The federal public transportation program is currently authorized through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). This report highlights several major issues that 15, 2021 Federal Public Transportation Program William J. Mallett The federal public transportation program was authorized through FY2020 as part of the Fixing Specialist in America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). A one-year extension of the FAST Transportation Policy Act through September 30, 2021, was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). Several major issues may arise as Congress considers program reauthorization.

Public transportation includes local buses, subways, commuter rail, light rail, paratransit (often service for the elderly and disabled using small buses and vans), and ferryboatferryboats, but excludes Amtrak, intercity buses, and school buses. The FAST Act authorized $61.1 billion for five fiscal years beginning in FY2016, an average of $12.2 billion per year. Of the total amount, 80% was authorized from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, and 20% was authorized from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Most federal funding from the mass transit account is distributed to transit agencies through formula programs. Most of the general funding authorized is for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program, also known as New Starts, which provides discretionary funding for large capital projects to create and extend rail and bus rapid transit systems. The context for reauthorization of the federal public transportation programs is declining ridership, which is related to both the underlying conditions in the sector and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Annual transit ridership reached a modern-era high of 10.7 billion trips in 2014, but fell by almost 8% to 9.9 billion trips in each of 2018 and 2019. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, national ridership in 2020 was less than 5 billion trips, an unprecedented decline of more than 50% compared with 2018 and 2019. Likely reauthorization issuessystems.

Reauthorization issues discussed in this report include the following:

•  Funding levels and the solvency of the mass transit account. Annual. Even if travel fully recovers from the pandemic, spending from the mass transit account is projected to exceed annual revenues by aboutan average of $5 billion annually through FY2025. Bringing receipts and expenditures into balance would require a cut in spending ofon the federal transit program, an increase in revenues paid into the account, or a combination of the two. Revenue options include increasing taxes that are dedicated to the massmas s transit accounts and transferring money from the general fund.
• Changes  Changes to two federal loan programs that may be used for transit capital expenditures, the capital expenditures, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Finance (RRIF) program. Issues include TIFIA'’s share of project costs, the speed and cost of obtaining a loan, and the authorization of federal funding to pay the credit risk premium of RRIF loans.
•  Declining public transportation ridership. Options include linking federal formula funds to transit agencies' agencies’ success in boosting ridership; redirecting CIG funding from building new rail facilities to refurbishing lines in dense cities where rail transit currently carries large numbers of riders; and funding research projects to explore partnerships between transit agencies and firms offering newother mobility options such as ridesharing and bike sharing.
• Funding the CIG program. CIG  Funding the CIG program. CIG has been proposed as a major source of funding for the Gateway Program, which is intended to build new rail tunnels and repair existing tunnels between New Jersey and New York. The amount sought for the Gateway Program is equal to several years of funding for CIG, at recent funding levels, and could overwhelm a program that is responsible for aiding projects throughout the country.
•  Public transportation and climate change. Congress may consider how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from surface transportation and adaptation provisions that aim to make the public transportation system more resilient. Options considered might include dedicated funding for resilience projects and greater funding for buying low- and no -emission buses.
•  Buy America. This law places domestic content restrictions on federally funded transportation projects, including procurement of rolling stock. Issues that might arise include the share of components and subcomponents that have to be domestically sourced, the availability of waivers, and the standardization of requirements across modes.

Approximately 27 million trips are taken on public transportation on an average day. Congressional Research Service link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 19 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 The Federal Public Transportation Program......................................................................... 1 Reauthorization Issues ..................................................................................................... 3 Program Funding....................................................................................................... 3 COVID-19 Pandemic............................................................................................ 5 Highway Trust Fund Issues .................................................................................... 6 Financing ................................................................................................................. 7 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program ..................................................................... 8 New York and New Jersey Gateway Program ........................................................... 9 Expediting CIG Projects ...................................................................................... 11 Fal ing Public Transportation Ridership ...................................................................... 12 Mobility on Demand Services .............................................................................. 13 Climate Change....................................................................................................... 13 Emergency Relief Program ....................................................................................... 14 Public Transportation Safety...................................................................................... 15 Buy America........................................................................................................... 16 Figures Figure 1. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding, FY2016-FY2021 ............................ 2 Figure 2. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding Shares ........................................... 3 Tables Table 1. Projected Mass Transit Account Revenue and Spending Imbalance ............................. 6 Contacts Author Information ....................................................................................................... 16 Congressional Research Service Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program Introduction Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation program administered by the Department of Transportation'’s (DOT'’s) Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program was authorized from FY2016 through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America'’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-9494). A one-year extension of the FAST Act was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). This report discusses the major issues that may arise as Congress considers reauthorization.

In federal law, public transportation—also known as public transit, mass transit, and mass transportation—includes local buses, subways, commuter rail, light rail, paratransit (often service for the elderly and disabled using small smal buses and vans), and ferryboats, but excludes Amtrak, intercity buses, and school buses (49 U.S.C. §5302). About Prior to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has had a major effect on public transportation ridership, about 48% of public transportation trips arewere made by bus, 3837% by heavy rail (also calledcal ed metro and subway), 5% by commuter rail, and 6% by light rail (including streetcars). Paratransit accounts accounted for about 2% of all al public transportation trips, and ferries about 1%.¹

1 Public transportation accountsaccounted for about 3% of all daily transportation tripsal daily transportation trips prior to the COVID- 19 pandemic, and about 7% of commute trips.²2 Although ridership iswas heavily concentrated in a few large cities and their surrounding suburbs, especiallyespecial y the New York City metropolitan area, public transportation iswas provided in a wide range of places, including small smal urban areas, rural areas, and Indian land.³

3 The pandemic caused an unprecedented drop in ridership nationwide beginning in March 2020, but the longer-term effects on transit service and use are uncertain. The Federal Public Transportation Program

Most federal funding for public transportation is authorized in multiyear surface transportation acts. The FAST Act authorized $61.1 billionbil ion for five fiscal years beginning in FY2016, an average of $12.2 billion per year. The authorization for FY2020 is $12.6 billionbil ion per year. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act extended the FAST Act for one fiscal year, authorizing $12.6 bil ion for FY2021. Of the total . Of the total five-year amount in the FAST Act, 80% was authorized from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funding authorized from the Highway Trust Fund is provided as contract authority, a type of budget authority that may be obligated prior to an appropriation. The other 20% was authorized from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury as appropriated budget authority.⁴

