2019 unified transportation program · 16.05.2019 · why today i am directing the texas...

May 16, 2019

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

FY 2020-21 LAR Sources of Funding

2

FY 2020-21 FY 2018-19

GAA Adjusted

$11.31B $11.05B

$0.004B $0.31B

$3.52B $2.68B

$7.85B $2.60B

$8.73B $8.63B

$0.73B $0.78B

$0.23B $0.61B

$0.31B $0.27B Bond Proceeds $1.27B

TxDOT Grand Total $32.68B $28.20B

Federal Reimbursements 34%

General Revenue 0%

Proposition 1, 2014 11% Proposition 7, 2015

24%

State Highway Fund - Traditional

27%

Texas Mobility Fund - Debt Service

2%

Texas Mobility Fund - Taxes & Fees

1% Toll Revenue/Concession

Fees 1%

Federal Reimbursements

General Revenue

Proposition 1, 2014

Proposition 7, 2015

State Highway Fund - Traditional

Texas Mobility Fund - Debt Service

Texas Mobility Fund - Taxes & Fees

Toll Revenue/Concession Fees

May 16, 2019

FY 2020-21 LAR Uses of Funding

3

Administration and Support 2%

Maintain & Replace the Existing System

25%

Other Modes and Services 2%

Project Development and Delivery

63%

Toll Subaccount Projects 1%

Pay Back Borrowed Funds 7%

Administration and Support

Maintain & Replace the Existing System

Other Modes and Services

Project Development and Delivery

Project Development Cost

Project Delivery

Proposition 1 Non-Toll Projects


Toll Subaccount Projects

Pay Back Borrowed Funds

GAA Adjusted

FY 2020-21 FY 2018-19

$0.64B $0.59B

$8.31B $9.45B

$0.56B $0.60B

$3.68B $4.15B

$6.16B $5.85B

$3.52B $2.68B

$7.25B $2.22B

$0.31B $0.27B

$2.24B $2.39B

TxDOT Total $32.68B $28.20B

Project Development

Project Delivery



May 16, 2019

Traditional State Highway Funding

State Motor Fuel Tax – 20 cents/gallon on gasoline and diesel – 15 cents/gallon on liquefied petroleum gas – Last increase effective 1991 – Revenue shared between State Highway Fund (SHF) – 75% and Education – 25%

• SHF received $2.58B (FY16) and $2.63B (FY17)

State Vehicle Registration Fees – Collected at counties (fee of approximately $51) – Revenue shared between counties and the state

• SHF received $1.44B (FY16 ) and $1.44B (FY17) • Counties received $424.4M (FY16) and $412.9M (FY17)

Deposited consistently each month Predictable

4

May 16, 2019

Historical Monthly State Highway Funding Revenues (Traditional Funds)

5

$-

$50.0

$100.0

$150.0

$200.0

$250.0

$300.0

$350.0

$400.0

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Mill

ions

Motor Fuel Tax & Vehicle Registration Fees

May 16, 2019

Proposition 1 & Proposition 7 – (Non-Traditional Funding Sources)

6

May 16, 2019

Comptroller’s Index Values of Relative Annual Volatility (1996 - 2015)

7

Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental Taxes

Traditional State Highway Funding

Proposition 7 Funding Sources (FY 2019)

Proposition 1 Funding Sources

Proposition 7 Funding Sources (FY 2020)

Motor Fuels Taxes

Cigarette & Tobacco Taxes

Hotel Occupancy Tax

Utility Taxes

Natural Gas Production Tax

Oil Production & Regulation Tax

Alcoholic Beverage Taxes

Franchise Tax

General Sales & Use Tax

Insurance Taxes

*In this index, the lower values represent taxes showing minimal fluctuation, which produce returns that only slightly deviate from longer-term trends. A higher index value indicates greater relative volatility — more deviation from the tax’s historical trend over time. (November 2016, Comptroller’s Fiscal Notes publication)

*

May 16, 2019

Proposition 1 & Proposition 7 – (Non-Traditional Funding Sources)

8

May 16, 2019

Texas Department of Transportation Goals*

Deliver the Right Projects Focus on the Customer Foster Stewardship Optimize System Performance Preserve our Assets Promote Safety Value our Employees *Adopted in February 2016 by Texas Transportation Commission

9

May 16, 2019 4

Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan Performance Measures

Transportation Goals Performance Measure Performance Vision

Promote Safety Number of Fatalities, Fatality Rate

Reduce crashes and fatalities through targeted infrastructure improvements, technology applications, and education

Optimize System Performance Urban Travel Time Index, Rural Reliability Index

Enhance mobility, reliability, connectivity & mitigate congestion through targeted infrastructure & operational improvements

Preserve Our Assets - Pavements

Statewide Pavement Condition Score Maintain and preserve system/asset conditions through targeted infrastructure rehabilitation, restoration, and replacement.

