0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL 10 TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC MEETING 11 2035 RTP Update 12 13 14 15 16 The Houston-Galveston Area Council Public 17 Meeting was taken on Thursday, the 19th day of August, 18 2010, at 5:42 p.m., before Lesia J.P. Wagner, CSR in and 19 for the State of Texas, recorded by machine shorthand, 20 at the offices of the Houston-Galveston Area Council, 21 3555 Timmons Lane, 2nd Floor, Conference Room A, 22 Houston, Texas. 23 24 25 0002 1 2 MS. WASKOWIAK: Well, thank you for coming 3 tonight to this meeting regarding the 2035 Regional 4 Transportation Plan Update. 5 My name is Pat Waskowiak. I'm a Program 6 Manager in Transportation here at the Houston-Galveston 7 Area Council. 8 Since about, oh, I guess January of this 9 year, HGAC staff has been engaged in looking at our 10 Regional Transportation Plan, the 2035 update that was 11 completed in 2007, and talking about and working on the 12 development of a new plan. And, again, that's the name 13 of it, 2035 RTP Update. 14 So why are we doing this update? Well, for 15 a number of reasons, but principally since 2007, the 16 2035 RTP has developed, HGAC in conjunction with our 17 regional transportation partner and the State has been 18 working to develop new financial forecasts for the 19 Regional Transportation Plan. 20 Earlier this year, the Texas Department of 21 Transportation released its new forecast and we've been 22 trying to incorporate that information into the Regional 23 Transportation Plan as well. 24 The bottom line is that our forecasts are 25 now significantly lower through the year 2035 than what 0003 1 we had anticipated back in 2007 when we adopted the 2 transportation plan. 3 I'm not going to go into all of this in 4 much detail for a lot of reasons. We have to constrain 5 our plan, financially constrain it. And the way we do 6 that is we have to develop reasonably anticipated or 7 available revenues over the life of the plan. So again, 8 our horizon year 2035. So through the year 2035, what 9 we can reasonably expect to have available in revenue. 10 And we compare that to our cost estimates for planned 11 projects for grants and services through that time 12 frame. 13 We have to also show in this financial 14 forecast that we have enough revenues to maintain the 15 system that is developed and is being developed. 16 As I mention, this -- State came out 17 earlier this year with a revised revenue forecast for 18 transportation funding. That forecast has been 19 something they've been working on for a few years now, 20 so it wasn't something that came out of the blue. We've 21 been anticipating since really the adoption of the last 22 plan that going forward we might have a revised 23 forecast. 24 It's not just a TxDOT forecast. HGAC has 25 independent consultants who are reviewing that forecast 0004 1 and then, as I said, basically concurred with the 2 findings and are developing our own 2035 financial plan 3 forecast. 4 The significance of the Regional 5 Transportation Plan to transportation projects and 6 programs is that if you're seeking federal funding for a 7 project, any federal or State funding assistance for the 8 project, the project has to be included in the Regional 9 Transportation Plan. It's not merely a wish list. 10 As I said, it has to be fiscally 11 constrained and it also identifies the projects that are 12 in the planning stages that are being developed through 13 the project development process for eventual funding. 14 That funding can be federal, State or local, but 15 on the -- as far as federal or State funding goes, the 16 project needs to be included in the Regional 17 Transportation Plan. 18 So for the 2035 RTP Update, we are looking 19 at using the same horizon year 2035, same demographics 20 for the most part. We're looking at any demographic 21 changes that have occurred since 2007, but it's 22 basically the same demographic forecast that we used to 23 develop the first plan with a new financial plan 24 component. And that also means that we would have to 25 take another look at the air quality of locations of the 0005 1 revised plan. So what are the emissions that are being 2 produced from this revised plan and how does that impact 3 regional air quality. Those are the things that we're 4 looking at right now. 5 Going back to the financial plan, right 6 now -- and this is an estimate. I want to put that out 7 there, that it's a draft number that we're working with. 8 As we get further along in the effort, we can narrow 9 that down a bit, but right now we're looking at having 10 reasonably available revenues in the neighborhood of 11 85 -- a little over $85 billion. That sounds like a 12 huge amount of money. Any time we're talking in the 13 billions, we kind of get lost in those numbers. 14 But just as a point of comparison, our 15 original 2035 plan estimated about $157 billion in 16 revenues, so we're looking at approximately half the 17 revenue that we had anticipated earlier. And that is 18 largely impacting the State system and projects that 19 would be funded with State and federal funding. 20 In this update, we have done a few changes, 21 but just minor, to, for example, our transit program of 22 projects. And we've held the local projects, 23 locally-funded projects and local revenue streams 24 constant. So we haven't made any changes as far as 25 local revenues go for funding transportation projects. 0006 1 The reason for that is this update is kind 2 of an interim measure in response to the revised State 3 funding forecast. 