Because the bill aims to amend the constitution, it will need to be approved by voters in the November election.

“I am very excited that the House, Senate and Governor were able to come together on SJR 5, which is critical for the future of transportation in our state,” State Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville said. “This constitutional amendment will be sent to the people of Texas for their consideration. If passed by the voters, it would be the largest single increase in transportation funding in Texas history.”

Finding additional funding for transportation was a top priority among legislators in this legislative session. Due to the significant population growth in the state, the Texas Department of Transportation has a need of about $5 billion annually to keep up with current demands, said Veronica Beyer, director of media relations for TxDOT.

Even with the approval of Proposition 1 last November, state transportation funding still falls short of the projected $5 billion needed annually to keep up with a rapidly escalating population and aging infrastructure.

“As Texas grows by more than 1,000 people daily, we are seeing more congestion and therefore an increasing need to build, repair and maintain our roadways,” Beyer said. “To be able to keep up with this increasing demand, it was imperative we find a sustainable funding solution for our state. Transportation is the backbone of economic prosperity, so we must do what we can to keep commerce and goods moving.”

Nichols said with the progress made by the Legislature last session to fund transportation, the overwhelming support of Prop. 1 by voters last November and legislation passed in this session, the state’s transportation funding is going to be close to where it needs to be now and in the future.

“[This bill] is a great deal for transportation in that it provides constitutionally dedicated funding so [TxDOT] can plan for projects in the future,” Haywood said.

Birth of SJR 5

Both the House and Senate proposed major transportation funding bills this session using sales tax revenue that could provide more than $2 billion a year to the SHF.

Nichols co-authored SJR 5 in February. The bill would have dedicated the first $2.5 billion of motor vehicle sales tax revenue every year to the general fund, the second $2.5 billion to the State Highway Fund and split any remaining revenue between the two, Haywood said.

House Bill 13 proposed an alternative sales tax revenue solution. The bill, authored by Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, suggested dedicating the first $3 billion of general sales tax revenue to the SHF in addition to 2 percent of the remainder of sales tax revenue.

Both bills received nearly unanimous bipartisan support and were approved by their respective chambers. However, with two different visions to achieve the same goal, Haywood said the House and Senate each sent five members to a joint committee in May to hash out the legislation and come up with one bill that satisfied both chambers. The result was a compromise of both the House and Senate proposed bills that was still dubbed SJR 5.

“I think [the bill] is definitely a win-win, and more importantly, I think it is a win for the state,” Haywood said. “The governor and speaker of both chambers can walk away and feel good about this. They put substantial revenue into transportation without raising taxes or fees.”

Other legislative solutions

Although SJR 5 could provide more transportation funding than any other piece of legislation being considered this session, legislators have considered other avenues to find additional revenue streams for statewide transportation improvements.

Both the House and the Senate found a combined $650 million a year in the next biennium for the SHF through the appropriations process, Haywood said. The additional money comes from funds previously diverted from the SHF to the Department of Public Safety’s budget.

“Both budgets make sure that all funding that goes to State Highway Fund will go to maintain roads to the state,” Haywood said. “They have definitely taken care of it under the current budget. Over the long term that’s another [issue].”

The diversion may just be a two-year fix, but several bills were filed this session that would have made a constitutional amendment ending diversions from the SHF permanently. However, none of those bills have been approved as of press time. Should the Legislature want to continue to end the diversions after the biennium, it would have to address it in the next session.

Alan Clark, director of transportation for the Houston-Galveston Area Council, praised the Legislature for stopping the diversion of revenue in the SHF this biennium. He said the uncertainty of long-term mobility funding is a challenge for H-GAC as some projects can take years to plan.

“It’s important because TxDOT can’t count on that for 20 or 30 years,” Clark said. “So they won’t allow us to plan on spending that level of funding for 10 or 20 years.”

Despite pulling funds from the DPS budget the next two years for mobility projects, Haywood said it should not negatively affect other areas of the state’s budget.

“The good news for Texas is we’re in a great economic situation, so the Legislature is able to do things without pulling money away from anything else,” Haywood said. “[The Legislature] can still utilize that revenue, and it doesn’t impact that spending limit.”

Future funding

Andrea French, executive director for Transportation Advocacy Group Houston, said because the $5 billion needed annually only maintains current congestion levels and does not do much to improve the level of service, future legislative sessions will have to find additional transportation funding options. She said the approved additional funding gets the state closer to solving its transportation funding shortfall but does not solve the problem entirely.

“It’s great that we can look at existing revenue streams and transfer them to highway funding,” French said. “But I think we still need to look at the philosophical notion that user fees are really important and that we pay to use the roads because they are essentially a service that we are provided.”

French said the Legislature could explore increasing vehicle registration fees both at the state and county level as well as increasing or indexing the motor fuel tax to have it mirror the cost of inflation. Both options, however, require an increase in fees that could create a contentious political climate that will be challenging to work against. “I know the gas tax is not popular but something needs to be done with it,” she said. “Whether you get rid of it and replace it with something else or you increase it or you index it to inflation because we haven’t touched it since 1991. It’s no longer a sustainable funding stream.”