporation has also had another commitment to supply water to their general area. In fact, they even went as far as to say listen if the farmers and ranchers out there need water, we want them to bring their trucks and back them up to this particular deal, elevated main or greg -- off of greg manor road. We will allow them, this is when manville and also from southwest water supply corporation, we will allow them to pump water and take it and nourish and provide them with the need that they have -- have incurred. So the water issue has been a big issue for a long time and believe me, i had -- i had hit this thing right in the bull's eye from -- for many years. Of hard work, with those ccn's. And with -- with recently commitment resolution and just -- this commissioners court approved bringing in new water, 18 million-gallons per day. So i hear what you are saying, but really i am addressing the quarter concerns, so thank you -- the water concerns.
>> [multiple voices]
>> i just want to say that i understand this. I have heard that. We're talking traffic here. The same thing that i was trying to say to commissioner eckhardt earlier. She
>> [indiscernible] vote for 290 east. I know she voted against it in tr 4, she did vote for it. I'm going to say this is going to be a terrible political decision on anybody on this court. You see the people that are here and that's going to be about it. That's about it. Election day, this is going to be a terrible decision.
>> thank you, mr. Priest.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Priest, i just have one additional question. If you are so concerned about building a road to where there's no water, are you aware that in the drought of last year basically it proved that there is no more water available in hays county of substance to promote residential growth down there.
>> we're talking traffic.
>> we're talking about 45 promoting growth, being built to assist in growth in travis and hays county.
>> then they shouldn't have to worry about added roof tops if that's the case.
>> may --
>> hold it.
>> judge, i got a direct hit.
>> what i'm going to do, though.
>> i feel like i ought to be able to respond.
>> it's going to hit a black hole. But fire away.
>> commissioner.
>> you know in a sense i frankly want to thank you, morris, because you hold my feet to the fire and you do your homework and you show up prepared and you lay it out. And i wanted to thank you for that. And i also wanted to thank robin rather for that, who is on the other side of this issue. But both of you have told me at various times, have taken me to task for those votes on toll roads. And i appreciate you for that. I just wanted to tell you that. We fight and we bite on each other all the time.
>> yeah, i know.
>> but we stay in communication with each other.
>> right.
>> and these are hard decisions and sometimes, sometimes the facts change and sometimes your options narrow. And -- and i'm afraid that's what we have here.
>> speaking of communication, as county judge, here after today, i will ask speakers to -- to restrict their comments to the item posted. This is whether 45 southwest should be taken out of the 2035 transportation plan at campo. And the transportation improvement program. What we call the tip. Those two things, 45 southwest. Now, a lot of this is sort of indirectly relevant which is why i let it go on. But we will be here forever depending the number of people who want to speak unless we really address the issue that's been posted and so -- so what we would like to do is take comments on that. Then take a motion and a second and take action. Mr.callerman is next.
>> thank you, judge, commissioners. My name is dick kellerman with the save our springs alliance. Let me make clear where i stand on this. And i -- i approve of removing state highway 45 southwest from both the -- both the plan and the tip. The organization does, too, save our springs alliance. I want to thank the county commissioners for taking a principled and rational decision on a very controversial item. As you can see it's not easy to do that. You get a lot of push back. But i think it's a good example for other political organizations in central texas. That, yes, you don't have to go along with the herd mentality. You can't take prince -- you can take principled positions. I would urge you to stick to your guns on this one. As far as everybody being for this road, 45 southwest, if -- if you took a poll in this room, there would be four out of five against it. A couple of people from the sierra club that has 5,000 members, i would guess if we polled them, we would get 4,000 members against it, too. There's a lot of people in this town besides neighborhoods near the -- in southwest and a lot of them are thinking. I have been working on this a long time. I have seen a lot of neighborhood people from the southwest, they change all of the time. Except for jim mann, my friend, he's always here. I expect they either get burned out or see the light. But the face that's i do see regularly on this are people who are representing special interests. Such as real estate developers and land speculators. They have been with this right from the beginning. And they are still here today. Tells you that -- that where -- where the real interest lies here in having this road built. No matter how -- how emotional this -- this state highway 45 southwest gets, to the -- to the neighbors, and i hear, they see it as a silver bullet, that will solve their transportation problems. No matter how much rationale there is against it, it's still kind of -- kind of a silver bullet. There are many small, easy to do, cheap fixes that can be made along the way that will in fact improve a problem with congestion on -- on brodie lane. But a silver bullet is not the way to go really. It is way to go is with something that's political and -- and financially rationale. Today's news of the sewage spill on slaughter creek, in fact -- the fact that barton springs is closed today only says how -- how fragile and -- and vulnerable the aquifer is. So -- so i -- commissioner huber made excellent points in her opening and her proposal just covered everything that i could say. So i will make it short. Please, stick to your guns. Thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Kellerman. Yes?
>> hi, i'm vicki goodwin. I'm a board member with the shady hollow homeowners association. And i'm also a real estate agent. I feel like i need to call up my -- my california buyers and tell them not to come. It's just this conundrum that we have such a great city, people hear that all of the time, on the national news they want to move here. Yet to save our springs i guess we really don't want them here, do we? Commissioner huber you said in this economy this really isn't the right thing to have in the 2035 plan. Do you believe that the economy won't change by 2035 or within that time period. I hope the economy -- i hope comet turns around very quickly, explosive growth like we have never seen before. My problem is that we don't have a 2035 plan to deal with growth from where it's coming. Build it now mode will add more to the problem than is even considered at this point in time.
>> i hope the economy turns around as well. We say build it now, we know realistically now is probably five years from now, because of the environmental studies that have to be repeated. But it breaks my heart to see you wanting to remove it from a long range plan. I would like to address concerns on items that have been expressed by you and quoted in the in fact. You say there haven't been any completed studies saying the construction of 45 southwest would alter traffic on broad deevment brodi. I attended the l.b.j. School of public affairs and earned my master's in a program that focuses on governments and public policy. I'm not new to the idea of studies. However, when common sense tells you that computers would take a highway with no lights on it, rather than a two lane road through a neighborhood, with five traffic lights on it, and another four lights along slaughter lane, is it really necessary to spend money on a study to see if commuters would alter their route? Of course they will. Will traffic on brodie lane remain heavy? Of course it will. There are new homes being built at the south end of brodie and the bridges of bear creek and gabberdine which means that traffic on brodie will still be significant. But common sense tells you that s.h. 45 southwest will have a huge impact on taking cars off brodie lane. Karen next stated that the growth promoted by the construction would have an adverse impact on the hays county water supply. Do you and do traffic planners make road building decisions based on our water supply?
>> i don't believe we do. I believe we should with the limited resources that we have, we should be looking at exactly where water is and is not available for the future when we make these decisions. And capcog actually has a growth subcommittee that is just completing a plan that is a picture of where water is available and not available both surface water, ground water, and i strongly believe that -- should be overlaid in our -- in our campo planning for our roads and mobility because we have limited water, that's probably more of a problem for the future than transportation. And then we should use our -- our few dollars that we have to maximize the growth so that we can grow, we need to grow and so that those homes are available for your california people.
>> are you holding s.h. 45 up to a standard that you are not holding all of the other roads in that plan up to then?
>> it is the most conspicuous.
>> if you are going to hold s.h. 45 up to that standard, i think that you need to hold every road in that plan up to that standard.
>> i think that's a good plan. I would agree with you. I have a huge problem with the 2035 plan in that it is not prioritized according to good responsible decisions for growth.
>> you also stated the tolls may not be affordable for lower income families. Then let's build a simple two to four lane parkway and forego the huge expense of a six lane toll road. Travis county is willing to go forward with a $15 million of pass through funding for 1626 in manchaca, why not divert that pass through funding to s.h. 45? With the leverage of travis county offering pass through funding it might be possible to go to hays county and ask that they, too, provide pass through funding. With both counties providing leverage, wouldn't that get the attention of the tax the tes highway commission? They might actually say let's go forward with the project. We've got the support of the counties and they've had this road in the plans for 25 years, perhaps it's time to build it. You also stated there may be capacity issues with mopac. Actually, karen, there are capacity issues with mopac. I do agree with you there. What i don't agree with is the fact that we shouldn't build s.h. 45 southwest because there may be capacity issues with mopac. S.h. 45 southwest would be like 183 a. It would bring commuters to the bottlenecks that already exist on mopac, just a little bit quicker. It won't add to the number of cars already going to mopac. It just gets them there faster. You pointed out recently that shady hollow had only recently begun to work with the county. Are you kidding me? Shady hollow has been communicating with the county for at least 15 years. Many shady hollow residents were adamantly opposed to owning brodie lane to 1626 for the reason that they foresaw that hays county residents would use brodie lane as a way to get to austin. They were told s.h. 45 southwest would take care of that problem. Shady hollow 45 was not built. But the concerned citizens were correct that traffic increased. Again, residents of shady hollow came to the county asking for relief. And even made the request that brodie lane be shut down at 1626. Your statement that shady hollow has only recently begun to work with the county is ridiculous.
>> since i've been in office. Is what i said. I had been told, by more than several people, that the shady hollow homeowners association did not want to discuss other mitigating procedures that could be taken to calm the traffic on brodie because they felt like it would keep 45 southwest from being built. I heard that a number of times and i had to work hard to get someone from your organization to even work with me.
>> well, it is a very big concern of ours if we do anything to improve traffic in our area, s.h. 45 will be cut, here you are asking for it to be taken out of the 2035 plan.
>> how do you know that other calming issues won't make the difference? Why do you want 100 million-dollar road without trying the fixes that may cost a lot less and happen a lot sooner?
>> because i drive down manchaca all of the time. If you are talking widening manchaca and widening 1626 as one of those measures, morning side is being developed down on very far south manchaca right now, i don't know how many homes are platted for that neighborhood, but looks like around 100. I drive my daughter on manchaca every day to school. I see that road is just as brad as brodie lane. With new homes going in there, rancho alto, gabberdine, i don't see that even once it's widened as being the solution. Your efforts to pass the resolution asking that shady hollow 45 southwest be withdrawn from the 2035 plan make me angry and sad. Yes, it is a dream that this road be built and at one time you actually indicated some support of the road or at least support of the citizens who want the road built. I understand that finances are tight. But when billions of dollars are allocated in a transportation plan and you have the gall to request a road costing somewhere in the 70 million range be removed i just don't understand that. You represent us. It's your job and your duty to be on our side. What has gone wrong with our government representative when she won't represent the people she's in office to serve.