4 We are developing at the same time a 2040 5 Regional Transportation Plan and in that Regional 6 Transportation Plan we will be looking, also, at the 7 local funding side. 8 But the graph, I think, in this -- in this 9 slide is pretty interesting. The top line there, the 10 gold line, that is the revenue stream that we use for 11 the 2035 update. And the blue line is what we're 12 currently anticipating. You see that little "up" tick 13 there in the early years, and that's largely due to the 14 stimulus projects, so the ARRA funded projects that are 15 going on and being implemented right now. 16 Beyond that, you start to see pretty 17 significant declines, and at some point it flattens out 18 completely because we anticipate that at that point, 19 it's largely maintenance activities that are being 20 undertaken. 21 We've developed three different funding 22 scenarios, what we call our Baseline funding, and those 23 are the -- that's, as I said before, what we know today 24 as being reasonably available revenue for the plan. 25 And then we have an Enhanced funding 0007 1 scenario. An Enhanced funding scenario is based on the 2 estimation of what we think we need to, again, maintain 3 this system and to continue to develop critical 4 corridors that are already in some phase of project 5 development. We estimate that we'll need about $13 6 billion in addition to the Baseline in order to do that 7 scenario -- complete that program of projects. 8 The one in gray is our current 9 transportation plan and that's the one where we 10 really -- we would need an additional approximately 11 $69 billion. I think at this point, no one is 12 anticipating that we would have enough revenues to 13 implement the full plan. 14 So we're really focused right now on the 15 Baseline and the Enhanced revenue scenarios. 16 Again, I'm not going to go into these in a 17 lot of detail, but in order to implement an enhanced 18 revenue scenario, we need to look at different options 19 for providing additional funding to the transportation 20 system. Right now, our funding is based on motor fuels 21 tax that we collect at the State and Federal, then goes 22 to the federal government as well. It gets returned 23 back to us, at least the Federal share, through the 24 Highway Trust Fund Distribution. That's a system that's 25 been in place since the Highway Trust Fund was created 0008 1 back in late '50s. 2 And that really is the issue for us today, 3 is that we have a transportation funding mechanism 4 that's based on motor fuels taxes. And people have 5 asked: Well, what's driving this funding shortfall? 6 Why all of a sudden are you saying that there's less 7 money than what you'd anticipated? 8 And really, there are two primary reasons. 9 In the short term, the recession, the economic 10 conditions have led to a decrease in motor fuel tax 11 receipts. That's a relatively, though, we think, 12 short-lived phenomenon. But in the longer term, our 13 motor vehicles are getting so much more fuel efficient 14 at such a faster rate than we anticipated even three or 15 four years ago that we're starting to realize that the 16 turnover is just happening very quickly. And it's 17 happening so quickly, in fact, that we think it's not 18 going to be able to keep pace with growth in the region 19 and demand for transportation services. 20 So you balance that against the addition of 21 about a million more people over the next decade and 22 that leaves us in a very, you know, serious position as 23 far as the means for funding transportation needs 24 identified in the region. 25 So these options, there are several of 0009 1 them: Increase in vehicle registration fees, indexing 2 the motor fuels tax, raising the motor fuels tax. None 3 of these are new options. They have been out there for 4 discussion for a long time. Another one -- we don't 5 have it listed there, but another one that we're looking 6 at is a local option, a sales tax that would be 7 dedicated to transportation. Up in the Dallas/Fort 8 Worth area they've been pursuing that option at the 9 State legislative level for a few years. 10 Whether any of these options is -- is 11 viable in terms of what the public would support is a 12 question mark. And that's largely what we're trying to 13 do, is figure out a number of things. Let me just move 14 to that. We'll come back. 15 First of all, this is an issue that the 16 public is concerned about. Is this a priority for the 17 public? Given the different transportation options, 18 where do you all think our dollars should be invested 19 and in what corridors or what types of transportation 20 systems? Would the public be in support of any 21 additional revenue raising measures. If so, what would 22 those be? 23 It's largely what we're in right now is an 24 educational effort. We're trying to provide information 25 about this situation to the public and garner public 0010 1 feedback on the things that I just listed. 2 In that vein, we've developed a very short 3 survey that's on our website at 2035plan.org, and the 4 point of the survey is to get at public opinion and to 5 gauge public support for different transportation 6 options and funding options. 7 We've had it out now since -- I think we're 8 about three weeks. We've had a little over 700 9 responses to the survey. And if you haven't taken it, 10 then I encourage you to go to the survey and let us know 11 what you think about the things that I've talked about 12 this evening. I'll go back. 13 So where are we? Right now we're 14 soliciting comments on the situation on our Baseline, 15 Enhanced, Full scenarios. And on the website as well 16 you'll see project lists by county, and those project 17 lists are coded. Those are the projects and programs in 18 our Regional Transportation Plan today. They're colored 19 based on the scenario that they're in, so you can have a 20 look at for the area that you live in, or work in, or 21 commute in, what the impacts might be in terms of which 22 projects have fallen into the different scenarios. 