Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA): Selected Major Provisions
Congressional research reportOct 18, 2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA):
Selected Major Provisions
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
October 18, 2005
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33119
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Summary
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59).
This act reauthorizes federal surface transportation programs through the end of FY2009. The
reauthorization was long overdue, given that the previous long term authorization, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-206) expired on September 30,
2003.
The reauthorization debate was primarily characterized by two interrelated issues, money and
how that money would be distributed among the states. The 108th Congress came close to a bill
with a surface transportation Conference Committee in place. In the end, however, conferees
were unable to reach agreement either among themselves or with the Bush Administration as to
how large the six-year reauthorization package would be in dollar terms. The Conference was
also unable to agree on a solution to the long standing donor-donee state funding distribution
question, with donor states insisting on a 95% return on fuel tax revenues and donee states
insisting that increased funding for donor states not come at their expense.
In the 109th Congress, the same issues threatened to undermine a Conference Committee that
began meeting in June 2005. This time, however, all parties found ways in which to compromise.
Most importantly, the Administration allowed total funding in the bill to rise to $286.4 billion for
the six-year authorization period (in actuality the act provides $244.1 billion for the five years
remaining before FY2009). This increase allowed the conferees to ultimately guarantee all states
an eventual 92% rate of return, an improvement on the existing 90.5% rate, while at the same
time holding 27 states harmless (meaning they will not receive less actual money than they have
in the past). With these key compromises in place many of the objections to the bill disappeared
and the conference report was agreed to on July 29, 2005.
In addition to money issues, the act addressed a number of other issues. These included the
creation of a new consolidated safety program, enhanced environmental streamlining regulations,
changes in clean air conformity regulations, funding for transit new starts, expanded reliance on
innovative financing and tolls, and spending on congressional high priority projects (earmarks).
This report will be updated as warranted by congressional actions.
Congressional Research Service
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Contents
Major SAFETEA Provisions .......................................................................................................1
Authorization Period .............................................................................................................1
Surface Transportation Finance .............................................................................................2
Trust Fund Budgetary Treatment ...........................................................................................3
Guaranteed Funding..............................................................................................................3
Changes to Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) .......................................................4
Donor-Donee State Remedies......................................................................................................5
SAFETEA’s “Equity Bonus” Innovation ...............................................................................6
Highway Program and Formula Changes.....................................................................................7
Apportioned Programs ..........................................................................................................7
Apportioned Program Formula Changes..........................................................................7
New Apportioned Program Formulas ..............................................................................8
Allocated (Discretionary) Programs ......................................................................................9
New Allocated Programs.................................................................................................9
Innovative Finance and Tolling ...................................................................................................9
Innovative Finance Provisions...............................................................................................9
TIFIA ........................................................................................................................... 10
SIBs.............................................................................................................................. 10
Toll Provisions .................................................................................................................... 10
Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program ............................... 10
Other HOV Tolling Provisions (including hybrids) ........................................................ 11
Private Activity Bonds ........................................................................................................ 11
Other Highway Provisions ........................................................................................................ 12
Appalachian Development Highway Program (ADHP) ....................................................... 12
Earmarking ......................................................................................................................... 12
Above-the-Line/Below-the-Line ................................................................................... 13
Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program ....................................................................... 13
Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Program.......................... 14
Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility.......................................................................................... 14
Transit Reauthorization ............................................................................................................. 16
New Programs .................................................................................................................... 17
Growing States Program and High-Density States Program ........................................... 17
New Freedom Program ................................................................................................. 17
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program...................................... 17
Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula Program............................................................ 17
Small Starts Program..................................................................................................... 18
New Apportionment Factors for the Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized
Areas Program ........................................................................................................... 18
Passenger Rail and Rail Safety Provisions ................................................................................. 18
Maglev ............................................................................................................................... 18
High-Speed Rail Corridor Development .............................................................................. 19
Elimination of Rail-Highway Crossing Hazards in High-Speed Rail Corridors .................... 19
Alaska Railroad .................................................................................................................. 19
Welded Rail and Tank Car Safety Improvements ................................................................. 19
Highway and Commercial Vehicle Safety Programs .................................................................. 20
Congressional Research Service
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Infrastructure Safety, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)............. 20
Federal Traffic Safety Program and Associated State Grants .......................................... 21
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ............................................................................. 21
Research and Development and Technology Deployment .......................................................... 22
Freight Rail and Intermodal Provisions...................................................................................... 23
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) Loan Program
Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 23
Rail Line Relocation ........................................................................................................... 24
Rail Project Earmarks ......................................................................................................... 24
Study of Rail Transportation and Regulation ....................................................................... 24
Intermodal Freight Pilot Program ........................................................................................ 24
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)............................................................................................ 25
Funding/Formula ................................................................................................................ 25
Eligibility............................................................................................................................ 25
Environmental Issues, Including “Streamlining”........................................................................ 26
The CMAQ Program........................................................................................................... 28
Conformity of Transportation Plans and State Implementation Plans (SIPs)............................... 29
Tables
Table 1. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations, FY2005-FY2009....................................................4
Table A-1. SAFETEA Authorization Levels, FY2005-FY2009 .................................................. 31
Appendixes
Appendix. SAFTEA Authorization Levels, FY2005-FY2009..................................................... 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 34
CRS Policy Staff and Areas of Expertise ................................................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
F
ederal surface transportation programs are a major component of national spending on
transportation capital infrastructure. According to a Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, 46% of all U.S. highway capital spending in FY2002 was attributable to
federal funding. Likewise, it is the availability of federal transit funding that has provided the
possibility of bus and rail transit projects in many communities during the last few decades.
Structurally, surface transportation legislation normally consists of multiple separate legislative
titles which can be viewed as the principal programs and their funding mechanism; highways,
highway safety, transit, motor carrier safety, research, planning, hazardous materials
transportation, rail, and finance. Additional titles are sometimes included in reauthorization
legislation, that are often unrelated to transportation (as is the case of certain tax provisions in
SAFETEA). It should be pointed out that the term “program” has multiple meanings in a
discussion of federal surface transportation policy. The larger federal-aid highway program, for
example, consists of a number of separate programs, such as the surface transportation program
(STP). Funds in the various programs are distributed on the basis of formulas (known as
apportioned programs in highway parlance) and on a discretionary basis (also referred to as the
allocated programs in the highway program).
The majority of funding in the overall surface transportation bill, and the vast majority of
highway funding, goes to the so-called “core” highway programs. SAFETEA increases the
number of these core programs from five to six: interstate maintenance (IM), national highway
system (NHS); surface transportation program (STP); bridge and bridge maintenance; congestion,
mitigation, and air quality (CMAQ); and the new highway safety improvement program (HSIP)
are all apportioned programs. A seventh program, called the equity bonus (EB) (which replaced
the TEA-21 minimum guarantee program), is sometimes also referred to as a core program. Most
remaining highway funding goes to the allocated programs, such as federal lands highways,
which are ostensibly under the control of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), but in
recent practice have been largely earmarked during the annual appropriations process.
The structures of the highway safety, research, and transit programs also include a mix of formula
and discretionary programs. In the transit program, for example, about half of all funding is
distributed directly to transit operators by the urbanized area formula program and the nonurbanized area formula program. Each of the major programs also includes planning,
environmental, and other elements that are major subjects of discussion during reauthorization
debates.
Major SAFETEA Provisions
Authorization Period
Federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs are subject to periodic reauthorization.
Prior to passage of SAFETEA, the most recent authorization was the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-278), which provided funds for the period FY1998FY2003. After October 1, 2003 all federal surface transportation programs continued to operate
on the basis of 11 short term extension acts.
Although there have been numerous short term reauthorizations in the history of these programs,
there is a consensus in the surface transportation community that long-term reauthorizations, such
Congressional Research Service
1
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
as that afforded by TEA-21, better accommodate the long-term planning needs and construction
horizons associated with the provision of highway and transit infrastructure. Reauthorization by
short-term extensions created a great deal of uncertainty about the likelihood of future funding in
the highway and transit community. Highway and transit interests at the state and local level, and
in the private sector, have, therefore, welcomed passage of SAFETEA even though delays in its
passage have converted it from a six-year bill to a just over a four-year bill expiring in FY2009.
Surface Transportation Finance
Federal funding for surface transportation is closely linked to the revenue stream provided by the
highway trust fund. The trust fund is in fact two separate accounts—highways and mass transit.
The primary revenue sources for these accounts are the 18.4 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and a
24.4 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel. Although there are other sources of revenue for the trust
fund, these fuel taxes provide about 90% of the income to the funds. Of these amounts, the transit
account receives 2.86 cents per gallon and 0.1 cent per gallon is reserved for an unrelated leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) fund. Over the almost 50 year life of the trust fund there have
been several increases in the level of taxation. The last increase in the fuel tax 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).
For almost 50 years the trust fund has been a reliable source of funding for surface transportation.
In FY2004, for example, the highway account received tax revenues of $31 billion, while the
mass transit account received $5 billion. For most of its history the trust funds have collected
more than has been expended relative to the size of the program defined by Congress. This
situation has been changing in the last few years. The FY2004 limitation on obligations was set at
$33.6 billion and the FHWA total appropriation was $34.5 billion, both amounts of which are
higher than the revenues collected for the fiscal year. For a number of reasons, however, the trust
fund’s unexpended balance remains substantial, but is declining. Because of this trend there is
some uncertainty at the moment about the long term outlook for the financial health of the trust
fund. This is in spite of the fact that the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357),
passed in the closing days of the 108th Congress, provided the trust fund with additional future
income by changing elements of federal gasohol taxation. These changes could provide the trust
fund with an additional $4 billion per year starting in FY2005.
As mentioned earlier, both the House and Senate had passed reauthorization legislation in the 2nd
Session of the 108th Congress and a Conference Committee was formed. The Conference
Committee, Congressional Leadership, especially in the House, and the Administration were
unable to reach agreement about total program funding for the next reauthorization period. This
was largely because some Members of Congress backed a level of project funding larger than the
Bush Administration was willing to support. Part of the Administration’s objection related to the
above debate about the future health of the trust funds vis-à-vis the Administration’s adamant
objection to raising fuel taxes either now or in the future. Some Members of Congress, on the
other hand, had identified a number of mechanisms, including the now adopted gasohol changes,
other tax changes, and rescissions that they felt would support a larger program. The gasohol
changes by themselves, however, would not have been sufficient to fund the program size desired
by many Members.
