U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC) Meeting Minutes

Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico
November 7 and 8, 2006

For this meeting the delegations were as follows:

U.S. Delegation
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) - Fred Eberhart
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Jill Hochman, Roger Petzold, Sylvia Grijalva, Lisa Dye, Michael Avery, Al Alonzi, Crystal Jones, Frederick Werner
US Department of State - Robert (Buck) Waldrop (WHA-MEX), Bill Carroll (U.S. Embassy, Mexico)
General Services Administration (GSA) - Ramon Riesgo
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - Chad Gilchrist
U.S. Visit - Jeff Tepsic
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) - Agustin de la Rosa, Esther Hitzfelder
New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) - Joseph de la Rosa
New Mexico Border Authority - Jaime Campos, Jim Creek
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - Pedro Orso-Delgado
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) - Dale Buskirk, Rudy Perez

Mexican Delegation
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT-DGDC) - José San Martín, Juan José Erazo, Oscar Ringenbach, Miguel Ángel Gutiérrez
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT- Auto Transporte) - Viviana Jiménez
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT- Planeación)
Hiram MartínezInstituto Mexicano de Transporte (IMT) - Jorge Acha
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Centro SCT - Coahuila) - Miguel Flores
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Centro SCT - Sonora) - Eduardo Due˜az
Caminos y Puentes Federales (CAPUFE) - Octavio Vial
Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales (indAAbin) - Santiago García
Aduana - Manuel Ruiz, Alejandro Zamudio
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) - Arturo Barrio
Secretaria de la Función Pública - Juan Antonio Olague
Gobierno del Estado de Sonora (SIUE) - Fernando Lam Koerdell, Gilberto Rivera
Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua - Baltazar Romero, Fernando Canovas
Gobierno del Estado de Tamaulipas - Andrés Velasquez
Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila - Noe García, Vicente Ysais Antuna, Eduardo Olmos
Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León - Cesar Zú˜iga
CODEFRONT - Regino Villareal
Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (UABC) - Rodolfo Morales, Francisco Quintero
Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila (UADEC) - Sergio Quintanilla
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL) - Justino González

Consultants
New Mexico State University - Christopher Brown, Quinn Korbulic
GTSI - Venu Sarakki, Jorge Arango
City of El Paso - Bridge Division - Ray Mendoza
Puente Zaragoza-Ysleta - Virginia Dorantes

November 6 - U.S. and Mexico Only Sessions

November 7, 2006 - Joint Working Committee Meeting-Joint Session¹

Welcome - Jose San Martin - SCT and Jill Hochman -FHWA

Jose initiated the meeting, welcomed the delegates and introduced, Lic. Eduardo Olmos Castro, Secretary of Public Works for the State of Coahuila. Secretary Olmos Castro welcomed the JWC to Saltillo, and gave an overview of issues facing the group, the State of Coahuila and border transportation in general. Jill Hochman welcomed the delegates on behalf of the new Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters. The new Secretary has three primary goals: improved safety, increased intelligent transportation systems, and intermodal systems. The congestion initiative, initiated by former Secretary Norm Mineta, falls under the last goal, and contains border specific issues. Jill also read a letter of thanks and farewell from retiring JWC co-chair, Cindy Burbank, Associate Administrator, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty for the FHWA.

Approval of minutes from Tucson May/June 2006 meeting - All
The JWC approved the minutes without comment.

Border Security Projects Overview
Miguel Angel Gutiérrez - SCT and Venu Sarakki - GTSI
Miguel Angel gave a presentation on the benefits of SENTRI (Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection)/FAST (Free and Secure Trade) projects and the completion of projects border-wide. Venu Sarakki discussed measures of effectiveness with and without the project using the Nuevo Laredo Port of Entry (POE) as an example. SENTRI benefits both enrolled travelers and other travelers. Venu also discussed a methodology to evaluate potential new locations considering volumes, existing and projected wait times, cost-effectiveness, and benefit/cost ratios (0.25 or higher).

Lisa Dye indicated that the SENTRI program has been expanded from its initial two-year enrollment cycle to a 5-year program. Arturo Barrio indicated that SENTRI is a good program, but is only as effective as the staffing assigned to it. Fernando Lam asked about the feasibility of including a SENTRI lane at San Luis II. Jose San Martin said the POE at San Luis II would be built soon and a SENTRI program could be considered as part of the concession for that project. Juan Jose Erazo mentioned that FAST/SENTRI are part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership trilateral initiative (SPP) between Mexico, Canada and the United States. Ministers from these countries will be meeting early in 2007. States should also help develop SENTRI/FAST programs as California is doing; investing their own money, and fixing access points, not just providing the infrastructure that CBP needs. A commitment was made that the JWC will examine alternatives for financing more SENTRI lanes by the US and Mexico.

