Texas: Proposition 1 easily passes

[MaxConcrete]

With about 67% of the vote in, the proposition has 80% in favor.

The proposition with redirect funds from the "rainy day fund" (i.e. the state savings account) to the highway construction fund. The money is for non-toll projects only. The estimates for the first year are in the range of $1.3 to $1.7 billion in available funds. But this is viewed as a short-term band-aid only since the rainy-day fund will need to maintain a healthy balance and future year funds are expected to be less than the first year.

[thisdj78]

What are the top projects you think these funds will go towards?

[txstateends]

More at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20141104-texas-road-money-approved-but-its-only-a-start-backers-say.ece

The article also brings up the possibility of lawmakers maybe wanting to move the state sales tax on new vehicle purchases to TxDOT instead of to the state's general fund.  It doesn't mention how much tax revenue the state has recently made on new vehicles nor the potential revenue for TxDOT if that tax flow were to be moved.

[MaxConcrete]

What are the top projects you think these funds will go towards?

There was a special committee recently formed to make a recommendation. The commission avoided making any recommendations on specific projects and instead recommended that the funds be apportioned to regions of the state using existing formulas.

So, the projects to be accelerated are projects which are already in regional plans and are poised to move forward. One project in DFW which is getting attention is a new interchange Interstate 30 and SH 360 http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/120214.html. I'm also thinking that the Southern Gateway project (IH 35E south of downtown Dallas) may be accelerated.

[wxfree]

The Prop 1 money legally can't be used to pay for toll roads, but I'd be surprised if TxDOT didn't use it to build toll roads anyway.  They'll take a $100 bill of Prop 1 money and put it into an existing repaving project, then get a different $100 bill out of the repaving money and use it for toll roads, and claim to be following the law.  The urban managed lanes projects, such as those mentioned before, are good candidates.  That way they could claim that the Prop 1 money was paying for the non-toll pavement.

[MaxConcrete]

The Prop 1 money legally can't be used to pay for toll roads, but I'd be surprised if TxDOT didn't use it to build toll roads anyway. 

Yes, I agree, TxDOT can move money around so the new funds are used for non-toll projects and existing funds are redirected to toll projects.

I think TxDOT's behavior may be influenced by the new governor. Perry of course was a huge proponent of toll roads and is responsible for the toll road hegemony of the last 10 years. But there have been indications that Abbot is not as pro-toll as Perry. And the Texas Republican party also seems to be backing away from tolls. So we'll see if anything changes.

[wxfree]

Tollroadsnews.com linked to an article by Terri Hall discussing the anti-toll candidates who won last night and pointing out that the new governor gets to appoint two new TTC commissioners in February.  They, along with Vandergriff will hold a majority if they choose to go anti-toll (although they may still have no other way to get roads built if TxDOT doesn't get more money).  Terri Hall frequently makes misstatements of fact reflecting poor understanding of some topics, so discretion is required when reading her articles.

[wxfree]

The amendment has some interesting provisions.  I'm interested in how this will work out.  Under the amendment, the legislature can reduce, or eliminate the transfers to the highway fund.  In the enabling legislation, as I read it, all transfers to the highway fund will end in 2025 (which is almost within the 10-year planning window.  Of course, there's a lot of time to change that, but it's curious why they even wrote it that way (maybe it was political horsetrading).

Another interesting provision is the minimum balance.  Without getting into to much legal discussion, a minimum balance will be set for the rainy day fund.  If they set a high minimum, it will reduce or eliminate the transfer.  "If under Section 316.092 a sufficient balance has not been adopted...the comptroller shall adjust the allocation of amounts to be transferred to the [rainy day] fund and to the state highway fund...so that the total of those amounts is transferred to the economic stabilization fund."  In other words, as I read it, if they don't set a minimum, a "sufficient balance,"  then the transfer to highways doesn't happen.  If the "sufficient fund balance" committee adopts a "sufficient balance," then that balance goes to the legislature where it can be approved or amended.  If the legislature does not approve that balance or an amended one, then the one the committee first came up with is made official.  So, as I read it, if the committee comes up with a sufficient balance that's really high, or if the legislature amends it to make it really high, then the transfer will be small or zero, and if the committee fails to come up with one to present to the legislature, then no transfer will happen.

