Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 25, 2010,
Item 24
24 is to authorize purchasing agent to commence negotiations with the most highly qualified firm, huitt-zollars, inc., rfq number q 100091-lp, professional engineering services for hamilton pool road improvements.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. This project is a professional design engineering services for hamilton pool road improvements. The proposed project includes two lane roadway, two 11-foot travel lanes with five foot bike lanes, 18-inch ribbon curb and open lane ditches. We received 31 requests to this response for qualifications. The evaluation committee or the committee reviewed and evaluated those responses and based on the scoring, we short-listed three firms to make oral presentations to the committee. Those three firms were ae com, kbr and huitt-zollars. The presentations were made and they were scored. Based on the scoring of the oral presentations as well as combining those with the written scores, the firm of huitt-zollars was determined to be the most highly qualified firm. It was extremely close as you can see from the backup, but they were still considered the most highly qualified firm based on the scoring, the presentations and the information. We're requesting that the court give us authorization to start negotiating with the firm of huitt-zollars.
>> and residents have come down on this item. Would you like to come forward and give comments? If you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you. I'm gene weekly, 9410 moore drive just off of hamilton pool road west of 12 and east of reimers peacock road. And --
>> i'm knell penridge and i live on hamilton pool road also.
>> i would like to say a few words about the -- in general it's hard to object to these improvements from 12 down to the river, but i think you're kind of killing us with kindness because the people who live west of highway 12, speaking for myself, i think it's pretty much perfect as it is and it won't be improved by the addition of bike lanes and the hill country arterial. But it's really hard to nail down a specific objection there, but the scope of work document that you guys have issued includes some points for the engineers to consider that i'd rather were removed from that scope. The road itself is hard to object to, but there are three other ancillary improvements and projects that go along with this whole hamilton pool road west, and that's the bridge over the pedernales at hammonds crossing, reimers peacock road, and the widening of hamilton pool road itself west of 12 to four lanes. And i think i'll just -- hamilton pool road between reimers peacock and 12. And i'll just confine myself to that last little bit. To us, to we who live there on that little stretch of road between reimers peacock and 12, that's just profoundly objectionable to consider a four-lane highway. And it's not even -- i can't even really conceive of the kind of traffic that could be driven by the proposed reimers peacock, which has a speed limit of 35, and is another hill country arterial. And the non-widening or the rest of hamilton pool road so the traffic can't possibly justify widening this little stretch of hamilton pool road to four lanes. And if you've driven out there, that's a -- when you drive west and you come off the really high traffic part of hamilton pool road and you pass highway 12 and then you continue on west to our little part, it gets narrow, the trees close in on you, it feels really nice. And the idea of opening that up to become a four lane thoroughfare is just -- is objectionable. So i would ask at a minimum could we remove that language from the scope of work for this project? I understand that the scope of work does not ask the engineers to design that four lane, but i don't even want to establish the precedent that we are -- i would like the commissioners court to reject this idea that we're going to do this in the future and not to establish sort of precedence by putting it in print and scope of work documents to engineers. That we're considering this. Let's get rid of that idea right now. Please.
>> included in the request for qualifications, as mr. Winkler stated, there were several issues that i felt that the consulting engineers needed to be aware of as they developed their design plan. They're going to design two lane road improvements, as he indicated. But one of the points was that tnr believes that at a point in the future hamilton pool road will need to be widened to four lanes. It used to be in the 2030 plan that it was going to be widened to four lanes all the way to the river, actually all the way to the county line. And a couple of years ago we came to the court and we had a discussion about that and we at tnr looked at that closely and we backed off on that four-lane requirement all the way to the county line. But still felt that it was likely that it could go to four lane between 12 and reimers peacock. So we left that alone. So because knowing whether it's going to be four lanes or not could have some affect on the design of the two lane, we went ahead and alerted the consultants in the rfq that can could be four lane and that might impact how you lay out your improvements for the two lane. We also indicate that had reimers peacock road, doesn't for that had been done. It's not out there today, but they needed to know that there's plans for a future intersection at that point. And there were a few other things that they needed to be aware of as they developed their design for the two lane improvements. I don't think that reducing or taking out any language indicating that this could be a four lane road would establish that it's going to be actually a four lane road at any time in the near future. There's not enough traffic on it. But in 20 to 30 years, it could very well be that way. I think it ought to stay in there, the language in the scope. It's not going to -- i don't think it's going to make it one of these issues where it's -- by putting the words in there, it's going to absolutely happen. A lot of things have to happen for that to work, including growth in the area, extending water out into the area, and i just don't think it would hurt to keep it in there.
