TxDOT continues to take wrong approach on Texas 45 Southwest
For over 35 years, Save Barton Creek Association has worked to protect Barton Creek and Austin’s crown jewel, Barton Springs. One of the gravest threats we see to this iconic natural resource is the construction of Texas 45 Southwest. Part of Texas 45 SW is to be built through land critical to the springs’ flow.
Over the years, the Texas Department of Transportation has attempted to avoid federal regulations concerning this project.
In the 1980s, our association was embroiled in a lawsuit over a proposed “Outer Loop” — now Texas 45 SW — planned to encircle Austin. The part of the Loop project over the Barton Springs aquifer was to be built with “state funds only” to avoid a federal environmental review.
In 1989, the association lost our claim that the entire Loop project required a federal environmental impact statement. Without federal funding, however, the Texas 45 SW project sat idle until state authorities decided to build it as a toll road.
Now, another lawsuit has been filed to compel a federal environmental impact study. Our association is among the individuals and groups listed as plaintiffs.
This time, endangered-species habitat is in the direct path of construction; the route passes through a federally permitted wildlife preserve — and there are connecting federal-aid road projects over the aquifer.
The above circumstances might finally force TxDOT to complete a federal impact study. We are waiting for the judge’s ruling. No matter the legality, the association views TxDOT’s present approach of avoiding review as disingenuous, shortsighted and bad public policy.
The National Environmental Policy Act calls on government agencies to examine alternatives before making irreversible commitments of resources.
We believe in using this law in the way it was intended: to achieve better use of our tax dollars and natural resources.
TxDOT’s attempted dodging of the act with “state-only” funding is financially counterproductive. Federal projects are eligible for matching funds at up to 80 percent of project cost. So, by spending $100 million in exclusively state funds on Texas 45 SW, TxDOT would forfeit up to $400 million in federal matching funds.
Also, once a project is deemed “federal,” Section 4(f ) of the National Transportation Act comes into play. This law says highway builders who propose to go through a wildlife preserve must either pick another route or show good cause why they can’t.
The only choices presented by TxDOT were two: either build a tolled Texas 45 SW on the given route, or do nothing. No other strategies were considered, though alternatives exist.
One would be prioritizing other Austin-area transportation projects that don’t have funding secured. In their study document, TxDOT simply assumes in their traffic models that all other regional projects planned for the next 20 years get built before Texas 45 SW would open. In fact, the majority still lack funding, which they could receive if Texas 45 SW is designated as low priority.
Or let’s say instead that the purpose of project planning is to serve Hays County commuters, rather than looking at the entire Austin region. We should compare building this completely new road with funding upgrades to the already existing local routes that bring people into Austin from Hays County. This is the only way to determine which option relieves the most congestion and has the least impact on finances and the environment.
TxDOT eludes responsibility by pretending that Texas 45 SW is a stand-alone project with the environmental impacts limited only to the road right-of-way. Texans shouldn’t need federal sanctions to compel common-sense planning.
As more people move to Central Texas, the pressures on what makes Austin great increase. Traffic congestion is at the top of the list. We understand the impatience and frustration of drivers who must deal daily with this problem. But let us not destroy the very things that make Austin special.
If we do not protect our fragile natural resources by thoughtful, long-term planning, we are in real danger of losing all that we hold of such great value.
Re: May 20 commentary, “Phillips: Austin loses local control of Uber, Lyft — and big money.”
Alberta Phillips’ commentary about House Bill 100 is hypocritical. So, a small majority of Austin voters can decide for all of us what rules a ride-hailing company must follow, but state legislators can’t do the same? Very funny.
But here’s the real hypocrisy: Phillips tells us to make “informed choices ... choosing to do business with those that followed local rules” so as to show support for those companies that operated under specific rules. Well, why wasn’t that good enough from the beginning?
Why couldn’t the city just leave it up to customers to decide what rules to support through their patronage of ride-hailing companies? Those companies with sufficient rules would prosper; others would suffer. This would have allowed all people to contribute toward
Re: May 22 commentary, “Two Views: What Comey’s dismissal says about democracy in America.”
Glenn W. Smith’s May 22 commentary on James Comey’s dismissal is ridiculous Russia hysteria.
Comey himself testified on May 3 that there had been no effort to halt the FBI investigation. Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified after Comey’s firing that there had been no effort to impede the FBI’s investigation.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired for insubordination in refusing to enforce President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara was fired for refusing to leave his position as part of a sweeping resignation request to 46 U.S. attorneys.
Trump is perfectly within his constitutional executive authority to fire an FBI director — and that act does not constitute obstruction of justice. Trump very well could have fired Comey because he was not taking seriously the illegal leaking of Michael Flynn’s name to the press or the unprecedented torrent of unsubstantiated leaks from deep-state Obama holdovers who wish to undermine our president.
Re: May 13 letter to the editor, “Put a gun in the hand of every adult male American.”
The author of “put a gun in the hand of every adult male American” to protect society from “illegal” immigrants misses the mark — unless, of course, the letter was satire. FBI statistics indicate that males over the age of 18 commit most of the crime in America, while immigrants — both documented and undocumented — commit crimes at a far lower rate.
May I suggest the writer is advocating arming the wrong group?