>> i represent all of the people in precinct 3 and actually travis county, the whole county is of high interest to me. This is one very small part of precinct 3.
>> and we do not --
>> i do not believe the priority is here at this time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Good win. Yes?
>> hi. Thank you for your time. My name is lynn walker. I'm currently vice-president of the shady hollow homeowners association and been a resident for over 20 years. Before i start my speech i want to make a few comments as to references to ms. Goodwin. You said why we want to spend so much money on a road now? If it would have been built when it was planned to have been built it wouldn't have cost as much. The longer you delay, the more it costs, that's an absurd statement. Two, i was at the annual meeting that you came to and you said that you would support s.h. 45. I point-blank asked you, do not make a promise to us, we are totally tired of empty promises. You assured us that we would give you our support and you would go for the s.h. 45 for us. I have no problem with you changing your mind. I appreciate ms. Eckhardt's comments saying that facts came along and she's -- she had a change of mind on other issues. I have a problem with somebody who cannot step up to what they said and even say i changed my mind. I have more respect for somebody who said they did say it.
>> i apologize if you miss interpreted my statement. I did say a little while ago that i have more information now than i did a year ago.
>> i have no problem with you changing your mind. I have a problem with you saying that you didn't say it, that's what got you our vote. As a board member, i've been -- i've seen how once elected some officials forget they represent the community. They forget the campaign promises they made and make decisions for the so-called welfare of the community. And that goes against the desires of that community. In 2008 when running for election of the position she now holds, commissioner huber was quoted in the february 2008 american-statesman interview where she said she would be a better listener, more polite and ensure that all stakeholders are at the table when elected. We voted for you. Because of your words. Like on your campaign website, you said you would fight for neighborhoods and do what you do to protect the current homes and neighbors from the impact of the accelerated area growth. We heard you when you said i'm not anti-growth, i'm all about growth, i realliment a. Well, commissioner huber, you were elected. Please take this moment to listen, really listen to the words of your community. In 1997, 33,745 voters said they wanted s.h. 45 and provided the funds to purchase this land. The texas workforce commissioner projected in 200840% of hays county's labor force would commute and work in travis county. They also stated that the city of kyle is expected to see a 780% increase in population between year 2,000 and 2040, from 8 a 55 residents -- 8,555 residents to 73
>> [indiscernible] city officials project northern hays county will soon look like southern williamson county as kyle and buda continue to see explosive growth. I am taking the advice that you gave at the 2009 oak hill business and professional association when you said continue to apply pressure. The squeaky wheel gets the oil f. You want something to -- oil. If you want something to change, you have to speak up. You can't sit around waiting for good things to happen. If you don't squeak you won't get oiled.
>> [squeaking] i'm squeaking. I'm squeaking, commissioner and i want you, my representative and the other commissioners to keep s.h. 45 in the planning and honor the votes that over 33,000 citizens wanted and had -- had passed. Keep in mind those were the voters of 1997. I'm sure there are a lot more now. Since we do live in a democracy, if you can show me where there's at least 33,000 people that oppose this highway, i will be glad to relinquish. Right now i was told 4,000 from someone, i don't see the numbers. I see there's people who want it. Let us have it.
>> thank you, ms. Walker.
>> yes? Commissioner eckhardt.
>> may i ask ms. Walker a couple of questions. I'm just trying to get perspective here. Ms. Walker, there -- i -- i agree that there is no doubt, there's really no denying that there is a capacity issue regarding transportation at the hays-travis line, we are experiencing explosive growth from southern travis and northern hays. There are several projects in the long range plan as well as some of those projects in the tip that are designed to -- to -- to address that capacity issue. As well as some policy area that's are not addressed by the long range plan, the chief among them from my perspective is land use. What is your -- are you in favor of counties having increased land use in order to prevent future circumstances like the brodie-1626 issue where we have explosive growth with subdivision plats that are not required to have any connecting grid or developers to contribute toward a connecting grid that would service the kind of capacity that's being built?
>> i think what originally was planned was that with s.h. 45 coming through brodie was going to be a temporary traffic issue. For any neighborhood to deal with a temporary situation, i can understand -- i feel sympathy for them, with you but aslong as it remains a temporary situation. Ours has not been temporary.
>> but with regard to subdivision planning in unincorporated areas, are you aware that counties do not have any authority to require a subdivision developer to connect their roads, that's why you see a significant number of cul de sacs and road that's didn't connect from one subdivision to the next, forcing the residents out on to whatever the existing county road is. I believe that the estimates are for every roof top, every roof top generates -- this is a very rough thumbnail, but for every roof top, roughly nine round trips are generated from that roof top per day on the arterial that connect that's subdivision.
>> i don't understand how developers decide where they're going to go.
>> neither do i
>> [laughter]
>> but i will go with the planning and engineers that say this could be an amount active to help -- alternative to help relieve some of the situations in these areas.
>> it's much like a soda bottle where the subdivision is the coca-cola bottle and the only -- the -- the primary ingress egress is out on to brodie. Then the adjoining soda bottle, let's call it acme subdivision is next to standard subdivision. Acme is not required to connect, to have any connecting roadways withstand subdivision. So acme subdivision and standard subdivision are putting all of their load on the road that was never designed to handle that load.
>> true, but all that traffic was put on to our road by this commission on the condition that s.h. 45 is going to be built.
>> that i think is where the misconception is. I believe that's where the misconception is.
>> we came a few years ago, we had several commissioners understand, they even said, it's temporary, we're going to be breaking ground soon before you know it.
>> that i totally believe you in that understanding. That is exactly the understanding of most residents. That -- and most developers. They will build something based on and he owe on an assertion that something will be built. Let me move to the next. Where are you on policies regarding sustainable water distribution?
>> this is relevant to 45 southwest and whether to keep it in the tip or the plan?
>> that's a good point.
>> i'm going to have to say that you are out of order.
>> i get it, though. How about the --
>> fascinating areas --
>> the building of the y at oak hill, between a 500 million and 600 million-dollar project. Would that help the issues on brodie?
>> i don't know if it would help. I have been focused for the last 10 years on s.h. 45.
>> what about the austin-san antonio rail project on the existing -- existing lines that run from -- from kyle, buda and then just east of y'all on manchaca into downtown austin.
>> i haven't been impressed with the current rail system here and the costs so i can't -- i would say let me continue to drive my car and have my shady hollow 45.
>> how about improvements -- my s.h. 45.
>> how about improvements to wried den it and make inguess -- put traffic control mechanisms at brodie to -- to incent -- to go north --
>> we've asked for no left turns at certain time frames at that point, that was not addressed.
>> okay, now, with regard to the option that's are available -- options that are available for 45 southwest, the two options that were recommended out by the subcommittee, one was a four lane that -- that none of it is tolled. The other was a four lane that's entirely tolled. What is your preference between those two options?
>> the original plan was a parkway. No toll.
>> okay.
>> four lane.
>> and -- and do you have any recommendations for how that would be financed?
>> like vicki said, trying to get it from our county, hays county, we saw hays county didn't want us to close brodie. There are people that want this done. There is a drive. There are-- we need it. The numbers speak for themselves, all of the numbers that i mentioned kyle and buda escalating to 73,000, how are they going to get here? That's -- that's the question. That is the question, we have a lot of competing -- completing projects -- projects, points is that there are -- there are many different projects that are designed to address what is current congestion and what is highly likely to be continued congestion, increased congestion on hays travis line.
>> this is congestion considered up to 2040, you all are want knowledge to take it -- wanting to take it off the planning of 2035. Keep it in the plan. If the workforce commission already has these numbers, saying they need to come, we need to prepare and not do it after the fact.
>> would you be satisfied with the 45 southwest that only reduced the load on brodie by less than 10%.
>> i don't believe it will only reduce by less than 10%. I drive it, see the traffic coming.
>> thank you very much, you have been patient and quite helpful today. Let me play county judge. How many more plan to give comments today? All right. Let me note this fact. We have been going about an hour. Seven speakers so far. My request that we keep comments to three to five minutes therefore has not been achieved. I will ask our clerk to -- to put the five minute timer, this is two minutes more than citizens communication. Five minutes the timer will go off. Approximately 30 seconds later, i would ask you to conclude and in 10 to 15 seconds after that, you must conclude. That's fair, right?
>> right.
>> okay. Yes?
>> my name is
>> [indiscernible] blackwood. I have lived in the city of austin for 38 years. And a -- been a resident of shady hollow for over 30.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> i have confidence in the
>> i have confidence in the county and the state's engineers that they will build 45 southwest carefully. They follow the need for a strict environmental standards. I know that without 45 southwest my environment will deteriorate. Please keep southwest -- excuse me. I'm getting my southwest and my sh's turned around here. Sh 45 and southwest in the campo 2030. And commissioner huber, don't you live in a subdivision on want to of edward's aquifer?
>> no, i do not.
>> i beg your pardon?
>> no, i do not. I live in western travis county and the aquifer in my area is the trinity.
