The TTC Transcript Part 2: June 29, 2006

Editor's note: The following is part 2 of the portion of the transcript of the June 29, 2006 TTC meeting during which the El Paso RMA was discussed and approved. The full transcript can be found here [transcript]

Part 1 can be found here [transcript]

MR. BERRY: Yes, sir. Typically the El Paso District tries to go out and accomplish as much public involvement as possible. This was a huge issue in trying to inform the public about what our proposal was for the I-10 southern relief route. We had evaluated over 150 options in the region for what might be the best way to resolve our mobility concerns, and had developed a recommendation for improving Loop 375 through the southern part of the county up against the international border with Mexico as a parallel route for Interstate 10 that would provide an option to that.

We have never considered a project of that magnitude in our history. From end to end, when you do go outside the city limits, if you were to consider the project from the New Mexico state line to beyond the city limit in El Paso County, we are talking about on the order of an $800 million program, and that's simply for construction. Something of that magnitude had to really get out and get to the people.

We had over three dozen public meetings with neighborhood associations; we put advertisements in the newspapers trying to tell people of when our four open house meetings were going to be held; we took the step to place this information also on the radio and purchased TV spots for presenting this information on what was the proposal, what was it like, and then these TV spots would close with the information on the next public meeting. The TV and radio spots were right at $100,000 for that part of the campaign.

MR. WILLIAMSON: One of the persons testifying indicated that the tenor of the ad was to sell an idea as opposed to inform the public. Was that because the ad appeared to be positive in that way? I mean, clearly the person who testified to that believes that.

MR. BERRY: It was intended on what is the recommendation and what is it not. This is the recommendation to create a parallel route to Interstate 10 along the southern relief route and that the information campaign would say what it was and what it wasn't, because it was a lot of misinformation about what was being proposed by TxDOT out in the public and we felt a very strong need to inform as many people about it as possible.

I got a number of comments that it was helpful, I got some comments also that were questioning hey, we've never done that before. My typical response was we've never proposed an $800 million program of construction before either.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, can you stop for just a second?

You're going to hate me for this, Mr. Chase, but I want to talk to you. I never give him any warning. I neither wish to protect nor wish to not protect good employees when they do things entrepreneurially, by my recollection is in our focus groups on the Trans-Texas Corridor and on toll roads generally -- which your division was intimate in setting up and conducting -- our public hearings, not focus groups, we were told repeatedly: TxDOT, you do a bad job of advertising what toll roads are and what they are not. Is that correct?

MR. CHASE: For the record, my name is Coby Chase. The answer to that is yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And as a result of that, through at least two -- that I'm aware of -- district engineer meetings we tried to emphasize to division directors and district engineers that we had to become more expressive in explaining what the toll program was and what it wasn't.

MR. CHASE: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

Chuck, is it the case that you had been incented from the commission and from administrative staff to not be afraid and to be entrepreneurial and to approach it that way?

MR. BERRY: Yes, sir, that's part of the program.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And was the advertising, as far as you know, reviewed here in Austin?

MR. BERRY: Yes, it was.

MR. WILLIAMSON: After complaints were received?

MR. BERRY: During and before, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I think the decision was it was dang sure entrepreneurial and a little bit different from what TxDOT had done but we felt like it was objective.

MR. BERRY: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm through with you for a moment.

MR. HOUGHTON: Can I ask one more question?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, please, yes.

MR. HOUGHTON: The only question I have other is the Northeast Parkway was alluded to as being pulled off the plan.

MR. JOHNSON: I heard two projects.

MR. HOUGHTON: Why would the Northeast Parkway not be feasible at this point in time?

MR. BERRY: It hadn't been pulled off the plan. The Northeast Parkway, along with other portions of the mobility study that has been performed in El Paso County continue to be included in the plan. What we had recommended to our El Paso MPO was that we re-prioritize projects to build the most urgent, most needed projects first. Our analysis showed that the most benefit to relieving congestion along Interstate 10 would be gained by constructing two portions along Loop 375, what's now called the I-10 southern relief route, and that the other projects would stay on the plan but their construction would be deferred to a later date. We wanted to build the most important stuff first.

MR. HOUGHTON: What's the obstacle on the Northeast Parkway?

MR. BERRY: It's a 20-mile route from where it leaves out State Highway Loop 375 to where it reconnects with Interstate 10 in southern New Mexico, Dona Ana County, at New Mexico State Highway 404 interchange with I-10, about 20 miles. Nearly exactly ten miles of the proposed route is in Texas, nearly exactly ten miles of the proposed route is in New Mexico. We've coordinated with New Mexico, and New Mexico has some existing two-lane highways that comprise the proposed route, Texas has nothing. It would be new location in Texas, it would be proposed expansion in New Mexico if the expansion were deemed to be necessary.