I enjoy this legal reading, but my main point is that this amendment has some holes in it that could leak a lot of highway money if the legislators choose to do that.

[SquonkHunter]

Even though I no longer live in the DFW area, I would really like to see the I-30/SH-360 mess fixed. I watched that intersection explode in growth and congestion for over 40 years. When the DFW Turnpike opened in 1957, SH-360 was a two-lane road out in the country. That changed beginning with Six Flags in 1961 and the surrounding Great Southwest Industrial District. That is going to require a lot of $$$ for ROW purchases since literally every square inch of space surrounding that intersection is heavily built up.

[Marc]

I'd love to see a chunk of this money go towards the Texas city that needs roads the most: Austin.

Here are just a few things that need to be done:

(1) For west Austin, extend SH 45 Toll via RM 620 through Cedar Park, northwest Austin, Lakeway, and Bee Cave.
(2) I think widening SL 360 to six lanes and upgrading it to "mini" freeway (similar to US 90A in southwest Houston), would help tremendously. Adding a direct connector from SL 360 north to US 183 north would be an item worth seriously considering. If widening, a potential issue would be the Pennybacker Bridge.
(3) Extend US 290/SH 71 freeway and built a legitimate interchange where the highways split. Current plans are to build a continuous flow left turn lane (for eastbound US 290 traffic only). Because that totally will solve everything.
(4) Trench and/or tunnel I-35 through downtown, starting at the Colorado River and ending where the current double stack ends. Maintaining at least four main lanes in each direction would be critical for this one.
(5) Extend SH 45 from current end in Buda, westward, connecting it to SL 1 "Mopac Blvd" (assuming they complete the last several miles of that freeway).
(6) Widen I-35 southward to FM 150 in Kyle. Widen I-35 northward to RM 1431 in Round Rock.

But let's be honest, Austin would need way more than $1.7 billion to make this happen and even if it was possible, the greenie weenies here will block any sort of road improvement; all for the sake of saving a salamander.

I've never seen a city so frustrated with traffic yet unwilling to do what it takes to solve the problem.
It's very frustrating.

[MaxConcrete]

I'd love to see a chunk of this money go towards the Texas city that needs roads the most: Austin.

I agree, your wish list is an excellent list although I think only items 1 and 3 are likely to gain momentum (and both are tolled). And the SH 45 extension in northwest Austin will likely be between RM 2222 and the current terminus, not extending to Lakeway and Bee Cave. Some of item 5 is already poised to move forward, also tolled.

Even though $1.7 billion is a sizable sum, when you distribute it over a very large state the amount for each area is not much to get excited about. According to this presentation at the TxDOT Commission meeting, Austin is slated to received around $100 million in the first year. Even DFW is only around $330 million and Houston is only around $240 million. Rural areas seem to do disproportionately well, probably due to existing funding formulas.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/4a-presentation.pdf

But there's hope for more money. There seems to be momentum to end non-highway diversions from the highway fund, and other surplus funds could be available.

There's also more hope for political leadership in Austin with the election defeat of that stupid rail line, with 57% against.  In a recent editorial, commissioner Daugherty stated the following.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/recent-election-a-momentous-one-for-austin-area/nh8yY/

What happens now in our effort to deal with traffic? Those of us against the rail bond proposition were constantly asked "What's your plan?"  despite the fact that both Citizens Against Rail Taxes and Travis County Taxpayer Union websites spelled out in detail numerous areas where this kind of money would be better spent. On election night, I chatted on air with Bob Cole and Neal Spelce on KOKE-FM's post-election analysis program. During that conversation, we talked about what was next. I said "I've felt like a salmon swimming upstream"  in my efforts to push for a comprehensive road system for this area. Now that rail has been defeated, I plan to help lead an effort to truly address traffic mitigation and mobility issues in this region, and I will be looking for other local officials to join me in that effort. This community desperately needs that.

Your wish list will cost many billions and it will take serious leadership at both the regional and state levels to get the money and move some of the projects forward. But at least there is reason for optimism. I lived in Austin from 1997 to 2003, and I definitely remember the pain of that political environment in terms of transportation.


(1) For west Austin, extend SH 45 Toll via RM 620 through Cedar Park, northwest Austin, Lakeway, and Bee Cave.
I expect this to move forward from US 183 to RM 2222. There will be some expensive right-of-way clearance in the Lakeline area.