>> how is it expressed in the proposed 2035 plan? Although this would be totally a locally funded project, not a regional significance.
>> actually, this roadway was not included in the list of projects that y'all adopted last night. However, included in that 2035 plan there is going to be a section called the illustrative list. And that is a list of roadways that we couldn't fit within the financial constraints that we had to abide by for the 2035 plan, but we still believe that improvements will be needed at some point in the future, in the next 20 to 30 years. And we still need to develop that list and make it a part of the campo plan or as part of our comprehensive planning effort that we've been talking about for the last several months, have our own transportation plans similar to what the city is doing with their strategic mobility plan. And in that plan will be a list of roadways that we don't have funding for, don't expect we'll have funding for for a dozen or so more years, but we do anticipate that if growth were to continue or were to take off again, widening of a road or straightening the road would need to be done to accommodate that traffic growth. And we want to preserve the right waive for it. That's solely what the list will do. As development occurs on both sides of the road, we can look at the plan, either the campo plan or our own plan, say this is an arterial in the plan, this is the right-of-way that will be needed for these future improvements that you're driving with your development. You need to dedicate that right-of-way as part of your platting process and post fiscal to help build it in the future.
>> is it also -- with regard to the illustrative list, does the illustrative list express it as a four-lane scenic by way?
>> we have not developed that list. What we would go with is four lanes out to 12 -- between 12 and reimers peacock. That would be our jurisdiction. And we have indicated that this arterial typical cross-section would need to be applied, but this typical arterial cross-section is only two lanes, so we would have to modify for a future four-lane. It does not say that, but it's probably something we have to clarify as we develop the list.
>> how long a stretch is it some.
>> between 12 and reimers peacock, less than a couple of miles, i guess.
>> it's a little over two.
>> for the total length, which is about six miles i think from 12 out to the river.
>> so is that your biggest issue?
>> yes, sir. And i think that it's a political statement by the court that we don't want -- we want to -- whatever growth patterns happen out there, we can't imagine the kind of growth that would justify unimproving the road to that extent to where we would have to widen it out and make a four-lane highway out of it. We would rather have other solutions to that growth.
>> why go through the agony now? Can we let the court 20, 25 years from now deal with it? I guarantee you i won't be here then.
>> [ laughter ]
>> to me, judge, it was just a matter of -- and i don't even really know how much impact it would have. When the consultant goes to lay out the two-lane improvements, in the back of your mind you need to be thinking at some point in the future this will be four lanes, so do i put the road here or here. I don't know how much impact that will have on this decision-making process. So striking the language out of the rfq wouldn't hurt my feelings. We still have a long ways to go before we go out there and it's still to me something that could happen and we'll deal with it as we prepare the list. It will come up again and we'll bring up the public comment on it and go through it all again.
>> ms. Pen rij.
>> good morning. First i would like to say i agree totally with what -- where he was coming from and i think there are a lot of neighbors out there that agree. And i'll talk to that in one second. I understand today we're just determining who the commissioners court will hire to do the safety improvements for this section of hamilton pool road. And that the bond money has already been allocated for that. I understand it's a hill country arterial design that we're considering and that also the contact sensitive solutions concept is going to be used and i understand that is stakeholder input, which is always good. I like the hill country arterial design. I like it. Whether it belongs and whether we need it is a whole other question. After reading some of these backup documents that were provided by mr. Manila, i have concerns about -- that these documents and this design will fast track these three concerns, one of which hugh is very concerned about, which we are all, expanding hamilton pool road to four lanes, the continuation of -- and money into reimers peacock and hammond's crossing. These are three projects that i would personally like to see eliminated from any long range planning. I have -- a big question here is these documents eliminate any safety concerns. And this is what this all is about, safety. The bond order is about safety. It's safety design improvement. And what i see here are plans to have reimers peacock accessed, hammett's crossing. There's discussion of hammett's crossing. And one of the big concerns is that the switchback, the most dangerous section of this road, is not even considered in this plan. Which leads me to think that this plan is sort of just a vehicle to support these three other road projects, hammett's crossing, reimers peacock and this widening of hamilton pool road. Why wouldn't we -- as much as i -- i'm between a rock and a hard place. Soches i don't want to see -- it was a lot of money. I don't think we need it. It was a perfectly safe road. There is not a big safety hazard there. But why are we not addressing the switchbacks if in fact out there because the follow-up to this is that hammett's crossing is going to have improvements and that whatever company does that is going to have -- it's going to eliminate it probably, eliminate that beautiful scenic section of the road.
>> no. To clarify, are you supporting switchbacks or straight ening out the switchbacks?