We planned a ten-mile construction project for Texas because New Mexico was not able or not willing to include that ten-mile section of the project in their statewide development plan. I believe that Mayor Cook was involved in discussions with New Mexico, I was involved with discussions with my New Mexico counterparts to try and get them to prioritize that work, but we were unsuccessful. It's not a priority in New Mexico. I think some of the words that were reported in El Paso were that it's not a priority in New Mexico to take care of an El Paso problem.

We developed a project that was ten miles long and essentially a super two. I think you are familiar with the super two design because the four-lane divided wouldn't make sense unless we had a four-lane divided for the other ten-mile route in New Mexico. The super two design was developed, we performed traffic analysis on it, and lost like 50 or 60 percent of the traffic that otherwise would have taken the route if we had a four-lane divided all the way through from Texas into New Mexico. It did not turn out to be very productive with toll revenue and toll-bonding capability was very, very low.

MR. HOUGHTON: So you just made a statement that New Mexico indicated it was a Texas problem and they were not interested in helping Texas with its problem.

MR. BERRY: Those are the reports that I heard of others that heard those replies; I did not ever hear that directly.

MR. HOUGHTON: But they vote at the MPO level to block certain Texas initiatives.

MR. BERRY: Our metropolitan planning area is established by the Federal Highway Administration and includes southern Dona Ana County. Southern Dona Ana County has four representatives on our El Paso MPO Transportation Policy Board that consists of about 25 members or so -- it's 24 or 25 members, I believe. Three of them voted on the RMA resolution.

MR. HOUGHTON: Voted which way?

MR. BERRY: They voted in favor of not -- I'm trying to get that straight -- they voted against the RMA resolution. The motion was actually not to support to the resolution, so they voted in favor not to support.

MR. HOUGHTON: My next question is who is chair of the MPO now.

MR. BERRY: State Representative Joe Pickett is the chair of the El Paso MPO.

MR. HOUGHTON: Who will be the chair when he rolls off?

MR. BERRY: The elections are held in July of each year. I don't recall if it's part of our by-laws or if it's traditional. The chairperson is elected at that July meeting and that's yet to be held.

MR. HOUGHTON: Who is vice chair?

MR. BERRY: The vice chair is Mayor Ruben Segura from the city of Sunland Park, New Mexico.

MR. HOUGHTON: What's the population of Sunland Park, New Mexico?

MR. BERRY: I'd have to estimate, I don't recall it off the top of my head. It must be 10,000 or so, if it's that big. The delegation from El Paso is telling me it's about 5,600 population in Sunland Park, New Mexico.

MR. JOHNSON: Chuck, the changing in the prioritization of certain projects on the program, the timing of it, did it have anything to do with the consideration by the City of El Paso to form an RMA?

MR. BERRY: No, sir, none whatsoever. The re-prioritization of projects is what we continuously do to try and make sure we're addressing the most important projects first. The Northeast Parkway had been considered for a long time to be a very viable and beneficial project to proceed with, but when we couldn't build the other ten miles of it, it became much less beneficial to helping reduce congestion along Interstate 10. We're talking about on the order of 230,000 vehicles a day at the maximum point of traffic volumes on I-10 in El Paso, 230,000 vehicles every day.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, John. I need to follow up, though, what you just said. I was of the impression, listening to the testimony -- and maybe I assumed and I shouldn't have -- that the MPO action of moving the northeast road down the priority list was specifically to free money up for the RMA and their project.

MR. BERRY: That's partially correct. It was to free up the money for that project regardless of who developed the project, whether there would be an RMA or not.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So one could not use that as an argument against the RMA. What I heard a while ago was -- and again, I could have mis-heard -- was well, they want to form this RMA and look what they've done, they've already taken money away from another project in order to get it done.

MR. BERRY: Sir, the El Paso MPO voted for that re-prioritization at TxDOT's recommendation. What we feel very strongly is our responsibility out there is to come up with the technical recommendations for our policy-makers to approve of. We made that recommendation and the Transportation Policy Board approved it back in May of this year.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, we're not going to lose Chuck. You don't need to ask him all your questions unless you're on point. Anything else with Chuck?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, while we're on this issue, the 375 which is the initial project, is it 100 percent toll-viable?

MR. BERRY: No, sir, not at all. It's a $466 million construction cost estimate and the preliminary toll-bonding capability was right at $190 million.

