Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress: Summary of Selected Major Provisions
Congressional research reportAug 26, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Legislation in the 111th Congress: Summary of
Selected Major Provisions
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
August 26, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40780
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Summary
The existing authorization for federal surface transportation programs provided by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU
or SAFETEA) expires on September 30, 2009. Congress is now considering legislation that
would either reauthorize these programs or extend the existing program into at least part of the
next fiscal year.
While it considers reauthorization or extension legislation, Congress has also had to address an
ongoing financial shortfall in the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. Just before
leaving for its summer District Work period, Congress provided a short term fix for the funding
problem by transferring $7 billion from the Treasury’s General Fund Account to the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund (P.L. 111-46). These funds are expected to keep the trust fund
solvent through the remainder of FY2009 and may also provide an additional cushion that could
extend later into the fall. This action does not, however, address program extension and provides
no long term solution to the trust fund’s financial problems.
Extension legislation introduced so far is straightforward in its nature, containing no extraneous
legislative provisions. The Senate is considering a bill, S. 1498, the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2009, and related legislation that would extend the existing surface
transportation program for 18 months and would provide an infusion of $27 billion to insure that
the highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund remain financially viable throughout
the extension period. Action to this point has occurred at the Committee level and floor
consideration of the legislation could occur in the fall of 2009.
At this point only one reauthorization bill has been introduced, the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 2009. At present, however, the bill is incomplete, lacking funding data and
other details on several of what might be the most significant features in the bill. The bill,
although not yet formally introduced and hence unnumbered, has nonetheless been subject to
mark up by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit.
There are many issues associated with surface transportation legislation. Some, but not all, are
discussed in the examination of the legislation under consideration presented in this report. Those
seeking to understand all of the major issues at play in this debate should refer to: CRS Report
R40053, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress,
coordinated by (name redacted).
This report begins with a very brief discussion of the existing federal surface transportation
program. Those already familiar with the program may choose to skip over this section of the
report and move on to the sections that discuss the major provisions of significant legislation
currently under consideration by the 111th Congress. As new legislation is introduced and more
detailed information becomes available about already-introduced legislation, this report will be
expanded and updated.
Congressional Research Service
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
The SAFETEA Framework .........................................................................................................1
Funding ................................................................................................................................1
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5)...................2
Highways..............................................................................................................................3
The “Core” Formula Programs ........................................................................................4
Discretionary Programs...................................................................................................5
Alternative/Innovative Finance........................................................................................5
Transit ..................................................................................................................................6
Safety ...................................................................................................................................6
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) .............................................6
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration...................................................................7
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ...............................................................8
Extension Legislation..................................................................................................................8
The Proposed Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 (STAA) ....................................8
Status....................................................................................................................................8
Overview ..............................................................................................................................9
Highway Provisions .................................................................................................................. 10
Core Programs Under STAA ............................................................................................... 11
Critical Asset Investment Program (CAI) ...................................................................... 11
Freight Improvement Program (FIP) ............................................................................. 12
Surface Transportation Program (STP) .......................................................................... 12
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ............................................................. 12
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program ....................... 13
STAA Intermodal Programs ................................................................................................ 13
Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program (MMA)...................................................... 13
Projects of National Significance (PNS) ........................................................................ 14
Selected Additional Highway Programs............................................................................... 14
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) ................................................... 14
Delta Region Transportation Development Program ...................................................... 14
Ferry Program............................................................................................................... 14
Federal and Tribal Lands, Puerto Rico, and Territorial Highway Program ...................... 15
Recreational Trails Program .......................................................................................... 15
Tolling Programs and Public-Private Partnerships ............................................................... 15
Flexibility/Transferability.................................................................................................... 16
Policy Issues ....................................................................................................................... 17
Freight Transportation Initiatives............................................................................................... 18
Freight Improvement Program ............................................................................................ 18
Freight Rail Provisions........................................................................................................ 20
DOT/FHWA Organizational Changes ........................................................................................ 20
The Under Secretary of Transportation for Intermodalism ................................................... 20
Offices of Expedited Project Delivery (FHWA and FTA)............................................... 21
Office of Livability (FHWA) ......................................................................................... 22
Office of Public Benefit ................................................................................................ 22
Transportation Planning ...................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Performance Management................................................................................................... 25
Safety Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 26
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ................................................................... 26
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ................................................. 26
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) ...................................................... 27
Transit Provisions ..................................................................................................................... 27
Transit Funding................................................................................................................... 28
Transit Program Structure ................................................................................................... 28
Transit Program Changes .................................................................................................... 29
Environmental Issues ................................................................................................................ 32
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.................................... 32
Expediting Environmental Review Requirements ................................................................ 33
Greenhouse Gas Provisions ................................................................................................. 34
High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail.......................................................................................... 35
Related Legislation ................................................................................................................... 35
Clean, Low Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act
(S. 575/H.R. 1329)........................................................................................................... 35
Highway Fairness and Reform Act of 2009 (S. 903) ............................................................ 35
Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 (S. 1036).......................... 36
Figures
Figure B-1. Highway Account Balance: FY2006-FY2009 ......................................................... 39
Tables
Table B-1. CBO Spring FY2009 Baseline 2007-2018 ................................................................ 40
Appendixes
Appendix A. CRS Surface Transportation Reauthorization Reports ........................................... 38
Appendix B. Trust Fund Financial Data..................................................................................... 39
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 41
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 42
Congressional Research Service
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Introduction
The existing authorization for federal surface transportation programs provided by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU
or SAFETEA) expires on September 30, 2009. Congress is now considering legislation that
would either reauthorize these programs or extend the existing program into at least part of the
next fiscal year.
While it considers reauthorization or extension legislation, Congress must also address an
ongoing financial shortfall in the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. Just before
leaving for its summer District Work period, Congress provided a short term fix for the funding
problem by transferring $7 billion from the Treasury’s General Fund Account to the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund (P.L. 111-46). These funds are expected to keep the trust fund
solvent through the remainder of FY2009 and may also provide an additional cushion that could
extend later into the fall. This action does not, however, address program extension and provides
no long term solution to the trust fund’s financial problems.
There are many issues associated with surface transportation legislation. Some, but not all, are
discussed in the examination of the legislation under consideration presented in this report. Those
seeking to understand all of the major issues at play in this debate should refer to: CRS Report
R40053, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress,
coordinated by (name redacted).
The SAFETEA Framework
Funding
The Highway Trust Fund consists of two separate accounts—highway and transit—which are
sometimes mistakenly referred to as separate trust funds. In practice, the highway account and the
transit account are discussed as though they were separate entities, with the term Highway Trust
Fund being synonymous with the highway account. The Highway Trust Fund is financed from a
number of sources including sales taxes on tires, trucks, buses, and trailers, as well as truck usage
taxes, but approximately 90% of trust fund revenue comes from excise taxes on motor fuels. The
majority of the motor fuel revenue dedicated to the trust fund is derived from an 18.3 cents per
gallon tax on gasoline (24.3 cents on diesel). The highway account receives an allocation
equivalent to 15.44 cents of the tax and the transit account receives the revenue generated by 2.86
cents of the tax. A separate and unrelated 0.1 cents per gallon tax on all fuels goes into the leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) trust fund.
As FY2009 comes to a close the highway account has once again needed a legislative rescue
before the end of the fiscal year. Otherwise the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would
have been unable to pay states for work they had already completed in a timely manner.1 This
situation was a rerun of last year’s trust fund rescue in which $8 billion was transferred from the
general fund to the highway account to carry it through the end of FY2008 (P.L. 110-318, enacted
1
“DOT Prepares for Next Highway Trust Fund Default,” Transportation Weekly, May 20, 2009, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
1
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
September 15, 2008). What differed this year was that FHWA gave Congress considerably more
notice of the impending problem than was the case last year, thereby allowing Congress to take
action to provide the trust fund with sufficient funds, $7 billion, to carry it through the remainder
of FY2009 (P.L. 111-46). For the moment the transit account remains solvent, though its long
term health is also believed to be in jeopardy.
Over the 50-plus year life of the trust fund there have been several increases in the levels of
taxation. The last increase in the fuels taxes occurred in 1993 (all of these funds were not actually
deposited into the trust fund initially, but were deposited in the Treasury general funds for deficit
reduction purposes until FY1998). Historically, the trust fund based revenue collection system has
been a reliable, and ever growing, source of funding for surface transportation. This situation has
changed under SAFETEA as spending on highways and transit has exceeded both highway and
transit account revenues on a regular basis. Data provided by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) spring FY2009 baseline calculation, Appendix B, Table B-1, shows that the highway
account had outlays of $35 billion for FY2007 against the aforementioned receipts of $34.3
billion. In FY2008 outlays of $37 billion were matched by only $31.3 billion in receipts, not
including the aforementioned injection of $8 billion into the trust fund from Treasury general
funds. For FY2009 the CBO estimates were for an even greater gap, outlays of $38.8 billion
versus receipts of $31.6 billion. In reality, the FY2009 receipt level will be even worse than
predicted by CBO in its spring baseline calculation because driving continues to be well below
predicted levels due to the ongoing recession, and other trust fund tax components such as truck
sales taxes, are also producing revenues well below expectations. These trends are shown clearly
in an FHWA prepared chart attached to the end of this report in Appendix B, Figure B-1.
As a rule of thumb, adding a penny to the federal fuels tax provides the trust fund with between
$1.6 and $1.8 billion in new revenues. Without an increase in the existing fuel taxes, a difficult
political issue in recent years, the fuel-based trust fund taxation system will not be able to support
increased surface transportation spending. The choice for policymakers, therefore, is to find new
sources of income for the expanded program that transportation proponents desire, or
alternatively, to settle for a smaller program that might look very different than the one currently
in place.
In the past nothing has solved the political problems of the surface transportation program faster
than new money. TEA21 especially benefitted from a run up in fuel usage during the boom years
of the late 1990s, that was at least partially the result of growing SUV purchases during the
period. SAFETEA did not have quite the same financial backing, but the authors of the act were
nonetheless able to find sufficient new revenues to make the act possible. The next
reauthorization bill, as the above discussion indicates, lacks a ready source of new cash. This
situation will define the upcoming legislative debate much more clearly than discussions of
program structure, system needs, and a host of other items expected to be addressed in the weeks
and months ahead.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5)
The ARRA provided considerable new funding authority to surface transportation programs for
FY2009 and FY2010. The federal-aid highway program received $27.5 billion to be distributed
through the existing federal-aid highway program. The federal transit program will receive $8.4
billion. High Speed Passenger Rail, previously a relatively small federal program, will receive $8
billion. An additional $1.5 billion which can be used for any eligible surface transportation
purpose is made available by a new Surface Transportation Discretionary Grant program. This
Congressional Research Service
2
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
new program is under the control of the Secretary of Transportation and must be spent on projects
of at least $20 million and not more than $300 million. The ARRA also provides for changes in
tax law that will enable additional spending on transportation projects using so-called innovative
financing (in this case providing a tax credit for “Build America Bonds” amongst other
provisions). Transportation activities normally outside the scope of surface transportation
reauthorization also received funding.
The reauthorization debate will proceed against this backdrop. Those seeking to delay
reauthorization view this large boost in funding as a reason to move slowly on a new surface
transportation bill. The alternative view, however, is that the ARRA provides only a down
payment on what many consider to be serious national infrastructure deficiencies and that new
funding is needed going forward to keep the momentum for improvement moving in the right
direction.
Highways
The Federal-Aid Highway Program (Highway Program) is an umbrella term for an array of
individually authorized programs administered by the FHWA. There are two categories of
programs: formula and discretionary. Formula program funds are distributed annually amongst
the states based on factors detailed in authorizing legislation. These annual state formula
distributions are known in FHWA program parlance as “apportionments.” All of the large
highway programs are formula/apportionment programs.2 Discretionary programs tend to be
smaller programs. Funding under these programs is allocated by the FHWA or is earmarked by
Congress.
The Highway Program is primarily a state run program. The state departments of transportation
(state DOTs), operating within the federal programmatic framework, largely determine where and
how money is spent (but have to comply with detailed federal planning guidelines as part of the
decision making process). The state DOTs let the contracts and oversee the project development
and construction process.
Federal monies for highway project spending are not provided to states up front. Rather, when
amounts are “distributed” to the states, it is initially a notification of the availability of federal
funds. Once a project is approved and the work is started, the states may submit vouchers to the
FHWA for reimbursement for the project’s costs as, or after, they are incurred. The
“reimbursable” nature of the highway program is designed to help prevent waste, fraud and
abuse.