23 So we're looking for your comments on all 24 of that information. This presentation is on the 25 website as well. A public comment period -- I think it 0011 1 runs through the end of the month? 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: August 30th? 3 MS. WASKOWIAK: Okay. August 30th. 4 So again, I encourage you, if you haven't 5 done so, please go to the website and take a look at 6 that information. 7 We will be continuing to develop the 8 Regional Transportation Plan update. We are -- we'll be 9 taking to our Transportation Policy Council next week -- 10 the comments that we've gotten from the survey and any 11 other forums in which we've received comments from 12 individuals. We will be summarizing that information 13 for our policy council members for their information. 14 We are not recommending any enhanced revenue strategies 15 to them. We're simply providing them with the feedback 16 that we receive from the public. 17 And with that, we will need to make a 18 determination about what we think meets the criteria for 19 reasonably available revenues where we can use to 20 develop the 2035 plan update. 21 That draft document will go out for public 22 comment through September and October and we will be 23 asking for final approval on the final plan in October. 24 So I'm going to pause now and see is there 25 anyone in the audience who, A, wants to make a public 0012 1 comment for the record? If you do, I'll invite you to 2 come up to the podium. We are recording this both on 3 the recorder here and through our court reporter. 4 Or if you have any questions, we'll 5 entertain questions and try to give you answers. 6 MS. HOLZER: Do we need to come up for 7 questions, also, or can we just ask questions? 8 MS. WASKOWIAK: Go ahead. And if you 9 wouldn't mind just stating your name, so... 10 MS. HOLZER: Sure. My name is Robin 11 Holzer, and I'm with the Citizens' Transportation 12 Coalition. 13 On the first slide, the first bullet said 14 that in 2007, Federal highway found that Texas did not 15 meet the fiscal constraint. Can you -- I guess my 16 question is: If you tell us a little bit more about 17 that and whether Texas is the only State that had that 18 problem? Like what were the elements that Federal 19 highways and Texas needed to do this differently. 20 MS. WASKOWIAK: Sure. 21 By Federal statute, we're required to 22 develop a long range transportation plan for the region, 23 must cover at least a 20-year period. And as I said, 24 the language in the law says that you have to show 25 reasonably anticipated revenues, and that's really the 0013 1 guideline for all of the plans and programs that we put 2 together. 3 In 2007 -- again, shortly after the 4 adoption of our last long-range plan, a number of things 5 happened. We had to revise our plan to show it in year 6 of expenditure dollars, another Federal requirement 7 that -- 8 MS. HOLZER: Was that a new requirement? 9 MS. WASKOWIAK: Yes, that was a new 10 requirement. 11 MS. HOLZER: Okay. So we weren't the only 12 State? 13 MS. WASKOWIAK: No, no, no. This was 14 nationwide, everyone putting together a plan. And the 15 guidance came out like just after we had adopted our 16 plan. We had till the end of the year, or something 17 like that, to revise it. 18 So everyone's in the same boat. We're all 19 trying to revise plans to meet that year of expenditure 20 requirement. 21 The other new requirement was that we had 22 to show total project costs. Typically, we had shown 23 for construction projects the construction costs, and in 24 some cases, maybe -- but for the most part focused on 25 the capital costs, equipment costs, or whatever 0014 1 that's -- on the transit side, would show the cost of a 2 bus or light railcar, something like that. 3 While the new requirement said that you 4 have to show total project costs meaning right-of-way, 5 design costs, utilities adjustment, all of that meant 6 that, you know, we all of a sudden had a pretty inflated 7 plan over what we had anticipated when we adopted it. 8 We made all of those changes in '09. It also impacted 9 our Transportation Improvement Program, the first four 10 years of the plan. And the Transportation Improvement 11 Program is the implementation device for the plan. So 12 it shows projects in the first full year where funding 13 is assigned. 14 Again, statewide, we all did this. Revised 15 everything in March of '08. It was sent to -- our 16 Transportation Improvement Program was sent to the Feds 17 to take a look at and what they said was that statewide, 18 Texas was not fiscally constrained, was not meeting the 19 fiscal constraint requirement. And they gave us time to 20 fix that. 21 So our efforts have largely been focused on 22 the TIP but, again, it impacts the plan because the plan 23 is a subset of the -- or the TIP is the subset of the 24 plan. 25 That's all a long story to tell you that, 0015 1 yeah, statewide, the Feds had concerns about whether the 2 State was meeting its fiscal constraint requirements. 3 And you asked, Robin, is this something 4 that's just happening in Texas? No. It's happening 5 nationwide. And in different areas you have different 6 particular sets of circumstances, but just about every 7 State in the nation is dealing with the same issue. 8 And as I mentioned before, every State in 9 the nation is dealing with a recession and every State 10 in the nation is dealing with the long-term prospects 11 regarding the motor fuels tax. 12 And one thing I didn't say is, you know, 13 that is a national discussion because the Highway Trust 14 Fund, we've known for sometime, is basically out of 15 money and what the Federal fix for that is is unclear. 