MR. JOHNSON: So there's a gap, if I can use that word, of $270 million or thereabouts.

MR. BERRY: The two projects that you asked about earlier were projects that we used to help close that gap. One was $81 million -- might have been $80- -- from the Northeast Parkway, and the other one was approximately $90 million from an expansion project that had been proposed on Interstate 10, much of which coincides with the work that's being proposed on the southern relief route. I don't have the percentages of how much we would actually be building on Interstate 10 as a part of the southern relief route, but I'd have to say it would be at least 50 percent of the work that had been proposed under the I-10 widening project will be accomplished anyway as part of this I-10 southern relief route.

MR. HOUGHTON: So Chuck, my math says you're still about $100 million short. How are you filling in that gap? Is that Mobility Fund money?

MR. BERRY: We got to the point where we were approximately $50 million short of the construction funding amount for the I-10 southern relief route, so there's another project in there somewhere.

MR. HOUGHTON: Is it Mobility Fund money that's programmed in there too?

MR. BERRY: That's the $80 million from the Northeast Parkway, and I believe now it's $88 million, if I'm not mistaken, so that helped close that gap.

MR. HOUGHTON: Okay.

MR. BERRY: We're within about $50- or $52 million of being able to account for all the funding for construction that's necessary.

MR. HOUGHTON: What's the largest project you've ever let in El Paso?

MR. BERRY: The largest single construction project?

MR. HOUGHTON: Yes.

MR. BERRY: I believe we bid a $48 million construction project for rehabilitation along Interstate 10 outside El Paso County because it was like 20 miles long, concrete construction. That's the largest project to my knowledge.

MR. HOUGHTON: So this is ten times the size and within the city limits.

MR. BERRY: If my memory is correct for that being the largest project we've ever done, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Man, this guy is protecting himself.

MR. BERRY: I didn't want my staff to say, Chuck, you forgot that $65 million job.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, take a seat for a second.

Amadeo? Permit me to display my lack of information as a member of the Transportation Commission. The boards of MPOs, how does the El Paso area decide the makeup of its board?

MR. SAENZ: The makeup of the board of the MPO is, in essence, determined by the board themselves through by-laws.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, how does it first get determined? In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. In the beginning, how did it get created?

MR. SAENZ: That was before my time.

(General laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you've got the most gray hair, I thought you'd be the one to be able to answer the question.

MR. SAENZ: We'll have to compare.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, you damn sure got more hair than we do.

MR. SAENZ: My guess would be that at the time when MPOs were formed -- of course, they're made up of elected officials -- it was supposed to be made up of mostly elected officials of the region of this urbanized area and you have the members of the city, you have the members of the county, they then become kind of members of the MPO. Then they decide through by-laws to identify their board membership. At least, that's kind of what we did in the Valley.

MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I ask is I notice in El Paso and in Austin there are a lot of elected officials on the MPO board compared to my part of the world where there's very few. I'm just kind of curious how that works.

MR. SAENZ: Well, if you look at the federal guideline, it says that the membership of the MPO needs to be made up of a majority of elected officials, and they're elected officials that are within the metropolitan boundary. So based on that, they would have identified a metropolitan boundary, then elected officials would then become members.

Bob may probably know a little bit more.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Does our crack legal staff know the answer to my question: In the beginning, who created the MPOs?

MR. JACKSON: Federal law gives it to the governor and the local officials to decide membership of a board. The state transportation agency, by federal law, is on the board, and otherwise it's locally elected officials and transit agencies. And I'm Bob Jackson, deputy general counsel.

MR. SAENZ: Bob, hasn't there also been some state statutes, state laws that have put in place statewide elected officials on MPOs? I seem to remember something.

MR. JACKSON: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, thank you, Bob.

Phil? Why would anyone want to form an RMA?

MR. RUSSELL: What was the question, Chairman?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Why would anyone want to form an RMA?

MR. RUSSELL: That's kind of an open-ended question, Chairman.

MR. RUSSELL: You know, ultimately I think it's all the things we heard about this morning: people like to have control over their local affairs, they like to be the master of their own destiny.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, if the City of El Paso didn't form their RMA and if this wasn't approved as a project, could the Department of Transportation pursue those toll lanes as a project?

MR. RUSSELL: Sure.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would the MPO have to agree to let us do that?

MR. RUSSELL: The MPO ultimately will have to approve any of these projects regardless of whomever does it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Would the MPO have to do that even if we came to El Paso next month and said, Tell you what, we're going to solve the problem, we're just going to build it for you, you're not going to spend any of your allocation on it, we'll put up all the money? They would still have to approve it?

