Order Code IB10138
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Surface Transportation:
SAFETEA-LU
Updated August 12, 2005
John W. Fischer
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Surface Transportation Finance
Major SAFETEA Features
Authorization Period
Guaranteed Funding
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)
Surface Transportation Program (STP): Safety set-aside elimination
Innovative Finance/Tolling
Earmarking
Equity Issues: The Donor-Donee Question
SAFETEA’s “Equity Bonus” Innovation
Traffic Safety and Research
Freight and Intermodal Provisions
Conformity of Transportation Plans and State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
Environmental Issues
Transit
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

---

IB10138
08-12-05
Surface Transportation: SAFETEA-LU
SUMMARY
On August 10, 2005, President Bush
In the 109th Congress, the same issues
signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi-
threatened to undermine a Conference Com-
cient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy
mittee that began meeting in June 2005. This
for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA).
time, however, all parties found ways in which
This act reauthorizes federal surface transpor-
to compromise. Most importantly, the Ad-
tation programs through the end of FY2009.
ministration allowed total funding in the bill
The reauthorization was long overdue, given
to rise to $286.4 billion for the six-year autho-
that the previous long term authorization, the
rization period (in actuality the act provides
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
$244.1 billion for the five years remaining
(TEA-21) expired on September 30, 2003.
before FY2009). This increase allowed the
Surface transportation programs continued to
conferees to ultimately guarantee all states an
operate during this period, however, as a result
eventual 92% rate of return, an improvement
of 11 extension acts.
on the existing 90.5% rate, while at the same
time holding other states harmless. With
The reauthorization debate was primarily
these key compromises in place many of the
characterized by two interrelated issues,
objections to the bill disappeared and the
money and how that money would be distrib-
conference report was agreed to on July 29,
uted among the states. The 108th Congress
2005.
came close to a bill with a surface transporta-
tion Conference Committee in place. In the
In addition to money issues, The act
end, however, conferees were unable to reach
addressed a number of other issues as part of
agreement either among themselves or with
the reauthorization debate. These included
the Bush Administration as to how large the
the creation of a new consolidated safety
six-year reauthorization package would be in
program, enhanced environmental streamlin-
dollar terms (the Administration initially
ing regulations, changes in clean air confor-
wanted the bill limited to $256 billion). The
mity regulations, funding for transit new
Conference was also unable to agree on a
starts, expanded reliance on innovative financ-
solution to the long standing donor-donee
ing and tolls, and spending on congressional
state funding distribution question, with donor
high priority projects (earmarks).
states insisting on a 95% return on fuel tax
revenues and donee states insisting that in-
This issue brief provides an overview of
creased funding for donor states not come at
SAFETEA. Additional CRS products now in
their expense.
preparation will examine some of these sub-
jects in greater detail at a later date.
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

IB10138
08-12-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On August 10, 2005 President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA). Enactment
completes the reauthorization process. All federal surface transportation programs are now
authorized through FY2009.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Federal 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
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, formerly
the minimum guarantee but now the equity bonus (EB), is sometimes 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 non-urbanized area formula program. Each of the major programs also includes planning,
environmental, and other elements that are major subjects of discussion during
reauthorization debates.
CRS-1

---

IB10138
08-12-05
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 (these funds were not actually
deposited into the trust fund initially, but were deposited in the Treasury general funds for
deficit reduction purposes until 1996).
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 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-a-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.
Conferee’s on SAFETEA also 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 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 is believed that the changes identified in SAFETEA when
combined with the changes in gasohol legislation enacted in 2004, when combined with
CRS-2

---

IB10138
08-12-05
expected economic growth, will be sufficient to finance the $286.4 billion program created
by the act.
Major SAFETEA Features
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 FY1998 - FY2003. 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 as that afforded by TEA-21, better accommodates 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 four-year bill expiring in FY2009.
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 of this issue brief. Suffice it to say that SAFETEA
represents a significant funding increase for all federal surface transportation programs.
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.
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.
CRS-3

