DRAFT UTP November Update - Funding Adjustments Summary EXHIBIT A REVISION DATE 11/7/14. (Amounts in millions) Sum $0

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "DRAFT UTP November Update - Funding Adjustments Summary EXHIBIT A REVISION DATE 11/7/14. (Amounts in millions) Sum $0"

Leslie Hancock
6 years ago
Views:

$175,000,000 Sum $175,000,000 Dallas 3 Cat 3 TMF FY 2016 $60,000,000 3 Cat 3 TMF FY 2017 ($60,000,000) Funding is being transferred from fiscal

1 UTP November Update - Funding Adjustments Summary (Amounts in millions) District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Austin 3 SH 130 Concession FY $6,500,000 3 SH 130 Concession FY 2017 ($6,500,000) Sum Corpus Christi Cat Strategic Priority FY $175,000,000 Sum $175,000,000 Dallas 3 Cat 3 TMF FY 2016 $60,000,000 3 Cat 3 TMF FY 2017 ($60,000,000) Funding is being transferred from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal 2016 in response to DART request. Sum Fort Worth 3 Cat 3 TMFDFW FY $2,500,000 3 Cat 3 TMFDFW FY 2020 ($2,500,000) Page 1 of 6 Sum

2 District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Houston 3 Cat 3 TMF FY $25,000,000 Adjustment deferred. Commission action no longer proposed for November UTP Update 3 Cat 3 TMF FY 2017 ($25,000,000) Adjustment deferred. Commission action no longer proposed for November UTP Update Cat Strategic Priority FY $25,000,000 Sum $25,000,000 Pharr Cat Strategic Priority FY $5,000,000 Sum $5,000,000 San Angelo Cat Strategic Priority - 2B initiative FY 2018 $1,150,000 Sum $1,150,000 Tyler Cat Strategic Priority FY $10,940,000 Sum $10,940,000 Yoakum Cat Strategic Priority FY $10,000,000 Sum $10,000,000 (AUS) CA TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $3,780,000 Page 2 of 6

3 District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (AUS) CA TMA $320,000 Sum $4,100,000 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY $10,810,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $14,390,000 $1,220,000 Sum $26,420,000 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $890,000 $80,000 Sum $970,000 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY $,670,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $15,240,000 $1,290,000 Sum $29,200,000 Page 3 of 6

4 District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (ELP) El Paso TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY $1,450,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $2,140,000 $180,000 Sum $3,770,000 (LRD) Laredo TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $650,000 $60,000 Sum $710,000 (LBB) Lubbock TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $660,000 $60,000 Sum $720,000 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $2,020,000 $170,000 Sum $2,190,000 Page 4 of 6

5 District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (PHR) Brownsville TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $610,000 $50,000 Sum $660,000 (SAT) AA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $4,880,000 $420,000 Sum $5,300,000 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY $610,000 $50,000 Sum $660,000 Statewide 1 Cat 1 Statewide FY $201,000,000 Funding is being transferred in response to the LBB and OOG approving $402M in funding for energy and safety projects. 8 Cat 8 Statewide FY $201,000,000 Funding is being transferred in response to the LBB and OOG approving $402M in funding for energy and safety projects. Sum $402,000,000 PTN $2,040,000 Page 5 of 6

6 District/Division//TMA Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Sum $2,040,000 Statewide Unallocated Cat Strategic Priority FY ($302,680,000) Cat Strategic Priority FY $622,000,000 Cat Strategic Priority FY ($402,000,000) Cat Strategic Priority FY 2018 ($1,150,000) Grand Sum ($83,830,000) $622,000,000 Page 6 of 6

7 Unified Transportation Program Austin District TRAVIS AUSTIN Limits From METRORAIL RED LINE IN LEANDER CA Travis County VA Limits To AUSTIN DOWNTOWN STATION Ranking Tier 2 Project CONSTRUCT AUSTIN DOWNTOWN STATION AND PURCHASE FOUR (4) CAPITAL METRORAIL VEHICLES Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $2,481,916 ROW & Utilities Construction $50,651,348 Construction Engineering $2,476,851 Contingencies $572,360 Indirect Costs $2,907,387 Potential Change Orders $2,107,096 Project Cost $61,196,958 3 TMF $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:21 PM

