a a Texas Department of Transportation” DEWITT G, GREER STATE HIGHWAY BLOG,» 125 €. 11TH STREET + AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870'-2483- (512) 450-8505, October 29, 2014 The Honorable Cindy Burkett Texas House of Representatives P.O, Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768 Dear Representative Burkett: Chairman Ted Houghton has asked me to respond to your letter dated October 17, 2014, regarding the Blacklands Corridor. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) uses the Unified Transportation Program (UTP), in part, to execute local priorities. We defer to the local transportation entities on these project priorities, and when there is disagreement on a project, we prefer for it to be resolved locally. In August 2014, the department added the Blacklands Corridor Project to the UTP based on the priority placed on the project by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), which is the local Metropolitan Planning Organization. We are aware that numerous citizens have raised objections to the project at a recent public meeting held by the NCTCOG regarding this project. Those objections, however, are not a basis for TxDOT to take action. Instead, TxDOT will allow the public involvement and local decision-making process to play out and wait for the recommendation of the NCTCOG. The department is closely monitoring the regional policy discussion regarding the Blacklands Corridor, and we are aware that the NCTCOG staff has recommended that the project not be included in its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update. With that in mind, we anticipate that the Regional Transportation Council, which sets policy for the NCTCOG, will decide in November whether to accept the NCTCOG staff recommendation to not add the project to the MTP. If that occurs, TxDOT expects to quickly follow suit and seek TTC approval to remove the project from the UTP. Below are the responses to the six numbered questions in your letter. 1. How and why was the project included into the UTP? ‘The Blacklands Corridor project was included in the UTP because the Texas Turnpike Corporation committed to privately develop and fund the project and indicated it planned to have it under construction by 2019. As such, the two control-section-job numbers (CSJs) are shown in the UTP as privately/locally funded. TxDOT did not commit any funding to this OUR Goats MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM + ADDRESS CONGESTION + CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES + BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCYThe Honorable Cindy Burkett -2- October 29, 2014 project. Its inclusion in the UTP does not in any way indicate an endorsement by TxDOT nor authorize it for construction. The department is required to list all projects under development in the ten-year UTP, including private toll projects. The project's planning process could not proceed without the project being included in the UTP. In addition, TxDOT is required to provide oversight of private toll road projects. 2, How many public comments were received by TxDOT regarding the Blackland toll road? How did the Department communicate with the public that this project was slated for inclusion in the UTP? Why was the Blacklands toll road placed in the UTP and voted on by the Commission without a single mention of it (by Commission or staff) at the meeting? The public involvement process was managed and overseen by the NCTCOG, with TxDOT deferring to local and regional control of the project development process in this case. TxDOT, however, also received 31 public comments regarding the addition of the Blacklands toll road project into the UTP, many of which were submitted to TxDOT during the NCTCOG public involvement process in late August and early September. As part of the process for the UTP adoption, TxDOT's Transportation Planning and Programming Division hosted a public meeting in July notifying the public of TxDOT's development of the UTP. A notice was posted in the Texas Register to notify the public of the draft UTP with a 30-day comment period. A public hearing was held in August, and it also had a 30-day comment period. TxDOT did not receive any comments from the public during the development of the UTP concerning the Blacklands Corridor project. At the time of the UTP. vote in late August, the department was not aware of concems with the project being placed in the UTP. Had those concerns been known, the decision to include the corridor in the UTP may have been different. To emphasize the Commission's role at that point, the UTP adoption was strictly a planning document approval. The current UTP includes more than 3,100 projects planned or programmed by TxDOT in the next decade, and a large number of them are not fully funded. Had funding been requested for the Blacklands Corridor project, the Commission would have had a more robust debate, a public presentation and a public discussion about such a proposal. As it stands, TxDOT will quickly evaluate the Blacklands Corridor project's status after the RTC decides whether to follow the NCTCOG staff recommendation that the project not be included in the MTP. 3. What is the basis for the FY 2019 letting date of the Blacklands toll road? What is the relationship between TxDOT and the private developer for the Blacklands toll road? What agreements have been made? The developer committed to develop the project by 2019 based on its own projections, A placeholder UTP listing was subsequently created for this project in year five (FY 2019) of theThe Honorable Cindy Burkett 3 October 29, 2014 UTP based upon local and regional input. This allowed the environmental assessment and review and public involvement processes to continue as requested by the developer. Projects listed in years five through ten of the UTP are authorized with "develop" authority only, which allows preliminary project activities such as advance planning, public involvement, environmental assessments and reviews, and preliminary design to continue, but not construction. No business relationship exists between the developer and TxDOT, and the department does not endorse or oppose the project. Should the developer continue its efforts, TxDOT has the authority to determine whether the developer must complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) or complete a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Subsequently, TxDOT has ultimate review authority for either the EA or EIS that would be undertaken and completed by the developer. TxDOT has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Texas Tumpike Corporation. (See attachment). 4. What is the meaning of Category 3 “Local” funds and how TxDOT accounts for those funds in the Department's planning documents? The funding category of 3 "Local" indicates that the local entity (the developer) bears the ultimate financial responsibility for the project. TxDOT tracks these costs in its Financial Information Management System. 5. What state funds are being allocated to this project? Apparently TxDOT is spending time, money and human resources are being allocated to this project - what is the tab so far? State resources, such as staff time, are being used only to the extent required to review the environmental documents provided by the developer. To date, approximately $14,000 of state funds have been expended as staff time for meetings and environmental review of documents and schematic plans proposed by the developer. If the RTC follows the NCTCOG staff recommendation to not add the project to the MTP, TxDOT will not expend any additional staff time or resources on the study of this project. Should the developer choose to proceed with an EA or EIS without RTC or local support, TxDOT would review any submitted documents as necessary to fulfil its environmental review obligations. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have questions or concems about my response. We welcome further discussion with you about this project and any others so that you may be better informed. If you have more substantive questions about the project, the actions of