>> well, i know you are concerned about other areas too even though you don't live over the aquifer. Thank you, commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> judge biscoe, commissioners huber, eckhardt and davis. My name is lisa hoyt and i'm the president of the circle c area democrats. Although i appear today on behalf of myself, my views are not the official views of my club, i do know that many members of my club feel the same way that i do. I am a resident of circle c and i am speaking in support of commissioner huber's resolution regarding sh 45. Statements made today previously by commenters that everyone wants this road built are not true. Sh 45 would move a bottleneck from one place to another and that other place is a mere mile from my doorstep. This is not a highway with no life. Sh 45 would end at the light at mopac. The first light is the exit to my neighborhood. The second light it let's hits is the other exit to my neighborhood. The y at oak hill is a mess. Economic dead zone that people avoid at all costs. It is irresponsible of us to expect both businesses to move to the y and thrive when we are not willing to invest in infrastructure to fix the y. There are alternatives to relieve the traffic problems on brodie. People with vawkd about them before. Ms. Eckhardt did a good job of listing them earlier. You know about them better than i do. This proposal of building sh 45 would make the y on one side of circle c unfixed and sh bottleneck on the other side of circle c. This is your time to say no, to be responsible and to prevent another disaster like the y at oak hill. To say that it won't -- that sh 45 won't increase traffic on mopac, but will decrease traffic on brodie is untrue and contradictory. It doesn't make sense. The fact is that much of brodie's traffic is internally generated. Again, i am in support of the resolution and would like to thank commissioner huber for being responsible and taking up this important resolution on behalf of this voter.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> i have a couple of -- some charts. Can i pass them out to you?
>> okay. If you will give them to commissioner huber, she will pass them down.
>> i'm steven beers. I wanted to -- i wanted to present some facts and figures to you that are coming from official pro 45 sources. The chart on the first page is from campo projections of travel. And what it shows is that with or without 45, brodie lane traffic never is reduced from what it is today. The best that the experts say that favor the project is that it won't be as bad in the future. Now, that's not nothing, but it's not very inspiring. The second page on the other hand shows that making that connection bumps the traffic on south mopac by 10 or 20,000 vehicle trips per day. So my question is, is it rational -- let's forget emotion for a second. Is it rational to spend 80 or $100 million to something that can't feasibly be finished in less than five years and that won't solve the problems now being complained of? The traffic on brodie lane. The situation where -- let's take the 15 million that would fix -- would at least alleviate the problem somewhat right now and instead park it for five years while we seek environmental clearance and matching funds to me doesn't seem rational, it seems self-defeating. So does it make sense to spend this money, wait five years, won't solve the problems that we're complaining of now and will create even more problems on south mopac. I'd also direct your attention to some of the unintended consequences. We heard about the unintended consequences of extending brodie lane to connect with 1626. Caused all this through traffic that we're complaining of now, caused truck traffic in residential areas. The unintended consequences of connecting i-35 to mopac have been on the radar screen of campo. Earlier campo plans said that this was (indiscernible), i proposed then and the board accepted then that they were going to wait until sh 45 southeast, east of the interstate, was going to be completed to 130 before they built 45 on the west side because the fear was that if you put 45 on the west side first that congested i-35 travel would go over to mopac and that would become the bypass of choice for downtown austin. And we would see a huge spike in truck travel that we don't see now because it's not a good through route. Even though 45 se is complete now, i think the rational still applies because it is longer with more tolls. So i submit to you that if 45 is completed between 35 and mopac that we're going to see this unintended consequence of more and more regional travel by taking mopac. By contrast other fixes can be implemented far less expensively and quicker and i salute you all for doing the research and everything that you've done for your package of alternatives. To me the most rational proposal is to close brodie lane to through traffic on the south as the single most effective and direct action to tackle the problem that we're hearing about. For a two thousand dollar barrier as opposed to a to 15-million-dollar roadway to me is a no brainer. Closing brodie or controlling the entrance to it. You did that with a place that people were using as cut-through travel in rob roy. Right now residents with an electronic tag can get in, but others can't. Anyway, terminating brodie lane before 1626, however you do it, won't be as hard as building 45 will be. And in fact, 75 percent of shol homeowners, 1900 out of woo 2500 households signed a petition in 2006 to do exactly that. And then commissioner gerald daugherty brought it up here, but eventually everyone voted against it. I understand why they did it --
>> i did not vote against it.
>> i did not know that, sorry. What happened was the situation of pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. Sure, shady hollow benefitted, but everybody else that was of through travel, like hays county and manchaca --
>> [ buzzer sounds ] owe on they didn't like it. And that was divisive and harmful. But i think this the price of neighborhood unity now is oh, let's get together and pit neighborhoods against environment. I would rather have collaborative problem solving that overcomes the paradigm of winners and losers, and i salute you for coming up with fresh discussion. That's at least a good temporary solution while we have priorities. We can't build everything at once. I appreciate everyone's been waiting, but the rest of the region has been waiting for the i-35 ben white interchange to be built. Doesn't that affect more people.
>> thank you, mr. Beers.
>> my name is ed scruggs and i live in southwest austin. I'm a former president of the circle c homeowners association, co-founder of circle c area democrats. I'm not here today to speak for any particular group, i'm speaking for myself as an individual who has experience limiting southwest austin and i'm knowledgeable about these issues. I'm here to say it is possible to live in southwest austin and oppose 45. I've lived in circle c since 2002 and during that time traffic congestion has increased as i knew it would, with the expected growth, but it continues to get worse each year. The morning commute on mopac now stacks up almost to my doorstep. The afternoon is just as bad. We're each getting cut-through traffic now coming from people trying to bypass the y at oak hill, which says a lot right there. I don't support the road project because i think it's outdated, i don't think it's feasible, i don't think it will do anything to really solve the transportation nightmare that's developing in southwest austin. All it will do is move it two miles to the west to my neighborhood. Commissioner huber mentioned and i think people do not realize this, how much development is already approved and platted in this area around 45 south and mopac. There's golf courses, homes, condos, there's the stratus tract down there that they could build out one day. Hundreds and thousands of additional car trips are going to be added to the corridor already. I don't understand how dumping the gigantic hays county commute traffic into that area almost simultaneously is going to help anything. It's just a very short sighted view and i applaud commissioner huber for trying to look at this in a long sighted fashion. One of the reasons -- to illustrate how short sighted this is, all that traffic is going to dump out on the far end of mopac and go north and it's going to stop at lacrosse and it's going to stop again at slaughter. I lived through the quagmire of william cannon and mopac for many, many years. And it was a disaster. And if this goes through we're going to see a sequel times two. There won't be an access road, you can't get off, you will be stuck there and have cars idling again, so the only solution then will be okay, do we build an overpass? Do we build two overpasses? Do we build one long underpass? Do we make a big tunnel into solid limestone right over the aquifer? I don't think there's a plan for that yet. I've never heard of it. How much would it cost? Who would design it? And the way we fail to get our act together on building roads and planning them, how long would this take, 10, 15, 20, 25 years? We can't wait that long. Certainly i understand the problem down in shady hollow. It's awful. But just pushing it off is not going to do anything to really solve it. And especially -- and i mentioned we're getting cut-through traffic from the y in oak hill on slaughter. To see that area degenerate the way it has and not do anything with it, it's almost criminal. The chamber likes to talk about being pro business and we're pro real estate and so forth and so on. You have hundreds of business owners in the y at oak hill area. Their business is being destroyed by this mess. And they never get anything done. Businesses have closed because their waiting -- they think the solution is coming and it never comes. I mean, that should be the priority and we should have some priorities in this and continue to look for alternatives. But to go forward with this when you don't even have a plan to do anything about lacrosse and slaughter is just foolish to me. And take the eye motion out and look at that. How many millions and millions of dollars are we going to spend and how many years is it going to take to spend it? Thank you very much for allowing us to have this discussion.
>> thank you, mr. Scruggs. Yes, sir.
>> howdy. My name is roy whalely. And as a volunteer i serve as the vice-chair of the austin regional group of the sierra club, the sierra club is the oldest environmental organization in the world. Professionally i am a realtor and typically i tell my buyers always go out and make the morning and evening drive time. Factor this into your affordability matrix. And it's not just a matter of the lowest dollar, it's how much you put into your of of of your hive into your drive time. I'm here today to -- of your life into your drive time. I'd like to mention that the sierra club austin regional group has approximately 6,000 members. I'm not going to say that they all oppose sh 45, but i will say that the vast majority oppose it and for the last several decades have supported the health of the edz wards, barton springs yawfer and continue to do so. And i'd like to thank commissioner huber for her resolution and i would like to encourage the other commissioners to also support commissioner huber today. I would also like to thank one of the previous speakers that mentioned -- advocated for no matter what side of the issue you're on, load up on buses and go to the capitol, come down here, go to city hall, wherever, and speak your mind. If we had more people advocating for mass transit that way, we probably wouldn't be having to talk about sh 45 right now. So i would like for us to consider those options in the future. I would like to say that i'm very sensitive in and the sierra club is very sensitive to the need and frustrations and concerns of our friends and neighbors in shady hollow. And all of southwest austin. And ask them to help us find a solution that we can all agree on. We don't think that 45 will be the solution. I heard someone talk about putting more cars on the road will help clean up the air. I heard something like that at city hall here awhile back on the energy generation plan, a gentleman said that the more coal we burn the cleaner our air gets. And putting more cars on the road has the same impact on air quality. I don't have a video to share with you today, but i will pair with you a little parable. A story about a u.s. Ship plowing through foggy waters at night and there was someone in their path. They radioed ahead and said you need to change your course. We are a battle ship heading your head. They radioed back and said you need to change your course. The captain got upset about this. He said no, we are a united states battle ship and you need to change your course now. The response was we advise you to change your course at this time. You don't understand, we are a united states battle ship and you must change your course immediately. The response was we are a lighthouse.
>> [ laughter ] and we advise you to change your course immediately. They took the new information and averted a collision. There was a study recently done -- that said if people are presented new information, it's difficult for them to take that new information and change their opinion. They will fight it or find a way to support their current position. Thank you for taking this new information and taking an old plan and saying it does not work anymore. Let's avert a disaster. I appreciate that. And i want to make sure that the folks from shady hollow, etcetera,, the sierra club does not want to make any of y'all wrong for your feelings. We don't see you as being wrong, just of a different opinion. There's a way for us, as steven beers said, for us to find a solution that will work for everyone. And i would like to work on that today and into the future. The mayor talked today about changing the bond for light rail in austin. There was overwhelming evidence that development follows infrastructure. If we spend this money, development will definitely follow this infrastructure. And it's in the worst possible place that we can have development. And i would like for us to avert that disaster. Thank you very much for your time today.
