statewide transportation reportftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/2040/2018-report.pdftxdot has...

Texas Transportation Plan (TTP) 2040

Statewide Transportation Report

Transportation Planning and Programming (TPP)

Statewide Planning September 2018

This Document is released for the purposes of interim review under the authority of TPP on

September 14, 2018. It is not to be used for construction, bidding, recordation, conveyance,

sales, or as the basis for the issuance of a permit.

2018 Texas Transportation Plan 2040 Implementation Progress

2

Table of Contents

1.0 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 DISCUSSION OF PROGRESS TOWARDS STATEWIDE GOALS .................................. 5 3.0 ANALYSIS OF FUNDING ................................................................................................. 14 4.0 STATUS OF MAJOR PROJECTS ...................................................................................... 29 5.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION BENCHMARKS ............................... 30 6.0 ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL FORECAST ..................................................................... 33

List of Figures

Figure 1. Performance-based Planning and Programming Framework .......................................... 4 Figure 2: Annual Fatalities/100M VMT ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Annual Serious Injuries/100M VMT .............................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Annual Total Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries ............................................ 7 Figure 5: Percent NHS Bridge Deck Area Rated Structurally Deficient ........................................ 8 Figure 5: Percentage of "Good or Better" Texas Bidges, 2006-2016 ............................................. 8 Figure 6: Lane-Miles in Good or Better Condition ........................................................................ 9 Figure 7: Reliability Measures ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8: Average Annual Delay Per Person ................................................................................ 11 Figure 9: Proposition 7 Funding ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Safety: Fatalities ................................. 24 Figure 11: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Safety: Fatality Rate ........................... 25 Figure 12: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Preservation: Pavement ...................... 25 Figure 13: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Preservation: Bridge Condition .......... 25 Figure 14: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance – Congestion Mitigation ....................... 26 Figure 15: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance – Connectivity Enhancement ................ 26 Figure 16: Project Programming Cycle ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 18: FY 2018 State Highway Fund Revenue ...................................................................... 33

List of Tables

Table 1 : Distribution of UTP Funds .............................................................................................. 5 Table 2 : Customer Satisfaction Survey....................................................................................... 13 Table 3 : TxDOT Funding Categories .......................................................................................... 16 Table 4 : Funding and System Performance Alignment ............................................................... 19 Table 5: Investment Crosswalk Matrix ......................................................................................... 20 Table 6 : Sample Investment Crosswalk ....................................................................................... 21 Table 7: Sample Investment Distribution Scenarios ..................................................................... 24 Table 8 : 2019 UTP Investment Distribution ................................................................................ 27 Table 9 : Projected 10-year Outcomes .......................................................................................... 27 Table 10: Quarterly Review Process Benchmarks........................................................................ 31 Table 11: Project Implementation Benchmarks ............................................................................ 32 Table 12 : State Highway Fund Projected versus Actual Receipts’ ............................................. 33


3

1.0 OVERVIEW

As stewards of public infrastructure, the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT’s) staff

is responsible for achieving a balance among the need to keep Texas roads, structures, and

facilities safe and secure, in a state-of-good-repair, increase reliable travel choices free of

congestion, support economic development, preserve environmental and historical resources, and

enhance connectivity for system users. Yet resources are limited. To ensure the maximum

return-on-investment for transportation expenditures and make progress towards statewide goals,

TxDOT has instituted data-driven project evaluation improvements as part of its performance-

based planning and programming process.

This process begins with the development of the statewide long-range transportation plan

(SLRTP). During the long-range planning process, the state establishes goals, develops

performance measures and establishes targets for the statewide transportation system which set

the direction for future infrastructure investment. The Texas Transportation Plan 2040 (TTP

2040) is the current long-range plan. The TTP 2040 established the agency goals and objectives

and detailed a performance-based planning framework (Figure 1) that empowers TxDOT to more

effectively allocate resources towards achieving these goals and objectives.

This planning process serves as a guide for project programming -- the process of matching

projects to available funding. This programming is done through the Unified Transportation

Program (UTP), TxDOT’s 10-year plan that guides programming and development of

transportation projects across the state. The UTP, which is organized into 12 funding categories,

authorizes the distribution of transportation dollars expected to be available over the next ten

years. The UTP connects the TTP 2040’s statewide transportation goals and targets to the

transportation projects that will be developed and constructed based on the forecasted funding.

The strategic direction of the planning and programming process reflects the state's priorities and

is based on investment profiles that aim to achieve specific goals, system performance measures

and approved targets. Strategic direction is then translated into project evaluation criteria and

metrics designed to identify projects that best align with established system performance

measures and targets. This alignment allows TxDOT to identify and invest in the best programs

and projects to improve the state’s system.

This can be a “top-down” or a “bottom-up” process. A “top-down” process is one in which

funding was distributed through prescribed categories across the state. To be a purely

performance-driven program, however, as was defined in the TTP 2040, the project selection

process would work from the bottom up. That is, a financially unconstrained list of projects

would be assessed and those projects with the highest performance scores and return on

investment would be selected. To address our obligation to be fair and equitable to all Texans


4

across the state and because many of TxDOT’s funding category distributions are mandated by

state law, a hybrid approach is required.

This hybrid approach to the development of the UTP takes both a “top-down” and a “bottom-up”

approach. Initially, the UTP is guided from the top as the Texas Transportation Commission

(Commission) distributes funding through prescribed categories that target certain project types

and outcomes. To ensure the process is performance based, however, the project selection

process works from the bottom up. TxDOT assesses a financially unconstrained list of potential

projects and selects those with the highest performance scores and return on investment. Selected

projects are then matched with available funding through the UTP categories.

Using this iterative top-down and bottom-up approach, TxDOT is able to provide overall system-

level direction based on working to achieve the performance measures and approved targets;

meet statutory requirements; and select projects that provide the best value, both statewide and

locally.

To accomplish the “bottom up” part of the process, TxDOT is using a cloud-based technology to

evaluate candidate transportation projects based on their projected benefits and impacts. This

process has strengthened TxDOT’s coordination with state Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(MPOs) by providing visibility in project assessment, helped the department comply with federal

and state requirements related to performance-based planning, and further established TxDOT as

a best-in-class transportation agency. The “top-down/bottom-up” approach is discussed further in

Section 3.0, Analysis of Funding.

