Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 146 proposes amendments to the Texas Government Code concerning municipal traffic management near the State Capitol. The bill specifically targets a defined portion of Congress Avenue in downtown Austin, from the Congress Avenue Bridge to 11th Street—referred to as the "covered segment."

The legislation would prohibit municipalities from permanently reducing traffic lanes or closing any traffic lane on this covered segment for more than 14 consecutive days unless explicitly authorized by a four-member affirmative vote of the State Preservation Board. However, it provides exceptions for closures associated with special events (defined as events with 50 or more attendees and temporary closures approved by the municipality), construction projects, or related safety and traffic control plans.

In effect, the bill transfers significant control over certain local traffic decisions from the City of Austin to the State Preservation Board, a body primarily tasked with oversight of Capitol grounds and facilities. This measure is likely a response to recent efforts to redesign portions of downtown Austin for pedestrian use or enhanced multimodal transit, signaling state resistance to municipal changes affecting Capitol-adjacent infrastructure.

The originally filed version of HB 146 and the Committee Substitute both aim to restrict municipal traffic decisions in the vicinity of the Texas State Capitol, but they differ significantly in scope, geography, and detail.

The original bill applied broadly to a large area defined by the Capitol complex’s boundaries—bounded by Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north, Interstate 35 to the east, Lady Bird Lake to the south, and Lamar Boulevard to the west. Within this expansive zone, it prohibited municipalities or counties from reducing lanes, closing lanes for more than seven consecutive days, or changing traffic flow—unless approved by an affirmative vote of at least four members of the State Preservation Board.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute narrows the focus considerably. It defines a "covered segment" as a specific portion of Congress Avenue—between the Congress Avenue Bridge and 11th Street in downtown Austin. The substitute bill further introduces exceptions, allowing lane closures beyond 14 days for special events (with 50 or more attendees), construction projects, and associated traffic or pedestrian safety plans. It also limits the scope of authority to municipal actions only (not counties), and raises the closure threshold from seven to fourteen consecutive days.

Overall, the Committee Substitute softens the original restrictions by limiting the geographic area, increasing the allowable duration of lane closures, and adding clear exemptions. These changes likely reflect legislative feedback and public input seeking to preserve some local flexibility while still addressing concerns about state-level oversight of Capitol-area infrastructure.

Author

Charlie Geren

Ellen Troxclair

Contact the Author

Rep. Charlie Geren

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0610

Capitol Office:

CAP GW.15

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 146 is not expected to result in significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The analysis assumes that any administrative costs incurred by the State Preservation Board in reviewing and approving municipal traffic changes near the Capitol could be absorbed within the agency’s existing operational resources.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. While the legislation limits municipal autonomy over a specific section of Congress Avenue, it does not impose new mandates requiring expenditures or infrastructure changes. Instead, it primarily adds an additional layer of procedural review, which could create minor administrative burdens but not enough to generate quantifiable fiscal consequences.

In essence, the bill imposes a governance checkpoint rather than a financial mandate. The State Preservation Board would handle its responsibilities within current budget allocations, and cities like Austin are not expected to incur new costs beyond possible delays or planning adjustments to comply with the new approval requirement. Thus, the fiscal impact is assessed as minimal at both the state and local levels.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 146 provides a practical, limited measure to ensure that state interests are prioritized in managing the area immediately surrounding the Texas Capitol. By requiring approval from the State Preservation Board before the City of Austin can permanently reduce traffic lanes or close a lane for more than 14 days on a key stretch of Congress Avenue, the bill reinforces the state’s rightful role in protecting access, security, and ceremonial use of its seat of government.

While some may raise concerns about municipal autonomy, it is well established in Texas law and tradition that cities are political subdivisions of the state. Given that the Texas Capitol is not only a symbolic structure but also a working center of state governance, it is entirely appropriate for the state to assert oversight in this highly specific, high-importance context. The bill does not impose burdensome new regulations on cities more broadly, nor does it introduce unnecessary bureaucracy—it simply creates a checkpoint for a sensitive area.

Furthermore, the bill has been thoughtfully narrowed from its original version, applies only to a small segment of Congress Avenue, and includes reasonable exceptions for special events and construction-related closures. It represents a restrained, purposeful assertion of state authority in a context where coordination is essential. A YES vote supports responsible stewardship of state infrastructure and ensures the Capitol remains accessible and functional for all Texans. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 146.

Individual Liberty: While the bill places a check on local decision-making, it does not infringe on the rights of individuals to speak, assemble, or move freely. In fact, by preserving access to the Texas Capitol—a space where citizens routinely engage in the political process—it arguably protects public access to democratic institutions. Ensuring consistent traffic flow and safety in this area can enhance the ability of Texans to interact with their state government.
Personal Responsibility: The bill does not alter personal responsibility or individual conduct. It is administrative and structural in nature, focusing on coordination between levels of government rather than on citizens' duties or rights.
Free Enterprise: There is a modest tradeoff for nearby businesses that might benefit from more walkable, pedestrian-friendly changes the city may wish to make. However, the bill does not ban such improvements outright; it simply requires review by the State Preservation Board before permanent lane reductions or long closures are made. Businesses that rely on predictable access to the Capitol complex may in fact benefit from the stability this bill introduces.
Private Property Rights: This bill does not impact ownership, regulation, or use of private property directly. While it may limit some types of street reconfiguration that adjacent property owners might favor, it does not interfere with their legal rights or land use. Its effect is indirect and very narrowly applied.
Limited Government: Though the bill technically expands state oversight, it does so within a highly targeted area of significant statewide importance. From a limited government perspective, this can be seen as appropriate state-level intervention to protect core state functions. The Capitol area is not just a local concern—it is a statewide asset, and the bill ensures that decisions affecting it are subject to statewide accountability. This aligns with the principle that government should be limited in scope but strong in areas where it is uniquely responsible.

View Bill Text and Status