Print đź–¨

The Senate Committee on Transportation met on April 24 to hear testimony regarding interim charges related to segregating state and federal transportation funding to accelerate project delivery, TxDOT analysis of allocations made in the Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and monitoring legislation passed in the 85th Legislative Session.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. This report is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing; it is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Project Acceleration: Study and make recommendations regarding segregating state and federal transportation funding to accelerate project delivery.

James Bass, TxDOT – Executive Director

  • Does not think federal funds create project delivery time delays because they have taken on federal oversight roles that have only increased their efficiency
  • TxDOT delivers their projects with the same safety standards and design whether they receive federal funding or not
  • They receive an amount of obligation funds from the Federal Highway Administration each year and they must commit those funds by the end of the year or the state may lose that amount of funds the next year
  • Need a backlog of ready projects to step in and take advantage of those federal funds should one project become delayed for other reasons
  • Roughly 95% of their projects have involved federal funds
  • Currently have a few projects that are 100% state funded but those generally fall into a category where they are not eligible to receive federal funds
  • All federally funded projects require environmental review established by NIPA and the time to get through this project has always been a concern
  • During the 83rd legislative session the legislature passed SB 466 which granted TxDOT authority for NIPA assignment allowing them to take on some of that federal oversight
  • Each year they receive a certain amount of contract authority from the feds that they have to make sure they spend the allotted federal money

 

Brian Ragland, TxDOT – CFO

  • Federal funding is similar to state highway funding in that it’s sensible, predictable, and deposited monthly
  • They currently have a writer in the General Appropriations Act that doesn’t allow for the transfer of funds among their project development strategies
  • As they work to get more projects on deck while they wait for money, it’s important that they’re able to develop those strategies
  • Nichols – At one time TxDOT had the ability to move those funds, but it was made like that in 2007 and is now a lengthy process
    • Bass – They’re already working on a proposal to fix that writer and are predicting where they’ll need money in 2020
    • One concept they might ask for is being able to move 5% within certain strategies before having to go to the LBB
  • Hinojosa – What is the time period that LBB has to respond to your request?
    • Ragland – Once it goes from LBB staff to LBB members it’s then a 30 day clock, but there’s no time clock when it’s with the staff
  • Hancock – The Facilities Oversight Committee also ran into this problem and there’s often a time where requests get stuck in LBB, so this is a broad problem that needs to be fixed
  • Rodriguez – On slide 12 it states that combining the two budget strategies for Prop. 1 & 7 could accelerate project development and delivery – how would that happen?
    • The deposits of Props 1 & 7 are annual and come in at different times
    • If they came in at the same time, you could go ahead and award projects knowing when that cash would be available
  • The traditional sources of funding are reliable, but the newer sources like Prop 1 & 7 are not reliable and can be volatile
  • It’s approximately $3 billion a year of federal funding that they have to wait to see if they’ll receive
  • Hancock – Regarding sales tax, has there been any discussion with manufacturers on what they see future automobile sales, utilization, etc.?
    • Not aware of direct communications with industry on that topic
    • Bass – There’s an awareness of the possibility of the growth of autonomous vehicles and their impending effects
    • Nichols – Another shift might be long haul trucks converting from diesel to natural gas
  • Bass – This September we expect to receive $2.5 billion from Prop 7 and around $800 million from Prop 1, so when the legislature comes back in January and looks at TxDOT’s balance, it’ll be large
  • We’ll commit those dollars as quick as we can, but it’ll take time for us to spend that money
  • Nichols – Can you talk about the A+B (time + cost) plan that the department has drifted away from?
    • Bass – Part of that is kind of due to our Sunset
    • We’re now looking at the criteria for A+B and talking with stakeholders on how better to utilize this plan
  • Nichols – At one time we were doing A+B, y’all drifted away from it – that’s what we got out of Sunset and y’all still have not fixed it?
    • Bass – With Sunset, those changes do not have to be fully implemented until this September and we’re on track to fix that
  • Nichols – So you think you’ll have the rules adopted by September?
    • Bass – Yes
  • Nichols – Backing up to slide 5, projects with state only funding account for 50-80 total projects – we have 42,000 miles of farm-to-market/ranch-to-market roads which have no federal money
    • Bass – You can’t say strictly by class of road whether they’re eligible for federal funding or not, so many are eligible, it just depends on the traffic those roads are carrying
  • Perry – Back to the A+B conversation, asks that as you’re doing time assessments you consider farm-to-market roads that get high volumes of traffic during harvest/busy seasons
  • Nichols – On slide 7 regarding NIPA, are we really down to just 18 months?
    • Bass – Yes, on the environmental assessments
  • Nichols – If there’s a brand new freeway on a new piece of land, could we knock that out in 18 months?
    • Carlos Swonke (Director Environmental Affairs) – That would be the highest/most complex level of NIPA analysis which would be the Environmental Impact Statement
    • Prior to NIPA reassignment it would take 5-10 years to complete, currently working on a few assignments right now and feel confident you could knock off a large amount of that time
  • Nichols – So that would still take 4 years?
    • Yes
  • Nichols – If I were going to widen a freeway, would that be 18 months?
    • Swonke – Yes
  • Nichols – On slide 9 with federal funding – Have we lost any federal funding or gained anyone else’s in the past several years?
    • Bass – Have not lost any, if other states are not able to use all of their allotted money they turn it back in to the federal highway administration, where the FHA then checks to see if any state needs some of it
    • Last year we receive $270 million of additional obligation authority