(2) I think widening SL 360 to six lanes and upgrading it to "mini" freeway (similar to US 90A in southwest Houston), would help tremendously. Adding a direct connector from SL 360 north to US 183 north would be an item worth seriously considering. If widening, a potential issue would be the Pennybacker Bridge.
Yes, that is the most feasible approach for that corridor, but it will be difficult to move that project forward due to high-income neighborhoods nearby.

(3) Extend US 290/SH 71 freeway and built a legitimate interchange where the highways split. Current plans are to build a continuous flow left turn lane (for eastbound US 290 traffic only). Because that totally will solve everything.
That project has been under study for around 20 years. I think the new climate will allow it to moved forward, unfortunately it will be tolled.

(4) Trench and/or tunnel I-35 through downtown, starting at the Colorado River and ending where the current double stack ends. Maintaining at least four main lanes in each direction would be critical for this one.
This will be very expensive and I don't see any immediate action to move this forward. Instead, I think we'll see numerous minor improvements to the I-35 corridor.

(5) Extend SH 45 from current end in Buda, westward, connecting it to SL 1 "Mopac Blvd" (assuming they complete the last several miles of that freeway).
The section from FM 1626 to Loop 1 is already nearing construction as a toll road. I think we'll see movement toward building the missing segment from FM 1626 to IH 35.

(6) Widen I-35 southward to FM 150 in Kyle. Widen I-35 northward to RM 1431 in Round Rock.
These are the best candidates for receiving the new funding. The suburban areas with strong political support should proceed first. I think there is a good chance of a major widening on the south side from the SH 71 interchange to Kyle, likely 5 lanes each way.

[Chris]

Even though $1.7 billion is a sizable sum, when you distribute it over a very large state the amount for each area is not much to get excited about. According to this presentation at the TxDOT Commission meeting, Austin is slated to received around $100 million in the first year. Even DFW is only around $330 million and Houston is only around $240 million. Rural areas seem to do disproportionately well, probably due to existing funding formulas.

I suppose another factor is that toll roads are less feasible in rural areas. You can't toll upgrades to FM roads unless it is some kind of statewide mile-based tax.

Although $ 1.7 billion is not a huge sum of money given the size of Texas, over multiple years it could allow for some major investment, though still short of what is actually needed in Texas.

I believe there were separate plans to get more funding for rural roads in Texas from the oil and gas industry? Many drilling rigs can only be accessed via low-quality roads not rated for a lot of heavy truck traffic. A while ago I was looking at traffic data of western North Dakota (Bakken Formation) and truck traffic in that region has skyrocketed in recent years due to the booming oil production.

[dfwmapper]

3 and 5 already have environmental studies in progress between TxDOT and CTRMA to build as toll roads. 1 I doubt will happen as something freeway grade. Too much money there that probably doesn't want a big freeway running through their neighborhoods. Probably a widening from 4 to 6 lanes. 2 is probably a non-starter because of environmental issues with the river crossing. 4 is probably a $5 billion project minimum, and won't do much if it's just 8 lanes. Current plan looks like adding a tolled express lane in each direction from 45 North to 45 South. More might eventually happen, but I'd bet SH 130 going entirely toll-free before that happens. $13 auto/$45 truck tolls limit its usefulness as a bypass, but if it was free it would take a lot of cars and especially trucks off of I-35.

[Bobby5280]

I wonder if there's any chance Prop. 1 funds could go into eliminating some nagging "Breezewoods" and other safety issues along certain rural divided highways in Texas.

I drove from Oklahoma down to Houston over the Thanksgiving holiday, taking US-287 and I-45 to Houston but coming back on some different roads to avoid some traffic jams. The trip had me thinking about specific places where highway situations need to be fixed if only the money was available to do so.

Take US-287 for instance. That highway really ought to be Interstate quality from Amarillo all the way down to where it runs into I-45 at Ennis, South of Dallas. It carries a lot of traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic. Many portions of the road already have the right of way needed for the upgrade, but it would probably cost perhaps a couple billion dollars or more to build all of it. Some specific segments do need to be upgraded ASAP. A lot of the route between Amarillo and Fort Worth has fast 75mph speed limits despite being a divided highway with at grade intersections. But some spots have dangerous at grade crossings. Others have rapid speed limit drops which arguably pose their own dangers.