MR. RUSSELL: One way or another, whether federal money or projects of regional significance will have to be approved by the MPO.

MR. WILLIAMSON: You quit bobbing your heads. I'm establishing a record here. Come on, you've seen this before.

So it doesn't matter, RMA, TxDOT, Cintra Zachry, that Spanish firm, doesn't matter who it is, if they wanted to build these toll lanes, the MPO would have to approve.

MR. RUSSELL: Any project with federal funds or a regionally significant project, yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So no one can go build this road if a majority of the MPO doesn't want it.

MR. RUSSELL: Correct.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Who all do you want to talk to?

MS. ANDRADE: I have something to say to Phil on the question that you asked, Mr. Chairman. You know, again I say that I come from a community that has an RMA and I've been there, I've been there when I've witnessed what can happen when you establish an RMA, and that is that we at TxDOT become the support and the RMA becomes the one that tells the community what the plans should be, and of course the final deciding factor will be the MPO.

But it's great to have a group of people that this is what they're thinking, this what they're looking at, this is what they're studying in transportation, and I have to tell you that it works. And God knows that my community also went through a period of whether they should keep the RMA after they had established it or not, but it was all because of misunderstanding and mis-communication.

And Chuck, I have to tell you that on your marketing or trying to educate the community on the RMA, I know you were doing it because you see what can be done, and so I have to tell you that I know this is difficult, but boy, am I big supporter of RMAs because I've seen it, I've been there, and I know what can happen, and it's great to have local people making decisions about their local communities instead of the state.

I just had to add that, Mr. Chairman, because I've lived it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Phil.

Hey, Chuck, what percentage of people who use Interstate 10 from the east side of El Paso, or south side, depending on how you look at it, to the west side or north side, depending on how you look at it, what percentage live in El Paso County but don't live in the city of El Paso, would you guess that use Interstate 10?

MR. BERRY: That use Interstate 10?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, maybe we need to back down from it a different way. What percentage of people use Interstate 10 that don't live in El Paso County, they're just El Paso-ing through?

MR. BERRY: Through traffic? The east county limit in our region carries about 30,000 vehicles a day, the western limit of our region carries about the same, 20- to 30,000 vehicles a day. If all of those people were driving through, it would be about 30,000 vehicles that are driving through the region out of that 230,000 average annual daily traffic that we have at the maximum volume point on Interstate 10. I can't do the arithmetic in my head, we're talking about 15 percent or so.

MR. WILLIAMSON: So rule of thumb, three twenty-thirds, roughly 11 percent.

MR. BERRY: Yes, sir, 10 or 15 percent, in that range.

MR. WILLIAMSON: And so the balance should live in El Paso County.

MR. BERRY: Regional traffic that's moving around the area, from one side of town to the other, north, south, east and west.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there anyone else, staff? I don't want to re-institute testimony, I want to talk to staff.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Do we want to state positions, do you want to hear me first, what do you want to do?

MR. JOHNSON: You're the chair.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me tell you what I think we ought to do. First of all, I want to state again that I am very uncomfortable that this is before this commission, and I think perhaps some anticipated that we would be uncomfortable with this.

I wouldn't say I know more about the law than Mr. Pickett or Mr. Shapleigh, they're sitting members of the legislature. I will say that I have been intimately familiar with this approach to changing transportation for several years and that the role of the MPO is more focused on the projects and not on the creation of a quasi- or governmental body authorized by the legislature.

I think, based on my own knowledge and based on the testimony, that what I heard was that the City of El Paso, as evidenced by its representatives, wishes to create an RMA, and that under the law they're permitted to do that, and that the law was specifically written to permit they and others that opportunity.

I believe the law says that in order to petition us they have to do certain things and identify a project, but we've established now through dialogue that no project can be started in El Paso County without the approval of the MPO. The law also provides that if we approve the RMA, there are certain things they have to go back and do and then they have to bring their project back to us for approval. So if there's no approved project, an RMA is a structure but it has no impact on people's lives -- in other words, it can't be activated without the project.

I think the resolution of this belongs at home, not here. I think that if we defer this, it will be back here and it will always be back here, it will never stop. I think the only way to stop it is to approve the RMA and to look the mayor in the eye and say, We will not put your project on our agenda ever until the MPO approves your RMA. I think that places it back home where it belongs.

I think it doesn't completely give Mr. Shapleigh what he wishes, I think it doesn't completely give Mr. Pickett what he wishes, I think it doesn't completely give the mayor and the city what they want, I think it doesn't completely give the county judge-elect and the other mayors what they want, but I know for certain they'll never be back with their application again because we will have approved it and they won't be able to do what they need to do because we won't take their project up until the MPO approves, and that is a rational way for us to set this back in the community where it belongs.

