MAJOR PROJECTS STRATEGY

Transcription

1 MAJOR PROJECTS STRATEGY Texas Transportation Commission October 25, 2017

2 Outline and Goals Current TexasClearLanes initiatives to mitigate congestion for non-tolled projects Review Unified Transportation Program funding balances relevant to the potential major projects to identify funding gaps Review the major project definition and how it is applied to the UTP and candidate major project list Review candidate major project list and outline priorities 2

3 Governor Abbott s directive to the Texas Transportation Commission 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 On Sept. 24, 2015, Chairman Lewis appointed Commissioner Bugg to lead the Texas Transportation Commission s Congestion Relief Initiative. 3

4 Texas Transportation Commission response to the voter mandate TexasClearLanes.com is a statewide strategic plan to provide congestion relief focused on Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Why these five major metro areas?: Only metro areas in Texas with populations currently over 1 million. Represent more than 65 percent of the Texas population. According to State Demographer Dr. Lloyd Potter, 86 percent of Texans live in counties along I-35 and to the east. Home to 97 of Texas Top 100 most congested roadway segments based on the Sept. 1, 2016, Texas A&M Transportation Institute list: Austin: 14 roadways segments Dallas: 24 roadways segments Fort Worth: 6 roadways segments Houston: 45 roadways segments San Antonio: 8 roadways segments In addition to TexasClearLanes, the TxDOT congestion relief initiative includes a statewide congestion relief focus on connectivity and strategic freight/trade corridors outside of the five major metropolitan areas. According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 93 percent of Texans rely on a personal auto as primary means of transportation. 97 percent of state highway funds are constitutionally dedicated for use on roads. 4

5 Texas Transportation Commission response to the voter mandate (2016 UTP February Update) Internal taskforce of key TxDOT administration and district staff conduct on-going monthly meetings to review Texas Clear Lanes projects, timelines and funding requirements. The Commission listened to the needs and priorities of local stakeholders in these five metro areas. This effort led to the initial funding under TexasClearLanes $1.3 billion to the five metro areas allocated as follows: Metro Area Austin Dallas Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Distribution 12.2% 28.0% 12.6% 34.1% 13.0% Funding ($ Millions) % $1.3 billion 5

6 FY 2017 UTP congestion relief funding Statewide congestion funding for 10 years is $28.9B including the following to each of the five major metros: Metro Area Funding (billions) Austin $2.6 Dallas $6.7 Fort Worth $3.2 Houston $8.5 San Antonio $2.8 Total for 5 metros $23.7 * Figures may not add due to rounding 6

7 Texas Clear Lanes : Project Selection San Antonio (2017 UTP March Update) $60M to expand IH 10 east of San Antonio from 4 lanes to a 6-lane expressway $91M to add capacity to US 281 $125M to expand, reconstruct, and build connectors on IH 410 $40M to expand the 4-lane divided facility to a 4-lane expressway on State Loop

8 Texas Clear Lanes : Project Selection Dallas and Fort Worth (2017 UTP March Update) $438M in Dallas District to reconstruct portions of IH 635 $370M in Fort Worth District to reconstruct IH 635 and FM 2499 interchanges on SH 121 8

9 Texas Clear Lanes : Project Selection Houston (2017 UTP March Update) $421M on the IH 69 Corridor to reconstruct the interchange at SH 288, reconstruct main lanes, and widen 3 structures $75M to construct an overpass at Cambridge Street on IH 610 $502M to perform main lane work on IH 45 downtown Houston 9

10 Texas Clear Lanes: Project Selection Austin (2017 UTP March Update) $296M in improvements to IH 35 to improve mobility and add direct connectors $120M to add 2 general purpose lanes to US 183N 10

11 What is a Major Project A major project is one that is approved by the Commission and meets one or more of the following criteria: The project has a total estimated cost of $500 million or more. There is a high level of public or legislative interest in the project. The project includes significant local or private-entity funding. The project is unusually complex. The project satisfies a time-sensitive critical need of the department related to safety, system connectivity, a hurricane evacuation route, reconstruction of a large infrastructure facility, or other similar need. Source: TAC Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 16, Subchapter C, Rule