 

TxDOT analysis on the effect of funding allocations made in the Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and project selection decisions on accomplishing goals described in the statewide transportation plan.

Lauren Garduno, TxDOT – Director Project Planning & Development

  • Gave presentation
  • Reviewed 2018 UTP – annually updated document
    • 2019 will be available in August 2018
    • Includes 12 categories of funding
  • Most categories are distributed by formula
    • Reviewed how those formulas get broken out across the state
    • 11 rural districts – $9.7 billion
    • Urban districts – $12.4 billion
    • Metropolitan – $30 billion
  • Unallocated funds are what’s left in the commission discretionary account to be used over 10-year window for strategic projects
    • Used for flexible spending
  • Discussed congestion focus in UTP
    • Majority of funding go to metro areas where congestion is most serious
    • Dedicated ~$5 billion towards congestion
  • Nichols – in showing UTP to rural areas, does that include maintenance?
    • That is for all categories
    • Does not include routine maintenance
  • Nichols – the bulk of funding is not for improvements but for connectivity
    • That is correct
  • Kolkhorst – for clarification, rehab projects and overlays are not part of the funding for rural areas, or is it?
    • Category 1 funding is for overlays and rehab projects
    • TxDOT has another operating budget for maintenance that includes routine maintenance contracts
  • Nichols – that is almost half the budget, or at least a huge amount for maintenance
  • Kolkhorst – looking at the connectivity part, how do you determine connectivity?
    • Will address that further in the presentation
  • Discussed building performance outcomes in program beginning in February – noted as “significant for the agency”
    • Have a 25-year long-range plan
    • Commission adopted new set of goals in February that modified previously existing goals in the long-range plan
    • Four key areas identified as focus: promoting safety, optimizing system performance, preserving assets both payment and bridge
    • Set 10-year targets
  • 10-year targets
    • Compared 2017 data to 2018 data to anticipate needs and funding to set targets
  • Hancock – seems like it would be more informative to compare issues with growth rate and lead to better comparisons
    • The key is that TxDOT is tracking strategies and solution with that kind of isolation
    • Presentation shows holistic view of those targets but will be taking specific look to determine where the real issues are
  • Nichols – for instance, have significantly funded safety in the past, but due to population growth we have not seen the number of fatalities decreasing. TTI has done studies on where the best places to put funding leading to formula funding, but it is more about balancing all factors related to transportation
    • Attempted to include items like safety through all of the projections when coming up with figures because it is common to make improvements to existing surfaces when adding new lanes, etc.
  • Nichols – used to have the information separated between rural and urban regarding fatalities?
    • That is correct, and can provide that information
  • Nichols – recalls that 87% of vehicle miles travelled were in urban areas and 60% of the fatalities were in rural areas
    • 2016 numbers show it is about a 50/50 split between rural and urban fatality wise
    • Noted that the numbers of miles travelled is significantly higher in urban areas so that figure means that the number of fatalities is significant in rural areas
  • Perry – super twos and wider shoulders work every time. Stressed shoulders are a significant issue in rural areas
    • That is an active part of the TxDOT program
  • Reviewed pavement conditions scores, targets and outcomes
  • Nichols – scoring of bridges is every two years, how often do roads get scored?
    • There is an annual pavement assessment
  • Nichols – so every mile of our 80,000 + miles system gets scored every year?
    • Yes, over 100,000 + lane miles are scored every year
  • Garcia – would be helpful to have some of the numbers by TxDOT district and in categories, is that available?
    • The current UTP has funding tables that show that information, but can provide that consolidated information to the committee
  • Garcia – would also like the amount of funding going to guardrails specifically.
    • Will provide that information to the committee
  • Kolkhorst – on the UTP, worried about connectivity specifically about HWY 69 that is not in UTP in certain counties but is in others, why is that?
    • UTP directs specific funds to solve congestion chokepoints but are still working on fixing the points in between. Likely the Wharton area will come out of the rural funding as opposed to the metro funding for the Houston area
    • Noted that the funding is for a 10-year period
  • Kolkhorst – how much does category 12, “commissioners discretionary fund,” have?
    • Approximately $10 billion over 10 years
    • All discretionary
    • Focused $5 billion for the clear lanes initiative
  • Hinojosa – one challenge is communities pushing back on fixing the bottle necks which causes problems in terms of hurricane evacuation. Discussed congestion issues in the Rio Grande valley
  • Nichols – one unique thing about this UTP was the addition of propositions and HB 20 requiring the correct projects

