Transportation officials and local elected leaders have pitched building “caps” over I-35 to create public spaces as a way of improving a highway expansion project that will have negative climate effects while even Texas Department of Transportation engineers acknowledge the expansion will not alleviate traffic congestion much, but now officials are clear – the caps themselves will threaten funding for other city services and infrastructure projects in the future.
The news comes out of a City Council work session, Nov. 19, where city staff revealed that fully building out the 26 acres of “caps” along the 8-mile stretch of I-35 the Texas Department of Transportation will widen would cost a staggering $1.4 billion, and $47 million annually to maintain them. Just building the necessary “roadway elements” to support caps that could eventually support public amenities (such as parks or two-story buildings) would cost $1.1 billion. Earlier this year, TxDOT estimated the full build-out would cost about $896 million.
But the city doesn’t have to foot the entire bill for the cap project – local taxpayers would only have to pay about $986 million if Council votes to adopt the full build-out. And if costs increase again between now and 2032 when the caps are projected to be completed, the city would have to foot that bill as well.
The caps could run from Airport Boulevard to Holly Street. But, as a result of the 61% increase in estimated cost, staff presented Council with a menu of options they could choose to invest in to lower the cost. Staff has recommended cutting out most of the caps outside of Downtown and even narrowing the caps from 1,050 feet to 800 feet to reduce costs. Still, even the lowest-priced caps package would require Council to invest $168 million of city funding to get the project to “basic amenities” level – that is, open space without any buildings on top of it. One of the decks, running from Cesar Chavez to Fourth Street, is partially funded by a federal grant. None of the other decks would receive federal grants.
Proponents of the caps argue that they are the best way the city can improve a huge state-run infrastructure project that local officials have little control over. The caps could bridge portions of East and Central Austin divided by an expanded highway with public space and modes of transportation other than cars.
“We can’t just expect our voters to support our transportation bonds and then not be delivering projects that are ultimately more sustainable.” – Council Member Paige Ellis
Council will have to ask voters for more money to pay for the caps, likely through a bond election. The higher the price of the cap options Council commits to, the more money Council will have to ask for from voters. That means there would be less money available for other bond properties, Austin Deputy Chief Financial Officer Kimberly Olivares told Council.
“We do need to take in consideration our overall debt levels across the organization,” Olivares said. “Not only debt related to this project, but also … the prospective 2026 bond program.” A slide shared by Olivares drives the point home: “Funds allocated for caps will reduce available debt capacity for other city needs, including 2026 bond priorities (libraries, parks, fire stations, affordable housing, etc.).”
“I know this is not what our constituents want from us,” Council Member Paige Ellis said of the trade-offs funding highway caps will necessitate. “We can’t just expect our voters to support our transportation bonds and then not be delivering projects that are ultimately more sustainable and better for the environment.”
Whatever Council does, it will be a sizable investment. And they won’t have much more time to think about it. TxDOT says they need to know what the city is committing to by Dec. 12, so Council is expected to vote on a caps package at their meeting scheduled that day. If Council decides not to fund certain portions of the caps infrastructure, the city cannot go back and pay to have them constructed later.
Adam Greenfield, executive director of Rethink35, is frustrated by the whole expansion process. He remains committed to stopping the freeway expansion altogether (the project formally broke ground on Oct. 30) and hopes that a lawsuit Rethink has filed will go to trial early next year. But the timeline, in particular, is frustrating, Greenfield said.
“There is a case to be made that expanding I-35 would be the greatest mistake of this generation in terms of infrastructure,” Greenfield said. “These caps would cover up just a tiny fraction of that mistake and now we know they will have huge costs on other projects that could reduce car dependency, reduce air pollution, and actually address climate change.”
This article appears in December 6 • 2024.