4 Funding for public transportation is sometimes provided under other authorities. The FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021and FY2020 appropriations acts (P.L. 115-141, , P.L. 116-6, , P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260), for example, provided additional general fund money for several programs that typically typical y receive funding only from the Highway Trust Fund, thereby raising the general fund share of federal public transportation expenditures to about 28% in FY2018, 26% in FY2019, and 21% in FY2020 1 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2020: Appendix A, Washington, DC, 2020, T able 2, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/. 2 Federal Highway Administration, Summary of Travel Trends: 2017 National Household Travel Survey, Washington, DC, 2018, T ables 9b and 25, at https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf. 3 For information on rural public transportation, see Upper Great Plains T ransportation Institute, Rural Transit Fact Book, 2017, October 2017, at https://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2017-rural-transit-fact-book.pdf. 4 CRS Report R42706, Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief, by William J. Mallett. Congressional Research Service 1 link to page 5 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program 21% in FY2020, and 22% in FY2021. Funding for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief (ER) Program, which makes grants from the general fund . Funding for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, which provides grants for emergency repairs following natural disasters or other emergencies, is typically from the general fund provided in supplemental appropriations acts.⁵typical y provided in supplemental appropriations acts.5 Additional y, $39 bil ion in emergency funding from the general fund has been provided to transit agencies outside the ER Program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.6 Transit projects can also be funded with money transferred (or "flexed"“flexed”) from federal highway programs by state and local officials. In FY2016, the last year for which data are availableFY2019, $1.3 billion bil ion in highway funds was flexed to transit.⁶7 Excluding flexed highway funds and emergency relief, COVID-19 relief funding, and ER program funding, funding provided in FY2017 through FY2020FY2021 was above the level authorized in the FAST Act (Figure 1). (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding FY2016-FY2020

Sources, FY2016-FY2021 Current Dol ars Sources: Fixing America's ’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94); Senate appropriations reports; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6); Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). Notes); Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). Notes: Funding provided includes contract budget authority and appropriated budget authority; and excludes flexed federal highway funding and, Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program funding.

Program funding, and COVID-19 relief funding in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). There are six major programs for public transportation authorized by the FAST Act: (1) Urbanized Area Formula; (2) State of Good Repair; (3) Capital Investment Grants (CIG) (also known as "“New Starts"”); (4) Rural Area Formula; (5) Bus and Bus Facilities; and (6) Enhanced Mobility Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities. TypicallyTypical y, funding for all al of these programs, 5 Appropriations for the P ublic T ransportation Emergency Relief Program since its creation in 2012 are $10.9 billion in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2); $330 million in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123); and $10.5 million in the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act , 2019 (P.L. 116-20). 6 For COVID-19 relief, $25 billion was provided in FY2020 in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) and $14 billion was provided in FY2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). 7 Congressional Budget Office, “Highway T rust Fund Accounts—CBO’s Baseline as of March 6, 2020,” at https://www.cbo.gov/data/baseline-projections-selected-programs. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 6 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program of these programs, except CIG, comes from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund. CIG funding comes from the general fund. There are also a number of other, much smallersmal er programs (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding Shares Funding Authorized, FY2016-FY2020 Source: Federal Transit Administration, “FAST Act Program Totals,” https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fast-act-program-totals. Reauthorization Issues Reauthorization Issues

Program Funding

The average of $12.2 billion bil ion per year authorized for the federal public transportation program in the FAST Act represented about a 14% increase (unadjusted for inflation) from the previous authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141).⁷ ).8 The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a bill bil in August 2019 (S. 2302S. 2302, 116th Congress) that would reauthorizehave reauthorized highway infrastructure programs through FY2025 with a 27% increase over the funding provided by the FAST Act.⁸9 A similar increase in the annual authorization of public transportation funding would provide for federal expenditures of about $15.5 bil ion per year. In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed a bil (H.R. 2, 116th Congress) to reauthorize surface transportation programs through FY2025, including the federal public transportation programs. H.R. 2 would have authorized an increase in public transportation funding from $12.2 bil ion per year to $21.4 bil ion per year, a 75% increase over the funding provided by the FAST Act. As has traditional y been the case, H.R. 2 would have 8 General fund appropriations in FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 have provided additional money, on average about $637 million per year, for several programs typically only trust funded. 9 CRS In Focus IF11300, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (S. 2302), by Robert S. Kirk. Congressional Research Service 3 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program authorized about 80% of the funding for the public transportation programs from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund and the other 20% from the general fund.10 of about $15.5 billion per year.

Figure 2. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding Shares Funding Authorized, FY2016-FY2020

Source: Federal Transit Administration, "FAST Act Program Totals," https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fast-act-program-totals.

A higher level of federal funding might improve the condition and performance of public transportation infrastructure. One indicator of the condition of public transportation infrastructure is the reinvestment backlog, which DOT defines as "“an indication of the amount of near-term investment needed to replace assets that are past their expected useful lifetime."⁹”11 DOT estimated the reinvestment backlog to be $98 billion bil ion in 2014, about 13% of the total value of transit assets.¹⁰

12 In its biennial Conditions and Performance report, DOT projects how various future spending levels might affect the condition of public transportation infrastructure. The most recent report was published in November 2019 and used 2014 as the base year for projections. Capital expenditures on public transportation in 2014, DOT noted, totaled $17.7 billionbil ion from all al sources, including federal, state, and local government support. Of this amount, $11.3 billionbil ion was spent on preserving the existing system and $6.4 billionbil ion on expansion. If this spending pattern were to continue over the 20 years between 2015 and 2034, DOT estimatesestimated, the investment backlog would grow to $116 billionbil ion (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), an increase of 18%.¹¹

13 DOT constructed two scenarios to estimate how much spending would be needed to eliminate the backlog and accommodate new riders. Under the assumption of low ridership growth, DOT estimated, $23.4 billionbil ion would be needed annuallyannual y, an increase of about 32% (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars). In a scenario projecting high ridership growth, $25.6 billionbil ion would be needed annually annual y, an increase of 45% (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars). DOT did not estimate the spending necessary if ridership is stagnant or droppingstagnates or declines. However, it did estimate that $18.4 billion annuallybil ion annual y (adjusted for inflation) would eliminate the reinvestment backlog over 20 years if there was is no spending on expansion.¹²

14 The focus of the federal public transportation program is on capital expenditures, but the program also supports operational expenses in some circumstances, as well wel as safety oversight, planning, and research. Greater federal support for transit operations could increase the quantity of transit service offered or reduce fares. In the past, particularly in the 1970s and early 1980s, such support caused the costs of providing service to increase, particularly through increases in wages and fringe benefits and by expanding services on routes with less demand.¹³15 With greater flexibility to use federal funding for operating expenses, transit agencies could neglect maintenance and asset renewal, leading to a more rapid decline in the condition of capital assets. Existing flexibility to to use capital funds for maintenance may help agencies preserve equipment and facilities.