12 DALLAS/FORT WORTH A B C D E F G I-635 East Dallas* Limits Top 100 Ranking Dallas From: US 75 Direct: 62, 92 D-B Cost Estimate: $1.8B To: I-30 Indirect: N/A Lower Stemmons/I-35E Limits Top 100 Ranking Dallas From: SH 183 Split Direct: 8 Construction Costs: $900M To: I-30/Horseshoe Indirect: 36 Canyon/I-30 Limits Top 100 Ranking Dallas From: I-35E Horseshoe Direct: 19 Construction Costs: $ M To: E of I-45/I-345 Interchange Indirect: 35 I-30 (Dallas) Limits Top 100 Ranking Dallas From: E of I-45/I-345 Interchange Direct: 19 Construction Costs: $900M To: I-30/I-635 Interchange Indirect: N/A I-35E (Phase II) Limits Top 100 Ranking Dallas From: I-635 Direct: 18 D-B Cost Estimate: $3.2B To: US 380 Indirect: N/A Southeast Connector* Limits Top 100 Ranking Fort Worth From: Interchange Direct: 83 Construction Costs: $1.5B To: Interchange Indirect: 23 I-30 (Fort Worth) Limits Top 100 Ranking Fort Worth From: I-35W Direct: N/A Construction Costs: $700M To: Fielder Road Indirect: 23, 83 *Denotes District Priority Project MPOs have adopted as priority projects 12

13 HOUSTON H I J K Hempstead (US 290) Limits Top 100 Ranking Houston From: SH 99 Direct: 14, 20 Capital Costs: $2.0B To: I-610/I-10 Interchange Indirect: 46, 59, 48, 16 I-45 Segment 1 Limits Top 100 Ranking NHHIP Houston From: IH 610 Direct: 6 Construction Costs: $1.35B To: Beltway 8 Indirect: 60, 67, 16, 21 I-45 Segment 2 Limits Top 100 Ranking NHHIP Houston From: IH 10 Direct: 21 Construction Costs: $768M To: IH 610 Indirect: 16, 6, 12, 10, 34 I-45 Segment 3* Limits (I-69) Top 100 Ranking NHHIP Houston From: SH 288 Direct: 3, 10, 11, 15, 34, 79, 94 Construction Costs: $2.8B To: South of I-10 Indirect: 21, 88 *Denotes District Priority Project MPOs have adopted as priority projects 13

14 AUSTIN L I-35 Future North (TBD) Limits Top 100 Ranking Austin From: RM 1431 Direct: 38, 69 Capital Costs: TBD To: North of US 183 Indirect: 2, 24, 58, 68 M N O I-35* Limits Top 100 Ranking Austin From: US 183 Direct: 2, 22, 38 Capital Costs: $3.5B To: William Cannon Drive Indirect: 51, 68 I-35 Future South (TBD) Limits Top 100 Ranking Austin From: William Cannon Drive Direct: 22 Capital Costs: TBD To: SH 45 SE Indirect: N/A 183N* Limits Top 100 Ranking Austin From: SH 45 N/RM 620 Direct: N/A Capital Costs: $500M To: Loop 1 Indirect: 24, 38, 58, 68 *Denotes District Priority Project 14

15 SAN ANTONIO P Q I-35* Limits Top 100 Ranking San Antonio From: I-410 Direct: 66, 47 D-B Cost Estimate: $1.5B To: FM 1103 Indirect: N/A Loop 1604 Limits Top 100 Ranking San Antonio From: SH 16 Direct: 90 Total Project Costs: $882M To: I-35 Indirect: 72, 75 *Denotes District Priority Project MPOs have adopted as priority projects 15