Conferees on SAFETEA considered a number of tax and other changes that would increase
revenues to the trust fund and/or offset additional highway and transit spending. Several of these
provisions are included in the finance title of the act. The revenue increases in this title are
Congressional Research Service
2
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
viewed as quite modest and derive mostly from cutting back on tax fraud and by transferring
some Treasury general fund revenues associated with transportation related activities to the trust
fund. It was believed at time of passage, that the changes identified in SAFETEA when combined
with the changes in gasohol legislation enacted in 2004, and enhanced by expected economic
growth, would be sufficient to finance the $286.4 billion program created by the act.1 (CRS
contacts: John Fischer and Robert Kirk)
Trust Fund Budgetary Treatment
TEA-21 changed the way the highway trust fund relates to the Federal Unified Budget in two
ways: first by creating new budget categories and second by setting statutory limitations on
obligations. The act amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to
create two new budget categories: highway and mass transit. The act further amended the budget
process by setting the limitation on obligations for each fiscal year from FY1999 to FY2003 in
authorizing rather then appropriations legislation. In addition, TEA-21 provided a mechanism,
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), to adjust these amounts in the highway account, but
not the transit account, so as to correspond with increased or decreased receipts in highway
generated revenues. The provision also adjusts the highway program authorization level to
correspond with this change. It should be pointed out, all of the above notwithstanding, that
annual revenues and expenditures affecting the balances in the trust fund accounts remain part of
the overall annual federal deficit calculation.
The net effect of the changes was to set a predetermined level of funding for core highway and
transit programs, referred to in TEA-21 as a discretionary spending guarantee. These categories
are separated from the rest of the discretionary budget in a way that prevents the use of funds
assigned to these categories for any other purpose. These so called “firewalls” were viewed, in the
TEA-21 context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levels of funding for highway and transit
programs. Additional funds above the firewall level could be made available for highway and
transit programs through the annual appropriations process, but for the most part this did not
occur except in FY2003. SAFETEA has retained this budget format largely unchanged.
Guaranteed Funding
Most of the debate about SAFETEA was about money and its distribution. At the end of the day,
SAFETEA provides quite a bit of additional money, $286.4 billion in guaranteed spending
authority, for the six-year period FY2004-FY2009. This is a significant increase over the level in
TEA-21 which provided $218 billion over the six-year period FY1998-2003. A direct comparison
between the two bills, however, is difficult for a number of reasons that are beyond the scope this
report. Suffice it to say that SAFETEA represents a significant funding increase for all federal
surface transportation programs, though not as much of an increase as many of the legislation’s
original authors had hoped for.
1
Recent events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the high price of oil, and what some believe may be a period of
economic uncertainty are already raising questions about these forecasts. It is now expected by some that new estimates
by the Department of the Treasury and others will show a trust fund revenue stream unable to fund all of the programs
in SAFETEA prior to FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
In reality, SAFETEA is a five-year bill, FY2004 is history and, at time of passage, only two
months remained in FY2005. A more useful representation of SAFETEA, therefore, is that it
provides just over $244 billion in guaranteed spending authority between FY2005-FY2009. As
Table 1 shows, all major programs affected by the legislation receive significant new funding (the
exempt obligation category is provided for equity bonus and emergency funding purposes and
does not reflect a program per see). Total annual spending increases occur in each year and total
spending in FY2009 is almost 23% higher than spending in FY2005. A summary of funding for
major programs and activities can be found at the end of this report in Appendix. Even more
detailed programmatic information, to the subprogram level, can be found at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm
The House version of what became SAFETEA contained a so-called “re-opener” provision that
would have required that Congress reconsider the total amount of funding available at a specified
later date. The Bush Administration strongly objected to this provision and it was not included in
the final act.
Table 1. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations, FY2005-FY2009
($ billions)
Total 5years
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Highway Obligation Limitation
34.422
36.032
38.244
39.585
41.200
189.484
Exempt Highway Obligations
0.739
0.739
0.739
0.739
0.739
3.695
Highway Safety and Motor Carrier Safety
Obligations
0.742
1.189
1.217
1.239
1.270
5.656
Mass Transit Obligations
7.646
8.623
8.975
9.731
10.338
45.313
43.549
46.583
49.175
51.294
53.547
244.148
Totals
Source: Transportation Weekly. August 4, 2005. p. 5.
Changes to Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)
As mentioned earlier, TEA-21 created a spending mechanism intended to adjust annual highway
program obligations to reflect changes in revenue in the highway trust fund. The expectation was
that this would provide for increases in obligational authority, although the law did allow for
reductions in funding if trust fund revenues decreased. In its first three years, RABA provided
significant additional spending authority. In FY2003, however, the RABA computation called for
a program reduction. Congress choose, through the appropriations process, not to reduce
spending and instead increased it.
As a result of this experience there was a push to change the way RABA was calculated to make
revenue swings less dramatic, especially in the negative direction. SAFETEA changes how
RABA is calculated primarily by using a two year calculation rather than the single year called
for in TEA-21. In addition, it puts off RABA calculations until FY2007 and reduces the
likelihood of spending reductions by requiring that no reductions occur so long as the unexpended
balance in the highway trust fund exceeds $6 billion.
Congressional Research Service
4
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Donor-Donee State Remedies
Historically, transportation policy battle lines have often formed along regional rather than
partisan alignments. The regional character of transportation policy is evident in the debate over
the so-called “equity” of distribution of federal highway aid among the states. Since 1982
Congress has included legislative provisions in every surface transportation reauthorization act to
remedy these perceived funding distribution concerns through a variety of minimum guarantee
provisions. For many years, some states (mostly Southern as well as some midwestern and
western states) have complained that they receive significantly less federal highway aid than their
highway users pay in federal highway taxes to the highway trust fund (HTF). These states,
referred to as donor states, have pressed for legislative remedies that would assure them a higher
share rate-of-return, most recently 95%, on their tax payments to the Treasury. Donee states,
states that receive more federal highway aid than they pay in federal highway taxes, have not
opposed equity provisions per se but have opposed any reduction in their existing shares.
The basic donor state argument is a relatively straightforward call for equity or fairness. Donor
state advocates generally contend that for too many years they have been subsidizing the repair
and improvement of donee state infrastructure, especially the older highway infrastructure in the
Northeast. Most also argue that they are more road dependent and do not benefit from federal
transit spending to the same degree as some donee states. Southern and western donor states also
argue that they are fast growth areas, relative to most donee states, and that, consequently, their
needs are as great or greater. Finally, they argue that with the completion of the Interstate
Highway System there is no valid rationale for the donor-donee disparity. Donee state advocates
argue that fairness should not be separated from needs. They assert that the age of their highway
infrastructure, especially in the Northeast, the high cost of working on heavily congested urban
roads, and the limited financial resources in large sparsely populated western states justify their
donee status. They also argue that there are needs that are inherently federal rather than state and
that a national highway network cannot be based solely on state or regional boundaries. Donee
states also argue that Midwestern and southern states spend less local and state money on
highways than donee states, and chide them for pleading for federal funds when they are
unwilling to ante up their own resources.
In a broader sense, the debate over equity remedies has implications for a number of overarching
issues. An equity guarantee of a 95% rate of return could, in the minds of some, leave little room
for addressing other or additional transportation needs that are uniquely federal, such as the
Federal Lands Highway program. Also, the role of the federal government vis-à-vis the states
comes into question as the minimum guarantee approaches 100%. At what point does the federal
role become so limited that converting the Federal aid highway program to a revenue sharing or a
block grant program make sense? Another controversial issue is whether the MG should be
broadened, as some states have proposed, to include Federal Transit Administration programs.
The 109th Congress faced a difficult policy problem in resolving the seemingly contradictory
goals of meeting donor state demands for a higher rate-of-return and donee state demands to be
held harmless at a time when the HTF revenue base was expected to be insufficient to easily fund
both goals. Part of the problem was that a bill that simply reduced the shares of donee states to
increase the shares of donor states would have had difficulty overcoming a filibuster by donee
states in the Senate. To construct a minimum guarantee (MG) mechanism that could overcome
this obstacle, previous reauthorization bills had included “hold harmless” provisions that
maintained certain base shares for all states. This meant that part of the process of bringing donor
Congressional Research Service
5
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
state shares up to the MG percentage required increasing the overall federal highway program
size, usually by a significant amount (since donee state funding could not be reduced). In other
words, providing equity remedies that keep both donor and donee states reasonably content has
been accomplished by giving more money to all states but giving even more to donor states to
bring their shares up to a designated per cent share, 90.5% during TEA21. Providing equity in
this way has been very expensive in dollar terms, the minimum guarantee program under TEA21,
in fact, became the largest highway program. In the end, the constraints of limited funding
availability and the practical politics of getting the surface transportation legislation through both
houses of Congress, resulted in a modest and gradual increase in the guaranteed rate-of-return to
the states.
SAFETEA’s “Equity Bonus” Innovation
SAFETEA replaces the entire TEA-21 MG program with an “Equity Bonus” program (EB).
Basically, the individual program formulas will determine the initial apportionments and then the
equity bonus funding will be added to these levels to bring donor states up to their guaranteed
rate-of-return levels. The act directs the Secretary of Transportation to allocate to the states for
each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 sufficient funds to ensure that each state receives at
least a return of 90.5% for FY2005-2006, 91.5% for FY2007, and 92% for FY2008-2009, on their
estimated payments to the highway account of the HTF. The act keeps nearly all the programs
subject to MG under TEA-21 (IM, NHS, STP, CMAQ, HBRR, Recreational Trails, Appalachian
Development Highway System, High Priority Projects, and metropolitan planning) subject to the
equity provision, as well as three new formula programs, the Coordinated Border Infrastructure
Program, the Safe Routes to School Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the
existing rail-highway grade crossing program.
The EB program also includes a number of hold harmless provisions that provide that certain
states will receive the greater of the annual percent return described above or their share of total
apportionments over the six-year life of TEA-21. To be held harmless the state must meet one or
more of the following criteria, the state must: have a population density of less than 40 people per
square mile and at least 1.25% of their total acreage must be under federal jurisdiction; have a
population less than one million people; have a median household income less than $35,000; have
a fatality rate on Interstate Highways in 2002 of greater than 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled; or have an indexed state motor fuel excise tax rate that is more than 150% of the federal
motor fuel excise tax rate. There are twenty-seven states that qualify under these criteria:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
The EB program also guarantees that no state may receive less than a set percentage of its
average annual TEA-21 apportionments for each fiscal year. In effect, this sets an annual
percentage floor, relative to a state’s TEA-21 average apportionment, beneath which no state can
fall. The annual percentage floors are as follows: 117% for FY2005, 118% for FY2006, 119% for
FY2007, 120% for FY2008, and 121% for FY2009.
The programmatic distribution of Equity Bonus Program funds to the states is as follows. Each
year the first $2.639 billion is apportioned to the STP, except that certain set-asides such as for
Transportation Enhancements and some population-based sub-state allocations do not benefit
from this distribution. Any Equity Bonus funds above $2.639 billion are distributed to the six core
Congressional Research Service
6
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
programs: IM, HBRR, NHS, STP, CMAQ, and the HSIP. The distribution among these programs
is based on the ratio of each program’s apportionment to the total apportionment of all six
programs for each state. FHWA analysis indicates that over the five-year life of SAFETEA the EB
program distributions will cost $40.9 billion. (CRS contacts: Robert Kirk and John Fischer)
Highway Program and Formula Changes
Apportioned Programs
Funds for all of the programs discussed here are apportioned to the states on an annual basis using
formulas found in SAFETEA. As a result they are sometimes referred to as the “apportioned”
programs. In some instances, apportioned programs are also referred to as formula programs.
