.
Surface Transportation Program
Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Robert S. Kirk, Coordinator
Specialist in Transportation Policy
William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
December 1, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41512
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Summary
The law authorizing federal surface transportation programs expired at the end of FY2009, but
Congress has failed to enact a new authorization. Surface transportation programs continue to
operate on the basis of authority provided in extension legislation.
This situation should not be a surprise to those familiar with the history of the reauthorization
process. Especially during the last two decades, reauthorization has become a difficult
undertaking. This is primarily due to controversy over how and to whom federal-aid highway
funds should be distributed. The most recent law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59), was
enacted 22 months after previous legislation had originally expired. Previous reauthorization bills
also were enacted well behind schedule.
The most difficult issue to be considered during reauthorization is how to finance it. The highway
trust fund and the revenue sources that feed it have been a reliable mechanism for financing
highway and transit programs for five decades, but this is no longer the case. Fuel taxes, which
provide most of the money for surface transportation, are unlikely to provide a solid long-term
foundation for this desired growth, even if Congress were to raise them modestly. The choice for
policymakers, therefore, is to find new sources of income for an expanded program, or alternately
to settle for a smaller program that might look very different from the one currently in place.
One perennial subject of debate concerning the highway program is whether grants to individual
states are in line with the taxes those states’ motorists pay into the highway trust fund—the so-
called donor-donee issue. The use of earmarks and possible programmatic reorganization will
likely be prominent concerns in committee discussions of reauthorization. Specific programs,
such as the Highway Bridge Program, can be expected to receive extensive congressional
attention due to public concerns about the condition of the nation’s transportation infrastructure.
Congress also can be expected to look closely at transit program spending levels and priorities.
Freight issues have also been of growing importance in recent years and figure to get significantly
more attention as part of the reauthorization debate.
Congressional Research Service
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Program Structure ....................................................................................................................... 1
The Federal-Aid Highway Program....................................................................................... 1
Core (Apportioned) Programs ......................................................................................... 2
Allocated (Discretionary) Programs ................................................................................ 3
The Transit Program.............................................................................................................. 3
Other Transportation Programs.............................................................................................. 4
Surface Transportation Finance ................................................................................................... 4
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)......................... 6
The SAFETEA Legacy ............................................................................................................... 6
Donor/Donee ........................................................................................................................ 6
Earmarking ........................................................................................................................... 7
SAFETEA Funding............................................................................................................... 7
Issues Shaping the Current Reauthorization Debate ..................................................................... 8
Highway Issues......................................................................................................................... 10
Funding Equity Among States ............................................................................................. 10
Earmarking ......................................................................................................................... 12
Highway Programmatic Structure........................................................................................ 12
Bridge Policy ...................................................................................................................... 13
Transit Issues ............................................................................................................................ 14
Transit Funding Issues ........................................................................................................ 14
Federal Fuel Tax ........................................................................................................... 15
Federal Matching Share ................................................................................................ 15
PPPs and Innovative Financing ..................................................................................... 15
Transit Structural Issues ...................................................................................................... 15
Small Cities and Rural Areas......................................................................................... 16
Paratransit..................................................................................................................... 16
Transit Industry Productivity ............................................................................................... 17
Performance Measurement ............................................................................................ 17
Competition .................................................................................................................. 17
Work Rules ................................................................................................................... 17
Fares............................................................................................................................. 17
Congestion Pricing........................................................................................................ 17
Freight Issues............................................................................................................................ 18
Freight Transportation Planning .......................................................................................... 18
Freight Funding .................................................................................................................. 19
Targeting Freight Investment............................................................................................... 19
Highway Safety ........................................................................................................................ 21
Highway Safety Countermeasures ....................................................................................... 21
Driver Behavior Incentive Programs ............................................................................. 21
Highway Safety Issues in Reauthorization........................................................................... 22
Consolidating the Application Process........................................................................... 22
Increased Flexibility in the Use of Incentive Grant Funding........................................... 22
Switching from Incentives to Sanctions on States .......................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Linking Grants to Performance...................................................................................... 23
Motor Carrier Safety Issues....................................................................................................... 24
Research, Development, and Technology Deployment............................................................... 24
Environmental Issues ................................................................................................................ 25
Environmental Compliance ................................................................................................. 25
Reviews Under the National Environmental Policy Act ................................................. 25
“Section 4(f)” Requirements ......................................................................................... 26
The CMAQ Program..................................................................................................... 26
Conformity of Transportation Plans and State Implementation Plans (SIPs)......................... 27
Climate Considerations ....................................................................................................... 28
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles ......................................................... 28
Tables
Table 1. Core Program Authorizations for FY2009 ...................................................................... 3
Table 2. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations FY2005-FY2009 ..................................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 29
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 30
Congressional Research Service
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Introduction
Since the early 1980s, the periodic debate over reauthorization of federal surface transportation
programs has been primarily about money and its distribution. In each of the five reauthorizations
that took place during that period (1982, 1987, 1991, 1998, and 2005), the federal fuel taxes and
other sources of revenue dedicated to the highway trust fund were reliably providing the various
surface transportation programs with more money year after year.1 In 2009 this was not the case.
For the first time in decades, driving declined significantly, with a concomitant decrease in fuel
tax revenues. Going forward the program cannot count on new money from the familiar sources.
The law authorizing federal surface transportation programs expired at the end of FY2009, but
Congress has failed to enact a new authorization. Surface transportation programs continue to
operate on the basis of authority provided in continuing resolutions and extension legislation.2
Reauthorization has become a difficult undertaking in the last two decades. The most recent law,
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59) was enacted 22 months after previous legislation
had originally expired. The bill prior to SAFETEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178, as amended by P.L. 105-206) was also passed well after
previous legislative authority had originally expired. In fact, no surface transportation
authorization bill has been enacted on time since the 1970s. Over time, these bills have become
increasingly complex in their structure and in their politics as states, other program beneficiaries,
and related interest groups compete for constrained federal transportation resources.
SAFETEA has led to controversies over funding parity among the states (the so-called donor-
donee debate), its large number of earmarks (exemplified by the so-called “bridge to nowhere”),
and the funding problems ahead. Additionally, the structure of the surface transportation programs
under SAFETEA and its predecessors has made it difficult for the federal government to respond
to certain intermodal transportation needs. These issues could cause Congress to make significant
changes to the surface transportation programs in this reauthorization.
Program Structure
The surface transportation programs can be difficult to understand. The language of transportation
finance—contract authority, obligation limitations, and so on—is unfamiliar even to many who
have a basic understanding of the annual congressional budget process. Therefore, this report
begins with a discussion of how the surface transportation programs are structured and financed.
The Federal-Aid Highway Program
The modern federal-aid highway program dates to the 1956 enactment of legislation that provided
for the construction of the interstate highway system and created the highway trust fund to
1 John W. Fischer, Specialist in Transportation, retired, coordinated the original version of this report.
2 Surface transportation bills authorize a wide variety of federal transportation programs but are often referred to as
“highway” bills because the highway program constitutes a significant majority of the bill’s funding provisions.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
finance its construction.3 The program has been reauthorized and expanded on numerous
occasions during the last five and a half decades.
The federal highway program is fundamentally a state-run program. The state departments of
transportation, within the federal programmatic framework, largely determine where and on what
the money is spent (but have to comply with detailed federal planning guidelines as part of the
decision-making process). The states let the contracts and oversee the project development and
construction.
The flow of federal highway funds to the states to support this spending operates as follows. At
the beginning of each fiscal year each state department of transportation is notified of the federal
funds available to it to construct and maintain a designated system of roads known as the federal-
aid highway system. The states do not get the money up front. Instead, as work is completed the
states submit vouchers to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and are reimbursed.4
The federal-aid highway program can be viewed as an umbrella term for various separately
funded programs administered by FHWA. The programs, which are mostly for construction
project spending, receive their funding in two ways: they are either “apportioned” (formula)
programs or “allocated” (discretionary) programs.
Core (Apportioned) Programs
Most highway funding is reserved for six major programs, which are usually referred to as the
core programs (Table 1). They, along with the Equity Bonus Program, accounted for 82.5% of the
highway spending authorized for FY2005-FY2009 by SAFETEA. Each of these programs
provides funding for specific segments of the federal-aid highway system or other statutorily
enunciated activities, such as congestion relief projects. SAFETEA also combined many formerly
separate highway safety programs into one Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Although it does not provide direct spending for highways, the Equity Bonus Program, discussed
in more detail later in this report, provides additional funds for the six core programs. The equity
bonus is the largest single highway program in SAFETEA, accounting for approximately 20% of
all available funding. Funds for the core programs and the Equity Bonus Program are apportioned
to the states on an annual basis using formulas found in SAFETEA. As a result they are
sometimes referred to as the “apportioned” programs.
3 This section provides a brief overview of the organization of the federal-aid highway program. For greater detail see
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm.
4 The reimbursable nature of the federal-aid highway program is to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. No federal outlays
are made until work is done.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Table 1. Core Program Authorizations for FY2009
Program FY2009
SAFETEA
Authorization
National Highway System Program
$6,306,611,031
Interstate Maintenance Program
$5,119,399,081
Surface Transportation Program
$6,576,630,046
Highway Bridge Program
$4,457,421,829
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
$1,777,263,247
Highway Safety Improvement Program
$1,296,474,396
Equity Bonus Program
$9,093,265,575
Source: P.L. 109-59, also Financing Federal-Aid Highways, Appendix B. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/
financingfederalaid/appb.htm
In addition to the core programs there are a couple of smaller apportioned programs: Coordinated
Border Infrastructure Program; metropolitan planning; and the Recreational Trails Program.