16 Chairman Bugg comments on toll policies at 2016 September Commission Meeting: Governor Abbott very clearly stated in his state of the state last January that he wanted to increase funding for transportation without raising taxes, tolls, fees and debt. Those new funding streams are not at play in this consideration. Those funding streams that Governor Abbott and the Texas Legislature worked together to provide for transportation funding were Prop 1, Prop 7 and ending of diversions. That money is segregated and being used in the projects for congestion relief around the state, particularly the TexasClearLanes project. That money is being put in non-tolled projects. When a local community comes to this Commission and states that they want to add capacity and they know the funds are not available, they want to support a managed lanes concept and the funds that Governor Abbott and the Texas Legislature, worked so hard to provide are not being used; then I think this Commission needs to consider the local community s support for a managed lane project. 16

17 Potential Major Projects List District Project ID Project Top 100 Congested Segments (2016) Direct (D) Indirect (ID) Construction Estimate (Billions) Traditional UTP Funding (Billions) MPO Planned Funding Gap Tolled Managed (Billons) Lanes A I-635 East Dallas 62, 92 (D) $1.80 $0.42 $1.38 B Lower Stemmons/I-35E 8 (D) 36 (ID) $0.90 $0.90 Dallas 19 (D) C/D Canyon/I (ID) $1.20 $0.05 $1.15 E I-35E (Phase II) 18 (D) $3.20 $0.58 $2.62 Fort Worth 83 (D) F Southeast Connector $1.50 $0.27 $ (ID) G I-30 (Fort Worth) 23, 83 (ID) $0.70 Houston Austin H Hempstead (US 290) 14, 20 (D) 46, 59, 48, 16 (ID) $2.00 $2.00 I I-45 (Segment 1) 6 (D) 60, 67, 16, 21 (ID) $1.35 $1.35 J I-45 (Segment 2) 21 (D) 16, 6, 12, 10, 34 (ID) $0.77 $0.77 K I-45 (Segment 3) 3, 10, 11, 15, 34, 79, 94 (D) $2.80 $1.40 $ , 88 (ID) T L I-35 (Future North) 38, 69 (D) 2, 24, 58, 68 (ID) TBD TBD M I-35 (Central) 2, 22, 38 (D) 51, 68 (ID) $3.50 $0.13 $3.37 N I-35 (Future South) 22 (D) TBD TBD O US 183N 24, 38, 58, 68 (ID) $0.50 $0.12 Funded P I-35 66, 47 (D) $1.50 $1.50 San Antonio 90 (D) Q SL , 75 (ID) $0.88 $0.40 $0.48 TOTALS $25-30 $3.24 $

18 Funding Balances for 5 Major Metro Districts Remaining Program and Unallocated Balances Funding Category Austin Dallas Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Totals ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions) Category 2 Metro & Urban Corridor* $393 $1,008 $69 $283 $106 $1,859 Category 4 - Connectivity Urban* $225 $560 $303 $684 $255 $2,027 Category 5 CMAQ* $0 $502 $298 $850 $0 $1,650 Category 7 Metropolitan Mobility* $299 $819 $425 $729 $225 $2,497 Category 12 Clear Lanes** $466 $946 $281 $705 $320 $2,718 Subtotals 1,383 $3,835 $1,376 $3,251 $906 $10,751 Category 12- Strategic Priority Projects (Available Statewide Balance) $3,691 * Funds allocated geographically by formula ** Identified for 5 Major Metropolitan areas with long-term equity considerations (Targets were determined using the Category 2 formula) 18

19 Example Project Summaries Example project summary that has complete funding identified US 183N in Austin Example project summaries that have funding gaps I-45 Segment 3 in Houston I-35 Central in Austin I-635 LBJ East in Dallas I-820 Southeast Connector in Fort Worth I-35 in San Antonio 19