16 So there's been a lot of uncertainty at the Federal 17 level. That is impacting what happens at the State 18 level. 19 MR. MANNCHEN: Pat, when you talked about 20 total project cost, does that include the financing cost 21 also? 22 MS. WASKOWIAK: You know, we typically -- 23 the ones that we include the financing cost on are the 24 toll projects, for example. But Roland, you can help me 25 out. I think that that's probably the only sub? 0016 1 MR. STROBEL: Financing costs, the way that 2 we up -- 3 MS. WASKOWIAK: Do you want to come up? 4 Let me introduce you. 5 This is Roland Strobel and he's been 6 dealing with all of these numbers. 7 MR. STROBEL: I guess the easy answer is 8 that financing costs in part are included in this, but 9 in part are not. It's -- the difficulty is because our 10 project list of what makes up our project plan, our 11 project of -- or list of projects doesn't have a 12 discrete financing cost line item in it. We have roads, 13 we have other kind of projects like maintenance, but we 14 don't necessarily have a line item for financing. 15 Much of the financing has to be repaid 16 within the time frame of the plan. Some bonds obviously 17 are for a longer period, like maybe 50 years out, and 18 those financing costs are not -- are not paid off within 19 the time year of -- or the timeline of the plan. But 20 understand what financing costs are or what financing 21 even is. Financing is basically just using money that 22 you're going to have in future years, bringing it to the 23 present so that you can spend it now, but you're going 24 to have to be repaying that in the future. So it's not 25 new wealth. It's not funding source. You're just 0017 1 bringing the funding source from the future into today. 2 So actually, the short answer is in -- our 3 plan -- we're actually pretty much ignoring all 4 financing costs in there because, again, bringing that 5 money forward and then having to pay that back with 6 interest is part of -- is baked into the system. And if 7 we account for it on the one hand on the revenue side, 8 we would have to account for it on the -- or on the 9 expenditure side, but the wash is if we don't do it on 10 either side, we don't have to worry about it. 11 MS. WASKOWIAK: You look like -- 12 MR. MANNCHEN: Well, I'll have a comment to 13 make, but I'll do it when I make my comment. 14 MS. WASKOWIAK: Okay. Fair enough. 15 Any other questions? 16 MR. TRIPATHI: I would just add to Dr. 17 Strobel's comment and that is there is an exception if 18 the bond -- bonds are secure with gas tax money, then 19 that is what you're saying. But if it is like a Prop 12 20 where the bonds are secured by general revenue, then we 21 are not spending gas tax of the future today. We are 22 spending general money of the future today. So that's a 23 little, you know, news. 24 MS. WASKOWIAK: This is Mr. Rakesh 25 Tripathi. He's Director of Planning for the Houston 0018 1 district of the Texas Department of Transportation. 2 Any other questions? 3 MR. BOYD: I have a couple questions. My 4 name is Jon Boyd. I'm also with the Citizens of 5 Transportation Coalition. First name is J-o-n; last 6 name, B-o-y-d. 7 On this chart -- now, is this for the 8 Houston district or is this for TxDOT? 9 MS. WASKOWIAK: The chart you're looking at 10 is for the Houston district in particular. 11 MR. STROBEL: Yes. And what you're looking 12 at there, if -- I guess I better pull one up. 13 We began looking at our financing or our 14 revenue streams because of this whole issue with TxDOT. 15 And what we're looking at here on these gray bars is 16 our -- is not our financing, per se, but a term called 17 our lettings. Our lettings is something -- is how much 18 money are we spending each year on contracts that we're 19 letting for specific road projects or for maintenance or 20 for different things. So we're not talking about 21 revenues, per se. It's a little bit of mixing apples 22 and oranges, but in essence, lettings can, for the most 23 part, represent TxDOT funding that our district sees and 24 that was spent here in our region. 25 One small little footnote to that. Our 0019 1 region, our eight-county transportation management 2 region here, is comprised entirely of the Houston 3 district which is Harris County and six surrounding 4 counties -- no, five surrounding counties, plus two 5 counties from the Beaumont district, Liberty and 6 Chambers. But if we're looking at the size of each, 7 we're talking about a -- well, I don't want to say quite 8 a pea versus the size of a stadium but -- and -- or 9 Liberty and Chambers are much smaller than -- much 10 smaller. 11 Okay. So here, back to this. These are 12 our lettings and we can see how it changed very much. 13 And we built the Katy Freeway, we had this very tall bar 14 in 2005. In 2006 -- 2005 and '6 is when we were 15 developing the 2035 transportation plan. 16 And here we -- and that's where this blue 17 line on top comes from. We were thinking, okay, let's 18 take a relatively modest 2 percent growth per year of 19 our average of spendings of the previous 10 years to be 20 a relatively reasonable estimate of what the future 21 might bring. Well, what happened was as you, then, look 22 at 2007, it didn't grow very much. In 2008, we have a 23 very big red deficit as we see here. 2009 was okay. 24 And that little orange bar in there -- there are more 25 copies and I'm sorry if we don't have this on the 0020 1 monitors here, but the little orange part, that shows 2 our stimulus dollars that were spent in our region. 3 But largely -- as you can see the large red 4 area here, the green line underneath here is from -- if 5 you go back -- or no, forward. This line is replicated 6 here on the blue line here, but it doesn't go out quite 7 into the future as far as this one does. But that 8 line -- those lines are basically the same. And the 9 difference between those two lines is, obviously, the 10 red shaded area, and that's a big deficit that we're 11 trying to fill or close that gap to reach fiscal 12 constraint again. 