Figure 1. Performance-based Planning and Programming Framework


5

2.0 DISCUSSION OF PROGRESS TOWARDS STATEWIDE GOALS

201.809(a)(1) information about the progress of each long-term transportation goal that is

identified by the statewide transportation plan

By applying a performance-based framework, TxDOT has been able to focus investment on the

most impactful projects and maximize current funding levels. One of the biggest challenges

identified in the TTP 2040 needs assessment was the ability to achieve desired performance

levels for congestion and connectivity while simultaneously maintaining a state-of-good-repair.

With over $5.5 billion in annual highway preservation needs and $9.2 billion in annual highway

expansion needs1 compared to $3.3 billion in annual multimodal funding as of 2014, TxDOT

demonstrated the need for significant additional funding to maintain current performance of the

transportation system.

The passage of Proposition 1 in 2014 and Proposition 7 in 2015 provided an additional $3.5

billion per year for development and construction of highway projects. The 2018 UTP allocated

over $70 billion in funding to address mobility, preservation/rehabilitation, and safety needs.2

Such an investment – more than twice that of the 2016 UTP – has made an immediate impact by

funding many high priority projects for development over the next ten years. However,

continued investment is needed to keep pace with growing travel demand generated by the

state’s expected population increase of 62%3 between 2015 and 2040.

Table 1: Distribution of UTP Funds

Information about the progress of each long-term transportation goal in the statewide

transportation plan is summarized in the following subsections.

1 Annualized needs in 2014 dollars through 2040 <http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/2040/plan/chapter-4.pdf> 2 Unified Transportation Program. 2018. <http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2018/utp-2018.pdf> 3 Texas Demographic Center, 2014 Texas Population Projections by Migration Scenario Data Tool Result, cited growth statistic corresponds to the observed 2000-2010 growth rate continuing into the future <http://txsdc.utsa.edu/Data/TPEPP/Projections/>

Funding Category 2014 UTP 2015 UTP 2016 UTP 2017 UTP 2018 UTP 5-Yr Trend

1 - Preventive Maintenance and Rehabil i tation 11,797,220,000$ 11,791,150,000$ 12,576,703,400$ 13,782,220,000$ 14,091,870,000$

2 - Metro and Urban Area Corridors 1,703,430,000$ 1,460,940,000$ 2,364,770,150$ 12,536,850,000$ 12,284,680,000$

3 - Non-Tradi tional ly Funded Trans porta tion Projects 7,268,830,000$ 7,323,250,000$ 5,443,480,000$ 4,571,920,000$ 5,172,990,000$

4 - Statewide Connectivity Corridors -$ -$ 603,416,750$ 11,630,070,000$ 11,550,150,000$

5 - Conges tion Mitigation and Air Qual i ty Improvement (CMAQ)1,521,430,000$ 1,520,620,000$ 1,603,430,000$ 2,168,770,000$ 2,182,990,000$

6 - Structures Replacement and Reha bil i tation (Bridges ) 2,500,000,000$ 3,000,000,000$ 3,000,000,000$ 3,223,230,000$ 3,442,730,000$

7 - Metropol i tan Mobil i ty and Reha bil i tation 2,847,270,000$ 2,805,020,000$ 2,955,680,000$ 4,240,790,000$ 4,335,730,000$

8 - Safety 1,711,310,000$ 1,860,160,000$ 1,858,400,000$ 3,177,700,000$ 3,349,310,000$

9 - Trans portation Enhancements 633,310,000$ 542,070,000$ 485,960,000$ 500,220,000$ 849,800,000$

10 - Supplemental Transportation Projects 746,060,000$ 720,790,000$ 660,120,000$ 556,760,000$ 641,560,000$

11 - Distri ct Dis cretionary 623,810,000$ 634,310,000$ 872,866,700$ 3,978,920,000$ 3,216,970,000$

12 - Stra tegic Priority 2,305,730,000$ 2,797,210,000$ 3,085,083,000$ 9,827,530,000$ 10,108,520,000$

Total 33,658,400,000$ 34,455,520,000$ 35,509,910,000$ 70,194,980,000$ 71,227,300,000$

UTP Funding by Category, FY 2014-2018


6

� GOAL - PROMOTE SAFETY

� Reduce crashes and fatalities through targeted infrastructure improvements, technology

applications, and education.

Safety has always been the top priority at TxDOT. Safety measures identified in the TTP 2040

include statewide annual total fatalities and statewide annual total serious injuries. TxDOT’s

subsequent 2017-2022 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes these measures, but adds

measures of fatalities and serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a

measure of statewide annual combined total non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries; these

additional measures match federally mandated national safety performance measures. TxDOT’s

safety measure performance, particularly for fatalities, correlates with Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT), which are growing at 1.8% annually across Texas. To counteract the adverse impact of

VMT growth on safety performance, the 2018 UTP directed more funding to safety

countermeasure projects in the emphasis areas identified as part of the SHSP, including those

that address intersections, speeding, road and lane departures, and non-motorized crashes. Based

on these investments, the SHSP sets targets for safety performance in 2022, which are depicted

in the Figures 3, 4 and 5 below.

Figure 2: Annual Fatalities/100M VMT

Figure 3: Annual Serious Injuries/100M VMT

1.29

1.45

1.53

1.45

1.5

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Fatalities per 100 M VMT

Observed Fatality Rate Projected Fatality Rate SHSP Target

TTP 2040 Adoption

6.8

7.05

6.71

6.47

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Serious Injuries per 100 M VMT

Observed Serious Injuries Trend line/ Target Prediction

TTP 2040 Adoption


7

Figure 4: Annual Total Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries

� GOAL - PRESERVE OUR ASSETS

� Maintain and preserve system/asset conditions through targeted infrastructure

rehabilitation, restoration and replacement.

Bridges - The recent increase in UTP funding has enabled TxDOT to mitigate risk associated

with high priority structures while applying timely, preventive maintenance treatments to a

strategic subset of Texas bridges and culverts in order to extend infrastructure service life at the

lowest practicable cost. While the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and TxDOT use

many bridge performance metrics, the primary bridge preservation measure identified in

TxDOT’s TTP is the percent of National Highway System (NHS) and non-NHS on-system

bridge deck area rated “structurally deficient” (SD).