8 Unified Transportation Program Corpus Christi District Limits From Limits To NUECES CORPUS CHRISTI CORPUS CHRISTI REVISED BEACH AVENUE MORGAN AVENUE AT CROSSTOWN EXPWY Project CONSTRUCT NEW BRIDGE, APPROACHES, INTERCHANGES AND HIGHWAY IMPROVE Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $30,277,662 ROW & Utilities $98,500,000 Construction $617,911,467 Construction Engineering $46,034,404 Contingencies Indirect Costs $35,468,118 Potential Change Orders $14,768,084 Project Cost $842,959, M Nueces County US 181 Ranking Tier 1 STRATEGIC PRIORITY BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM METRO CORRIDOR BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM $175,000,000 $97,000,000 $6,300,000 $,600,000 $97,000,000 $6,400,000 $97,000,000 $6,500,000 $200,000,000 $175,000,000 $97,000,000 $6,300,000 $,600,000 $97,000,000 $6,400,000 $97,000,000 $6,500,000 $200,000,000 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $110,000,000 $110,000,000 $807,800,000 $807,800,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

9 Unified Transportation Program Dallas District DALLAS DALLAS DALLAS-FORT WORTH Limits From DART RED & BLUE LINES IN DALLAS CO Limits To US 75;IH 35E;SS 366;IH 30;AND I-345 Dallas County VA Ranking Tier Project OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS; EXTEND STATION PLATFORMS TO ACCOMODATE LONGER TRAINS W/50% MORE PASSENGERS INTO DOWNTOWN Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $3,263,293 ROW & Utilities Construction $66,597,808 Construction Engineering $4,248,940 Contingencies $859,1 Indirect Costs $3,822,714 Potential Change Orders $3,849,353 Project Cost $82,641, District DALLAS Limits From IH 35E Limits To 3 TMF $60,000,000 $60,000,000 $60,000,000 $60,000,000 REVISED DALLAS IH 45 IN WILMER/HUTCHINS Project CONSTRUCT 0 TO 2/3 LANE FRONTAGE ROADS Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $6,793,982 ROW & Utilities Construction $138,652,687 Construction Engineering $6,793,982 Contingencies $1,733,159 Indirect Costs $7,958,664 Potential Change Orders $7,570,437 Project Cost $169,502,910 DALLAS-FORT WORTH SL 9 Ranking Tier M RTR-SH 2 METRO CORRIDOR $21,000,000 $18,940,000 $18,940,000 $21,000, Remaining Funding to be Determined $21,000,000 $18,940,000 $39,940,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

10 Unified Transportation Program Fort Worth District TARRANT FORT WORTH Limits From DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DALLAS-FORT WORTH FORT WORTH TRANSP Tarrant County VA Limits To COTTONBELT RAILWAY Ranking Tier 2 Project CONSTRUCT NEW RAIL CONNECTION; DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INTERMODAL CONNECTION TO COTTONBELT Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $2,567 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,501,366 Construction Engineering $159,587 Contingencies $32,268 Indirect Costs $143,578 Potential Change Orders $144,579 Project Cost $3,103,945 3 TMF $2,501,366 $2,501, Remaining Funding to be Determined $2,501,366 $2,501,366 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

11 Unified Transportation Program Houston District HOUSTON Limits From IH 610 HARRIS HOUSTON-GALVESTON HOUSTON Harris County SH 288 Limits To BRAZORIA LINE Ranking Tier 1 Project CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL LANES Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $6,479,320 ROW & Utilities Construction $9,586,408 Construction Engineering $21,835,310 Contingencies $26,681,841 Indirect Costs $7,438,260 Potential Change Orders $6,103,520 Project Cost $198,4,660 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $25,000,000 $25,000, Remaining Funding to be Determined $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

12 Unified Transportation Program Pharr District CAMERON PHARR Limits VARIOUS LOCATIONS Cameron County SH 100 Limits To. Ranking Tier 2 Project INSTALL OCELOT CROSSINGS Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $6,157 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,574,631 Construction Engineering $164,261 Contingencies $33,213 Indirect Costs $147,784 Potential Change Orders $148,814 Project Cost $3,194, District CAMERON PHARR Limits VARIOUS LOCATIONS Limits To. Project INSTALL OCELOT CROSSINGS Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $6,157 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,574,631 Construction Engineering $164,261 Contingencies $33,213 Indirect Costs $147,784 Potential Change Orders $148,814 Project Cost $3,194,860 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $2,500,000 $2,500, Remaining Funding to be Determined $2,500,000 $2,500,000 SH 100 Ranking Tier 2 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $2,500,000 $2,500, Remaining Funding to be Determined $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