I think US-287 needs to be Interstate quality and fully limited access completely through Decatur. The current configuration, especially around the US-380 intersection is cluttered and dangerous. There's too much traffic going through there and people already drive on the highway as if it was an Interstate. It's just really odd how the road can have limited access style exits yet have turn outs to gas stations and hotels right up on the highway. Those turn outs need to be confined to frontage roads. On the bright side there is some significant Interstate quality upgrade work on US-287 taking place on the South side of Decatur.

TX-DOT needs to fill in the gap on US-287 between Sunset and Alford with a freeway upgrade, making US-287 freeway grade from Bowie down to Alford. The upgrade would eliminate a couple hairy at-grade crossings where parts of US-287 are closely lined with trees. I once encountered a driver going the wrong way, driving South on the Northbound lanes of US-287 on that stretch.

Finally, I think TX DOT needs to convert US-287 into a freeway facility through Benjamin. They could do like what they've done in South Texas in towns along the I-69C and I-69E corridor. Benjamin would just need an exit for Franklin Street. TX-DOT would have to relocate a few businesses next to the road to get enough ROW for the upgrade. But this is something that really needs to be done. It's not fun driving through there if traffic is heavy at all (like it was this past Sunday evening).

Obviously there are dozens, if not hundreds of other sites around Texas in need of attention. The US-287 corridor is a pretty important one though. If it can't be Interstate grade all the way between Amarillo and Fort Worth at least some of the odd hurdles and slow downs should be eliminated if possible.

[dfwmapper]

I don't know that a full freeway is necessary for the entire length. It could stand bypasses of the dozen or so towns it passes through (especially Childress and Quanah) and grade separations at some of the busier intersections. Agree with you about the Decatur-Bowie stretch, that all needs to be freeway. Same with the non-freeway portions between Midlothian and Waxahachie. Once SH 360 gets built, the portion between Mansfield and Midlothian will also need it. And while we're in that area, US 67 between Midlothian and Cleburne.

[texaskdog]

Connect I-44 & I-37 which would take a lot of thru traffic out of Fort Worth & Austin.

360 would be much better if not for the lights, but the locals shot down the "Michigan lefts" plan that would have helped a lot of it.  Of course much of Austin's traffic problems are due to poorly timed stoplights.

[txstateends]

I think TX DOT needs to convert US-287 into a freeway facility through Benjamin.

Unless you are actually thinking of another town, US 287 doesn't go through Benjamin (US 82 does, though).

The only 'b'-named town on US 287 that I could think of that remotely needs help like you propose, would be Bellevue.  In some ways, it is similar to Calera, OK, with most of the town's businesses on 1 side of the road, and the BNSF railroad on the other. 

...US-287...really ought to be Interstate quality from Amarillo all the way down to ... Fort Worth ...

I've always thought that US 287 should be an interstate connection between the 2 cities; although rural in spots, the corridor is fairly regional in traffic pattern with many truckers and vacationers taking that path.

I agree about the weird/quirky spots along the way that need fixing (or maybe in some cases, outright bypassing).  Decatur is one town that needs to have one style of road and stick with it--no schizo/patchwork-quilt weirdness.  If you want lights and at-grades, then there shouldn't be any strangely-placed exits just feet away from them.  If you want limited access, you can't let businesses front directly on the main lanes which help to cause risk of rear-end collisions and/or limited-sight traffic turning onto the highway.  There are others for sure, but Decatur is a glaring example.

IMO, there is less chance of interstate designation between Fort Worth and Ennis than between Fort Worth and Amarillo.

[Bobby5280]

Unless you are actually thinking of another town, US 287 doesn't go through Benjamin (US 82 does, though).

Yeah, I was really thinking of Bellevue. Got the names mixed up.


Still, it would help to have that little narrow bottleneck on US-287 fixed.

[MaxConcrete]

The Texas Legislative Budget Board has approved the funding for the next three years. The amount for the first year ($1.75 billion) was well known, but future years were uncertain due to the collapse in oil prices. Years two and three will be about $1.3 billion each, which is a good appropriation.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20141211-legislative-panels-move-frees-money-for-highways.ece

Legislative panel's move frees money for Texas highways

Austin Bureau
Published: 11 December 2014 11:26 PM
Updated: 12 December 2014 12:56 AM

AUSTIN – A specially created legislative panel on Thursday approved a minimum for state savings, effectively freeing billions over the next three years for Texas' severely underfunded highway system.

