Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 28, 2010,
Item 53
53 is consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, request to submit to campo travis county's projects inclusion in the plan and 53 b, request to submit to campo an amendment to the current transportation program to include the mckinney false pedestrian project in fiscal year 2012.
>> good morning, judge. Part a of this request is the result of a notification that we received from campo on august 10th. They had asked any agencies who had plan amendments, t.i.f. Amendments or who were proposing to submit for inclusion in the campo plan a list to do so by september 30th. I want to emphasize this isn't -- i don't want you to feel like you are painted in a corner and you have to make a decision today, but if we -- we don't approve this today, then the next opportunity will be either june of next year when they go through their amendment process again or if the board approves a mid-cycle amendment process. My preference would be to adopt it as soon as we can so that we don't have a gap in our -- in our planning activities. What the i will list does is list projects not included in the campo financially constrained plan. There are literally dozens and dozens of projects that are not in the plan because we could not show campo that we could pay for them. So in order for us to retain the ability to preserve right-of-way or to impact from developers funds to pay for arterial roads that happen across their property, we need to have those projects identified somewhere in the plan. The illustrative is that section, there is a place holder for just this reason. So what we've done is identify projects that travis county will be partnering on or will be funding entire as expense and at some point in the future. Now, as we finish up those projects that are in the funded plan, these projects will gradually shift over into that, into the plan. So the idea is that these are kind of projects that we're looking over the horizon for that we will likely need at some point in the future, we just don't know how far out. Now, i submitted to y'all last week the list of projects that -- that we want to include in the plan as a whole for the county and then for each precinct commissioner we delivered separate lists just for their precinct. And we do have some edits that we would like you to be aware of that we would like to make and charlie will go through those with y'all.
>> i'll go ahead and do that.
>> basically there are two major areas that we added some projects to. One is the austin colony area where we are adding def smith which is from dunlap road to the northbound frontage of 130. We're calling arterial b, which is providing some access to 130 up to 969. This is all trying to get access out of austin colony on to other roadways. Also arterial c is another north -- north-south arterial connecting des smith boulevard up to 969. Then one arterial that was not in your list is loyola lane which is actually an arterial that was in the previous 2030 plan. In the f-1 area, we have an extension of elroy road that goes from elroy to pierce lane. And then two additional arterials, one is barb wire road from 71 to bee creek road and flint rock road from 620 to serene hills. A little nervous.
>> you're doing a great job.
>> so the bottom line is for the most part the projects that are on the illustrative list were projects in the 2030 plan. We've added some additional roadways in particular in response to issues about the f-1 and also the austin colony area. We did meet with commissioner huber and she did want to talk about two of the projects that she would want to recommend not including in the plan, in the illustrative list.
>> actually i recommended that we include the barb wire and the flint rock road projects because i felt like they were higher needs. I would like at this point in time not to include the rammer peacock road and maybe you can point out where these are because i would like to show my reasoning. The robert peacock road and the hamilton pool western extension roads for a couple of reasons. First of all, we can always go back and add these in, even in the near future if it's needed. But one of the problems that we're running into is txdot has responsibility for roads that they are not doing and hamilton pool road, if you could show where the txdot portion is of hamilton pool road from 71 to highway 12, is not included in the 2035 plan. And i feel -- and that is where the majority of our growth out hamilton pool road is taking place, the new developments, the traffic issues that need to be dealt with. And i'm reluctant to put the rest of hamilton pool road on our list until txdot addresses or at least talks about what they are doing to do on the most used part of hamilton road. So for that reason i would like to take those two roads off our illustrative list. Also the fact the waterline had been intended to be extended out there by lcra and that is no longer part of the program. So that's my preference. But at the same time i would like to point out barb wire road will ultimately connect with rhymer peacock but right now it's a connector between bee creek and highway 71 and a much higher use road and a needed connector road. That's my rationale. And i would request removal of those two roads at this point in time.
>> any way that you can maybe show -- and as you know, the traffic congestion that's been experienced out on 969 especially out of austin colony and then, of course, we've had a terrible mishap that came up at that sh 130 corridor that took the life of some individuals there, a family. Of course, i know text dotted is going to be looking at that -- txdot is going to be looking at that as far as one of the studies to maybe even have a traffic signal there, but as far as relief of some of the traffic congestion that's experienced now in austin colony, what we did do prior to this is we looked at a dual left turn lane which this court did support an advanced funding agreement with txdot. Of course, txdot approving the a.n.e. Design of mf 969, which is, of course, a state -- state road, and, of course, the -- the other aspect of what we end up doing equivalent to a little more than -- just to accomplish that one particular deal, okay, but if a dual access, we're looking at possible dual access points out from the austin colony situation and all of the other, is there any way you can depict that on the map to show basically what we're talking about so the folks in the community can get a good clear understanding of where we're trying to do especially with some of the traffic congestion that's being experienced out on 969 right now and hopefully alleviate some of the traffic congestion along with i think the cooperation of the del valle independent school district really to end up busing persons properly out of those particular subdivisions to the brand new schools, the middle school and, of course, the future elementary school that will be -- that will be coming up in 2011. So you can see that it's going to be a lot of growth potential out there, so any way possible you can -- on this illustrative situation you can point those locations out on the map so the public can basically see exactly where we're talking about? And, of course, i mentioned earlier about the joseph gilbert elementary school that is forecast to be coming up in 2011 of august, and, of course, which will generate additional traffic flow out on 969. So point that out for us, please.