Bill Carroll - Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS), U.S. Embassy, Mexico City
Bill gave an overview on the border security project program. He has been directly involved for the last two and a half years. The border security projects were designed to deter terrorists, narcotics traffickers, smugglers of other contraband, and illegal aliens, while ensuring the safe and secure passage of legal visitors and trade. NAS funding goes to border security projects, such as Non-Intrusive Inspection Equipment, SENTRI, and the SimFronteras border modeling, along with other bilateral law enforcement endeavors. The SENTRI lane program was to install SENTRI lanes at 6 locations. Four of the six are complete. NAS will work to complete its commitment to the SENTRI program, and will continue to develop mutually beneficial border projects that meet the criteria for the NAS funding, mainly traditional narcotics apprehension, with funds to be spent in Mexico.

Jill Hochman asked if SENTRI/FAST could continue to be described as a counter terrorism/narcotics program. Bill indicated that this could perhaps be the case, but that the State Department was returning to a more traditional definition of border security projects, one that stressed anti-terrorist, anti-narcotics and other related law enforcement goals. The State Department's criteria for State's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) program dollars is now being restricted to projects aimed directly at countering terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and other cross-border crimes. More information about INL and funding is available at http://www.state.gov/p/inl/ The JWC will investigate possibilities of proposing other projects meeting the mandate of the NAS office and the JWC objectives.

A question was asked about appropriate contacts for CBP and the SENTRI program. For the SENTRI program in Mexico (coordinated with the State Department), the appropriate contact is Renee Harris, CBP's attaché in Mexico City, or Don Rogers, of her office. Where SENTRI impacts the U.S. POEs the contact is Chad Gilchrist. John Wagner and Jeffrey Suam can provide more information on SENTRI and FAST respectively.

Bill Carroll supports the distribution of the software to the CETRATETs. Pedro Orso-Delgado expressed a concern that both SimFronteras and Border Wizard are too proprietary and are not worth the value. Jill Hochman pointed out that TRANSIMS is a free program that FHWA is promoting that may be more valuable for border planning applications. For more information on TRANSIMS please see http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/transims/ Juan Jose Erazo asked Bill if he could intervene on the part of the users with the software developers, Regal Decision Systems. Regarding proprietary information in either SimFronteras or Border Wizard, there are certainly some data elements that are sensitive to non-inspectional agencies. As a group the JWC can work together on input to the tool so that the output is mutually useful to everyone. CBP expressed reluctance to release inputs to Border Wizard due to potential security issues, but continues to be interested in working with the JWC stakeholders on long-range planning, i.e. through the Border Master Plan.

Work Plan 2003-2005

Port of Entry Coordination Pilot - Gus de la Rosa - TxDOT
TxDOT has developed a Scope of Work (SOW) with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to measure border wait times at the Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) in El Paso. Crystal Jones of FHWA is coordinating this and other on-going pilots using ITS technology to measure wait times. The funds are 50% grant with a 50% match requirement. The SOW identified different steps: Contact stakeholders, gather baseline data, identify technologies, develop an implementation plan, demonstrate the effectiveness of the technology, evaluate and assess results and provide recommendations. Measurements have been conducted at BOTA of the time when a truck exits the federal compound to the time when they exit safety inspection. 1,350 trucks per day were measured, differentiated between trucks entering secondary and trucks not passing through secondary. The permanent Border Safety Inspection Facility (BSIF) is nearly operational at this time. Once the BSIF is complete, measurements will be conducted again. There are plans to implement FAST or a similar program through the BSIF, which will direct traffic based on history and performance record. The other recommendation from the POE coordination pilot, harmonization of hours of operation, is currently on hold.

Juan Olague - CICOPI
The Intersecretarial Commission for the Operative Coordination at International Crossings (CICOPI) was created in April 2002 to plan, promote and evaluate policies and actions of the Mexican federal government to coordinate and improve international boundaries. The CICOPI is made up of 14 federal agencies. 4 Regional-level CICOPIs are located on the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez and Nuevo Laredo, with 5 local-level CICOPIs in Tecate, Mexicali, Piedras Negras, Reynosa and Colombia. The CICOPIs are charged with improving many facets of the business at international boundaries including hours of operation, transparency, installing centralized business offices for "one-stop" border processing, etc. The Coordination Pilot Project identified shortcomings in coordination at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry, and the Mexican government submitted its alternatives to CICOPI for implementation. Juan presented ways in which coordination can be implemented and some of the previous suggestions for the Port of Entry Coordination Pilot can be incorporated. Some of the issues CICOPI is currently working on are coordinated inspections, overweight vehicles, inspections of rail cars, a safe hunting program, and SENTRI - Laredo's lane opened at the end of October 2006.

Juan Jose indicated that there are linkages between CICOPI and allowing communication between Mexican agencies. JWC tools can help this inter-Mexican collaboration. The JWC will identify and compile a list of potential points of interaction with CICOPI.

2005-2007 Work Plan

Regional Border Master Plan Proposal - Pedro Orso-Delgado - Caltrans
Caltrans (CT) is in the process of creating a border-wide master plan with a comprehensive and prioritized assessment of the bi-state POE and transportation needs. State/local/federal governments have long had overlapping interests at the POEs and have discussed the need for a master plan that provides order to the planning process. The plan will be collaborative and could be used in all of the planning and programming processes. At the end of the 18-month project rime-frame, March 2008, the goal is have a prioritized list of projects (transportation and POE projects) for the short-, medium- and long-term established via a process and criteria determined by stakeholder collaboration.