The Highway Program is funded with contract authority (CA). CA is a type of budget authority
that is available for “obligation” (which makes the federal government obligated to pay)
according to the provisions of authorizing legislation, without further legislative action (i.e., prior
to an appropriation).3 Because CA can be obligated without an appropriation, a spending control
mechanism, called a “limitation on obligations” (ObLim or Oblimit), is used to control annual
2
The High Priority Project Program under SAFETEA, is a large program in dollar terms, but is essentially a list of
congressional designations (earmarks) and has few programmatic features generally associated with a program.
3
For a more detailed discussion see Federal Highway Administration, Financing Federal-Aid Highways, (Washington,
2007), pp. 9-10, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/financingfederalaid/approp.htm#b.
Congressional Research Service
3
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
spending in the place of the appropriation.4 The ObLim sets a limit on the total amount of
contract authority that can be obligated in a single fiscal year. In most discussions, the ObLim is
analogous to an appropriation, in that it is considered to be the best indicator of the amount of
federal funding actually being made available for use by the states.
Federally funded highway projects generally require states and/or local governments to
participate financially by providing a designated local matching share. For most Interstate System
projects the match is 90% federal and 10% state/local (except in states with large amounts of
federal land where the federal share may be larger). For other programs the match is generally
80% federal and 20% state/local.
The “Core” Formula Programs
The vast majority of the federal-aid highway money for project spending is apportioned to the
state DOTs through several large “core” formula-driven programs.5 These programs are the “big
money” programs (roughly 80% of the last authorization act’s CA6) and are the sources of
funding for most federal-aid highway projects. The core formula programs are:
•
Interstate Maintenance Program (IM)
•
National Highway System (NHS)
•
Surface Transportation Program (STP)7
•
Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
•
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
•
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
•
Equity Bonus Program (EB)—EB funds are distributed into the programs above
The authorization act sets the total amount for each of these programs and formulas are
run to determine the portion of the program’s total authorization that is made available to
each state. These programs were conceived, at least in part, to provide federal funds for
specific needs as is indicated generally by the program names. There are also a number of
smaller formula programs and activities such as the Safe Routes to School program,
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) program, and Metropolitan
Planning.
Over time, the state DOTs have been given increasing flexibility to shift funds from one
program to another (excepting HSIP) to help implement their state transportation plans.
Some Highway Program funding may also be used for transit projects. This flexibility has
the effect of reducing the importance of funding formulas and program eligibility
4
Ibid., pp. 19-22. To be contract authority the authorization must refer to Title 23 Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code and it
must be funded out of the Highway Trust Fund.
5
For a list of FHWA programs that receive funding (apportionments) by formula (including smaller non-“core”
formula programs), see Federal Highway Administration, Financing Federal-Aid Highways, Appendix D,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/financingfederalaid/index.htm.
6
Includes Equity Bonus distributions to IM, NHS, STP, and HBP.
7
For a diagram of STP distribution, see FHWA, Financing Federal-Aid Highways, Appendix F,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/financingfederalaid/appf.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
distinctions. Despite the growing funding flexibility, some state DOTs as well as some
urban interests would argue that the programmatic structure still inhibits them from using
federal highway funds in the way that they deem the most efficient or beneficial.
The Equity Bonus Program is the largest highway program in dollar terms. Its purpose is
to assure that each state receives a prescribed rate-of-return (currently 92%) to its core
apportionment programs on its highway users’ tax payments into the highway account of
the trust fund. The program’s operation is very complicated and cannot be described here
for reasons of brevity. 8 One effect of the Equity Bonus, however, is that, like the
flexibility provisions, it can be viewed as diluting the policy rationales associated with
the core program formulas. In some years, additional money has also been allocated to
some formula programs through a process called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA).
Discretionary Programs
There are also a number of smaller discretionary programs (also referred to as allocated
programs) that are also part of the Highway Program. These programs are nominally under the
control of the FHWA and were designed to allocate funds to projects chosen through competition
with other projects. Since FY2000, most discretionary program funding has been earmarked by
Congress. Among the most commonly discussed discretionary programs are the Transportation,
Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP), the National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement Program (NCIIP), Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities, and
Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS).9
The term “program” is used very broadly. The FHWA’s Financing Federal-Aid Highways listing
of Allocated Programs includes entries for 59 activities, some of which are clearly programmatic
in nature, mixed in with others that more resemble specific project designations, temporary pilot
programs, studies, and other narrowly directed activities that some observers might question
being listed as programs.10
Alternative/Innovative Finance
DOT has a number of financing mechanisms other than the grant programs. FHWA innovative
financing mechanisms include the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA), Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs), and State Infrastructure Banks. 11 All
of these financing techniques leverage federal funds through debt mechanisms.
8
For detailed information see CRS Report R40451, The Donor-Donee State Issue: Funding Equity in Surface
Transportation Reauthorization, by (name redacted).
9
For a list of all allocated programs, see FHWA, Financing Federal-aid Highways, Appendix G, “Authorizations for
Allocated Programs,” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/financingfederalaid/appg.htm.
10
Ibid.
11
Federal Highway Administration, Innovative Financing Primer, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 15-29,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/ifp/ifprimer.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Transit
The federal transit program, administered by DOT’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA), is a
collection of individual programs, each with different funding amounts, distributional
mechanisms, and spending eligibility rules.12 There are four main federal transit programs in
SAFETEA, together accounting for 85% of authorized funding. Funding in two of these
programs, the Urbanized Area Formula Program and the Fixed Guideway (or Rail) Modernization
Program, is distributed by formula. The Urbanized Area Formula Program, which accounts for
41% of authorized funding in SAFETEA, provides funding to urbanized areas with a population
of 50,000 or more. Funds can be used for a broad range of expenses including capital, planning,
transit enhancements, and operations in urbanized areas with a population of up to 200,000. Fixed
Guideway Modernization Program funds, 16% of authorized funding, go mainly for the
replacement and rehabilitation of transit rail system assets.
The other two main transit programs, the New Starts Program and the Bus and Bus-Related
Facilities Capital Program, are both discretionary programs, although funding in the Bus Program
is mostly earmarked. New Starts funding, 18% of overall authorized funding, is available
primarily on a competitive basis for new fixed guideway systems and extensions. While the
majority of funding from this program over the years has gone to transit rail projects, the New
Starts program has funded projects for busways and bus rapid transit, ferries, automated
guideway systems, and vintage trolleys. Congress enacted a new “Small Starts” program in
SAFETEA to fund projects with a total cost of $250 million or less in which the federal share is
$75 million or less. Small Starts projects are funded with $200 million annually from the New
Starts authorization beginning in FY2007. Bus Program funds, 9% of authorized funding, are
provided to purchase buses and bus-related equipment, including the construction of buildings
such as administrative and maintenance facilities, transfer facilities, bus shelters, and park-andride stations.
A number of smaller funding programs, including the Rural Formula Program, the Jobs Access
and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, the Elderly and Disabilities grants program, and the
New Freedom Program, together with program administration account for the remaining 15% of
program funds.
Safety
Highway transportation is by far the predominant cause of transportation-related fatalities and
injuries in the United States. Three DOT agencies administer highway safety programs authorized
in SAFETEA: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and the FHWA through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Highway safety is primarily the responsibility of the states, controlling as they do much of the
road network and having the authority to legislate restrictions on driver behavior. Congress has
12
CRS Report RL34171, Public Transit Program Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, by (name redac
ted).
Congressional Research Service
6
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
established a federal highway safety program to assist states in improving highway safety. Within
the DOT, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the office primarily
responsible for promoting highway safety. NHTSA provides grants to states to support and
encourage state traffic safety efforts, regulates motor vehicle safety, and carries out research on
traffic safety.
NHTSA monitors state highway safety activities and oversees the use of federal grant funds by
requiring states to submit highway safety plans. A state’s plan must be approved by the DOT in
order for the state to receive federal traffic safety funds. Each state’s plan must identify the state’s
primary safety problems, set goals for addressing the problems, and establish performance
measures by which progress toward improving those safety problems can be measured. NHTSA
also provides training and technical assistance to states.
NHTSA’s safety grant programs can be divided into two parts: formula and incentive programs.
The largest program, the State and Community Highway Safety Program (often referred to as the
Section 402 program, from its statutory identification as Section 402 of Title 23), provides grants
to states by a formula, and is the core federal highway safety grant program. Congress has also
established several smaller incentive grant programs which encourage states to adopt policies or
carry out programs in support of federal safety priorities.
The Section 402 program provides grants to states to carry out highway safety programs intended
to reduce the number of traffic crashes and their resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage.
Specifically, Section 402 requires states to carry out programs that address speeding, the use of
occupant protection devices (seat belts and child restraint systems), drunk and drugged driving,
motorcycle crashes, school bus crashes, and unsafe driving behavior (including aggressive
driving, fatigued driving, and distracted driving caused by the use of electronic devices in
vehicles). Grants are distributed to the states by a formula based on population and public road
mileage. At least 40% of the funds each state receives must be passed on to local communities for
implementation of highway safety programs.
In addition to the Section 402 program, Congress established or amended six traffic safety
incentive grant programs in SAFETEA that offer states the opportunity to qualify to receive
additional federal funding by passing legislation or implementing programs that address these
issues. The programs focus on promoting the use of occupant protection devices (seat belts and
child car seats), reducing the incidence of driving while intoxicated, promoting motorcyclist
safety, and improving state traffic safety data collection systems. The number of states which
have qualified to receive grants under these programs each year during the period of SAFETEALU has varied from as few as five or six to all 50 states.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) promotes the safety of commercial
motor vehicle operations through regulation, enforcement, training, and technical assistance. It
also administers motor carrier safety grant programs that assist states in ensuring the safety of
commercial motor vehicle operations, including inspection of vehicles and licensing of
commercial drivers.
Congressional Research Service
7
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The FHWA administered HSIP is one of the aforementioned core federal-aid highway funding
programs. Its purpose is to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads by making
improvements to the design or operation of the roadway. Each state receives funding according to
a formula based on road lane-miles, vehicle miles traveled, and traffic fatalities. Each state
receives at least 0.5% (1/2 of one percent) of the program’s funding. HSIP includes a dollar setaside for the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program from the program’s
funding and there is also a dollar set-aside within the formula funds distributed to the states for
the purpose of construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
Extension Legislation
The Obama Administration has asked Congress to extend the existing program for 18 months for
a number of reasons, the most important being the need to identify a solid funding structure for
long term program reauthorization. Senate Committee leadership has concurred with the
Administration view and the Senate is now considering extension legislation.
On July 22, 2009, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) reported the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1498). This legislation would extend existing
surface transportation programs at current funding levels for 18 months (beginning October 1,
2009 and ending March 31, 2011). EPW has jurisdiction over highway titles of the surface
transportation program and is the lead Committee on reauthorization. The 3 other Senate
Committees with jurisdiction over various titles of the program have subsequently reported and/or
introduced similar legislation: Commerce, Science, and Transportation (S. 1496), Banking (S.
1533), and Finance (S. 1474). The provisions in these bills are likely to be merged into a single
bill should the Senate choose to consider this issue in the fall of 2009.
The Proposed Surface Transportation Authorization
Act of 2009 (STAA)
Status
This legislation was made public on June 18, 2009 by the leadership of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. As released, the legislation is incomplete, lacking funding data
and the details of several major provisions.
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit mark up of the proposed legislation occurred on June 24,
2009. No amendments were considered during the markup session (several were introduced, but
all were subsequently withdrawn).
The bill is as yet unnumbered as it has not been formally introduced. Information on the contents
of the not yet completed bill is available at the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure’s website: http://transportation.house.gov/. In addition, an Executive Summary of
the contents of the bill and documents explaining the rationale behind its major provisions can be
found at the same location.
Congressional Research Service
8
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Overview
The authors of this legislation view it as transformational.13 From their perspective this legislation
presents a clear break from the existing structure of the federal surface transportation program
that has developed incrementally over the last several decades. In part they hold this view because
they see the proposed legislation as a refocusing and simplification of the program. Simplification
here is facilitated by the elimination of 75 stand alone programs, the creation of a few new
focused programs, and a rethinking of existing programs that are retained. This restructuring is
especially true for what might be regarded as the traditional highway portion of the legislation
(Title I–Federal-Aid Highways) although, as will be discussed, the bill to a significant extent tries
to make Title I more intermodal in nature, and therefore might not be viewed by its authors as
having a purely highway section.
The legislation is not devoid of new initiatives. It creates several new programs: the critical asset
investment (CAI) program, the freight transportation program (FIP), the metropolitan mobility
and access program (MMA), and a program for projects of national significance (PNS). The bill
also provides for structural and other changes in several retained programs.
A principal feature of the legislation is its focus on intermodalism, which its authors consider an
issue of overarching importance throughout the bill. To advance its policy goals the bill makes
significant changes to the organization of the Department of Transportation (DOT), requires new
national and regional (metropolitan) planning initiatives, greatly enhances the role of certain
groups within the transportation planning and construction process - most notably in regard to
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) - and establishes broad program performance
management systems.
