Non-competes now a non-starter with TxDOT

Short Cuts ^ | May 28, 2008 | Ben Wear

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Non-compete clauses for tollways would be a non-starter under a policy the Texas Transportation Commission will consider Thursday.

Such language in toll road contracts, which generally prohibit a toll road owner (such as the Texas Department of Transportation) from building or expanding a nearby free road, or require compensation for doing so, have been controversial in Texas and elsewhere. TxDOT’s contract with Cintra-Zachry, a Spanish and American consortium that will build and operate a southern section of Texas 130, requires TxDOT to pay up if it makes certain highway improvements within 10 miles of the road.

The commission Thursday will consider approving a “minute order” (what TxDOT calls its version of ordinances) prohibiting “any limitations or prohibitions on improvements needed to existing or future highways.” The new policy, which the commission could amend or eliminate in the future at its choosing, goes farther than a 2007 state law allowing such non-compete clauses to apply only within four miles of a new tollway.

The minute order does not say explicitly that tollway contracts could not require TxDOT to pay compensation, as is the case with current contracts. But at a briefing with transportation reporters today, TxDOT deputy executive director Steve Simmons said the intent of the language is that “we have the right to build any facility.” With no compensation? “No compensation,” Simmons said.

The order, in what appears to be a conciliatory message to the Legislature, also reiterates other provisions the Legislature put into law last session. To wit: TxDOT will own title to tollways, not any private entities hired to build and operate them at a profit; every contract with a private tollway operator must have a “buy back” clause allowing TxDOT to take over a tollway before the end of a lease (although the minute order is silent as to what the terms might be); and “only added capacity to an existing highway” will be subject to tolls.

Also, the order pledges that TxDOT will always consider using existing right of way when setting the route of an expansion. That’s a direct nod to all the unhappiness in rural Texas about the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor supertollways in the I-35 and I-69 corridors.

The language doesn’t mean, of course, that TxDOT won’t build TTC-35 across farmland several miles away from I-35. Simmons, in fact, acknowledged that widening I-35 instead of building a new tollway nearby remains a logistical and financial problem. But he said the language could be more meaningful in the I-69 corridor where widening existing roads would be easier.

The commission, which will be holding its first meeting Thursday with new chairwoman Deidre Delisi and new commissioner Bill Meadows, is expected to approve the minute order.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Ben Ficklin]

Recall that California had to buy their way out of a private sector contract when the state decided to add some “free” lanes. They paid dearly.

[laotzu]

Simmons, in fact, acknowledged that widening I-35 instead of building a new tollway nearby remains a logistical and financial problem

When I moved to San Antonio in '68, there was already a project well underway to widen(one lane) I-35 the 90 miles between SA & Austin.

Forty years, and a bunch of fatal car accidents later, it is still not complete.

Gee...I wonder if the cost has gone up any?

[wolfcreek]

I lived in the Dallas area in the early 70’s. I35E going into Dallas from the south was under construction then.......

I live near the northern part of 183A in the Austin area. I had to call the appropriate authorities to mow the grass (for the first time since it's completion in 2007) because you couldn't see oncoming traffic from the turn-around lanes.

I first called TxDot and was told to call Williamson county. I called the county and was told to call CTRMA. I called the toll road authority and was told it was TxDot’s problem but, they would relay the message.

Someone in our neighborhood mowed the part that was obstructing vision.

The rest remains unmowed.

If nothing else....bureaucracy sucks! We damn sure don't need extra.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I called the county and was told to call CTRMA. I called the toll road authority and was told it was TxDot’s problem but, they would relay the message.

CTRMA runs that road. Those cowardly M-Fers were trying to pass the buck. They want your money so that they can then do nothing with it. Sheesh!

[wolfcreek]

Only the part between RR 620 and FM 1431 (4.5 miles) is actually tolled. The remaining 6.5 miles (the part we live near) is free road. (for the time being) Guess CTRMA and others won't care about the untolled part until it is.

In the mean time, if someone throws out a butt, our neighborhood could go up in smoke.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I’m sure that CTRMA actually has jurisdiction over the entire thing, however, so it should be their responsibility to keep lines of sight free of overgrown vegetation, unless TxDOT is the one with jurisdiction over the frontage roads.

[wolfcreek]

“TxDOT is the one with jurisdiction over the frontage roads.”

These roads are the frontage for the future elevated fly-through they’ll be starting shortly.