>> thank you, mr. Whaley. Mr. Faulkenburg.
>> thank you. I'm harold faulkenburg, a resident of travis county and city of austin. I want to start by responding to a comment mr. Beers made a moment ago that brodie will never be any better than it is now. And i would say to you that traffic experienced almost anywhere in this community this morning is probably the best it will ever be. In a growing market like austin, the objective is to keep it from getting worse. This community has doubled its population almost in a straight line pattern for the last more than 100 years. And we will be doubling our population again going forward. So what we must do is find solutions that prevent worsening conditions. I want to follow up my written communication to you of last week by strongly urging that you not act to pull sh 45 from the proposed campo 2035 plan. This roadway is needed. Pulling it from the plan will simply make it that much harder to achieve in the future, and i imagine that seems to be the real objective here. I also disagree with the efforts to upgrade 1626 and manchaca road in an attempt to route traffic to the east and then to the north and then to the west where it's really destined to go. I would rather see you use that funding to begin the development of sh 45 southwest. For safety, congestion relief and accessibility, the people of southern travis county and northern hays county need sh 45 southwest. And it is these people, not developers, who are pushing for this long promised road. I'm an advocate for mobility, have been for years. I do not represent any developers with a direct interest in sh 45 southwest. And i tell you, commissioner huber, that you are wrong when you suggest that this is a self-interested effort by developers, engineers and road warrers. I've paipped in the meetings that have been conducted at shady hollow for several months now. Mr. Bunch has been there at some of those. You don't see developers at these meetings. You don't see developers in the meetings with the leadership of shady hollow. You don't see engineers or road warriors other than somebody like me or commissioner daugherty. It is individuals and a concern of the people who live in this area and some of us who care about safety and mobility that is motivating our request to you that you not pull sh 45 from the transportation plan. It's possible to set up all sorts of straw men and claim that it's they who are supported sh 45 southwest. In truth however it's regular citizens who are asking for your help. And i join them in asking you to hear and respond to us appropriately. Thanks.
>> mr. Faulkenburg, you run a public relations firm, correct? , i do, an advertising and public relations firm.
>> and you don't have any clients that would include real estate or any interests along 45 southwest?
>> no. I have clients who are in the development business or who are loapped landowners, but non-along sh 45 southwest. My understanding is the set aside land precludes most development along that at one end or the other or both. It's undevelopable land. It's none i represent. I have landowner clients east of 35 in hays and caldwell counties and presumably ultimately they might benefit from employees who came down 1626 to go east of 35 to work. But no, nobody who is directly interested.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> mr. Faulkenburg, do you or have you had a consulting relationship with hays county.
>> no.
>> i was very active on a volunteer basis in the bond program of 2008 that hays county passed with the support of most members of the court. And just as i was chairman of the effort to pass travis county's bonds in 2001, road bonds and park bonds at this time then. But i have never been compensated by hays county.
>> i don't know fact or fiction on this particular situation, but having worked in the real estate community, i know for a fact that you probably -- at least from my experience that one would not find developers at a homeowners association, that it's much more subtle the way the development community works to gain support through special interests. So i just wanted to say that.
>> i'm not sure i understood that. Is there a question there? I'd like to answer it if there is.
>> well, you said that there were no developers that were attending the homeowners association meetings down there that you had seen. I would not expect to see them. I have observed in instances where i have worked in real estate, the real estate developers hire people on their behalf to go and promote their interests through situations like that. So i would not expect to visibly see them, if that is the case.
>> i guess i would say to you, i've seen nobody like that either. I've seen nothing like that in these discussions. Vicky goodman, who was here and perhaps still is, the executive committee of the board of the association.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, judge. Appreciate your time.
>> mr. Bunch?
>> thank you, judge biscoe, members of the commissioners court, i'm bill bunch with the save our springs alliance. We have about 3,000 members mostly in travis and hays county. And we're very supportive of this proposal and very much appreciate that commissioners huber was willing to look at the bigger picture and the greater good for travis county to put this before you. Obviously i'm biased. The first federal lawsuit i was ever involved in as a lawyer out of law school was fighting the first piece of 45 and the extension of mopac over the aquifer that this road would connect to. That was in '88. A whole world has changed relative to this road project since then, and i think this resolution and this move reflects that change in our world and also a better appreciation for whether this road makes sense anymore in our transportation picture. And i would respectfully submit that it does not. This map shows the proposed roadway in red here. Bliewt is the recharge zone for the edward's aquifer. And here's mopac right here and that first piece of 45. When this was a piece of the outer loop was first laid out in the early '80's, we said it would be the very last part built because this was such a sensitive area. But unfortunately we had a developer, mr. Bradley, who was extremely influential and astute in the political game, and reversed the order and actually got this piece of 45 built as the very first piece of 45. He also dodged doing the environmental studies that was required of all the other pieces of 45 under the federal nepa statute. The transportation plan at this time when it was written into the transportation plan, envisioned that we would have essentially 360-degree growth. So we needed a 360-degree loop. Since that time it hasn't happened. The city, this county and hays county has aggressively been buying up land to preserve endangered species habitats and the aquifer. These green areas show all the land that's already been preserved and there's even a few more tracts that aren't shown here. As commissioner huber's motion notes, that was never understood in any of the transportation planning and still hasn't been taken into account that that is a vast swath of acreage that's completely erased from development and the traffic that they would be generating. So the idea that we need roadways down this way compared to other needs in the county is subject to completely different circumstances. It's correct the travis county voters voted for this roadway to buy the right-of-way, three million dollars, but that was with the understanding that the state was going to build it free of charge to taxpayers. And now there's no money to do that. And they're looking to primarily hays county taxpayers -- excuse me, travis county taxpayers to pay for it. Another huge change that's happened, and this reflects the greater good that we have to keep in mind here and which this motion reflects, the concern had been that if you build this next piece of 45 -- and it still is -- and connect to 35. As john stated, the very first speaker today, that would create a loop, a western bypass for 35 that's about seven miles shorter than the 130 bypass. It would convert mopac, which operates now as a local commuter highway, into an inner regional bypass. For interregional through traffic. Now we have the similar concern in hays county approving bonds to make 1626 a major throughway and connecting as essentially a freeway with some stoplights at least in the first phase. But if you partner 1626 expansion with this road, the amount of new traffic you dump on mopac is off the charts.
>> [ buzzer sounds ] and everybody who uses mopac today would suffer. I'll try to wrap up here quickly. I just wanted to show this chart, which shows -- this is txdot's own data comparing especially here with mopac -- south mopac traffic in the vicinity of lacrosse and slaughter, with 45 and 2015 versus without. And then with 45 in 2030 versus without. And it's a major difference in traffic. So i respectfully submit that this motion is properly steering potential commuters to the east and off of the aquifer towards manchaca and 35 and ultimately will have the regional commuter rail, and not on to the aquifer and on to an already overloaded mopac.
>> thank you, mr. Bunch.
>> thank you.
>> may i ask some questions of mr. Bunch with regard to the consent decree?
>> yes.
>> to what extent does the consent decree -- i'm speaking -- let's speak hypothetically for a moment that there is -- that this road were to be built as a non-tolled and therefore have no management to ingress/egress. To what extent does the decree limit the driveway and street tie-in to 45 southwest?
>> the consent decree that you're speaking to speaks to the edward's aquifer, barton springs district. That original lawsuit over 45, which they settled out before it went on appeal. And what it says is that there should be no frontage roads and no access at all from the south tip of mopac to bliss spillar road. Now then, bill walters is the developer who owns this yellow, that's the wildflower commons p.u.d. He also owns all of this red, he and his investors.
>> to which the consent decree does not apply.
>> well, from bliss spillar to all of this can have frontage roads and all the access he wants for commercial development. And that is still on the recharge zone. So that's a real threat. And as commissioner huber noted earlier, the aquifer is overtapped. There's mo more water left down here. And increasing pumping pressure on there and opening up this development is putting our transportation in direct conflict with our water policies. I would say that the first shady hollow homeowner meeting i went to, bill walters was there making a preparation showing his map and that's where we found out that this was all his land. Before that we only knew that he had this.
>> any other questions?
>> no. Thank you.
>> good afternoon. My name is (indiscernible). I'm with texas environmental democrats, a local club representing about 2 or 300 voters in aunt metro area. Recently a friend told me that trying to build our way off a traffic congestion sliek a doctor telling a patient that the best way to cure weight gain is to loosen his belt a notch. Sure, you will feel better for a short time, but in the long run you make the problem worse and you will eventually run out of notches. The campo 2035 plan acknowledges the absurdity in its own text. You just can't get any clearer than that. What has happened so often in our planning exercises, the detail of the plan don't quite match up with the details and goals of our text. Sh 45 will not solve this area's transportation problems, as mentioned by others it will a actually worsen the problem by pushing traffic into other neighborhoods and incentivizing sprawl in hays county. This sprawl will certainly worsen regional air quality as well as put additional stress on the edward's aquifer. As we've seen in recent days and week, it only takes a single accident or incident of sabotage to put our health at risk, not to mention the ecosystem. We need to look at alternatives to sh 45 since there are more cost effective improvements to manchaca as well as threeover improvements to i-35 at ben whievment it is distressing to us that 45 supporters don't want to consider looking at better and cheaper alternatives. They mayless want to look at widening brodie from two lanes to three or four from 1626 to slaughter. It is the height of hip pock accuracy to push traffic in other areas while pushing increasing traffic at home. The it costs too much, it does too late and there are better alternatives that should be explored first. The bottom line is that travis county taxpayers should not subsidize hays county sprawl and i thank you for your time and i hope i set the record for the shortest testimony today.
