At a recent meeting the Texas Transportation Commission approved a report to >Congress, spelling out what the Commission wants. For those not familiar, >the Texas Transportation is toll-crazed and taking orders from toll fanatic >Governor Perry.>

Here are some items from list. Some don't really have meaning to me. Maybe >some of the experts out there can clarify.>

* "Allow state law to be utilized over federal law when tolling existing >portions of the federal system and allow a state to buy back parts of the >federal system for this purpose.">HF observation: That's just great. Now TxDOT wants to take over the >interstate system on its own terms and surely charge steep tolls.>

* "Allow a single contractor to handle the environmental, design, and >construction work and let the environmental work be conducted while >construction is underway.">HF: Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of an EIS? Start construction, find >environmental issues.Oops, too late, it's already being built!

* "Allow the state law to be the process for acquiring design-build >projects, rather than the cumbersome federal law.">HF: I don't know enough about this, but I suspect they want to expedite >Trans-Texas Corridors.

* "Allow unused contract authority to be sold on a state Department of >Transportation market to other state DOTs.">HF: What the hell is this? I suspect TxDOT wants to buy other states' >contract authority. But isn't contract authority an artificial construct, >anyways?>

* "Streamline environmental review.">HF: OK I can understand this one.

* "Increase the rate of return to 95 percent for all states.">HF: Finally, something we can all agree on. But the extra money will >probably go to toll projects.>

* "Allow unused contract authority to be sold on a state Department

Transportation market to other state DOTs.">

HF: What the hell is this? I suspect TxDOT wants to buy other states'

contract authority. But isn't contract authority an artificial

[Mr. Slotboom:]>

I think what Tx.D.O.T. is trying to do is to stabilize its letting>schedule by leveraging its ability to prepare P.S.&E. rapidly. Texas,>unlike some other states such as California and North Carolina, has>little history of projects being held up due to permitting issues when>the final design is essentially complete.>

This means that Texas quite often advertises a project (i.e., has final>P.S.&E. for it) and then has to yank it at the last minute because>there is not enough money (= contract authority) to commit to paying>the contractor if the contract is let and awarded; this is contrary to>the situation in North Carolina, where a project (e.g., the Clayton>Bypass) is often ready to advertise but sits on the shelf (and has its>contract authority going begging) while permitting issues are worked>out.

A few years ago, the Texas state auditor noted that Tx.D.O.T. had a>pattern of letting one-fifth to one-quarter of its total annual>contract value in the August letting, and in its response to the>auditor's draft report (cited in the final report), Tx.D.O.T. said that>this was because F.H.W.A. redistributed unused contract authority among>the states in the last month of the federal fiscal year. Tx.D.O.T.'s>August "bulge" is certainly larger and more persistent from year to>year than most other states' I know of. (Nebraska and North Carolina>have had very large midsummer lettings too, but not year after year>after year like Texas.)

If Texas has a project ready to go, for instance, and North Carolina>finds it can't use its contract authority for the current fiscal year>on a certain project and F.H.W.A. then gives North Carolina's contract>authority for that project to Texas for that state to use on its own>project, is that "free money" to Texas, or does Texas have to pay for>it at some point in the future by postponing projects while North>Carolina gets back the contract authority it had for its own previously>postpone­d project?