---

IB10138
08-12-05
Table 1: Guaranteed Obligations
($ billions)
Total
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
5-years
Highway
34.442
36.032
38.244
39.585
41.200
189.484
Obligation
Limitation
Exempt Highway
0.739
0.739
0.739
0.739
0.739
3.695
Obligations
Highway Safety
0.742
1.189
1.217
1.239
1.270
5.656
and Motor Carrier
Safety Obligations
Mass Transit
7.646
8.623
8.975
9.731
10.338
45.313
Obligations
Totals
43.550
46.583
49.174
51.294
53.547
244.148
Source: Transportation Weekly. August 4, 2005. P. 5.
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)
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 (which it is
forecast to do throughout the authorization period).
Surface Transportation Program (STP): Safety set-aside
elimination
SAFETEA makes a significant change in the STP program by eliminating the 10% set-
aside for safety projects. Those activities previously funded by the set-aside are now eligible
for funding as part of the new highway safety improvement program (HSIP). The provision
also broadens eligibility requirements to allow spending on projects at high accident rate
and/or high congestion intersections.
CRS-4

---

IB10138
08-12-05
Innovative Finance/Tolling
SAFETEA continues and expands existing innovative finance programs such as TIFIA
and state infrastructure banks (SIBs). The act lowers TIFIA’s minimum project threshold
from $100 million to $50 million and provides $122 million for the programs leveraging
activities. Under SAFETEA any state may enter into an agreement with DOT to establish
an SIB (under TEA-21 only four states had been eligible).
The act also makes changes to tolling programs that should make utilization of tolling
somewhat more likely. The act provides for three separate tolling programs. It continues the
existing value pricing program and provides $59 million over five years to fund it. One-third
of this funding must be reserved for non-toll projects, however. The second, and new
program, is the express lanes demonstration program. This program is limited to 15 locations
and is aimed primarily at creating new interstate and/or other highway lanes. It is assumed
that most of this funding would go for HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes. The provision adds
new criteria for operation of a funded toll facility, such as requirements for variable pricing
and automated toll collection. Finally, the act maintains the prohibition on tolling of existing
interstate highway programs except to the extent that it allows a pilot program for the
construction/reconstruction of three interstate facilities to be built using toll revenues.
The most important provision related to tolling is in the finance title of the bill. This
provision provides up to $15 billion in private activity bonding authority for new highway
and freight transfer facilities. These facilities could be on or off of the defined federal-aid
highway system. Although the provision does not require roads built using private activity
bonds to be tolled, it is unlikely that this would be the case unless some other revenue
mechanism related to facility use could be created. There are no specific estimates in the
conference report or elsewhere as to how much infrastructure could be created using the
leverage in this provision. If fully utilized, the effect could be substantial. By way of
comparison, only California will receive more then $15 billion in formula highway assistance
from SAFETEA.
Earmarking
SAFETEA contains approximately 5,145 separate earmarks for congressional high
priority projects (HPPs) with a value of over $14.8 billion (there are several 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 act. 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, of are a larger scope. A
second set of earmarks is provided for national corridor infrastructure improvement. This
category lists 33 earmarks valued at over $1.9 billion. The corridor infrastructure program
is not new, but was not specifically 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 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 HPP program. In looking at these earmarked programs it should be
CRS-5

---

IB10138
08-12-05
noted that individual projects may appear in more then one project list and that they can
receive different amounts of funding in each case.
The other large earmark program in the act is in the transit title. 662 bus and bus facility
projects receive almost $1.6 billion in funding. There are also stand-alone earmarks scattered
throughout the highway and transit titles of the act. 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.
Equity Issues: The Donor-Donee Question
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 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 Mid-
Western 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 mid-western 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 state and local 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-a-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
CRS-6

---

IB10138
08-12-05
highway program to a revenue sharing or a block grant program make sense? Another
controversial issue is whether the Minimum Guarantee (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 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, currently 90.5%. 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.
SAFETEA’s “Equity Bonus” Innovation. 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 replaces the entire TEA-21 MG program with an
“Equity Bonus” program (EB). Basically, the individual program formulas are to be run to
determine the initial apportionments, and then the equity bonus funding is to 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 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 under one million people; have a median household
income under $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,
CRS-7

---

IB10138
08-12-05
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 to be apportioned to states as STP funds, 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 six programs: IM, HBRR, NHS, STP, CMAQ, and the
Highway Safety improvement Program. 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 amount to $40.9 billion. (CRS contacts: Robert Kirk and John
Fischer)
Traffic Safety and Research
As part of the debate over surface transportation legislation, Congress deliberated
reauthorization of federal funding for various programs affecting traffic or highway safety.
The safety objectives that were discussed included reducing road hazards and improving
safety infrastructure, addressing highway-rail grade crossing concerns, promoting child
transportation safety, increasing the resources of states and communities to implement
innovative traffic safety programs, increasing safety belt use rates, and decreasing drug- and
alcohol-impaired driving. Relevant programs are administered by various DOT agencies,
including the FHWA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The debate considered the amount
of funding, program purposes, and the structure of various safety grants provided to the
states. Various interest groups and many Members of Congress sought additional funding
to improve highway infrastructure and operations affecting safety, strengthen commercial
driver licensing programs, and improve the federal/state partnership affecting truck and bus
safety. Competition for funds was intense among various safety programs.
As enacted, SAFETEA includes many provisions that affect safety. For example, the
law
! authorizes the Highway Safety Improvement Program (Section 148), which
provides grants to the states to fund an array of infrastructure-, operational-,
and planning-related safety projects or activities;
! establishes the Safe Routes to School Program which provides grants to the
states intended to enable and encourage primary and middle school students
to walk and bicycle to school;
CRS-8