>> [ laughter ]
>> my name is bill gammon. I'm an attorney and i'm a resident on zile road, which is about .2 of a mile from the very western end of sh 45. I drive up past the yates property every morning where the traffic will be feeding in. And i will note that those who live in circle c, from which i'm a refugee, have said earlier that the traffic is getting worse and worse. I will also note with sympathy that the folks that live in shady hollow are telling you exactly wait it is when they talk about how bad the traffic is over there because until they built the middle school right up 1826 from my house, we had to take the kids to middle school over at bailey and the commute from my house to bailey and back was nearly an hour. And hair raising all the time. Those folks have got a terrible situation over there. And i'm certainly sympathetic about it. But i will tell you this, that i do believe that this move to take 45 out of the plan is the right move. I salute you for having the courage of conviction to be able to actually look at the data and say a plan that does not allow for any change is a bad plan. And therefore this needs to be done. You need to change it and you need to allow for something better because by campo's own statistics, the problem with all this is that even if you build 45, unfortunately it's going to do nothing to help these people over in shady hollow. The amount of traffic over there on brodie lane -- and i drive on brodie lane all the time -- it is going to continue to increase either way. So i don't know if this is the fastest one or not, but i say thank you for doing this, thank you for having the courage to try and move this out. I support this motion. And save us all $100 million and perhaps spend it on rail. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. Commissioner daugherty.
>> judge, for the record my name is gerald daugherty and i'm here representing myself. I think my wife. I'm not part of six or three thousand or 50,000 or whatever it is. But wow, let me try to remove myself and the emotion that i personally could have with talking about this subject matter. I do sympathize greatly with the five or six neighborhoods that are up and down brodie. It's not just shady hollow. Shady hollow is the largest by far, but i would venture to guess that of the three to four thousand rooftops between slaughter and 1626 that probably 95% of those people want something done. And how somebody can say that not building 45 southwest is not going to have an effect, a positive effect on shady hollow, i just do not get. Is population going to continue to grow? Absolutely. But the -- i think the atrocity of this is sad to have people come down here and take their time and to beg this community to do something for them that for 13 years they have thought and hoped that something was going to happen -- yes, judge, you and i had many a talk about closing brodie five years, four years ago. And the one thing that we concluded was that we needed a five an 0 vote to close it. Now there are implications and complications with doing that because stint has taken ownership of part of that road, which would be very difficult. But if this -- and i do recognize that -- and it looks to me like -- you know, i wasn't fi beta kappa in math, but i can count to three up here, that this is going to happen resolutionwise with this court, which i think is really a shame. Now, perhaps we still have the opportunity at campo to approach people and say, do you really think that this is the right thing to do? I hope, i hope that most people on campo will see that this is a needed road. I know it's a needed road because i have worked with tnr. I worked worked with our folks. And quite frankly, there wasn't been a lot change out there except for it's gotten worse. You know, there's no use trying to be insulting and accusatory here. I have stayed away. Trust me, there aren't many things that would get me down here again. For 16 months i have stayed away. But i can only ask that you all really look yourselves in the mirror before you put this community through because if it's taken out -- if it actually is taken out of the plan, then it's going to be really, really difficult to do something with 45 southwest. And i think that there's a plan that could be devise that had you all could participate in not leaning heavily on travis county, but i really think that between you all, between hays county and between the highway commission that we actually could get something done with 45 southwest. Maybe it's just two lanes, but i will assure you that the majority of the people that are affected on an everyday basis, when you can hardly pull out of your neighborhood on to the street, that is really a quality of life issue. Think about that before you do that. I am willing to work with each and every one of you for solutions. Yeah, i guess that i was probably the road warrior person in that i did read the e-mail and i thought maybe that should say gerald daugherty. It probably does and i'm just not recognizing it. Because i have been so supportive of road building in this community and i probably will go to my grave saying yes, we need to build a comprehensive road system and a comprehensive road system does include things like 45 southwest. You can build it. It only enters one place and exits one place or enters here and exits here. I think that the community would say we would fight any sort of ability to exit off of that road in the middle. The city of austin has bought most of that land for water quality land. We're not talking about being able to encourage something off of that. Now, i suppose if you think that you're going to move to hays county and you're going to think, boy, this is utopia because i can live there and still get into travis county for our jobs, okay, i won't argue that with you. But plus, give the people in this part of town the consideration that they deserve.
>> [ buzzer sounds ] i would appreciate it very much. And thank you all for -- i remember several hours of comments like this and the 312 meetings that i've sat at. I do appreciate your service to this community, each and every one of you. I may not agree with you, but i hope and always have a very civil conversation and train of thought. Thank you very much, judge, commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> gerald, it's good seeing you again. I'd like to say that july 25th, 2006, i had to address the same issue with steve beers when he came up. You and i voted to give some immediate relief for the brodie lane situation as far as shady hollow and that was immediately closing at 1626. You and i voted to support that. Of course, my concern is still as it is, and of course -- but to try to bring some relief. However, i hear what commissioner huber is saying and i've heard what the other residents have said here today. For a matter of record, as far as the record is concerned, that's why i tried to correct steve beers when he came up, the vote was different. But anyway, you and i both voted to -- for immediate closure to bring relieve to the brodie lane situation.
>> i remember that, commissioner. I appreciate that. We knew that the five-0 vote would be difficult. Obviously closing brodie is not the greatest solution, but it's probably a better than poking an eye with a sharp stick if you're not going to get 45 done. So maybe there needs to be an effort to continue that. I mean, in the event that something doesn't happen with 45 southwest. But i appreciate your comments, commissioner davis. Nice seeing you.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> yes. My name is becky hall pin. I live at the y in oak hill, the much be moaned y. I've been following road issues for a long time. Serve on my neighborhood planning contact team, although i do not represent them today because we have not discussed this issue. And my neighborhood association board. And i think that i can be very sympathetic to the issues of people having congestion problems because we certainly had them at the y. And i'm not sure that this is really going to do much to help the y or really to hurt the y. I can't -- it will have an influence on the y. I personally am hoping it won't bring truck traffic to the y. If it's built because i can see trucks going not just to bypass the city and coming to mopac, but also to bypass over to 71 or 290 through the y. If they have the southern route to take. Although it's not actually a big fear of mine. What i'm here to say to you today is that really there are forest and trees issues as far as being a county commissioner. And i think this is one of those. You have all of your children coming to you saying oh, you know, i can't get out of my neighborhood. Please help me. You have the power to make my life better, and you do in a certain way. And we're all counting on you and with all believe in you. Even if we disagree sometimes. But i think the more important issue in this area besides transportation and congestion is water. We have two sources of water. We have groundwater and we have surface water. The surface water is basically the colorado river and the groundwater is a handful of aquifers. And my sister drinks water out of the aquifer that this highway goes over. And a lot of people drink water out of the aquifer this highway goes over. And they're all counting on us to be wise about that. Years from now we won't remember whether or not this area is congested, but we'll remember whether or not we have water to drink. And i hope that in making this decision you let that speak to you more deeply than people that can't get out of their driveways. Because i think there's got to be an answer for them. There's ghot to be an answer for all of us that doesn't i am payroll the water that we all need to drink. Thank you very much.
>> mr. Perkins, i believe, right?
>> thank you very much. Well, commissioners, thank you very much for hearing us all out. And i think i might have some groundbreaking news. I just heard on the tv this morning that ctrma is actually going to be adding managed lanes all the way down to slaughter, which was news to me, down mopac all the way down to slaughter lane. Unfortunately some of the circle c soaks foaks have left already, but i wanted to give them that news because that's going to really change their life. If they can get on a little toll road expressway to get to downtown hopefully, maybe they will pay the toll, maybe they won't, but that was something new to me. Just happened this morning, ctrma thinks they will go all the way up and down mopac with managed lanes. It was on the news. Another thing is i guess it's already been pointed out that the sh 45 southwest is supposed to just be a connection between two point with nothing in between, no access roads. I don't think anybody wants it to have access roads or any development along wait. I think that would be maybe some kind of a resolution or -- that you guys could make before -- in supporting the sh 45 southwest. Because that really is the goal is to get the traffic from where it's at over there in hays county to mopac. And once we get the new expanded mopac, then all those issues go away as far as making it more congested or whatever. Also, i think i heard this last night at campo's meeting or maybe it was in the last couple of weeks, but there are efforts or there is some planning going on for both -- for putting on mopac for putting traffic underneath of slaughter and also for building the -- to going over to the other one at lacrosse. I guess they're studying that right now. I was a little surprised to find that happening also. So these kind of things are happening. Somebody is working on them. I don't know why we never hear about them. But there are efforts out there to make mopac fatter and to bring the more traffic down the way. So that's good news. I don't think there's thoos a -- to think that mopac is going to stay the same way forever is not a good way to think. This traffic will be coming through, something has to be done and it looks like it's already on the schedule. Another thing i want to kind of mention because i heard somebody else talk about the environmental impact statement for this whole region of sh 45, i have a copy of it. It was done in 1984. I had to go down to the txdot facility and hand copy every page, but the entire segment all the way to highway 290 west has been done and documented, every kars, every cave, every indian tieb al relic is on this eis. I was going to bring a copy and i forgot to. So we know where all these things are. There are lots of them, but it's not like we can't weave the road around them. There's things that can be done, we can build a freen freeway, we can build a freeway or a toll way. We can build a road to get through there. It just seems like there are so many things that are -- i just sort of think you guys are being diewpped a little bit. That's a weird word, but i think you are being duped into thinking this is an economic disaster by just keeping this in the plan. It's not a disaster, it's just the plan. It's a 2035 plan. And as one lady mentioned, she said we don't spend any money by keeping it in the plan, so why take it out of the plan? We can keep it in the plan and talk about it in five years or something or just build it next year. Anything else exciting. There was a resolution and i'm not representing ohan, but in -- may 13th, 2009, oak hill association of neighborhoods, which is a group of about 25 or 28 neighborhoods in oak hill. Passed a resolution supporting sh 45 southwest. And 25 or 28 neighborhoods is a lot of neighborhoods, and they're all for it. And that is a big group. It goes all the way to 17 senderra, which is off of mopac. That did happen. And also, miss huber, you mentioned that there wasn't a study, but there was a study because even the guys from save our springs have cited it on their little graph here. But there was a traffic study done when we did the campo southwest 45 thing last year. So it's a little table. So there was some kind of a study. I don't know how good it was. Go ahead.