DOT The Conditions and Performance Report does not make any recommendations about the relative shares of public transportation funding that should be borne by federal, state, and local governments. The federal share of government spending on public transportation has been around 15% to 20% over the past 30 years.¹⁴16 A higher level of funding by the federal government may 10 H.R. 2 (116th Congress) included an extension of FAST Act funding for FY2021 and a reauthorizatio n for FY2022 through FY2025. 11 Department of T ransportation, Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance, 23rd Edition, November 2019, p. 10-28, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/. 12 Ibid., p. 6-39. 13 Ibid., pp. 7-16 to 7-18. 14 Ibid., p. 7-27. 15 Charles Lave, “It Wasn’t Supposed to T urn Out Like T his: Federal Subsidies and Declining T ransit Productivity,” Access, No. 5, Fall 1994, pp. 21-25, at http://www.uctc.net/access/access05.pdf. 16 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2019: Appendix A, Washington, DC, Congressional Research Service 4 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program A higher level of funding by the federal government may not necessarily translate into more spending overall overal if transit providers substitute federal dollars for their own. COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic may upend DOT’s condition and performance projections. Beginning in March 2020, transit ridership and fare revenue declined by an unprecedented amount nationwide. In April 2020, transit rail ridership was about 90% less than it had been in April 2019. In November 2020, the decline was about 71% from the same month a year before. The corresponding decline in fixed route bus ridership was 72% for April and 55% for November.17 It is uncertain when or if ridership wil return to the pre-pandemic level. Some riders wil return once the health threat recedes and economic activity increases. However, travel patterns, particularly commuting that is responsible for about 50% of transit ridership, may be different post-pandemic. Telecommuting, for example, may be more common than in the past. This could reduce demand overal , but it could also shift the relative share of transit demand from rail to bus because rail riders have, on average, higher incomes and more education, factors that are associated with the ability to telecommute.18 Rail riders are also more likely to have a motor vehicle available to travel.19 The amount of transit service provided may also decline as a result of COVID-19, partly as a result of reduced demand and partly because of transit agency budget constraints. Passenger fares and other operating revenue contributed about 25% of transit agency budgets in 2018, the last year for which comprehensive information is available. Directly generated revenue, such as fuels taxes and sales taxes that are dedicated to transit agency budgets, contributed another 12% in that year. These revenue streams have also been affected by the pandemic. The remaining 63% of funds pre-pandemic were federal, state, and local government subsidies. For the foreseeable future, state and local government resources are likely to be constrained by the pandemic-related recession.20 The federal government has provided $39 bil ion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for public transportation agencies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While most federal funding is typical y directed toward capital expenditures, this pandemic-related funding was mainly intended to support operating expenses, such as employee pay, fuel, and extra costs resulting from the pandemic, such as the more intensive cleaning of vehicles and stations and the purchase of personal protective equipment for transit workers. Despite existing and future support from the federal government, it is likely that in the short-term transit agencies wil redirect existing resources away from capital expenses toward operating expenses. This may result in a curtailment of planned expansion projects and a deterioration in existing capital assets. Another possibility is for transit providers to reduce capital and operating 2019, T able 95, at http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx. 17 Bureau of T ransportation Statistics, “Monthly T ransportation Statistics, T ransit Ridership,” at https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/m9eb-yevh. 18 Matthew Day, et al., “ Ability to Work From Home: Evidence From T wo Surveys and Implications for the Labor Market in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Monthly Labor Review, June 2020, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/pdf/ability-to-work-from-home.pdf. 19 American Public T ransportation Association, Who Rides Public Transportation, January 2017, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/who-rides-public-transportation/. 20 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States Grappling With Hit to Tax Collections, Updated November 6, 2020, at https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-grappling-with-hit-to-tax-collections. Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 9 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program expenses through a reduction in current service, although this could result in a downward spiral of reduced demand and shrinking fare revenue.21 Highway Trust Fund Issues The solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and its two accounts, the highway account and the mass transit account, is a major issue in reauthorization of funding for the public transportation program. Outlays from the mass transit account have outpaced receipts for over a decade, an imbalance the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects wil continue in the future under current law. For the five-year period that began in FY2021, CBO expects the gap between revenues and outlays to total $25 bil ion, an average of $5 bil ion annual y (Table 1).22 Table 1. Projected Mass Transit Account Revenue and Spending Imbalance Dol ars in Bil ions Fiscal Year Revenue Spending Difference 2021 $6.2 $10.5 -$4.3 2022 $6.3 $10.8 -$4.5 2023 $6.3 $11.2 -$4.9 2024 $6.3 $11.7 -$5.4 2025 $6.3 $12.1 -$5.9 Five-year: for their own.