Prior to 2017, TxDOT’s primary network performance measure was the statewide percent of

“good or better” bridges. This measure had been used for several years as the principal decision-

making aid to evaluate funding alternatives on a planning scale. A good or better bridge is one

that is not classified as SD, “functionally obsolete” (FO), or substandard for load only. This is

similar to FHWA’s national measure of bridges in ‘poor’ condition. The good or better bridges

performance measure score is simply the percent of bridges (by count) classified as good or

better. Historically, much of TxDOT’s bridge funding has been directed toward improving this

measure through replacing bridges not classified as good or better.

With respect to the national bridge measures, TxDOT has leveraged the increased funding to

reduce ‘poor’ (equivalent to ‘structurally deficient’) bridge deck area on the NHS from 1.3% in

2014 to 1% in 2016. (Figure 6).4 This is well below FHWA’s maximum threshold of 10% bridge

deck area on the NHS rated in poor condition. TxDOT’s 2016 Report on Texas Bridges describes

how TxDOT adopted a goal in 2001 that 80 percent of all bridges (including 17,153 ‘off-system’

4 Draft Texas Transportation Asset Management Plan 2019.

2,696

2,224

2,642

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Observed Fatalities and Serious Injuries Projected Fatalities and Serious Injuries

SHSP Target

TTP 2040 Adoption


8

bridges owned by local jurisdictions) should be in good or better condition (i.e., bridges that are

not categorized as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete). According to that report, the 80

percent good or better target has been met or exceeded since 2011 (Figure 6).

Figure 5: Percent NHS Bridge Deck Area Rated Structurally Deficient

Figure 6: Percentage of “Good or Better” Texas Bridges, 2006-2016

TxDOT will need to remain vigilant, however, since 54% of the state’s on-system structures

were constructed before 19705 and a wave of preservation needs is expected as these bridges

reach the end of their design lives, which is typically 40-60 years.6 Approximately $1.5 billion

(2014 dollars) in bridge investments will be required annually to keep pace with condition

declines for aging Texas structures7.

Pavement – Texas maintains and operates nearly 196,000 lane-miles of pavement far exceeding

the scale of any other state’s roadway network.8 Ensuring a smooth ride for Texas transportation

system users and sufficient structural pavement integrity for freight traffic on such a vast

network is a continual and growing challenge as new highway capacity is added. The pavement

preservation measures identified in TxDOT’s TTP are percentage of NHS and non-NHS lane-

miles with a “good” or “better” International Roughness Index (IRI) and overall pavement

5 2016 Report on Texas Bridges <http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/gov/bridge/fy16.pdf> 6 NCHRP Report 713: Estimating Life Expectancies of Highway Assets <http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/167189.aspx> 7 TTP 2040 http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/2040/plan/chapter-4.pdf 8 2016 Roadway Inventory Annual Report <http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/roadway-inventory/2016.pdf>

2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 2.2% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Texas Annual Percent Structurally Deficient NHS Deck Area

% Structurally Deficient NHS Deck Area Minimum Condition Level

77% 78%79%

80%80% 81%

81% 81% 82% 82% 82%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percentage of "Good or Better" Texas Bridges


9

condition score, which combines IRI data with a pavement distress score. National pavement

measures established by FHWA combine similar data to rate pavement as “good,” “fair,” or

“poor.” With the additional UTP funding, TxDOT has been able to keep 86% of all NHS and

non-NHS state system roads in “good” or “better” rated condition, which is similar to the federal

definition of “good” pavement performance. Additionally, only 4% of NHS Interstate is in poor

condition, which is below the maximum federal threshold of 5% for NHS Interstate pavement in

poor condition.9

Overall, however, Texas is slowly losing ground to an estimated $4.0 billion in annual pavement

needs through 2040 (2014 dollars)10. The influx of funding has served as a stop-gap but “good”

or “better” rated pavement lane-miles have declined by nearly 1% statewide and by 1.6% on

energy sector routes due to heavy truck traffic between 2014 and 2017 (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Lane-Miles in Good or Better Condition

9 Texas Transportation Asset Management Plan 10 TTP 2040 http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/2040/plan/chapter-4.pdf

TTP 2040 Adoption


10

� GOAL - OPTIMIZE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

� Enhance mobility, reliability, connectivity and mitigate congestion through targeted

infrastructure and operational improvements.

Measurable congestion relief on a statewide scale requires considerable time to achieve.

Nonetheless, TxDOT has made investments designed to better manage system performance since

adoption of the TTP 2040, which identified Level of Service (LOS), total delay, and a

Congestion Severity Index as measures for urban and rural areas of the state. In 2017, FHWA

finalized national performance measures for travel time reliability on the NHS and TxDOT is

taking steps to integrate these national measures with its own system performance goal and

measures. TxDOT’s performance dashboard tracks several system performance measures

including:

1) Urban congestion (ratio of average travel time to free-flow travel time);

2) Urban travel time reliability (ratio of 95th percentile travel time to free-flow travel

time);

3) Rural travel time reliability (for areas with populations of less than 50,000);

4) Truck travel time reliability (for commercial trucks only); and

5) Average annual delay per person.

Data for TxDOT’s system performance dashboard measures (Figures 8 and 9) suggest urban,

rural, and truck system performance in terms of congestion and travel reliability is improving

slightly, while annual hours of delay per person are about the same. As population growth and

urbanization trends within the Texas triangle continue upward, system performance will face

continued pressure. “Smart” cities and technologies are currently being evaluated by TxDOT to

help make progress in urban areas given the high costs, limited right-of-way, and technical

challenge of adding capacity in confined spaces.