The project was kicked-off in October with the establishment of a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and a Technical Working Group (TWG) comprised of interested governmental stakeholders. TWG representatives are in the process of completing state-of-the-practice surveys on planning and will be submitting to the CT consultant by mid-November. Next steps will be to determine existing capacity and demand, estimate growth and future demand, analyze and prioritize needs, conduct public outreach, develop a final document, and implement the document. All participants are encouraged to complete all data requests in a timely manner so that the project can be successful and keep to its schedule.

Border Information Flow Architecture (BIFA) - Viviana Jimenez - SCT
Mexico has completed its national architecture, and has begun implementing some projects. Viviana provided background on how the Architecture is structured, on the different agencies it serves, and on the different services provided through it. The Architecture also provides border-related specific services including: monitoring of vehicles carrying hazardous materials, emergency incident notification in the border region, cargo and intermodal information, electronic payment of tolls, and route information systems. A Pilot project will be undertaken in the Ensenada-Tijuana Corridor to demonstrate the different benefits of the system, including electronic cargo tracking and seals. Mexico is ready to move forward with the BIFA project by participating in the subcommittee, sharing information between Architectures, encouraging participation from the various involved agencies/business sectors, and helping to coordinate the different stakeholders.

Crystal Jones - FHWA
The BIFA subcommittee continues to move toward implementing the BIFA Action Plan and develop the Architecture. The project has an expected completion date of November 2008. After a contractor was hired in early summer, a teleconference was held in July 2006, to discuss barriers and challenges, perceptions, and potential benefits/usefulness of the project. Work will be coordinated via the BIFA subcommittee and regular meetings (monthly or bi-monthly) will commence. Active participation from the subcommittee, the public sector and the private sector will ensure greater buy-in.

The BIFA effort will work to incorporate Mexico's national architecture as part of the regional architecture.

Pedro Orso-Delgado asked what it would take to have Commercial POEs operate 24 hours a day/7² days a week. Viviana said if the Architecture works well it should facilitate this kind of operation. Laredo World Trade Bridge operates 24/7 and has overcome policy problems with banks and brokers to do so. Conceivably these problems could be overcome elsewhere.

At the June teleconference, states were asked to submit their ITS stakeholders. California, Arizona, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas have all yet to submit their contacts. The states of California, Arizona, Baja California, Sonora, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo Leon will provide the JWC coordinators the list of state and local stakeholders in this effort by the end of the calendar year, 2006.

Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment (BINS II)/GIS - Joseph de la Rosa - NMDOT
The first phase of the Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment was completed in Tucson at the May/June JWC meeting. Some questions have arisen about who is using BINS and how, and what utility is the project having. Jose Antonio Carranza at NMSU has completed his Masters' thesis using BINS information. The BINS is a useful tool that is underutilized. If people are using it, NMSU would appreciate being told of its application.

To move forward with BINS II, which will build upon recommendations from the BINS I study: improve corridor and project identification, collect data to fill gaps in BINS I, develop an update mechanism for BINS I, redefine transportation corridors considering continuity, enhance corridor evaluation process and re-evaluate accordingly, and enhance compatibility of BINS I data with the Binational Geographic Information System (BGIS), the right people at the state level will need to be involved and participate on the BINS subcommittee. BINS I was not as complete as it could have been due to missing or partial information from some states. With participation, BINS II will provide a better evaluation process, and a better definition of regional goals and viewpoint. The JWC will formally request the Border States' transportation plans in the border region for Phase II of the Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment/GIS study. The Mexican States will provide coordinators for the BINS II study by the end of the calendar year 2006.

The Border Master Plan project, when it links with the BINS/BGIS will develop a very powerful database and planning tool for border implementation.

Hiram Martinez - SCT
National Inventory of Infrastructure 2006
In 2006, SCT began the process of updating the national infrastructure inventory first begun in 1996. This update will use state-of-the-art technology to accurately chart the national highway network, to an accuracy of 5 meters, and three dimensions, and fill a database with useful information such as name, type, number of lanes, geometry, drainage, SCT buildings, mile markers, geometry, etc. Information will be gathered via GPS (global positioning systems) and will be complete (for all paved roadways) within six months. When complete, the inventory will be a valuable tool for SCT.

Safety Planning Follow-up - Mike Avery -FHWA
At the April 2006, Safety Planning Conference, which brought together the safety and planning communities, approximately 75 people attended to discuss road safety, pedestrian safety, vehicle safety, border control checkpoint design, and U.S. and Mexican fatality characteristics. The conference had an emphasis on region specific issues, safety initiatives in both countries, how the transportation/infrastructure planning process impacts safety, traditional and non-traditional partners, how to identify local/corridor/area-wide safety problems, and human and cultural factors. Recommendations were established at the two-day conference, and subsequently approved at the Tucson May/June JWC meeting.

The most immediate recommendation is the formation of a Safety Work Team to focus on improving road safety in the border region. An invitation has been developed in English/Spanish to be distributed to interested stakeholders. The JWC coordinators will send an invitation to Safety Stakeholders inviting them to participate in a subcommittee that will work on safety follow-up activities from the Binational Symposium on Safety in Transportation Planning conducted in Hermosillo, Sonora in April 2006.