Highway Trust Fund Issues

The solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and its two accounts, the highway account and the mass transit account, is a major issue in reauthorization of funding for the public transportation program. Outlays from the mass transit account have outpaced receipts for over a decade, an imbalance the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will continue in the future under current law. For the five-year period beginning in FY2021, CBO expects the gap between revenues and outlays to total $26 billion, an average of $5.2 billion annually (Table 1).¹⁵

According to FTA, a balance of at least $1 billion The primary revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund is motor fuel taxes, which were last raised in 1993. Currently, of the 18.3 cents-per-gal on tax on gasoline and 24.3 cents-per-gal on tax on diesel that go to the Highway Trust Fund, 2.86 cents is deposited in the mass transit account. Congress has chosen to transfer general fund monies into the mass transit account to permit a higher level of spending than motor fuel tax revenues alone could sustain. These transfers have totaled $32.1 bil ion since they began in 2008. The FAST Act transferred $18.1 bil ion to the mass transit account from the general fund, and the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act transferred another $3.2 bil ion. According to FTA, a balance of at least $1 bil ion in the mass transit account is required to ensure that the agency has sufficient funds to make mandated payments to transit agencies. CBO estimates that if Congress were to extend current law without providing for further transfers from the general fund to the mass transit account, the balance in the mass transit account would be about $300 million at the end of FY2021 and would reach zeroapproach $1 bil ion at some point in FY2022.¹⁶ This would likely require FTA to slow payments to This would likely require FTA to slow payments to 21 CRS Report R45144, Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy, by William J. Mallett . 22 Congressional Budget Office, “ Highway T rust Fund Accounts—CBO’s September 2020 Baseline.” Congressional Research Service 6 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program transit agencies. Outlays also outpace receipts in the highway account, but solvency problems are expected to arrive earlier in the mass transit account.

and based on its current balance, payment problems are also expected to begin in FY2022.23 Bringing the receipts and outlays of the mass transit account into balance would involve a cut in program spending, an increase in revenues paid into the account, or a combination of the two. An increase in revenues could involve a commitment to regular transfers from the general fund. With the highway account facing similar problems, another possible change would be to redirect revenues from the mass transit account to the highway account and to fund the transit account with a general fund appropriation each year. This likely would make transit funding less certain, and it would not make up the entire shortfall shortfal in the highway account.

Financing

Financing In addition to grants, the federal government supports public transportation infrastructure with direct loans and tax preferences for municipal bonds.¹⁷24 Changes to two major federal loan programs relevant to public transportation—the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Finance (RRIF) program—could be considered in reauthorization.

TIFIA provides long-term, low-interest loans and other types of credit assistance for the construction of surface transportation projects (23 U.S.C. §601 et seq.). Although the maximum federal share of project costs that may be provided by the TIFIA program was raised in MAP-21 from 33% to 49%, DOT has stated that it will wil provide more than 33% only in exceptional circumstances.¹⁸25 To date, TIFIA has not covered more than 33% of the cost of any project. By limiting limiting the TIFIA share in this way, DOT appears to be trying to maximize the leveraging of nonfederal resources, but it may be excluding projects that may not be financiallyfinancial y viable without greater federal assistance. Public transportation projects typicallytypical y cover a relatively small smal share of their costs from user fees, thus they usuallyusual y need more government support than highway and bridge projects. Congress could direct DOT to consider a higher federal share in more circumstances or across the board.

Some project sponsors have stated that the lengthy process and upfront costs for obtaining TIFIA assistance led them not to seek TIFIA loans. The FAST Act required DOT to expedite projects thought to be lower-risk—those requesting $100 millionmil ion or less in credit assistance with a dedicated revenue stream unrelated to project performance and standard loan terms—but this has apparently not had a significant effect: two projects have received TIFIA loans of less than $100 million mil ion since the passage of the FAST Act. Congress could make small smal TIFIA loans more attractive by changing a requirement that project sponsors obtain two credit ratings; at present, that requirement applies to TIFIA loans for projects with debt of $75 millionmil ion or more. Less stringent requirements for credit ratings may increase the risk to the government of these loans.¹⁹ 26 Reauthorization legislation also could incorporate various proposals that have been suggested to speed up approvals, such as requiring more frequent meetings of the DOT officials who make 23 Ibid. 24 CRS Report R43308, Infrastructure Finance and Debt to Support Surface Transportation Investment, by William J. Mallett and Grant A. Driessen. 25 Department of T ransportation, Build America Bureau, Credit Programs Guide, March 2017, p. 2-2, at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/programs-and-services/tifia/Bureau%20Credit%20Programs%20Guide_March_2017.pdf . 26 CRS Report R45516, The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program , by William J. Mallett . Congressional Research Service 7 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program recommendations on project loans to the Secretary of Transportation (known as the Council on Credit and Finance), hiring additional staff to more quickly assess applications, and mandating that DOT regularly publish information about the time it takes loan applications to reach milestones.

milestones. The RRIF program was originallyoriginal y created to support freight railroads, particularly small smal freight railroads known as short lines, but loans are increasingly being made to commuter railroads.²⁰ Legislative 27 Legislative changes have made RRIF loans more attractive to commuter railroads. Recent changes also permit loans for transit-oriented development, that is —economic development projects, including commercial and residential development, physically or functionally related to a passenger rail station. Several large loans have been made to transit agencies for commuter rail projects in the past few years, including $908 millionmil ion to the DallasDal as Area Rapid Transit to finance a project from DallasDal as-Fort Worth Airport, $220 million mil ion and $851 mil ion to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for positive train control (PTC), and almost $1 billionbil ion to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also for PTC.

The federal government requires project sponsors to make a payment known as a credit risk premium to offset the risk of a default. No federal funding has been authorized to pay the credit risk premiums for RRIF borrowers, although $25 millionmil ion was made available for this purpose in the 2018 appropriations act.²¹28 To enhance the attractiveness of RRIF for public transportation projects, Congress could authorize a federal subsidy for the credit risk premium from the Highway Trust Fund. Alternatively, Congress could provide for the credit risk premium from the general fund directly or as part of another program. For example, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) makes RRIF credit risk premiums eligible for grants under the BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grants Program. Another RRIF-related proposal is to extend the authority to provide loans for transit-oriented development projects, which expires on September 30, 2020.²²

2021.29 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program

Because the CIG program receives funding from the general fund, not the Highway Trust Fund, appropriators have greater influence over its funding than they do over other transit programs. Nevertheless, the authorization sets a benchmark for the program'’s funding level, creates the program's overall program’s overal structure, and can provide more or less discretion for FTA in the program's implementation. These characteristics could be more important in reauthorization than usual because of disagreements about the existence and operation of the program between Congress and the Trump Administration.