SAFETEA also creates some formulas within formulas. This is most notably the case for the
Surface Transportation Program, which has a minimum set-aside for transportation enhancements
and a sub-state distribution formula that allocates funds within states.
Allocated (Discretionary) Programs
All remaining highway programs are subject to allocations that are based on criteria established in
highway authorization and appropriation laws and/or subject to congressional earmarking.
Although all of the programs in this category are smaller than the core programs, there are
nonetheless some programs with significant funding. The largest allocated program is for
congressionally mandated High Priority Projects (earmarks). This program, which has a five-year
authorization of $14.8 billion, is reserved for projects specifically designated in SAFETEA. Two
other large earmarked programs, Projects of National and Regional Significance and
Transportation Improvements, received $1.78 billion and $2.55 billion, respectively, over the
same period. Among the other allocated programs are the Federal Lands Program, the National
Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program,
the Bridge Discretionary Program, and the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Program. (CRS contacts: Bob Kirk, Will Mallett, and Randy Peterman)
The Transit Program
The federal transit program, administered by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), is a collection of individual programs, each with different
funding distribution mechanisms and spending eligibility rules. Of the $10.4 billion made
available for transit programs in FY2010, the Urbanized Area Formula Program accounted for
about 40% ($4.2 billion), and the Capital Investment Program accounted for 45% ($4.6 billion).
The Capital Investment Program has three elements: the Bus and Bus Facilities Capital Program,
which receives about 20% of all transit capital investment funds; the Rail Modernization
Program, which receives 40%; and the New Starts Program, which also has a 40% share.
The remaining 15% of federal transit monies ($1.6 billion) funds several other programs, such as
the Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Program (commonly referred to as the Rural Formula
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Program), the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program, the Job
Access and Reverse Commute Program, as well as state and metropolitan planning, research, and
FTA operations. (CRS Contact: Will Mallett)
Other Transportation Programs
There are a number of transportation activities that are outside of the highway and transit
programs that are authorized by surface transportation legislation. These include highway safety,
motor carrier safety, transportation research, hazardous materials transportation, some elements of
rail transportation, and transportation planning activities. Some of these programs are discussed in
more detail later in this report. (CRS Contacts: Randy Peterman and John Frittelli)
Surface Transportation Finance
Federal funding for surface transportation has historically been linked to the revenue stream
provided by the highway trust fund. The trust fund has two separate accounts—highways and
mass transit.5 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 (truck registrations, truck tires, etc.), the fuel taxes provide about 90% of the
income to the funds. The transit account receives 2.86 cents per gallon of fuel, and there is also a
0.1 cent per gallon fuel tax reserved for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, which is
not included in the surface transportation programs. The federal motor fuels tax has been
increased several times since its inception in 1956. At the time of the last increase, in 1993, some
of the receipts were deposited in the Treasury general fund, but since FY1998 these revenues
have been directed to the highway trust fund.
Other changes in recent years have modestly increased trust fund revenues. The American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357) provided the trust fund with additional future income by
changing elements of federal gasohol taxation. At the time, there were estimates that these
changes could provide the trust fund with an additional $4 billion per year. SAFETEA also
included a number of tax and other changes in its finance title. The revenue increases in this title
were viewed as quite modest and were derived mostly from cutting back on tax fraud and by
transferring some Treasury general fund revenues associated with transportation-related activities
to the trust fund. It was believed at the time of passage that the changes enacted in SAFETEA,
combined with the changes in gasohol legislation enacted in 2004 and enhanced by expected
economic growth, would be sufficient to finance the act through FY2009.
The financial estimates associated with SAFETEA have proved to be overly optimistic. The
highway account has already required three transfers from the general fund totaling $29.7
billion,6 without which FHWA might not have been able to pay states for work they completed.7
In late FY2008, $8 billion was transferred to carry the highway account into the 2009 fiscal year
(P.L. 110-318, September 15, 2008). In FY2009 the transfer was $7 billion (P.L. 111-46, August
5 The “highway account” is a term of convenience. In legislation it is referred to as the “Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account).”
6 The third rescue package, P.L. 111-147, also transferred $4.8 billion to the mass transit account.
7 Transportation Weekly, “DOT Prepares for Next Highway Trust Fund Default,” May 20, 2009. p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
7, 2009). The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148, March 18, 2010)
transferred $14.7 billion more to the highway account.
Historically, the trust fund-based revenue collection system was a reliably growing source of
funding for surface transportation, as the trust funds collected more than was been expended to
implement the program defined by Congress. This situation has changed under SAFETEA as
spending on highways and transit has exceeded both highway and transit account revenues on a
regular basis. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its spring FY2009 baseline calculation,
showed that, from FY2007 to FY2009, outlays from the highway account exceeded receipts in
each fiscal year. CBO’s summer 2010 baseline estimate projected a slight surplus for FY2010,
with outlays of $32.5 billion against $32.7 billion in revenues.8 CBO projects the fund to slip
back into deficit in FY2011, with outlays of $37.4 billion and revenues of $34 billion.
Congress provided another $14.7 billion transfer from the general fund on March 18, 2010, and
CBO now projects that the balance in the highway account will remain above zero through
FY2013. However the gap between tax revenues and outlays remains through FY2020. CBO
projects that the mass transit account, which received a $4.8 billion general fund transfer in
FY2010, will also remain above zero through FY2013.9
The recent declines in motor fuel tax receipts are unprecedented. Even during the oil shocks of
the 1970s, driving, as measured by vehicle miles traveled, returned fairly quickly to the 2%
average annual growth rate experienced since the 1960s. The same thing has not happened since
2007, even though fuel prices fell dramatically from their highs of around $4 per gallon in mid-
2008, as the sluggish economy continues to depress freight, leisure travel, and commutes to work.
As a rule of thumb, adding a penny to the federal fuels tax provides the trust fund with between
$1.6 and $1.8 billion in new revenues. Without an increase in the existing fuel taxes, the mostly
fuel-based trust fund taxation system will not be able to support increased surface transportation
spending over the next few years. The immediate choice for policymakers, therefore, is to find
new sources of revenue for the trust fund, or alternately, to settle for a smaller surface
transportation program that might look very different than the one currently in place.
However Congress chooses to address the short-term funding issue, it will need to address the
viability of the trust fund mechanism over the longer term. In recent years, Congress has acted to
mandate higher fuel-economy standards for gasoline-powered cars and to encourage development
of hybrid and battery-powered vehicles. As these more fuel-efficient vehicles come to make up a
larger share of the U.S. vehicle fleet, consumption of motor fuels may decline even if driving
increases. If it wishes to maintain or increase the size of the surface transportation programs,
Congress may need to explore alternatives to the motor fuels tax as possible sources of funding.
The difficult outlook for motor fuel tax revenues clouds the outlook for surface transportation
reauthorization. In the past, steady revenue growth enabled Congress to meet the competing
demands for funding in each reauthorization. TEA21 benefitted from a run-up in fuel usage
during the boom years of the late 1990s that was at least partially the result of the popularity of
sport utility vehicles during the period. SAFETEA did not have quite the same financial backing,
but the authors of the act were nonetheless able to find sufficient new revenues to expand the
8 Information supplied by CBO as part of its summer FY2010 Baseline, August 19, 2010. The revenue figure for
FY2010 does not include the $14.7 billion in general fund transfers made that year.
9 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
programs. The next reauthorization bill, as the above discussion indicates, lacks a ready source of
cash to support expansion—a situation that will define the upcoming legislative debate much
more than issues such as program structure and infrastructure needs.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L.
111-5)
The ARRA contained significant funding for activities normally funded through federal surface
transportation legislation. It provided $27.5 billion for federal-aid highways, $8.4 billion for
public transit, $1.5 billion for a new Surface Transportation Discretionary Grant Program, and $8
billion for high-speed rail. All money provided by the ARRA is from the general fund and carries
no requirement for state or local matching funds. This one-time infusion represented a bit less
than one year’s funding for the existing surface transportation programs, although it was
distributed differently. High speed rail, for example, is a very small program under SAFETA, but
received a large share of funds in the ARRA. By giving states an additional source of surface
transportation funding, the ARRA may have made the need for reauthorization of SAFETEA
somewhat less immediate.
The SAFETEA Legacy
In public, the SAFETEA debate focused on the donor/donee issue and a later, more public,
controversy over earmarking. The actual process of crafting the law, however, was complicated
by the political need to satisfy the large number of interest groups supporting specific programs,
most of which are funded from the highway trust fund but do not involve building highways.
Donor/Donee
The donor/donee debate concerns the efforts of individual states to achieve or maintain as large a
share of the total distribution federal highway funds as possible. A donor state is one whose
highway users pay more in revenues to the trust fund highway account than it receives in federal
highway assistance. Conversely, a donee state receives more in assistance than it contributes to
the trust fund. The debate is generally driven by representatives of donor states, who frame their
arguments in terms of “equity” in the distribution of federal highway funds. The donor/donee
state distinction, however, is far less straightforward than it appears. Federal fuel taxes are not
actually collected at the state level, so determining whether a state is a donor or a donee requires a
complicated mechanism that attributes fuel usage and associated revenues to individual states.10
In the last three surface transportation authorization bills, the donor/donee issue was resolved
only by the availability of more money and the creation of a process to distribute it. In
SAFETEA, this process, called the Equity Bonus Program, is the largest single highway program.