Preserve Our Assets - Bridges Statewide Bridge Condition Score

May 16, 2019

The Unified Transportation Program (UTP) – What and Why

TxDOT’s 10-year plan to guide transportation development

Required by the Texas Administrative Code and approved each year by the Texas Transportation Commission

Organized by 12 Categories of funding

Lists Mobility, Connectivity, Congestion and Expansion Projects and ranks projects as a Tier 1, 2, or 3

Includes Sections related to Rail, Aviation, Public Transportation, State and Coastal Waterways, and Freight and International Trade

Outlines project selection process by UTP Category

Public input factors into decision making

11

The UTP authorizes projects &

programs for development and planning

activities

May 16, 2019

UTP Development and Update Cycle

Distribution Strategy

Formula Distribution

Updated 10-Year

Programs

Monitor Impacts

Evaluate Project & Program

Effectiveness

Adjust Strategies and Investments

Planning Forecast

& Scenarios

Project Recommendation

& Prioritization

Values, Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives

Refine Project Recommendation

& Prioritization

Performance-Driven Strategy

Data-Driven Formulas

Project Scoring Metrics, Prioritization and Selection

Adoption of a new program

Performance Monitoring and Reporting

12

May 16, 2019

Cash Forecast

13

Monthly Cash Forecast (Base) Agency cash and funds management Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) and Operating Budget development Twenty-four month letting target development Assists with biennial development of the STIP Financial Summary Provides base letting assumptions for up to ten years

Annual UTP Planning Scenario Incorporates the base cash forecast assumptions plus potential future funding sources Guides planning assumptions for the ten year UTP and no longer constrained by the base

forecast Updated once a year

― Revisions for significant changes in funding

May 16, 2019 14

Process for Setting the Twelve Category Funding Levels

Available Funding

1 Preventive

Maintenance & Rehab

10 Supplemental Transportation

3 Non-

Traditional

4 Statewide

Connectivity

12 Strategic Priority

8 Safety

6 Bridge

5 CMAQ

11 District

Discretionary

9 Transportation

Alternatives

7 Metro Mobility

& Rehab

2 Metro & Urban

Corridor

Funding allocated to each category: ― Determined by projected investment to reach Commission defined performance

measures and targets; and ― Influenced by federal and state required minimums.

May 16, 2019

Cross-walk Category Funding and System Performance Alignment

15

Funding Categories Safety Preserve Assets Congestion/

Mobility Connectivity Other * Maintenance Bridge

Category 1 - Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Category 2 - Metropolitan and Urban Corridors

Category 4 - Connectivity

Category 5 - CMAQ (3 MPOs)

Category 6 - Bridge

Category 7 - Metropolitan Mobility and Rehab (Large MPOs)

Category 8 - Safety

Category 9 - Transportation Alternatives

Category 11 - District Discretionary

Category 12 - Strategic Priority

* Other – Includes bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and multi-modal projects.

Primary funding source for initiative Secondary funding source for initiative

May 16, 2019 16

Project Selection Process Can Vary By Funding Category

Category 6 Bridge ONE STEP Process

Category 6 – Bridge projects is shown as an example. ― Step 1 - Funding is distributed to projects as a

program call based upon bridge preservation performance criteria.

Project #1

Project #2

Project #3

Project #4

Project #5

May 16, 2019 17

Project Selection Process Can Vary By Funding Category

Category 2 Metro & Urban

Corridor

TWO STEP Process Category 2 – Metro & Urban Corridor Projects is shown as an example. ― Step 1 - Funding within certain categories is first

distributed by formula to areas of the state to “account for the diverse needs of the state so as to fairly allocate funding to all regions of the state.

― Step 2 - Each planning organization (MPO or TxDOT District) shall develop its own project recommendation criteria to achieve performance measure targets and then rank projects.

MPO

MPO

MPO

MPO

MPO

Project #1

Project #2

Project #3

Project #4

Project #5

May 16, 2019

10-Year Performance Projections versus Targets for the 2019 UTP

18

Strategic Plan Goal Performance Vision

Key Performance Measure (KPM)

Projected 2028 Outcomes

2028 Target*

Promote Safety

Reduce crashes and fatalities through targeted infrastructure

improvements, technology applications, and education

Safety: Fatalities/Yr 4,171 3,708

Safety: Fatality Rate 1.36 1.16

Preserve our Assets

Maintain and preserve system/asset conditions through

targeted infrastructure rehabilitation, restoration and

replacement.