13 Unified Transportation Program San Angelo District SAN ANGELO Limits From AT TRACTOR TRAIL Limits To. US 67 REVISED TOM GREEN Project CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $418,348 ROW & Utilities Construction $8,537,718 Construction Engineering $400,419 Contingencies $255,278 Indirect Costs $490,065 Potential Change Orders $383,344 Project Cost $10,485,171 2U SAN ANGELO Tom Green County Ranking Tier URBAN CORRIDOR $7,590,000 $7,590,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 $8,740,000 $8,740,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

14 Unified Transportation Program San Antonio District BEXAR SAN ANTONIO Limits From VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN BEXAR Limits To. Bexar County VA Ranking Tier 2 Project BUS PURCHASE, PARK & RIDE FACILITIES, BUS STOP AMENITIES AND NEW BRAUNFELS AVE IMPROVEMENTS Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $1,771,747 ROW & Utilities Construction $36,158,110 Construction Engineering $2,306,887 Contingencies $466,440 Indirect Costs $2,075,475 Potential Change Orders $2,089,939 Project Cost $44,868, TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE TMF $20,520,000 $14,480,000 $20,520,000 $14,480,000 $35,000,000 $35,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

15 Unified Transportation Program Tyler District HENDERSON TYLER Limits From 1.1 MI E OF LP LARUE, SE Limits To REVISED 0.85 MI E OF FM 315, IN POYNOR Project WIDEN 2 LNS TO 4-LANE DIVIDED RURAL WITH DEPRESSED MEDIAN Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $1,538,788 ROW & Utilities $7,785,2 Construction $31,403,836 Construction Engineering $1,557,630 Contingencies $624,936 Indirect Costs $1,802,580 Potential Change Orders $1,174,503 Project Cost $45,887,396 Henderson County US 175 Ranking Tier 2 STRATEGIC PRIORITY STRATEGIC PRIORITY $20,000,000 $10,940,000 $20,000,000 $10,940, Remaining Funding to be Determined $30,940,000 $30,940,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

16 Unified Transportation Program Yoakum District WHARTON YOAKUM Limits From BU 59 SOUTH OF EL CA Limits To FM 1163 REVISED Project CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE ROADS I-69 SYSTEM PROJECT (PROJECT B) Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $426,232 ROW & Utilities Construction $8,698,608 Construction Engineering $431,451 Contingencies $173,102 Indirect Costs $499,300 Potential Change Orders $325,328 Project Cost $10,554, District WHARTON YOAKUM Limits From 0.17 MI. WEST OF SH 71 Limits To 0. MI. EAST OF FM Project CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE ROADS Project Cost Information Preliminary Engineering $372,067 ROW & Utilities Construction $7,593,203 Construction Engineering $376,623 Contingencies $151,105 Indirect Costs $435,850 Potential Change Orders $283,986 Project Cost $9,2,833 Wharton County US 59 Ranking Tier 2 LOCAL STRATEGIC PRIORITY $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,000,000 US 59 REVISED 3 Ranking Tier 2 LOCAL STRATEGIC PRIORITY $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

17 Project Selection Process Putting Great Ideas in Motion Understanding TxDOT s project selection process helps Texans understand how the roads and bridges they drive on every day are selected for funding. Learning how projects are prioritized and how funding is structured helps Texans know how they can participate in the process, make suggestions, and propose projects to address the transportation problems they face. As the department continues to develop and enhance the project process, its goal is to provide the public with as many interaction opportunities as possible to help the department seek new, innovative, and creative ways for the available funds to do the most good for the people of Texas. Project Development Sequence and Programming In order for TxDOT s project development process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be preliminarily identified years in advance of their actual funding and construction award. A project must pass through many development steps, generally including identifying a need, exploring alternatives, studying impacts and cost, gathering local stakeholder and public input, acquiring right of way, producing construction plans, and awarding construction contracts. At any point during this process, a decision may be made not to implement the project, or the project definition may change to better meet the needs and balance community, environmental, and cost considerations. An important factor in the above process is the amount of funds available to construct projects. As explained in the Authority section under the Categories, Codes, and Levels section, for the purpose of the UTP, the steps required in project development have been organized into four levels of development authority: PLAN, DEVELOP, CONSTRUCT, and LET. The Texas Transportation Commission uses these levels of authority to authorize the district to complete the development actions included in each level. Depending on the category of funding, TxDOT, in collaboration with the as appropriate, selects the projects that fit within the financial constraint of the allocations for the relevant time period. For the purpose of the UTP, this process may be summarized as a project readiness sequence, as shown in Figure IX-2. The general relationship of level of authority to the timeline of the UTP is as follows: Projects listed in the first 4 years of the UTP are authorized for a CONSTRUCT level of authority. Projects in the later 6 years of the UTP are authorized for a DEVELOP level of authority. Projects with the PLAN level of authority are typically at a stage that is prior to the UTP and therefore are generally not included in the UTP. Unified Transportation Program IX-26 Version August 7, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