For FY2008 and FY2009 SAFETEA promises that each state will receive a funding share of the
major highway program allocations equal to at least 92% of the revenue share its highway users
pay into the highway trust fund, an increase from the 90.5% promised under the prior legislation,
10 For a detailed discussion of the Donor/Donee debate see CRS Report RL31735, Federal-Aid Highway Program:
“Donor-Donee” State Issues, by Robert S. Kirk, available upon request.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
TEA-21. The Equity Bonus Program, however, is so complicated that effectiveness of the
guarantee is unclear. For FY2010 Congress based the distribution to the six core formula
programs on their FY2009 totals. There was no equity bonus calculation for FY2010.
The transfer of $29.7 billion in general fund revenues to the highway account complicates the
donor-donee framework as a basis for analyzing transportation funding. This is because payments
into the general fund have nothing to do with highway tax payments but, because of the transfers,
do support the flow of funds to the highway programs. For FY2007 through FY2009 each of the
50 states received more federal highway funding than it contributed to the highway account.
Earmarking
When the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240)
passed in 1991 it included 548 individual highway earmarks with a total value of $6.2 billion. In
1998, TEA21 incorporated 1,883 highway earmarks adding up to $9.6 billion. In SAFETEA,
earmarking expanded exponentially, with over 5,600 earmarks accounting for $21.7 billion in the
highway title of the act alone. With a few highly publicized exceptions, there was very little
debate about the benefits or drawbacks of the individual earmarks in the bill.
Following the 2010 congressional elections, proposals to abolish the earmarking of individual
projects have received increased interest. An earmark-free reauthorization could increase the
attention given to program structure, funding formulas, and eligibility criteria, as Members
attempt to assure the flow of transportation funds to their congressional districts or states.
SAFETEA Funding
SAFETEA provided $286.4 billion in guaranteed spending authority for the six-year period
FY2004-FY2009. This was a significant nominal increase over the level in TEA-21, which
provided $218 billion over the six-year period FY1998-2003. In reality, however, SAFETEA was
barely a five-year bill by the time of its passage late in FY2005. A more useful representation of
SAFETEA is that it provided $244 billion in spending authority from FY2005 through FY2009.
(CRS contacts: Bob Kirk and Will Mallett)
Table 2 shows that all major programs affected by the legislation received significant new
funding (the exempt obligation category is provided for equity bonus and emergency funding
purposes and does not reflect a program per se). Spending increased in each year and total
spending in FY2009 was almost 23% higher than spending in FY2005.11 (CRS contacts: Bob
Kirk and Will Mallett)
11 A summary of funding for major programs and activities is at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Table 2. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations FY2005-FY2009
($ billions)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Total
Highway Obligation
Limitation
34.422 36.032 38.244 39.585 41.200 189.484
Exempt Highway
Obligations
0.739 0.739 0.739 0.739 0.739 3.695
Highway Safety and
Motor Carrier Safety
0.742 1.189 1.217 1.239 1.270 5.656
Obligations
Mass Transit
Obligations
7.646 8.623 8.975 9.731 10.338 45.313
Totals
43.549 46.583 49.175 51.294 53.547 244.148
Source: P.L. 109-59, see also http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm for highway amounts and for
transit see http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_6536.html.
Issues Shaping the Current Reauthorization Debate
The reauthorization process will involve detailed consideration of the way in which surface
transportation programs are funded, organized, and managed. A handful of fundamental issues,
however, will influence the way in which the eventual legislation is constructed.
• National goals and purposes. Today’s surface transportation programs have
their origins in the creation of the interstate highway program (1956) and the
collapse of public transit systems (early 1960s). In the intervening decades, it has
become difficult to discern how federal surface transportation spending relates to
national needs, as the vast majority of the funding is granted to states and
localities based not on maximizing the national return on transportation
investment, but as an entitlement to be spent largely as state and, to a lesser
extent, local authorities think best. Changing the existing decision-making
process, however, could involve a transfer of authority from state and local
authorities to the federal government.
• Productivity and performance management. With the operation of surface
transportation programs left largely to states and localities, federal officials often
have a poor understanding of the efficiency and effectiveness with which federal
funds are being used. States and localities have, in many cases, very robust
processes in place to measure and analyze their programs.12 However, these
mechanisms are largely internal, and their diversity makes it difficult to compare
performance across the country. Federal performance standards might make such
comparisons easier, potentially allowing the federal government to direct funding
to the state and local governments with the most efficient and effective programs.
12 For example: Poister, Theodore H. “Performance Measurement in Transportation: State of the Practice” Resource
Paper. Transportation Research Board. Conference Proceedings 36. Washington, D.C. p. 81-98. Available at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP36.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Once imposed, however, such measures might be “gamed” by state and local
officials in ways that negate their value. Even if Congress should decide to
enforce performance measures by funding penalties, it is possible that the effect
of such penalties would be counteracted by funding guarantees in the bill.
• Structural issues. SAFETEA created two commissions to study the structure and
the financing imperatives of the surface transportation programs. One of these,
the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission,
called for a major reorganization of the federal surface transportation programs
into 10 new program areas, often across existing programmatic modal
boundaries.13 A report issued by the George W. Bush Administration entitled
“Refocus, Reform, Renew: A New Transportation Approach for America,”
included several proposals for new and reorganized surface transportation
programs, with a heavy emphasis on expanding the role of market forces and the
private sector in the provision of surface transportation infrastructure.14
Numerous think tanks, research organizations, and transportation groups have
called for organizational changes in the way federal surface transportation
programs are administered.15
• Revenue issues. The two commissions established in SAFETEA both
recommended increases in the motor fuel tax to meet the immediate funding
needs of surface transportation programs. Both urged an eventual shift to charges
based on vehicle miles traveled as a longer-term funding source. VMT charges
represent one type of user fee, but alternatives such as tolls and weight-distance
taxes, which are already imposed in some instances on trucks, also might be
employed to force road users to pay the costs of surface transportation
programs.16
• Alternative funding mechanisms. Public-private partnerships, in which private
companies take responsibility for construction, operation, and/or maintenance of
particular transportation projects in return for a flow of payments from
government agencies or project users, have been widely encouraged as a means
of decreasing reliance on the trust fund.17 Other proposals for expanding
alternative funding include federal grants or loans to state infrastructure banks;
increased authority to lend to local agencies under the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); increased reliance on Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (known as GARVEE Bonds) and the private
activity bonds authorized by SAFETEA; and creation of a national infrastructure
13 http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/.
14 http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov/reform/reformproposal08.pdf.
15 Financing Transportation in the 21st Century: a Report of the Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation Finance,
the National Academy of Public Administration (Washington, 2008), 95 p. The Transportation Challenge: Moving the
U.S. Economy, (Washington, National Chamber Foundation, 2008), 116 p. ARTBA Recommendations for SAFETEA-
LU Reauthorization (Washington, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, 2007), 72 p. Performance
Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2009). A Bridge to Somewhere
(Brookings Institution, 2008). The Route to Reform, Transportation for America. AASHTO Authorization Policy
(produced as a series of topic papers) (October 2008). 230 p.
16 See CRS Report R41490, Surface Transportation Funding and Finance, by John W. Fischer, Robert S. Kirk, and
William J. Mallett.
17 Most observers believe that tolling and PPPs combined can only provide from 5% to 10% of system needs.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
bank, as proposed by the Obama Administration in its FY2010 and FY2011
budgets.
• Reducing program size. If Congress chooses not to make changes that would
increase the flow of revenue into the highway trust fund, it will face a choice
between continuing to authorize annual general fund expenditures for surface
transportation and reducing the programs’ size. It could shift some programs
currently funded by the highway trust fund, such as the Appalachian Roads
Program, to general fund status. It might reduce matching ratios (90:10 for
interstates, 80:20 for most other roads, varying proportions for transit projects) in
order to spread the available federal funds more broadly. More dramatically, it
could limit surface transportation funding to programs that it determines fulfill
clear national needs, and devolve other responsibilities to the states. (CRS
contacts: Bob Kirk and Will Mallett)
Highway Issues
Funding Equity Among States
The donor-donee debate has historically been one of the major hurdles that authorizers must
overcome during the periodic reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs. The last
several reauthorizations have resolved the disagreements over equity by creating a separate
arrangement, currently known as the Equity Bonus Program, under which nearly all states are
entitled to highway funding above and beyond that provided for in the funding formulas in
specific programs. Under the Equity Bonus Program, FHWA is directed to allocate sufficient
funds to ensure that each state receives a minimum share return on its highway payments—92%
in FY2008 and FY2009. The calculation is more complicated than this figure suggests, as certain
surface transportation programs are not included.
The Equity Bonus Program includes a number of “hold harmless” provisions to guarantee
minimum state shares of funding, based on certain thresholds. These thresholds include state
population, population density, highway fatality rates, median household income, and state fuel
tax rates. In part, these criteria appear to have been devised to assure the bill would get at least 60
votes in the Senate. The Equity Bonus Program also sets an annual percentage floor, relative to a
state’s TEA-21 average apportionment, beneath which no state can fall. The money is distributed
to the states by increasing the amounts apportioned to the core formula programs.
There was no equity bonus calculation for FY2010. The FY2010 distributions were simply based
on FY2009 overall funding distributions.
The distribution of the equity bonus had a number of unanticipated consequences. One of these is
its interaction with High Priority Program earmarks used by Members of Congress to define their
project priorities through the authorization process to their state DOTs. High Priority Program
earmarks do not add significant amounts of money to a state’s share of highway spending,
because states whose earmarks are small tend to receive relatively larger equity bonus
distributions than states that receive relatively large earmarks. This means that the total amount
received by a state tends to be roughly the same whether or not it receives a large dollar total of
earmarks. A corollary of this situation is that the more of a state’s total funding is derived from
High Priority Program earmarks, the less is ultimately available to the state for the federal-aid
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
highway core formula programs, on which state departments of transportation depend to fulfill
their state transportation plans.