And Ted, if you're uncomfortable with this, I don't blame you. I'm not comfortable that this is before us.

MR. HOUGHTON: Well, I'm not uncomfortable, I'm disappointed extremely in this community that I come from, that I was born in.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I don't mean to start a fight with you, I just think this is the way to resolve it.

MR. HOUGHTON: No, I'm not starting a fight, I'm extremely disappointed in the community, in the leadership, or the lack thereof, in this community.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't want anyone to go out there and say we're forcing toll roads down people's throats because that is a currently often repeated false statement. Whether or not communities choose to toll themselves is up to those communities.

But I see this approach as we'll approve the structure, the law permits you to apply, there's really no reason for us to say no, but we're not going to put the project on our agenda until the MPO approves, and you just need to go home and hold hands and get things patched up. I just think that's the way to approach it.

What do you think, Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, my initial thought was that I'm very uncomfortable voting on this particular agenda item today, as presented, because I weigh a lot of the same issues that you do, and what worries me about what you propose is that there is no assurance that the communities out there will ever come to agreement, and as you are aware, there are statewide issues here, and that concerns me. But given the way you have crafted the proposal, I can vote on it today. I think the city has the legal right to form an RMA, by majority I assume their elected representatives have voted to do that, and I don't think that we should stand in the way of that.

But back to my original statement, I'm a dreamer and an idealist and I hope that harmony can come out of this because everybody is going to benefit together and everybody is going to not benefit together. And as Hope said by her remarks and experience thus far in the Bexar RMA, these tools were created to help areas, regions, communities, and they should be taken advantage of, and so I hope they are.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Hope, do you have anything you want to say?

MS. ANDRADE: No.

MR. WILLIAMSON: What's your pleasure, gentlemen, lady?

MR. JOHNSON: I would make the motion that basically you stated, we approve the RMA, and the caveat be that the project needs to be ultimately approved here, the initial project, and until the community can come together with a unified voice that we put them on notice that we're not going to approve the project that they bring forward.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

MR. HOUGHTON: Second.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Have a motion and a second. I'm not going to call for a vote because Mr. Pickett wishes to address us.

MR. PICKETT: You said earlier that this isn't what Senator Shapleigh would wish for, this isn't something I wish for. This is exactly what Senator Shapleigh or the mayor would want. By this vote you're saying the MPO means nothing, you're saying that the city will create this RMA, that until their project is approved by the MPO -- I mean, I know what the technicalities are that you're getting at.

MR. WILLIAMSON: No, I didn't say that, Mr. Pickett. I said until the MPO approves the RMA. Listen.

MR. PICKETT: I listened, Chairman, and you're not listening. This is what you are set out to do, you planned to do this, this was the decision that you are going to make because it doesn't matter what the public wants or the MPO wants. I know the political reality of this, I know the threats that have been offered to the community if this isn't approved. And it's not a local issue, you're not making this a local issue, you're deciding here and you're telling my community you have no say.

And the only thing that's going to be reported after this vote is we came up here as the majority representing the people of El Paso and the MPO, said no, and it was overridden, and yes, El Paso, you create this regional mobility authority. There's no going back, it's not going to ever not go away after this, and you're just going to wear down the MPO or the individual members until they approve. It won't matter after that.

As far as most people are concerned, all they're going to hear is the RMA was created, so the effect is the same.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. We disagree.

MR. PICKETT: I guess I'll join Jim at the next meeting.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: All opposed, no.

(No response.)

MR. WILLIAMSON: Motion carries. Thank each of you.

Mayor, I would have liked to have given you what you wanted, but despite what the previous affiant said, I think you have a tough hill to climb.

MAYOR COOK: Chairman, with all due respect, I don't think I did get what I wanted, even though Mr. Pickett thinks I did, and now the onus is on me to go back and try to get consensus in the community to petition you to support the project. And as I understand it, you're asking that we get the MPO to agree to support the RMA --

MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct.

MAYOR COOK: -- not to support the project, that you would not approve any project that's in our petition until such time as I come back to you with the consensus.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm telling you it will not appear on our agenda, I won't permit it.

MAYOR COOK: Thank you very much. I appreciate the courtesy you gave me, and I won't give you the encore song.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. And we appreciate everybody from El Paso that came here to voice their opinion one way or the other.

Proceed.

MR. BEHRENS: Now we're going to go back on our regular agenda.