Under TEA-21 most highway funding was reserved for five major apportioned programs, which
are usually referred to as the core programs. They, along with the minimum guarantee, accounted
for the vast majority of highway spending: 86% of the FY2003 authorized amount. SAFETEA
increases the number of these core programs from five to six: interstate maintenance (IM),
national highway system (NHS); surface transportation program (STP); highway bridge and
bridge maintenance (HBRR); congestion, mitigation, and air quality (CMAQ); and the new
highway safety improvement program (HSIP). A seventh program, the equity bonus (EB)(which
replaced the TEA-21 minimum guarantee program), is sometimes referred to as a core program.
The majority of funding in the overall surface transportation bill, and the vast majority of
highway funding, goes to the so-called “core” highway programs. In addition to the core
programs there are a couple of additional and much smaller apportioned programs that existed in
TEA-21, and are continued in SAFETEA, e.g.: metropolitan planning and the recreational trails
program.
Although many potential new programs were considered during reauthorization only a very few
were finally included in SAFETEA. In addition to the HSIP, creates two new formula programs:
the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI), which replaces the TEA-21 discretionary
program of the same name; and the Safe Routes to School Program (SRSP).
Apportioned Program Formula Changes
Under TEA-21, most of the funds distributed under the Federal-Aid Highway program were
apportioned to the states based on apportionment formula factors set forth for the individual
programs under Title 23 of the U.S. Code.2 Some of these programs’ formulas include a
combination of weighted factors such as lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, and estimated tax
payments to the highway account of the HTF. Others are primarily based on a single factor such
as the relative state share of total cost to repair or replace deficient bridges (HBRR) or weighted
non-attainment and maintenance area population under the Clean Air Act (CMAQ).
Although SAFETEA did not make major changes in the existing program formulas, the act did
make some adjustments that are of note. The act eliminates the 10% safety STP set-aside that
2
The MG program and the proposed Equity Bonus program also apportion funds by formula. For a discussion of these
programs see the “Donor-Donee Remedies” section.
Congressional Research Service
7
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
existed under TEA-21. The act continues the STP Transportation Enhancements set-aside but sets
it as the greater of 10% of the funds apportioned to a state or the amount set-aside for FY2005.
Adjustments were also made to the underlying calculation under CMAQ of weighted nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone under the new 8-hour area standards. SAFETEA also
creates a $20 million NHS set-aside for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities
in Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington. National Highway System set-aside for the Territorial
Highway Program is set at $40 million for FY2005-FY2006 and at $50 million annually for
FY2007-FY2009. The off-system bridge program set-aside minimum is maintained at 15% but
the 35% ceiling is removed.
New Apportioned Program Formulas
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The formula distribution is weighted 33 1/3%, in the ratio of total federal lane miles in each state
to the total lane miles of the federal-aid highways (FAHP) in all states; 33 1/3%, in the ratio of
total FAHP vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the state to total VMT on all FAHP highways; 33
1/3%, in the ratio of the annual number of fatalities on the federal-aid system in each state to the
number of annual fatalities on the federal-aid system in all states. The minimum payment to each
state is set at 0.5%. The Railway-Highway Crossings program is funded through a takedown from
HSIP but is distributed differently to the states. Crossings funding is distributed 50% based on the
same formula distribution formula that existed when crossings were part of the STP and 50%
based on the ratio that the number of public railway-highway grade crossings in each state bears
to the total number of public railway-highway grade crossings in all states. The act also requires
that from the amounts made available for HSIP, beginning in FY2006, $90 million annually be set
aside by the states, according to the share of each state to the total amount apportioned, to be used
only for construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program
Under TEA-21, this was an allocated (discretionary) program. Under SAFETEA, the funds are to
be apportioned to states along the Canada-U.S. and the Mexico-U.S. borders under the following
formula: 20% in the ratio of incoming commercial truck crossings in a state to the total incoming
commercial truck crossings in all border states; 30% in the ratio that incoming personal vehicle
and bus crossings into a state to the total of incoming personal vehicle and bus crossings in all
border states; 25% in the ratio of total weight of incoming cargo in a state to the total weight of
incoming cargo in all border states; and 25% of the ratio that the total number of ports-of-entry in
a state bears to the total number of ports-of-entry of all border states.
Safe Routes to School
Funds are to be apportioned among the states in the ratio that the total student enrollment in
primary and middle schools in each state bears to the total student enrollment in primary and
middle schools in all the states. No state is to receive an apportionment of less than $1 million.
(CRS contact: Bob Kirk and John Fischer)
Congressional Research Service
8
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Allocated (Discretionary) Programs
All non-apportioned highway programs are subject to allocations that are based on criteria
established in highway authorization and appropriation law. They also may be, and usually are,
subject to congressional earmarking. In TEA-21 all of the programs in this category were smaller
than the core programs, although there were some programs with significant funding levels. The
same remains true in SAFETEA. The largest allocated program in SAFETEA is for
congressionally mandated high priority projects (earmarks) that are specifically designated in the
act. Other relatively large programs in the allocated category are the federal lands program, the
interstate maintenance discretionary program, the bridge discretionary program (for FY2005
only), and the transportation and community and system pilot preservation program (TCSP).
New Allocated Programs
SAFETEA contains a few new large allocated programs. Among these are a new transportation
improvement program, a redefined national corridor infrastructure program (formerly part of the
national corridor planning and development and coordinated border infrastructure program), and
a new program for projects of national or regional significance. All of these programs are subject
to 100% earmarking in the act. The text of the act, however, contains a project selection criteria
for the projects of national and regional significance and creates an operating framework for these
projects that is somewhat different from the other allocated programs.
Innovative Finance and Tolling
Innovative Finance Provisions
Created by highway legislation primarily in the 1990s, innovative financing mechanisms attempt
to use the guarantee of future highway funds as a way to speed project completion and to leverage
additional funds for highway projects. There are three mechanisms currently in use: grant
anticipation revenue vehicles (GARVEEs); credit assistance available as a result of the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); and state infrastructure banks
(SIBs). Each of these mechanisms has specific strengths and weaknesses that have been studied
and described by GAO, CBO, and FHWA.3
SAFETEA makes changes in two of the federal innovative finance programs: TIFIA and the SIB
program. Most of the changes may be viewed as perfecting changes in the programs but other
changes are more significant.
3
U.S. GAO. Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Surface Transportation. Testimony
before the Committee on Finance and Committee on Environment and Public Works. September 25, 2002. Available
online from the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d021126t.pdf. See also the FHWA website at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/ and U.S. CBO, Innovative Financing of Highways: An Analysis of
Proposals, January 1998 online at the CBO website at ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/3xx/doc320/finhways.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
TIFIA
This program provides three types of federal financial assistance for major transportation
projects: secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. SAFETEA both reduces the
minimum project size threshold from $100 million to $50 million and also lowers the minimum
project threshold for intelligent transportation system projects from $30 million to $15 million.
The act provides $122 million annually to support TIFIA’s leveraging activities.
SIBs
Under the SIB program, federal funds are used to help capitalize state infrastructure revolving
funds. Under TEA-21, the program was limited to four states, Missouri, Rhode Island, California,
and Florida. SAFETEA allows any state to enter into an agreement with DOT to establish SIBs
eligible to be capitalized with federal funds drawn from core highway program funds.
Toll Provisions
SAFETEA consolidates most of the tolling provisions in Section 1604. The act authorizes four
tolling programs as well as an additional provision concerning the tolling of HOV lanes. Section
1143 of the revenue title of the act, which concerns private facility bonds and is discussed under
bonding, is also expected to have an impact on tolling.
Value Pricing Pilot Program
The program is continued under current law at the level of 15 tolling projects. The act authorizes
$11 million for FY2005 and $12 million annually for FY2006-FY2009 with the stipulation that
for each of the years FY2006-FY2009 $3 million is to be made available for non-tolling
congestion pricing pilot projects.
Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program
This program was continued under current law. Both House and Senate bill provisions that would
have changed the program were dropped during Conference.
Express Lanes Demonstration Program
This new program directs the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 15 demonstration projects
to permit states, public authorities, or public or private entities designated by the states to collect a
toll at an existing toll facility, or any highway, bridge, or tunnel (including facilities on the
Interstate System) to 1) manage high levels of congestion; 2) reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance area; or 3) to finance the expansion of a highway for the purpose
of reducing traffic congestion by adding lanes on the Interstate System. It is assumed that most of
the funding will go for HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes. The use of revenues is restricted to use
for debt service, a reasonable return on any private financing, and toll facility operating and
maintenance costs. If the toll facility is annually certified as adequately operated and maintained,
excess revenues may be used for any other purpose relating to federal-aid highway or transit
projects.
Congressional Research Service
10
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Facilities that charge tolls under this program may set tolls that vary in price according to time of
day or level of congestion, as appropriate to improve air quality or to manage congestion. High
occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities that charge tolls under this section are required to vary in
price according to time of day or level of traffic. Fees collected on these express lanes are to be
collected only through the use of noncash electronic technology.
Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program
The act establishes a pilot toll program which allows the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to permit a state or compact of states to collect tolls on an Interstate System
highway, bridge, or tunnel for the purpose of constructing Interstate System highways. The pilot
program would permit the collection of fees on only three facilities on the Interstate System. An
interested state or compact of states must demonstrate that financing the construction of the
facility with the collection of tolls under the program is the most efficient and economical way to
advance the project. States will not be allowed to enter into an agreement with a private person
under which the state is prevented from improving or expanding the capacity of public roads
adjacent to the toll facility to address conditions resulting from traffic diverted to such roads from
the toll facility, including excessive congestion, pavement wear, and increased traffic accidents,
injuries, or fatalities. Revenues may be used only for debt service, a reasonable rate of return for
private investors, and operating and maintenance costs, including resurfacing, restoring, and
rehabilitating the toll facility. Interstate Maintenance program funds may not be used on a facility
for which tolls are being collected under the program.
Other HOV Tolling Provisions (including hybrids)
Section 1121 of the act allows state departments of transportation to allow vehicles, not otherwise
eligible for HOV use, to pay a toll charged by the agency to use the HOV lanes (including HOV
lanes on the Interstate System). The provision requires the state agency to 1) establish a program
to address how motorists can enroll and participate in the toll program; 2) develop, manage, and
maintain a system that will automatically collect the toll; 3) establish policies and procedures to
manage demand (i.e. traffic levels) by varying the toll amount charged; and 4) establish policies
and procedures to enforce violations of use of the facility. Section 1121 also allows for the tolling
of “low emission and energy-efficient vehicles” at a preferential rate for HOV use.
Private Activity Bonds
The act amends Section 142 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the issuing of taxexempt private activity bonds to finance highway projects and rail-truck transfer facilities. This
allows state and local governments to issue tax exempt bonds to finance the activities of “private
persons” (meaning the federal government or other individual entities other than state or local
governments) to construct such facilities.