13 MR. BOYD: Do you know what the -- just a 14 follow-up on this. 15 Do you know what the letting figures, 16 annual lettings were prior to 2001? 17 MR. STROBEL: I'm sure that is available in 18 TxDOT somewhere in paper records. Online, I could find 19 it back to 2001 and that's what I've shown here, but I 20 don't -- I haven't looked and I don't know what those 21 numbers would be prior to 2001. And that would be 22 something to ask someone at TxDOT. But I'm assuming 23 that would be also TxDOT possibly Austin -- possibly not 24 even a local district. 25 MS. HOLZER: I have another question about 0021 1 your chart on the financial forecast there. 2 MR. STROBEL: Uh-huh. 3 MS. HOLZER: You said 2007 was when we 4 were -- when the 2035 RTP was prepared or was -- 5 MR. STROBEL: Was adopted. 6 MS. HOLZER: Or was adopted. In '06 and 7 '07. 8 MR. STROBEL: We were preparing it in 9 2005 -- beginning in 2004, actually, in 2005 and '6. 10 MS. HOLZER: And so as I look at this 11 purple line that projects a slight growth of revenue 12 availability going forward. 13 MR. STROBEL: Right. 14 MS. HOLZER: My impression is that that was 15 a policy decision. That in '06 and '07, when the RTP 16 was being prepared, we decided that we think that that's 17 a reasonable guess of how revenue will grow. 18 MR. STROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. HOLZER: The question is: Was that 20 policy decision made by our local transportation policy 21 council or was that a TxDOT revenue forecast? Where did 22 that assumption -- or that guess about what the revenue 23 forecast would be, where did that come from in '06 and 24 '07? 25 MS. WASKOWIAK: Well, it was a combination 0022 1 of things. We -- again, whenever we do a plan update, 2 we typically have a financial consultant who helps us 3 develop the financial plan and we review financial 4 statements from our local governments so -- cities and 5 counties in the region, as well as our transit 6 providers, public transit providers and the State. And 7 based on -- because they're all developing their own 8 forecast. 9 MS. HOLZER: Yeah. 10 MS. WASKOWIAK: You know, they look at -- 11 they develop them differently in a lot of cases and they 12 go out for different timeframes, but for the most part, 13 everyone has some kind of forecast that they're 14 developing. And it's really a compilation of those 15 things with our financial consultants, trying to 16 coagulate them -- 17 MR. STROBEL: It's a collaboration of 18 efforts. 19 MS. WASKOWIAK: Right. A trend line for 20 the region. 21 MR. STROBEL: Right. 22 MS. WASKOWIAK: And so that's sort of how 23 it's put together. 24 MS. HOLZER: And so it was ultimately 25 adopted by the policy council as we think this is a 0023 1 reasonable revenue forecast that we will then use to 2 decide how much projects we can build going forward? 3 MR. STROBEL: Yes. 4 MS. WASKOWIAK: Yeah. Right. 5 And, in fact, that's what we will be asking 6 for them to do with this plan update, is, you know -- 7 we'll make a recommendation of what we think is 8 reasonable, but it's up to them to decide what that 9 reasonable line is. 10 Yes, sir. 11 MR. SANDERS: Good afternoon. I'm Vincent 12 Sanders and I'm with Houston Metro. 13 I have actually a two-part question that's 14 dealing with some of the issues that you talked about 15 earlier today. 16 One of the things that I'm concerned about 17 is the forecast as far as revenues that we'll be 18 receiving as far as, you know, our district is 19 concerned. 20 Now, I'm sure probably other MPO's are 21 probably in some of the same situations as we are, 22 trying to find creative ways of, you know, coming up 23 with revenues that we can pay for a transportation 24 system. 25 First question is: In your travels 0024 1 throughout the country or teleconferences that you've 2 had with other MPO's, have you heard of any kind of 3 creative financing sources that could be applicable in 4 our area? And then the second part is that we know the 5 legislative session will be starting in 2011. Are we 6 going to have an active body, active lobbyist group up 7 in Austin, you know, being a cheerleader for our area as 8 far as some of these transportation issues that we're 9 facing... 10 MS. WASKOWIAK: Well, on the first part of 11 the question: Are there other MPO's that have some 12 different funding mechanisms that might be applicable in 13 this region? 14 Across the nation, different MPO's do have 15 different funding -- you know, have identified different 16 funding sources. There are some areas that have the 17 local option tax that I referred to earlier and there 18 are others that have different -- they're usually some 19 kind of taxing mechanism, that they have different user 20 fees or whatever. 21 Some are just structured completely 22 different from the way Texas MPO's are structured, have 23 different authorities. Some are actually taxing 24 entities themselves. We are not. This Metropolitan 25 Planning Organization does not have taxing authority. 0025 1 So there are some out there. Are there 2 ones that would be applicable to this region? Well, of 3 the funding options that we've listed, there certainly 4 would be a local option would be one. You know, 5 increased vehicle registration fees, that kind of thing. 6 But so far as something like new and different that no 7 one's thought about, I'm not -- I don't have any 8 knowledge about that and what might be applicable in 9 this region. The ones that we've listed are things that 10 have been out there for a while. 