’s implementation. During the Obama Administration, FTA, among others, recommended significant increases in CIG funding to accommodate demand by project sponsors, especiallyespecial y because projects to expand the capacity of existing transit facilities, known as Core Capacity projects, were made eligible for funding beginning in FY2013. FTA noted in its FY2017 budget submission that the number of 27 CRS Report R44028, The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program, by David Randall Peterman. 28 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). DOT announced in December 2019 that it would use the appropriation to offset the cost of the credit risk premium for loans to shortline freight railroads. Department of T ransportation, Office of the Secretary, “ Notice of Funding Opportunity for Letters of Interest for the RRIF Express Pilot Program Under the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program,” 84 Federal Register 68298-68300, December 13, 2019. 29 45 U.S.C. §822(b)(3). T his deadline was extended from December 3, 2019, to September 30, 2020, by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) and from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021, by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act ( P.L. 116-159). Congressional Research Service 8 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program projects in the CIG “pipeline” funding beginning in FY2013. FTA noted in its FY2017 budget submission that the number of projects in the CIG "pipeline" had grown from 37 in FY2012 to 63 in FY2016.²³30 In addition, FTA asked Congress in its FY2017 budget request to increase annual CIG funding from the $2.3 billion bil ion authorized by the FAST Act to $3.5 billion, bil ion, to accelerate projects to "“not only potentially potential y lower financing costs incurred on these projects, but also allowal ow FTA to better manage the overall overal program given the ever growing demand for funds."²⁴

”31 For FY2018 and FY2019, the Trump Administration proposed that funding should be limited to projects with existing commitments from the federal government, and that CIG funding should be phased out. In its funding recommendation for FY2018, FTA noted that "“future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects."²⁵”32 House and Senate appropriators rejected this approach, directing FTA to continue working with project sponsors to develop projects, including issuing project evaluation ratings, and requiring the allocational ocation of appropriations, with deadlines, to projects that have met the program requirements.²⁶

33 With pressure for continued operation of the program, FTA has made several announcements of allocations of CIG funding to new projects. In July 2019, FTA subsequently dropped its cal for phasing out the program; it recommended funding of $1.5 bil ion in FY2020 and $1.9 bil ion in FY2021, including $500 mil ion and $925 mil ion for new projects, respectively. Congress agreed to nearly $2 bil ion for the program in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) and slightly more than $2 bil ion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). In December 2020, FTA stated that from the beginning of the Trump Administration inon January 20, 2017, FTA had “advanced” funding for 41 new CIG projects totaling $10.7 bil ion in CIG funding.34 The INVEST in America Act (H.R. 2, 116th Congress) proposed an average authorization for the CIG program of nearly $4.6 bil ion from FY2022 through FY2025, increasing from $3.5 bil ion in FY2022 to $5.5 bil ion in FY2025. This would represent a doubling of the annual average authorization level from the FAST Act (in nominal dollars). 2017, FTA had made CIG funding commitments to 25 new projects totaling $7.63 billion.²⁷ It appears that FTA has dropped its call for phasing out the program; it recommended funding of $1.5 billion in FY2020, including $500 million for new projects.²⁸ Congress agreed to nearly $2 billion for the program in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).

New York and New Jersey Gateway Program

New York and New Jersey Gateway Program The Gateway Program, which involves a set of projects in a 10-mile section of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Penn Station in Newark, NJ, and Penn Station in New York City, would be designed to improve intercity passenger rail service by Amtrak, which owns the underlying infrastructure, as well wel as commuter rail service provided by New Jersey (NJ) Transit. NJ Transit 30 Federal T ransit Administration, Budget Estimates FY2017, AE-18, at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FT A-FY-2017-CJ.pdf. 31 Federal T ransit Administration, Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2017: Capital Investment Grant Program , p. 6, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FY17_Annual_Report.pdf. 32 Federal T ransit Administration, Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2018: Capital Investment Grant Program , p. 7, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant -programs/capital-investments/60771/fy18-annual-report_0.pdf. 33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on T ransportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Departm ents of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Developm ent, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018 , 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 21, 2017, H.Rept. 115-237, pp. 58-59; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on T ransportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Departm ents of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Developm ent, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 27, 2017, H.Rept. 115-138, pp. 79-80. 34 Federal T ransit Administration, “ Capital Investment Grant Funding Comparison Chart, December 17, 202 0,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/capital-investment-grant-funding-comparison-chart-december-17-2020. Congressional Research Service 9 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program as commuter rail service provided by New Jersey (NJ) Transit. NJ Transit ridership in the corridor is approximately 50 million mil ion passenger trips per year, making this among the most heavily traveled public transportation routes in the country.²⁹

35 The project sponsors—the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in cooperation with the Gateway Program Development Corporation, New Jersey Transit Corporation, and Amtrak—have proposed $7 billion5.3 bil ion in CIG program funding for the costliest Gateway Program project to date. The $14 billion12.1 bil ion project is for the construction of a new tunnel under the Hudson River, the restoration of the current tunnel that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and the preservation of the Hudson Yards right-of-way linking the proposed new tunnel with Pennsylvania Station in New York City. In addition, the project sponsors propose to borrow several billion dollars about $6 bil ion for tunnel construction from the federal government through the RRIF program. NJ Transit, the lead sponsor of the $1.6 billion9 bil ion Portal North Bridge project across the Hackensack River in New Jersey, has proposedsecured a CIG grant to cover about half40% of the cost.³⁰36 The Gateway Program overall Program overal is estimated to cost about $30 billion.³¹

bil ion.37 The federal amount sought for the Gateway Program is equal to several years of funding for CIG, at recent funding levels, and could potentially potential y overwhelm a program that is responsible for aiding projects throughout the country. The largest CIG grant since FY2007 is $2.6 billion. FTA typicallybil ion. FTA typical y pays out such grants in smallersmal er amounts over a prolonged construction period; single-year allocations year al ocations of funding for individual projects have rarely exceeded $200 million.

mil ion. The proposed use of federal loans in conjunction with federal grants for the Gateway Program is also controversial.³²has been controversial.38 The statute governing TIFIA (23 U.S.C. §603(b)(8)) states that proceeds from a TIFIA loan "may"“may” be used as a nonfederal share of project costs if the loan will wil be repaid from nonfederal funds. The Trump Administration has beenwas critical of CIG project sponsors using both federal grants and loans on public transportation projects. In June 2018, FTA circulated a letter stating the following:

given the competitive nature of this discretionary program, the [CIG] statute specifically specificaly urges FTA to consider the extent to which the project has a local financial commitment that exceeds the required non-government share of the cost of the project. To this end, FTA considers U.S. Department of Transportation loans in the context of all Federal funding sources requested by the project sponsor when completing the CIG evaluation process, and not as separate from the Federal funding sources.³³