The equity bonus distribution also negates the imposition of some penalties that are designed to
discourage certain activities of the states. For example, a state that transfers some of its Highway
Bridge Program funds to other programs is penalized by having its deficient bridge cost-to-repair
total reduced a like amount in the next year’s formula calculation. The purpose of this was to
encourage states to reserve their Highway Bridge Program funds for bridges. However, the equity
bonus distribution in effect gives back what the penalty takes away.18 The equity bonus overlay
combined with the extensive ability given states to transfer funds across programs may undercut
the effectiveness of the programmatic structure in achieving the national surface transportation
goals specified by Congress.
Since 1982 the equity provisions in surface transportation have been changed many times, and
there is a high probability that changes will be discussed in the current reauthorization. Among
the possible changes are:
• Increasing the share of its highway tax revenue that is guaranteed to each state
above the current 92% level. However, the closer the guaranteed percentage
comes to 100% of the total program the more difficult an increase becomes.
Bringing the percentage guarantee closer to 100% would probably require a
weakening of some of the “hold harmless” provisions that protect certain donee
states from losing share. The hold harmless provisions exist primarily due to the
practical politics of getting authorization bills through both houses of Congress,
so eliminating them may raise political concerns.
• Expanding the scope of the equity provisions. This would require a growth in
program size to fund a larger equity overlay unless the underlying core program
formulas were rewritten to bring the initial program apportionments more into
line with the goals of an increased percentage return guarantee.
• Eliminating the counteracting impact of the equity bonus distribution on the
highways program penalty provisions. This could be accomplished by imposing
the penalties after rather than before the distribution of the equity bonus funding.
However, this could affect some states’ guaranteed percentage shares.
• Eliminating the equity provision altogether and allowing program formulas to
determine the distribution of highway funds to the states. One way of doing this
would be to modify the core formula programs so that they are all entirely
weighted at or near 100% on states’ annual contributions to the highway account.
Most donee states would probably oppose such a change.
• Providing an equity guarantee for transit funding. Roughly 80% of the Federal
Transit Administration’s budget comes from the fuel taxes paid by highway
users. This funding could also be subject to a rate-of-return guarantee. While
such a scenario might be attractive to some donor states not already receiving
significant transit assistance, there are other donor states which might not benefit
from a transit equity distribution. Further, any inclusion of transit in an equity
18 Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable
Program, “GAO-08-1043,” (Washington, GAO, 2008), p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
bonus scenario is likely to be opposed by heavily urbanized states and states with
large transit systems.
The equity debate is complicated by the fact that significant amounts of general fund money have
been transferred to the highway trust fund. Although much of transferred funding reflects interest
payments on the trust fund’s unexpended balances, such interest not paid directly by highway
user fees. Other funds have been transferred to the highway trust fund for a variety of reasons,
such as compensation for lower ethanol tax rates. Further transfers may be necessary in the years
ahead. The larger the general fund share of federal highway spending, the harder it is to argue that
states should get a return based on their highway users’ payments, raising the question of whether
the Equity Bonus Program is an appropriate source of funding. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk)
Earmarking
Large-scale earmarking was a prominent and controversial feature of SAFETEA. Earmarking has
not, however, always been a significant feature of surface transportation bills. Until the late
1980s, earmarks amounted to about 1% of authorized federal-aid highway spending.19 By way of
comparison, SAFETEA earmarked almost $22 billion or roughly 11% of the $199.5 billion
highway construction title of the bill. A 2007 DOT report found that earmarking can reduce the
states’ core transportation programs, lead to funding of low-priority projects ahead of higher
priority, non-earmarked projects, and result in funding of projects that do not meet eligibility
requirements.20
Following the 2010 congressional elections, proposals to abolish the earmarking of special
projects have received increased interest. Certain transportation groups which were largely silent
on this issue during the last reauthorization debate are now taking the position that earmarking
needs to be controlled and limited.21 An earmark-free reauthorization could increase the attention
given to program structure, funding formulas, and eligibility criteria, as Members attempt to
assure the flow of transportation funds to their congressional districts or states without
earmarking. (CRS contacts: Bob Kirk, Will Mallett, and Randy Peterman)
Highway Programmatic Structure
According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission
established under SAFETEA, the federal government has 108 separate surface transportation
programs.22 Of these, 62 involve highways, 20 concern transit, and the remainder are scattered
among other activities. The commission recommended combining all of these programs into 10
broad intermodal programs. It may be difficult, however, for Congress to consolidate programs to
that extent. There are numerous potential and competing organizing rationales, and each existing
19 “In-Depth Analysis: Earmarked Highway Projects: Their History, Their Nature and Their Role in Highway
Legislation,” Transportation Weekly, April 10, 2002, 3. See also A Primer on Lobbyists, Earmarks, and Congressional
Reform, By Ronald D. Utt, (Washington: Heritage Foundation), Backgrounder no. 1924, 2006, 21 p. For a discussion
of spending earmark definition see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark
Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter.
20 Department of Transportation, Review of Congressional Earmarks Within Department of Transportation Programs,
“Report no. AV-2007-066,” 2007, 1-31.
21 http://www.transportation.org/sites/policy_docs/docs/viii.pdf.
22 Surface Commission. p. 15. found at http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/pdf/volume_1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
program has specific stakeholders whose support for the overall surface transportation program is
associated with the continuation of the mission the program was created to carry out.
The federal-aid highway program gives states a great deal of control over the selection, planning,
and construction of federally funded highway projects. This flexibility might, for example, allow
a state to shift money from the Highway Bridge Program to the Surface Transportation Program,
even though it might have unmet needs in the original program area. This flexibility also has
allowed transfers between highway and mass transit programs. Programmatic restructuring that
restricts state flexibility could be a source of contention during the reauthorization process.
Congress may also wish to consider project eligibility changes. For example, broadening project
eligibility within the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
could allow more projects designed to increase road capacity on the grounds that increased
capacity would improve traffic flow in congested areas. There may be interest in creation of new
programs, such as a program to address bottlenecks in major freight corridors.
Rather than refining or restructuring the various formula programs within the highway program,
Congress might opt to replace the existing formula programs with block grants provided directly
to the states. This might reduce federal administrative overhead, although it could weaken the
ability of Congress to set spending priorities consistent with its determination of national needs.
Bridge Policy
In December 2009, roughly 71,000 bridges were designated by FHWA as “structurally
deficient.”23 The Highway Bridge Program is the primary federal program to fund the
replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Funds are
apportioned to the states by formula based on each state’s relative share of the total cost to repair
or replace deficient highway bridges. Each state is guaranteed at least 0.25% of total program
allocation, and no state may receive an allocation greater than 10%. The federal share is 80%,
except that for interstate highway system bridges the federal share rises to 90%.
If Congress chooses to retain a distinct bridge program, the rate of repair and replacement of
deficient bridges and the funding needed to support any proposed acceleration of that rate would
be major issues. The authorizing committees may hear proposals to limit the use of Highway
Bridge Program funds for spending on non-federal-aid highway system bridges and to change
bridge inspection standards. There are also concerns that linking funding to a state’s number of
deficient bridges creates a perverse incentive for states to keep their deficiency rates high. A GAO
report found that the program lacks focus, performance measures, and sustainability.24 (CRS
Contacts: Bob Kirk and Will Mallett)
23 See CRS Report RL34127, Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role, by Robert S. Kirk and William
J. Mallett.
24 Government Accountability Office, Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed
for a More Focused and Sustainable Program, (September 2008), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d081043.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Transit Issues
The federal government provides support for transit agencies’ capital investments and operating
costs. Although federal transit programs direct most funding to capital investment, transit
agencies have some discretion over the use of their federal funds among capital and operating
purposes. The mass transit account of the highway trust fund is the source of approximately 80%
of federal transit program monies, with the remaining 20% drawn from the general fund of the
U.S. Treasury. Although the transit account is in somewhat better financial shape than the
highway account, it is also projected to go into deficit within a few years. Despite uncertainty
surrounding this projection, it is clear that current revenue into the transit account will not sustain
Federal Transit Administration programs and activities at current levels through another four- to
six-year authorization period. Within this context, there are both funding and programmatic issues
that could arise during reauthorization.25
The prospect of constrained federal transit funding is occurring in conjunction with financial
problems in the transit industry itself. The immediate causes are flat or declining government
assistance at the state and local levels due to budget conditions and lower patronage due to a high
unemployment rate. But financial problems in public transit are a long-term issue, primarily
caused by declining transit system productivity, that results in an increasing requirement for
government support from all levels of government. Fares and other operating revenue were only
26% of capital and operating funding sources in 2008. For that reason, Congress may want to
consider whether modifications in the federal transit program might boost ridership at a lower
cost per rider to the government.
Transit Funding Issues
How much to spend overall on transit is the main issue in the upcoming reauthorization. Various
interest groups have argued that America is under-investing in transportation infrastructure,
including public transit infrastructure, and called for a significant increase in federal
infrastructure investment.26 Both DOT and the congressionally created Surface Commission have
estimated that the capital cost to maintain and improve transit systems in the United States is
substantially more than is being currently spent on transit systems by all levels of government.27
Because many transit agencies currently face severe budget problems, there also have been calls
for more federal support of operating expenses.28
Support for increased federal spending on transit is by no means unanimous. The growth in transit
capacity has outpaced the growth in ridership at the national level, and the physical condition of
25 See CRS Report RL34171, Public Transit Program Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, by William J.
Mallett; and CRS Report RL34183, Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization, by William J. Mallett.
26For example, American Society of Civil Engineers, “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure 2005”; and National
Chamber Foundation, Future Highway and Public Transportation Financing, Executive Summary (Washington, DC,
2005).