>> the traffic study shows the vehicle counts, it doesn't show what choices people will make as far as tolls or non-tolls.
>> economic.
>> i would like to point out the comments you made regarding the improvements on mopac, they are on the 2035 plan. But they do not add -- they do not address -- there's nothing in the 2035 plan that addresses the choke points on the bridges south of town. So that's really -- it just keeps pushing it -- the traffic further south and that's where it's going to be hugely expensive and where we need to pay attention before we really -- really load it on mopac.
>> the 2035 plan is insufficient. It isn't a 2035 plan, it's a 2020 plan or something.
>> thank you for opportunity to speak to you and to speak to the general public. As some of you know already, i take an interest in roads and this is a good one to try to understand. I think it was txdot that historically --
>> what's your first name?
>> my name is roger baker and i live in the -- near central austin and east austin near the mueller development. Anyway, i think it was txdot that promised this road that now txdot is pinched financially so they're trying to get travis county to take over the financial responsibility. And what i want to know is what is the travis exposure? Like are travis bonds involved or travis credit? You know, where is this leading as a policy? I think it's -- that's important to understand. Because there may be some cut of it -- is this 80 million or however much it is? Some cut of it private, some cut of it -- you know, our tax money? I'd like to see what kind of deals we're headed into in advance. And anyway, txdot was supposed to build the road, but then they broke their promise, so now there's pressure to get the taxpayers to use our property taxes to -- to fill the gap. But my concern is that it's a traffic magnet in an area where we should be discouraging growth. It amounts to a state agency which is bankrupt, which is txdot trying to shift the financial burden of roads down to the local taxpayer. And this largely benefits development in another county. But when you shift the public funding burden down to the local taxpayer, you're asking central austin taxpayers like me to subsidize growth in hays county, but i want my travis county tax money to go to life lines, social services where people are really suffering and competition with this same money. There are two stages to roadway politics typically and extending urban areas. The first one is where we are now, in which the close-in suburbs like shady hollow and in those farther out too. The second one becomes apparent that typically the close in areas start opposing growth in the areas beyond them. Well, since the funding is doubtful at best, that could be where things are headed now. But i think -- i think this road is a bad idea in any case. Thank you for the opportunity. I can answer any questions.
>> thank you, mr. Baker.
>> did you. My name is ira yates. I'm a 58 year resident of southwest travis county. I now clearly understand i'm really not southwest travis county, i am south travis county. Because as my letter to you all, to judge biscoe in particular and copied to the rest of the commissioners yesterday, it states my position clearly and succinctly. I referenced the south travis county versus southwest travis county is this: that there is a huge area of southwest travis county that i found out when i was competing for mr. Daugherty's position on the commission several years ago and lost, but travelling from one side of the precinct to the other is an hour and 15 minute journey. My point then is that a tremendous amount of traffic is coming or going to need to come in from the western parts of travis county, southwestern parts, and use and only have mopac as the current entrance to the city of austin. The folks in shady hollow on brodie lane where i grew up and drive and still haul my cattle down that road to lockhart, they have sincere problems and i agree with their issues. I would suggest that there are alternatives for them other than mopac. And in your position, looking at it from a larger scale, there are solutions, alternative solutions other than mopac that they do have. The entire rest of southwestern travis county do not have those options. So i would assert that it would be important to prioritize. That was the most important part of this resolution and my support of this resolution that has brought me down here as priorities. The world has changed significantly since the folks i was involved with years ago, made the original proposal for this outer loop and 45. I don't think we will ever be able to afford to do these types of projects in a prioritized way that puts this ahead of things like oak hill. The beauty of removing this from the 2035 plan at this time in my opinion is that it clarifies the decision process. I believe that my friends on brodie lane are being set up once again as they have been for 25 or 30 years. One community against the other competing for funds. I see this as an opportunity for the shady hollow folks to bring in the environmental and other social groups to support good projects in the alternative directions of improvements to the east to those corridors. It sounds crazy that 130 has anything to do with this area, but certainly it does. Absolutely does. So does rail. And we say, of course, and don't want to spend too much time today talking about water being an issue, but campo is one of the few regional considerations for any of these issues. And they're mostly transportation, but we don't have county authority. And i digress. I'll get back to the fact that the shady hollow people are being set up for the competition between oak hill and themselves for money. And with clear distinction by removal and acknowledgment that we have to move east with this transportation, i think this is absolutely the correct way to go. It sets clarification and removes -- i'll submit to you that if this road opened, you would be right here again worrying about lacrosse and slaughter lane funding. And you will have gained absolutely nothing having gone through this process. And it would be to the benefit of all of us to make this clear decision and alleviate -- i offer my resources, i offer my home, i offer my time to bring people together, the shady hollow people and the people in western travis county and the environmentalists and the water warriors. We need to work together. And i see this as an absolutely positive opportunity to move forward. We have to be optimistic and optimism means you make the best possible situation out of what you have. And this is one. I believe the shady hollow people have an opportunity to get all these other folks on a petition saying fund us, our alternatives east now.
>> [ buzzer sounds ] it's a great opportunity. And i support commissioner huber's resolution and urge you to also. Thank you.
>> wing we ought to take him up on his offer to use his place out there. I'll segue site rite into that. Why would we take any option off the table, any of our road projects off the table. I think we haven't had clear dialogue with it. I think ira is exactly right. The whole environmental group is exactly right. We still have discussions that need to be done here. We need to have neighborhood associations meet together. I think to make a snap judgment today or any time soon to take anything off the table right now is ridiculous. I guess i feel like i'm bill murray in the movie ground hog day. I keep on waking up and the traffic is bad everyday and it's getting worse everyday and it's like a day deja vu. This is like may second, 2006 when i sat here with state representative patrick rose and the whole hays county delegation here about shutting down the brodie lane. And those promises were made there. I think sthot was there, commissioners court, everybody agreed that we would sit there and -- i was looking at the transcripts on it yesterday. We were promising this neighborhood association -- actually, today we should be driving on southwest 45. Look at the promises that were made in there or implied to them all. And i say, you know, if conditions have change and the developments have changed, so be it. We don't take something off the table that could be a viable option or it might not be a viable option. I am currently in favor of southwest 45. I think i would love to have people still have a chance to tell me differently why it -- all my environmental friends educate me more on something maybe i don't understand. But one thing i do understand on all this is the safety of our community is in jeopardy. When i live at -- i live right here at the y in at oak hill. I live with them in the same neighborhood. I think it's a crying shame when we can't get around. When we try to go from one neighborhood to another neighborhood, it takes us not minutes, but sometimes up to an hour to get around. It's a sad day that also we're pitting neighborhood against neighborhood which is an ongoing battle with everything, with our schools and everything. Which i think is very sad. We need to keep on -- there is a supply and demand need here. And definitely we need to have more supply of roadways. Either which project is the best project, i think we still need to go ahead and look at those options. And to take southwest 45 off the table is not an option i don't think at this time. I think we still need further discussions with this. I think we should move forward on discussing this, setting this up for die logs and community meetings. You know, one of the neighbors here the other day when we sat there at the campo the other night sat there talking about her daughter can't ride her bicycle in her neighborhood. My 11-year-old daughter has the same problem. We have the -- she's mad meat that i won't lieu her to ride her bike through her community. I can't because the traffic, through traffic, the people who are literally cutting through, and that goes to the y, that goes to the brodie neighborhoods, i think alleviating a problem to diversion on to 1626 to manchaca is just a band-aid on there, it would divert traffic straight down manchaca and you would still have the ant in the plant boxes we used to have with the glass boxes where the ant make different paths. All you will do is divert it back into the neighborhoods. They will divert back to i-35 if they can make it that way or back to mopac. Because their objective active is to get to north austin or the downtown austin areas. So i think it's -- i think i'm just repeating myself. I think we leave our options open to allow us to keep southwest 45 open. I think the community throughout has been promised and has been promised to be built. I had lunch with the chief engineer with txdot and with the south austin civic club, which was also part of one of the -- i'm the president this year. They've also made a resolution in support of southwest 45. And actually, it was the -- actually, it was the oldest civic club in the state of texas, 75 years now. And they were actually for the bonds that we ought bawt to purchase the right-of-ways to build that roadway. So i think you have a lot of civic interests in here that are not neighborhood groups that have a strong interest that need to be educated or we need to be educated and have a chance and have a voice. I think allowing our neighbors to actually vote on this somehow or have a more outreach, that's all i have to say. Thank you.
>> and we have two more speakers today.
>> i've lived in austin since 1978. My mother lived here, my grandparents live here. I'll say what's important to me is first and foremost is barton springs is top of my mind. My mom grew up swimming there. I raised my children there. I would like to be able to raise my grandchildren swimming there just so that we can build a road. I feel the pain of the neighborhood, but i have to believe that there are better options. This is an old plan. I want to say that you should take into account all of travis county. Not just relieving the tract congestion in southwest travis county, but i live near mopac and 2222, and it would be terrible to have to see a lot more traffic, truck traffic coming on to mopac. It's already overcongested today. I would ask you to remove it and i would say thank you for your time and i really do appreciate listening to everybody today, both sides. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> my name is neal carmen. I'm a member of the board of directors of the friendship alliance in northern hays county. We represent a group of neighborhood associations, homeowners associations, blue creek poa, field steenstone, golden wood, golden wood east and ravens wood property owners association. We've been very concerned. We don't oppose growth in hays county or travis county, but we're very concerned about the traffic congestion, our water resources and the quality of life. So i'm here basically to say that i want to urge you to vote to remove the highway 45 project from the long range plan. It's just going to move one traffic mess more on to mopac. Maybe doing some improvements on wild wood lane might help alleviate some of the problems for the folks on brodie lane. We want to stress that this is -- the building is not going to help us very much.