The act qualifies three categories of projects for tax-exempt facility bonding: any highway project
that receives assistance under any Title 23 (highways); any international tunnel or bridge that
likewise receives federal assistance under Title 23; and any truck-train transfer facility project
which receives federal assistance under either Title 23 or Title 49 (mass transit). A $15 billion
limit is placed on the aggregate face amount of the bonds that can be issued. The conference
report does not estimate how much infrastructure could be created using the leverage of this
provision. If utilized up to the limit, the impact of this provision could be substantial. By way of
Congressional Research Service
11
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
comparison, only California will receive more than $15 billion in formula highway assistance
from SAFETEA.
This bonding provision may be the most important tolling provision in SAFETEA. Although the
act does not require that projects using private activity bonds be supported by tolls, it is unlikely
that this would not be the case unless some other revenue mechanism related to facility use could
be created. (CRS contacts: John Fischer and Bob Kirk)
Other Highway Provisions
Appalachian Development Highway Program (ADHP)
The ADHP is a road building program intended to break Appalachia’s regional isolation and
encourage Appalachian economic development. It is not considered part of the federal-aid
highway program per se, but receives its funding from the highway trust fund. The program is
administered under the auspices of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Funds are apportioned
by the Department of Transportation to the member states based on their “cost to complete”
estimates of the approved Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). In terms of road
miles, 85% of the ADHS roads are either completed or under construction (as of the end of 2004).
The ADHS 2002 Cost to Complete Report estimated the additional federal funds needed (from
FY2004 onward) to complete the system at $4.47 billion. Under TEA-21 the ADHP received
$450 million in contract authority annually. The program also received significant additional
funding through the appropriations process during the TEA-21 years. ADHP funds are available
until expended and provide an 80% federal share. SAFETEA provides $470 million annually for
the ADHP. The act prohibits the use of toll revenues as credits for non-federal matching funds on
ADHP-funded projects.
Earmarking4
The level of earmarking in SAFETEA is exponentially larger in terms of both numbers of projects
and dollar terms then was the case in TEA-21. For starters, SAFETEA contains at least 5,092
separate earmarks for congressional high priority projects (HPPs) with a value of over $14.8
billion (there are several additional blank, but nonetheless numbered earmarks in the conference
report). This compares with 1,849 similarly labeled earmarks in TEA-21 with a value of $9.4
billion.
The HPPs are not the only earmarks in the highway title of the act (Title I). Three new earmarked
categories have been created. The first, projects of national and regional significance, provides
almost $1.8 billion for 25 projects. The individual earmarks in this category are mostly larger then
those in the HPP program and, as the name of the program suggests, are larger in scope. A second
set of earmarks is provided for national corridor infrastructure improvements. This category lists
33 earmarks valued at over $1.9 billion. The corridor infrastructure program is not new, but was
not earmarked in previous authorizing legislation. The final earmarked category is for
transportation improvements. There are 465 projects listed with over $2.5 billion in dedicated
4
Information on earmarks is from Transportation Weekly. Overview of Earmarked Projects in the Conference Report.
August 4, 2005. p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
12
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
funding. This is a totally new program and there is no explanation in the conference report as to
how, or if, the projects in this list are supposed to differ from those in the HPPs program. It
should be noted that individual projects may appear in more then one earmarking list and that
they may receive different amounts of funding in each instance.
The above does not represent the full extent of earmarking in the act. There are also 32
individually listed earmarks throughout the highway title of the bill (Title I). These have a total
value of almost $774 million. At least 25 earmarks can also be found in the research title of the
bill (Title V) requiring an additional $241.6 million in funding.
The other largely earmarked program in the act is in the transit title. The bus and bus facilities
program contains 662 specific projects with almost $1.6 billion in funding. There are at least 39
additional stand-alone earmarks in the text of the rest of the transit title valued at just over $191
million.
Above-the-Line/Below-the-Line
By some estimates the total amount of earmarking in the bill exceeds $24 billion, although an
exact accounting is difficult at best for definitional reasons. Much of the discussion about
earmarks since passage of the bill has been focused on how earmarking effects the Equity Bonus
calculation. By congressional parlance there are two types of earmarks in the bill for EB
purposes, those “below the line,” meaning they are part of the annual EB process and those above
the line projects, meaning they are not. This computation significantly affects state shares because
some states have received considerably more earmarked funds on a proportional basis than others.
Of the highway title (Title I) earmarks the HPPs are below the line. The other three earmarked
programs are above the line and miscellaneous earmarks in the highway title are above the line.
Transit earmarks are not part of the EB calculation.
Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program
Transportation Enhancements (TE) program activities (Sec. 1122) are nearly identical to those
under TEA-21. The TE program funds 12 major categories of projects:
1. pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
2. pedestrian and bicycle safety and education activities;
3. acquisition of scenic and historic easements and sites (including historic
battlefields);
4. scenic or historic programs including tourist and welcome centers;
5. landscaping and other scenic beautification;
6. historic preservation;
7. rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation building, structures, or
facilities;
8. preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including conversion and use of the
corridors for or bicycle trails);
9. inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising;
Congressional Research Service
13
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
10. archeological planning and research;
11. environmental mitigation of runoff pollution and provision of wildlife
connectivity;
12. establishment of transportation museums.
The funding mechanism for TE program activities has been modified. Under TEA-21, 10% of
funds apportioned to a state were required to be available only for TE activities. Under SAFETEA
(Sec. 133(d)(2)), funding for the TE program is the greater of 10% of the funds apportioned to a
state under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) for a fiscal year, or the amount that was
apportioned to a state in FY2005. Because STP funding is set to rise under P.L. 109-59, the 10%
set-aside for TE activities ensures that additional funding will become available for enhancement
projects.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP)
Program
The TCSP program, established under TEA-21 and reauthorized under SAFETEA, is designed to
assist in planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation,
community, and system preservation plans and practices, and identify private sector-based
initiatives to improve such relationships. TCSP funding was authorized for projects that aimed to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce environmental impacts of
transportation; reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments; ensure efficient
access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; and examine development patterns and identify
strategies to encourage compatible private sector development patterns. State, tribal, regional, and
local governments would be eligible to receive TCSP grants.
Sec. 1117 of P.L. 109-59 provides a six-year total funding authorization of $270 million for the
TCSP program, with $25 million authorized for FY2005 and $61.25 million authorized for
FY2006-FY2009. This is substantially more than was authorized under TEA-21 ($120 million),
but significantly less than the $454 million appropriated during the life of TEA-21 (additional
funds were added above the TEA-21 authorized level during the annual appropriations process in
some years).
Under TEA-21, TCSP spending was authorized at $20 million for FY1999 and $25 million per
year for FY2000 through FY2003. As envisioned in TEA-21, competitive grants were awarded in
FY1999. For FY2000 to FY2003, TCSP projects were earmarked in the annual transportation
appropriations bills. TCSP funding amounted to $13.5 million in FY1999, $31.1 million in
FY2000, $46.9 million in FY2001, $273 million in FY2002, and $89.5 million in FY2003.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility
SAFETEA continues to provide a significant level of funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs
that encourage a greater number of non-motorized trips, and pedestrian and cyclist safety, health,
and education programs.
The major federal program that has supported pedestrian and bicycle mobility since the passage
of ISTEA is the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program (23 USC §133(b)(8)), which is
unchanged with respect to provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians. That program permits states
Congressional Research Service
14
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
to allocate TE funds for (1) provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, (2) provision of
safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and (3) preservation of abandoned
railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 5
Between FY1992 and FY2004, 55% of TE funds were programmed for these three activities.
Provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities accounted for 46.3% of programmed TE activities
through FY2004.6 A number of other programs within Titles 23 and 49 USC also provide for the
construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities associated with road and transit projects.
Safe Routes to School Program (Sec. 1404)
The Safe Routes to School Program is a new program under SAFETEA. It requires the Secretary
of Transportation to establish and carry out a program to enable and encourage children,
including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make bicycling and walking a
safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active
lifestyle from an early age; and to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of
projects and activities.
The Safe Routes to School Program will be funded at $612 million for FY2004-FY2009. Funding
is to be apportioned among the states based on the ratio of total student enrollment in primary and
middle schools in each state relative to the total student enrollment in primary and middle schools
in all the states. Each state would receive a minimum apportionment of no less than $1 million
per fiscal year and the Secretary is directed to set aside not more than $3 million for the
administrative expenses of the Secretary in carrying out the program. Each state’s apportionment
would be administered by the state’s department of transportation. The federal share of the cost of
projects and activities under the Safe Routes to School Program is 100%, and funds ware to
remain available until expended. Funds are not transferable and will remain available until
expended.
In P.L. 109-59, agencies eligible for funding under this program include state, local, and regional
agencies, including nonprofit organizations, that demonstrate an ability to meet the requirements
of the program. Funds apportioned under the program may be used for planning, design, and
construction of infrastructure-related projects that will substantially improve the ability of
students to walk and bike to school. Projects include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and
speed reduction improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, secure bicycle parking facilities, secure
bicycle parking facilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools.7
Funds allocated to states under this program may also be used for noninfrastructure-related (or
behavioral) activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, such as public awareness
campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the
vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment,
and funding for training, volunteers, and coordinators of safe routes to school programs. Noninfrastructure-related spending should not be less than 10% and not more than 30% of the amount
apportioned to a state for the program. Each state receiving an apportionment under this program
5
There are 12 enhancement activities in all.
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Connections. Summer 2005. p. 2.
7
The definition of “in the vicinity of schools” means the area within bicycling or walking distance of the school
(approximately 2 miles).
6
Congressional Research Service
15
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
is required to use a sufficient amount of the apportionment to fund a full-time position of
coordinator of the state’s safe route to school program.
The Secretary is required to make grants to a national nonprofit organization engaged in
promoting safe routes to schools to operate a national safe routes to school clearinghouse; to
develop information and educational programs on safe routes to school; and to provide technical
assistance and disseminate techniques and strategies used for successful safe routes to school
programs. Funding for the clearinghouse would come from the Secretary’s administrative
expenses set aside. Section 1404 also establishes a task force to study and develop a strategy for
advancing safe routes to school programs nationwide. The results of the study are to be
transmitted to Congress not later than March 31, 2006. (CRS contact: Glennon Harrison)
Transit Reauthorization
SAFETEA provides $45.3 billion in guaranteed funding for transit for the five-year authorization
period (FY2005-FY2009). Including FY2004 transit funding, the six-year total is $52.6 billion, a
46% increase over the $36 billion guaranteed for transit in TEA-21.8
Within the overall increase, Congress shifted the share of funding going to various parts of the
transit program. The share of transit funding going to the Urbanized Area Formula Program
shrank from 47.9% under TEA-21 to 44.0%, while the share going to the Non-Urbanized (i.e.
rural) Formula Program increased from 3.3% under TEA-21 to 5.2%.9 Relatedly, the share of
total transit formula funding going to four of the largest (in terms of population) states shrank by
nearly 8% (though the share of the largest state in terms of population, California, increased by
1.2%), while the share going to the 40 least-populated states (plus the District and territories)
increased by 11.1%.10
Generally, the act made only minor changes to the structure of the federal transit program. As
described below, a few new programs were added, several new funding categories were created
within existing programs, and some changes were made to existing programs. Other provisions in
the act include a requirement that all federal agencies in the National Capital Region offer their
employees a transit pass as a transportation fringe benefit (Section 3049); a provision making the
alternatives analysis required as part of the New Starts program eligible for FTA grants (Section
3037), with 18 such studies earmarked for FY2006-FY2007; and earmarks for the Bus and Bus
Facilities Program for FY2006-FY2009 (in TEA-21, there were no earmarks for that program for
the last three years of the authorization period, leaving the earmarking during those years to the
appropriations committees).