39 The appropriations committees have takentook action to prevent this policy from being implemented. For instance, Section 165166 of Division GH of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), states that "2020 (P.L. 35 Federal T ransit Administration, “Current Capital Investment Grant Program Projects: Hudson T unnels,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant -programs/capital-investments/hudson-tunnel-project-profile-0. 36 Federal T ransit Administration, “ U.S. Department of T ransportation Announces $766.5 Million Grant Agreement to New Jersey T ransit for the Portal North Bridge Project in Hudson County, New Jersey ,” press release, January 11, 2021, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department -transportation-announces-7665-million-grant-agreement -new-jersey-transit . 37 Jeff Davis, “ What Is the ‘Gateway Program’?” Eno Transportation Weekly, June 30, 2017. T he estimated cost of the Gateway program was $24 billion in 2017, but the cost of the Hudson T unnel project has increased by $6 billion, according to information provided to the Federal T ransit Administration. See Federal T ransit Administration, “Current Capital Investment Grant Program Projects: Hudson T unnels,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/hudson-tunnel-project-profile-0. 38 U.S. Congress, House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Examining the Administration’s Infrastructure Proposal, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., March 6, 2018, 115-37 (Washington: GPO, 2018), pp. 43-45. 39 Federal T ransit Administration, “ Dear Colleague Letter—Capital Investment Grants Program,” June 29, 2018, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/policy-letters/dear-colleague-letter-capital-investment-grants-program. Congressional Research Service 10 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program 116-94) stated that “none of the funds made available under this Act may be used for the implementation or furtherance of new policies detailed in the '‘Dear Colleague'’ letter distributed by the Federal Transit Administration to capital investment grant program project sponsors on June 29, 2018."” In a potential reauthorization, Congress could seek to eliminate permanently DOT'DOT’s discretion to block project sponsors from combining CIG grants and TIFIA loans on a single project. Bills pendingBil s introduced in the House in the 116th Congress, , H.R. 731 and H.R. 1849, would allow, would have al owed recipients of TIFIA and RRIF support to elect to have the loans treated as nonfederal funds.

Expediting CIG Projects

Applying for CIG funding requires the development of extensive data and the preparation of many detailed reports and other documents, all al of which are reviewed by FTA in making project approval determinations. Legislative These administrative processes can be a source of project delay, although local issues, such as agreements for utility relocations, are more often the cause.40 Legislative changes in MAP-21 and the FAST Act sought to simplify the overal process. For example, MAP-21 reduced the number of separate FTA approvals for more expensive projects from four to three, and for less expensive projects from three to two. The less expensive projects, known as small smal starts projects, are those that cost $300 millionmil ion or less to build and require $100 million mil ion or less of CIG funding. Moreover, MAP-21 authorized the use of project justification warrants in certain cases "“that allowal ow a proposed project to automaticallyautomatical y receive a satisfactory rating on a given criterion based on the project'’s characteristics or the characteristics of the project corridor." ³⁴”41 The FAST Act created an Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot Program to more quickly review up to eight projects involving public-private partnerships in which the federal grant is 25% or less of the project cost. The federal share of a CIG project is typically typical y about 50%.

There have been no comprehensive evaluations of whether these changes have resulted in projects progressing more quickly through the CIG pipeline. However, there are options that could be considered to further speed CIG projects. For instance, the threshold for projects to qualify as small smal starts could be increased, and the use of warrants could be permitted in more circumstances. H.R. 2, for example, would have increased the smal starts cost threshold from $300 mil ion to $400 mil ion and the federal assistance threshold for projects from less than $100 mil ion to less than $320 mil ion. H.R. 2 would have also raised the federal financial assistance threshold for the use of warrants from $100 mil ion or 50% of total project cost to $500 mil ion and a total project cost of $1 bil ion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that FTA had not implemented the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot Program as of March 2018.42 FTA issued a notice in September 2018 asking for expressions of interest in the program and announced an al ocation of funding to one project in August 2019.43 It 40 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Capital Investment Grants Program: FTA Should Improve the Effectiveness and Transparency of Its Reviews, GAO-20-512, July 2020, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-512. 41 Federal T ransit Administration, “Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal T ransit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program,” June 2016, Chapter I, p. 30. 42 Government Accountability Office, Capital Investment Grant Program: FTA Should Address Several Statutory Provisions, GAO-18-462, May 2018. 43 Federal T ransit Administration, “Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery,” 83 Federal Register 46521-46523, September 12, 2018; Federal T ransit Administration, “ U.S. Department of T ransportation Announces $125 Million Funding Allocation to Santa Clara VT A for BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Project ,” press release, August 28, 2019, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department -transportation-announces-125-million-funding-allocation-santa-clara-vta. Congressional Research Service 11 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program issued a notice of funding opportunity for the remaining funding in July 2020.44circumstances. FTA has been slow to implement the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot Program.³⁵ Increasing the permitted maximum federal share of project costs under the pilot program, currently 25%, might make the program more attractive to transit agencies.

Falling Public Transportation Ridership

According to data from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), annual transit ridership reached a modern-era high of 10.7 billionbil ion trips in 2014. Since then, it has fallen by Ridership subsequently fel by almost 8% to 9.9 billion trips in 2018.³⁶ bil ion trips in each of 2018 and 2019. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, national ridership in 2020 is likely to be less than 5 bil ion trips, an unprecedented decline of more than 50% compared with 2018 and 2019.45 Ridership is likely to suffer for a few years because of the pandemic, but the longer-term effects are uncertain. Other factors are more likely to be important in the longer term. National trends in public transportation ridership are not necessarily reflected at the local level; thus, different areas may have different reasons for growth or decline. But at the national level, the two factors that most affect public transportation ridership are competitive factors and the supply of transit service. Several competitive factors, notably increased car ownership, the relatively low price of gasoline over the past few years, and the growing popularity of bikeshare, scooters, and ridesourcing services such as Lyft and Uber, appear to have reduced transit ridership. The amount of transit service supplied has generallygeneral y grown over time, along with government investment, but average fares have risen faster than inflation, possibly deterring riders.

riders. The future of public transportation ridership in the short to medium term is likely to depend on population growth, the public funding commitment to supplying transit, and factors that make driving more or less attractive, such as the price of parking, the extent of highway congestion, and the implementation of fuel taxes, tolls, and mileage-based user fees.

