Further eroding our rights...
Opinion: This public draft report reveals the
relentless intentions of the
Texas Transportation Commission to end
private property rights in this state and minimize the "acquisition
costs" of the homes & lands of Texas citizens to turn our roadways
over to companies "for profit". The governor's appetite for power
and willingness to override the basic principles we have lived by for
years is without equal. Our State is knowingly & eagerly working to
expand the 3588 TTC legislation by removing all "caps" on funds
available to them and allowing "unlimited" contractual terms.
Recommendation: Communicate your opposition to your Senators &
Representatives using specific references in doing so as they meet
in Austin in January.
The Texas Transportation
Commission has released a draft report, a brief overview of the
transportation issues the commission is recommending that the 80th
Texas Legislature consider. Here is a brief outline of those
issues.
Texas
Transportation Commission Members:
Ric Williamson, Chairman
John Johnson, Member
Hope Andrade, Member
Ted Houghton, Jr., Member
December 2006
.........................Issues............................
1. Capitalizing the Texas Rail Relocation and
Improvement Fund Rail Relocation and Improvement Loans
2. Planning for and Building Non-TxDOT Rail Facilities
3. Using the Texas Enterprise Fund on Texas Rail Projects
4. Comprehensive Development Agreement Revisions
Proposed
Changes
-
Remove the 8/31/2011 sunset date for CDAs.
Removing the CDA sunset date would make CDAs a longer-term option
for transportation project delivery and would signal stability to
the transportation industry, including potential contractors.
-
Authorize TxDOT to issue bonds to fund a project
in case the CDA is terminated
before completion.
-
Allow TxDOT to enter into CDAs for projects that are not a
part of the Trans-Texas
Corridor and are non-tolled.
Allowing TxDOT to enter into CDAs for non-tolled and
partially-tolled projects would provide a procurement alternative
(design-build) that
expedites the completion of needed projects.
-
Remove the statutory cap of 50/70 years on the term of a CDA.
Removing the cap on the term of a CDA would allow TxDOT greater
flexibility in negotiating contracts, which could result in more
favorable economic terms.
-
Remove the statutory cap
on the amount of state highway funds and Texas mobility funds
that TxDOT may spend on CDAs. Removing the funding
cap for CDAs would enable TxDOT to enter into agreements without
uncertainty as to whether the funds will be available.
-
Clarify that the department may enter into a CDA under which
contract claims and other disputes that might arise under the CDA
may be resolved through binding arbitration. An
independent dispute resolution process
is needed to encourage private entities to submit proposals and
enter into contracts for CDAs.
5. Competition for CDAs
Proposed Changes
Allow
local toll authorities to
compete for TxDOT CDAs on a level playing field with the private
sector.
6. Regional Toll Road Issues
7. Toll Enforcement Provisions
8. Authority to Conduct Environmental Reviews and Approvals
Proposed Changes
In order for Texas to participate in this program, the legislature
must authorize TxDOT to assume certain responsibilities held by the
Secretary of Transportation. In addition to authorizing TxDOT to
assume these responsibilities, the
legislature must provide a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in
statute that allows persons to challenge in federal court the
actions TxDOT takes pursuant to the delegation.
The legislature should also clarify TxDOT’s authority concerning
Transportation Enhancement projects and Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality improvements, to make more explicit TxDOT’s authority to
expend funds and to contract for non-highway work on projects such
as these. This proposal will allow Texas to participate in these
new and innovative programs, and participation will expedite
completion of needed transportation projects.
9. County Corridor Planning
The Issue
When it becomes known that a highway is planned for a certain route,
speculators will often purchase adjacent properties and subdivide
them. Although certainly there may be several reasons for this, what
is clear is that state law prevents counties from regulating
development around future transportation corridors. This problem
costs state and local governments considerable money in increased
right-of-way costs, and will become an even more significant problem
as the state undertakes new initiatives to address Texas’ mobility
challenges.
If legislation is passed to remedy this issue, the time to develop
projects could decrease and therefore the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) would be able to improve congestion, air
quality, safety, and economic opportunity in the state in less time.
