Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 30, 2010,
Item 10
>> number 10 a, consider and take appropriate action on whether to proceed with arterial a, a major transportation project in Travis County.
b, approval contract award for professional consulting services, design services for arterial a, r.f.q.
number q 1198-je to the highest qualified respondent, aecom -- is that how you pronounce that?
>> aecom.
>> technical services, inc.
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge.
our request today is approve a design contract with a firm that we would like to get under contract for preliminary engineering for arterial a, which is an arterial in our campo plan and one we've been planning for for quite some time.
one of the things that we did want to discuss is the court's past policy on arterial a.
it has been delayed to a certain accident because of concerns it might get entangled in ongoing litigation with -- that's going on between landfall operators and northeast Travis County, browning farris industries and waste management.
the position has been let's wait to see how the litigation praise out and make sure we don't get our project entangled with all of that stuff.
the litigation is still ongoing.
in the meantime, the need for arterial a has doubled or tripled.
there's been several things that have gone on in that part of the county that compel us to want to get started on it.
first and foremost is the construction of the toll road.
there's only five points between 183 north 30 you can go north-south.
once it becomes a toll road, there's only -- the other one is tuscany way and it does not have a south link.
we want to finish that as well.
so in order to allow for that mobility to continue for folks who don't want to get entangled or hung up on 290 east, we really feel like we need to get started on this project.
another issue is that ctrma in the design process for 2930 east, they are asking are you going to build this thing or not.
if not it could save millions of dollars for the cost of a interchange.
we don't want to lose that ability to use that interchange when they do get it completed.
there's been additional development that has occurred in that area.
samsung announced earlier this year 500 new jobs.
a lot of those folks I assume will be using dessau road, which is also congested.
this will help relieve some of that.
so we're compelled, I think, to move forward and all we're really going to do with this design contract is find an alignment that can work.
preferably one that stays off the landfall property.
one that minimizes disruption or impacts upon subdivisions that are adjacent to it.
and there's other features that we have to work around that are going to make it pretty complicated so we really need to get into deciding where this thing is going to go, what it's really going to cost.
we've had some pretty wide ranging and cost estimating done on it and what right-of-way will be needed and this will help us do that.
so the balance now is do we continue a policy of waiting to see what happens with litigation.
I hope not, but that's certainly y'all's decision.
or can we move on with at least a preliminary engineering that this will do for us.
I would recommend we move on with the engineers.
engineering.
>> I received an email from mr. Williams and also received email from miss thornson, joyce thornson and basically been involved in at love projects and I didn't know the time this was going to come up and I guess mr. Williams needs to speak for maybe himself.
>> right.
>> I知 sorry, go ahead.
>> right, john williams, he's with the park springs neighborhood association.
I知 not sure if he made it to court today, but I did speak with him.
>> a couple residents from the walnut place.
fee free to come forth and provide input at this time.
>> thank you.
thank you, steve.
you laid it out very thoroughly.
>> if you would give us your full name again we would be happy to get your comments.
>> I知 john williams. Park springs neighborhood association.
I should make it clear that our neighborhood association boundaries end at fm 973 on the east and so arterial a is well outside of our territory.
but you know how important building infrastructures in eastern Travis County is.
>> so is that a -- should we interpret that to be supportive or in --
>> it's interpreted as because it's not within our neighborhood association, I cannot speak for the neighborhood association on this issue.
>> your personal view matters to us, mr. Williams. But you don't have to give it.
>> personally I知 in favor of it, but personally, I壇 give priority to the roads farther east than that because they are in my neighborhood.
but there's no doubt about the need -- as mr. Manila has said.
>> I would not want you to speak -- we haven't forgotten those concerns.
and there and in my opinion they are going to be brought up and even though we know that those particular roads are not in question this morning; however, they are in question.
and joe, I知 going to put it
>> [inaudible] looking at this also.
I want to let you know that and you can leave with that and tell the neighborhood association that also.
>> thank you.
>> I知 joyce thorson and I知 here to request that you continue with arterial a.
I believe mr. Manila has made it clear all the reasons why you should do that.
I might add that the development just to the east of us and it's -- it's given -- I mean arterial a continues into that development and I don't know what would happen to that end of --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I don't know what you are planning to gain by this litigation.
so I would -- I guess I would like to know why you're in litigation with the landfills at this point.
I thought the expansions were approved.
>> it's the appeal of the approval.
>> okay.
so you still believe you might be able to -- I thought bfi was already doing their expansion?
>> this is waste management.
>> this is wmi.
>> this is just waste management, not bfi.
>> right.
where it comes into play is that at one time the proposed right-of-way would have been through waste management property.
>> I knew you made them set aside land for that.
>> mr. Manila may be able to recapture that spirit of cooperation that they exhibited years ago, but they may be ticked off about the appeal.
it has to be dealt with.