Another factor that may be more important is the extent to which people work from home rather than traveling to a workplace, whether some or al of the time. Under current law, federal grants to transit agencies are based mainly on population, population density, and the amount of service provided. Congress could address the issue of declining ridership by tying the allocational ocation of federal formula funds to agencies'’ success in boosting ridership or fare revenue.

Over the long term, the introduction of fully autonomous vehicles could reduce transit ridership, unless restrictions or fees make them an expensive alternative. However, there is significant uncertainty about when, or whether, fully autonomous vehicles will wil affect ridership. Given this uncertaintyIf policymakers are concerned about such a possibility, federal capital funding might focus on buses, which last about 10 years, and not new rail systems that take many years to build and will wil remain in service for decades. Another option would be to redirect CIG funding from building new rail systems and lines to refurbishing rail transit in the large and dense cities where rail transit currently carries large numbers of riders.

44 Federal T ransit Administration, “Discretionary Funding Opportunity: Grants for Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery,” 85 Federal Register 45460-45465, July 28, 2020. 45 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2020: Appendix A, Washington, DC, 2020, table 1, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit -statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/; American Public T ransportation Association, Transit Ridership Report, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit -statistics/ridership-report/. Congressional Research Service 12 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program The emergence of new mobility options may have reduced transit ridership, but it also may present an opportunity for transit agencies to provide new services to improve customer mobility. FTA has funded some pilot projects through the Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment program. An option in reauthorization would be to fund a program that focuses on boosting transit ridership through mobility and technological innovations.³⁷

46 To encourage ridership, H.R. 2 (116th Congress) would have created a new competitive capital grant program, the Multi-jurisdictional Bus Frequency and Ridership Competitive Grants. Funding authorized from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund would have averaged about $104 mil ion per year from FY2022 through FY2025. H.R. 2 would have also modified the formula for the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. §5307) and the Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive Grants Program (49 U.S.C. §5339(b)) to incentivize more frequent service. H.R. 2 also proposed to create a pilot program for grants to implement reduced fare transit service for low-income individuals. Mobility on Demand Services Although the growth of ridesourcing and other types of on-demand transportation has likely caused a decline in public transportation ridership, such services can be complementary to public transportation. For example, ridesourcing companies can provide short trips for people to access public transportation stations and stops, and can substitute for public transportation during periods of very low demand. This may encourage some people to choose not to have a personal vehicle, a choice that is associated with higher transit use in general. H.R. 2 (116th Congress) proposed to al ow certain formula funds to be used to fund mobility as a service and mobility on demand services.47 Climate Change Climate Change

Surface transportation is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO₂CO2) in the atmosphere, the main human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. At the same time, the effects of climate change on environmental conditions, such as extreme heat and global sea level rise, pose a threat to transportation infrastructure. Surface transportation reauthorization may seek to address environmental conditions with mitigation provisions that aim to reduce GHG emissions from surface transportation and adaptation provisions that aim to make the surface transportation system more resilient. S. 2302, the reauthorization bill reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in August 2019, included provisions that address climate change.³⁸

During the 116th Congress, H.R. 2 included climate change provisions related to public transportation, intercity rail, and highways, and S. 2302 included climate change provisions related to highways.48 GHG emissions from the transportation sector come mainly from passenger cars and light trucks. Public transportation might contribute to a reduction of GHG emissions if trips made in personal vehicles, particularly single-occupant trips, are made by trains and buses instead. The efficiency of public transportation in terms of GHG emissions depends, in part, on the amount of ridership 46 For example, APT A has proposed the creation of the Mobility Innovation and T echnology Initiative with $25 million of general funding authorized in FY2021 rising to $50 million in FY2025. 47 According to H.R. 2 (Section 2203), “the term ‘mobility as a service’ means services that constitute the integration of mobility on demand services and public transportation that are available and accessible to all travelers, provide multimodal trip planning, and a unified payment system.... The term ‘mobility on demand’ means an on-demand transportation service shared among individuals, either concurrently or one after another.” 48 CRS Report R46452, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302, by William J. Mallett . Congressional Research Service 13 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program of public transportation in terms of GHG emissions depends, in part, on the amount of ridership in relation to the amount of transit supplied. GHG emissions from public transportation are also dependent on the sources of fuel used to power trains and buses, including the way in which electricity is generated.³⁹

Specific policy options49 In addition to increasing funding for public transportation, H.R. 2 proposed to create a discretionary grant program for transit agencies that increased bus frequency or succeeded in increasing ridership. Another policy option that might be considered to reduce GHG gases from public transportation vehicles could include funding for alternatives to diesel-powered buses, particularly electric buses using electricity generated from renewable sources. This could include a higher level of funding for the existing Low or No Emission Vehicle (Lo-No) Program.50 H.R. 2 proposed to increase dedicated funding for the purchase of low- and no-emission buses and related infrastructure from $55 mil ion per year to about $430 mil ion per year(Lo-No) Program.⁴⁰ In the FAST Act, the discretionary Lo-No Program was funded as a $55 million annual set-aside from the Bus and Bus Facilities Program. Another possibility would be to require buses purchased using federal funds to have low or no emissions.⁴¹ 51 Electric buses cost more to purchase than traditional diesel-powered buses, although the lifecycle cost is comparable. To overcome this, the federal government could offer low-interest or no- interest loans for the nonfederal share of the cost of buying electric buses.⁴²

52 Adaptation is action to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of the transportation system to the effects of climate change. Although much of the funding administered by FTA can be used to assess the potential impacts of climate change on public transportation infrastructure and to apply adaptation strategies, there is currently no dedicated surface transportation funding for adaptation projects. ReauthorizationIf a federal role were found to be appropriate, reauthorization could create a new grant program dedicated to adaptation planning and projects or require that funds from other programs be set aside for such purposes.

Emergency Relief Program

The Public Transportation Emergency Relief (ER) Program (49 U.S.C. §5324; 49 C.F.R. §602) provides federal funding on a reimbursement basis to states, territories, local government authorities, Indian tribes, and public transportation agencies for damage to public transportation facilities or operations as a result of a natural disaster or other emergency and to protect assets from future damage, so-calledcal ed resilience projects.