Figure IX-2 Project Readiness Sequence Project Selection: Planning in Practice Overall, the intent of the department s project selection process is that it be consistent with the department s goals;

18 Figure IX-2 Project Readiness Sequence Project Selection: Planning in Practice Overall, the intent of the department s project selection process is that it be consistent with the department s goals; the need for the project to address these goals is a primary driver of projects moving forward into implementation. However, project selection is also guided by the funding available for project implementation. This constraint is explained in the Project Funding 101 section, and is key to understanding the complexity of prioritizing and selecting projects across TxDOT s entire program. Table IX-1 contains a summary of the UTP funding categories and the various project selection methods by category. Funding 1. Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation 2. Metropolitan and Urban Area Corridor Projects 3. Non-traditionally Funded Transportation Projects 4. Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects 5. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 6. Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Bridge Program, Railroad Grade Separation Program 7. Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation Table IX-1 Overview of Project Selection by Project Selection Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. Projects selected by s in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. Projects determined by legislation, Texas Transportation Commission approved Minute Order, and local government commitments. Selections based on engineering analysis of projects on three corridor types: Mobility corridors based on congestion. Connectivity corridors two-lane roadways requiring upgrade to four-lane divided roadways. Strategic corridors strategic corridor additions to the state highway network. An example is the Ports-to-Plains corridor. Projects selected by s in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds distributed by population weighted by air quality severity to non-attainment areas. Non-attainment areas are designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Projects selected by the Bridge Division (BRG) based on a listing of eligible bridges prioritized first by Deficiency Categorization (Structurally Deficient followed by Functionally Obsolete) and then by Sufficiency Ratings. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through the Statewide Allocation Program. Projects selected by s operating in transportation management areas, in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a federal program, distributed to s with an urbanized area population of 200,000 or greater (transportation management areas [TMAs]). Unified Transportation Program IX-27 Version August 7, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

19 Funding 8. Safety Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Federal Railway-Highway Crossing Program, Safety Bond Program 9. Transportation Enhancements 9. Transportation Alternatives 10. Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI) and Congressional High Priority Projects 10. Supplemental Transportation Projects: State Park Roads, Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking, Railroad Signal Maintenance, Landscape Incentive Awards, Green Ribbon Landscape Improvement, Curb Ramp Program Project Selection Projects selected statewide by federally mandated safety indices and prioritized listing. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through the Statewide Allocation Program. Projects nominated by local entities; TxDOT, in consultation with FHWA, evaluates the projects for eligibility and makes recommendations to the Texas Transportation Commission. TMAs select and rank projects within their areas in consultation with TxDOT. Projects in the Safety Rest Area Program are selected by the TxDOT Maintenance Division (MNT). For statewide allocation, projects nominated by local entities; TxDOT, in consultation with FHWA, reviews the projects. Eligible projects are selected and approved by the Texas Transportation Commission on a per-project basis. For TMA allocation, the respective TMA hosts program calls and selects eligible projects. CBI projects selected by districts with FHWA review and approval. Discretionary funds are congressionally designated. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) selects State Park Road projects in coordination with districts. The TxDOT Traffic Division in coordination with districts selects Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking and Railroad Signal Maintenance projects. Landscape Incentive Awards are distributed to 10 locations based on the results of the Keep Texas Beautiful Awards Program and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Green Ribbon Allocations are based on one-half percent of the estimated letting capacity for the TxDOT districts that contain air quality non-attainment or near non-attainment counties and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Curb Ramp projects are selected based on conditions of curb ramps or location of intersections without ramps and managed by the Design Division. 11. District Discretionary Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. A minimum $2.5 million allocation goes to each district per legislative mandate.. Strategic Priority The Texas Transportation Commission selects projects. Unified Transportation Program IX-28 Modified October 1, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION Texas Transportation Commission Workshop 06/29/16 Commission Workshop Outline Introduction of performance-based planning and programming processes.