Preservation: Pavement Condition 88.5% 90%

Preservation: Statewide Bridge Condition Score

88.7% 90%

Optimize System Performance

Enhance mobility, reliability, connectivity & mitigate

congestion through targeted infrastructure & operational

improvements

Congestion: Urban Congestion Index 1.23 1.20

Connectivity: Rural Reliability Index 1.13 1.12

* Performance targets carried over from 2027

May 16, 2019

Draft Planning Targets for 2019 UTP

Category and Description Proposed 10-Yr Distribution

1 Preventive Maintenance & Rehabilitation $ 13.8 2 Metro and Urban Corridor Funding $ 12.6 4 Statewide Connectivity (Regional) $ 6.7 4 Statewide Connectivity (Urban Congestion) $ 5.4 5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality* $ 2.2 6 Bridge $ 3.5 7 Federal Metropolitan Mobility $ 4.5 8 Safety $ 3.3 9 Transportation Alternatives $ 0.9

10 Supplemental Transportation Projects $ 0.5 11 District Discretionary $ 1.1 11 Energy Sector $ 2.1 12 Strategic Priority $ 8.3 12 Strategic Priority (Texas Clear Lanes) $ 5.0

Total, Allocated Funds $ 70.0 3 Estimated Non-Traditional and Fed Earmarks Funds (not in base) $ 5.4

Total, All Funds $ 75.4

19

* Alamo Area MPO will receive CMAQ funding in the 2020 UTP

May 16, 2019

Performance Enhancement Strategies

Reinvigorate strategies identified in 2016 Texas Traffic Safety Task Force Report Enhance congestion relief & multimodal focuses for 2045 Statewide Long-Range Transportation

Plan Work with Districts and MPOs to identify and select projects that address multiple performance

areas Develop policies and plans for effectively utilizing evolving technologies Invest efficiency savings in system enhancements

20

May 16, 2019

“The State of Texas is spurring economic development and creating jobs by making an historic investment to build more roads and improve our infrastructure. That's why today I am directing the Texas Transportation Commission to create a focused initiative to identify and address the state's most congested chokepoints and work with transportation planners to get new roads built swiftly and effectively.” — Governor Greg Abbott, September 23, 2015

2019 UTP Congestion Relief Funding

10-Year Congestion Funding Totals

21

TexasClearLanes (TCL) Program Funding ($B)

Austin $2.7

Dallas $6.8

Fort Worth $3.2

Houston $8.9

San Antonio $2.8

Total dedicated to TCL areas $24.4

Other congestion funding $12.1

Total Statewide $36.5

(Up from $23.7B in 2018 UTP)

(Up from $28.9B in 2018 UTP)

May 16, 2019 22

Summary of Estimated 10-Year Outcomes

Categories 2, 4 Urban, 4 Regional, 10 Coordinated Border Infrastructure, 12 Strategic, and 12 TexasClearLanes

Including All Previously Authorized and Proposed Changes

Metric Statewide Total

Total Number of Projects 634

Total Construction Cost $33.8B

Lane Miles of New Capacity 3,654 lane miles

Lane Miles of Deficient Pavement Improved 2,153 lane miles

Structurally Deficient Deck Area Improved 2,494,000 sq. ft.

Estimated Impact on Total Crashes 29,340 crashes

May 16, 2019

Category 2 and Category 4 Urban Proposed Authorizations

23

• 133 proposed projects in urban areas (MPOs)

• Total authorizations: $3.3 billion o Category 2: $2.0 billion o Category 4 Urban: $1.3 billion

• Category 2 project selection based on approved MPO scoring methodology

• Category 4 Urban project selection based on approved TxDOT scoring methodology

2 4U

May 16, 2019

Category 4 Rural Proposed Authorizations

24

• 32 proposed projects statewide

• Total authorizations: $1.1 billion

• Highlights o Funds portion of future I-369 new location in Marshall o Funds I-45 widening project through Huntsville o Funds I-10 widening project from Columbus (SH 71) to Austin County o Funds US 285 passing lane project between Fort Stockton and Pecos

4R

May 16, 2019

Category 12 Strategic Priority Proposed Authorizations

25

• 14 proposed projects statewide

• Total authorizations: $1.0 billion

• Highlights o Funds US 290/Oak Hill Parkway project in Austin o Funds I-10 widening project through Seguin o Funds I-10 widening project in central Beaumont o Funds SH 6 widening project through Bryan and College Station

12

May 16, 2019

Category 12 Texas Clear Lanes Proposed Authorizations

26

• 16 proposed projects in the Metro Districts (Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin)

• Total authorizations: $2.0 billion (Net Authorizations of $1.4B)

• Highlights o Funds I-35 expansion project in Austin o Funds US 290/Oak Hill Parkway project in Austin o Funds SL 12/Diamond Interchange project in Irving o Funds I-35 expansion project in San Antonio o Funds SH 35 new location project in Houston