FTA' FTA’s ER program does not have a permanent annual authorization. Rather, all al funds are authorized on a "“such sums as necessary"” basis and require an appropriation from the Treasury's ’s general fund. Because of this, FTA cannot provide funding immediately after a disaster or emergency is declared. Transit agencies, therefore, typicallytypical y rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to fund immediate needs beyond the capacity of state and local government. This could slow the response of transit agencies and blur the lines of responsibility between FTA and FEMA if funds are later appropriated for the ER program. Adding a quick-release mechanism to FTA'’s ER program would allowal ow FTA funds to be approved and distributed within a few days of a disaster. Such a program already exists for the Federal Highway 49 Federal T ransit Administration, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit Projects: Programmatic Assessment, Report 0097, January 2017, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/greenhouse-gas-emissions-transit-projects-programmatic-assessment -report-0097. 50 49 U.S.C. §5339(c). 51 T he Green Bus Act of 2019 (H.R. 2164, 116th Congress) proposed much higher levels of funding for the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Lo-No) Program and that buses purchased or leased with federal funds will have to be zero -emission beginning October 1, 2029. 52 T he Community Health and Clean T ransit Act of 2019 (S. 2403, 116th Congress) proposed a new federal loan program for the purchase of battery-electric buses. Congressional Research Service 14 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program within a few days of a disaster. Such a program already exists for the Federal Highway Administration, with an annual authorization of funds from the Highway Trust Fund, and FTA's ’s program could similarly be authorized an amount from the mass transit account of the fund. Such an authorization, however, would place a new claim on resources of the mass transit account.

The FTA'’s ER program does not have a limit on the amount that can be spent on resilience projects. Although this may allowal ow for better projects, it can result in Congress appropriating larger amounts than might otherwise be necessary, and it could also be a way for transit agencies to fund betterments and new facilities that have little direct connection to the goals of repairing damages and making the transit systems resilient to future natural hazards. A separate resilience program and changes to the ER program may be considered a more effective way to protect public transportation infrastructure from future disasters.

Public Transportation Safety

Public transportation is a relatively safe mode of passenger transportation compared with traveling by car and light truck. The fatality rate per passenger mile for cars and light trucks is about double that of transit buses and five times that of heavy rail. While the fatality rate per passenger mile for commuter rail is more comparable withto cars and light trucks, most commuter rail fatalities fatalities are nonusers, such as trespassing pedestrians and those in vehicles struck at grade crossings.⁴³

crossings.53 The federal government'’s role in public transportation safety has been expanded significantly since 2008. One of the major changes was the requirement in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432) for commuter railroads, along with Amtrak and freight railroads, to install instal positive train control (PTC), systems that use signals and sensors to monitor and control railroad operations.

operations. The federal requirement for PTC resulted in significant capital costs for commuter rail agencies, of which about 10% has been borne by the federal discretionary and formula funds.⁴⁴54 In addition to the initial costs of installinginstal ing PTC, commuter rail agencies claim that there will wil be ongoing costs associated with PTC estimated to be about $160 millionmil ion per year.⁴⁵ Consequently, PTC implementation Agencies might also slow or reduce service due to increased turnaround time at terminal stations.55 Consequently, PTC implementation may have a detrimental effect on the overall financial overal financial condition of commuter rail agencies, and, without more funding from federal, state, or local government, may have a detrimental effect on the condition of commuter rail assets. Commuter rail agencies have proposed the creation of a new federal PTC funding program that could pay some or all al of these ongoing costs.⁴⁶56 Separately, proposals have been advanced to dedicate federal funding for commuter railroads to improve the safety of highway-rail grade crossings. 53 T odd Litman and Steven Fitzroy, Safe Travels: Evaluating Transportation Demand Management Traffic Safety Im pacts, Victoria T ransport Policy Institute, Sept. 10, 20 19, p. 29; CRS Insight IN10753, Trespassing: The Leading Cause of Rail-Related Fatalities, by John Frittelli. 54 American Public T ransportation Association, APTA Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law, October 12, 2019, at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APT A-RECOMMENDAT IONS-Surf.-T rans.-Auth.-for-Board-Approval-10.12.2019.pdf. 55 T estimony of Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public T ransportation Association , in U.S. Congress, House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Challenges and Opportunities for Com m uter Railroads, hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2019; Metra, “Q&A about PT C and its impact on train schedules,” at https://metrarail.com/node/5839. 56 T estimony of Mr. Jim Derwinski, CEO/Executive Director, Metra Commuter Railroad, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Challenges and Opportunities for Com m uter Railroad s, hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2019. Congressional Research Service 15 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program Buy America With the aim of protecting American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, Buy America laws place domestic content restrictions on federal y funded transportation projects.57 Buy America requirements vary according to the specific DOT funding program and administering agency. For projects funded by FTA there is a 100% U.S.-made requirement for iron, steel, and manufactured goods. However, Buy America does not apply to rolling stock if more than 70% of components, by value, are produced domestical y and final assembly is in the United States. An addition to Buy America law in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92, §7613) prohibits transit agencies purchasing railcars and buses from certain government- owned, -controlled or -subsidized companies, such as the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation and BYD, even if they are otherwise Buy America-compliant. Waivers of Buy America requirements can be provided by DOT agencies under certain circumstances, but these can be difficult and time-consuming to obtain. If the current waiver process were found to be too slow, Congress could require that a waiver decision be made within a specific number of days. Each DOT agency has its own Buy America requirements, creating complications when a project involves funding from more than one of the agencies. Congress might seek to standardize Buy America requirements across the department. Other proposals have been to make Buy America requirements more stringent. For example, the Buy America 2.0 Act (H.R. 2755, 116th Congress) would have increased the share of public transit rolling stock components and subcomponents that must be produced in the United States by five percentage points annual y beginning in FY2021, reaching 100% by FY2026. Such measures could make it more costly and time-consuming for transit agencies to procure vehicles. Author Information William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot 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’s institutional role. 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 the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 57 CRS Report R44266, Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing , by Michaela D. Platzer and William J. Mallett . Congressional Research Service R46191 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED 16 commuter railroads to improve the safety of highway-rail grade crossings.

Buy America