27 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 2008
Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, DC, 2009); and
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Transportation for Tomorrow (Washington,
DC, 2007).
28 Alec MacGillis, “Legislation Fuels Rift in World of Mass Transit,” Washington Post, June 11, 2010, p. A16;
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
transit systems has generally improved over the past decade. Nor is there agreement on the proper
level of transit spending relative to highway spending; while transit receives approximately 14%
of federal highway and transit capital expenditure, only about 2% of all trips and 5% of
commuting trips are made by this mode. Given that a significant proportion of federal transit
funding, roughly 80%, comes from taxes paid by highway users, the relationship between
highway outlays and transit outlays is a sensitive issue.
Federal Fuel Tax
One way to increase transit funding would be increase the proportion of funds coming from the
general fund. An alternative would be to raise the federal fuels tax and dedicate 20% of any
increase to the transit account, as has been the case since 1983. Calculations based on CBO
projections indicate the fuel tax would need to be raised by 10 cents per gallon (with 2 cents per
gallon dedicated to the transit account) to close the gap between revenue and expenditures in the
transit account for FY2011, assuming no growth in the program.29
Federal Matching Share
A potential way to make the federal transit dollar stretch further would be to lower the federal
matching share. A larger local match might help ensure that only the most important projects are
supported by state and local officials. On the other hand, if the federal government provides a
much lower share of the cost of transit projects than of highway projects, state and local decision-
makers might favor highway projects regardless of the potential demand for public transit.30
PPPs and Innovative Financing
SAFETEA provides limited support for private participation in developing transit projects
through public-private partnerships (PPPs) and other types of innovative financing.31 In
reauthorization, Congress likely will consider ways to encourage a larger role for the private
sector. While some PPPs have been highly successful, their overall contribution to meeting transit
financing needs is likely to be relatively small, as the possibilities for generating new revenue
streams from transit operations are limited to situations in which new services encourage land
development near transit stations. (PPPs may be more readily used for roads, bridges, and tunnels
on which vehicle tolls will provide a source of new revenue, but even then it may be unrealistic to
expect private funding to supply more than 5% - 10% of needed funds).
Transit Structural Issues
Congressional discussion of possible ways of restructuring federal public transit programs is
likely to explore alternatives to the present configuration of programs. One way to reorder federal
priorities would be to focus more resources on major capital investment for the rehabilitation and
29 CRS calculation based on Highway Trust Fund projections provided by the Congressional Budget Office, August 19,
2010.
30 In certain circumstances, especially in the new starts program, the federal share can be lower.
31 See CRS Report RL34567, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Highway and Transit Infrastructure Provision, by
William J. Mallett.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
expansion of transit service in places that are best served by this mode, primarily the densely
populated parts of large and often heavily congested cities. This might entail expansion of the
programs that make up the transit capital investment program—the New Starts Program, the Rail
Modernization Program, and the Bus and Bus Facilities Capital Program—while cutting back on
formula grants that are spread more broadly and go for smaller and more routine types of
expenses. This change would likely result in a concentration of resources in a few large cities
where transit usage is relatively high, an effect that has obvious potential political problems.
Alternatively, Congress may decide that the era of retrofitting large and medium-sized cities with
new transit rail systems is largely over, and that resources should now go to supporting and
rehabilitating existing systems. This could entail a reduction in spending on the New Starts
Program, currently about 18% of the federal transit program, and more support for the other
capital programs and the formula grants programs. The effect of these changes on the distribution
of funds would depend on the shares of funds dedicated to the Rail Modernization Program,
which affects relatively few cities, and to buses and formula programs, which provide support in
a much larger number of localities.
A third way to restructure the federal transit program would be to eliminate the capital programs
altogether, to be replaced with a block grant that might be distributed based on transit ridership or
population. This would allow state and local governments to decide how best to allocate transit
funding support among existing and new services. Funds distributed according to transit ridership
would reward areas that commit their own resources to providing transit service. The distribution
of funding in this way would depend on how this new program is structured, but might encourage
states and localities to react to the changes by aggressively promoting transit ridership.
A fourth alternative would be to fold most of the transit programs into a broader “metropolitan
mobility” program that would distribute federal surface transportation funding to large urban
areas, say those of one million people or more, on a mode-neutral basis. It would then be up to
states and localities to decide how to allocate the money to transit and highway infrastructure.
Small Cities and Rural Areas
Because most transit ridership is concentrated in a few large cities, most formula funding goes to
the largest urbanized areas. Whether and how much the federal government should assist small
city and rural mass transit systems may be an issue in the current reauthorization.
Paratransit
The demand for and cost of paratransit has grown rapidly over the past two decades, placing
added pressure on state and local government transit budgets. Paratransit is typically provided by
vans rather than buses and serves passengers with limited physical mobility. A number of federal
transit programs exist to help states and localities provide paratransit service, and funding is also
available from the federal government outside the transit program. Nevertheless, transit agencies
are likely to ask for more federal money for paratransit in reauthorization. One consideration,
given the social service nature of paratransit services and their generally poor fit with regular bus
and rail services, is whether FTA should administer paratransit funding at all.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Transit Industry Productivity
Regardless of whether federal transit funding is tightly constrained or not, but especially if it is,
Congress may want to consider a number of options for encouraging transit industry productivity.
Performance Measurement
As noted earlier, there have been many proposals for incorporating performance measures as a
central tenet in the distribution of surface transportation program funds. This includes federal
transit program funds. The main reason for using performance measurement incentives would be
to reward transit agencies for providing more and better service per dollar of public support.
Competition
In most cases, public transit service is a monopoly; even where transit vehicles are operated and
maintained by private companies, a local transit agency almost always selects and subsidizes a
single operator for that purpose. Reauthorization could include language encouraging more
competition in the provision of transit service. This might entail requiring transit agencies to
competitively bid transit service provision and/or to allow private operators to provide new
services to compete with public transit agencies. Many of the barriers to competition are in state
or local laws and regulations that give monopoly power to regional transportation agencies, and it
would be possible to make the elimination of these barriers a condition of federal funding. One
consideration is the possibility that competition could allow private operators to “cherry pick”
routes and services, operating profitable routes at rush hour while leaving public agencies to
sustain services on less dense routes or at less popular times.
Work Rules
Some advocate loosening work rules in the transit industry in an effort to boost productivity. This
might, for example, include renegotiating union contracts that often do not allow transit agencies
to employ part-time workers or to require split shifts to cover rush-hour demand peaks. It might
also include changes in federal labor protections in the transit sector, originally established in
Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365).
Fares
Another potential way of reducing the need for public assistance is to increase fares to more
accurately reflect the cost of providing a particular service. This occurs at present with some
services, such as the distance-based fares on the Washington, DC Metro, but most transit systems
charge a flat fare regardless of distance or time of day. The reauthorization might encourage
transit systems to collect variable fares, particularly as newer electronic fare payment technology
makes it relatively easy to do so.
Congestion Pricing
Pricing automobile use, particularly in congested periods, might reduce the need for government
assistance to public transit. One way to do this is to institute highway tolls, particularly ones that
vary based on traffic levels. This might encourage some drivers to switch to transit and may
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
provide a source of funds to enhance transit service. Such road pricing schemes usually make the
most sense in severely congested regions where good transit options exist. Congress way want to
consider whether congested metropolitan areas should adopt comprehensive congestion
management schemes that incorporate highway pricing and transit. (CRS Contact: Will Mallett)
Freight Issues
Up until the world economy began to slow late in 2007, the immediate concern of freight carriers
and shippers was congestion. Major ports and land gateways experienced a notable run-up in
import volumes in the early years of the last decade, and certain highway segments had persistent
traffic bottlenecks. Congestion frustrates a freight carrier’s ability to provide reliable scheduling.
Unreliability is costly because it requires shippers to carry buffer stock, reducing an efficient
“just-in-time” logistics strategy to a “just-in-case” strategy. The concern for the capacity of the
system to keep pace with rising freight volumes is borne out by a steady rise in freight tonnage
prior to 2008. From 1997 to 2007, truck ton-miles increased by 19% while rail ton-miles
increased by 31%.32 These modes are also using their respective infrastructure more intensively.
Between 1980 and 2007, truck travel grew by 98% while lane miles of public roads increased by
only 5% and railroad tons originated increased by 30% while the miles of railroad track decreased
by 40%. DOT projects that total tons transported will grow 73% by 2035.33
Freight Transportation Planning
Doubts about whether the nation’s transportation infrastructure will keep pace with the projected
growth in freight traffic have led to calls for stronger federal leadership in developing a
systematic approach to addressing freight transportation needs. A national transportation plan that
identifies key freight corridors and gives priority to funding these corridors would be a departure
from the current planning process, which relies heavily on state departments of transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations to plan and select which transportation projects to fund in
their jurisdictions. Local action to eliminate a freight bottleneck may merely relocate it to another
community, without reducing the unpredictability of travel time across an intermodal network
that is North American in scope.34
Unlike commuter trips, which generally begin and end within a metropolitan area, freight trip
lengths often exceed the jurisdiction of a single metropolitan planning organization or even a
state. Thus, these planning institutions have difficulty taking a corridor or an “end-to-end”
approach in addressing freight improvements. They also may have a disincentive to do so
because, while they bear the costs of improvements, the economic benefits may accrue nationally.
Some hub cities have a preponderance of freight that is merely passing through rather than
serving local producers or retailers. Land border ports of entry, gateway seaports, and interchange
32 BTS, National Transportation Statistics, Table 1-46b, U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight (BTS Special Tabulation),
November 2010. A “ton-mile” is one ton of freight shipped one mile and thus reflects both the volume shipped (tons)
and the distance shipped (miles).