>> my name is jeremy martin. I'm here on behalf of the austin chamber of commerce. I want to be brief with time. Thank you for hearing us speak today. I just want to say that the austin chamber does support keeping sh 45 southwest in the plan and encourage you to not approve the resolution today. The austin chamber through the ache a traffic advocacy initiative, we support a multimodal transportation system that includes evaluating all options when it comes to the road network, rail, improving bus transit and that's been through many years of support for various transportation initiatives as has been seen with travis county bonds, city of austin bonds, advocacy at campo. We want to have campo, travis county commissioners to maintain flexibility, keep all options open and keep sh 45 in the plan so that you can evaluate how the regional mobility is impacted as the times change. And evaluate those consequences both unintend and intended, keeping it in the plan allows campo staff to do the necessary modeling to prioritize the necessary investments for improving our mobility. The top two issues that our chamber members indicate in our surveys that we do annually. Public transportation and traffic congestion. So through take on traffic, those are two top areas that we want to focus our time and work with you to i am move mobility and decrease congestion. Thank you and good afternoon.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Martin, i just would like to comment. Thank you for coming down. And i want to say that i thought that the chamber of commerce made several really good recommendations on the 2035 plan. And i thank them for that. Obviously i don't believe 45 is one of them, but i wanted to point out that i know the chamber's interest is in our promoting quality economic development and growth for our businesses. And i would like to also point out that the modeling that campo currently does, does not prioritize and it does not look at growth in a segmented way. So keeping this in the plan for those purposes is in error at this point in time. The other thing i'd like to say is that i would hope that the chamber would expand in its consideration for transportation and mobility projects, looking at a comprehensive way about how we do grow with less resources. And less funding available and that we pay attention to the resources that we do have as we structure those, and 45 southwest does not fit into that plan.
>> given the tremendous challenges that you face on a daily basis as our elected officials, we recognize those challenges, especially the reduced funding that is taking place at the federal level, at the state level. The chamber works with our partners across the state to advocate for improved transportation funding options at both levels of government. We know that you have an obligation to do your part, but we don't have expectations that you do at all. And so that's part of the advocacy that we do that at all levels of government everyone needs to play a part. And with respect to the comments on campo modeling, i believe that campo staff is doing the best with the tools that they have. But there's definite investment that can take place. And as i understand it, on the next campo meeting they will have an agenda item to look at further investment in modeling options to address some of the concerns that you talked about. Definitely from the chamber's perspective, improved mobility, reduce congestion. There's no silver bullet. Modeling can help us understand what investments are best at what time throughout the region and we just want to be supportive of addressing those goals. Thank you for your time.
>> and i challenge the chamber to partner with us on looking at all of the infrastructure and doing economies of scale as we do our planning.
>> deputy constable stoops.
>> from 1973 to 1998, i was an active participant in the growth wars. We were wrestling with the northern extensions of mopac, whether that should be done and how many -- how many lanes and how many exits there should be and when and where. And the long and short of this is that there were a bunch of us that were committed in the '70's to the austin tomorrow plan of encouraging growth along the i-35 corridor. And when we lost a bond election in the early '80's for water and wastewater, that set up a whole series of m.u.d.'s southwest off of brodie lane and a series of m.u.d.'s were oversized and allowed circle c to be created in the first place. And then we lost -- basically we lost the handle of controlling the growth of what we were attempting to do along that north-south corridor. But at this point it was a hard sell for me to put 45 in a long range growth plan to begin with, and i'm still convinced it still needs to be there. The timetable and how it's built should be open to debate, but i still think it needs to be in the plan.
>> thank you, mr. Stoops. And our final speaker today --
>> anne thompson.
>> well, i think that we don't have enough money for the road, number one. And the way i mean that is probably not what you think as far as fiscal spending goes. We don't have enough money because we don't have enough water to provide for people. If there is a spill or there is groundwater contamination, all of the wells and things in that area -- i don't know if you could ever undo what might be done. And i think that you really should consider that. The growth that comes there and the things that will come if that road is built, if you build it, they'll come. And we know that. And right now water is more expensive than oil. And in most countries it is something we can't live without water, but we can live without oil. We're going to run out of oil at some point in the future. And i think what your main concern should be here is the safety of our drinking water and preserving life as we know it. And that is going to be a difficult process with all of the rampant growth that will be in this corridor. There are other places to build things and there are other places that don't have a natural filtration that protect our water. That the rainwater that comes down. So right now we rely on mother nature to do a lot of that. If you take away the systems and the organic systems that we have and then rely on engineers to go and make it okay for us, we already know how expensive that is. So what i'm telling you is we don't have enough money for this road.
>> thank you, ms. Thompson. Let me state for the record that karen crepes was here and she wanted to indicate, but was unable to stay to speak, she wanted to indicate her support for commissioner huber's decision to proposal withdrawal of 45 southwest from the tip and also the plan. She's a swimmer at Barton Creek and believes that this will be adversely impacted by the construction of this road. And also karen as cot was present and could not stay, but she wanted to indicate her support for removal of sh 45 from the tip and also the transportation plan.
>> i move that travis county commissioners withdraw support of the sh 45 and the campo improvement plan and the campo 2035 plan.
>> seconded by commissioner davis this time, appropriately. Comments by court members? I will have some myself when it's my turn.
>> i have some questions. I have some questions about some of the information that was provided today.
>> like when you say subcommittee, you mean the committee that i chaired?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> with regard to the subcommittee, i know that there were the paramount recommendation that came out of the subcommittee was to develop 45 southwest as a four lane non-toll, but it was based on an assumption of funding under an assumption that the amount of texas mobility funding made available to the campo region in the future would be approximately the same as it received in the past. Have we -- is that still the case? With regard to campo?
>> i don't know that that's an accurate description of the city comi's finding and recommendation actually. The committee came forth with four options, four ways that we thought the project could be creatively funded. One option was to build a four-lane non-tolled highway. That would turn on financial contributions from travis county, hays county and we included the city of austin. Thinking that with three partners funding would be more easily achieved than with one or two. The second option was four lane tolled highway. Withstand alone financing. And the ctrma thought that it could be done, but the stand alone part of it made it more difficult. So they didn't think that bond buyers would be an enthusiastic about a stand alone project. The other option three was a four-lane tolled highway system financing. And so the position was that if you could use system financing, it would be a lot more attractive to the bond market than stand alone. And the other thing, which we didn't discuss a whole lot, was a two-lane non-tolled highway that we would figure out a way to finance. And that -- the question there was how would you do it? Would travis county, city of austin, hays, campo dollars from the state and federal government? So it was all sort of left open. And the idea was at the appropriate time when it was moved to the front burner and it seemed that we were actively interested in getting it done, then we would figure out the best way to do it creatively. The other thing is that we had always talked about a four-lane road because of the amount of congestion, and i thought that the residents out there would be in opposition to anything smaller, but the more we talked about it, the two lane road came across as being a lot more perceived as a lot more viable than i thought. So two lane road is possible and obviously would cost less. The 100-million-dollar figure was basically what the ctrma thought it would take to do it right. And i interpreted that to mean with all of the protections that you would want over the aquifer. Obviously if you're looking at funding two lanes, you don't have to toll it, you should be able to get the parties together and generate enough money to get it done, thinking that it would cost in the really 40 to 50-million-dollar range. Those were the four options that the committee came forth with. We threw them out there and said here are the ways that we can get this done, but no matter what you choose, it really requires partnering from several governmental entities. With regard to the issues that -- the concerns that were raised, and this goes to staff. With regard to non-tolled options, either the non-tolled frontage on a tolled facility or the entirely non-tolled either four or two lanes, we heard from mr. Bunch with regard to the effects of the consent decree on the ability to have tie-in driveways and tie-in roadways. Can staff speak at all to the demand inducement capacity of the road as a non-tolled -- i guess what i'm going for here is that some have asserted that if it's an entirely tolled facility they can manage the ingress and egress and therefore reduce the demand generating capacity of the road. Do we have any kind of studies showing how having it tolled entirely would effect demand induction versus having it free access.
>> i'm not aware of that study, commissioner.
>> from a common sense per perspective, do you as transportation professionals think that there is a difference on whether it's managed facility or whether it is a non-tolled facility?
>> non-tolled with full controlled access, meaning no driveways or intersecting streets tying into it. That is the way to get the most use out of capacity that the road will provide. Whether it's tolled or not, i don't think there will be that big of a difference. The toll operations have their own elements to them, the way they collect the data, assigned the fees, collect the funds if necessary. That may have an impact on the operation of the roadway, might reduce the level of service. It won't change the capacity, but the level of service might drop a little bit. But if you have a four-lane road with no driveways on it and you have decent shoulders for vehicles to get off if they break down so that they don't impede the rest of the traffic moving, you can pump a lot of traffic through on that road.
>> i can understand your question. You're talking about scais to the facility from either side or the extent of its use. Whether or not it's told or not. I'm trying to understand whether or not you use the term access. I don't think the access to the facility itself will change one way or the other whether it's tolled or whether it's not tolled. Because of the way we acquired the right-of-way. We purchased the access rights when we bought the right-of-way. So there is no access except for point designated in the dissent decree. To a large extent those no longer exist because the city of austin owns the property on either side.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> was so high, people -- total cost of the travel. That's time, that's money out of pocket. The example that i would have in this city would be to the north where you are looking at the farm-to-market road between austin and round rock, prior to the extension of loop 1 is a toll facility. What happened there? You have two parallel facilities. People decided to use the toll facility, even though right next to it you had a free farm-to-market road. So there's something going on saying i'm wanting to pay i guess a buck or higher to use a free-flowing passageway into the city as opposed to a stop and go on the farm-to-market road. If you jack that up to five bucks they might go back to the farm-to-market. I think it really is entirely dependent on the price they pay out of pocket waiting on the congested road otherwise.
>> just assuming for a moment, a four lane tolled facility as a tolerate that does -- that is attractive. And i was looking at mr. Beer's numbers, which i'm assuming are coming from the txdot studies of 45 southwest pursuant to the 2030 plan. Looking at his, looks like with a tolled 45 southwest, the traffic reduction on brodie would be roughly -- roughly 22% in 2015 and then reducing down to 11% by 2030. Let's just assume for a moment that -- that that's all good. That it's -- that it's tolled 45 southwest with a -- with a 10 to 20% reduction on brodie. Do we have any -- any -- do we have any matrix for evaluating how much additional growth would happen in this area because of 45 southwest that would not occur if it's not built?