8
The TEA-21 figures are not adjusted for inflation, so the percentage increase includes the effect of inflation. The
“real” increase in transit funding over TEA-21 is somewhat less than 46%.
9
Transportation Weekly, Table: “Shifting Priorities Within the Transit Program,” August 17, 2005, p. 4.
10
Ibid., “Winners and Losers: State Shares of Total Transit Formula Funding,” August 17, 2005, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
16
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
New Programs
Growing States Program and High-Density States Program
These two programs provide a total of $1.7 billion in additional funding (about a 10% addition
over the FY2006-FY2009 period) to the Urbanized Area Formula and Non-Urbanized Area
Formula programs (Section 3038). Half of the funds under this pair of programs are apportioned
to states according to population forecasts for 15 years beyond the date of the most recent Census,
and are distributed to both urbanized and non-urbanized areas within each recipient state
according to the ratio between urban and rural population within that state. The other half of the
funding is distributed to urbanized areas in states whose population densities exceed 370 persons
per mile. 11
New Freedom Program
This is a formula program to increase the availability of transportation services to persons with
disabilities, “including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services”
(Section 3019). It is authorized at a total of $339 million over the period FY2006-FY2009. This
program will not be subject to the labor protection provisions of 40 U.S.C. 533(b) that apply to
most other transit programs.
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program
This is a discretionary grant program to provide transportation alternatives to the private
automobile in national parks and public lands, in order to protect those areas and to provide
access to those areas for everyone, including persons with disabilities (Section 3021). It has a
total authorization of $97 million. This program will be exempt from the labor protection
provisions of 40 U.S.C. 533(b) that apply to most other transit programs.
Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula Program
A new formula program was created within the Urbanized Area Formula Program, funded by a
one-percent set-aside of the Urbanized Area Formula Program authorized funding (providing
approximately $150 million total over the FY2006-FY2009 period)(Section 3034). This program
provides additional funding for small (under 200,000 in population) urbanized areas that provide
a level of transit service comparable to that provided by urbanized areas with populations
between 200,000 and 1 million. The areas of transit service that are measured for this program
are: passenger miles per vehicle revenue mile and vehicle revenue hour; vehicle revenue miles
and hours per capita; and passengers and passenger miles per capita. This program is a response
to an issue created by the formula for urbanized areas under 200,000 in population: unlike the
formulas for larger urbanized areas, the formula for urbanized areas under 200,000 in population
does not include any performance factors. One reason for this difference was to relieve transit
providers in small areas of the burden of having to collect and report the same amount of data
11
Currently, states exceeding that threshold are Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and Rhode Island. Though for the purposes of most transit programs the definition of “state” includes the District
of Columbia and U.S. territories, eligibility for these programs is explicitly limited to the fifty states.
Congressional Research Service
17
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
about their operations as agencies in the larger areas. But one result of the difference in treatment
is that small areas that provide higher-than-average levels of transit service do not receive a level
of funding that recognizes their efforts, compared to other small areas that do not offer a
comparable level of service. Section 3033 of TEA-21 directed DOT to study the issue. DOT
concluded that sufficient issues existed to consider changes in the Urbanized Areas Formula
Program apportionment formulas to reward the extra effort of these transit-intensive areas.12 This
change will have the effect of shifting approximately 1% of funding from urbanized areas over
200,000 in population to those under 200,000 in population.
Small Starts Program
This program is a new category within the New Starts program, which funds new fixed-guideway
transit systems or extensions to existing systems (Section 3011(a)5309(e)). New Starts projects
seeking less than $75 million in federal funding (Small Starts) will be subject to a streamlined
evaluation process, with fewer evaluation categories, compared to those projects seeking $75
million or more in federal funding. This program is authorized at $200 million annually for
FY2007-FY2009. The exemption from the evaluation process for projects seeking less than $25
million in federal funding is eliminated. The federal share for New Starts projects (80%) was not
changed.
New Apportionment Factors for the Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized
Areas Program
$45 million was set aside from the Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program for grants to Indian
tribes for public transportation on Indian reservations (Section 3013(c)). Also, 20% of the NonUrbanized Area Formula program funding will now be apportioned according to a state’s share of
the nation’s total non-urbanized land area. The remaining 80% of the program’s funding will
continue to be apportioned according to a state’s share of the nation’s total non-urbanized
population. (CRS Contact: (name redacted))
Passenger Rail and Rail Safety Provisions
Maglev
The act authorizes a total of $90 million for magnetic levitation train deployment for FY2005FY2009 (Section 1307; the authorization is in Section 1101(a)(18)). That is more than the $60
million in contract authority provided for maglev deployment under TEA-21 (TEA-21 also
authorized an additional $950 million for this program that was never appropriated). Of the
authorized funding, 50% is for a maglev project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, and
50% is for a maglev project east of the Mississippi River. Under the TEA-21 deployment
program, maglev projects in Pennsylvania and Maryland were selected to compete for the
available funding. The explanatory language in the conference committee report on SAFETEA
12
The study is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/rtc/.
Congressional Research Service
18
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
notes that the Committee intends for this program to be administered as a new program and not as
the continuation of any previously authorized program. 13
High-Speed Rail Corridor Development
The act reauthorizes the Swift Rail Act, expanding the eligible expenses from “planning” to
“development” of high-speed rail corridors (Section 9001). It continues the current authorized
level of funding: $70 million annually for corridor development, and $30 million for high-speed
rail technology improvements, for FY2006-2013.
Elimination of Rail-Highway Crossing Hazards in High-Speed Rail
Corridors
The act authorizes a total of $50 million over the period FY2005-FY2009 for the elimination of
rail-highway grade crossing hazards in high-speed rail corridors (Section 1103(f)).
Alaska Railroad
The act directs the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the Alaska Railroad for capital
rehabilitation and improvements benefitting passenger transportation (Section 9006). No specific
amounts are authorized for these grants; the act authorizes “such sums as may be necessary.”
Another provision (Section 3034(d)(2)) provides that the amount apportioned to the Anchorage
urbanized area under the Urbanized Areas Formula Program “shall be available to the Alaska
Railroad for any costs related to its passenger operations.”
Welded Rail and Tank Car Safety Improvements
The act requires the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to establish a program to review
continuous welded rail joint bar inspection data from railroads and FRA track inspectors, and
directs FRA to require track owners using continuous welded rail track to improve the
identification of cracks in rail joint bars (Section 9005). FRA is also directed to develop
regulations for appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars, and recommend ways to
reduce the risk of catastrophic fracture of pressurized tank cars constructed before 1989. (CRS
contact: (name redacted))
13
H.Rept. 109-203, p. 860.
Congressional Research Service
19
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Highway and Commercial Vehicle Safety Programs
Infrastructure Safety, including the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
SAFETEA authorizes a new categorical grant program for highway safety, the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP)(Section 1401). This program subsumes the existing roadway
hazard elimination program (23 U.S.C. 152), which funded such projects as installing barriers and
guard rails.
Under TEA-21 the Section 152 program and the Section 130 program (elimination of hazards at
rail-highway grade crossings, such as by installing warning lights and gates), which focused on
elimination of infrastructure hazards, were funded through a 10% set-aside from the Surface
Transportation Program. This amounted to $560 million in FY2005. Of that amount, under TEA21 criteria states were required to spend an amount equal to at least the amount provided in 1991
for hazard elimination (at least $317 million annually: $155 million for rail-highway hazard
elimination and $162 million for other general roadway hazard elimination). States could use the
remainder on other highway projects if they certified it was not needed for safety improvements.
The new HSIP Program is authorized at $1.2 billion in FY2006, rising to $1.3 billion by FY2009.
This funding is apportioned by a formula using three ratios: one-third of the funds are
apportioned based on a state’s share of total lane-miles of federal-aid highways; one-third based
on a state’s share of total vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways; and one-third based on a
state’s share of fatalities on the federal-aid highway system. No state will receive less than 0.5%
of the funding apportioned for this program.
The HSIP has two set-asides: $220 million is each year is reserved for rail-highway grade
crossing hazard elimination (Section 130), with its own apportionment formula; and $90 million
each year is reserved for projects on high risk rural roads (rural roads having fatality and
incapacitating injury rates above the statewide average for such roads). In both cases, states that
demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction that they have met all their needs for safety projects on
grade crossings or on high risk rural roads can use their share of those funds for other safety
projects. States are required to prepare a strategic highway safety plan. The overall program
authorization is $1.2 billion in FY2006, rising to $1.3 billion by FY2009
The act, as mentioned earlier, also creates a new Safe Routes to Schools program (Section 1404)
to fund infrastructure projects that increase the safety of children within two miles of primary and
middle schools, in order to encourage children to walk or bike to school. The funding is
apportioned by formula based on student enrollment, with a minimum of $1 million for each
state. At least 10%, but not more than 30%, of the program funds are to be spent for programs
dealing with behavior and other non-infrastructure projects. The program is authorized at $54
million in FY2005, rising to $183 million in FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
20
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Federal Traffic Safety Program and Associated State Grants
The act creates a new grant program to promote seat belt use (Section 2005). States that enact a
primary seat belt law14 after December 31, 2002 would receive a grant (states that have already
enacted a primary seat belt law will also receive a smaller grant under this program). Alternately,
a state that achieves a seat belt use rate of 85% or more for two years is also eligible for a grant
under this program. The grant funds may be used for a variety of highway safety purposes; the
federal share for projects funded by these grants is 100%. The program is authorized at $125
million annually for FY2006-FY2009.
The act also expands a grant program to reduce the rate of motorists driving while impaired by
alcohol (Section 2007). To receive a grant, a state must have an alcohol-related fatality rate of 0.5
or less per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, or must be carrying out a series of programs,
described below, to discourage driving while impaired. For FY2006, a state must be carrying out
3 of the specified programs, for FY2007a state must carry out 4 of the programs, and for FY2008
and FY2009 a state must be carrying out 5 of the specified programs. The specified programs are:
check points or saturation patrols; a prosecution and adjudication program; annually increasing
the percentage of drivers involved in fatal accidents whose blood is tested for its alcohol content;
more severe penalties for drivers convicted of driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.15% or
higher (compared to those convicted with lower levels of blood alcohol); a program for effective
alcohol rehabilitation or courts that specialize in driving while impaired cases that emphasize
close supervision of high-risk offenders; an effective strategy for preventing drinking by persons
under age 21; an administrative license revocation system; and a program that returns “a
significant portion” of fines collected for driving under the influence of alcohol to communities
for comprehensive programs to prevent impaired driving. The grants may be used to fund any of
the specified programs, or certain other related expenses. There is also a set-aside of up to 15% of
the funds for this program for grants to the 10 states with the highest rates of impaired drivingrelated fatalities. The program has a total authorization of $555 million over the authorization
period.