11

Figure 8: Reliability Measures

Figure 9: Average Annual Delay Per Person

TTP 2040 Adoption

TTP 2040

TTP 2040 Adoption


12

� OPTIMIZE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY

� Provide transportation choices and improve system connectivity for all passenger and

freight modes

� Provide and improve access to jobs, transportation choices, and services for all Texans

� Provide safe and convenient travel choices for all Texans with a focus on the complete

trip

� Support the efficient and coordinated movement of goods and services between freight

modes to facilitate statewide, national, and global commerce

� Support multimodal and intermodal planning, project development, and investments

� Improve connectivity between urban, suburban, and rural areas and between travel modes

The Texas Transportation Commission targeted $11.5 billion for ten years in Category 4 -

Statewide Connectivity Category in the 2018 Unified Transportation Program. This includes

both urban and rural (regional) areas. Projects were selected in part through the use of predictive

performance analysis to “score” each project. Included in the total scoring criteria is the

“Enhance Connectivity” criterion. This criterion focuses on whether the roadway to be improved

is on the Texas Trunk System and if it is an intermodal connector. The criterion also looks how

the proposed improvements will affect access and reliability of the system and any additional

lane miles that may be added.

� FOSTER STEWARDSHIP

� Manage resources responsibly and be accountable and transparent in decision-making

� Identify sustainable funding sources and leverage resources wisely to maximize the value

of investments and minimize negative impacts

� Develop and implement a project development process that recognizes quality-of-life

concerns for all system users and future generations of Texans

� Link transportation planning with land use - Reduce project delivery delays - Coordinate

project planning and delivery with all planning partners and stakeholders

� Minimize impacts to natural, cultural, and historic resources and promote sustainability in

project design and delivery

TxDOT uses a multi-objective decision analysis tool to prioritize and select projects that will

optimize system performance focusing on statewide goals. The analysis tool provides a

consensus-based approach to setting measures and targets while maximizing the value of the

investment. Several training session throughout the state have occurred ensuring that not only

TxDOT divisions and districts have been trained on and provided the analytical tool, but MPOs

and Council of Governments have been given the opportunity to prioritize projects in a fiscally

constrained approach. The data driven approach creates accountability and transparency in

project selection by optimizing trade-offs required to reach statewide performance targets. Early


13

project selection can begin to set the stage for a meaningful project development process by

increasing project coordination and selecting projects that include benefits to all system users.

� FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER

� Understand and incorporate customer desires in decision processes and be open and

forthright in all agency communications

� Collect and integrate feedback using innovative engagement techniques and technology

� Promote and enable public participation in project planning and development - Improve

accessibility of information through innovative, understandable, and relatable

communication techniques

� Educate the public and stakeholders on transportation costs, funding availability, and

investment tradeoffs

TxDOT had a third-party conduct an anonymous customer satisfaction survey in order to collect

feedback on the public’s satisfaction with TxDOT’s business services including customer

service. According to a survey conducted in April 2018, all average satisfaction scores are above

60%. However, input from the general public shows the need for more effective public

engagement.11

Table 2: Customer Satisfaction Survey

� MAINTAIN SUSTAINABLE FUNDING:

� Identify and sustain funding sources for all modes

� Identify and document costs to meet the state’s future transportation needs - Consider all

funding sources to fill the needs-to-revenues gap

� Educate the public and stakeholders on the costs associated with constructing and

preserving the system

� Evaluate the feasibility of innovative financing solutions

11 Customer Satisfaction Survey. May 2018. <http://ftp.dot.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/sla/satisfaction-survey-2018.pdf>

TxDOTDistrict

OfficeStaff

Complaint

HandlingCommunications

Internet

SiteTimeliness Offices Publications

All Groups

Combined65% 69% 80% 57% 69% 68% 68% 78% 78%

General Public 37% 43% 63% 42% 49% 55% 44% 57% 58%

Local

Governments71% 75% 86% 60% 74% 70% 72% 83% 80%

Public

Involvement77% 80% 83% 65% 73% 61% 70% 78% 83%

Texas Highways

Magazine79% 80% 85% 67% 80% 80% 79% 82% 86%

Travel

Information

Centers

85% 80% 74% 42% 64% 50% 73% 73% 75%


14

� Improve predictive capabilities for revenue forecasting and long-term needs assessments

Throughout the SLRTP planning process, TxDOT had engaged the public to educate them on the

costs associated with maintaining and improving the system. As a result of developing scenarios

for TTP 2040, Propositions 1 and 7 were passed to help make an immediate impact on the rising

demands of the highway system (Figure 10). With a diminishing value of fuel tax revenues,

TxDOT will need to consider other innovative financial strategies for further study in the TTP

2045. Newly implemented technology utilizes scenario planning ensuring the highest priority

needs are met, including expanded predictive capabilities to understand what is ‘bought’ by

TxDOT programs. TxDOT is also tracking the stewardship of investments to ensure that usage

of funds delivers projects on time and according to budget.

Figure 10: Proposition 7 Funding

3.0 ANALYSIS OF FUNDING

201.808(i)(1) Conduct a comprehensive analysis regarding the effect of funding allocations

made to funding categories described by Section 201.991(b) and project selection decisions on

accomplishing the goals described in the statewide transportation plan under Section 201.601

Performance-Based Investment Scenarios for the Unified Transportation Program

In 2018, the department applied a top-down and a bottom-up approach for the 2019 UTP cycle.

The top-down approach involved evaluating several scenarios of funding distribution and

estimated performance outcomes for safety, system preservation, congestion mitigation, and

connectivity to establish a recommended funding distribution. The bottom-up approach applied

scoring and ranking of projects in multiple portfolios to recommend projects for funding based

on each project’s contribution to key performance objectives of safety, system preservation,


15

congestion mitigation, connectivity, economic development and the environment. The details of

the project portfolio scoring are provided in the 2019 Unified Transportation Program (UTP)

document as approved by the Commission, August 30, 2019.

The investment scenario process resulted in a recommendation to the Commission for the

amount of dollars to be applied to each of the state’s 12 categories of funding, details of which

appear in the 2019 UTP document and are summarized in Table 3. Each scenario evaluated was

based on a planning financial forecast which is described in the next section. Using the planning

forecast and rules associated with each funding category, where applicable, several funding

distribution scenarios were evaluated to address a range of conditions including:

• Focus of Propositions 1 and 7 projected revenue on safety and preservation;

• Focus of Propositions 1 and 7 projected revenue on congestion mitigation;

• Balanced distribution of funding addressing safety, pavement preservation, bridge

preservation, congestion mitigation, and system connectivity; and

• Intermediate variations of the above.

For each investment distribution scenario, TxDOT estimated the effects of the proposed

investment on each of the four key performance areas (safety, preservation, congestion, and

connectivity). The amounts contributing to each performance area were summed to establish the

effective total investment that would be applied to each performance area. This analysis is

referred to as the “investment crosswalk.”