>> okay. Arterial c is providing additional -- that's what it says, arterial c, additional access north-south from des smith boulevard up to 969. We're increasing dunlap road to a four-lane arterial from des smith boulevard up to 969. So that's increasing some more north-south access for the austin colony subdivision trying to get access out to those roads and then on the 969. East-west arterial which is known as des smith boulevard, that's connecting dunlap road to sh 130 frontage. There's an additional what we're calling arterial b, which is providing additional access to an interchange that is at sh 130 and harold green boulevard. So we're able to get traffic from the austin colony subdivision out to sh 130 and then on to 973.
>> okay.
>> then like i said, loyola lane was in the plan in 2030. We have taken it out and we're going to be replacing it back in.
>> i would add to that what's not shown on there because only arterial roadways are shown on this plan. We're looking for an alternative way out of that subdivision to take traffic within it and plug it into 969 to the west of where all the traffic congestion is occurring now. That will be a collector level road. We're looking at developing a project along those lines as well.
>> okay. Okay.
>> i would like to make one thing clear because i know there's probably a lot of folks watching, that this merely puts it in the plan. Our purpose here is to -- in the event there is developments that occur, we will seek the right-of-way for those roadways. The county currently does not have any funds appropriated to build the roads. And that's really what needs to happen at some point. Either txdot or the county and/or developers need to put aside money to build the roads. That's when the relief happens. Just putting in this plan does not make that happen. It just makes it eligible to be happening.
>> right, and joe, that's a good point that you brought up and i thought steve had mentioned that earlier, but i think you hit the nail on the head because it is with the illustrate i have project, we understand it will have to be a shared-type cost in this particular effort with developers and involving right-of-way and all these other kind of things. Again i still would like to let folks know that we aren't sitting around twiddling our thumbs. Hopefully within the plan itself there could be some positive action on it to address the traffic congestion in this particular area. So you have to put it in the plan first. Thank you.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, judge. I just wanted to -- i just had one little concern and maybe ms. Huber can help me with or maybe y'all, i don't know. I heard you mention bee creek road. That happens to be just my hood, so to speak, and what -- just recently had work on that finally, and what -- could you review what you said about that?
>> well, i was -- and bee creek road is in the plans, the 2035 plan for improvement. I was referencing barb wire road that currently connects highway 71 and bee creek further out. And that ultimately is designed for improvement, and putting it on the map now will allow us to do the things that they are talking about as far as acquiring right-of-way, and that's a highly used road and also an alternate route if bee creek -- is water is over the low-water crossing or something. It's just an augmentation of the resource out there.
>> and what you are calling benefit weir road --
>> barb wire.
>> is that 2222?
>> it's at the other end of bee creek road --
>> it intersects bee creek road quite far out in western travis county and intersects 71 at the top of the hill before you go into the pedernales valley where there is quite a bit of commercial.
>> so bee creek road hits 71 and the other end of bee creek road is what you are talking about.
>> yes, it's down closer to pace bend park road where it intersects bee creek.
>> thank you so much.
>> move approval of revised a and b.
>> does that include withdrawing the two roads that i requested?
>> revised, yeah, revised a and b.
>> second.
>> the revised list is what we were given today, right?
>> no, because their list still includes the two roads that i -- the rhymer peacock.
>> we would have to ask that you approve the list that we submitted with the deletion of hamilton pool road and reimer peacock and what i just handed out to you.
>> this is the addition of the roads. It doesn't have the deletions on there.
>> oh, okay. Okay, we don't have that list yet.
>> we only want to delete two roads, hamilton pool and reimer peacock. We want to approve the rest of the list.
>> that's the motion.
>> second.
>> part b -- i'm sorry. Do you want to vote on that first?
>> well, my motion includes b too.
>> okay. There's no questions on b, that's fine. You don't want us to approve 5 b?
>> i really do. What b is about is -- it is a t.i.f. Amendment that we need to have done in order to spend federal dollars we are going to receive, $920,000 of federal money to complete a hike and bike trail along mckinney false park way. This will allow us to be able to use those funds. It's for a t.i.f. Amendment that will go before campo and come before the policy board at some point to approve.
>> the motion still includes a and b. Second also?
>> yes.
>> discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
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, September 28, 2010 3:37 PM