Other new programs in the act include a motorcyclist safety grant program (Section 2010) to fund
safety training and education programs (authorized at $6 million for FY2006-2008, $7 million for
FY2009); and an incentive grant program for states that require children between 50 and 65
pounds to be in appropriate child restraints (Section 2011, authorized at $6 million for FY20062008, $7 million in FY2009).
The act also directs that DOT establish standards to reduce vehicle rollover crashes, to reduce the
incidence of occupants being thrown from vehicles in rollover crashes, to increase the roof
strength of passenger vehicles to protect occupants in rollover crashes (Section 10301), and to
enhance passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in side impact crashes (Section 10302).
(CRS Contact: (name redacted))
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
ITS, often consisting of communication systems, sensors or monitoring equipment, and
computers, is used in highway or transit projects, facilities, or operations with the intention of
14
A primary seat belt law allows police officers to stop a vehicle for a violation of a seat belt use law; no other
violation of law is required to initiate the traffic stop.
Congressional Research Service
21
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
improving their performance or safety. For example, ITS enables traffic management centers to
receive real-time video and other measures or indicators of traffic flow, incidents, events, or
crashes, as well as roadway and weather conditions. Such information can help operators redirect
traffic, coordinate emergency response, or improve the operation and coordination of the surface
transportation system.
During the later years of TEA-21, the direct federal investment in ITS totaled about $230 million
per year. (That amount does not include federal aid highway funds allocated by the states to
deploy ITS.) Of that annual total, around $100 million was for ITS research and around $120
million was for deployment of ITS.
SAFETEA provides $110 million annually for ITS research (Section 5101). The ITS deployment
program is terminated after FY2005; ITS project costs are now eligible expenses in several of the
core highway programs.15 The act provides for advancing and testing new technologies,
improving ITS standards and architecture, and conducting training, including a requirement for
the DOT to develop a national ITS program plan (Section 5301). (CRS Contact: (name redacted
))
Research and Development and Technology
Deployment
Both the short- and long-term, research and development, as well as technology deployment
activities (RD and TD) have a role in helping to reduce the various challenges that affect the
performance or operation of the nation’s surface transportation systems. These challenges include
congestion, security, loss of life and injury due to traffic crashes, degradation of environmental or
life quality (e.g., suburban sprawl), and the continual need for infrastructure rehabilitation. The
federal role in RD and TD seeks to advance and accelerate the use of improved or safer
technologies, processes, policies, vehicles, and infrastructure to reduce these challenges. In the
surface transportation arena, the federal role is primarily administered or overseen by the FHWA,
FTA, NHTSA, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).16 In terms of
the transportation budget, two of the largest efforts of RD and TD pertain to ITS and FHWA’s RD
and TD program (discussed below). This section deals primarily with funds used to support
FHWA-administered programs.
FHWA conducts an extensive RD and TD program that involves all aspects of the highway
system. For these activities, Title V of SAFETEA authorizes roughly $295 million per year, up
from roughly $200 million annually under TEA-21. For each of the years FY2005-FY2009,
SAFETEA authorizes the following amounts for transportation research and education: $169.4
million for surface transportation research, development, and deployment; $26.7 million for
training and education, $27 million for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and $69.7 million
for the University Transportation Research Program. (SAFETEA also authorizes research,
development, and testing funds for transit and motor carrier activities as well as for a variety of
15
SAFETEA does have an ITS deployment grant program for commercial vehicles operations (Section 4126).
16
The former Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in DOT was divided into two new
administrations by P.L. 108-246, which was signed into law on November 30, 2004: RITA and the Pipeline Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Congressional Research Service
22
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
other technological objectives.) Research funds are used primarily to advance and deploy
technologies intended to improve highway pavements, structures, roadway safety, and study
highway policies. Some of the technology deployment funds are earmarked for specific types of
research or projects, and much of the university-oriented funds are earmarked for specific
institutions. Many state and industry experts assert that FHWA’s RD and TD funds are of
fundamental importance to the states and their long-term ability to maximize the effective use of
federal aid funds. (CRS contact: (name redacted))
Freight Rail and Intermodal Provisions
Title IX of SAFETEA, “Rail Transportation,” addresses three issues with respect to freight rail
transportation: infrastructure capacity, rail-to-rail competition, and grade crossing conflicts. In
light of increasing international trade volumes and growing congestion on certain parts of the
nation’s highway system, Congress has been considering the capability of the freight railroads to
expand their infrastructure capacity to handle more freight. Freight railroads primarily finance
their infrastructure needs without government aid. Congress has been evaluating how, and under
what circumstances, it might be appropriate for the federal government to assist the railroads in
expanding their networks. Another rail issue is the increasing frequency of freight train traffic
through the middle of some towns and city neighborhoods. More frequent trains have increased
delays for motor vehicle traffic at grade crossings. While railroads have reduced the total number
of railway miles they maintain in service, they are utilizing their remaining track more intensely
in an effort to improve operating efficiency. A further congressional issue of a perennial nature
since price deregulation of the rail industry in 1980 is the captive shipper question. Some
Members of Congress, who have rail shippers in their district served by only one railroad, are
concerned with the high rail rates and poor rail service they contend these shippers receive.
All of these rail issues have been debated in the context of stand alone legislation introduced in
the 109th Congress but SAFETEA also reflects these issues in title IX of the act. For example,
section 9007 requests the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies to report to
Congress on the performance of the nation’s rail system in terms of service quality and rates, the
railroads’ ability to meet projected demand, and the effectiveness of public policy in balancing the
need for railroads to earn adequate revenues with those of shippers for reasonable rates and
adequate service. Congress also provided the following two funding mechanisms in title IX of
SAFETEA that are intended, at least partially, to address these issues.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
(RRIF) Loan Program Expansion
SAFETEA (section 9003) expands a federal loan and loan guarantee program authorized in TEA21 for rehabilitating and improving rail track. The RRIF Program expands tenfold from $3.5
billion to $35 billion in total value of available loans. Of the $35 billion total, $7 billion is
reserved for smaller, regional and short-line railroads (non-Class I railroads). SAFETEA also
amends existing program language to expedite loan availability. Section 9003 states that the
Secretary of Transportation “shall” provide loans rather than “may” provide loans. It also states
that the Secretary shall not require collateral from a loan applicant or that the loan applicant have
previously sought a loan from another source, and requires the Secretary to approve or disapprove
a loan within 90 days. Significantly, with respect to rail-to-rail competition and those shippers
who refer to themselves as “captive” to one railroad, section 9003 states that a loan my be issued
Congressional Research Service
23
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
“solely for the purpose of constructing a rail connection between a plant or facility and a second
rail carrier, limited option rail freight shippers that own or operate a plant or other facility that is
served by no more than a single railroad.” Finally, SAFETEA adds “enhancing rail infrastructure
capacity and alleviating rail bottlenecks” to the list of priorities that the Secretary should consider
in issuing RRIF loans.17
Rail Line Relocation
SAFETEA (section 9002) creates a new federal grants program for relocating rail track or grade
separating rail track that is interfering with a community’s motor vehicle traffic flow, its quality
of life, or its economic development. The program authorizes $350 million for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009. At least half of the grants awarded must not be more than $20 million
each and the federal share is not to exceed 90% of the total cost of a project.
Rail Project Earmarks
Enhancing rail infrastructure capacity and eliminating grade crossings were also funded in
SAFETEA through project earmarks. Under “Projects of National and Regional Significance”
(section 1301), SAFETEA provides $90 million for improving a rail line connecting Virginia
seaports and Ohio, $100 million for further planning of a freight rail tunnel under New York
harbor, $100 million to improve rail connections and eliminate grade crossings in the Chicago
area, $125 million to eliminate grade crossings on a rail line in communities east of Los Angeles,
$14 million for further study of a plan to relocate El Paso rail yards out of the city, and $15
million to relocate a rail line connection to the Port of Portsmouth, Virginia in order to eliminate
grade crossings.
Study of Rail Transportation and Regulation
SAFETEA directs that DOT conduct a comprehensive study of the nation’s rail transportation
system since its deregulation in 1980, including the service levels, service quality, and rates of the
major railroads, the projected demand for freight rail service and constraints on meeting that
demand, and “the effectiveness of public policy in balancing the need for railroads to earn
adequate returns with those of shippers for reasonable rates and adequate service” (Section 9007).
Intermodal Freight Pilot Program
Section 1306 of SAFETEA creates a new grant program entitled “Freight Intermodal Distribution
Pilot Grant Program” that provides $6 million in grants for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2009 for improving freight mobility around U.S. international ports, inland ports, and intermodal
freight facilities. The pilot program designates a total of six projects that are located in Oregon,
Georgia, California, Alaska, and North Carolina to carry out the program.
17
Further information on the RRIF program, including a listing of railroads who have received loans, is available at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/177.
Congressional Research Service
24
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
SAFETEA continues the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), initially authorized under ISTEA
and expanded under TEA-21, as a state-administered, federal-aid program to help states develop
and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-motorized trail uses. The RTP provides
funds for all types of recreational trail use, including hiking, running, bicycling, equestrian use,
wheelchair use, snowmobiling, four wheel driving, off-road motorcycling, all-terrain riding, and
other off-road vehicle use. RTP funds may not be used for property condemnation, constructing
new trails for motorized use on National Forest or Bureau of Land Management lands unless the
project is consistent with resource management plans, or facilitating motorized access on
otherwise non-motorized trails.
Funding/Formula
In §1101(a)(8), SAFETEA authorizes a total of $370 million in contract authority for the RTP for
FY2005-2009 ($60 million FY2005, $70 million for FY2006, $75 million for FY2007, $80
million for FY2008, and $85 million for FY2009). The measure also sets a specified level of
$840,000 annually for administrative expenses. 18 Funds are allocated to the states by legislative
formula: 50% equally among all eligible states and 50% in proportion to the amount of off-road
recreational fuel use. Under SAFETEA, the RTP is subject to the same annual obligation
limitation as other federal-aid highway programs.
States are required to use 30% of their RTP funds for motorized trail uses, 30% for non-motorized
trail uses, and 40% for diverse trail uses. SAFETEA eliminates the discretionary waiver from the
30% provisions, typically requested through state trail advisory committees for motorized and
nonmotorized projects, but retains the small state exemption for any state with a total land area of
less than 3.5 million acres. The “sliding scale” provision in 23 U.S.C. §120(b) provides for
additional federal share under the federal-aid highway program in states with large amounts of
federal lands. SAFETEA amends the program to change the federal share for RTP projects from a
strict 80% to the sliding scale share used in some other federal-aid highway programs.