The interest in performance management is particularly notable. The terms “performance target”
and “performance measure” appear a combined 95 times in the bill. These same terms appeared
only eight times in SAFETEA. According to the preamble, the legislation is designed “to
transform Federal surface transportation to a performance-based framework ... ” While federal
performance management systems requirements would be new, the extent to which this is
transformational is debatable. This bill appears to add performance management on top of the
existing rules, regulations, and reporting requirements within many of the categorical programs.
Some would argue that to be transformational, performance-based management should be used to
replace rather than supplement these requirements. In this way the federal government would not
dictate to states, localities, and transit agencies how to spend federal funds, funds that might be
distributed via a block grant, but would set performance standards that they must meet. Recipients
of federal funds would then be free to develop their own solutions to transportation problems, but
would be held accountable, through rewards and penalties, for the results.
At 775 pages, without funding data, details on several programs, and an expected list of high
priority projects (earmarks), the bill is nonetheless likely to be viewed as complicated and
13
The view that the bill is transformational is set forth by the bill’s authors in STAA supporting documents available
on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Internet website, see The Surface Transportation
Authorization Act of 2009: a Blueprint for Investment and Reform; Executive Summary (Washington, 2009), pp. 3-4;
House Committee on Ways and Means, The Honorable James L. Oberstar Chairman, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Statement Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Hearing, 111th Cong. 1st sess.,
July 23, 2009, p. 4; and Letter of June 24, 2009, to United States President Barack Obama from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. All these sources are available at http://transportation.house.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
9
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
difficult to comprehend, especially for non-transportation practitioners. In part, the length of the
bill is related to how it has been drafted. Whereas previous legislation usually contained language
amending the U.S.C. Title 23 (Highways), this legislation redrafts significant portions of the title.
But the length of the proposed legislation is also related to the aforementioned restructuring of the
federal surface transportation programs and by significant changes in the overall policy goals
advanced by the bill.
Because STAA includes some limits on new highway lane construction and focuses on freight,
transit, intermodalism, and livability policies, some observers might construe features of this bill
as being biased against expanding highway capacity. Others, however, may view these features of
the bill as reflecting policies that favor alternatives to the automobile, such as transit, bicycles,
and walking.
Funding remains the great unknown of this legislation. The T&I Committee in its supporting
document calls for a $500 billion program; $450 billion, mostly from the Highway Trust Fund’s
two accounts, for surface transportation programs (with a U.S. Treasury general fund contribution
for transit) and an additional $50 billion for high speed rail, most likely from the U.S. Treasury
general fund account and/or other sources. Since the T&I Committee lacks jurisdiction over tax
and other fundraising policy, it must wait for the House Committee on Ways and Means to come
up with a revenue raising scheme that would fund the T&I Committee’s proposals or limit the
size of the bill to some other, as of yet, undetermined amount.
Because the bill lacks a revenue title as well as programmatic funding information, it is, at this
juncture, difficult to evaluate the relative importance that the STAA places on certain of its
programs, especially its new ones. For example, it is clear that the FIP is an important policy
direction for the bill, but without funding information, it is impossible to know whether it is
viewed as a small start up program or a large long term initiative.
In the supporting documents provided by the Committee transit appears to do well in terms of
funding under the bill. T&I has stated that the federal transit program alone will be authorized at
$99.8 billion over six years, an annual average of $16.6 billion. Not counting highway program
funds that may go to support transit projects and the $50 billion proposed by the supporting
documents for high speed rail, the share of the funding directed to transit by the STAA is 22%.
This discussion basically follows the organization of the proposed legislation on a subject by
subject basis. Because of the structure of the bill, some provisions, such as performance
management, appear throughout the legislation, so there may appear to be some overlap and
occasional redundancy in this discussion. This is largely intentional.
Highway Provisions
STAA would make major changes in the structure and policy focus in the Highway Title of the
reauthorization bill (Title I). The bill represents a major programmatic shift away from highway
construction in a broader sense and toward a concentration on: the maintenance/improvement of
existing highways; the improvement of freight movement, in regard to both highway and
intermodal improvements; multimodal improvements to metropolitan area mobility, access, and
livability; addressing large projects of national significance; as well as continuing highway safety
efforts. Some could see STAA as being more urban-focused in outlook than SAFETEA, in part by
Congressional Research Service
10
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
expanding the authority of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) relative to the state
DOTs.
Among the structural changes the Highway Title of STAA would make to the Federal-Aid
Highway program are the following. In Subtitle A, among the core programs, the Interstate
Maintenance Program, the current Highway Bridge Program, and the National Highway System
Program would cease to exist as independent entities and their programmatic responsibilities
would be transferred mostly to the newly created Critical Asset Investment (CAI) and Freight
Improvement (FIP) programs, or to the existing STP, which, it appears, could be substantially
expanded by STAA in dollar terms. Of the SAFETEA core programs, STP, CMAQ, and HSIP are
retained as core programs to be joined by CAI and the FIP, a total of five core programs. Funds
under these core programs would be apportioned among the states by formula.
In Subtitle B, Intermodal and Organizational Innovations, STAA creates two major intermodal
programs, the Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program (MMA) and Projects of National
Significance (PNS), which would be under the control of MPOs and the FHWA, respectively, and
not state DOTs.
STAA would allow for a major expansion of funding transferability between highway and transit
programs and a broadening of direct project funding eligibilities to allow an increase in direct
highway funding of transit projects or direct transit funding of highway projects. Historically,
however, most of such funding transfers have been of Title 23 U.S.C., Highways funds to Chapter
53 of Title 49, Public Transportation projects and uses. Transferability is discussed further later in
this section.
STAA also continues a significant number of discretionary programs, consolidates or eliminates
some, and creates others.14
Core Programs Under STAA
Five STAA programs fit the profile of core programs under earlier legislation, programs that
provide for the apportioning of contract authority for highways among the states by formula.
Critical Asset Investment Program (CAI)
The stated intent of this new program (Section 1110) is to bring the National Highway System
(NHS) roads and bridges (which include all Interstate System routes and most other major arterial
highways) up to a state of good repair and to preserve this condition. CAI is also intended to
strengthen the connection between funding and performance outcomes. Eligibility is limited to
highways on the NHS (about 4% of total U.S. road length) or bridges on Federal-Aid Highways.15
Capacity expansion that involves the addition of added travel lanes that are not auxiliary lanes are
not eligible projects unless they are located on Federal-Aid Highway bridges.16 The provision
14
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: a
Blueprint for Investment and Reform, (Washington, 2009), pp. 2-4, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/
Highways/HPP/Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint%20Program%20Consolidation.pdf.
15
Federal-Aid Highways account for about 25% of total road mileage in the United States.
16
An example of an auxiliary lane would be the lanes connecting on and off ramps.
Congressional Research Service
11
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
includes a currently unspecified percentage that states could spend on certain CAI management,
data collection, bridge inspection, and bridge inspection personnel training efforts. The CAI
provision sets forth a variety of performance measures and targets for the program. It also
requires each state to submit state CAI plans to DOT for approval. If DOT disapproves a state
plan, the Department is not to approve funding for uninitiated projects until the plan, or updated
plan, is approved. DOT may lower a state’s required performance targets under certain
conditions, including in a finding by the DOT that the state is receiving insufficient
apportionments to meet its CAI targets or because of an emergency. Beginning in 2012, if DOT
determines that a project is inconsistent with its plan, federal funding may be withheld from the
project.
Freight Improvement Program (FIP)
STAA (Section 1105) creates a second new program that would provide apportionments to states
to fund publicly owned highway freight transportation projects. The bill sets forth the four
purposes of the FIP as: 1) to improve the existing freight transportation system, 2) to add physical
capacity to the freight transportation system, 3) to strengthen the ability of rural communities to
access national and international trade markets, and 4) to support regional economic
development. FIP projects must be located on the NHS, the National [truck] Network, or
secondary freight routes designated under procedures set forth in STAA. States are to develop
state freight plans. Projects must be on the state plan to receive funding. States would be allowed
to make grants to freight corridor coalitions (which must meet certain organizational requirements
of the bill to qualify). Many observers would regard the FIP as a major new intermodal initiative.
For some reason not made clear by the authors of the STAA, the FIP is made part of the core
programs and not part of the intermodal section of the bill. This program is discussed in greater
detail later in this report.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
This existing program would, under STAA Section 1106, retain its SAFETEA requirements and
eligibilities with a few changes. Former Highway Bridge Program projects, not eligible under
CAI, would be directly eligible for STP funding, as would tunnels. Under current law 10% of
STP funds must be obligated for Transportation Enhancement activities. STAA would also
specifically require that ten percent of the STP funds sub-allocated to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) be used only for Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities. The suballocation of STP funds, after TE funding is subtracted, is shifted to be 80% based on population
and 20% to any area of the state (from 62.5% and 37.5% respectively under SAFETEA). STP is,
in general, the most flexible of the existing Highway Programs both in terms of project eligibility
and the transferability favored by many state and local officials. In this regard, STP contrasts with
more restrictive programs, such as the proposed CAI. The federal share would remain 80%.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
STAA (Section 1108) would continue this SAFETEA created program with a number of changes.
States would be required to develop HSIP investment plans. Funding after FY2012 would be
contingent on implementation of the plan. DOT is to establish, in coordination with the states,
quantifiable highway safety targets for each state. Strategies to meet these safety targets are to be
integrated into states’ existing Strategic Highway Safety Plans. The general cost share for HSIP is
set at 90% (except as required by 23 U.S.C. 130). The High Risk Rural Road Program is
Congressional Research Service
12
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
consolidated within the HSIP but is given distinct funding under the bill (the amount is as yet
unspecified). Several narrowly focused safety programs are also brought under the HSIP
umbrella. The federal share is 90%. This program is also discussed in the safety section of this
report.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
STAA (Section 1109) continues and modifies this existing core Highway Program. CMAQ
provides funding for projects and activities which reduce transportation related emissions in air
quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide. and particulate matter.
The bill would allow CMAQ funds to be used for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
construction. It also would reduce DOT’s authority to allow use of CMAQ funds in Clean Air Act
attainment areas. CMAQ funds would be allowed for purchase of clean-fuel public transportation
buses. The CMAQ formula factors have been rewritten but their relative weights are not given.
The federal share is 80%. This program is discussed in greater detail in the environmental section
of this report.
STAA Intermodal Programs
Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program (MMA)
STAA (Section 1205) creates the MMA program which would provide multimodal transportation
funding and financing authority directly to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).17 As
mentioned earlier, direct funding to MPOs would be a major change under the Federal-Aid
Highway Program. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences
would be required to provide recommendations for project selection and evaluation criteria. DOT
would have 18 months to issue a rule to carry out Section 1205. Projects under either Title 23
(Highways) or under Chapter 53, Title 49 (Public Transportation) of the U.S. Code would be
eligible for MMA funding. To be an eligible MPO under MMA, an MPO must serve an urban
area with a population of over 500,000, must submit a proper application, have an approved
metropolitan mobility plan in effect, demonstrate the ability to carry out congestion management,
and demonstrate cost management strategies and systems. There are two tiers of grants: tier one
grants are for MPOs serving urbanized areas with over 1,000,000 people that experience
substantial travel time delays; tier two grants are available to eligible MPOs that have not
received tier one grants. Of the funds made available under MMA, 40% are to be for tier one
grants and 60% are to be for tier two grants. Tier one grants are limited to not more than 10
recipients. In allocating tier two grants, DOT is to ensure a geographically equitable distribution
of financial assistance through such grants. DOT may enter into full funding grant agreements
(FFGAs) with recipients establishing the terms and limits of federal participation. The FFGA
must identify performance criteria for the eligible recipient entering into the agreement. Plans
involving tolls or public private partnerships (PPPs) that are part of a metropolitan mobility plan,
must be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Office of Public Benefit (described later in
this report). Some interest and other financing costs are eligible within certain limitations. Certain
planning and reporting costs are also eligible. Eligible recipients may enter into an agreement
17
Whether all MPOs are authorized under state and local laws to receive funds directly from the federal government is
uncertain (See 23 U.S.C. Section 134).
Congressional Research Service
13
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
with the DOT to establish a metropolitan infrastructure bank to provide credit to help carry out
projects and activities in its metropolitan mobility plan. Although Section 1205 does not overtly
discourage MPOs from using MMA funds on highway construction, it is likely that much MMA
funding will be spent on transit improvements. The federal share is 80%.
Projects of National Significance (PNS)
STAA (Section 1206) establishes a new project program for very large projects of national
significance that cannot be addressed through regular state highway apportionments. Projects are
to equal or exceed the lesser of $500 million or 75% of a state’s annual apportionment. Projects
must be eligible under the highway title (Title 23) or the mass transit title (Chapter 53 of Title 49).