Juan Jose Erazo - SCT
SCT supports the concept of safety and the formation of a Safety Work Team. SCT has a shared vision with regard to the importance of safety and has made safety a strategic theme for the agency. They are working on issues including efficiency of cargo shipping while minimizing accidents. Dr. Chias, who developed the UNAM GIS-based safety atlas.

FHWA will provide Juan Jose Erazo, SCT a contact name at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to discuss the distribution of UNAM GIS-based safety atlas.

Regional Border Innovative Finance Activities
Regional Border Finance Team- Frederick Werner - FHWA
The finance team continues to work with developing techniques for disseminating information on finance. Completed projects to date are the April 2006 Conference in San Diego and a sketch level finance plan for a rail project in Texas. Another regional finance workshop is planned the El Paso/Juarez/NM area in early 2007. Regional stakeholders have agreed to meet to discuss potential projects and then decide whether a regional workshop would meet their current needs. The El Paso MPO will be taking the lead in this effort.

SR-11 - Otay East Port of Entry - Pedro Orso-Delgado - Caltrans
Caltrans and SANDAG collaborated on a study to evaluate the financial feasibility of constructing State Route 11 (SR-11) and the East Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The purpose of the study is to see what combination of these projects (roadway capital and maintenance costs, POE capital and maintenance costs, POE operation costs) would be attractive to investors, by developing a market-approved risk-based audit of the traditional "four-step process" which identifies probability ranges of possible outcomes for feasibility, not just a "yes" or "no" answer. The model is built using the input of expert stakeholders, is fully transparent, and easily changeable for a range of different assumptions. When complete, in December 2006, the study will provide needed information to the regional stakeholders on whether to proceed with this project/combination of projects as a public or public/private partnership.

Public Private Partnerships for New International Bridges - Juan Jose Erazo - SCT
SCT had a binational meeting in Mexico. All new POEs/bridges are in need of private funds. Every project will be asking for this (Otay Mesa East, Silicon Border, Guadalupe/Tornillo, Donna etc.) The Mexican federal government is moving ahead on developing the studies necessary to obtain the Public/Private financing. SCT is participating in a financial feasibility study for Otay East (with Caltrans and SANDAG) and is also looking to support the State of Baja California in their development of a parallel project.

Bottlenecks Study - Phase II
Nogales Bottleneck Study- Rudy Perez - ADOT and Fernando Lam -Sonora
At the Tucson JWC meeting Arizona and Sonora committed to conduct a bottleneck study of the transportation infrastructure at the Nogales Ports of Entry. At the present time, they are waiting for a proposal from the University of Arizona and will begin the study in the December 06/January 07 time-frame.

Texas Bottleneck Study - Gus de la Rosa - TxDOT
TxDOT is working on a border travel time study which will identify one project for each of Texas' 26 Ports of Entry. The contract has been signed and the study will begin in the December 06/January 07 time-frame.

Low Cost -High Impact Projects
This work plan item was initially conceived as an outflow of the Nogales III/Mariposa FAST lane project. The idea was to identify other projects where flexible funding could be utilized, and where results could be obtained quickly. The JWC asked for identified projects so it could pursue funding. At the present time states are working on these types of projects on their own. Two such examples follow:

Nogales/Mariposa FAST Lane - Rudy Perez - ADOT and Fernando Lam Koerdell - SIUE Sonora
The U.S. side of the FAST lane has been open since July 2006, and had a big inauguration in August 2006. Congratulations to all who worked on getting this project operational. indAABin is working on getting the Mexican land qualified from the Sistema de Administracíon Tributaria (SAT), an administrative task, so that Mexican Aduana can begin operations on their side. This is expected to occur by December 2006.

California Examples - Pedro Orso-Delgado - Caltrans
California has been cobbling money together for various projects and with various agencies for a while now. Some examples of projects with low outlay but big impacts include increasing capacity for SENTRI exit at San Ysidro ($500,000 east side, $1,000,000 west side), installation of a SENTRI booth to test the double-stacked concept of inspections ($1,000,000) and construction of an additional FAST lane at Otay Mesa ($1,300,000). These projects have been collaborative efforts with CBP and GSA and have improved capacity/flow/traffic circulation for little cost.

BTEP Strategic Plan - Michael Avery - FHWA
Update of the BTEP Strategic Plan was approved as a JWC work item in May 2005 and a committee of representatives of the FHWA, SCT, Border States and T2 centers was established to review the 2003 Strategic Plan in preparation for development of a new plan. The committee met and agreed on a new Vision, Mission and Goals for 2005-2010. Two separate Strategic Plans were produced, one for the Border Technology Exchange Program - that program administered by the U.S. states - and one for the Technology Transfer Centers, now referred to as CETRATETs - program administered by a committee to which FHWA and others are advisors. The JWC approved the Border Technology Exchange Program (BTEP) strategic plan as presented with out comment. The CETRATET strategic plan may follow at a later time.