>> no, i am not. I am supporting keeping the road as is if that's ponl. I am saying if in fact this is only for safety, why aren't the most -- the most unsafe portions of this road not even considered? And it looks to me because -- to me because they're leaving that to be included with a section that's going to improve hammett's crossing and widen it and they're going to address switchbacks when they do that. And i don't think that these safety designs in any way should support or relate to any future road projects. That's understandable.
>> well, nell is right. I did not put in the switchbacks because i think that they will be directly affected by whatever happens with the bridge out there. We have not come to a solution that's acceptable to many in the community with that bridge. If we were to include the switchbacks, and we can still do that, what i would feel compelled to do is bring it up to minimum county standards. We could still have the hair pin turn, but you will have to widen it out enough so that when a school bus goes down it doesn't have to cross over the center line like it does now. It will have to have the pavement widened and the drainage associated with that completed as well. It will be very expensive. If we do go into hammett's crossing and decide to improve that structure, one of the things that ought to be done is it ought to be elevated so it doesn't go under water as frequently as it does. When you elevate you will affect how the road that ties into it, how it happens. And that road will affect on up the road to where the switchbacks are, or it could depending on how much you elevate. So you could wind up spending a lot of money for some improvements to the switchbacks only to have maybe a good amount of those improvements redone whenever you figure out what you're going to do with the hammett's crossing bridge. And for that reason i didn't think we needed to put it in this particular scope of work, but we could. It's the -- the consultant would be happy to look at that. And actually it would help me to pin down the actual cost. I think it will be several million dollars to bring that up to minimum standards, but i would love to have an engineer take a look at it and put some better numbers to it so i can share that information with the community.
>> steve, what are the plans on the illustrative list for the balance of hamilton pool road between 12 and highway 71?
>> well, we agreed at the court a year or two ago to keep that two lanes between reimers peacock and the river.
>> i'm talking about between highway 12 and going back towards town.
>> i'm sorry. I apologize. Txdot -- that's txdot's roadway between 12 and 71, and i do not know offhand what they're plan to go do with that roadway. I know that they were straightening out the intersection at 71, but beyond that i don't know.
>> it seems to me that i have a tendency to agree with the residents that live out there. And one of the problems i have, whether it's campo's decisions or ones like this at the county, is that we get things piecemealed. And i just -- i just have a problem in moving forward with the piecemeal piece here that to me looks like it's driving a decision as a cut-through from highway 12 to reimers peacock to highway 71 when, like you even said yourself earlier, a whole lot of issues that surround those decisions, not the least -- not just the engineering for it or the construction of it. There's water, there's other services and infrastructure. So i even question why we need to proceed with this at this point in time.
>> well, i think the safety side of it is -- presents a compelling argument, particularly for the bicyclists that use the road. There are plenty of signs out there to share the road, but it is still narrow, doesn't meet minimum county standards in some locations. And one other element that came up in the process is a lot of consulting firms went out and took a look at the road so they could prepare a good plan for evaluation. They looked at the bridge at hamilton creek and found that there are some issues with that bridge that we're going to have to take a close look at and possibly replace it. So i think between the bike lanes and the bridge and putting in the wider pavement, those are all safety -- it's all safety issues. I think we ought to address them.
>> but this is just design. This isn't the construction.
>> that's right.
>> and we don't have the money for that, do we?
>> no, ma'am. We would have to come back for a future bond referendum for that. That's not unusual. It's what we've done with quite a few of our projects because it is costly for design and then it's costly for right-of-way and to go through the design process takes a few years, right-of-way could take another couple of years. It doesn't make sense to issue the construction money so far in advance. We typically phase the larger projects. In that manner.
>> i have a question and i'm going to frame this a little differently just because my natural inclination is to be in favor of the smaller road and keep the precedent from -- keep from having mission creep. At the same time, i'm trying to walk around in other shoes and think of, say, thewise lane bridge, also another safety issue for which we would like to have addressed. So i'm trying to wrap my brain around -- i'm trying to weigh the issue of keeping the engineering for which we are paying for in this particular agenda item from going stale in the time period between getting the engineering work and making an ultimate decision and identifying funding to actually do the construction. So i want to submit to you all, as far as keeping that engineering as fresh as possible so that the safety improvements can be done, what do you think about just the possibility of the four-lane in the future? I too don't like that option and would not be in favor of it, but i'm concerned about when do we think construction would actually be displayed on this project?
>> to be clear, commissioner, we're not doing anything to design the four-lane section.
>> only designing the two-lane section in a way that doesn't foreclose a future four-lane section.