 

Monitor the implementation of legislation addressed by the Senate Committee on Transportation during the 85th Legislature, Regular Session and make recommendations for any legislation needed to improve, enhance, and/or complete implementation. Specifically, monitor the following:

Implementation of statutory changes specified in the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) sunset legislation. 1) requiring toll road entities to use toll revenue to pay back TxDOT for grants used to construct toll roads. 2) prohibiting TxDOT from operating or transferring a HOV lane as a tolled lane. 3) authorizing TxDOT to convert non-tolled lanes as toll lanes – only if the number of non-tolled lanes is greater than or equal to the number in existence before the toll conversion project. 4) prohibiting TxDOT from awarding contracts unless the contractor participates in E-verify

Mark Williams, TxDOT

  • Gave presentation
  • Submitted 85th Legislative Report in august
    • Report contains overview of key bills passed which affect the department and transportation in Texas
  • 3 main categories from the 85th Session: Sunset legislation, General Appropriations Act, and other legislation
  • Other legislation includes: distracted driving, mail-bid requirements and alert programs
  • Have taken steps to implement measures from each of the following bills:
    • HB 3087: vehicle lighting requirements, standardized vehicle lighting requirements on TxDOT vehicles and other entities; currently developing standards
    • HB 1140: Public Transportation, created two groups of public transportation categories as part of administering funds
    • SB 977: high speed rail, prohibits the state from spending any funds on private high-speed rail; are implementing that including associated reporting requirements
    • SB 28: Port funding, created ship channel improvement revolving fund; have draft rules coming before commission next month
    • SB 1523: State safety oversight program, designates TxDOT as public safety oversight of public transit rail systems; submitted full implementation packet to FTA earlier in April. Texas was among first states to submit this and are expecting favorable results
    • SB 1522: allows commission to determine number of individuals on the aviation advisory committee; commission will be receiving rules this month
    • HB 2646: allows TxDOT to acquire property prior to environmental clearance; adopted new right of way division rules to allow implementation of that
    • SB 2006: Billboard regulation, addressed by commission with new rules to implement that earlier this year
    • SB 1349: DMV Property Transfer, continuing to work with DMV toward transfer of Camp Hubbard Campus in campus consolidation efforts
    • SB 1524: over size/overweight shipping containers, in process of implementation
    • SB 1383: allows for TxDOT to route milk trucks up to 90,000, allowing for special permit
    • HB 4156 and SB 1291 clarifies additional detail on routing of oversize/overweight corridors; do have agreement in place with Chambers County to implement that
  • Rules will be proposed this month that will rewrite chapter 16 of administrative code to align with performance goals
  • Contracting rules are scheduled to come to the commission in May to update liquidated damages amount, contractor performance and evaluation tool and delayed contracts
  • State aircraft fleet replacement program will be included in the strategic long-range plan to be adopted this summer
  • Sunset bill statutory tolling changes: changing limitation on toll violations as well as email billing, toll financing and toll conversions prohibiting future HOV lanes to be converted
  • Addressed contractors E-Verify, have a memo to districts regarding that
  • Public hearing: commission will be considering rules regarding public hearings for those projects that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities
  • Highway closures: working toward better communication with agencies regarding highway closures