In addition, Section 1206 also identifies as eligible: an international bridge or tunnel, a public rail
facility or private rail facility that provides public benefit, an intermodal freight transfer facility,
access improvements or service improvements such as intelligent transportation systems for
freight rail facilities or intermodal freight transfer facilities. In some cases there may be limited
assistance to ports for surface transportation infrastructure modification. DOT is to set
competitive criteria for grant selection. DOT would carry out a national solicitation for grant
applications and award the grants on a competitive basis. DOT would issue letters of intent
followed by an FFGA. The federal share is 80% but a lower federal share may be requested by
the grant recipient.
Selected Additional Highway Programs
STAA also includes a number of both new and existing programs that neither fit into the core
formula program category nor the new intermodal program category. They include the following.
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS)
Under Section 1116, ADHS funds would be apportioned via the most recent cost-to-complete
estimate. Each of the participating states are guaranteed a minimum of 1% of funds, and a
maximum share is set at 25%. STAA would cut the allowable access road mileage on the ADHS
from 1,400 miles to 1,000 miles. The bill repeals the designation of corridor O-1 in Pennsylvania
and limits the federal share of the cost to complete corridor X-1 in Alabama to $500 million.
Funds apportioned prior to September 30, 2009 but not obligated before September 30, 2013 are
to be rescinded as of that date. The federal share under ADHS is 80%.
Delta Region Transportation Development Program
Section 1117 would reauthorize the program for FY2010-FY2015, but no amount is given.
Ferry Program
Section 1107 would reestablish the program for reconstruction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities as the Ferry Program. The new Section 147 does not include the current set-asides for
Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington State. The provision would require the establishment of a
National Ferry Database. The program is to be an apportioned program, but the apportionment
formula is not provided.
Congressional Research Service
14
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Federal and Tribal Lands, Puerto Rico, and Territorial Highway Program
Section 1113 would consolidate the Federal Lands Highways programs (Public Lands Highways,
Indian Reservation Roads, Park Roads and Parkways, and Refuge Roads) with the Territorial
Highway System (Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and the Puerto Rico Highways program.
Funding amounts are not provided. It appears that the individual programs would retain much of
their individual programmatic structures under the broader programmatic umbrella.
Recreational Trails Program
Section 1114 would require DOT to encourage states to contract with qualified youth
conservation and service corps to perform construction and maintenance of recreational trails.
Tolling Programs and Public-Private Partnerships
Although under current federal law, tolling of most federally funded roads, bridges, and tunnels is
allowed, it is limited in regard to the Interstate System highways. From a policy perspective the
limitation on tolling of the Interstate System is important because it is the Interstate System
highways that most often carry sufficient traffic to potentially produce the level of toll revenue
needed to support toll-based financing of highways. SAFETEA provided for a limited broadening
of tolling of Interstate System highways, by adding a number of pilot programs and making a
number of other modifications. STAA appears to be changing direction by eliminating several
programs and instituting some new requirements. To begin with, STAA would eliminate the
following toll or toll related programs: the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program, the
Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, the Value Pricing Program,
and the Express Lanes Demonstration Program.
Perhaps more importantly, STAA would require that before instituting tolls a number of new
conditions are met. A public authority would have to consider the negative effects of a toll on
interstate commerce or travel, provide improvements to accommodate diverted travelers, and
mitigate the effect of the toll on low-income drivers. Toll revenues are first to be used for facility
capital and operating costs, for debt service, and for a reasonable return on investment. Excess
revenues generated from a tolled high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility may be used for public
transportation facilities within the same travel corridor as the HOV lanes. This could potentially
be a significant shift of resources from highways to mass transit in certain corridors. DOT is to
review all toll rate schedules prior to implementation. Federal participation would be allowed in
HOV projects where hybrids or other low-emission single-occupant vehicles pay a toll to use the
HOV lanes.
Public-private partnerships (PPP), often financed by vehicle tolls, have been created in many
different ways to develop, construct, and operate highway and transit infrastructure.18 Under the
proposed legislation, PPPs entered into by agreements at the state and local level, but involving
federal-aid highway funds, would also be subject to a number of new federal requirements.
Among the most important provisions is the requirement that a public authority entering into such
18
For more information, see CRS Report RL34567, Public-Private Partnerships in Highway and Transit Infrastructure
Provision, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
15
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
an agreement must evaluate the costs and benefits of the PPP against traditional public delivery
methods. The public authority would also be subject to some new requirements regarding public
information and public involvement before awarding a contract. Furthermore, PPP agreements
would be precluded from including a non-compete clause. These clauses are designed to prevent
public authorities from providing new, competitive highway infrastructure near a privately
controlled facility. The act also permits the public authority to terminate a contract early with fair
market compensation to the private partner (Section 1504).
To ensure compliance with these new tolling and PPP requirements, the act creates within the
FHWA an Office of Public Benefit (OPB) to “provide for the protection of the public interest in
relation to highway toll projects and public-private partnership agreements on Federal-aid
highways” (Section 1204). Among other things, the director of the office is empowered to
administer toll agreements by reviewing and approving toll rate schedules and changes. The OPB
would also be required to provide leadership and technical assistance on the development of
highway toll projects and highway PPPs.
These new tolling and PPP oversight provisions appear to be designed to mitigate problems that
detractors of these arrangements often mention, such as the possibilities for diverting traffic to
other routes and travelers to other types of transportation, increasing driving costs to burdensome
levels (particularly for low income travelers), and by-passing the public planning process. This
may also be an attempt to develop a more systematic approach to identifying and evaluating the
public interest in PPPs, as suggested by GAO among others, instead of the current project-byproject evaluation.19 Critics of more oversight worry, however, that these new requirements will
dampen, if not extinguish, the desire of states and the private sector to pursue tolling and PPP
agreements because of the extra time, expense, and uncertainties that they may entail. A possible
major source of uncertainty is the requirement that the OPB review and approve a PPP on its
compliance with new public transparency requirements. One critic suggests this review and
approval might be forthcoming only late in the process when design and financing details have
been settled. Because of the substantial time and money it takes to develop projects early on,
risking disapproval at this juncture would likely be unacceptable to project partners, thus, the
thought is, few projects would ever be advanced. 20
Flexibility/Transferability
Section 1103 appears to allow blanket highway-transit transfers to and from any Title 23
(Highway) or Chapter 53, Title 49 (Public Transportation) programs. States may also transfer
funds to other states or to the FHWA for other uses. States with urbanized areas of over 200,000
individuals receiving STP sub allocations may not transfer such apportionments to highway uses
without MPO agreement.
In addition, the MMA and PNS programs provide that any projects eligible under either Title 23
(Highways) or Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transportation) are directly eligible under the new
programs. This appears to allow for funds, authorized under the highway title of STAA, to be
19
Government Accountability Office, Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-front Analysis Could
Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public Interest, GAO-08-44, Washington, DC, February 2008,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0844.pdf.
20
D.J. Gribbin, “Public Private Partnerships and the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009,” Public Works
Financing, June 2009, pp. 7-10.
Congressional Research Service
16
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
spent directly on mass transit projects without an administrative transfer of funds. This could
present DOT with organizational issues in regard to the tracking and management of spending
under these provisions. It could also make it difficult to distinguish between federal highway and
transit spending.
The ability to transfer highway funding to mass transit uses and vice versa is not new, but STAA
broadens the extent to which this can be done. The broadening of flexibility makes virtually all of
STAA’s Federal-Aid Highway title available for transit use through transfer or through direct
eligibility. Although Section 1103 also provides for transfer of mass transit funding to highway
projects, historically the transfers have mostly flowed from highways to transit.
STAA appears to have retained existing interagency transfers among existing programs that
would continue should the bill be enacted, but has not included interagency transferability
provisions in the proposed legislative language of the new programs. It therefore appears that
programs such as STP, CMAQ, and Recreational Trails may still transfer funds to each other, but
transfers to and from the new Title 23 highway programs such as CAI, FIP, MMA, and PNS may
not be allowable.
Policy Issues
The programmatic provisions under STAA, for the most part, share a number of administrative
requirements. Detailed performance, planning, and reporting requirements are set forth for most
of the programs in Title I (Federal-Aid Highways) of the bill. These planning and performance
mandates could require a significant increase in personnel at DOT, state DOTs, and MPOs.
As mentioned earlier, the state administration of Federal-aid Highway Program funded projects
has been a basic program attribute since the Federal Highway Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 22). Under
the Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program, financing authority would be made available
directly to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). This would be a major change in the
way the Federal-Aid Highway Program operates and could be seen as a major shift in authority
from the states to the MPOs. There are some in the transportation community who question the
ability of some MPOs to administer a program such as MMA efficiently. Another concern is that,
at least in some states, MPOs may not have the legal authority to receive federal funds directly.
Given the prohibition on new lane construction using CAI funding, the freight, intermodal, and
livability focuses of the other major new highway programs, and the greatly expanded
transferability between highways and transit, some highway interests might express concerns that
solutions for highway passenger traffic congestion are not a focus of STAA. From a flow of funds
perspective some might also question why Subtitle B of Section I of STAA, which includes MMA
and PNR, is not funded from both the highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund
rather than solely from the highway account.
At this time STAA has no earmarks included, although a place is held for High Priority Projects.
During the SAFETEA reauthorization process, funds for the Projects of National and Regional
Significance were to have been distributed as competitive grants. Instead, as enacted, all of the
funds associated with this program were earmarked. STAA programs that could be at risk for
earmarking include Projects of National Significance and tier one grants from the Metropolitan
Mobility and Access Program. The formula programs could also be subject to discretionary set
asides that could be subject to earmarking later in the legislative process.
Congressional Research Service
17
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
STAA, as of this writing, has no equity adjustment program, but a place is held in the bill at
Section 1104. However, because the bill includes programs to improve freight bottlenecks, to
fund nationally significant megaprojects, and to encourage, mostly urban, intermodalism, the
spending of Federal-Aid highway funds across the nation is likely to be uneven. This could both
exacerbate the donor-donee conflict and make any attempt to bring donor states up to a targeted
share of spending more expensive. Determining which programs would be kept within the
auspices (often referred to as scope) of an equity adjustment could also be a problematic decision.
If the MMA, PNS, High Priority Projects and perhaps FIP are kept within the scope, the states
that benefit the most from these programs could have their core programs reduced via a lower
equity adjustment. If these large programs were left out of the scope, the percent of the overall
bill that would be brought up to a guaranteed rate-of-return would be reduced. In addition, the
expanded transferability of funds between highway and transit programs could skew the
conceptual framework of the rate-of-return rationale as highway account funds are used for transit
purposes.
Although STAA proposes numerous programmatic changes in the Federal-Aid Highways title
(Title I) of the bill, as of this writing, authorization levels are not included. This limits analysis of
the policy impact of the changes in the bill. For example, without knowing the funding levels of
the new Critical Asset Investment Program (CAI) and Freight Improvement Program (FIP)
relative to the Surface Transportation Program it is difficult to determine the relative importance
of national needs supported by CAI and FIP versus an expanded STP. Historically, STP has
generally been viewed as supporting more local needs than other core programs.
Freight Transportation Initiatives
Freight Improvement Program
Many observers argue that unless there are significant and focused increases in freight
infrastructure investment, the freight system will become increasingly inefficient and a drag on
the U.S. economy. While most agree that more investment is necessary to accommodate current
and future freight demand, there is significant disagreement about the best way to accomplish
improvements in freight system infrastructure. Among the most important areas of disagreement
are how to raise new funds for investment, the magnitude of the amounts required, and the role of
the federal government in the planning process.
There is no separate federal freight transportation program in SAFETEA, only a loose collection
of freight-related programs that are embedded in a larger surface transportation program aimed at
supporting both passenger and freight mobility. Most of the funding authorized by SAFETEA is
provided to the states through the regular Highway Programs, such as the STP, that provide
significant benefits to the freight industry. Of the total funding only relatively small amounts were
specifically dedicated to freight transportation improvements, leaving most decisions about the
types of infrastructure improvements to fund largely to state DOTs and MPOs. Because of this,
some in the transportation community would like to see a larger and more well-defined federal
freight program that addresses needs the regular programs have not or cannot address.21
21
For further discussion of issues related to freight in the reauthorization debate, see CRS Report R40629, Freight
Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
18
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Section 1105 of the STAA creates a new program, the Freight Improvement Program (FIP), that
would direct funds to publicly owned highway freight transportation projects that provide
community and highway benefits by addressing economic, congestion, security, and safety issues
associated with freight transportation. Eligible projects must be on the existing National Highway
System (NHS) or National Network (NN), 22 or on a newly designated secondary freight route.
