By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
A divided Del Rio City Council has approved paying for a new traffic study as the city continues to seek a presidential permit for the construction of a second international bridge.
City council members voted 5-2 during their Dec. 16 meeting to approve a resolution authorizing City Manager Shawna Burkhart to execute a revised agreement between the city and R.R.P. Consulting Engineers LLC for the updated study.
Council members spent some time discussing the need for the updated study. Before the discussion, Mayor Al Arreola asked Assistant City Manager Manuel Chavez to speak about the need for a new traffic study.
Chavez told the council Michael Riojas, of R.R.P. Consulting Engineers, was present via video link and said the city’s current traffic study is outdated. Chavez said a traffic study must be included in the city’s application for a presidential permit for a second bridge and told them the study can’t be more than two years old.
Chavez also called council members’ attention to the revised timeline for the ongoing work on a second bridge, noting R.R.P. plans to host another public hearing on the project in June 2026 and submit the application for the presidential permit to the federal government in July 2026.
Chavez said the cost of the revised agreement for the new study is $445,252.94, with the money to come from international bridge fund reserves.
Mayor Pro-tem Jim DeReus questioned the timing of the public hearing and the submission of the presidential permit application.
Riojas replied, “We’re looking at having the public hearing in June, and just after that, we turn around and submit the presidential permit, so we’re looking at submitting the presidential permit in July, the beginning of July.”
When DeReus asked if there would be a final vote from the city council following the public hearing and Riojas replied it would not go before council again, DeReus said, “Then what is the point of that public hearing?”
Riojas said, “The public hearing is to satisfy the environmental process. We need a public meeting for the environmental process only.”
DeReus commented, “Okay, that timeline doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like it’s eyewash, at best.”
DeReus continued, “I’m going to say what I’ve said before. I’m not going to vote to spend any more money on this until we actually do a re-evaluation of is this the best place, because, as I’ve said before, a lot’s changed since this route was chosen.”
DeReus said just as the city’s existing traffic study for the bridge project is outdated, so are other assumptions about the project made more than a decade ago at the beginning of planning for the second bridge, adding he would be voting against the resolution.
When Arreola asked if there were any other comments, Councilman Randy Quinones said, “Can you remind us again where the location is on the application you want to submit? Where is the location of the proposed crossing?”
Riojas replied, “The proposed crossing of the international bridge is north of the existing bridge. Basically, it’s the location we presented in the public meetings.”
Arreola said, “But we still don’t have a specific route yet? Is that where we’re at?”
“That’s correct,” Riojas replied.
Riojas said, “We’ve went through and we’ve had three public meetings, and right now we’re finalizing our environmental analysis for the final route, and, as far as the approach routes to the bridge, we anticipate coming back to the city council in March to present that to you all.”
Arreola asked how much money the city has spent on the project between 2014 and the present, and Chavez replied he doesn’t know the exact amount.
Arreola also asked Chavez to address the overall project timeline, saying some citizens think the city will “build a bridge tomorrow” once the presidential permit is obtained.
Chavez replied, “Everything is based on funding, and, again, there is a phase for everything, and this particular phase is the submittal of the presidential permit. If approved, then you still have the next phase as being able to secure funding for any construction moving forward, and there’s also coordination with TxDOT and the federal government.
“But again, it doesn’t mean that as soon as you get the presidential permit that you’re building the next day. It all still is going to come back to securing funding for the construction,” Chavez added.
Quinones asked Riojas several more questions about bridge crossings and what, if anything, has changed in U.S.-Mexico trade border crossings.
Riojas said, “Well, as far as things having changed, new developments would be the increase of goods nearshoring going on in Mexico, more truck traffic coming in through Mexico. One of the big items is the designation of I-27 coming through here, the new freeway coming through.”
When Arreola said the new traffic study would show the city “exactly how many trucks are crossing,” DeReus interjected the city should have that information on hand.
Riojas replied, “It’s not the current, but the projection of the data, seeing what’s the traffic increase going to be over the years, to fund the project.”
DeReus replied, “On that note, we’ve got to be careful, because in 2018, . . . we were told we were going to have an 11 percent increase in bridge crossings year-to-year, basically forever, and even before COVID, we were nowhere near that, so we have to really be careful with these assumptions.”
Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez asked Chavez, “How can we approve a traffic study if we still don’t know the location? Isn’t the presidential permit tied to the location of the proposed bridge site?”
Chavez replied, “Just to verify. A (bridge) site selection has been (made) and approved. The route (from the bridge site to area highways) is the one that hasn’t been approved. The traffic study, again, is separate from any route selection, and, as Mr. Riojas attests right now, currently they’re reviewing the environmental piece that might have an impact on route selection, but this particular traffic study wouldn’t have that impact.”
Gutierrez said, “Because there is still a lot of public opposition to the actual site.”
Chavez said, “Right.”
After Gutierrez finished her questions, Arreola said, “I think at this point it would be wise for us to postpone this just a little while, unless you all want to proceed.”
The mayor said he would entertain a motion to approve the resolution or to table it.
Councilman J.P. Sanchez said, “I’m going to make a motion to go ahead and direct the city manager to execute this agreement. We can’t slow it down. We can’t stop. This thing has been in motion for years and years and years. We’re going to be looking to the federal government and also the state for funding of this project.”
Sanchez went on, “It’s not going to happen next year. It’s not going to happen three or four years from now. It’s going to take time for it to happen, for it to proceed, but we need to get on with it, and we’ve got the I-27, we have Ports-To-Plains, that is coming through Del Rio, and we need to prepare for it. Previous administrations have started this, and we’re getting wishy-washy about it, and we need to proceed.
“The majority of the people of Del Rio wants the bridge. They’re undecided north or south, and that’s fine, but we’re just looking for the presidential permit first, and then we’ll continue to finish the rest,” Sanchez said.
Gutierrez gave the second.
Quinones said he did not feel prepared to make a decision, then made a motion to postpone action on the resolution until the council’s next meeting. DeReus gave the second.
Arreola asked for a vote on Quinones’ motion, as motions to table an item must be voted on before the initial motion. Quinones’ motion failed on a 2-5 vote, with only Quinones and DeReus voting in favor.
The mayor then called for a vote on Sanchez’s motion to approve the resolution.
Sanchez’s motion passed on a 5-2 vote, with Sanchez, Gutierrez, Arreola, Lopez and Councilwoman Ernestina “Tina” Martinez voting in favor and Quinones and DeReus voting against.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