---

IB10138
08-12-05
! authorizes increased funding compared to FY2005 for the Section 402 (state
and community traffic safety grants) program, the Section 410 (alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures grants) program, and the Section 405
(occupant protection incentive grants) program; and
! authorizes an incentive grant program (Section 406) to reward states that
enact and enforce primary safety belt laws or achieve, after December 31,
2005, a state safety belt use rate of 85% or more for each of the two
calendar years immediately proceeding the fiscal year of a grant. (CRS
contact: Paul Rothberg)
Freight and Intermodal Provisions
SAFETEA contains a number of provisions that are intended to improve freight
mobility by truck and rail modes. Section 9003 expands an existing federal loan and loan
guarantee program for rehabilitating and improving rail track from $3.5 billion to $35 billion
in total value of outstanding loans. Of the $35 billion total, $7 billion is reserved for smaller,
short-line railroads. 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. SAFETEA also contains funding for a
number of specific projects that are intended to improve freight mobility. Section 1301,
“Projects of National and Regional Significance,” funds several freight rail-related projects.
Examples include $100 million for Chicago area rail improvements, $100 million for a rail
tunnel under New York harbor, and $90 million to improve a rail line connecting Virginia
seaports with Ohio. Section 1302, the “National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement
Program,” funds improvements to highways heavily used by trucks, including $100 million
for constructing dedicated truck lanes on Interstate 81 in Virginia. SAFETEA also
reauthorizes, with modifications, the “Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program” (section
1303) which is intended to improve freight mobility at U.S. land border crossings. The
“Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act” (TIFIA), a federal loan financing
program, is reauthorized and the program’s eligibility language is amended to make it more
explicit that freight related projects, such as rail facilities, intermodal terminals, or access to
seaports are eligible under the program (see section 1601). Section 1306 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 located in Oregon, Georgia, California, Alaska, and
North Carolina to carry out the program. Finally, SAFETEA does not contain a provision
in the House passed version of H.R. 3 that would have mandated a truck fuel surcharge for
truckload carriers. (CRS Contact: John Frittelli)
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 126 areas with a
CRS-9

---

IB10138
08-12-05
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. An area’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),
which identifies major highway and transit projects an area will undertake, must demonstrate
conformity each time it is revised (i.e., at least every two years). To do so, it must show that
the projects to be undertaken will not lead to an increase in emissions that would delay
attainment of air quality standards. Highway and transit projects cannot receive federal funds
unless they can make this demonstration.
Transportation planners and highway builders in a number of areas have expressed
concern that conformity requirements could lead to the temporary suspension of funding for
major projects, as happened in the late 1990s in Atlanta. Many have argued that the
conformity requirements need to be made more flexible. As currently written, for example,
the Clean Air Act provides no authority for waivers of conformity, and only a limited set of
exempt projects (mostly safety-related or replacement and repair of existing transit facilities)
can be funded in areas where conformity has lapsed. 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.
As enacted, SAFETEA 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 bill also establishes
a 12-month grace period following a failure to demonstrate conformity before a lapse would
be declared. (CRS contact: Jim McCarthy)
Environmental Issues
During the reauthorization process, environmental issues garnered significant attention
from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state transportation
agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental groups). This
attention was due both to the impact that surface transportation projects can have on the
environment and the impact that compliance with environmental requirements can have on
project delivery. As a result of this concern, SAFETEA includes a variety of environmental
provisions. Generally, those provisions do one of the following: authorize funding to
eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize environmental impacts associated with surface
transportation programs or projects; or specify procedures required to be undertaken to
expedite compliance with certain environmental requirements. With regard to the latter,
SAFETEA includes provisions that change the procedures DOT will be required to follow
to comply with the Clean Air Act’s conformity requirements and the National Environmental
Policy Act’s (NEPA) environmental review requirements.
Another significant environmental-related provision in SAFETEA regards “Section
4(f)”1 requirements applicable to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and
1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 was originally set forth at 49 U.S.C.
(continued...)
CRS-10