These secondary freight routes would be selected by each state, in consultation with local
governments, as being of substantial economic or freight-related significance, such as serving the
mining, agricultural, timber, or tourism industries. DOT would review the state’s list and then
designate them as such. Each state would be required to measure and document the speed,
reliability, and accessibility of freight movement along facilities that receive funding on the NHS
or NN but not on the designated secondary freight routes. DOT would also establish performance
targets against which to measure each state’s progress toward improving freight movement. Every
five years each state would be required to assess the condition of its secondary freight routes.
The draft bill requires state DOTs to develop a freight plan, which may be stand-alone or
incorporated in their statewide transportation improvement plan, and projects must be included in
the freight plan to receive FIP funds. A freight advisory committee (comprised of representatives
from state and local government transportation departments, port authorities, shippers, carriers,
and transportation unions), would participate in the development of this plan and are intended to
serve as a forum for communication between the public and private sectors in each state as well.
The draft bill also allows funding to be provided to a maximum of ten freight corridor coalitions
which are multistate planning organizations formed for the purpose of examining and identifying
the transportation infrastructure needs of a defined interstate freight corridor. A coalition would be
comprised of representatives from state DOTs, MPOs, port authorities, freight carriers, and
shippers.
Creating a specific funding category for freight movement, as well as requiring states to develop a
separate freight plan, could elevate consideration of freight needs in the funding allocation
process. However, without a specific authorized amount to indicate the program’s share of total
funding, it is impossible to assess the FIP’s real significance. The establishment of freight
advisory committees and funding for multi-state corridor coalitions builds on freight-related
planning provisions enacted in SAFETEA and predecessor legislation. Some state DOTs and
MPOs already have created freight advisory committees and multistate corridor coalitions have
been established for a handful of interstate routes. The FIP attempts to address stakeholder
concerns regarding accountability for funding decisions by requiring performance tracking of
freight routes, but it does so at the state DOT level. Freight carriers and shippers are also
concerned with the earmarking of transportation projects at the federal level which, in their view,
has likely contributed to the neglect of nationally significant chokepoints in the surface freight
network. 23
22
The National Network is a system of approximately 209,000 miles of road specifically designated by the states as
capable of handling commercial vehicles and codified in Federal regulations at 23 CFR 658. The NN includes the
Interstate System and other Federal-aid primary highways where Federal truck width and length limits apply. The NN
was established by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
23
This criticism is particularly targeted toward the Projects of National and Regional Significance program in
SAFETEA (section 1301) which is discussed elsewhere in this report.
Congressional Research Service
19
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Freight Rail Provisions
Because freight railroad infrastructure is mostly held in private hands, much less is publicly
known about the condition and performance of the railroad system compared to the highway
system. Data that the railroad industry does provide publicly is aggregated so it is difficult to
pinpoint locations with infrastructure constraints. Because the mainline rail system is a network,
and the preponderance of rail cargo is moving long distances, a backup in one localized area can
significantly affect fluidity on other parts of the system.
SAFETEA created two capital grants programs and extended a loan program for freight rail
infrastructure. Title VI of the STAA extends these programs through FY2015. Specifically,
section 6002 extends the authorization of a capital grant program for relocating railroad track that
is interfering with road traffic at railroad crossings or that is hindering economic development in
a community. Section 6004 extends the authorization of a capital grant program to class II and III
(a.k.a. regional and shortline) railroads and section 6005 extends the authorization of a loan
program for railroad rehabilitation and improvement. Section 6008 of the draft bill creates a new
requirement that the DOT provide quadrennial reports to Congress on the condition and
performance of the freight and intercity passenger rail systems.
DOT/FHWA Organizational Changes
Intermodalism, as the name of the legislation suggests, was a major focus of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240). That legislation suggested
that surface transportation programs should be administered with improved intermodal
connections in mind. To facilitate this process the law created a new Office of Intermodalism
within DOT that was supposed to give the concept a high profile in DOT program
decisionmaking. The Office of Intermodalism, however, never lived up to the high level of
expectation that the author’s of ISTEA held for it. The Office itself has moved around within
DOT over the years and has, by most accounts, had little direct influence on policymaking.
The Under Secretary of Transportation for Intermodalism
Several observers believe that the ISTEA created Office of Intermodalism failed to be effective
because it did not have a prominent role within the DOT leadership structure. The authors of
STAA appear to share this view and have proposed a new structure for intermodal planning
within DOT headed by a newly created Under Secretary of Transportation for Intermodalism. As
will be discussed in various places throughout the discussion of the STAA, the Under Secretary is
given a number of responsibilities by the legislation. This includes, for example,
approval/recommendation authority for MMA and PNS projects. The guiding mission, however,
is to enhance coordination and planning among DOT’s modally organized operating agencies.
To facilitate the Under Secretary’s mission, the STAA creates a new Office of Intermodalism
within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The new office is to be headed by a Director
appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. Potentially, the Office will play a significant policy
role in the coordination, and perhaps vetting, of all MMA and PNS project proposals submitted to
the Undersecretary. Depending on how the Undersecretary utilizes its staff the Office could be a
fairly busy place. The STAA is silent on how staffing and funding levels for the Office will be set.
Given its potentially broad role, however, its staffing needs could be significant.
Congressional Research Service
20
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
The STAA also requires the creation of a new Council on Intermodalism to address overall
departmental coordination issues, such as agency planning. The Council is chaired by the
Secretary of Transportation, or in his or her absence, the Under Secretary. The voting membership
on the Council includes the Administrator of each DOT operating agency. Each Council member
has one vote. The Coast Guard Commandant and the Chief of Engineers are named as nonvoting
members of the Council. The Council is required to meet monthly.
The clear intent of this provision is to keep intermodalism at the forefront of DOT policymaking
decisions. There are some questions that can be raised as to how this group will be able to
function effectively. For example, the provision establishing the Council precludes modal
administrators from designating substitutes to act in their absence. The intent here is clearly to
ensure that those at the highest level of decisionmaking take part in the Council’s meetings.
Inevitably, however, administrators will be absent due to illness, travel, etc. This could, at least in
theory, allow the Council to determine policy without one or more of the major agency
administrators present. Depending on who was absent, this situation could be problematic given
the equal voting distribution required by the provision. This is particularly the case because the
one agency, one vote mandate found here does not take into consideration the very significant
differences between the operating agencies in terms of size and scope. The St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, by
way of example, are tiny agencies when compared to the FHWA or the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
Offices of Expedited Project Delivery (FHWA and FTA)
The STAA requires that an Office of Expedited Project Delivery be created in both the FHWA
and FTA, each with a Director appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. As the title implies
the major role of this Office is to facilitate the timely completion of projects being funded by
FHWA and FTA. The Offices are charged with giving special attention to large and potentially
complicated projects. In the case of FHWA these are defined as “significant” projects, those
costing $500 million or more. For FTA the emphasis is on “New Start” projects, which are
usually, but not exclusively, rail transit construction projects. Although the STAA provides special
attention for large projects, the Offices are nonetheless charged with providing oversight for all
FHWA and FTA funded projects.
The Offices are expected to fulfill their mission by taking a “leadership” role in the project
delivery process. This is largely done by identifying problems (especially those associated with
environmental review issues), and working with project managers to find solutions for these
problems. The Offices are required to provide annual reports to Congress on the project delivery
process and make recommendations as to how it might be improved. The Offices are not given
any specific authority to force action by any party or to penalize any party for not following
through on its recommendations. One can assume that there might be consequences for
noncompliance with the Offices’ respective expediting efforts in future project contract awards,
but such a mechanism is not spelled out in the bill. As a result, some critics might consider the
new Offices to be somewhat powerless to actually provide for expedited project delivery.
The Offices will likely need significant staffing and funding to fulfill this new mission. The
STAA, however, does not set-aside funding for these Offices and instead proposes to fund these
activities through the respective FHWA and FTA administrative budgets. Hence it is unclear from
the bill as drafted how much these new functions might cost and/or whether the agencies would
be required to reallocate funding from existing administrative activities.
Congressional Research Service
21
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Office of Livability (FHWA)
A new Office of Livability is to be established within FHWA with a Director appointed by the
Secretary of Transportation. The Office is a response to the call, primarily, but not exclusively,
from the environmental community, to move federal surface transportation policies and programs
into closer alignment with the concepts of “sustainable transportation” and “livable
communities.” There is a considerable body of literature that explains these concepts, but in short
they call for providing multiple transportation options to individuals (including transit, walking,
and bicycling) and making land use decisions in ways that facilitate these goals (primarily by
reducing sprawl type development and/or some of its attributes). While there is strong support for
these ideas in some parts of the transportation community, there is equally strong opposition in
others (but not necessarily to every aspect of the livable communities idea).
To facilitate the expansion of the idea of livability in the context of the federal surface
transportation assistance program, the Director is charged with administering several programs:
the existing safe routes to school program; the existing nonmotorized transportation pilot
program; the existing transportation enhancement program (a set aside within the STP); the
existing recreational trails program, the existing national scenic byways program; and the new
U.S. bicycle route system program. The Director is further charged with working with the
Administrators of FHWA and FTA on planning and other programs that could be used to promote
the livability concept in the delivery of surface transportation assets. The Director also serves as
the point of contact within DOT for other Executive Branch agencies on livability issues and, in
this role, coordinates DOT activities with agencies such as Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Director is charged with providing leadership, DOT-wide, on a range of “livability” issues.
For example, the Director is charged with developing and disseminating street design policies and
standards. While FHWA has no specific power to require states to adopt such standards, it appears
that the authors of STAA believe that the standards will be adopted over time in conjunction with
the implementation of other features of the highway and transit programs. The Director is also
charged with developing model legislation, implementable by states, enunciating the rights of
pedestrians and bicyclists. In these roles it seems that the Director is given the “bully pulpit” to
promote livability, but has little real authority to require that any of the ideas and concepts
developed in the Office are adopted outside of DOT.
In one instance, however, in the development and implementation of a U.S. Bicycle Route
System, the Director is the decisionmaker. It is the Director’s role to issue the regulations that
would lead to the designation of the national system. Once designation is complete, the Director
will operate a grant program designed to implement the system. The amount of grant funding
available for this purpose has not yet been determined but grants are available for the planning,
mapping, signage, promotion, and construction of the designated system. Only 50% of the funds
made available, however, can be used for construction. As is the case with the new DOT, FHWA,
and FTA Offices described earlier in this section of the report, the STAA is silent on staffing and
funding for the operation of the Office of Livability.
Office of Public Benefit
The new Office of Public Benefit has the stated task of providing “for the protection of the public
interest in relation to highway toll projects and public-private partnership agreements on Federalaid highways.” This new Office is to be domiciled in FHWA and have a Director appointed by the
Congressional Research Service
22
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Secretary. The most important responsibility reserved for the Director is the administration of toll
agreements – which the Director is charged with approving or disapproving based on specific
criteria detailed in this section of the STAA. Further, once a toll agreement is in place, the
Director is charged with monitoring compliance with the agreement. A similar charge is given to
the Director for monitoring other public-private partnership agreements.
The creation of the Office of Public Benefit is intended to provide a safety net to protect the
public interest. In the STAA supporting documentation, the authors set forth their view that
to protect the integrity of the nation’s surface transportation system and the public interest
regarding trade and travel, the Federal surface transportation program requires strengthened
public protections regarding highway toll projects and PPP agreements. 24
The bill seeks to give the Office significant guidance by providing specific criteria to evaluate in
its decision making process. Most of these criteria are mentioned earlier in this report.
Implementing some of the guidance in the bill is likely to be difficult, however. For example, it
might be difficult to evaluate the effect of a specific toll rate proposal on “low income travelers”
without developing appropriate data at the local/regional level. Similarly, it could be difficult to
measure the potential impact of tolling on transit service as called for in the bill.
As proposed, the Office will apparently be a party to all alternative/innovative financing
agreements dependant on toll revenues. Many in the transportation community hold the view that
PPPs need to be a significant part of the Nation’s highway infrastructure creation process going
forward. A long standing concern expressed by many of these same observers is that PPPs are
already difficult to execute from an administrative perspective. It is likely that supporters of
increased tolling and the use of PPPs for infrastructure creation will be, to say the least, wary of
this new Office, which they will likely view as another difficult bureaucratic hurdle to be crossed.
They are also likely to see the approval/disapproval criteria spelled out in the bill as somewhat
hostile to the use of non-grant financing mechanisms for infrastructure creation.
Transportation Planning
The act adds a substantial number of new transportation planning requirements at the national,
state, and local levels, including the development of performance management systems
throughout the planning process. At the national level, the proposed legislation creates a new
requirement for the development of a National Transportation Strategic Plan by the Secretary of
Transportation, a national equivalent to the statewide long-range transportation plan required
under current law (Section 1207). The national plan is to be developed primarily from projects
with significant national and regional benefits submitted by states. Funding for a project from the
Projects of National Significance program will depend to some extent on inclusion in the strategic
plan.25 Once created the plan is to be updated every two years. The creation and updating of the
plan is to be the responsibility of the new Office of Intermodalism to be established in the Office
of the Secretary.