>> that's right, there you go. So in the back of the engineer's mind he's thinking i may want to push the two lane improvements over here knowing that in the future if this does become four-lane, you won't have to rip up what you put down. The ages of the engineering documents, this is what of a risk that we take. It is possible that we won't get bond money for this project the next go round, but i was hoping to get the consultant on board quickly. Considering it's in december, we're not too good at that. But at least get enough design done over the next six months so we'll have a more accurate number for both right-of-way acquisition and construction for and hopefully we'll have a referendum in late 2011. So it was important for me to move this along quickly to get as much good data that we can on what we'll need in 2011. But then again, it may not pass.
>> so the policy issue of -- the policy issue of whether or not this will ever go to four lanes actually won't be the 2011 bond referendum. That's only on two lane. That's all we're designing. But the idea of a four lane, the actual policy decision on that is probably 10 years off.
>> probably the next 10, 20 years. But it will be driven by what's going on there. We're not going to go four lane on a road only carrying a couple hundred vehicle. Typically a two lane road will accommodate about 10,000 vehicles a day. So if you're exceeding 10,000 you need to be working towards getting it widened to four at some point. 10,000 is a long way from where we are right now.
>> to answer your question, commissioner, i would say we would -- i would rather have the exactly the opposite so that i would love it if the language would preclude ever building a four lane road out there, not that they should allow for it. I would like to -- i would like to bring up the issue that it's a political choice that the commissioners court can make. And they don't have -- they're not making a whole planning decision right now, we're just -- as you call it mission creep, we're just trying to prevent the opening of the door here to something that hasn't been planned, no money has been spent on this four-lane planning yet. Let's don't start to establish language in this document and 33 documents and somebody will be bringing up here in 15 years, but look, we've already made all these plans around this idea of a four lane.
>> i'm very sympathetic to you. I am naturally sympathetic to your argument. I'm just trying to walk around in the other shoes to make sure i understand all that's at stake here because, for instance, we've seen what happened with brodie where demand is driving our choices rather than good planning. There was no planning for brodie and that's why it is what it is.
>> there's -- if you just -- even if you imagine a fully built out reimers peacock road, 35 miles per hour according to the faulkner plan, even if you imagine a fully built out hamilton pool road with its -- with another hill country arterial, and then we sort of lose control just south of there because hays picks up most of that so we don't directly control part of that, but i'm not sure how it's come out in the latest campo, but there used to be an arterial b that went if from spicewood down to dripping. And if you've ever tried to make that drive down bell springs road and it's just -- it's a fantasy. That's not going to happen in the next 30 years. And we don't want it to happen. We would rather have the county be out in front of --
>> [phone ringing] -- of plans happening like that and not enabling them up front and just going, oh, we want to plan. No, we want the county to sort of be proactive the way that gets developed.
>> so do i.
>> i agree completely with what hugh just said. We're planning the things that are not there. And if there is any way to reroute this money, i think it would be real sensible.
>> i'm done.
>> steve, looking at the public safety issue, safety, within the scheme of what we're expecting -- would be expected from the design of this road, could you give me an example or give the public an example of what safety features would be addressed in such a design as far as a and e? Because it appears that there are some safety concerns and of course safety is kind of paramount to some degree and in some instances. And i guess in most all instances. But as far as the a and e, looking at this particular project, could you basically give examples of what kind of safety concerns would be addressed in this particular activity, project design activity.
>> sure. What we've looked at is language, whether you have shoulders, shoulders in this, whether they're paved or not. You looked at the horizontal or the curves in the road as you approach. We looked at the vertical alignment for sight distance issues. In this case because we were aware that it's used by bicyclists pretty frequently that there's a need for a wider pavement for them to be able to ride the road safely, i believe. You look how close things are to the road, if there's a -- an obstruction in the road that -- a wall, for example, that's too close that gets into what's called the clear recovery area, the vehicle has to go off the road to avoid a deer or something like that, they need to have a reasonable chance of recovering on the road safely so you're not slamming into something that they can't cross over. Those are the main things.
>> and i just wanted to just point those things out because regardless, safety is still an issue currently in the situation. And i hear what you're saying, but i don't want to make sure -- i want to make sure that we don't slam the door on safety issues. And if this particular design of the road is to adhere and to address safety concerns, which you have to cold front on that road on a day-to-day basis and others that use that road, it just appears to me that safety should be paramount. And i may be wrong, but it just appears to me that safety is a concern. And so that's what i'm looking about is safety concerns whereby the safety concerns aren't addressed now. And so that's what i'm throwing out there as far as what those particular features and design would be actually laid out on the table. I want to make sure that that was publicly laid out.