This year, the transfer would be more than $1.7 billion. That would erase about one-third of a $5 billion annual funding shortfall, transportation officials said.

In each of the next two fiscal years, there would be about $1.3 billion of additional money for building and repairing bridges and highways. Toll road projects are ineligible for the funds.

Panel members said the move honors the wishes of voters, who approved a constitutional amendment last month that will shove into the state highway fund up to half of energy-production tax money that historically has flowed to the rainy day fund.

"This transfer will provide a much-needed boost to transportation,"  said Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, co-chairwoman of the joint committee reviewing the rainy day fund.

She and the panel's other leader, Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, proposed setting $7 billion as the minimum for state savings over the next three years. On two separate votes of 6-0, committee members agreed.

Even after transferring $1.7 billion to roads this month, the rainy day fund still will hit a record high when the current two-year budget cycle ends Aug. 31 – a balance of $8.4 billion, according to Comptroller Susan Combs.

.....

To maintain current levels of road congestion, the department says that it needs $5 billion more a year.

Liberals and some Democrats have complained that approval of the constitutional amendment has placed roads above all other state budget needs.

"It's just a way to make highways more important politically than anything else,"  said budget analyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on services important to middle- and lower-income Texans. "To do more for schools, Medicaid or universities, you would have to cut off this transfer. And that would be hard."

[Road Hog]

Collapsing oil prices shouldn't affect revenue adversely because it's a flat rate per gallon. If anything, it should increase revenue because more gallons are being sold at a lower price.

[mrose]

I drove 287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth (and back, on the way to DFW from Denver) for the first time, after being curious about it for years.

From Wichita Falls into FW it seems like the route was basically full freeway already.

What I didn't expect was how few of the towns are bypassed along the western half of this route. It became a rather frustrating string of 80 mph > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 speed ups and slowdowns. The whole Memphis - Clarendon - Chillicothe - Vernon portion in particular.

Would it be accurate to suggest these towns probably don't want to be bypassed?

It's definitely a regional route.... I saw many other Colorado plates beside my own, as well as many Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and even a Montana or three.

[MaxConcrete]

What I didn't expect was how few of the towns are bypassed along the western half of this route. It became a rather frustrating string of 80 mph > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 speed ups and slowdowns. The whole Memphis - Clarendon - Chillicothe - Vernon portion in particular.

The route is definitely affected by the small towns west of Wichita Falls. While they are inconvenient, I don't think the cumulative delay is very long even for all the towns.

I've seen suggestions that 287 be designated an interstate, but that is not really needed. As you suggest, what is really needed is more bypasses. I don't know if the towns have opposed bypasses.

[Brian556]

My father took us up US 287 to Amarillo when I was younger.

There are tons of old alignments along that route.

I personally don't mind slowing down for the small towns. They give you something to look at in an otherwise flat boring landscape.

[Bobby5280]

The stretch between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth seems like it's all Interstate quality, but it isn't.

Bellevue is a little town, but it still an annoying speed zone. The situation in Decatur is worse. TX DOT has plans to convert US-287 into a freeway for a short segment from the US-380 intersection West past FM 1810. Other work is going on with US-287 on Decatur's East side. Still, there's a bunch of development encroaching US-287 through Decatur. Not only does US-287 need to be completely limited access through there, but it might need to be 3 lanes in each direction.

[txstateends]

It became a rather frustrating string of 80 mph > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 > 60 > 35 > 60 > 80 speed ups and slowdowns.

I'm sure you would have liked it even better back when the limit was 55 -- seemed to take almost all day just to get to Amarillo.  And, to add to the fun, several hiding places along the way for our little friends with the lights on top.

It would be better if US 287 were at least streamlined (if the interstate preference doesn't ever pan out), but there would need to be the aforementioned bypasses.  Many of the towns that still have no bypasses seem to have the economic-last-leg look and feel to them.  If they weren't on 287 (or didn't have direct traffic flow), there wouldn't be much left to keep them going.