  • Kolkhorst – the $48 issue only applies to TxDOT toll roads?
    • That is correct
  • Kolkhorst – so the fees and penalties for other entities are not affected?
    • That is correct
  • Kolkhorst – are there still criminal implications?
    • Believe it is a class C misdemeanor
    • Which is also only for the TxDOT toll roads
  • Kolkhorst – so if you have outstanding fees or penalties on a TxDOT you can’t be arrested but on other toll roads you might be?
    • Unsure if there are others that you could be arrested or not, but TxDOT has habitual toll violator with a specific definition that allows for vehicle impoundment but not jail time
  • Kolkhorst – overall the amendment applied only to TxDOT tolls?
    • Correct
  • Kolkhorst – believes there is confusion about the maximum penalty in the public
  • Nichols – the committee will cover that whole subject in August
  • Kolkhorst – regarding the billboard regulations, has there been a decision on height?
  • Nichols – 42.5 feet has been the maximum height of a billboard for decades, and there were lawsuits on some of them. There was a house amendment to grandfather those in the lawsuit and use the standard going forward. Commission decided to go back to 42.5 feet until September 2019 when all bill boards can go to 85 feet
  • Kolkhorst – noted that the legislature would be back in session before then to make clarifying changes if desired.
  • Garcia – that’s just for billboards adjacent to state roads or any road?
  • Nichols – The issue of federally funded roads or not comes into play on that
    • Some cities have rules that are separate and distinct through local permitting process
  • Garcia – has that been litigated?
    • Unsure, but can look into that
    • Cities can be more restrictive than the state
  • Kolkhorst – hope there is clarifying legislation put forward in the upcoming session
  • Nichols – regarding the advanced acquisition piece, that is something we wanted for years, is it working?
    • Garduno – It may be too early to tell, it has only been used a limited number of times
    • It has helped move in the outer planning years and move through the planning process
  • Discussion of MPPM – would replace a number of systems (48) within the department, Nichols believes it is very important and. Original contractor relationship has ended, now working on identifying individual components on the systems as part of the MPPM umbrella project with ability to add modules in the future
  • Nichols – have you issued a new contract for that?
    • No, currently working with NTT Data to do an assessment on the first component
  • Perry – we paid the original contractor $5 million for that, did we get anything out of that?
    • Received licenses but they were for software that will not likely be used moving forward
  • Perry – remember a discussion during session regarding customizable internal solutions. Need to review how that vendor was selected and be sure that the mistake won’t be made in the future. Assume other states do this as well?
    • There were a few other states doing this, which was where the reference for the vendor came from
    • The other states did start running into similar issues at the same time Texas was
  • Perry – is there any recourse?
    • The Assistant AG determined that there was no recourse
  • Perry – technology in the state is a concern
  • Hancock – concern in hearing that the state is going to develop its own system. Rarely if ever saves money
    • Have tried commercial off the shelf solution and have checked with other state DOTs which have not found solutions but will continue to look
  • Perry – discussed potential problems and challenges with creating personalized systems

 

Progress of the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) efforts to issue an annual permit for transporting overweight, sealed intermodal shipping containers on TxDOT approved routes within 30 miles of a port of entry or an international bridge

Jimmy Archer, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)