CL

May 16, 2019

All Projects in the 2019 UTP

27

The 2019 UTP contains planned funding for more than 13,000 projects. All of these projects can be found on TxDOT’s Project Tracker.

www.txdot.gov/pt

http://www.txdot.gov/pt




May 16, 2019

Building the Contract Letting Factory

28

May 16, 2019 Texas Department of Transportation

FY 18 Statewide Letting -- Accumulative Planned vs. Actual

29

(August Letting pending Commission Approval)

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18 Jun 18 Jul 18 Aug 18

Mill

ions

Original Estimate Scheduled Estimate Actual Letting


FY 18 Total Lettings, Obligations, and Design-Build Procurement

Getting to Nearly $8 Billion/Year

Statewide Lettings = $5.76 billion

Local lettings = $630 million (Cities, counties, regional mobility authorities, other toll authorities, etc.)

Design-Build Procurement = $1.13 billion (Executed SH 249 in Montgomery/Grimes Counties October 3, 2017)

Other obligations = $326.2 million (Public transportation, air quality studies, etc.)

30

Bill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Total lettings, obligations, and DB procurement for FY 18 = $7.85 billion

0123456789

OtherObligations

Design-Build

Local Lettings

StatewideLettings

Totals and percentages may not sum due to rounding.


FY 18 Statewide Lettings

At beginning of FY 18, scheduled statewide letting was $4.8 billion. During FY 18, $1.5 billion was added. A few projects were delayed for various reasons. Statewide Letting of $5.76 billion, includes schedule modifications and delays.

31

FY 18 Project Portfolio Statewide Letting

Small Projects (<$15M) 753 91%

Medium Projects (>$15M <$50M) 58 7%

Large Projects (>$50M) 16 2%

Total Number of Projects 827 100%



FY 19 Total Lettings, Obligations, and Design-Build Procurement

Getting to Over $8 Billion/Year

Statewide Lettings = $6.25 billion

Local lettings = $332 million (Cities, counties, regional mobility authorities, other toll authorities, etc.)

Design-Build Procurement = $1.48 billion (IH 635 Dallas/IH 2 and IH 69C Pharr)

Other obligations = $136 million (Public transportation, air quality studies, etc.)

32

Bill

ions

of D

olla

rs

To date, total lettings, obligations, and DB procurement for FY 19 = $8.20 billion

0123456789

OtherObligations

Design-Build

Local Lettings

StatewideLettings



STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

October 11, 2018


SIB Facts

34

117 Loans – Since Inception (1997)

$616 Million – In Loans

$414 Million – Repaid

$5.8 Billion – In Texas Transportation Projects

Loans for roadway projects only Revolving Fund - All repayments go back into the SIB

For more information go to: https://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/sib.html

SIB Loans

https://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/sib.html


SIB Loans - Borrower Type

35

As of September 2018

Regional Mobility Authorities 8%

Water Supply Corps. 8%

Cities 71%

Counties 13%


SIB Eligibility

36

Eligible Borrowers Any public or private entity authorized to

construct, maintain or finance an eligible transportation project.

Eligible Projects Eligible uses include all costs incidental to

construction or reconstruction of highways. Must be eligible under federal highway

programs. Must be consistent with the Statewide

Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).

Eligible Uses Include:

Planning, environmental and feasibility studies

Construction

Utility relocation

Right of way acquisition

Appraisal and testing

Engineering, surveying and inspection

Financial advisory fees


Texas State Infrastructure Bank (SIB)

37

SIB Loans

$

Utility Relocations Agreements • Tailor the loan schedule to match utility

reimbursement from TxDOT

Right of Way Agreement • SIB disbursement(s) match payment terms • Refunds after project close are applied directly

to reduce the loan

Local Roadway • Off-system public roads

Advance Funding Agreement • Loans for fixed local contribution • SIB disbursement can match payment terms


Advantages of Borrowing from the State Infrastructure Bank

Flexible loan terms

No fees for loan application

No loan handling charges

Pre-payments can be made any time

At or below market interest rates

Additional discount for entities within Economically Disadvantaged Counties

38


SIB Loan Example

39


Planning and How the SIB Program Might Help

40


TxDOT SIB process

41

Program Call

Submit a SIB Application and Resolution to apply for loan

TxDOT DIST and Divisions review applications

TTC preliminary approval for prioritization of projects - Program Call Only

ENV approval must be obtained prior to final approval

First Come, First Served SIB loan agreement must be approved by the local government Final TTC

Approval

SIB loan agreement is negotiated (i.e. loan amortization schedule)


Available Resources

42


SIB Questions?

43


Questions?

44

2019 unified transportation program · 16.05.2019 · why today i am directing the texas...

Documents