For each scenario, the investment crosswalk in each performance area was evaluated to estimate

the change in performance over a 10-year period.

The following sections identify the primary investment distribution scenarios that were

evaluated, the methods applied to estimate outcomes in the aforementioned performance areas,

the projected outcomes, and the rationale for the recommended investment distribution. The last

section documents the workshops with the Commission and their decisions that established

performance targets.


16

Category Description

1 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation

2 Metro and Urban Corridor Projects

3 Non-Traditionally Funded Transportation Projects

4 Statewide Connectivity (Regional and Urban) Corridor Projects

5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

6 Structure Replacement and Rehabilitation (Bridge)

7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation

8 Safety

9 Transportation Alternatives

10 Supplemental Transportation Projects

11 District Discretionary

12 Strategic Priority and TexasClearLanes

Table 3: TxDOT Funding Categories

Planning Financial Forecast

At TxDOT, we take our responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars seriously. One

important step to ensure we develop the right projects, at the right time, with the right funding, is

the department’s monthly cash forecast. All available funding sources are monitored and

assessed in a single financial picture to identify the actual dollar amounts available for project

letting and construction.

The cash forecast includes revenue and expenditure projections, historical revenue and

expenditures, and monthly ending and lowest daily balances for the various funding sources

appropriated to TxDOT. This enables TxDOT to proactively manage cash balances and ensure

there are sufficient funds to meet operational and project construction demands.

The cash forecast establishes fiscally constrained project schedules for letting. It projects future

cash flows based on department operations, financial participation by others, and the dollar

volumes of project commitments (i.e., lettings, change orders, interagency transfers,

underruns/overruns at the time of letting, and final payment) each month.

In September of each year, the Finance Division of TxDOT also produces a long-range revenue

forecast that is used to create a UTP planning scenario. The UTP planning scenario is a forecast

that includes additional revenue that may reasonably be expected over the 10-year period. This

scenario planning approach allows TxDOT to respond should future revenue exceed the baseline

projections.


17

The 2019-2028 Cash Forecast and UTP Planning Scenario were used for the development of the

2019 UTP. Changes from last year’s estimates are reflected in the first two years of the forecast,

which are reconciled with the current construction letting schedule.

Funding Assumptions

The UTP Planning Scenario Forecast used for the 2019 UTP was based on a set of assumptions

made in the September 2017 (Revised in April of 2018). For the UTP Planning Scenario

forecast, state motor fuels tax, vehicle registration fees, FHWA reimbursement estimates, and

other revenue estimates were updated based on more recent historical trends and anticipated

future growth rates. State motor fuels tax estimates increased due to recent historical trends and

improving economic conditions. Yearly revenue estimates from vehicle registration fees

increased slightly due to the implementation of a processing and handling fee by the Texas

Department of Motor Vehicles, effective January 1, 2017. Proposition 1 and Proposition 7 funds

are estimated based on projections in the Planning Scenario Forecast. Should the actual amounts

deposited differ from these estimates, the next Planning Scenario Forecast will account for those

changes which will be reflected in the next UTP.

Texas voters passed Proposition 1 in November 2014. Proposition 1 was a constitutional

amendment to provide for the transfer of certain general revenue to the Economic Stabilization

Fund and to the State Highway Fund, and for the dedication of the revenue transferred to the

State Highway Fund to assist in the completion of transportation construction, maintenance, and

rehabilitation projects, not to include toll roads. The FY 2019 UTP projections for FY 2019–FY

2020 are based on the comptroller’s 2018-2019 Certification Revenue Estimate. UTP projections

for FY 2021- 2028 are based on the 10-year historical average had Proposition 1 been in place

for all of the previous 10 years. Since 2016, Proposition 1 has been allocated at the “total project

cost” level. Allocating at the total project cost level means that Proposition 1 funds may be used

for eligible letting, engineering, and right-of-way expenditures. Any Proposition 1 funds

expended for engineering and right-of-way would be charged against the allocation, reducing the

amount of funds available for letting.

Approved in 2015, Proposition 7 is a constitutional amendment dedicating a portion of the

revenue derived from the state sales and use tax and the tax imposed on the sale, use, or rental of

a motor vehicle to the State Highway Fund. The amendment requires that money deposited to the

State Highway Fund be limited to constructing, maintaining, or acquiring rights of way for

public roadways other than toll roads and to repay debt issued pursuant to Section 49-n, Article

III

FHWA reimbursement estimates were revised based on updated motor fuels tax projections and

the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, which was signed into law December 4, 2015,


18

and extends through FY 2020. For planning purposes, FY 2021–2028 assumes that funding will

continue at similar levels.

On the expenditure side, payout schedules for pass-through finance projects, existing design-

build projects, comprehensive development agreements, and toll equity projects were updated

along with other types of active projects. TxDOT operating expenses remained relatively

constant, while engineering, right-of-way, and routine maintenance projections increased. Texas

Emissions Reduction Plan transfers out of the State Highway Fund are assumed to end after FY

2019.

Investment Scenario Distributions

Multiple trial scenarios of distributions were evaluated. The following provides examples of the

distribution scenarios applied.

Focus on Safety and System Preservation

For this scenario, all of the anticipated 10-year revenues from Propositions 1 and 7 were to be

applied to categories 1, 6, and 8 (Preventive Maintenance and Preservation, Structures

Replacement and Rehabilitation, and Safety, respectively.)

Focus on Congestion Mitigation

This was a scenario in which all of the anticipated 10-year revenues from Propositions 1 and 7

were to be applied to categories 2, 4, and 12 (Metro and Urban Corridor Projects, Statewide

Connectivity Corridor Projects/Urban Connectivity, and Strategic Priority/ClearLanes,

respectively.)

Balanced Distribution

For this scenario, all the anticipated 10-year planning forecast revenues were to be applied across

all categories with consideration to the statutory limitations on funding for Category 12.