  • Requires extensive coordination with TxDOT
  • SB 1524 authorized a permit for overweight, sealed intermodal shipping containers beginning January 1, 2018
  • 27 permits have been issued to 6 different companies
  • Each annual permit is priced a $6,000 with 50% going to the state highway fund, 30% going to county selected on the permit application and 16% going to municipality selected and 4% going to TxDMV Fund
  • Described the specifics of permit use
  • DMV has had 2 rounds of administrative rule making regarding the permit
    • Newly created section of code establishing the basic outline of the permit application and use; proposed in October 2017 and became effective January 1,2018
    • Amended section of code added 3 sections clarifying the permits usage and vehicle requirements; anticipated approval in June 14th meeting of DMV Board
  • Garcia – when you say currently 30 such permits are available, are you limiting the number of permits to 30?
    • No, have over 30 types of oversize and overweight permits and have issued 27 intermodal port permits to this point
  • Nichols – how many different companies do the 27 permits represent?
    • 6 companies
  • Nichols – are they all from the Houston area?
    • Believe 2 are from the Houston area and the rest are from out-of-state with facilities in Texas
  • Nichols – part of this was getting TxDOT routes established, how is that working?
    • Working very well
    • Harvey slowed the process down a little
  • Nichols – for the permits issued, it requires special equipment, has the equipment been acquired and are running on the roads?
    • Do not have an answer at present

 

Greg Freeby, TxDOT – Bridge Division

  • Worked closely with TxDMV on implementing this legislation
  • Inspected bridges along coast in impacted counties and is still ongoing
    • Expect to be done with inspection by the end of October
  • Load postings are ongoing and being evaluated
  • Discussed posting requirements
  • Nichols – you are posting bridges in the area but have not been requested as part of a permit route?
    • That is correct, are evaluating bridges in that geographical area in order to maximize the options a hauler might have
  • Garcia – I thought defines corridors were being established?
    • In the implementation we thought it would be best to implement this similar to the 2060 permit
    • Archer – for annual custom permit, which would limit business options
    • Used as more of excluding areas
  • Garcia – that does not sound like the intent of the law
  • Nichols – understood the same, that there should be a specific route and potential alternative route
  • Garcia – was industry included in your discussions?
    • There was a workshop in November with industry as well as local governments
    • Did not receive any negative feedback
  • Garcia – encouraged another workshop/workgroup to discuss implementation

 

Michael Lee, TxDOT – Director of Engineering and Safety Operations

  • Nichols – is it your opinion that the configuration and equipment is safe?
    • Yes sir
    • The configuration that was decided on are beneficial to the department in terms of pavement wear
  • Nichols – on the safety side, the additional training for drivers is above and beyond?
    • I believe so but am not an expert on the technology

 

John Esparza, Texas Trucking Association

  • Determined through outreach to members that the carriers would only invest upon the definition of the final rules due to approximations in statute
  • Now that rules have been adopted, fabrication for many manufacturers can begin on the specialized equipment
  • Production has begun, and interest is starting to grow
  • 6 carriers which have applied for permits, none have put trailers out yet

 

Scott Stewart, Texas Chemical Council

  • Texas is the largest chemical producing state in the United States
  • Majority of new projects in Texas use Polyethylene produced along the gulf coast
  • Expecting 250,000 new containers from Texas facilities
  • After passage of SB 1524, new technology will allow for more efficient and effective transportation
    • Believe the bill was crafted in a “safety first” approach
    • New technology in the trucks will help extend pavement life, reducing cost of repair
  • Joined in the TxDOT and TxDMV workshop
  • Many member companies have reported positive feedback regarding the rules
  • Members are beginning to acquire new trailers and permits

 

Todd Staples, Texas Oil and Gas Association

  • Implementation prioritized goals of safety and reduced degradation to roadways
  • Harvey showed need for multimodal transportation
  • Texas needs as many options as possible for transportation
  • Need to be creative without sacrificing safety
  • Growth in industry will have increased traffic

 

Tony Bennet, Texas Association of Manufacturers

  • State infrastructure is vital
  • The little things that we can do to save the infrastructure are critical for the long term success of the State’s Economy