---

IB10138
08-12-05
waterfowl refuges, and public or privately owned historic sites of national, state, or local
significance. Under current law, use of a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project is
prohibited unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to do otherwise. SAFETEA
amends the current law to allow for the use of a Section 4(f) resource if it is determined that
such use would result in “de minimis impacts” to that resource. For historic sites, it must be
determined that use of the resources will have no “adverse effect” on the site in accordance
with provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
Also, SAFETEA specifically exempts the Interstate System, segments of which are
approaching 50 years old, from consideration as a historic site pursuant to Section 4(f).
Two controversial environmental provisions were not included in the final bill. The
first was a provision in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 3 that would have required a two
percent set-aside of each state’s STP apportionment for a Highway Stormwater Discharge
Mitigation Program. The second is an exemption for aviation refueling trucks from
secondary containment requirements of the Clean Water Act’s Oil Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program (during the Senate debate of H.R. 3 and during
conference, it was widely speculated among some interested stakeholders that such a
provision would be included in the final bill). (CRS contact: Linda Luther)
Transit
The act provides $45.3 billion in guaranteed funding for transit for the five-year
authorization period FY2005-FY2009. Including FY2004 funding, the six-year total is
$52.6, a 46% increase over the $36 billion guaranteed in TEA-21.
The basic structure of the transit program was unchanged, but SAFETEA adds several
new programs and makes some changes to existing programs. New programs include a
Growing States and High-Density States Program, a New Freedom Program, and an
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program. The Growing States and
High-Density States Program provides additional funding to the Urbanized Area and Non-
Urbanized Area Formula Programs. Half of the funds are apportioned to states according to
population forecasts for 15 years beyond the date of the most recent Census, and are
distributed to both urban and rural areas within each recipient state according to the ratio
between urban and rural population within each state. The other half of the funding under
this program is distributed to urbanized areas in states with population densities over 370
persons per square mile.
The New Freedom Program 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.” The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public
Lands Program is a grant program to provide transportation alternatives to the private
1 (...continued)
§ 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).
CRS-11

---

IB10138
08-12-05
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. The Alternative
Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program will be exempt from the labor protection
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5333(b) that apply to other transit programs.
Changes to existing programs include the addition of new categories under the
Urbanized Areas Formula Program, the Non-Urbanized Areas Formula Program, and the
New Starts program, and the conversion of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
from a discretionary to a formula program. Under the Urbanized Areas Formula Program,
the new category added is for small (under 200,000 in population) transit-intensive urbanized
areas (areas that provide a level of transit service comparable to that provided by areas
between 200,000 and one million in population); these small transit-intensive areas will
receive funding from a set-aside in the formula program. Under the Non-Urbanized Areas
Formula Program, a new category is created for states with low population densities; 20%
of the program’s funding is set aside for this group of states. Also, Indian tribes will become
eligible recipients of funding under this program, and a portion of the funding is set aside for
that group. Under the New Starts Program, a Small Starts category is added, and the
exemption for projects under $25 million is eliminated. New Starts projects seeking less
than $75 million in federal funding (Small Starts) will be subject to a streamlined evaluation
process. Those projects seeking more than $75 million in federal funding will continue to
be subject to the full New Starts evaluation process. The federal share for New Starts
projects (80%) was not changed. (CRS contact: Randy Peterman)
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
SAFETEA continues the Recreational Trails Program, initially authorized under ISTEA
and expanded under TEA-21, as a state-administered, federal-aid grant program to help states
develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-motorized trail uses.
SAFETEA funds the RTP at $370 million over five years ($60 million for FYF2005, $70
million for FY2006, $75 million for FY2007, $80 million for FY2008, and $85 million for
FY2009). The measure also sets a level of $840,000 annually for administrative expenses.
SAFETEA amends the program to include permitting the federal share for recreational
trails projects to be determined in accordance with 23 U.S.C. §120(b); allowing recreational
trails funds to be used toward the federal share of certain other federal programs; permitting
pre-approval planning and environmental compliance costs be credited toward the non-
federal share of a project; operating educational programs to promote safety and
environmental protection as those objectives relate to the use of recreational trails; and
encouraging states to enter into contracts and agreements with youth service corps for
construction and maintenance of trails. (CRS Contact: Sandra L. Johnson)
CRS-12

---