24
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: a
Blueprint for Investment and Reform, p. 31, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/
Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint.pdf.
25
The legislation uses the term “consistency with plans.” That is, to be eligible for funding a project must be consistent
with the metropolitan, statewide, freight corridor, and national strategic plans.
Congressional Research Service
23
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Many have called for the creation of a national transportation plan to guide the use of federal
transportation funds. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
Commission, for one, recommended the creation of a national strategic plan, although it believed
the plan should be overseen by an independent commission and should include recommendations
on how investment programs should be funded. 26 By contrast, the STAA proposes to have DOT
oversee the development of the plan, and the plan will not necessarily be constrained by available
resources nor include funding recommendations. As currently written, the legislation is likely to
require a significant amount of work for DOT, particularly in evaluating the proposals for
inclusion in the plan. With an expectation that inclusion in the plan might help in securing federal
funds, states may deluge DOT with what they consider worthy projects. Whether this is the case
or not, the requirement that DOT must evaluate each project submitted within 60 days may be
difficult. DOT is also required to disseminate data and 20-year projections to states on a range of
topics for use in preparing transportation plans and projects, including a 20-year projection of
passenger demand for suborbital space tourism. While states may have many project proposals
already on the books through the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes,
the requirements for inclusion in the national plan might also create substantial work for state
DOTs. Another problem might arise when states try to identify projects involving infrastructure
that is largely owned and operated by private companies, such as freight rail. If the DOT only
puts together a list of projects from what states send in, some critics might wonder how
“strategic” the ultimate plan is likely to be. On the other hand, DOT may face a barrage of
criticism if, in the course of setting priorities, some states are significantly underrepresented and
others overrepresented.
The act proposes to alter state transportation planning in several ways. To begin with, the
proposed bill makes a number of changes to the existing statewide planning requirements
(Section 1509). Among other things, the act adds some factors that may be considered in the
planning process such as enhancing sustainability and livability, reducing GHG emissions and
dependence on foreign oil, and improving public health. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the
proposed legislation requires, as part of the planning process, each state to “develop surface
transportation-related greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, as well as strategies to meet
such targets.” In places with congested airports and freight rail corridors, the plan is specifically
required to include measures to alleviate the congestion. The plan must also take into
consideration deep draft ports, inland waterways, and interconnectivity between modes. In the
statewide transportation improvement program, the state is required to implement a system of
performance management that includes the development of performance measures and targets.
The proposed legislation also adds a freight improvement program that includes a requirement for
each state to develop a state freight plan that “provides a comprehensive overview of the State’s
current and long-range freight planning activities and investments”(Section 1105). This freight
plan may be either separate from or incorporated within the statewide plan. The state freight plan
is required to include performance measures and targets related to freight movement, and to
describe how the state plans to achieve those targets. Section 1105 also authorizes the Secretary to
designate and make grants to a maximum of 10 freight corridor coalitions. A designated corridor
coalition is required to develop a freight corridor plan that is modeled on the statewide strategic
long-range plan. The plan is required to be consistent with the long-range statewide transportation
26
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Transportation for Tomorrow, Washington,
DC, 2007, http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/.
Congressional Research Service
24
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
plan, the statewide improvement plan, the metropolitan plan and improvement program, and the
metropolitan mobility plan under Section 701 of the bill.
Many of the changes made to statewide planning requirements are also made to the requirement
for metropolitan planning, as, for example, with the setting of GHG emissions targets and
strategies (Section 1508). If enacted, MPOs will also be required to implement a system of
performance measurement. There are four notable provisions that apply only to MPOs. First, the
act raises the urbanized area population threshold for MPO creation from 50,000 to 100,000,
although existing MPOs in areas currently between 50,000 and 100,000 must be maintained as
required by current law. Second, the act requires that voting members of the MPO are represented
in proportion to the population of each political subdivision to the total population in the
metropolitan planning area. This represents a major change, as voting structures currently vary
widely according to state and local law and custom. Third, the act adds to the certification
requirements both the new voting structure requirement and a requirement that the MPO is
meeting or likely to meet its performance measurement targets. As part of the certification
process, the Secretary may withhold up to 20% of funds attributable to the metropolitan planning
area. Fourth, the act requires the creation of a database of MPO characteristics.
As noted earlier in creating the Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program (Section 1205), the
act provides funding directly to MPOs in areas of 500,000 or more. Additionally, this new
program requires the development of a metropolitan mobility plan “that identifies projects that
the eligible recipient, or another entity described in and subject to the plan, proposes to address
surface transportation congestion and its impacts within the urbanized area served by the eligible
recipient.” According to the proposed legislation, this plan needs to be coordinated with state and
transit agencies and is to be reviewed and approved by DOT.
Finally, the act defines a rural planning organization (RPO) as “an organization designated by a
State to enhance the planning, coordination, and implementation of statewide transportation plans
and programs in areas with a population of less than 50,000 individuals, with an emphasis on
addressing the needs of such areas of the State.” The act requires a state to coordinate statewide
planning with such organizations if designated, and to consult with a RPO in the obligation of
transportation enhancement funds in its planning area.
Performance Management
The bill includes performance management as a new requirement in many programs throughout
the federal surface transportation program, including, among others, the Freight Improvement
Program (FIP), the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Critical Asset
Improvement (CAI) Program, the Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program (MMAP), and
statewide and metropolitan planning. The overall approach is to add performance management to
focus attention on the most important objectives of a program, and to improve the transparency to
program managers and the general public as to whether the objectives are being met or not. The
requirements for performance management and the consequences for not meeting the
requirements vary from program to program. In some cases, there are no explicit sanctions for not
establishing performance management tools, nor for not meeting the performance goals that are
established. For example, in the FIP a state is required to establish performance goals and
performance measures, must include in its state freight plan how these goals will be met, and
must report this information to the Secretary annually. But funds from the FIP do not appear to be
dependent on the quality of the plan nor progress toward the goals, and there appear to be no
other consequences for not following through.
Congressional Research Service
25
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
In other programs, however, there are sanctions for not establishing performance goals and for
not meeting the goals themselves. For example, in the MMA an MPO must have an approved
metropolitan mobility plan, supported by performance-based goals and metrics, to receive funds.
Beginning in FY2012, continued funding is contingent on providing an annual report which
documents progress toward the goals, reasons for failing to meet any of the goals, and a new plan
by which the goals will be met going forward.
Safety Provisions
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The STAA requires that DOT establish quantifiable safety performance targets for each state for
their highway safety improvement plans, and to report to Congress annually on each state’s
progress in meeting its performance targets. It also requires states to develop highway safety
improvement program investment plans describing how the state will address its highway safety
needs. The DOT will review the investment plans, and approve or disapprove them based on
whether the investment strategy will enable the state to meet its highway safety performance
targets. The DOT is also required to oversee implementation of each state’s investment plan to
ensure that each state’s use of funds is consistent with the investment plan.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
The STAA would reduce the number of statutory programs that NHTSA administers from more
than eight down to five (and does not fund a few other existing programs which do not have
statutory language), incorporating some of the elements of the eliminated programs into the
remaining programs. Specifically, it would eliminate the occupant protection incentive grants, the
safety belt performance grants, and the alcohol-impaired countermeasures program. Instead, some
currently unspecified percentage of the formula safety grant funds to states would be restricted to
impaired driving programs, occupant protection programs, and motorcycle safety programs. If
states meet their performance targets for these programs, they would gain the flexibility to use
some of those funds for other safety purposes. By contrast, under the current structure states are
eligible to receive additional funding through the incentive grant programs for occupant
protection, impaired driving, motorcycle safety, and data improvement, if they meet certain
criteria.
In addition to requiring that a certain portion of each state’s highway safety program funding be
restricted to specific programs/goals (e.g., reducing impaired driving), the draft bill also
strengthens the emphasis on performance. Currently, states are required to have a highway safety
program that is linked to performance measures which have been selected in cooperation between
DOT and representatives of state highway safety offices. The draft bill requires DOT to establish
quantifiable safety performance targets for each state and to report to Congress annually on each
state’s progress in meeting its performance targets. In one respect, however, the draft bill reduces
the existing linkage between highway safety programs and performance measures, by eliminating
the NHTSA incentive grant programs which made it possible for states to qualify for additional
federal highway safety funding by meeting safety performance targets.
The existing seat belt incentive grant program enables states to qualify for additional funding by
either passing a primary seat belt law (which allows a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle in
Congressional Research Service
26
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
order to issue a ticket if a driver or front seat passenger is not wearing a seat belt) or attaining a
certain rate of seat belt usage statewide. As of July 2009, 30 states have primary seat belt laws.
The draft bill would replace that incentive program with a penalty: any state without a primary
seat belt law in FY2013 would have 2% of some of its highway funding withheld, with the
amount withheld increasing to 8% in FY2016 and thereafter.
The existing alcohol impaired driving incentive program enables states to qualify for additional
funding by either reducing their rate of alcohol-related fatalities or enacting several measures
intended to reduce impaired driving. The draft bill would require that states install an ignition
interlock device for at least 6 months on each motor vehicle operated by someone convicted of
driving under the influence. Beginning in FY2013, a state without such a law would have 2% of
some of its highway funding withheld, with the amount withheld increasing to 5% in FY2015 and
thereafter.
The draft bill adds pedestrian and bicycle safety to the existing list of traffic safety areas that
states must focus on (reducing fatalities and serious injuries, impaired driving, occupant
protection, speeding, and motorcycle safety).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The STAA requires DOT to set a national goal for reductions in crashes and fatalities of
commercial vehicles, and states are required to set targets for enforcement activities to reduce
crashes and fatalities (but not targets for the reduction of crashes and fatalities themselves). These
targets must increase each year (subject to funding). The bill also converts an existing funding
set-aside for high-priority commercial vehicle enforcement activities to an incentive grant
program, which would reward states for reducing commercial motor vehicle crashes and
fatalities. The bill also strengthens requirements for states to improve their commercial drivers
licensing programs.
The draft bill establishes a national clearinghouse for drug and alcohol test results of commercial
drivers. This addresses the issue of commercial drivers who have failed such tests not notifying
their employer of the result, or drivers who have been suspended for failing a test moving to
another employer which may not be aware of the drivers’ test results. This clearinghouse would
make it more difficult for drivers to evade the consequences of failing these tests.
The bill also requires that motor carriers subject to DOT’s hours-of-service regulations equip their
commercial motor vehicles with electronic on-board recorders. This addresses the issue of
commercial drivers who do not keep accurate records of their hours of service, and who may pose
an increased hazard due to driving while fatigued. The National Transportation Safety Board has
been recommending the use of on-board recorders in commercial vehicles for many years.
Transit Provisions
The draft bill released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) appears
to make significant changes to the structure of the overall federal transit program, along with
some major and minor changes to individual programs. These proposed changes are emphasized
in summaries of the legislation published by T&I, but, as noted earlier, the draft bill does not
Congressional Research Service
27
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
provide details of how the funding will be distributed among the programs, making it impossible
to fully assess the changes that are being proposed.
Transit Funding
One of the most closely watched aspects of the new authorization will be the amount of funding
that is directed to transit and transit’s share of the whole bill. Funding numbers are not available
from the committee print, but the supporting documents released with the bill by T&I indicate
that the federal transit program would be authorized at $99.8 billion over six years, with a
proposed $87.6 billion (88%) from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund and $12.2
billion (12%) from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.27 The proposed average annual
authorization under the STAA, therefore, would appear to be $16.6 billion. Ignoring highway
program funds that allegedly may go to support transit projects and the $50 billion that is
proposed for high speed rail, the share of the funding that is directed to transit by the STAA could
be 22% ($99.8 billion of $450 billion).
In addition to the increases in funding and funding share for the transit program itself, there may
also be more money for transit projects available from highway programs funds. To begin with,
the bill appears to provide blanket permission to transfer (or “flex” as it is sometimes referred to)
highway program funds to transit programs and vice-versa (Section 1103). Funding from three
current highway programs—NHS, STP, and CMAQ—can be used to directly support transit
projects. In addition, funds from NHS, IM, and the Bridge Program can be transferred to STP and
then used to fund transit. Some transit funds are available for highway uses, but generally the
flexibility provisions have been used to transfer highway funds to support transit projects. In the
period from FY2004 through FY2007 an average of about $1 billion of highway funds per year
were flexed to transit. The blanket provision in STAA might make it easier and more likely that
such funds will be flexed. Furthermore, the bill proposes to create a new $50 billion Metropolitan
Mobility and Access (MMA) program to tackle highway traffic congestion, a portion of which is
likely to end up supporting transit.