Estimate of Effective Investment in Performance Areas

Investment Crosswalk

TxDOT has twelve funding categories, some of which are further subdivided, and four areas of

project performance measures. Therefore, a “crosswalk” was developed based on historical data

to evaluate the effective contribution that each category of funding provides to each performance

measure. For example, while Category 12 Texas Clear Lanes focuses on congestion mitigation,

Texas Clear Lanes projects will also contribute to improving safety, preservation, and other

measures. The aggregated crosswalk of effective investment in each performance area predicts


19

the total performance outcome of the distribution scenario. This crosswalk is then used to

determine the investment levels needed in each category to best address the performance targets

approved by the Commission in the Statewide Long-Range Plan.

The four primary performance areas that the Department has established to focus on with respect

to making project investment decisions are:

• Safety

• System Preservation

• Congestion Mitigation

• Enhanced Connectivity

Each of the twelve funding categories contributes toward multiple performance areas. The matrix

below (Table 4) outlines the primary and secondary contributions each category makes toward

the performance areas.

Table 4: Funding and System Performance Alignment

TxDOT evaluated the 2018 UTP portfolio of projects and determined how investments in each

category mapped to the four key performance areas. The result was the Investment Crosswalk

matrix in the table below (Table 5). These percentages were used to provide an estimate of the

dollar amounts from each category that can be associated with the four performance areas. As we

develop a longer history of data, these estimates will be refined.

Primary performance area for category Secondary performance area for category


20

Table 5: Investment Crosswalk Matrix

For all of the investment scenarios that were analyzed for the 2019 UTP, a total estimated

investment for each performance area was calculated by apportioning each individual category

investment to each of the performance areas. This was done by multiplying the category

investment amount by the crosswalk percentages shown in Table 5 above. The total estimated

investment for the individual performance areas is then the sum of each of the contributing

category apportionments. A sample based on the 2019 UTP planning targets appears in the table

below.


21

Funding Category

Estimated Equivalent Investment in Key Performance Area ($B)

10-Year Planning Targets

Safety Preservation Congestion Reduction

Enhance Connectivity

1 $13.80 $4.00 $6.20 $0.40 $3.20

2 $12.60 $5.20 $2.40 $3.00 $2.00

3 $5.40 $1.10 $1.10 $1.70 $1.60

4 Regional $6.70 $2.90 $1.20 $0.00 $2.60

4 Urban $5.40 $2.10 $1.20 $0.50 $1.60

5 $2.20 $1.20 $0.40 $0.40 $0.20

6 $3.50 $1.90 $0.10 $0.00 $1.40

7 $4.50 $2.60 $0.90 $0.50 $0.50

8 $3.30 $3.10 $0.10 $0.00 $0.20

9 $0.90 $0.70 $0.20 $0.00 $0.00

10 $0.50 $0.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.10

11 $3.10 $1.10 $1.10 $0.10 $0.80

12 Clear Lanes $5.00 $2.10 $1.00 $1.20 $0.80

12 Strategic Priority $8.30 $3.20 $1.80 $0.80 $2.50

Total $75.40 $31.30 $17.70 $8.80 $17.60

Table 6: Sample Investment Crosswalk (2019 UTP Planning Target Distribution)

The total estimated investment percentages for safety, preservation and connectivity shown in

Table 5 were then applied, based on the given investment scenario analyzed, to determine the

anticipated performance for those areas. Because of the methodology used to assess congestion

performance, TxDOT determined that the total investments from all categories that apply to

congestion/mobility improvement (Categories 2, 4Urban, 5, 7 and 12) would be aggregated in

each investment scenario and used to project performance.

Approaches for Performance Projections for Investment Scenarios

Each performance area has a different history of data and different methodology for projecting

performance. The following is a description of the various methodologies used.

Safety

Two key performance measures were addressed for the purposes of making investment

recommendations: Total Fatalities and Fatality rate. To project performance, the 2018-2022

Highway Safety Plan (HSP) was utilized. The HSP projected fatalities to 2022 based on

historical data in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System using linear regression method. The


22

2023-2028 projections were based off the HSP using a linear regression method. An analysis

done by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) provided the basis for estimating the

lives saved per a given investment. Based on the investment scenario, a reduction in projected

fatalities was calculated for the investment.

Pavement Preservation

Statewide pavement condition was the primary measure addressed for the purposes of making

investment recommendations. The pavement predictions were made using Pavement Analyst

(PA) based on UTP funding levels. The PA system has the ability to forecast pavement

condition, perform advanced analysis to answer “what-if” scenarios and recommend optimized

pavement work plans to maximize the condition of the network based on constrained

funding. With the UTP funding constraints, PA applies the treatment rules through decision

trees and predicts the performance of the pavement network with the use of performance

models. During the analysis period, the performance models predict the distresses and ride

scores of each pavement section in each year. The conditions of all sections are summarized to

generate the network-level condition statistics.

Bridge Preservation

Statewide bridge condition score was the primary measure addressed for the purposes of making

investment recommendations. The projection methodology for the Statewide Bridge Condition

Score utilizes a simplified Markov Chain analysis that assumes uniform bridge deterioration

rates across the state, regardless of geographic location. The Markov Chain analysis determines

the probability of a single bridge deteriorating to the next lowest condition state over the given

time analysis period. When combined with the assumed Category 6 (Bridges) budget amount and

the financial crosswalk methodology developed by TPP for determining the contribution of non-

Category 6 funding to bridge improvements, we have a robust and sound methodology for

projecting bridge conditions into the future.

Enhanced Connectivity

The Rural Reliability Index was used to assess connectivity performance. To project the

anticipated index, a method was developed by TTI. TTI projected anticipated number of

additional centerline miles based on the estimated crosswalk of investment in connectivity and

an inflation-adjusted average construction cost per lane-mile. Rural VMT growth was also

projected using a historic average growth rate and expected population growth. Using these two

factors, a projected reliability index was produced.

Congestion Mitigation


23

Like connectivity performance, a relationship between congestion investment and estimated

impact on congestion indices was developed by TTI. The approach assumes that dollars invested

result in additional lane-miles of capacity. Therefore, while “credit was taken” in the other

performance areas for the funding in Categories 2, 4, 5, 7, and 12, for the congestion

performance we applied the total investment dollars in these categories toward performance.

The Congestion Index was used to assess congestion performance. Similar to the connectivity

performance, to project the anticipated index, an anticipated number of additional lane-miles

were projected based on the funding amount for Categories 2, 4, 5, 7, and 12 and an inflation-

adjusted average construction cost per lane mile. Urban VMT growth was also projected using

historic average growth rate and expected population growth. Using these two factors, a

projected reliability index was produced.