>> i'm a frequent cyclist. From my house to cypress mill, which is in blanco county. So i ride about 100 miles a week. And usually hit cypress mill once or twice a week. The ride begins at approximately where my house is on a line with bell springs road. And it goes west to the river and beyond the river and to blanco and back. So speaking of the cycling issues, i love shoulders as a cyclist, but i would say of all the roads in all of travis county, the one road where i could say we really haven't needed many shoulders is on that stretch of hamilton pool road. And so it's hard to argue against shoulders. There would always be some improvement, but it's not a big safety issue and i think you could probably look at statistics and say, like, how does the bicycling -- how many bicycling, car and bicycle accidents have happened along the road and use the statistics-based way to make that decision. Not a whole lot, i would say. And i would say that, you know, you hit a good rate of speed going down hamilton pool road. In a car you may not notice how steep you're going down from reimers down to -- from reimers peacock road down to reimers park and to hamilton pool preserve. And on a road bike you can hit 35 miles per hour quite easily without breaking a sweat. And it's hard to keep a bicycle in a confined lane on a road like that. So in some cases a confining lane isn't, you know, for a bicycle isn't really an improvement, it's sort of a constraint and you would have to -- you couldn't travel like normal traffic, you would have to slow down in order to stay within a lane. But it's not -- i don't want to argue against any safety improvements. I would say that the cheapest, most effective way you could improve safety, and this includes the issue of avoiding animals, would be to back the speed limit down to 40. Just three or four years ago the county increased the speed limit to 45. And people who drive that road every night know that 45 is too fast to avoid hitting a deer if he pops out. So we should back the speed limit down to 40 and that costs nothing.
>> commissioner, just to respond to what you said about safety again. Nobody wants to not address any safety issues if they're out there. And -- however, i would be real interested to know -- we're hard pressed, i'm hard pressed to think of accidents or that being a safety -- seeing safety hazards there. It's just real uncommon, i think.
>> well, i really have not traveled the road like you have. You know that road a lot better than i do. But i wanted to make sure that what we're doing here, if -- and safety did come up and it just kind of got my ear big time when the safety feature came up. And if doesn't -- and i think steve laid out illustrations of what would be in the design to ensure that safety issues are addressed within the -- within the constraint of the stein itself. And so like i said, this is just behavingly the a and e portion of this. And of course, if safety need to be adhered to and looked at for the safety of the public that use that road, well, i've got a keen ear for that.
>> i understand.
>> i'm sorry, didn't mean to cut you off.
>> i have gone off that road in that stretch because of the deer, and it wasn't any wall. The -- i went in and came back out on a ditch. And the thing that i almost missed was a road sign. So the only safety issue i could see on that road was a road sign. You know, there isn't -- there aren't any walls in that stretch. They're really far back. It's actually almost got a natural shoulder when you come around the hill by myself. I live on hamilton pool in this stretch. I don't want to see -- usually when i find that people widen a road to put in a bicycle lane that the cars go faster. It's a natural thing that happens when you feel that you have more room is the cars go faster. And where i live the road has gone around kind of a long, broad hill and all of a sudden the country just opens up -- it's a gorgeous view. Everybody misses my driveway because they're looking off to the left across the pedernales river valley. And they're not looking, you know? And they miss my road. And you're kind of going downhill too, so you kind of pick up some speed there. So i don't really want to see this road even widened as far as to accommodate bicyclists at this point. I see bicyclists going up and down and i've had no problem with them. I am also worried in the whole idea in thinking about the design for the four-lane road and thinking about laying down pavement and getting that right-of-way i am i'm on hamilton pool road road, remember that part? It is me that you're going to be going to for right-of-way. I'm a little -- i'm actually, you know, quite concerned about that too, that part of the equation. I live on a two lane road. I'm happy. I don't understand what the whole thing about that i am inconvenienced by stepping on the brakes. That concept is above my head. I step on the brake when someone needs to turn in front of me, you know? Maybe i lose, what, two seconds' worth of time out of my life. I love stepping on the brake for now.
>> would you step your name -- would you state your name for the record.
>> my name is maura (indiscernible).
>> i thank you for coming up today. I'm going to ask for another week on this, if i may. The reason being there's never a good time to leave town and i left town last week and did not have the benefit of spending time with the neighbors out there and staff and looking at these issues. And i think there are some questions, pros and cons on both sides that we need to spliertle bit more. If i could have another week on this, i'd appreciate it.
>> that's fine. Did we give awe chance to have your say?
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you so much for coming and bulldogging the issue.
>> thank you.
>> next week is first or second?
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 25, 2010 2:35 PM
