According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3720 would result in an estimated one-time cost of $85 million to the state’s General Revenue Fund in fiscal year 2026. This cost accounts for the planning, design, and construction of two rail-roadway grade separation projects, overpasses at the intersections of Little York Road and Hirsch Road, and Tidwell Road and Hirsch Road in Harris County. The estimate excludes additional costs related to right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, which could further increase the total financial burden.

The bill does not make an appropriation itself, but could serve as the legal basis for a future appropriation by the legislature to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). As the two project sites are located off the state highway system, current law (Transportation Code § 201.703(b)) prohibits the exclusive use of state funds for these projects. Consequently, contributions from non-state sources, such as federal, local, or private entities, are likely required to fully implement the bill. However, the availability and extent of such external funding remain uncertain.

From a local government perspective, the fiscal impact cannot be definitively assessed at this time. TxDOT’s compliance with the statutory funding limitations may necessitate local financial participation. This could place a fiscal obligation on Harris County or related municipal entities if they choose or are required to co-fund the grade separation projects. Overall, while the bill addresses a clear infrastructure and traffic safety need, its implementation carries a significant initial cost to the state and potentially to local jurisdictions.

While the intent of HB 3720, to improve traffic congestion and public safety in Harris County, is well-meaning, the bill authorizes $85 million in new state spending for a local infrastructure project located off the state highway system. It does not identify a dedicated funding mechanism, and it relies on speculative contributions from federal or local entities, leaving open the possibility of a significant financial burden on state taxpayers.

More importantly, the bill expands the role of the state in what is fundamentally a local responsibility. Approving state-financed construction for two specific intersections in a single county sets a troubling precedent and risks encouraging similar “pork-style” appropriations in future sessions. This undermines local accountability and shifts infrastructure costs from the jurisdictions that use and benefit from the projects to a statewide taxpayer base.

Finally, the bill conflicts with the spirit of Transportation Code §201.703(b), which prohibits the exclusive use of state funds for non-state highway system projects. Passing legislation that may require circumvention of this statute erodes the legal and fiscal guardrails designed to keep the state’s infrastructure responsibilities limited and focused.

For these reasons, fiscal discipline, adherence to statutory limitations, and a commitment to limited government and local control, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3720.

• Individual Liberty: The bill promotes individual liberty in a practical, everyday sense by reducing delays caused by blocked railroad crossings. This increases personal freedom of movement and improves access to emergency services, both of which are legitimate public safety concerns. Residents benefit from more predictable travel and better connectivity in a growing urban corridor. However, if liberty is understood as freedom from unnecessary state interference or financial compulsion, the bill raises concerns. By funding a local infrastructure project with general revenue from across the state, the legislation effectively compels Texans statewide to underwrite infrastructure that serves one county. This violates the principle that individuals should not be forced to subsidize localized benefits without direct consent or benefit.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not promote or inhibit personal responsibility directly. However, by shifting funding responsibility from local to state government, it subtly undermines the principle that communities should take ownership of their own infrastructure and development. In doing so, it may reduce local incentives to responsibly prioritize and fund such improvements through their own mechanisms (e.g., bonds, local taxes, federal grants).
• Free Enterprise: From an economic standpoint, improved mobility and reduced congestion can support business logistics, lower delivery delays, and reduce costs for commercial operators in the area. This could marginally benefit free enterprise by enhancing the efficiency of market activity in the impacted corridors. That said, if one takes a strict view of free markets, this state-funded intervention may crowd out what could have been a market-driven or locally funded solution. It may also be viewed as a form of indirect subsidy to certain economic actors in one geographic region.
• Private Property Rights: Though the bill does not explicitly authorize eminent domain, road and bridge projects often require it in practice. If the state or local government seizes private property to complete the project, especially without full transparency or adequate compensation, that would directly undermine private property rights. While not certain, the potential for this risk is inherent in the nature of the project.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly conflicts with conservative liberty principles. The bill compels the state to fund and execute a local infrastructure project that is not on the state highway system and lacks a designated funding source. It expands the role of state government into areas traditionally managed by local jurisdictions, sets a precedent for future state spending on municipal projects, and undermines the boundaries that limited government seeks to preserve.