In addition, it would increase the value of Texas’ transportation
assets because time and money could be saved when space is set aside
for needed capacity improvements on existing transportation
facilities.
Proposed Remedy
There are a few ways to remedy the problem that has been described:
First, if the department and counties had express authority to enter
into agreements for the purpose of identifying future transportation
corridors within the county, then many of the planning problems
discussed here could be remedied. The corridors identified in the
agreement must be derived from existing transportation and major
thoroughfare plans adopted by the county or a metropolitan planning
organization in concert with TxDOT.
Second, a proposed subdivision plat must state whether the
subdivision is located on land within a future transportation
corridor as identified in such an agreement. This will ensure that
everyone, county officials, developers and future property owners
will be aware that the land may be used for such a purpose in the
future.
Third, each purchase contract or lease made between a developer and
a purchaser or
lessee of land in the subdivision needs to contain a statement that
the land is within a future transportation corridor. Again, a better
informed buyer is the purpose here. Finally,
commissioners’ courts would have
the permissive ability to refuse to approve a plat if an
environmental study of a project in a future corridor had begun.
10. Jurisdiction in Eminent Domain Cases
The Issue
County courts at law and most state district courts have concurrent
jurisdiction in eminent domain cases. However, condemning
authorities are required to file eminent domain petitions with the
county clerk in counties that have one or more county courts at law.
So while most district courts have jurisdiction over eminent domain
cases, these cases must be filed in county courts at law in counties
that have them. Because the most populated counties in Texas have
county courts at law; and because most large public improvement
projects that are underway or in development are in populated areas,
it would be more efficient to allow the district courts, in addition
to the county courts at law, to process eminent domain cases.
Proposed Remedy
In order to establish uniformity throughout the state and to ensure
that eminent domain cases are processed as expeditiously as
possible, the provisions of 21.013 of the Property Code should
provide that
a party initiating a condemnation proceeding shall file with
the clerk of any court with jurisdiction in eminent domain cases.
And Section 21.001 of the Property Code should establish that all
district courts and county courts at law have concurrent
jurisdiction in eminent domain cases. This latter provision would
ensure that the 25 district courts in Harris County would be able to
process eminent domain cases in addition to the four County Courts
at Law that currently have exclusive jurisdiction.
11. Advanced Acquisition of Right of Way
The Issue
Current state law restricts TxDOT’s ability to acquire real property
prior to selecting the location or alignment of the project. This
can increase the cost of right of way and the length of time to
deliver highway projects, which in turn increases overall project
costs.
The restrictions also inhibit the ability of TxDOT to compete for
readily developable
land. In addition, the restrictive nature of Texas statutes prevent
TxDOT from benefiting from the opportunities to use federal funds
for advance acquisition. The federal government has recognized the
State interest in advance acquisition of right of way to streamline
project delivery and reduce costs.
Proposed Remedy
TxDOT seeks the authority for advance acquisition to allow more
business-like practices and reduce right of way acquisition costs.
The proposed remedy would provide TxDOT the authority to acquire
property within identified areas that will be needed for a preferred
alignment from willing sellers. Under this authority, property would
be purchased within such areas when it becomes available on the open
market. The remedy would be targeted on areas where private
development might adversely affect lands needed for planned
improvements. This authority is not intended to be applied to all
projects, since not all future projects are located in areas where
further private development would impact land required by the
preferred alignment.
12. Billboard Relocation
13. Utility Relocation
14. Qualifications Based-Best Value Engineering
15. Automated Camera Enforcement
16. Transfer of Crash Records Bureau
17. Exclusive Truck Lanes
18. Sobriety Checkpoints
19. Variable Speed Limits
20. Non-Right of Way Property Acquisition,
Exchange, and Sale
21. Payment of Compensatory Time
22. Administration of Transportation Services for Human Services
Agencies
23. Lemon Law Eligibility
24. Temporary Dealer Tags
25. Dealer License Term Increases
26. Motor Carrier and Vehicle Storage Facility Enforcement
Authority
27. Fuel Tax Collection Administrative Fee
28. Motor Fuel
Tax Allocation
|