33 FHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Facts and Figures, 2009, pp. 11 and 19; Association
of American Railroads, Railroad Facts 2009 (Washington, DC), pp. 28 and 45. Rail volume projections could be
influenced by the future of coal-fired power generation.
34 Not only does NAFTA freight cross U.S. land borders but so too does a portion of U.S. overseas freight.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
points in the rail network, in particular, must live with the negative effects of freight traffic that is
largely serving distant locations.
At the national level, freight transportation may not be able to compete with other pressing
priorities. At the local level, however, especially at major freight hubs like Los Angeles, freight
transportation may be a priority because residents recognize the pollution and congestion caused
by truck traffic and thus support projects to streamline freight movement in the area. Because
freight issues vary dramatically from one hub or region to the next, it can also be argued that they
are best addressed at the state and local level. For instance, air cargo hubs such as Memphis or
Louisville face different problems from large railroad hubs like Chicago or St. Louis, and seaports
are tackling different problems than land border crossings like Laredo or Detroit. Rural areas may
be more concerned with preserving short-line rail access to the transcontinental rail network and
the (not unrelated) issue of upgrading roads to accommodate heavy trucks carrying agricultural
and mineral products. Also, local desires to retain jobs that are tied to freight activity and to
improve the quality of life may be sufficient incentive for state and local transportation planners
to address freight bottlenecks.
One possible way for Congress to facilitate a wider geographic perspective in planning freight-
related transportation improvements is to make funding for nationally or regionally significant
projects contingent on state and local coordination. The I-95 Corridor Coalition, an association of
state DOTs and transportation authorities from 16 states from Maine to Florida, is one model of
freight planning from a corridor perspective. In pursuit of its goal of improving traffic movement
on I-95, the coalition is investigating rail and waterborne modes as alternatives for freight
transport to mitigate congestion on the highway.
Freight Funding
Concerns about capacity limits and financial shortfalls have led to several proposals for imposing
user charges dedicated to funding projects that would improve goods movement. Proposals
include assessing a container fee, a freight waybill tax, or an intermodal terminal facility charge.
Selection of a fee mechanism entails trade-offs involving equity, efficiency, and administrative
simplicity. In addition, some freight interests have conditioned their support for new user fees
upon assurances that the money will be dedicated only to net new capacity on new projects. This
may be a difficult condition to meet, particularly in congested metropolitan areas where
additional highway construction would be unpopular.35
Targeting Freight Investment
If Congress were to create a separate funding program for freight transportation improvements, it
could steer funding toward certain inefficiencies in the national surface transportation network.
Trucks, and therefore highway infrastructure, are vital for efficient goods movement because they
carry 65% of the tonnage and 75% of the value of domestic cargo. FHWA has found that the
preponderance of truck delays are at urban freeway interchange points and that steep grades,
signalized intersections, and lane drops were other problem areas.36 Some states are evaluating
35 See for example a speech by a Senior Vice President of UPS at the Intermodal Association of North America, Expo
2007, “Agenda for Action: Avoiding National Gridlock,” Atlanta, Georgia, November 12, 2007.
36 FHWA, An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways, October 2005, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
the feasibility of segregating truck traffic from automobile traffic on highways with heavy truck
traffic, either on short segments or on long-distance routes connecting to a seaport or other freight
hub.
All air cargo begins and ends its journey in trucks as does almost all intermodal rail and
containerized seaborne cargo. Intermodal shipments, the fastest growing segments of goods
movement in the United States, consist of higher-value goods and are closely tied to international
trade. The “intermodal connector” roads linking ports, airports, and rail terminals to the interstate
highway system tend to be relatively short segments, generally less than two miles in length, but
DOT studies have found that they often suffer from poor pavement condition and substandard
geometrics (narrow lanes, small-radius curves) because the roads often were not originally
designed for the heavy truck traffic they handle.
In some cases, transfers between ports and railroads and between railroad networks still require a
container to be drayed, or trucked, in order to make the interchange. In Chicago (and to a lesser
extent in St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans), where the eastern and western rail networks
converge, and at many seaports, drayage generates significant truck traffic that co-mingles with
commuter traffic on beltways and arterials. At certain of these locations, additional “on-dock” or
“near-dock” rail terminals and “steel-wheel” interchanges might lessen heavy truck traffic on
urban roads. The development of “logistics parks”—clusters of warehouses built around a rail
terminus—are essentially an effort by the railroads to re-consolidate product distribution centers
that have been scattered by circumferential highway building, and may also offer opportunities to
reduce drayage. Congress may want to consider whether the federal government should support
such private undertakings in order to limit wear and congestion on urban roadways.
Even though almost all U.S. freight railroads are private enterprises, Congress has authorized
some public investments in freight rail infrastructure. Most of these, such as grants to improve
rail lines serving rural communities, are quite small, but the federal government has also
contributed to large-scale efforts to eliminate grade crossings and separate rail lines in Los
Angeles and Chicago. Rail users, particularly intermodal customers who demand faster, more
reliable, and more precise scheduling than other rail shippers, want railroads to accelerate
investment in passing sidings and double tracking to better accommodate freight trains traveling
at different speeds. Congress may be asked to consider options such as a federal tax incentive to
spur investment in railroad facilities or a dedicated trust fund for freight rail infrastructure. The
federally supported expansion of commuter rail service will play a role in this discussion, as
commuter trains may occupy track capacity that otherwise would be available for freight service.
Congress may also consider steering funding toward projects that mitigate the negative affects of
increases in freight traffic. Some localities have experienced significant increases in freight train
traffic, resulting in prolonged blockages of rail-grade crossings. If Congress chooses to direct
additional funding to grade-separation projects along heavily used rail corridors, the share of the
cost borne by railroads will be a major point of debate. (CRS Contact: John Frittelli)
(...continued)
otps/bottlenecks/index.htm. A “lane drop” is where a multi-lane highway narrows to fewer lanes.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Highway Safety
Highway safety in the United States has improved in recent years. The number of annual fatalities
has been stable for most of the last decade at a little over 40,000, though 2009 saw only 33,808
highway deaths, the lowest number since 1950. As the number of vehicle miles traveled has
increased over this period, the fatality rate (the number of fatalities adjusted for exposure to the
risk of dying in a crash) has declined. In 2009 it was 1.13 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled,37
down from 1.27 in 2008 and far below the figure of 5.3 in 1965. However, DOT failed to reach its
goal of reducing the fatality rate to 1.0 by 2008 (which would have required a reduction in
fatalities to around 30,000).38 Moreover, since the 1960s, when the United States had the best
safety record of any country, several other countries have achieved lower fatality rates.
Most of the fatalities occur to three groups:
• passenger car occupants (69%, or about 23,382 deaths in 2009);
• motorcyclists (13%, or 4,462 fatalities in 2009; and
• pedestrians (12%, or 4,092 fatalities in 2009).
Highway Safety Countermeasures
Countermeasures to improve highway safety can be divided into three general categories: changes
to roadways, changes to vehicles, and changes in driver behavior. Changes to roadways are the
responsibility of FHWA, which distributed $1.3 billion to the states in FY2010 under the
Highway Safety Improvement Program. Changes related to vehicles and drivers are the
responsibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and, in the case
of commercial vehicles and drivers, of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In
FY2010 Congress gave NHTSA $246 million for its own operations and for research, and $620
million for grants to be provided to states to improve highway safety with an emphasis on altering
driver behavior.
Driver Behavior Incentive Programs
Driver behavior is the primary factor in the vast majority of fatal crashes, so programs directed at
altering driver behavior are considered to offer the greatest safety impact. The driver behaviors
which are most significantly related to traffic fatalities are driving while impaired,39 speeding,40
not wearing a seat belt,41 driver distraction,42 or in the case of motorcyclists, not wearing a
helmet.43
37 NHTSA, Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, DOT HS 811 363, August 2010.
38 DOT revised their timetable in 2006, shifting the target date for achieving a fatality rate to 1.0 to 2011.
39 10,839 driving fatalities—32% of all motorist fatalities in 2009—involved a driver who was legally impaired, i.e.,
having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or more. NHTSA, Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, DOT HS
811 363, August 2010.
40 Driving too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit has been estimated to be a contributing factor in
one-third of fatal crashes. DOT, Speed Management Strategic Initiative, 2005, p. 1.
41 NHTSA estimates that if seat belts had been worn by all passenger vehicle occupants over the age of 4 during 2008,
an additional 4,152 lives could have been saved. NHTSA, Lives Saved in 2008 by Restraint Use and Minimum
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
In SAFETEA, Congress established or renewed programs providing grants to states that take
specified actions to promote the use of seat belts and to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. In
some cases, the incentive programs have achieved limited success: for example, in the case of the
program that provides grants to states that allow law enforcement agents to stop and ticket
motorists for not wearing seat belts, the number of states qualifying for grants increased from 21
in its first year to 29 in its fourth year. In the case of the program that provides grants to states to
adopt measures to reduce drunk driving, all fifty states and the District of Columbia qualified for
grants in the first year; in the fourth year, as the number of measures required in order to remain
eligible rose, four states and the District of Columbia failed to maintain their eligibility. In some
cases, there are questions about the eligibility measures set forth in SAFETEA for the program;
for example, the program that provides grants to states to improve motorcycle safety excludes
promoting the wearing of a motorcycle helmet—demonstrated to be the single most effective
motorcycle safety measure—as an eligible use of program funding, while measures that are
eligible, such as motorcyclist training programs and programs to promote motorist awareness of
motorcyclists, are of unproven value in reducing fatalities.44
Highway Safety Issues in Reauthorization
Highway safety programs tend to be less controversial than construction grant programs, because
the amounts of money at stake are much smaller. Nonetheless, Congress will likely be asked to
consider significant changes to federal safety programs.