Technology Transfer of SimFronteras - Oscar Ringenbach - SCT
SCT is looking for the most effective way to bring the benefits of the SimFronteras software package, and other products of their border planning "tool-kit" to others. They are developing agreements based on annual work plans with the CETRATETs, and with the Universities to which the CETRATETs pertain, for distribution of the "tool-kit". The Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas has already signed the agreement with SCT. They are working to sign agreements with the other 5 centers. It is anticipated that the CETRATETs could charge their stakeholders a fee for use of the SCT products, which would help the centers be financially self-sufficient. Gus de la Rosa encouraged the states to work with their CETRATET because they are a great resource and can provide many services to states.

Border Wizard Pilot - Lisa Dye - FHWA
The purpose of the Border Wizard pilot was to evaluate the compatibility and linkages between Border Wizard (simulation model) and local or regional travel demand forecasting models. The Border Wizard model inputs flows and outputs delays or queues. Traditional travel demand forecasting models input delay and output flows. Two pilots were sponsored on the southern border by two Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs): El Paso MPO and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), with a grant amount of $30,000 each.

EL PASO: The El Paso MPO will be evaluating comparative macro- and micro- level models. First they are linking Border Wizard with their 2005 TransCAD trans-border passenger travel demand model. Second they are evaluating a similar linkage between the VISSUM macro- and VISUM dynamic traffic assignment model. Inputs and outputs from both model pairs will be evaluated for accuracy, user friendliness, and adaptability for regional use.

Staff was trained on the Border Wizard software in July 2005, and networks for 3 POEs (Paso del Norte, Stanton St and Anapra/Sunland Park) were completed in March 2006. The MPO is currently working on a report outlining initial results of their analysis. The report will include recommendations about using Border Wizard and TDM modeling, or other macro/micro model pairs, as a general practice, and on the development of a standardized "traffic section" for the Presidential permit applications. A representative of the MPO will be in attendance at the next JWC meeting to discuss the findings and recommendations of the pilot.

In other modeling progress, TxDOT, in conjunction with the University of Texas, El Paso has been using the dynamic traffic assignment model to help determine toll rates and demand on a proposed toll roadway in El Paso. A similar process could be used by other jurisdictions to evaluate tolls.

SAN DIEGO: SANDAG intends to have a third party provide the model runs that they will use to link Border Wizard with SANDAG's regional transportation planning model. Prior to linking Border Wizard, and in order to optimize the grant funding and to provide more accurate results, SANDAG decided to update their cross-border model.

The cross-border model is designed to work with SANDAG's existing TRANSCAD model (a U.S. to U.S. component) and Tijuana's Instituto Municipal de Planeación's (IMPLAN's) model (a Mexico to Mexico component). The original cross-border model was built from surveys, which generated cross-border trip tables, and incorporated peak hour patterns and border delay, and will be updated with new land-use, demographic and road network information from Mexico, and converted from TRANPLAN to TRANSCAD. The model update was completed in late October.

SANDAG is in the process of requesting bids from contractors for the Border Wizard model run. The bid process is expected to close before the end of the calendar year. Various wait times and queues as outputs from Border Wizard and inputs into the regional model will be tested for a port (or ports) of entry in the San Diego Region. Completion date for the draft report is anticipated by early spring.

Regional Operations Model - Juan Jose Erazo - SCT
This proposal seeks to develop an integrated methodology using JWC developed tools, and other traditionally used tools, to identify infrastructure projects that will facilitate binational flow. SCT will review JWC tools and previously completed studies, develop a typical transportation planning model, and then see which projects are the best to pursue. This methodology is being tested in a study area identified in Tijuana, Baja California, with development of a zone system and network, identification of infrastructure projects, development of an urban network, origin and destination matrices and a demand model. The model is envisioned to be both macro/micro (meso/regional) using software packages such as VISUM/VISIM, SimFronteras and others to evaluate two macro level corridors (northeast: Chihuahua/Nuevo Leon/Texas to the east, and northwest: Sonora/Baja California to the north). They have supply/demand numbers at the segment level and historical data for the study corridors. Mexico plans to use this study to identify ways that Mexico's transportation network can be more competitive. They will pick a pilot corridor in one of three priority areas: Juarez, Reynosa or Laredo to study the methodology and model. SCT will share the methodologies developed for this study with the rest of the JWC.

TxDOT is interested in collaborating with SCT on this study as part of their bottleneck study at a binational level. Texas' priority is the Northeast corridor, which will coordinate with the TransTexas Corridor. TxDOT is willing to offer a briefing on the TransTexas corridor at the next JWC meeting.

JWC Strategic Plan -Juan José Erazo - SCT
The JWC has been in existence for over 10 years. The original MOU discusses planning, and the JWC has done a good job in advancing planning. Mexico is questioning the role of the JWC as a planning body only, and is interested in taking some of the planning projects and tools into an implementation phase. They are also interested in finding a way to institutionalize the JWC and the planning process into the three layers of government. In the United States, each level of government has differing concerns and priorities. The benefit of the JWC for the U.S. is that the group focuses exclusively on border planning and on issues related to the border, issues that have broad relevance to all the participants. Given the limited sources of funding for the JWC, the U.S. participants would like to see it remain more as it is. Both nations are interested in keeping the region globally competitive, without promoting competitiveness between different states, or different binational corridors.