Investment Scenarios and Project Performance Outcomes

Multiple investment scenarios were evaluated with extremes ranging from a heavy focus on

safety and preservation with no new funding applied to congestion and connectivity to all new

funding applied to congestion and connectivity with no new funding applied to safety and

preservation. The following table shows a narrowed-down set of three scenarios: continuation of

the distribution apportionment established for the 2017 UTP (“Current Strategy Investment”), a

congestion-focused distribution (“Congestion Focused Investments”) and a recommended

balanced distribution (“Recommended Investments”). The subsequent series of graphs reflect the

anticipated performance for each of these funding scenarios.


24

Table 7: Sample Investment Distribution Scenarios

Figure 11: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Safety: Fatalities

Category Allocations

Current Strategy

Investments

Congestion Focus

Investments

Recommended

Investments

Category 1- Maintenance 14,104,730,000$ 11,815,560,000$ 14,281,200,000$

Category 2 -Metro and Urban Corridor Funding 12,279,010,000$ 22,842,460,000$ 14,700,000,000$

Category 4 - Connectivity (Regional) 6,513,790,000$ 3,156,850,000$ 5,000,000,000$

Category 4 - Connectivity (Congestion) 5,244,190,000$ 5,156,850,000$ 5,244,190,000$

Category 5 - CMAQ (3 MPOs) 2,220,410,000$ 2,182,990,000$ 2,220,410,000$

Category 6 - Bridge 3,503,350,000$ 2,691,470,000$ 3,503,350,000$

Category 7 - Fed STP-MM (Large MPOs) 4,506,150,000$ 4,335,730,000$ 4,506,150,000$

Category 8 - Safety 3,313,920,000$ 1,713,930,000$ 3,900,000,000$

Category 9 - TAP 880,500,000$ 849,800,000$ 880,500,000$

Category 10 - Supplemental Transportation Projects 497,370,000$ 576,070,000$ 497,370,000$

Category 11 - District Discretionary 1,045,040,000$ 656,500,000$ 1,045,040,000$

Category 11 - Energy Sector 2,260,880,000$ 2,000,000,000$ 2,200,000,000$

Category 12-Strategic Priority 6,661,710,000$ 2,052,840,000$ 3,052,840,000$

Category 12-Strategic Priority (Texas Clear Lanes) 4,947,160,000$ 7,947,160,000$ 6,947,160,000$

Total Allocated Funds 67,978,210,000$ 67,978,210,000$ 67,978,210,000$

Non-Traditional funds not in base (Cat 3 and Fed Earmarks) 5,245,850,000$ 5,245,850,000$ 5,245,850,000$

Total Funding 73,224,060,000$ 73,224,060,000$ 73,224,060,000$

3023 3054

3408 3389

3536 3516

3775 3801

4,785

4,853

4760

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

4800

5000

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026

Number of Traffic Fatalities

Historical Current Strategy Congestion Focus Recommended Strategy

10 year Targets

TTP 2040 Adoption


25

Figure 12: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Safety: Fatality Rate

Figure 13: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Preservation: Pavement

Figure 14: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance - Preservation: Bridge Condition

1.29 1.29

1.43

1.39

1.45

1.36

1.39

1.45

1.59

1.62

1.58

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026

Traffic Fatalities (annual rate per 100 M VMT)

Historical Current Strategy Congestion Focus Recommended Strategy…

TTP 2040 Adoption

86.9786.66

86.47

88.33

87.1986.92

87.32

86.3

88.00

85.11

88.08

84

85

86

87

88

89

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

Statewide Pavement Condition Score


TTP 2040 Adoption

89.289.1

89.289.1

89.289.1

89.1

88.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026

Ind

ex

Historic & Projected Statewide Bridge Condition Score

Historic Performance Current & Recommended Strategy Congestion Focus

TTP 2040 Adoption


26

Figure 15: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance – Congestion Mitigation

Figure 16: Historical and Projected 10-yr Performance – Connectivity Enhancement

2019 UTP Adopted Investment Distribution and Projected Outcomes

The aforementioned sections identify the process by which relationships between investment

scenarios and projected performance outcomes were evaluated. The distribution adopted by the

Commission was based on these analyses. However, two key changes resulted in revisions to the

performance estimate: a revised financial forecast providing higher total 10-year financial

planning targets and the adjustment of Category 12 funds to their maximum allowable amount.

Table 8 presents the 10-year planning financial targets that were adopted by the Commission on

August 30, 2018 for the 2019 UTP and Table 9 provides the projected performance outcomes

based on the adopted distribution. The targets adopted by the Commission in March 2018 shown

in the following table were carried over from a 2027 target year to 2028.

1.17 1.17

1.18

1.19

1.2 1.2 1.2

1.23

1.22

1.23

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.2

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026

Ind

ex

Historic & Projected All Urban Travel Time Index


TTP 2040 Adoption

1.17

1.18

1.13

1.14

1.12

1.12

1.1

1.15

1.2

2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027Ru

ral

Re

lia

bil

ity

In

de

x

Past and Projected Rural Reliability


TTP 2040 Adoption


27

Category and Description Proposed 10-YR Distribution ($)

1: Maintenance $13.8

2: Metro and Urban Corridor Funding $12.6

4: Connectivity (Regional) $6.7

4: Connectivity (Urban Congestion) $5.4

5: CMAQ (3 MPOs) $2.2

6: Bridge $3.5

7: Fed STP-MM (Large MPO) $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 (TexasClearLanes) $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

Table 8: Investment Distribution (10-Year Financial Planning Targets)

Table 9: Projected 10-Year Outcomes


28

Ultimately, the projects that are selected and subsequently let for construction are what directly

affect the quality of the transportation system. Therefore, TxDOT continually measures the

impact of current projects, correlates evaluation criteria with outcomes, and uses that information

to further refine and improve the UTP process.

For example, over the past several years TxDOT has improved the project scoring and evaluation

process by using data to predict which project or portfolio of projects would perform in a way

that best meets statewide performance objectives. This is further enhanced by linking the

predicted results with the funding distributions through a cyclical, iterative process allowing the

assessment of a project’s inclusion in the UTP on the performance of the overall system as

shown in Figure 17. TxDOT also evaluates and assesses the projected impacts and trade-offs of

varying portfolio investments.