Additionally, SAFETEA encourages, but does not require, states to use youth conservation or
service corps in the construction and maintenance of recreational trails.
Eligibility
SAFETEA amends the existing category of permissible uses19 for RTP funding to expand use of
educational funds for non-law enforcement trail safety, trail use monitoring patrols, and trailrelated training, but in an amount not to exceed 5% of the apportionment made to the state for the
fiscal year. A new provision, 23 U.S.C §206(b)(2)(F), permits funding for trail condition
assessment for accessibility and maintenance.
ISTEA and TEA-21 required RTP sponsors to complete environmental compliance
documentation before applying for RTP funds. SAFETEA permits pre-approval planning and
environmental compliance costs to be credited toward the non-federal share for RTP projects,
18
19
23 U.S.C. §104(h)(1).
23 U.S.C. §206(d)(2).
Congressional Research Service
25
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
limited to costs incurred less than 18 months prior to project approval. (CRS contact: (name reda
cted))
Environmental Issues, Including “Streamlining”
Before final design, property acquisition, or construction on a highway or transit project can
proceed, DOT (i.e., FHWA or FTA) must comply with certain environmental review
requirements, including those of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of
proposed federal actions. To ensure that environmental impacts are considered before final
decisions are made, NEPA requires DOT to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
any federally funded action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment.
Projects for which it is not initially clear whether impacts will be significant require the
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). If, it is determined, at any time during the
assessment, that a project’s impacts will be significant, an EIS must be prepared. Projects that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant social, economic, or environmental effect, and
which DOT has determined from past experience have no significant impact, are processed as
categorical exclusions. (For more detailed information about the NEPA process, see CRS Report
RL32024, Background on NEPA Implementation for Highway Projects: Streamlining the Process,
by (name redacted).)
Another requirement that is generally carried out within the context of the NEPA process is
compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.20 Section 4(f)
requirements apply to the use of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and to publicly or privately owned historic sites of national, state, or local
significance. The law prohibits the use of a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project 21
unless there is no “prudent and feasible” alternative to do otherwise, and the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns that the environmental review process for
large, complex highway and transit projects can be inefficient, leading to delays in completion of
those projects. To address this concern, “Environmental Streamlining” provisions were included
in TEA-21. Although not defined by the statute, FHWA defines environmental streamlining as the
timely delivery of federally funded transportation projects, while protecting and enhancing the
environment. Because major transportation projects may be affected by dozens of federal, state,
and local environmental requirements, administered by multiple agencies, improved interagency
cooperation was identified by Congress as a critical element to the success of environmental
streamlining. The streamlining provisions of TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to develop and implement a “coordinated environmental review process” for highway
projects that either do have, or may have, a significant impact on the environment (approximately
20
Section 4(f) of the DOT Act was originally set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) and applies to all DOT projects. A similar
provision, found at 23 U.S.C. § 138, applies specifically to Federal-aid highways. In 1983, as part of a general
recodification of the DOT Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) was formally repealed and codified in 49 U.S.C. § 303 with slightly
different language. This provision no longer falls under a “Section 4(f),” but DOT has continued this reference, given
that over the years, the whole body of provisions, policies, and case law has been collectively referenced as Section
4(f).
21
NEPA applies to all federal agencies, Section 4(f) requirements apply only to DOT.
Congressional Research Service
26
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
9% of all highway projects fall into one of these categories). 22 This coordinated review process
encouraged full and early participation by all relevant federal and state agencies required to
participate in a highway project.
Since the passage of TEA-21, numerous administrative activities have been undertaken to
facilitate streamlining. However, some Members of Congress expressed the need for further
legislation to expedite the environmental review process required of highway construction and
transit projects. As a result, SAFETEA includes provisions intended to further streamline the
environmental review process. The provisions deal primarily with NEPA and Section 4(f)
requirements, but could also be used to expedite compliance with other environmental
requirements. (For detail about the NEPA process, Section 4(f) requirements, and streamlining
provisions in SAFETEA, see CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation Reauthorization:
Environmental Issues and Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU (H.R. 3), by (name redacted).)
Unlike TEA-21, the term “streamlining” is not used in SAFETEA. However, the intended effect
is the same—to expedite compliance with certain environmental requirements, primarily NEPA
and Section 4(f). With regard to NEPA, many of the provisions in SAFETEA codify existing
regulatory requirements, such as: specifically designating DOT as the lead agency for surface
transportation projects; specifying the role of the lead and cooperating agencies; and allowing
deadlines for decision-making to be set.23 Following are key SAFETEA provisions related to
streamlining that change existing statutory or regulatory requirements:
•
The establishment of a new entity in the NEPA process, referred to as a
“participating agency,” that includes those that intend to submit comments on
NEPA documentation in addition to those that meet the definition of a
cooperating agency;
•
The establishment of procedures to be followed by lead and participating
agencies for the collaborative development of the project’s statement of purpose
and need and project alternatives, including the establishment of deadlines on
comments;
•
The establishment of a 180-day statute of limitation on judicial claims on final
agency actions related to environmental requirements;
•
Authorization to allow the use of transportation funds to help agencies required
to expedite the environmental review process;
•
The establishment of a dispute resolution process when agencies disagree on
elements of the environmental review process;
•
Authorization to allow states to determine whether certain classes of projects
may be processed as categorical exclusions; and
•
Authorization to allow the establishment of state pilot programs to allow
participating states to assume certain federal responsibilities regarding
compliance with environmental laws.
22
General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders’ Views on Time to Conduct Environmental
Reviews of Highway Projects, GAO-03-534, May 23, 2003, pp 3-4.
23
For more information on issues related to streamlining, see CRS Report RL32024, Background on NEPA
Implementation for Highway Projects: Streamlining the Process, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
27
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
With regard to Section 4(f), under §6009(a), SAFETEA allows for the use of publicly owned
parks and recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges if it is determined that such use would
result in “de minimis impacts” to that resource. That determination must receive concurrence
from the official with jurisdiction over that resource (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, or applicable state or local park authorities). SAFETEA similarly allows
for the use of a publicly or privately owned historic site if a de minimis impact determination is
made in accordance with provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
Further, §6009(b) requires DOT, within one year, to issue regulations clarifying factors to be
considered and standards to be applied in determining whether alternatives are “prudent and
feasible” under the Section 4(f) requirements.
Also related to Section 4(f) requirements, §6007 of SAFETEA specifies that, under administrative
procedures established under §106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Interstate
System cannot be considered a “historic site” under provisions of Section 4(f).24 It may still be
determined that individual elements of the Interstate System possess an independent feature of
historic significance that may still be protected under Section 4(f) requirements. (CRS contact:
(name redacted))
The CMAQ Program
In the year following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)25 directed the Secretary of DOT to establish and
implement a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. The
primary purpose of the CMAQ Program is to reduce emissions from highway travel, as a means
to assist states in complying with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).26 In
particular, it authorized funding for programs and projects intended to reduce carbon monoxide
(CO) and ozone. Specific types of projects eligible for CMAQ funds include, but are not limited
to: transportation control measures; inspection and maintenance programs for auto emission
controls; the purchase of publicly owned, alternative fuel vehicles; traffic flow improvements;
and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs.27
ISTEA established a formula to apportion CMAQ funds based largely on a state’s population and
pollution reduction needs. The population of each area in a state that is a not meeting the NAAQS
for ozone and/or CO is multiplied by a weighting factor based on the level of nonattainment (e.g.,
moderate, serious, severe) with the NAAQS. States with no maintenance or nonattainment areas
for ozone or CO are guaranteed a minimum apportionment of 0.5 percent of each year’s
authorized CMAQ funds. TEA-21 expanded the program to allow the use of CMAQ funds for
projects and programs intended to reduce certain types of particulate matter (PM). TEA-21 did
not, however, change the apportionment formula based on ozone and CO. Therefore, states with
24
25
Those administrative procedures were published in a March 10, 2005 Federal Register notice, p. 11928.
ISTEA was the surface transportation authorization legislation for FY1991-FY1997.
26
A geographic area that meets or exceeds the standard is considered to be in “attainment” for a particular NAAQS;
areas that do not meet a standard are in “nonattainment.” A “maintenance” area is one that was previously in
nonattainment, but is currently attaining the NAAQS subject to a maintenance plan. For a more extended discussion of
issues regarding NAAQS, see CRS Report RL30853, Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major
Requirements, by (name redacted) et al..
27
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
28
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
maintenance or nonattainment areas for only PM receive the guaranteed minimum CMAQ
funding.
CMAQ funding for FY2005-FY2009 totals $8.6 billion. This compares to a total of $8.1 billion in
funding authorization for the six fiscal years under TEA-21. SAFETEA amends the CMAQ
apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C. §104(b)(2) and the CMAQ program requirements under
23 U.S.C. §149(b). Under § 1808(b), SAFETEA expands program funding eligibility
requirements to specifically allow the following projects to be eligible for CMAQ funds:
advanced truck stop electrification systems; projects that will improve transportation systems
management and operations; integrated, interoperable emergency communications equipment;
and diesel retrofits (under §1808(d), SAFETEA includes a directive that diesel retrofit projects
will have funding priority over other projects). SAFETEA changes the requirements applicable to
states receiving the minimum apportionment to allow them to use CMAQ funds for projects that
would otherwise meet CMAQ eligibility requirements (§1808(c)).
Under §1808(f), SAFETEA directs DOT, in consultation with EPA, to evaluate and assess a
representative sample of CMAQ projects to determine their impacts on air quality and congestion
levels and to ensure the effective implementation of the program. Directs DOT to maintain and
disseminate a database describing project impacts (no direct funding is provided for the
evaluation or the database). (For detail on provisions related to the to the CMAQ program, see
CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Environmental Issues and
Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU (H.R. 3), by (name redacted).)
(CRS contact: (name
redacted))
Conformity of Transportation Plans and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs)
Under the Clean Air Act, areas that have not attained one or more of the six National Ambient Air
Quality Standards must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) demonstrating how they will
reach attainment. As of May 2005, at least 124 areas with a combined population of 159 million
people were subject to the SIP requirements. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act prohibits federal
agencies from funding projects in these areas unless they “conform” to the SIPs. Specifically,
projects must not “cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard,” “increase the
frequency or severity of any existing violation,” or “delay timely attainment of any standard.”
Because new highways generally lead to an increase in vehicle miles traveled and related
emissions, both the statute and regulations require that an area’s Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), which identifies major highway and transit projects an area will undertake,
demonstrate conformity each time it is revised (i.e., at least every two years). Highway and transit
projects cannot receive federal funds unless they are part of a conforming TIP.