>> I imagine they would be.
the other thing is even if -- if it's possible for build arterial a where it doesn't go through the trash, I think that would be important to know at this point and maybe this engineering study could find another way to do it.
>> and I believe steve kind of made the -- addressed that a little bit as far as the design, the a and e as we come in from the point -- steve, that's very important.
and I guess what she asked is is there a way possible for the a and e and design of this particular project to look at possibility of not encroaching on the property of wmi.
and I think you may have mentioned that a little bit, I believe.
>> right.
the one of the things we want to do is try to avoid that.
there's inherent liability to it if we start buying property of old landfills.
we would like to avoid that, but it may be less costly to go that route than other alternatives.
so we need to find out what it's going to cost, any number of different alignments.
I would also like to add that on top of that one of the things we're requiring the engineer to do is to use contact sensitive design for the development of the project.
and that will bring in to the fold, so to speak, representatives from the neighborhoods to help us determine how best to reduce impact of the project upon their homes and businesses, whatever.
so there will be members of the community involved in the development of this design.
>> and I know you're a part of the neighborhood and others.
would you make yourself maybe available to the request that steve has made as far as involvement?
>> I知 sure that we would be willing to do that.
>> okay.
I guess, steve, if you would for the public, they don't know anything about arterial a.
we've kind of been dealing with it for awhile.
can you tell me the beginning points north of arterial a and the ending point south as it -- as the length of this particular arterial is realized, if -- and of course who else is involved other than Travis County.
>> right.
>> so could you kind of lay that out a little bit?
>> the scope of the project is -- it's about a four mile long project.
it extends from parmer lane at its north near pioneer crossing and it ties into u.s.
290 east near walnut creek where it crosses 290.
about 50% of the project is within the city of Austin jurisdiction.
and the city of Austin as a sign of support for the project actually, they did include it among four or five different potential city-county projects in their November 10 bond referendum just recently.
so they understand the need for it.
they're support of it and they're willing to put money into it.
they actually were successful as there's one and a half million dollars available from the bonds for use in any one of these four projects.
I want to come to the court probably in January and recommend we use that for tuscany way south to finish that interchange.
and in the meantime we'll move on with design of arterial a.
tuscany way south will help use up the money they've gotten from the bonds.
>> mr. Hutchison, any --
>> my name is john hutchison, past president of the neighborhood association.
I壇 like to bring to the court's attention that in the bond package that steve was just discussing there is a proposal to extend rundberg lane all the way down to arterial a.
and if arterial a does not come to fruition, there's no reason for it to come down that way unless they connect it to springdale road, which bluntly would be quite catastrophic to our neighborhood because it would tie all the people trying to shortcut around 290, 183 interchanges, i-35 and 290 interchanges and come shooting down rundberg, turn on to springdale and run through our neighborhood, which as we know slrd a problem.
if there isn't a ladder built -- a rung in the ladder built at that point, despite mr. Gieselman's promises and your honor's comments, the only rung that's left is springdale road.
and being a taxpayer in this county, the numbers that I致e heard batted around for the cost of this road has been as high as $50 million for a four mile road, which I find to be insane.
and as a taxpayer I wouldn't expect the people of Travis County to support a road project that cost $50 million for four miles.
it would be cheaper for y'all to buy out my neighborhood and build the road.
economic reality.
it's cheaper to buy out my neighborhood than it is to build a 50-million-dollar road.
if they can come up with a beautiful way to get it through -- around that landfill, that would be great, but current rate of fill on that landfill according to steve jacobs as of yesterday afternoon, that landfill will be at grade level in cell 10, which will where the road would go, under the original plan -- one of the iterations of the plan, they'll be at grade by January 1st.
so they'll be coming out of the ground, above grade after the first of the year.
so if we don't come up with a nice way of putting a road project in through eastern Travis County, northeastern Travis County, you all are going to be faced with even worse traffic problems than you're dealing with now because as she mentioned the neighborhoods that are being built and if you go upstairs and talk to the permitting people, they'll tell you how many thousands and thousands of lots have already been planned for east and northeast of my neighborhood.
I bought out there 19 years ago in the country.
well, it ain't that way anymore.
so if anything, please look into possibly putting the project on the agenda for looking at is it physical financially, physically feasible to build this project.
if it is, let's go forward.
and I represent a lot of the people in my neighborhood who just are tired of nearly getting creamed pulling out of their driveway.
so anything you could do, we would appreciate.
thank you very much.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> thank you very much.
this has been on the books a long time.
>> it has been.
>> motion, Commissioner Davis?
>> well, if there's nothing for executive session, I don't know if there's any legal hurdles.
>> I just put that down just in case.
we can let our lawyers rest.
>> thank you, judge.
with that I would like to move approval.
>> second.
>> of that particular project.
>> any more discussion on the motion.
>> 10 a and b.
>> right.
>> that passes by unanimous vote?
>> thank y'all.
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, November 30, 2010 2:08 PM