Consolidating the Application Process
There are currently five separate NHTSA incentive grant programs, and states have complained
that the application process is unnecessarily difficult. Each program has a separate process, all the
program applications are due between June 15 and August 1 each year, and each application
requires significant attention from relatively small state traffic safety offices. Congress may be
asked to direct NHTSA to consolidate or simplify the application processes.
Increased Flexibility in the Use of Incentive Grant Funding
One of the incentive programs in SAFETEA allows states to use the funds for any safety-related
expense that is eligible for federal funding, but most of the programs require the money to be
used for a limited range of eligible activities. In some cases, the restrictions are even more
(...continued)
Drinking Age Laws, DOT HS 811 153, May 2010.
42 NHTSA’s definition of distracted driving includes a driver using electronic devices (cell phones, GPS, audio
systems), reading, eating, performing personal care (using razor, painting nails, applying cosmetics), lighting a
cigarette, talking, or being distracted by children. NHTSA reported that 16% of fatal crashes in 2009 involved driver
distraction, up from 10% in 2005, resulting in 5,474 fatalities in 2009. NHTSA, Distracted Driving 2009, “Dot HS 811
379, September 2010.
43 Nationwide use of motorcycle helmets in states that comply with federal safety regulations was 67% in 2009, but in
the 30 states where helmets are not required, usage was 55%. NHTSA, Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2009—Overall
Results, DOT HS 811 254, December 2009. Requiring all riders to wear a helmet—a universal helmet law—has been
estimated to reduce motorcyclist fatalities by 20% or more. National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, Report 622, 2008, p. 41.
44 NCHRP, Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, Report 622, 2008, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
limiting: motorcycle safety program grants can be used only for safety training provided to
motorcyclists, motorcyclist awareness programs aimed at motorists, and public awareness and
outreach programs. Officials in Montana told GAO that they would like to use some of the funds
to build new motorcycle training sites or expand existing sites, but the grant does not allow that.45
Congress may be asked to give states greater flexibility in use of highway safety funds.
Switching from Incentives to Sanctions on States
Sanctions, in the form of withholding of federal funds, have been found by some studies to be
more effective than incentives in gaining state compliance with federal goals.46 States generally
oppose sanctions, but even so the Governors Highway Safety Association testified that it would
vigorously oppose any effort to repeal an existing sanction requiring states to make purchase and
public possession of alcohol illegal for those under age 21.47 That sanction, established by
Congress in 1984, was preceded by an incentive program which failed to induce many states with
lower minimum purchase ages to change their laws.
Linking Grants to Performance
Most of the eligibility criteria for the various incentive programs are actions—passage of laws
and implementation of programs—rather than measures of results.48 Thus, states can receive
safety grants under these programs without demonstrating improved highway safety.
One possible reform would link the receipt of a grant, or the size of a grant, more closely to a
state’s performance. Such a change, however, might require data that are not currently available;
for example, not all states are able to calculate motorcyclist vehicle miles traveled, which is
necessary to measure changes in the rate of motorcyclist fatalities. Past surface transportation
reauthorizations have included federal support for data collection related to highway safety. For
example, Congress provided funding for improvements to states’ traffic safety information
systems in SAFETEA. (CRS Contact: David Randall Peterman)
45 Government Accountability Office, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States’ Challenges, and Issues for
Reauthorization, GAO-08-990T, July 16, 2008, p. 18.
46 Sarah F. Liebschutz, The National Minimum Age Drinking Law, Publius, V. 15, No. 3, Summer 1985, pp. 49-50,
cites a report by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations which noted that for provisions in two
laws—the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and the Federal Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of
1974—Congress had first enacted incentive programs which over several years had resulted in only about half the
states adopting the provisions; Congress then switched to sanctions, which quickly resulted in most if not all the rest of
the states complying.
47 Statement of Christopher J. Murphy, Chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association, before the House
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, July 16, 2008, p. 8.
48 Exceptions to this include the seat belt performance grant, under which a state can qualify either by having a
mandatory seat belt law or by maintaining a seat belt use rate of 85% or better, and the motorcycle safety grant
program, whose eligibility criteria include reductions in fatalities and crashes.
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Motor Carrier Safety Issues
Congress tends to treat commercial vehicle safety issues separately from passenger vehicle safety
issues, as matters related to commercial vehicles and their drivers come under a specialized
agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Increases in federal limits on the size
and weight of commercial trucks may be among the most controversial proposals related to
safety, as they would increase the productivity of the trucking industry but might have adverse
effects on safety as well as on roadway life. Congress may choose to explore the potential of in-
vehicle technologies, such as driver-fatigue warning systems and lane departure warning systems,
to promote safety. Inspections of commercial vehicles are considered important in promoting
compliance with federal safety requirements, but there is concern that the resources available to
support inspections do not allow inspections to be done on more than a fraction of the commercial
vehicles, making the risk of discovery of noncompliance low.
A separate set of issues concerns the behavior of commercial drivers. Previous laws have funded
efforts to prevent drivers from driving while drugged or with serious medical conditions that may
impair their driving. GAO, however, found that it was easy for drivers to avoid detection because
many collection sites did not follow regulations intended to maintain the integrity of urine tests.49
GAO also found that drivers who failed a drug test were able to continue driving without
submitting to the required return-to-duty process by hiding their past drug history from
employers, many of whom did not conduct thorough background checks. Among the measures
that Congress may wish to consider to deal with this issue are the establishment of a national
database for drug testing, additional funding for inspectors, and additional authority to impose
fines for failure to comply with federal requirements. (CRS Contact: David Randall Peterman)
Research, Development, and Technology
Deployment
The federal surface transportation program supports research in many areas, from system
efficiency and passenger safety to environmental degradation stemming from transportation
projects. FHWA has the largest research budget of the DOT agencies, while NHTSA, FTA, and
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration also have significant roles.
Title V of SAFETEA authorized $411 million annually for research. Of that, $196 million went to
the surface transportation research program; $110 million to research on intelligent transportation
systems (ITS); $70 million to support research at university transportation centers; $27 million to
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and $27 million to training and education programs.
Congress is likely to face questions about the adequacy of transportation research funding; under
SAFETEA, federal spending on surface transportation research is approximately 0.9% of total
federal expenditures on highways, and some advocates contend that a higher share will have a
payoff in terms of reduced costs from crashes, congestion, and environmental damage.
49 GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and
Keep Them off the Road, GAO-08-600, May 2008.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Congress also faces competing claims for how transportation research funding should be used. In
SAFETEA’s research title, Congress earmarked more funding than the total amount that was
authorized by the title, with the result that individual research programs and projects received less
funding than each was authorized in order that the available funding could be stretched to cover
all the designated programs and projects. No unearmarked research funding was available for
some FHWA projects, such as the biennial conditions and performance reports, that in previous
years had been funded with such moneys. In 2008 Congress addressed these funding shortfalls by
enacting the SAFETEA Technical Corrections Act (P.L. 110-224), which added additional
funding to all of the research programs. The lack of peer review in the allocation of research
funding has also surfaced as a concern. (CRS contact: David Randall Peterman)
Environmental Issues
Environmental Compliance
During past reauthorization debates, environmental requirements have drawn attention due to
both the impact that surface transportation projects can have on the environment and the impact
that compliance with environmental requirements can have on project delivery. Previous
reauthorization legislation has attempted to address environmental compliance issues by
authorizing funding for projects to mitigate or minimize environmental impacts associated with
surface transportation and by specifying procedures intended to expedite compliance with certain
environmental requirements. The upcoming reauthorization process may include debate over
ways to speed the environmental compliance process and fund certain regulatory requirements.
Reviews Under the National Environmental Policy Act
Before final design, property acquisition, or construction on a highway or transit project can
proceed, FHWA and FTA must comply with all applicable environmental review requirements,
including those of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).50 NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their
proposed actions. To ensure that environmental impacts are considered before final decisions are
made, NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any
federally funded project that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. If the
level of significance of a proposed project is unclear, the agency must prepare an environmental
assessment in order to make that determination. Projects that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant social, economic, or environmental effect, and which DOT has determined
from past experience have no significant impact, are processed as categorical exclusions.
DOT regulations require the final NEPA documentation to demonstrate that a project will be in
compliance with all applicable environmental laws and related requirements.51 This means that,
for any given transportation project, any environmental study, review, or consultation required by
50 An “environmental review” refers to a requirement to show evidence of formal consideration, evaluation, or analysis
of the impacts of a proposed federal action. Most often, the use of the term is in reference to the process of complying
with NEPA requirements. However, depending upon the project at issue, an environmental review may refer to the
process of complying with provisions of any applicable environmental requirement.
51 23 CFR 771.133.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
law should be conducted within the framework of the NEPA process. According to FHWA, legal
requirements most frequently applicable to its projects are the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.), Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and “Section 4(f)”of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
(40 U.S.C. 303). To meet the requirements of these laws, various agencies, such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be required to participate in the
NEPA process. That participation may involve performing scientific analysis or issuing permits.
SAFETEA, and TEA-21 before it, both included legislative changes intended to streamline the
NEPA process.52 Debate continues on the impact that environmental compliance requirements
have on transportation project delivery, with more efficient interagency cooperation frequently
identified as an area in need of improvement. Additional provisions intended to expedite NEPA
reviews may be debated in the upcoming reauthorization process.