While conformity has been required for more than a decade, the impact of the conformity
requirements is expected to grow in the next few years for several reasons. The growth of
emissions from SUVs and other light trucks and greater than expected increases in vehicle miles
traveled have both made it more difficult to demonstrate conformity; recent court decisions have
tightened the conformity rules; and the implementation over the next three years of more stringent
air quality standards (both for ozone and for fine particles such as those found in diesel exhaust)
will mean that additional areas are subject to conformity. Thus, numerous metropolitan areas
could face a temporary suspension of highway and transit funds unless they impose sharp
Congressional Research Service
29
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
reductions in vehicle, industrial, or other emissions. In a 2003 survey, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that, over the previous six years, only 5 metropolitan areas
had had to change transportation plans in order to resolve a conformity lapse; but about one-third
of local transportation planners surveyed expected to have difficulty demonstrating conformity in
the future. (See U.S. GAO, Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked,
April 2003.)
The Clean Air Act provides no authority for waivers of conformity, and the only grace period
allowed has been for one year following an area’s designation as nonattainment. Only a limited
set of exempt projects (mostly safety-related or replacement and repair of existing transit
facilities) can be funded in lapsed areas. The rules do not even allow funding of new projects that
might reduce emissions, such as new transit lines. These limitations are among the issues of
concern. In addition, many have raised concerns about a mismatch between the SIP, TIP, and long
range transportation planning cycles, and have called for less frequent, but better coordinated
demonstrations of conformity. In its 2003 report, the GAO recommended that “relevant federal
agencies ... consider extending the three-year time frame between required [long range]
transportation plan updates and asking the Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to change the
conformity rules to match ....” This recommendation was generally supported by transportation
planners and highway builders, but opposed by environmental groups and air quality planning
officials.
As enacted, P.L. 109-59 requires less frequent conformity demonstrations (at least every four
years instead of every two years), and will shorten the planning horizon over which conformity
must be demonstrated to 10 years in many cases, instead of the former requirement of 20 years.
The local air pollution control agency will need to be consulted and public comments solicited if
the planning horizon is to be shortened. The law also establishes a 12-month grace period
following a failure to demonstrate conformity before a lapse would be declared. (For additional
information, see CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In
Need of Reform?, by (name redacted).)
(CRS contact: Jim McCarthy)
Congressional Research Service
30
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Appendix. SAFTEA Authorization Levels,
FY2005-FY2009
Table A-1. SAFETEA Authorization Levels, FY2005-FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
Authorization
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
TOTAL
Interstate maintenance
program
4,883.760
4,960.789
5,039.059
5,118.589
5,199.399
25,201.595
National highway system
5,911.200
6,005.257
6,110.828
6,207.937
6,306.611
30,541.833
Bridge program
4,187.709
4,253.530
4,320.411
4,388.369
4,457.422
21,607.442
Surface transportation
program
6,860.097
6,269.833
6,370.470
6,472.727
6,576.630
32,549.757
Congestion mitigation & air
quality improvement program
1,667.255
1,694.102
1,721.380
1,749.099
1,777.263
8,609.100
Highway safety improvement
program
0.000
1,235.810
1,255.709
1,275.929
1,296.474
5,063.923
Appalachian development
highway system
470.000
470.000
470.000
470.000
470.000
2,350.000
Recreational trails program
60.000
70.000
75.000
80.000
85.000
370.000
Indian reservation roads
300.000
330.000
370.000
410.000
450.000
1,860.000
Park roads & parkways
180.000
195.000
210.000
225.000
240.000
1,050.000
Refuge roads
29.000
29.000
29.000
29.000
29.000
145.000
Public lands highways
260.000
280.000
280.000
290.000
300.000
1,410.000
National corridor
infrastructure improvement
program
194.800
389.600
487.000
487.000
389.600
1,948.000
Coordinated border
infrastructure program
123.000
145.000
165.000
190.000
210.000
833.000
National scenic byways
program
26.500
30.000
35.000
40.000
43.500
175.000
Construction of ferry boats &
ferry terminal facilities
38.000
55.000
60.000
65.000
67.000
285.000
Puerto Rico highway program
115.000
120.000
135.000
145.000
150.000
665.000
Projects of national & regional
significance
177.900
355.800
444.750
444.750
355.800
1,779.000
High priority projects
program
2,966.400
2,966.400
2,966.400
2,966.400
2,966.400
14,832.000
Safe routes to school
program
54.000
100.000
125.000
150.000
183.000
612.000
Title I—Federal-Aid Highways
Federal lands highways
program
Congressional Research Service
31
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Authorization
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
TOTAL
Deployment of magnetic
levitation transportation
projects
0.000
15.000
15.000
30.000
30.000
90.000
National corridor planning &
development & coordinated
border infrastructure
programs
140.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
140.000
Operation Lifesaver (set aside
from STP in 2005)
0.000
0.560
0.560
0.560
0.560
2.240
Rail-highway X-ing hazard
elim. in high speed rail
corridors
0.000
7.250
10.000
12.500
15.000
44.750
Equity bonus program
7,427.696
6,872.700
8,326.693
9,175.197
9,093.266
40,895.552
Revenue aligned budget
authority
0.000
0.000
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
Emergency relief when
allocations exceed $100M
(general fund)
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
ssambna
Transportation, community,
and system preservation
program
25.000
61.250
61.250
61.250
61.250
270.000
Transportation infrastructure
finance & innovation act
amendments
122.000
122.000
122.000
122.000
122.000
610.000
Value pricing pilot program
11.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
59.000
37,108.964
38,127.741
40,447.148
41,824.632
41,981.990
199,490.476
Highway safety programs
163.680
217.000
220.000
225.000
235.000
1,060.680
Highway safety R&D
71.424
110.000
107.750
107.750
105.500
502.424
Occupant protection
incentive grants
19.840
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
119.840
Safety belt performance
grants
0.000
124.500
124.500
124.500
124.500
498.000
State traffic safety information
system improvements
0.000
34.500
34.500
34.500
34.500
138.000
Alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures incentive
grant program
39.680
120.000
125.000
131.000
139.000
554.680
National driver register
3.968
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
19.968
High visibility enforcement
program
0.000
29.000
29.000
29.000
29.000
116.000
Motorcyclist safety
0.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
7.000
25.000
Child safety & child booster
seat safety incentive grants
0.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
7.000
25.000
Subtotal Title II
298.592
693.500
699.500
711.000
729.000
3,131.592
Subtotal Title I
Title II—Highway Safety
Congressional Research Service
32
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Authorization
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
TOTAL
3,999.918
6,979.931
7,262.775
7,872.893
8,360.565
34,476.082
Urbanized area formula
grants
3, 593.196
3,466.681
3,606.175
3,910.843
4,160.365
18,737.260
bus & bus facility grants
669.600
822.250
855.500
927.750
984.000
4,259.100
Fixed guideway
modernization
1,204.685
1,391.000
1,448.000
1,570.000
1,666.500
7,280.185
Planning programs
72.416
95.000
99.000
107.000
113.500
486.616
Formula grants for special
needs
94.527
112.000
117.000
127.000
133.500
584.027
Formula grants for other
than urbanized areas
250.890
388.000
404.000
438.000
465.000
1,945.890
Job access and reverse
commute formula
program
0.000
138.000
144.000
156.000
164.500
602.500
New freedom program
0.000
78.000
81.000
87.500
92.500
339.000
Alternative transportation
in parks and public lands
0.000
22.000
23.000
25.000
26.000
96.900
Major capital investment
grants of $75,000,000 or
more
1,437.830
1,503.000
1,366.000
1,500.000
1,609.250
7,416.080
Capital investment grants
of less than $75,000,000
0.000
0.000
200.000
200.000
200.000
600.000
Research & University
Research Centers
54.560
58.000
61.000
65.500
69.750
308.810
7,646.336
8,622.931
8,974.775
9,730.893
10,338.065
45,313.000
Motor carrier safety grants
188.480
188.000
197.000
202.000
209.000
984.480
Commercial drivers’ license
program improvement grants
0.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
100.000
Border enforcement grants
0.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
128.000
Performance and registration
information system
management grant program
0.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
20.000
Commercial vehicle
information systems and
networks deployment
0.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
100.000
Safety data improvement
grants
0.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
11.000
Subtotal Title IV
443.329
490.500
517.000
528.000
541.000
2,519.829
Title III—Public Transportation
Formula & bus grants
Capital Investment Grants
Subtotal Title III
Title IV—Motor Carrier Safety
Congressional Research Service
33
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
Authorization
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
TOTAL
Title V—Transportation Research
Surface transportation
research program
196.400
196.400
196.400
196.400
196.400
982.000
Training & education
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
26.700
133.500
Bureau of transportation
statistics
27.000
27.000
27.000
27.000
27.000
135.000
University transportation
research
69.700
69.700
69.700
69.700
69.700
348.500
Intelligent transportation
systems research
110.00
110.000
110.000
110.000
110.000
550.000
ITS deployment
122.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
122.000
Subtotal Title V
551.800
429.800
429.800
429.800
429.800
2,271.000
Title VI—Transportation Planning & Project Delivery
Clean school bus program
grants
0.000
55.000
55.000
0.000
0.000
110.000
55.215
59.275
60.275
60.275
0.000
235.040
0.000
451.000
450.800
450.000
450.000
1,801.800
Swift rail act reauthorization
0.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
400.000
Rail line relocation capital
grant program
0.000
350.000
350.000
350.000
350.000
1,400.000
Title X—Miscellaneous
0.000
151.000
150.934
158.319
NHTSA operations &
research
0.000
136.000
142.800
149.900
157.400
586.100
Rescission of Unobligated
Balances of Highway Contract
Authority
0
0
0
0
-8,543.000
-8,543.000
TOTAL Gross, all sources
46,140.936
49,154.998
51,895.883
54,027.119
54,803.168
255,530.104
TOTAL Net, all sources
46,140.936
49,154.998
51,895.883
54,027.119
46,260.168
246,987.104
Title VII—Hazardous
Materials Safety
Title IX—Rail
Transportation
Source: Compiled from: FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm for titles I, III, & V. For all
other titles Transportation Weekly. Conference Report on H.R. 3. August 4, 2005 (data for these titles is still
subject to revision).
Note: Totals and Subtotals reflect additional programs not specifically identified in the table. Hence totals may
exceed the sum of their respective columns.
a.
ssambn = such sums as may be necessary.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
34
SAFETEA: Selected Major Provisions
CRS Policy Staff and Areas of Expertise
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
Highway Program Issues
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
John Fischer
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-....
Transportation Enhancements & Planning (MPOs)
Glennon Harrison
RSI
7-....
Transit Program Issues
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Intermodal/Freight Issues
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
CMAQ
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Environmental Issues, Including Streamlining, Stormwater,
and Section 4f
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Conformity with the Clean Air Act
Jim McCarthy
RSI
7-....
Recreational Trails
Sandy Johnson
RSI
7-....
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-....
Trust Fund Issues
Donor/Donee & Formula Issues
Surface Transportation Security
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Highway and Transit Program Data
(name redacted)
KSG
7-....
Vanessa Cieslak
KSG
7-....
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division, KSG = Knowledge Services Group.
Congressional Research Service
35
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.