At the Tucson meeting, the JWC agreed that developing a strategic plan would help guide future activities of the group, could be a useful tool in selecting annual work plan items, and help to document and institutionalize the work of the JWC. At that time, SCT agreed to prepare a first draft of a document that could be built upon to develop a Strategic Plan. That draft was developed, translated, and discussed in a meeting with the U.S. and Mexico JWC coordinators, some State DOT representatives, Al Alonzi, Acting Division Administrator for FHWA's Texas Division and Cameron Ishaq, a contractor with expertise in Strategic Planning, who had worked with Al before on key FHWA strategic plans. This group, using the SCT draft came up with a preliminary draft JWC Strategic Plan, which is conceptual, discussing general consensus on vision, mission and the four main strategic objectives: congestion, safety/security, global competitiveness, and sustainability, but lacks specific activities. The JWC at large was invited to discuss this document at an October 2006 teleconference. This preliminary draft JWC Strategic Plan was including in the meeting materials for the meeting, and was discussed as follows.

The outward vision as expressed in the preliminary draft JWC Strategic Plan very closely matches SCT's and FHWA's vision. As the document was not specific, requests were made to include more discussion of JWC tools developed (useful products) and how the tools are being used, more elaboration on sustainability, and that competitiveness in the global environment should include the concept of tourism and flow of people, not just flow of trade. Q: can we put the word environmental somewhere in the sustainability strategic objective? A: The original idea of using the word "sustainability" was meant to capture environment as well as socio-economic, habitability, and economic sustainability. As we move forward we can try to be clearer about what sustainability means and expand upon the concept further. Q: Coordination is not emphasized in the "Who we Are" portion, and is not the same concept as outreach. A: yes, it is a separate concept and can be developed separately. Training is not there, and could be included as technical assistance/training or outreach/training. Transmission of information to policy makers seems to be missing from that same section.

Strategic planning in general is important to maintain institutional memory, to acknowledge the work the JWC has been doing and to determine how to implement a reporting mechanism, because the most challenging part of strategic planning, or for this group specifically, is measuring success.

As the Strategic Planning Subcommittee moves forward with its work it is important to have broad participation across the JWC stakeholders. To this effect, the strategic plan subcommittee was expanded and now includes the following: Fernando Lam, Sonora, Arturo Barrio, SRE, Noe Garcia, Coahuila, Joaquin Barrios, Chihuahua, Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans, Joseph de la Rosa, NM DOT, Gus de la Rosa / Esther Hitzfelder, TxDOT, Juan Jose Erazo /Oscar Ringenbach / Miguel Angel Gutierrez, SCT, Lisa Dye/ Sylvia Grijalva / Al Alonzi/ Michael Avery, FHWA. The first scheduled meeting of this group will be on/or around November 29, 2006.

The JWC approved the JWC strategic plan process and time line as presented in the meeting materials, with additional steps added to the timeline to acquire input from federal stakeholders if not already acquired (by developing and distributing a survey targeted to external stakeholders and customers in order to include input that would otherwise be excluded).

Distribute the work on the strategic plan to date including explanation of purpose and process before the mid-February (binational, border wide) strategic planning meeting. Also it is important to make sure to involve the rest of the JWC that wishes to comment, not just the Strategic Planning Subcommittee, in the review of the draft Strategic Plan, before the mid-February meeting. A comment was also made that interactive voting (with each participant holding an electronic device and voting on various areas of interest or improvement) may make the mid-February meeting more productive.

2007-2009 Work Plan - Sylvia Grijalva - FWHA and Juan Jose Erazo - SCT
The discussion began by indicating that the final 2007-2009 Work Plan will be developed out of a finalized strategic plan, which therefore must be developed first. As explained in the previous section, four focus areas have been identified by the JWC: congestion, safety/security, global competitiveness, and sustainability. Work Plan projects should fit within these four focus areas.

Several suggestions were put on the table on the four focus areas: divide the JWC into four subgroups, one for each focus area, develop all four themes within one grand study reminiscent of the 1998 Binational Study, and use the Master Planning concept to conduct coordinated regional planning in all four focus areas. There was a recommendation to reassess study and tools, have the tools developed to date been appropriate for addressing problems? Is it time to recalibrate the notion of what the problem is? The comment was made that funding is available in the U.S. and mechanisms are in place that can provide financial support to hire expertise to perform such an assessment. However, there is no clear consensus on how to conduct the evaluation; we would require an interdisciplinary group and the project could be very expensive.

Some members indicated that the work plan items underway, or those currently proposed for 2007-2009 are important. Others indicated that it might be better timing to focus on the four areas after we complete the Border Master Plan Study and have a clearer idea where gaps are. SCT has a desire to not wait, but to move forward to give continuity to the group and to connect the tools and projects together. By May/June 2007 the Border Master Plan will be done and may provide insight into how to better move forward.

No matter what, the JWC has to continue to have a binational focus, this is essential to the group and coordination among the stakeholders is key. Whatever direction is taken needs to be a single effort that is agreed to and proceeded on jointly.