20 US 183N Project Summary Environmental Status: Delivery Method: KPM Score: 0.24 Cleared April 2016 Design-Build Economic Development US 183N Est. Const. Start: Fall 2018 Top 100 Congested Segments D: N/A ID: 24, 38, 58, 68 Financial Plan Project Cost UTP CTRMA Planned Tolled Managed Total Est. Funding Funding Gap Lanes TxDOT non-tolled project $120M $120M $120M $0 CTRMA Tolled project $380M $380M $380M $0 Total $500M $120M $380M $500M $0 Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Non-Traditional (Trad.) funding sources will be provided by CTRMA through toll revenue bonds, which may include a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan. An additional $7.2M in Category 7 money was used to fund the schematic and environmental work. Project Costs represent Design-Build costs including design, construction, right-of-way, and utilities. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) 20

21 Houston Priorities Environmental Status: Delivery KPM Score: 0.74 Spring 2018 Method: Economic Development I-45 Segment 3 Est. Const. Start: Late 2019 Design-Build Top 100 Congested Segments D: 3,10, 11, 15, 34, 79, 94 ID: 21, 88 Project MPO Planned Tolled Managed Total Est. Financial Plan: UTP Funding Gap Cost Lanes Funding Total: $2.8B $1.4B NA $2.6B $1.4B Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Project Costs reflect construction costs. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) 21

22 Austin Priorities Environmental Status: Delivery Method: KPM Score: 0.71 I-35 Austin (Central) Priority Segment Summer 2019 Est. Const. Start: Spring 2020 Design-Build Economic Development Top 100 Congested Segments: D: 2, 22, 38 ID: 51, 68 Financial Plan: Project Cost UTP MPO Planned Tolled Managed Total Est. Funding Funding Gap Lanes Total: $3.5B $0.13 $0.7B $3.37B Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) 22

23 Dallas Priorities Environmental Status: Delivery Method: KPM Score: 0.72 I-635 LBJ East Re-evaluation anticipated in Early 2019 Est. Const. Start: Design-Build Economic Development Top 100 Congested D: 62, 92 Early 2019 Segments: ID: 7, Financial Plan: Project Cost UTP MPO Planned Tolled Managed Lanes Total Est. Funding Funding Total $1.8B $0.42B $0.8B $1.38B Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Project costs reflect Design-Build costs. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) Gap 23

24 Fort Worth Priorities Environmental Status: Delivery Method: KPM Score: 0.63 Southeast Connector Anticipate in 2020 Est. Const. Start: Design-Build Economic Development Top 100 Congested D: 83 Mid 2021 Segments ID: 23 Financial Plan: Project Cost UTP MPO Planned Tolled Managed Lanes Total Est. Funding Funding Gap Scope $1.5B $0.27B NA $0.7B $1.23B Deferred Work To be determined pending further analysis of project. Components Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Project Costs represent construction and right of way costs. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) 24

25 San Antonio Priorities Environmental Status: Delivery KPM Score: 0.70 I-35 NE Expansion July 2015 Est. Const. Start: TBD Method: Design-Build Economic Development Top 100 Congested Segments: D: 66, 47 Financial Plan: Project Cost UTP MPO Planned Tolled Managed Total Est. Funding Funding Gap Lanes Priority Segment: $1.5B $0 $0 $1.5B Data reflects current estimates and is subject to change. Staff continues to analyze and refine the project scope to better determine the total project cost and funding needs. Project Costs reflect total costs. Direct (D); Indirect (ID) 25

26 Potential Major Project Prioritization Consider committing $2B of the $3.7B unallocated Category 12 Strategic Priority balances to help fill funding gaps Incorporate Design-Build project delivery strategy to help prioritize and deliver major projects Flex the UTP Categories within the 10 year window and work to complete funding gaps 26

27 Key Elements of Recommended Approach to Fund Gap Optimize use of applicable current UTP funding categories including the TexasClearLanes on non-tolled projects Prioritize projects based on combination of Key Performance Measure scoring, funding from non-traditional sources (i.e. loans - TIFIA, managed lanes and toll revenue, system financing, etc.), anticipated readiness, and other factors. Optimize use of alternative project delivery (Design-Build) with deferred priced components Position our Major Projects to take advantage of potential future fund sources Future UTP updates will allow for opportunities to apply additional funding 27