11 As far as the lobbying effort, HGAC would 12 not coordinate a lobbying effort. It's against our -- 13 it's against State and Federal Rules for us to do that; 14 however, what we can do is provide information like 15 we're trying to do on what we think the funding 16 situation is, what its consequences are for the region, 17 what some options might be and we try to quantify the 18 information you have in this handout -- what the return 19 might be in this particular region. So not just 20 statewide, but what we would think any of these measures 21 might return to this area. And that's about as far as 22 we can go. 23 Now, our cities and counties and special 24 districts within the region can certainly lobby as can 25 Houston Metro. And, you know, whether they want to form 0026 1 a coordinated effort to do that is something that we're 2 looking at as well, and we would provide information but 3 not be heading that up. 4 MR. SANDERS: Thank you. 5 MS. WASKOWIAK: Anything else? 6 MS. HOLZER: Nit-picky question: This cool 7 map -- 8 MS. WASKOWIAK: I'm going to call on Roland 9 again for a nit-picky question. 10 MS. HOLZER: No, no. Is this map available 11 as a GIS data file that we could borrow? Who would I 12 talk to to try to -- 13 MS. WASKOWIAK: We can get you the shade 14 [sic] files for it. The only thing I'm hesitating about 15 is I think we have updated versions of that -- 16 MS. HOLZER: Update is fine. 17 MS. WASKOWIAK: This was actually completed 18 back in -- 19 MR. STROBEL: January. January, February. 20 MS. WASKOWIAK: Since then, we've done some 21 revisions. But yeah, we could get you shade files for 22 latest -- latest and greatest. 23 Anything else? Questions, comments? 24 You're ready? 25 MR. MANNCHEN: I wanted to make a comment, 0027 1 but I wanted to wait till everybody -- 2 MS. WASKOWIAK: I think we're done with the 3 questions. Does anyone else have anything? I'm going 4 to ask you to go up there. 5 MR. MANNCHEN: Of course. 6 My name is Brandt Mannchen, B-r-a-n-d-t 7 M-a-n-n-c-h-e-n. I'm representing the Houston Sierra 8 Club. 9 I don't have anything official to hand in 10 tonight, Pat, but I'll get something in by August 30th. 11 Concerning the financing question that we 12 were talking about, the reason I ask about that is it 13 would seem -- if we really want to educate the public 14 about our transportation systems and what they cost, 15 that the full cost should be before them and that 16 includes financing, which obviously means borrowing 17 money and paying back interest. 18 So when we say, "Oh, here's the cost," and 19 it's really construction cost, or some of those other 20 costs you mentioned, we're really, in my opinion, 21 fooling the public. We're not being honest with them in 22 telling them up-front what the full cost is going to be 23 so that they can understand what it really means as far 24 as an investment and whether they want to support it or 25 not. 0028 1 So I want to encourage HGAC -- and I know 2 there's always a little bit of estimation involved in 3 it, but y'all are pretty good at that, and it seems to 4 me we ought to put -- and if you want to make two 5 categories: The total cost, which you've talked about, 6 and then a financing cost, so that people can look at 7 the -- what I call a total cost, then I think that would 8 make a whole lot of sense. And that would help the 9 public understand just exactly how much of their money 10 we're talking about them paying for these types of 11 projects and whether they want to do that or don't want 12 to do that. 13 I think in a way this shortfall in funding 14 in financing is good because it gives us an opportunity 15 for a timeout to potentially reprioritize what we want 16 to do in our particular area about transportation. And 17 in particular, the Sierra Club's viewpoint is spending 18 $3.667 billion on the Grand Parkway versus other 19 projects that could be paid for with that kind of money, 20 is the kind of prioritization we would like to see a 21 hard look at because we feel like if you look at -- 22 looking at other projects that will give you a bigger 23 bang for the buck as far as getting more people to 24 either get off the streets or alternate forms of 25 transportation, that we need to go in that direction and 0029 1 not keep repeating more circles farther out so that we 2 can develop land so that we can say we congest so that 3 we can say we need to expand more highways we don't have 4 money for. 5 It would be really good for the public if 6 you're asking them to comment on things. If you define 7 things -- for instance, you have something in there 8 called Streamlining Transportation Project Development. 9 What does that mean? The public should be -- it should 10 be explained to the public exactly what those kind of 11 proposals are. 12 From the Sierra Club perspective, what 13 we've heard has concerned us because those kind of 14 proposals really ultimately end up in less public input 15 and less emphasis on environmental impacts and what we 16 do with those kind of things. And since the National 17 Environmental Policy Act process is the public 18 participation process for most of these transportation 19 projects, or many of them, then we want to make sure 20 that that doesn't get short changed. 21 Concerning one of the proposals for 22 increasing registration fees, going from $50 to $75, or 23 even more, is a big chunk of change for a lot of people. 24 There are a lot more people out there now who are 25 struggling and who just having a car and keeping it 0030 1 running is a difficult situation. So I'm not sure that 2 that is a direction that you want to go. It's a -- 3 especially if you don't give people alternatives to 4 where they can park their car maybe and not have to pay 5 those kinds of fees or reduce those kinds of fees. 6 We're not crazy about aggressive local 7 tolling strategies either. We're concerned that tolling 8 emphasizes people who can afford to pay versus the rest 9 of us and that's kind of unfair to a lot of folks. 