Perhaps a simpler approach is to take a smaller summary assessment on each of the four focus areas to see what has been done, what needs to be done and then report back to the greater JWC, stepping back a bit to plan out the future direction a little better. At this time, no written information has been provided outlining any one point of view, or any one approach. It is recommended that proposed approaches be addressed in detail, in writing, so that the JWC partners can evaluate the proposals in writing, at length, and be able to provide reasoned commentary, perhaps via teleconferencing between now and the next meeting.

Regardless, this discussion points out that the strategic planning work will need to continue to iron out some of the different proposals and to frame future activities and directions. A recommendation is made to develop a white paper showing: where resources for the JWC come from, where we are in our pursuit of the four focus areas (or 9 line items of work), where gaps exist, and where we want the group to go. This white paper could be discussed at the next meeting, even though the white paper in itself will not meet SCT's needs or be the final discussion on the topic.

The proposal was then made that since it is imperative for the 2007-2009 Work Plan to be fully consistent with and implement the JWC Strategic Plan, it makes sense that the Strategic Planning binational committee should both further develop the strategic plan, discussed earlier in this meeting, and outline the approach for the 2007-2009 Work program. The discussion at this current meeting has covered various different models and any future direction will need to be cohesive and clearly outline what model to follow.

A decision was then made that the Strategic Planning binational committee will meet in or near El Paso, Texas on November 29. At this meeting the present discussion will be resumed, refined and the group will develop a way to proceed integrating both the developing Strategic Plan, and the 2007-209 Work Plan. The strategic planning subcommittee will meet on November 29th to discuss the Assessment study of the four major areas identified in the draft strategic plan. The JWC coordinators will develop a list of proposed work plan items, with short descriptions, for the JWC to consider at the next JWC meeting. Items previously considered for the 2007-2009 Work Plan include Safety Symposium follow-up actions, Innovative Finance technical assistance, Peer exchange on planning processes, and the New Border Vision proposed by Border Legislative Conference.

New Border Vision -
The Council of State Governments consists of the governors, legislators, elected state justices and senior appointed officials of all 50 states. One of CSG's emphasis areas is International Programs: promoting U.S. trade, and joint approaches to shared border problems and key issues. The Border Legislative Conference (BLC) is a joint effort of CSG (west) and the Southern Legislative Conference, and receives support from U.S. AID and Mexico City. The BLC is comprised of state legislators from the 10 U.S.-Mexico Border States and has conducted several forums on border issues. Their latest proposal "A New Vision for Trade along the U.S.-Mexico Border" seeks to enhance border security and competitiveness through the establishment of secure manufacturing zones, by monitoring commercial vehicles from origin to clearance into the U.S., by increasing supply chain visibility and integrating high priority corridors. Another initiative would retrofit gas engines on commercial vehicles with natural gas systems. This proposal is expected to cost $100 million and take between 2-5 years to complete. The BLC is looking for new strategic partnerships to help obtain their goals. The BLC sent a letter to the JWC on November 6 asking that the "New Vision for Trade along the U.S.-Mexico Border" be discussed at the current meeting and asking for JWC support for the initiative. A letter will be drafted by the coordinators next week in order to provide a prompt response to the BLC letter to the JWC dated November 6 2006. The response letter will be signed by both co-chairs.

Discussion: FHWA is always interested in innovation and this proposal is interesting. There is a great deal of interest in logistical implications and support for the general concept. It would be beneficial to have short scopes of work for specific projects/pilots that can be approved with a joint declaration from the JWC. Projects that fit under this larger umbrella concept can be developed by project sponsors, or JWC members.

Border Governors' Border Crossings Worktable - Fernando Lam - SIUE
The Border Governors' Conference (BGC) has met for 26 years, with participation by State DOTs since 1996. Recently, one federal agency representative per agency has also been appointed to participate in the BGC (with confirmation at the last Border Governors' meeting in Austin). The BGC is divided into different work tables. The Border Crossing Work Table has a lot of projects that have synergy with JWC projects. Currently, five recommendations are being proposed by the work table 1) request funding for and expedite SENTRI/FAST lanes across the southern border and promote "A New Vision for Trade along the U.S.-Mexico Border" from the Border Legislative Conference (as described above), 2) send a letter to the State Department regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13337 (Policy for Presidential Permits for Land Border Ports of Entry) requesting that it be for new border crossings only, and allow the Border Governors' Conference to be a "consulting agency" for policy issues that pertain to border crossings, 3) request that local/regional/federal governmental agencies work together with the JWC and with the Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group in a coordinated manner for developing long-term budget and planning processes, 4) address issues with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative regarding requirements for passports and 5) consider the inclusion of logistics as a work table topic. The next Border Governors' meeting will be held in Sonora in the summer of 2007.

