Current Legislative Proposals to Increase State DOT Budgets

[Plutonic Panda]

From Texas:

Texas voters this fall will be able to decide whether to give counties authorization to use bonds for transportation work in certain areas. Limitations would be included.

The Texas Legislature acted earlier this year to approve HJR99 to add the bond question to the Nov. 2 ballot. Any effort to amend the state's constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority vote for consideration on a ballot.

Texas statute already authorizes an incorporated city or town to issue bonds or notes to finance development of "an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area."  Localities can increase property tax revenue in the area to repay the bonds.

The legislatively referred constitutional amendment, Proposition 2, would add counties to the political entities authorized to issue bonds or notes for the same purpose.

- https://landline.media/texas-voters-to-decide-on-transportation-bonds/

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow it looks like Oregon had a 5 year bill to inject over 750 billion dollars into surface transportation and water infrastructure but didn't go anywhere this year. Anyone in Oregon have any thoughts on it?

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/20/defazio-looks-to-try-again-on-his-progressive-transportation-agenda/

[jeffandnicole]

Wow it looks like Oregon had a 5 year bill to inject over 750 billion dollars into surface transportation and water infrastructure but didn't go anywhere this year. Anyone in Oregon have any thoughts on it?

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/20/defazio-looks-to-try-again-on-his-progressive-transportation-agenda/

It's an Oregon politician proposing adding money into a federal transportation bill. He's not trying to spend $750 billion in Oregon alone.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow it looks like Oregon had a 5 year bill to inject over 750 billion dollars into surface transportation and water infrastructure but didn't go anywhere this year. Anyone in Oregon have any thoughts on it?

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/20/defazio-looks-to-try-again-on-his-progressive-transportation-agenda/

It's an Oregon politician proposing adding money into a federal transportation bill. He's not trying to spend $750 billion in Oregon alone.

I misunderstood that. I was about to say that was an extremely ambitious proposal.

[Plutonic Panda]

Louisiana:

https://www.kplctv.com/2021/08/24/louisiana-dotd-proposes-infrastructure-investment-jobs-act/

[Plutonic Panda]

Ohio eyeing a bill to increase road funding which would help US-33 upgrades:

https://www.13abc.com/2024/06/19/gov-dewine-hints-increasing-ohios-gas-tax-future-pay-major-road-projects/

[Plutonic Panda]

While this isn't limited to just one state, a new funding bill is coming to replace the one passed in 2021:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/surface-transportation-reauthorization-2026/818721/

[Rothman]

While this isn't limited to just one state, a new funding bill is coming to replace the one passed in 2021:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/surface-transportation-reauthorization-2026/818721/

That's a pretty disappointing article.  For those of us in the industry, everyone knows the current bill is expiring.  The call for "local control" through locals just talking to their representatives happens constantly.  Calls for transit funding are perpetual.

The really big question isn't so much about core highway/structure funding, which will probably just continue to be structured as is, but what the Republicans will do with the huge Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which highly benefits municipalities, and other fund sources related to active transportation.  There's a lot of worry, but not much solid information on that front yet.

[vdeane]

While this isn't limited to just one state, a new funding bill is coming to replace the one passed in 2021:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/surface-transportation-reauthorization-2026/818721/

That's a pretty disappointing article.  For those of us in the industry, everyone knows the current bill is expiring.  The call for "local control" through locals just talking to their representatives happens constantly.  Calls for transit funding are perpetual.

The really big question isn't so much about core highway/structure funding, which will probably just continue to be structured as is, but what the Republicans will do with the huge Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which highly benefits municipalities, and other fund sources related to active transportation.  There's a lot of worry, but not much solid information on that front yet.

The AMPO website has a summary sheet on it.  It looks like the locals are getting what they want and there will be an increased emphasis on rural planning.

https://ampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/BASICS-Section-by-Section-2.5.2026.pdf

[Rothman]

While this isn't limited to just one state, a new funding bill is coming to replace the one passed in 2021:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/surface-transportation-reauthorization-2026/818721/

That's a pretty disappointing article.  For those of us in the industry, everyone knows the current bill is expiring.  The call for "local control" through locals just talking to their representatives happens constantly.  Calls for transit funding are perpetual.

The really big question isn't so much about core highway/structure funding, which will probably just continue to be structured as is, but what the Republicans will do with the huge Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which highly benefits municipalities, and other fund sources related to active transportation.  There's a lot of worry, but not much solid information on that front yet.

The AMPO website has a summary sheet on it.  It looks like the locals are getting what they want and there will be an increased emphasis on rural planning.

https://ampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/BASICS-Section-by-Section-2.5.2026.pdf

Keep in mind the source of that summary.  The news therein is not very earth-shattering.  Most of it seems like it's just reiterating current processes -- see how they included "regionally" in the language.  The requirement to consult local sponsors before utilizing small urban funding is already being followed.  See that there's no mention of TAP at all.

At least given the local attitudes towards HSIP in NY so far, allocating HSIP to them in a similar manner as the STBG Urban funding seems like a great way to ensure that HSIP isn't spent.  As a bonus to state governments, any burden of underspending of HSIP would now be shifted to the localities under that scheme ("We allocated it, they couldn't meet the b/c ratios, so they couldn't spend it...").

The rural planning funding gets a shrug from me.  Just seems like a way to funnel more money to consultants through established rural organizations (e.g., Tug Hill Commission in NY, probably).

Fall's a long way away in terms of legislative time.  Things'll change.

(personal opinion emphasized)