The use of project-specific data in the performance evaluation process significantly improves the

project selection process and ultimately improves the state’s future transportation system.

However, correlating project performance metrics with the prescribed funding categories is not a

linear process. It requires both good judgement and subjective translation. TxDOT will continue

to evaluate and refine project metrics so they remain valid and effective.


29

Figure 17: Project Programming Cycle

4.0 STATUS OF MAJOR PROJECTS

201.809(a)(2) the status of each project identified as a major priority;

SH 99 (GRAND PARKWAY) SEGMENTS H, I-1, AND I-2

Grand Parkway is a proposed 180-mile loop around the greater Houston area to improve

connectivity with other Houston roadways, relieve congestion, encourage economic growth, and

improve safety. Grand Parkway is being developed and constructed in 11 segments. Segments H

and I-1 will increase capacity by providing:


30

• A new two-lane controlled-access facility from US 59 North to I-10 East (Segments H

and I-1).

• Four additional toll lanes from FM 1405 to SH 146 (Segment I-2B).

• Upgraded tolling equipment to existing facility from I-10 to FM 1405 (Segment I-2A).

Major progress includes:

• Bond Financial closed

• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) pre-construction meeting held

• USACE 404 permit obtained

• Option NTP and NTP2 issued

• Clearing in Progress

US 281 (Segment Between Loop 1604 and Bexar/Comal County Line)

US 281 from Loop 1604 to the Bexar/Comal County line is one of the most congested roads in

San Antonio and one of the 50 most congested corridors in Texas. TxDOT is planning to

construct a six-lane non-tolled expressway (four general-purpose and two high-occupancy

vehicle lanes) to relieve congestion and improve mobility. Also included in the plan are the

remaining northern interchange connectors at Loop 1604.

Major progress includes:

• Bond Financial closed

• USACE pre-construction meeting held

• USACE 404 permit obtained

• Option NTP and NTP2 issued

• Clearing in Progress

5.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION BENCHMARKS

201.809(a)(3) a summary of the number of statewide project implementation benchmarks that

have been completed;

Table 10 contains the benchmark counts for each district for those tasks necessary for a project to

go to letting. This includes the purchase of needed right of way and completion of

environmental documentation, utility adjustments, and schematic designs.


31

Table 10: Quarterly Review Process 2018 Benchmark Status Counts

Table 11 below contains the benchmark information for projects once they go to letting.


32

Table 11: Project Implementation Benchmarks

District District District District

NameNameNameName

Completed Completed Completed Completed

ContractsContractsContractsContracts

Contracts Contracts Contracts Contracts

on Budgeton Budgeton Budgeton Budget


over over over over

BudgetBudgetBudgetBudget

Percent on Percent on Percent on Percent on

Budget Budget Budget Budget

CummulativeCummulativeCummulativeCummulative


on Timeon Timeon Timeon Time


Not on Not on Not on Not on

TimeTimeTimeTime

Percent on Percent on Percent on Percent on

Time Time Time Time

CummulativeCummulativeCummulativeCummulative

TxDOTTxDOTTxDOTTxDOT 859 823 36 95.81% 713 146 83.00%

MetroMetroMetroMetro 339 318 21 93.81% 281 58 82.89%

AUSAUSAUSAUS 94 90 4 95.74% 80 14 85.11%

DALDALDALDAL 80 80 0 100.00% 62 18 77.50%

FTWFTWFTWFTW 37 35 2 94.59% 29 8 78.38%

HOUHOUHOUHOU 97 82 15 84.54% 84 13 86.60%

SATSATSATSAT 31 31 0 100.00% 26 5 83.87%

OthersOthersOthersOthers 520 505 15 97.12% 432 88 83.08%

ABLABLABLABL 22 22 0 100.00% 15 7 68.18%

AMAAMAAMAAMA 18 17 1 94.44% 12 6 66.67%

ATLATLATLATL 32 31 1 96.88% 24 8 75.00%

BMTBMTBMTBMT 34 34 0 100.00% 28 6 82.35%

BWDBWDBWDBWD 14 14 0 100.00% 10 4 71.43%

BRYBRYBRYBRY 22 22 0 100.00% 20 2 90.91%

CHSCHSCHSCHS 13 13 0 100.00% 13 0 100.00%

CRPCRPCRPCRP 43 42 1 97.67% 38 5 88.37%

ELPELPELPELP 22 21 1 95.45% 22 0 100.00%

LRDLRDLRDLRD 20 20 0 100.00% 19 1 95.00%

LBBLBBLBBLBB 33 31 2 93.94% 26 7 78.79%

LFKLFKLFKLFK 53 48 5 90.57% 48 5 90.57%

ODAODAODAODA 20 20 0 100.00% 15 5 75.00%

PARPARPARPAR 23 23 0 100.00% 18 5 78.26%

PHRPHRPHRPHR 25 24 1 96.00% 22 3 88.00%

SJTSJTSJTSJT 13 13 0 100.00% 12 1 92.31%

TYLTYLTYLTYL 33 32 1 96.97% 27 6 81.82%

WACWACWACWAC 31 31 0 100.00% 24 7 77.42%

WFSWFSWFSWFS 22 20 2 90.91% 17 5 77.27%

YKMYKMYKMYKM 27 27 0 100.00% 22 5 81.48%


33

6.0 ACCURACY OF FINANCIAL FORECAST

201.809(a)(4) information about the accuracy of previous department financial forecasts;

Actual revenues are below the baseline threshold of 5%.

Target Actual Revenues Projected Revenues

$ 4,477,318,548 $ 4,407,579,090 <5% of base cashflow forecast 1.58%

Table 12: Actual vs. Projected Revenue

Figure 18: FY 2018 State Highway Fund Revenue

$4,360,000,000

$4,380,000,000

$4,400,000,000

$4,420,000,000

$4,440,000,000

$4,460,000,000

$4,480,000,000

$4,500,000,000

Actual Revenues Projected

Revenues

FY 2018 SHF Revenue

statewide transportation reportftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/2040/2018-report.pdftxdot has...

Documents