>> i'm not aware of that, commissioner.
>> no, i think that's -- you're talking about induced growth.
>> uh-huh.
>> you know, that is such a foggy area, i mean, if you don't build the road, will the growth not occur? I do believe there is a certain measure of inducement, but i'm not sure if you don't build the road, that growth wouldn't occur anyway to some extent. So i think that it's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not so sure that the -- that the txdot isn't trying to get a handle on that as parted of their evaluation of the environmental impact statement.
>> one of the assertions that was made and this seems to -- this seems to have some common sense to it, so i wanted to know what y'all's expert opinion would be, that even with a limited access, 45 southwest, connecting i-35 and mopac, assuming a very, very limited access, that it would essentially function as a -- as a western bypass to mopac, increasing the traffic on mopac considerably over the same time period that -- that in 2015 it would increase the traffic on mopac by 63%. Which is a pretty significant increase. What do you -- what do you all make of that?
>> i go back -- just looking at how the traffic moves out there, i take a look at -- at -- at the traffic that's moving north of 290. On loop 1. And moving south, which would be the traffic coming up from s.h. 45. I don't see a significant difference in the truck traffic, for example. It's very small on both segments of road. So -- so saying that -- that punching through 45 to the southern end of loop 1 is going to bring a lot more truck traffic over to loop 1 and then i look at what's going on with 29 on that punches through to loop 1 and goes north, 290, i don't see a significance difference in the volume of truck traffic which is pretty noticeable on i-35.
>> do you think that the y at oak hill, which of course is a significantly more expensive project, it's a 500 to $600 million project, but in -- in considering the y at oak hill, do you think that it would do more from a regional perspective to address the -- the capacity issues at the travis, hays line? Than -- than 45 southwest? Or less. I don't know. I don't know how much -- how the split is out there. What percentage of the traffic coming up from hays comes in that direction versus what percentage is using 45. I'm not sure if it would be a significant impact.
>> okay. Those are my questions.
>> any other questions for staff?
>> i have one, just along the line of what commissioner eckhardt was questioning. If this road were to be built, as a two-lane parkway, the -- the cheapest available, and the bliss spiller to 1626 segment, which is -- which is not restricted in access, is developed as a commercial parkway, would that not be a choke point?
>> it would reduce the level of service. When you have development on either side of the road with access points, it -- distinct reduce your capacity, it stays the same because you still have the same number of lanes. But your level of service will drop. The more disruption of traffic flows, the lower the level of service goes, it will have an impact.
>> so is -- is reduction in the level of service the same as a choke point?
>> yes. Yes, i would see it as that, yes.
>> y'all were above my head for a minute there.
>> sorry, judge.
>> any other comments?
>> yes, judge. I just wanted to say -- i can't recall exactly in 2006 the overall discussion on what it took to -- for us to entertain at that time the southern end road closure of brodie lane just north of 1626 that would provide immediate relief. I guess to some of the traffic situations that they are experiencing in shady hollow. And i can't recall all of the hoops and loops that you have to basically jump through to make sure that happen. I understand that -- that there may still be an interest. I'm looking at alternatives. I know that this is maybe not the place to discuss those alternatives. But i would still like to maybe be reminded, staff, at some time if you possibly can to remind me of what criterion as we look for alternatives, of course, to support the improvements of 1626 and also 2304 as immediate alternatives in this particular situation, but i maybe want to revisit that to see what -- what type of situation could be -- could be -- could be gleaned from that scenario. You don't have to get with me today. Because time is of the essence. But it would be good to know that. And i can recall, also, maybe about three months ago, maybe longer, commissioner huber, about your concern over a subdivision that was coming on -- a new subdivision, you asked me, did the -- did the developer, the applicant, would -- would they be willing to -- to place in the plat notes the availability of water. And i can't recall exactly the subdivision. Like i said, it was about two or three months ago. You will recall of course they did agree that they would allow that to -- to take place as far as plat notes. So water is an issue and i recall several persons have come here and testified, talking about the scarcity of water. Infrastructure, roads, a lot of other development is something that is going to happen, but you have to have all of these moving parts in place to make it successful. Water, just is key of a component for -- for any type of growth as anything else. And water is going to be worth its weight in gold. So -- so that has to be and has to be in my mind part of the equation as far as where a development can go and -- and as far as water availability, how will they get the water and then is -- what is the water supply in the area. So those kind of things are very, very, very critical in my mind. So -- so land use was brought up and those are other -- other factors that -- that the county and -- and -- do not have -- we have very limited land use authority and of course so that's another part of this equation. So a lot of moving parts here. And, of course, i'm going to -- like i say, i second commissioners -- commissioner huber's motion, it's a lot of moving parts here and i think we're going to have to connect the dots the best way we can in this particular issue. Thank you.
>> i'm against both resolutions and will vote against 23 a and 23 b for the following reasons: the residents are correct in that we have given them promises over roughly two decades that 45 southwest would be constructed. The consent decree and partial final judgment was entered on january 23rd, 1990. And the only change that is obvious and most dramatic, i think, is that the traffic situation there over the last 20 years has become more unsafe and more congested. Second major historical point is that we went to voters back in november of 1997, with the 45 southwest as a stand alone project. To give voters an opportunity to vote it up or down. By stand alone, we threw it out there alone where we didn't try to hide it among a lot of other road projects where you had to support one or all. It was there. Either voters were going to authorize us to use money on it or not. Voters approved the expenditure of $3.3 million. And consistent with the vote of the voters, travis county spent roughly $3 million acquiring acquisition between that date and april 2003 when we spent about 3 million acquiring right-of-way and the problem with right-of-way acquisition for state projects is you turn around and transfer that land to the state. And that's exactly what we did. And so -- so the residents out there have come to us several times and each time we have told them that -- that 45 southwest would be constructed. The last time they were here in mass, in april and through july of 2006, when we looked at a lot of options, we looked at about 11 or 12 of them. One of those options was to encourage txdot to be a bit more expeditious and environmental clearance in initiating the construction of at least two lanes of s.h. 45 southwest from loop 1 to f.m. 1626. The
>> [indiscernible] committee that i work with, came up with four ways to creatively fund the project. Two lanes or four lanes. And when the committee did its report to the policy board, the committee recommendation was that this remain a live option for us and at the appropriate time in the future the board would figure out basically how to proceed with the project. Unfortunately, we had to appreciate, as the other board members did, that there was a severe lack of funding and if we expected state or federal dollars or local dollars to fund the project directly, the money simply was not there. And we put on the back burner tolling this as a two or four lane project and to be honest ctrma told us that it would not generate enough revenue as a two-lane road and they advocated for the four-lane road. The other thing is that we have talked about regional transportation and this is one of those regional projects. At some point instead of -- in addition to talking about regional projects, this seems to me that we have to get out there and partner with others to try to get it done. The final point that i would like to make is that if we remove this project from the tip, and the 2035 plan, then we eliminate construction as an option. And i think that it would be incredibly more difficult to have it added back in and much easier simply to leave this project right there among a long list of others to be considered at the appropriate time in the future. Any other comments before the vote? Commissioner eckhardt?
>> i -- this decision is a very difficult one and as morris priest raised earlier, it puts me on the horns of a dilemma. I'm very concerned about the collegiality of this court, because this is clearly going to be a plurality decision one way or the other. It will be a split court one way or the other. I'm also concerned for the collegiality at campo because i believe that no matter what we do here today that it is a very difficult row to hoe, taking 45 southwest out of the 2035 plan. That said, the -- there is -- there is no doubt that there's a capacity problem in the hays-travis line, including the f.m. 1626 and brodie intersection. But there's such intense disagreement on what should be done to address it. In a way that doesn't simply move the problem further down the road. Further down the road into a future where we have induced even worst capacity needs, in a future where we have even worse environmental, financial, social and political constraints. I have repeatedly voted against 45 southwest in the 2030 -- in the 2030 forum, which was a mad 6 with four tolled lanes and two free lanes. There has been an incremental improvement on the 2030 plan and that the 2035 does propose it as a four-lane tolled only. While i have repeatedly stated my opposition to toll financing in the way we practice it in central texas, we don't practice it as a way to manage the people moving capacity of our transportation infrastructure. Instead, we use it as a substitute financing mechanism because we don't want to tax ourselves for the civilization necessary to support our way of life. I have on the other hand repeatedly voted and actively worked for other projects that would address this capacity problem, i believe in a way that doesn't move the problem further down the road. But actually looks it square in the face. Land use for counties, sustainable water distribution policies for the region and the state, which we simply do not have. Funding for the y at oak hill. While it is a toll project, i see no other alternative for financing it, morris. Transit, including the lone star rail project, capital metro private employer van pools, ctrma's continued at least verbal commitment to have free bus passage on all of their tolled facilities. Improvements to 1626. Managed lanes on mopac. Currently the discussion for txdot with txdot is for the ctrma only to do managed lanes down to cesar chavez, although the ctrma, i understand, very much would like to take them all the way to slaughter, which would be a great improvement. For these reasons, i believe that -- that, you know, we can't build our way out of congestion, but we can plan our way out of stupid congestion. I think that to plan requires us to make some hard choices and to establish priorities. Which i fear we are not doing at the mpo and we haven't done. For that reason, i am going to vote in favor of the resolution today. But mindful that we do have to continue to search for reasonable ways to handle this congestion. It's -- it's with great difficulty that i vote for this resolution. Because i don't like to take options off the table. I feel that -- until we start establishing priorities, though, inside our long-range plan that this is a blunt instrument but the only instrument that i have.
>> any other comments? The motion is to remove s.h. 45 southwest from the 2035 transportation plan in a and from the campo tip in b. Should we take the motion -- take both of them together? All in favor raise your right hand. So he commissioners davis, eckhardt, huber voting in favor. Voting against the motion show yours truly, judge biscoe. Thank you all very much.
>> [ applause ]
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, May 11, 2010 12:35 PM