Strategic Resource Assessment (SRA) Update- Chad Gilchrist - CBP
The SRA process was developed to help CBP meet their dual mission of protecting the border and facilitating trade by being a better predictor of facility requirements. The SRA is being conducted to provide informative support to current and future projects, to target resources to the areas of greatest need and to communicate with and listen to stakeholders. The SRA analyzed four broad areas: operations and mission, space and site definition, security, and personnel and workload growth to identify current deficiencies and needs. The SRA then identifies, justifies and prioritizes projects, based on scores from the four areas as well as other factors such as regional models, local, transportation and political issues. CBP then develops a prioritized list of projects, as listed in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Both northern and southern border ports of entry are being studied. Along the southern border assessments have been conducted at all of the CBP field offices (Tucson, San Diego, Laredo, and El Paso from October 2004-January 2006). CBP is now analyzing the data received on a portfolio-wide basis to provide information for better analysis. The entire SRA process is expected to be updated every 3 years.

The SRA process is not a master plan effort, nor a predictor of where new Ports of Entry are needed. CBP wants to participate with the JWC through Caltrans' Master Plan Pilot Project to explore how CBP's planning process can be part of a master planning effort. Through the Master Plan Pilot, all agencies will participate as full partners, and will have a safe environment to share useful tools and improvements so that there is good stewardship for POEs. They will be able to develop performance metrics/performance based approaches, and they will be able to help plan for different budget cycles.

Other ongoing agency initiatives, such as the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) will focus resources and efforts border wide. Immigration reform is also being discussed and will need to be incorporated into any long-range planning process, e.g. a temporary worker program may increase demands at POEs. Beyond Land POEs, other CBP initiatives, such as the secured container initiative for seaports, will need to be coordinated with advances/initiatives at Land POEs.

Discussion: Q: How will priorities be communicated to DOT communities? Communication will occur through border master planning efforts where CBP is a partner at the table along with the DOTs. Another way is through the 5-year CIP that CBP is currently working on, although it must be recognized that the CIP is a living document and that priorities can change. Q: Will the border master planning process be binational in nature? A: Yes. Q: Where is the San Diego draft SRA report? CBP is getting final federal review on the SRA (FHWA has yet to comment) and will be releasing it shortly. It will also be submitted to Caltrans as part of the Border Master Plan deliverables.

Planning Subcommittee of the Intersecretarial Group for Bridges and Border Crossings - Arturo Barrio - SRE
Arturo discussed the ongoing work that is being done to develop a process for a prioritized evaluation of bridges and border crossings. One step in this direction has been to hold regional meetings to discuss issues in a more detailed way. Upcoming meetings include November 10 in Miguel Aleman (Roma suspension bridge), November 18 in San Diego (Otay Mesa/San Diego projects), and an upcoming meeting for projects in Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon that has yet to be scheduled. SRE is working to improve strategic planning via these regional meetings so that both nations can work together. SRE has committed to work with the JWC/Caltrans on the Border Master Plan, to build consensus between agencies, so each agency doesn't strike out on its own, especially given the interesting political climate with upcoming changes at the presidential and state levels of government. SRE is encouraged by work on the JWC strategic plan and will incorporate that work into its own strategic plan for more coordinated border planning. Another issue of importance to SRE is the cost of SENTRI projects along the border.

Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) - Fred Eberhart - U.S. DOT
Fred indicated that much of the progress made on the SPP goals outlined in the tri-lateral agreement has been made by the JWC as part of its on-going work. New goals are being submitted for inclusion in the SPP. Mexico has proposed several new projects including buses, GIS next steps, more SENTRI/FAST lanes, etc. The JWC will work jointly with the U.S and Mexico to get a common list of projects/goals to the SPP leaders. The JWC coordinators will provide a list of JWC activities that are to be included in the new round of SPP proposed projects.

Summary of Commitments and Agreements
Sylvia Grijalva read a list of previously agreed to commitments and agreements that remain outstanding. The JWC will formally request the Border States' transportation plans in the border region for Phase II of the Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment/ GIS study. Sylvia will follow up on this action item. FHWA's Office of International Programs agreed to circulate a revised BTEP strategic plan and a BTEP roles and responsibilities paper by June 30, 2006. Sylvia Grijalva and/or Juan Jose Erazo will then circulate these papers for comments and approval. The office of International Programs submitted the revised BTEP strategic plan (for the Technology Exchange Program only (not the CETRATET program) but did not complete a BTEP roles and responsibilities paper. Mike Avery will follow up with this action item. In an effort to link the San Diego Border Wizard pilot to a SimFronteras regional pilot in Tijuana, the JWC agreed to facilitate a meeting between SANDAG and SCT to explore possibilities to link the Border Wizard and SimFronteras regional studies. Sylvia and Lisa will follow up with this action item.

Sylvia Grijalva and Oscar Ringenbach summarized the commitments and agreements reached at the current meeting. The JWC agreed with the Commitments and Agreements as read.
All PowerPoint files presented at the JWC meeting will be posted to http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/filemanager/ The password is jwcmeeting

Next Meeting
The next JWC meeting will be held in San Diego, California May 21-23, 2007.

Other Decisions and Discussion Sylvia Grijalva read a statement from Larry Warner, GSA who will be retiring in early 2007 expressing his thoughts and appreciation and exhortations for the group. A list of acronyms and what they stand for will be developed and circulated with the meeting background material for the JWC meetings in the future.