10 We're also concerned about in some instances tolling 11 means privatization and we're not really crazy about 12 privatization. 13 In fact, one of the proposals in the RTP 14 talks about I-69 and doing a multi-modal transportation 15 corridor feasibility study from the Wharton County line 16 to the Liberty County line and we're concerned about 17 what's going to happen to Houston in that particular 18 area. 19 Under project descriptions, some of them 20 have very amorphous-sounding things that the public 21 doesn't know what it means and I don't know what you 22 mean. Some of them have things like "roadway added 23 capacity" but, you know, it's not really defined. 24 "Operations and maintenance" or "transit system 25 preservation," but there's no explanation what those 0031 1 are. It just says "various" and those kind of words. 2 If you're going to expect the public to pay for this, 3 then it seems to me HGAC needs to do a better job of 4 explaining what the public is going to pay for. And 5 that's been a consistent concern we've had. Is when you 6 look at the list of transportation projects, you can't 7 really tell what they are. They give you a beginning 8 and an end and what the road is and maybe say "expanded 9 to four lanes or six lanes," but as far as really 10 understanding what some of that means, it's really 11 difficult for the public to do. 12 I want to make a suggestion on a couple of 13 projects. Should Alabama from Shepherd to Milam be 14 widened from two to four lanes? That's going to be a 15 tremendous impact on that community in wiping out a lot 16 of businesses or homes. 17 Should Weslayan be widened from two lanes 18 to four lanes between Bissonnet and Bellaire Boulevard? 19 That's right through West University. Do you think 20 those folks are really going to want to have their yards 21 wiped out? And a lot of those folks are -- how should I 22 say, not doing poorly as far as income goes. I mean, 23 those kinds of projects to me don't make sense and I'm 24 not sure why they're even in there because the impact 25 they would have on those communities would be 0032 1 incredible. 2 So I would like HGAC to kind of relook at 3 some of those. That's part of the problem with this 4 process, is we don't even look at the environmental part 5 up front. We go to all this calculation and do 6 construction and say, "Well, can we connect A with B," 7 but we don't say -- we don't look and say, "Does that 8 make environmental sense?" Should we be doing that 9 environmentally or is a less environmentally destructive 10 way to gain the benefit that we want to gain. And that 11 doesn't play a role at all. And we realize that's not 12 required, but maybe it should be from a community basis, 13 that we should be using environmental factors up front 14 to eliminate projects that don't make sense. 15 At any rate, I appreciate very much this 16 opportunity to speak and will be submitting something in 17 writing. Thank you. 18 MS. WASKOWIAK: Thank you, Brandt. 19 MS. HOLZER: My name is Robin Holzer and I 20 chair the board of the Citizens Transportation 21 Coalition. 22 CCC is an all volunteer grass roots group 23 premised on the idea that these big transportation 24 projects affect quality of life in our neighborhoods 25 and, therefore, neighborhood leaders deserve many full 0033 1 opportunities to be engaged in planning projects. 2 Since 2004, we've worked to help 3 neighborhoods do just that. 4 We've identified about 10 principles that 5 we think are really important for how we think about 6 prioritizing transportation projects and planning, and I 7 want to focus on three here tonight. 8 The first that's probably the most 9 important is the idea of investing scarce transportation 10 dollars where the people are. 11 As I look at -- this won't show in the 12 transcript, but I'm looking at a map of the eight-county 13 region and what it shows on it are the 25 largest job 14 centers in the region, and 22 or '3 of those are in 15 Harris County. What the data shows is that 60 percent 16 of all of the population of the eight-county region and 17 75 percent of all the jobs in the eight-county region 18 are within five miles of one of these 25 job centers. 19 So fundamentally where the people are is near where 20 these jobs are, by and large, across the region. 21 And so that says to me, or says to us, that 22 one of the best opportunities our region has for 23 improving access and improving mobility is to focus our 24 transportation investments on improving connections 25 between these job centers and improving access in the 0034 1 immediate areas of these job centers, okay? It's not 2 about building a new $3 billion highway from downtown to 3 nowhere. It's about connecting job centers, connecting 4 the centers. 5 When I look at the map that was provided -- 6 whose map is this? Should I credit TxDOT or HGAC for 7 this map? 8 MS. WASKOWIAK: You have to credit HGAC. I 9 don't think TxDOT wants to take credit. 10 MS. HOLZER: So a map that was provided 11 tonight that identifies in red highway corridor projects 12 that have been talked about in this region that are "in 13 danger" of not being funded. When I try to relate where 14 those highways are to where the jobs are, they're not 15 related. That there's one or two of the projects on 16 here that might not be funded that would actually 17 improve access to one of our 25 job centers, but the 18 others are not about improving access to where people 19 need to go at all. They're rather mostly about opening 20 up new land for development, which I would argue is not 21 the highest and best use of scarce transportation 22 dollars. 