Transit Program Structure
In terms of the structure of the federal transit program, there appear to be three major changes in
the STAA from current law. First, the proposed legislation appears to abolish the discretionary,
but heavily earmarked, Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Capital Program, with the program’s funds
and functions absorbed into the existing Urban and Rural Formula Programs (Sections 3006 and
3010) and a new discretionary Intermodal and Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program
(Section 3007) that replaces the existing Clean Fuels Grant Program. This new Intermodal and
Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program makes funding available to build, replace, or
rehabilitate facilities that are intermodal, in that they connect public transportation to another
transportation mode, or will reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
27
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: A
Blueprint for Investment and Reform, Executive Summary, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2009, p. 4,
http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/
Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint%20Executive%20Summary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Making Bus Capital Program funds distribution partly formula and partly discretionary appears to
be something of a compromise between those that argue for making the funds entirely formula
driven and those that argue for keeping them discretionary. Some argue that distributing the funds
by formula would be more equitable, would simplify the process and eliminate the vagaries of
earmarking, and would make funding more reliable from year to year so that transit agencies can
develop long term investment plans. Those in favor of discretionary spending argue that the Bus
Program provides an important way for transit agencies to make expensive periodic bus
purchases and facility investments that cannot be met with formula funds, and that earmarking
provides an important way for Congress to control this funding stream.
The second major change is the creation of a new Metropolitan Mobility and Access (MMA)
program (Section 1205). Although this new program is in Title I of the bill, the highway title, this
new program may provide a major new funding source for transit provision in large urban areas,
those with more than 500,000 residents. The MMA is similar to a recommendation of the
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission for a highway
congestion relief program, although the commission recommended such a program for
metropolitan areas with a population of one million or more. 28 Funding from this program in
STAA would be distributed by formula according to population and highway traffic congestion.
Funds would be available to fund improvements on a mode-neutral basis. As was mentioned
earlier, in the creation of this new program a major change is being proposed in the relationship
between federal, state, and local government in the federal-aid highway program. In the MMA
program, as currently conceived, federal highway funds, for the first time, would be provided
directly to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) instead of to and through state DOTs.
The third major change is the creation of the Coordinated Access and Mobility Grants Program
(Section 3009) that is created by combining the existing Elderly and Disabilities Program, the
JARC Program, and the New Freedom Program. 29 There has been criticism that as separately
constituted funding streams, these programs have inhibited the coordinated development of
human-services transit service and are administratively burdensome. Funding in the new program
will be distributed by formula based on the number of people who are elderly, disabled, lowincome, or welfare recipients. Under the program, recipients will be required to develop a
performance plan with performance measures that at a minimum “ensure that transit systems and
operations are fully compliant with the regulations established under Title 37 of the Code of
Federal Regulations for Americans with disabilities.” Flexibility for funding projects under the
program is constrained if a recipient fails to meet the goals set forth in its performance plan.
Transit Program Changes
In addition to structural changes in the federal transit program, there are also important changes
proposed within some of the major existing programs. Within the Urbanized Area Formula
Program (Section 3006) a major change proposed by the bill is to allow transit operators in
urbanized areas of 200,000 or more to use some funds for operating costs. Currently, only transit
agencies in urbanized areas of 200,000 or less are permitted to use funds for operating purposes,
28
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Transportation for Tomorrow, Washington,
DC, 2007, http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/.
29
This program also includes elements of several smaller programs with similar purposes, including ADA Project
Action (49 U.S.C. §5314(a)(2)), the Human Services Transportation Coordination program (P.L. 109-59, §3046(a)(9)),
the National Technical Assistance Center for Senior Transportation (49 U.S.C. §5314(c)).
Congressional Research Service
29
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
although SAFETEA changed the definition of a capital expense to include some things that are
traditionally considered operating expenses. The change in the proposed legislation would permit
agencies in areas between 200,000 and 500,000 to use 20% of their federal funds for operating
expenses; agencies in areas of between 500,000 and 1 million to use 10%; and areas over 1
million to use 5%. A requirement for the use of federal funds to cover operating expenses is that
the transit agency must have a dedicated source of state or local government revenue for its
operating costs or the non-federal share of operating costs (excluding system-generated revenues)
must be greater than during the previous year. Current federal matching shares are left unchanged
in the STAA, with capital expenses generally having a maximum federal share of 80%, and
operating expenses having a maximum federal share of 50%.
The use of federal funds for operating expenses has been controversial since the beginning of the
federal transit program in the 1960s. Support for using federal funds in this way tends to rise
when transit service is threatened by such things as high fuel prices, inflationary pressures, and
fiscal problems at the state and local level. Opponents contend that while federal operating
support has probably maintained a higher level of transit service than would have prevailed
without it, such support causes productivity to decline (the amount of transit output relative to
inputs). This is because government support, particularly from the federal government, allows
transit operators to de-emphasize the need to control costs and generate revenues.
Details on how the Rural Formula Program would be modified are largely missing from the draft
legislation. However, in the T&I Committee’s bill summaries, it states that the formula for
distributing funds will be altered to include transit service provided and consumed, factors that
are not currently considered. It also states that the legislation will increase the funding directed to
small urban and rural transit service, although it is unclear from this whether the increase is in
terms of the dollar amount or share of overall transit program funding. 30 With most transit
funding going to large urban areas, there has been a push by advocates of small cities and rural
areas for more transit funding over the last few authorization cycles. Incorporating transit service
factors in the funding formula would be a way to reward transit providers for their effort to
provide service in places where it tends to be very costly to do so.
Another major programmatic change proposed by the act is the simplification of New
Starts/Small Starts project development and funding approval (Section 3008), a rigorous but timeconsuming process that has been the subject of a lot of criticism. 31 The current New Starts process
requires an application to FTA for approval at three different stages of project development: entry
into preliminary engineering, entry into final design, and approval of a Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA). The legislation proposes to reduce this to one step, the approval of a FFGA.
Project sponsors must also have FTA approve the project for entry into project development, but
this is assured if the project has been chosen as the locally preferred alternative as required under
the metropolitan transportation planning process.
The bill also does away with the alternatives analysis required under the New Starts program that
was often seen as a duplication of the alternatives analysis required under the National
30
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: A
Blueprint for Investment and Reform, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2009, p. 47, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/
file/Highways/HPP/Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint.pdf.
31
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New Starts
Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development, GAO-09-784, August 2009, http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d09784.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
30
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Environment Policy Act (NEPA). To expedite projects, the act would also allow the Secretary the
ability to fast track some projects, and would base FTA’s evaluation partly on the amount of
federal assistance being sought by the applicant. Finally, as mentioned earlier, the act would
create an Office of Expedited Project Delivery within the FTA to speed capital projects,
particularly New Starts/Small Starts projects. The Office would be expected to monitor project
progress, promote best practices, help with coordination, use conflict resolution techniques, and
coordinate with the Office of Expedited Delivery in FHWA.
Advocates of simplifying the New Starts process argue that it will significantly shorten project
delivery times. According to some, quick approval of federal funding is particularly appropriate
where the risks are low, such as when the federal funding amount/share are relatively low, and
where project benefits are likely to be high relative to costs. Critics worry that such changes may
damage the rigor of the evaluation process, ultimately leading to federal support of less
competitive projects. Simplifying the process by creating a low hurdle for entry into the New
Starts pipeline also creates the possibility that FTA may receive a large number of projects that it
has to manage through the evaluation process to ultimate denial. Another possibility is that FTA
will approve or intend to approve many more projects for funding than can be supported by the
available commitment authority. This may mean relatively quick funding approval for projects
that then languish while waiting in line for more commitment authority to be made available by
Congress.
The STAA would also make a number of other changes to the New Starts/Small Starts program.
The bill would alter the definition of a New Starts project to one which receives federal assistance
of $100 million or more, up from the current $75 million; a Small Starts project would be defined
as a project in which federal assistance is less than $100 million. Additionally, the bill attempts to
clarify the way in which the evaluation factors are used by FTA to decide among projects. Many
have criticized FTA for relying too heavily on the cost-effectiveness index that measures the time
savings to transit system users. The bill therefore states that FTA must take into account a range
of factors: mobility and accessibility, congestion relief, energy and environment, economic
development, and supportive land uses and future patterns of land use. Furthermore, the
legislation prohibits FTA from using a cost-effectiveness index, and only permits using a
transportation system user benefit calculation to evaluate mobility.
The STAA may make some major changes to the way in which funding under the Fixed
Guideway Modernization Program is distributed, although details of how this would work are
missing from the committee print. In summary material, T&I says that the complicated 7-tier
formula for distributing funds will be simplified. Funding instead will be distributed by a formula
“using readily available transit data that most closely aligns with maintenance needs.”32 The
summary also states that there will be no prohibition to funding going to fixed guideway systems
in urbanized areas of 200,000 or less. There may also be a performance plan component, whereby
recipients are required to develop performance goals related to bringing and keeping transit assets
in a state of good repair.
Performance planning, goal setting, and measurement is a pervasive theme throughout.
Performance plans are required generally as part of the metropolitan transportation and statewide
planning processes, and specifically as part of the Urbanized Area Formula Program, the Rural
Formula Program, and the Coordinated Access and Mobility Grants Program. As noted above,
32
T&I, A Blueprint for Investment and Reform, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
31
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
performance planning may also be required as part of the Fixed Guideway Modernization
Program. In the case of the Urbanized Area Formula Program, for example, to be able to receive
federal funds, designated recipients will have to develop performance goals as part of a
performance plan and have that plan accepted by FTA. Updates to the plans will be required
periodically, and acceptance of an updated plan will rest to some extent on whether the recipient
has made sufficient progress toward its goals. In other words, the legislation proposes to cut off
federal funding to a recipient if it does not meet its performance goals. It almost goes without
saying that this would be highly controversial. The legislation, therefore, provides FTA with the
authority to reduce the performance targets, if appropriate, to keep federal funding flowing to a
transit funding recipient.
Environmental Issues
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
The STAA proposal would amend Title 23 provisions regarding the Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.33 Generally, the entire section of the current law would
be rewritten. More specifically, changes would be made to the following sections of the law:
•
Eligible Projects—changes to this section of the law primarily result from
reformatting the existing language. Changes to the law include listing the
acquisition of certain public transportation vehicles as an eligible use for CMAQ
funds. The proposal also eliminates the listing of certain types of projects as
eligible for CMAQ funds. That does not mean those projects would no longer
qualify for CMAQ funds, just that they are not specifically identified in the law.
•
States Receiving Minimum Apportionment—the proposal would eliminate the
current method of determining project eligibility for projects in states receiving
the minimum apportionment.
•
Interagency Consultation—the proposal would require (as opposed to the
current law that encourages) state and local metropolitan planning organizations
to cooperate with state and local air quality agencies in nonattainment and
maintenance areas on estimated emission reductions from proposed CMAQ
programs and projects.
•
Evaluation and Assessment of Projects—the proposal would amend the current
law to specify how information regarding best practices should be made
publically available.
Under the current proposal, requirements regarding partnerships with nongovernmental entities
would be eliminated. Also eliminated from the law would be a requirement that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produce technical guidance with regard to diesel
emission reductions from diesel retrofits. EPA has gathered the information required under
current law and made it publically available.
33
23 U.S.C. 149.
Congressional Research Service
32
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Expediting Environmental Review Requirements
Under current law, final design activities, property acquisition, purchase of construction materials
or rolling stock, or project construction are not allowed to proceed until FHWA or FTA has
completed the appropriate environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). DOT’s NEPA regulations require FHWA and FTA to
perform the work necessary to complete the appropriate NEPA documentation34 and to
demonstrate compliance with any other related environmental laws and regulations during the
NEPA process.
Depending on a host of factors, an individual surface transportation project may involve
compliance with any of a number of environmental requirements. For example, transportation
projects often must comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and “Section 4(f)”of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966. To comply with applicable requirements, various local, state, and federal agencies (over
which DOT has no authority) such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or EPA may be required to perform
scientific analysis, issue permits, or specify certain mitigation measures.
Previous reauthorization legislation has included provisions intended to expedite the time it takes
the various agencies to coordinate their required activities and comply with applicable
environmental requirements. Specifically, SAFETEA amended Title 23 to include §139,
“Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking.” To further address issues
associated with the NEPA process, the STAA would:
•
Amend §139 to allow certain elements of a state’s transportation planning
product to be integrated into an individual transportation project’s NEPA
documentation. Included in the proposal is a requirement to issue a final record
of decision and allow a project to move to its final design stage no later than 120
days after a final EIS is completed (the proposal specifies conditions under which
delays would be allowed).