“Section 4(f)” Requirements
Another requirement generally carried out within the context of the NEPA process is compliance
with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.53 Section 4(f) requirements
apply to the use of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
publicly or privately owned historic sites of national, state, or local significance. The law
prohibits the use of a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project unless there is no “prudent
and feasible” alternative, and requires all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
When a proposed project would use a Section 4(f) resource, a separate “Section 4(f) evaluation”
must be prepared and included with the appropriate NEPA documentation.
SAFETEA amended Section 4(f) to allow for the use of parks, refuges, and historic sites if that
use results in “de minimis impacts.” SAFETEA also required DOT to issue regulations clarifying
factors to be considered and standards to be applied in determining whether alternatives are
“prudent and feasible.” Due to the continued prohibition on most uses of Section 4(f) resources,
further changes to the requirements may be debated during the upcoming reauthorization process.
The CMAQ Program
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program was created in by
ISTEA in 1991, and was reauthorized in TEA-21 and again in SAFETEA. It provides funds to
states for transportation projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality,
particularly in areas of the country that do not attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In
particular, it authorizes funding for programs and projects intended to reduce carbon monoxide,
52 For details on SAFETEA-LU’s NEPA-related provisions and DOT’s response to those provisions, see FHWA’s
“SAFETEA-LU Environmental Provisions and Related Information” Web page, available at
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/es2safetealu.asp.
53 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act was originally set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) and applies to all DOT projects. A similar
provision, found at 23 U.S.C. § 138, applies specifically to Federal-aid highways. In 1983, as part of a general
recodification of the DOT Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) was formally repealed and codified in 49 U.S.C. § 303 with slightly
different language. This provision no longer falls under a “Section 4(f),” but DOT has continued this reference, given
that over the years, the whole body of provisions, policies, and case law has been collectively referenced as Section
4(f).
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
particulate matter, and ozone. CMAQ funds are apportioned in accordance with a formula based
largely on a state’s population and pollution reduction needs. During the reauthorization process,
there will likely be debate regarding the level of CMAQ funding and possibly the types of
projects eligible for funding.
From FY2005 to FY2009, the CMAQ program provided over $8.6 billion to state departments of
transportation and local transit agencies. Specific types of projects eligible for CMAQ funds
include, but are not limited to: programs for improved public transit; traffic flow improvement
programs that reduce emissions; and programs to control extended idling of vehicles.54 SAFETEA
required states and metropolitan planning organizations to give priority in distributing CMAQ
funds to diesel engine retrofits and other cost-effective emission reduction and congestion
mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits. SAFETEA also expanded eligibility
requirements to specifically allow certain types of projects to qualify for CMAQ funding.
SAFETEA also directed DOT to evaluate and assess a representative sample of CMAQ projects,
in consultation with EPA, to determine their impacts on air quality and congestion levels and to
ensure the effective implementation of the program. Further, SAFETEA directed DOT to
maintain and disseminate a database describing project impacts. In response to SAFETEA
requirements, in October 2008, FHWA released a report that studied the effectiveness of 67
CMAQ-funded projects.55 (CRS Contact: Linda Luther)
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 September 2010, at least 47 areas with 119 million people were subject to
the SIP requirements. Other areas are likely to be added to this list in the next few years, as more
stringent air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter take effect.
Section 176 of the Clean Air Act prohibits federal agencies from funding projects in these areas
unless the projects “conform” to the SIPs. To demonstrate conformity, a transportation
improvement program (TIP) must show that the projects to be undertaken will not lead to an
increase in emissions that would delay attainment of air quality standards. New highway and
transit projects cannot receive federal funds unless they can make this demonstration.
There are some exceptions: highway safety projects, rehabilitation and reconstruction of transit
facilities, purchase of replacement buses and rail cars, noise attenuation projects, and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities are all allowed to proceed whether or not an area’s conformity has lapsed.
But the threat of a conformity lapse and the potential “loss” of highway funds56 has been a
54 See FHWA’s Interim Program Guidance “The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” October 31,
2006, available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq06gm.htm.
55 See “SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment,” available on the FHWA “Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program” Web page at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/.
56 Highway funds are not actually lost in a conformity lapse. As noted, many types of project are exempt from the
requirement and go forward as planned. Other projects face a temporary suspension of funding until they submit a
conforming TIP. Generally, the officials involved refer to this temporary and partial suspension as “losing” their federal
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
powerful incentive to get local officials to focus on air quality considerations as they plan
transportation projects. In surface transportation reauthorization, Congress may weigh the
benefits of conformity in achieving air quality goals against the burdens it imposes on proposed
transportation projects. (CRS contact: Jim McCarthy)
Climate Considerations
If the United States is to address climate change, legislation and regulations will need to require
significant reductions in emissions of “greenhouse” gases (GHG)57 from transportation sources.
Transportation accounts for about one-third of U.S. emissions of the leading greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide (CO2),58 and about 27% of total emissions of the six major GHGs typically
considered.
CO2 is largely a product of combustion: the carbon in fuel (be it gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or
whatever) combines with oxygen in the atmosphere when the fuel burns. Thus, the principal
method of reducing CO2 emissions from transportation sources is to burn less fuel. Emissions can
also be reduced by substituting fuels that contain less carbon. In the case of motor vehicles, this
would mean substituting natural gas or other lower-carbon fuels for gasoline and diesel fuel.
In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140), Congress required
both improved fuel economy for new cars and trucks and a lower carbon content in renewable
transportation fuels. The law required that new motor vehicles attain an average improvement of
40% in fuel economy by 2020 with incremental improvements between now and then, and that
future renewable fuels have a lower carbon content on a life-cycle basis. The Obama
Administration has now advanced the schedule for EISA’s fuel economy standards, with full
implementation scheduled by 2016.
Surface transportation reauthorization offers the possibility to look at transportation emissions in
a broader context, and could provide incentives for systemic changes that might lower the carbon
footprint of the transportation sector. Electrification of truck stops to reduce idling, congestion
mitigation, high occupancy vehicle lanes, funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
preferences for lower carbon vehicles in FTA grants, incentives to shift freight and people to less-
carbon-intensive modes, and incentives for “smart growth” are among the potential policy
options. (CRS contact: Jim McCarthy)
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
Current laws provide subsidies to promote the use of alternative motor fuels. For example, while
gasoline, regardless of its ethanol content, is taxed at 18.4 cents per gallon, every gallon of
ethanol blended into gasoline is subject to a credit of 45 cents per gallon. (This credit is set to
expire at the end of 2010.) Therefore, the effective tax rate on a 10% blend of ethanol in gasoline
is 14.9 cents per gallon. A credit of 50 cents per gallon for natural gas, hydrogen, and other
alternative fuels, along with tax credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel, expired at the end of
(...continued)
highway funds, which undoubtedly speeds their efforts to remedy the situation.
57 Greenhouse gases are pollutants that trap the sun’s heat, with effects on the earth’s climate.
58 CO2 accounts for more than 80% of U.S. GHG emissions.
Congressional Research Service
28
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
2009. These various incentives were enacted as provisions in energy and economic legislation.
However, there may be interest in using surface transportation reauthorization to extend them.
With interest growing in the environmental effects of alternative fuels, there also may be interest
in modifying the fuel credits to reflect their performance on environmental measures.
SAFETEA and various energy laws include incentives to promote alternative fuel and advanced
technology vehicles. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established tax credits for the
purchase of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles, many of which expire at the end of 2010. FTA
bus programs provide additional matching funds to transit agencies that purchase alternative fuel
and advanced technology buses, including advanced diesel buses, beyond those available for
conventional buses. Congress may wish to use reauthorization to modify these incentives to focus
more on their energy efficiency or environmental performance.
To expand the use of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles, infrastructure to support
them must also grow. Just as there are incentives for the purchase of new vehicles, there are tax
credits for retail stations to install refueling infrastructure. As part of the surface transportation
reauthorization debate, there may be interest in providing additional incentives, including grants,
for tax-exempt entities such as transit agencies to install additional refueling infrastructure,
especially if those stations are accessible to the public. (CRS Contact: Brent Yacobucci)
Author Contact Information
Robert S. Kirk, Coordinator
Linda Luther
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Analyst in Environmental Policy
rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
William J. Mallett
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
wmallett@crs.loc.gov, 7-2216
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
David Randall Peterman
Brent D. Yacobucci
Analyst in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov, 7-9662
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
Congressional Research Service
29
.
Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 112th Congress
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
Highway Program Issues
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Trust Fund Issues
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Will Mallett
RSI
7-2216
Donor/Donee & Formula Issues
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Will Mallett
RSI
7-2216
Transit Program Issues Will
Mallett RSI
7-2216
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Will Mallett
RSI
7-2216
Highway, Railroad, & Truck Safety
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Auto and Traffic Safety (including NHTSA)
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Research Programs
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Transportation Enhancements & Planning (MPOs)
Will Mallett
RSI 7-2216
Intermodal/Freight Issues John
Frittelli RSI
7-7033
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Linda Luther
RSI
7-6852
(CMAQ) Program
Environmental Issues, Including Streamlining NEPA,
Linda Luther
RSI
7-6852
Stormwater, and Section 4(f)
Conformity with the Clean Air Act
Jim McCarthy
RSI
7-7225
Recreational Trails
Sandy Johnson
RSI
7-7214
Surface Transportation Security
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Climate Considerations
Jim McCarthy
RSI
7-7225
Brent Yacobucci
RSI
7-9662
Alternative Fuels & Advanced Technology Vehicles
Brent Yacobucci
RSI
7-9662
Highway and Transit Program Data John
Williamson KSG 7-7725
Selected Legal Issues
Todd Tatelman
ALD
7-4697
Congressional Research Service
30