23 The second principle I want to talk about 24 is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That in our 25 work with neighborhoods around the region, people are 0035 1 concerned about our region growing in a way where we are 2 forced to use cars for travel that we might otherwise be 3 able to do by other means, whether that's by transit or 4 on foot or on bike. 5 One of the opportunities we have in our 6 region is to focus our transportation investment in a 7 way that it fosters development of livable centers or 8 communities where people can live and work and shop and 9 play and go to school and make some of those trips 10 without their car. But that's a really important 11 opportunity for our region and I hope that as we update 12 the Regional Transportation Plan and planned future 13 transportation investments will prioritize that. 14 The third principle I want to talk about is 15 the idea of providing access for all. Across the State, 16 1 in 5 Texans cannot or does not drive. Many of them 17 it's because they cannot afford the annual cost of a car 18 and some is because they have visual or physical 19 impairments that keep them from driving. 20 Show of hands: How many of you know 21 somebody who cannot or does not drive? Anybody? It's 22 like a third of the people in the room. Okay. This is 23 a serious -- serious opportunity. 24 To the extent that our transportation 25 investment is all about highways and roadways, we are 0036 1 leaving a significant portion of our tax-paying populace 2 behind and that's a problem. 3 So I guess this final principle is we need 4 to invest our transportation dollars in a way that they 5 provide access to jobs, to school, to shopping, to 6 recreation for everyone, not just the 4 out of 5 Texans 7 who can drive. 8 So to conclude, the Citizens Transportation 9 Coalition will be submitting formal comments in writing 10 between now and the comments deadline, but that's what 11 I've got for tonight. Thanks. 12 MS. WASKOWIAK: Thank you, Robin. 13 Does anyone else want to make a comment or 14 ask a question? Going once, twice? No. Okay. 15 All right. Well, again, I want to thank 16 you all for coming, for taking time out this evening to 17 come listen and talk about this. And please do submit 18 your comments. If you haven't taken the survey, please 19 do. It will help tremendously. 20 Yes, sir. 21 MR. MANNCHEN: The survey. 22 MS. WASKOWIAK: Uh-huh. 23 MR. MANNCHEN: The one thing I don't like 24 about it is you get to a point where you choose one 25 thing or another, and I chose one thing which kept me 0037 1 from providing you input about how I felt about those 2 other things. 3 MS. WASKOWIAK: Right. 4 MR. MANNCHEN: I would like to provide that 5 input, but I'm not able to on the survey. 6 MS. WASKOWIAK: The last question, you can 7 provide comments. 8 MR. MANNCHEN: I did provide some but, you 9 know, I can't go into the detail of all those things 10 that y'all have. 11 MS. WASKOWIAK: Then I would say: Can you 12 e-mail us and we'll have that for the record? 13 MR. MANNCHEN: Sure. 14 MS. WASKOWIAK: I'll just say about the 15 survey, it is not a perfect survey. We get comments -- 16 we've had several comments on one question in particular 17 that just doesn't seem to work at all. So people have 18 been submitting comments telling us about that one. I 19 think it's No. 5 is the problem. We didn't want to take 20 it down and revise it and then repost it because then it 21 messes up our results, so we're going to leave it out 22 there like it is through the end of the public comment 23 period and then we'll try to figure out if we need to 24 revise and try it again, or just go with what we have. 25 But I do encourage you with all its flaws 0038 1 to, you know, give it a shot. And if you want to make a 2 additional comments you can always do that via letter, 3 phone call, e-mail. At our public information site, 4 there's a place to submit comments, so please do so. 5 MS. HOLZER: One more question? 6 MS. WASKOWIAK: Uh-huh. 7 MS. HOLZER: As you were outlining public 8 comment windows, it sounded like August is the window 9 for talking about the revenue situation. 10 MS. WASKOWIAK: Uh-huh. 11 MS. HOLZER: And there will be a subsequent 12 comment period in September to talk about projects that 13 should or should not be in the RTP Update? 14 MS. WASKOWIAK: The second comment period 15 will be on the draft 2035 RTP Updates. 16 MS. HOLZER: Okay. So everything about 17 that. 18 MS. WASKOWIAK: The financial plan, you 19 know, the program of projects, everything. That's what 20 will be out next. 21 Thank you, guys. Good night. 22 (Proceedings concluded at 6:33 p.m.) 23 * * * * * 24 25 0039 1 THE State OF TEXAS : 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS : 3 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 4 TO THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN ON AUGUST 19, 2010 5 6 I, Lesia J.P. Wagner, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 7 in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify 8 that this transcript is a true record of the 9 proceedings. 10 I further certify that I am neither attorney nor 11 council for, related to, nor employed by any of the 12 parties in which this proceeding was taken. 13 Further, I am not a relative or employee of any 14 attorney in this proceeding, nor do I have a financial 15 interest in the action. 16 Certified to by me this 31st day of August, 2010. 17 18 __________________________________ Lesia J.P. Wagner, CSR 19 Texas CSR No. 3561 Expiration Date: 12-31-10 20 Worldwide Court Reporters, Inc. Firm Registration No. 223 21 3000 Weslayan, Suite 235 Houston, Texas 77027 22 Telephone: (713) 572-2000 Facsimile: (713) 572-2009 23 24 JOB NO. 1-34797 25