•
Amend §139 to encourage programmatic approaches regarding environmental
programs and permits. The Office of Expedited Project Delivery is also
encouraged to establish programmatic agreements in meeting a project’s NEPA
requirements.
•
Direct the Office of Expedited Project Delivery to ensure that federal agencies
and other relevant agencies are implementing §139 requirements, particularly
with regard to implementing a schedule for public and agency participation
(however, DOT has no authority to dictate compliance requirements, including
the implementation of deadlines or timeframes, to other agencies).
•
Amend Title 23 regarding the advance acquisition of real property35 to authorize
DOT to encourage states to acquire transportation rights-of-way sufficient to
34
The appropriate NEPA documentation would include an Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects known
to have a “significant” impact on the environment or Environmental Assessments (EA) for projects for which the level
of significance is unclear. Projects that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect are
processed as Categorical Exclusions (CEs).
35
23 U.S.C. § 108.
Congressional Research Service
33
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
accommodate long-range transportation needs (the law currently requires the
state to complete the NEPA process before property acquisitions can be made, the
bill does not waive that requirement).
Greenhouse Gas Provisions
New to the surface transportation bill this year is an emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions through transportation planning. Transportation sources accounted for 28% of U.S.
emissions of GHGs in 2007, according to the EPA, up from 25% in 1990.36 Cars, trucks, and rail
account for most of the transportation total and are among the fastest growing components of
U.S. emissions: GHG emissions from passenger cars and light duty trucks have grown 24% since
1990; rail emissions grew 50%; medium- and heavy-duty truck emissions grew 80%.37
As a separate bill moves through Congress to require GHG emission reductions as great as 80%
over the next four decades,38 it is clear that the nation cannot achieve that goal without reductions
in emissions from the transportation sector. To achieve such reductions, a variety of measures
might be implemented, including improving the fuel efficiency of each mode, switching to lower
carbon fuels, switching to more efficient / lower emitting transportation modes, and reducing
demand for transportation by better coordination among land use, housing, and transportation
projects.
The latter two options are among the goals of the proposed STAA. The bill would require that
transportation plans prepared by MPOs and by states “address transportation-related greenhouse
gas emissions by including emission reduction targets and strategies.” (Sections 1508(h) and
1509(c)(1)(E)). The targets and strategies are to: be based on models and methodologies
established by EPA; address sources of surface transportation-related GHGs; include efforts to
increase public transportation ridership; and include efforts to increase walking and bicycling.39
The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop performance measures including, for
areas with populations of more than one million, a measurement of the degree to which the longrange transportation plan is developed through an assessment of: land use patterns that support
reduced dependency on single occupant motor vehicle trips; limited impacts on air quality; a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; an increase in energy conservation and efficiency; and
other factors.
The bill would require annual reporting by MPOs of their progress in meeting their performance
targets, but it does not seem to contain any sanctions for failure to achieve the stated goals.
36
U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html, Table ES-8.
37
See CRS Report R40090, Aviation and Climate Change, by (name redacted), Table 2.
38
H.R. 2454 passed the House June 26, 2009. For a summary, see CRS Report R40643, Greenhouse Gas Legislation:
Summary and Analysis of H.R. 2454 as Passed by the House of Representatives, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name
redacted).
39
Section 222 of H.R. 2454, the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill passed by the House on June 26, 2009, contains
similar requirements for transportation emissions reduction goals/plans for states and MPOs.
Congressional Research Service
34
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail
The STAA, according to the committee’s documents, would authorize $50 billion over six years
($8.3 billion per year) for the development of intercity high-speed passenger rail corridors. The
source of funds would be the General Treasury, not the Highway Trust Fund. This level of
funding for high-speed rail is a substantial increase over the $100 million per year authorized in
SAFETEA (section 9001) and the $300 million per year authorized in the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act (P.L. 110-432, section 501) enacted in October 2008. It is more
in keeping with the $8 billion appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5) for high-speed rail. The bill defines “high-speed” as rail service that is
reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour. The high-speed rail
development program, as promulgated in section 6001 of the draft bill, would require a local
match of 20% and allow the Secretary of Transportation to issue “letters of intent” regarding
federal funding of specific projects in future years. States or Amtrak may enter into a cooperative
agreement with any public, private, or non-profit entity to implement a high-speed rail project.
Although the bill authorizes a substantial increase in funding for modernizing the nation’s
passenger rail network, without a dedicated funding source, which has benefitted the development
of other modes of intercity travel, it is uncertain whether Congress can sustain, over the longterm, the level of funding it recently appropriated to passenger rail in ARRA. Sustaining higher
levels of capital funding is not the only challenge confronting decision-makers. On many of the
proposed routes it is unlikely that ticket and other revenues will be sufficient to cover operating
costs, requiring public assistance to cover these losses in addition to funding infrastructure
maintenance and improvements.
Related Legislation
Several Members of Congress have introduced legislation that would, if adopted or incorporated
into the major reauthorization bill, have an impact on federal surface transportation policy.
Clean, Low Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency
Act (S. 575/H.R. 1329)
This bill, sometimes referred to as CLEANTEA, establishes a new trust fund, the Low
Greenhouse Gas Transportation Fund, to be funded with monies coming from the auctioning of
greenhouse gas emissions allowances that might arise with the enactment of a cap-and-trade
system. The bill requires money from 10% of the auctioned allowances to be deposited in the
fund. Monies in the fund, distributed by formula, are to be used by states and MPOs to develop
plans and targets to reduce GHG emissions from transportation, and to help fund projects that are
planned.
Highway Fairness and Reform Act of 2009 (S. 903)
This bill would allow states to opt out of the Federal-Aid Highway program beginning in
FY2011. A state opting out of the highway program would instead receive an amount equivalent
to the state’s contribution to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, less an amount to
Congressional Research Service
35
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
be determined by the Secretary to pay a portion of the funding necessary to maintain NHTSA and
FMCSA activities. As part of this transfer, the state would agree to continue certain aspects of the
existing highway program, such as the urbanized area suballocation distribution that would have
occurred as part of the STP program. In addition, a state would agree to maintain the interstates
and submit a plan on how the funds obtained from this transfer would be utilized.
S. 903 is a donor state bill. By transferring funds directly to the state instead of through the
existing federal aid program it addresses many of the long standing complaints expressed by
donor states that they do not receive a full return on their contributions to the trust fund. At its
core the bill is a policy statement favoring partial devolution of the surface transportation
assistance program. It is partial because it deals only with the spending side of the program. The
federal government would still be required to collect taxes and transfer them to the states. In some
ways this process would be similar to the revenue sharing policies adopted during the Nixon
Administration and repealed under the Reagan Administration.
The bill as introduced does not contain detailed implementation provisions. The bill does not, for
example, provide guidance on how the regulatory structure for this program restructuring would
be created. One could assume that the Secretary would have this role, but the legislation does not
make this clear.
Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009
(S. 1036)
The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009 (S. 1036), introduced by
Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, sets out a number of national surface transportation policy
objectives, and establishes 10 goals. The policy goals are:
•
to reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
•
to reduce national motor vehicle-related fatalities by 50% by 2030;
•
to reduce national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40%
by 2030;
•
to reduce national surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis;
•
to increase the percentage of system-critical surface transportation assets, as
defined by the Secretary, that are in a state of good repair by 20% by 2030;
•
to increase the total usage of public transportation, intercity passenger rail
services, and non-motorized transportation on an annual basis;
•
to increase the proportion of national freight transportation provided by nonhighway or multimodal services by 10% by 2020;
•
to reduce passenger and freight transportation delays and congestion at
international points of entry on an annual basis;
•
to ensure adequate transportation of domestic energy supplies; and
•
to maintain or the reduce the percentage of gross domestic product consumed by
transportation costs.
Congressional Research Service
36
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
In order to achieve the policy, objectives, and goals in the act, the Secretary of DOT is required,
in consultation with a wide range of state and local governments, non-profits, and private entities,
to develop and implement a National Surface Transportation Performance Plan. The Secretary is
also required to evaluate how well federal surface transportation programs contribute to achieving
the policy, objectives, and goals, and must “align the availability and award of Federal surface
transportation funding to meet the policy, objectives, goals, and performance criteria established.”
Congressional Research Service
37
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Appendix A. CRS Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Reports
CRS Report R40053, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 111th
Congress, coordinated by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34675, Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Selected Highway and Transit
Issues in Brief, by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL33995, Surface Transportation Congestion: Policy and Issues, by (name redac
ted)
CRS Report R40451, The Donor-Donee State Issue: Funding Equity in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization, by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34127, Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role, by (name reda
cted) and (name redacted)
CRS Report R40629, Freight Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, by (name redacted)
and (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34183, Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization, by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34171, Public Transit Program Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization,
by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34305, Motorcycle Safety: Recent Trends, Congressional Action, and Selected
Policy Options, by (name redacted)
CRS Report RL34153, Seat Belts on School Buses: Overview of the Issue, by (name redacted
)
CRS Report RL34657, Financial Institution Insolvency: Federal Authority over Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and Depository Institutions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
CRS Report RL33492, Amtrak: Budget and Reauthorization, by (name redacted) and (name redacted
)
Congressional Research Service
38
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Appendix B. Trust Fund Financial Data
Figure B-1. Highway Account Balance: FY2006-FY2009
Source: Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/index.htm#b.
Congressional Research Service
39
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Table B-1. CBO Spring FY2009 Baseline 2007-2018
(Billions of Dollars)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Fed-Aid Oblim (Gross)
39.1
41.2
40.7
41.1
41.3
41.6
41.8
42.2
42.7
43.4
44.1
44.7
45.5
Oblim Transfer to Transit (Flexing)
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
Safety Resources (Oblim)
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
BOY Balance
9.0
8.1
10.0
2.3
-3.9
-9.6
-20.2
-30.4
-41.4
-52.0
-61.4
-70.3
-79.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
34.3
31.3
31.6
31.7
32.2
32.9
33.7
34.4
35.0
35.3
35.7
35.9
36.2
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
General Fund Transfer
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Outlays
35.0
37.0
38.8
37.2
37.2
42.6
43.0
44.4
44.6
43.7
43.6
43.6
44.2
EOY Balancea
8.1
10.0
2.3
-3.9
-9.6
-20.2
-30.4
-41.4
-52.0
-61.4
-70.3
-79.0
-87.9
Transit Oblim (gross)
8.2
8.8
9.3
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.1
10.2
BOY Balance
6.2
7.3
6.8
5.3
3.0
0.8
-1.9
-5.3
-9.5
-13.5
-17.1
-20.6
-24.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Receipts
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
Adjustments for Negative Balances
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Outlays
4.2
6.0
6.9
7.7
7.8
8.4
9.4
10.3
10.1
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.9
EOY Balancea
7.3
6.8
5.3
3.0
0.8
-1.9
-5.3
-9.5
-13.5
-17.1
-20.6
-24.2
-27.9
Highway Account
Est. Flexing—Transfer of Cash
Receipts
Adjustment for negative Balances
Transit Account
Est. Flexing—Transfer of Cash
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Note: Estimates of trust fund balances reflect CBO’s best estimate of likely outcomes under current law. Actual balances could be higher or lower, depending on the
accuracy of revenue and spending estimates.
a.
CRS-40
Under current law, the Highway Trust Fund cannot incur negative balances. A negative balance, as shown, represents obligations and the ability of the Trust Fund to
pay those obligations. Future spending on programs financed by the Highway Trust Fund would continue, although the rate of outlays would likely slow.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.g
ov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.g
ov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
41
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
CRS Division
Telephone
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Will Mallett
RSI
7-....
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
Will Mallett
RSI
7-....
Highway, Railroad, & Truck Safety
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Auto and Traffic Safety (including NHTSA)
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Research Programs
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Transportation Enhancements & Planning (MPOs)
Will Mallett
RSI
7-....
Intermodal/Freight Issues
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Program
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Environmental Issues, Including Streamlining NEPA,
Stormwater, and Section 4(f)
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Conformity with the Clean Air Act
Jim McCarthy
RSI
7-....
Recreational Trails
Sandy Johnson
RSI
7-....
Surface Transportation Security
(name redacted)
Highway Program Issues
Trust Fund Issues
Donor/Donee & Formula Issues
Transit Program Issues
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
Climate Considerations
Alternative Fuels & Advanced Technology Vehicles
Highway and Transit Program Data
Selected Legal Issues
Name
RSI
7-....
Jim McCarthy
RSI
7-....
Brent Yacobucci
RSI
7-....
Brent Yacobucci
RSI
7-....
Vanessa Cieslak
KSG
7-....
(name redacted)
KSG
7-....
(name redacted)
KSG
7-....
Todd Tatelman
ALD
7-....
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division; KSG = Knowledge Services Group;
ALD = American Law Division.
Congressional Research Service
42
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.