.

Department of Transportation Budget FY2012
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy
February 24, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41650
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

Introduction
The President’s Department of Transportation (DOT) budget request for FY2012 totals $123.9
billion. It is divided into two parts: a “base” request of $78.6 billion, and a one-time “up-front
boost,” related to the President’s proposal for surface transportation reauthorization beginning in
FY2012, of $50 billion.
The base request is $1.7 billion (2%) more than the FY2010 enacted DOT budget of $76.9
billion. The total request is $53 billion over the FY2010 enacted level. See Table 1 for a
breakdown of the request by DOT administration.
One might ask how this increase is possible in light of the President’s intention to freeze overall
federal discretionary spending in FY2012 (and after) at the FY2010 level. It is possible because
most DOT funding is not discretionary funding; it comes from the Highway Trust Fund, and is
therefore categorized as mandatory funding. Thus, virtually all of the proposed increase counts as
an increase in mandatory rather than discretionary funding. Furthermore, the FY2012 DOT
budget request proposes to shift funding for some accounts from the general fund to the Highway
Trust Fund (which would be renamed the Transportation Trust Fund). This would have the effect
of reducing the total discretionary funding for DOT in FY2012 compared to FY2011, all else
being equal.
The budget request is complex because it does two different things at once: it requests funding for
DOT programs for FY2012, and it restructures the major surface transportation program accounts
and funding structure. The latter changes reflect elements of the Administration’s proposal for
reauthorizing surface transportation programs for the next six years. The changes include adding
intercity rail and new transit construction programs to the programs financed from the trust fund,
and increasing the flow of revenues to the fund, although the source of the additional revenues is
not specified.
Congress has struggled with surface transportation reauthorization for several years, and may find
it challenging to pass a reauthorization proposal on the scale proposed by the Administration in
time for it to govern the DOT budget for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2011. Detailed
analysis of surface transportation reauthorization proposals is outside the scope of this report.
Selected Budget Issues
Up-Front $50 Billion Additional Funding
The budget proposes a $50 billion “up-front” appropriation, on top of DOT’s requested base
FY2012 funding, to provide an immediate boost to transportation infrastructure improvement and
job creation. This is depicted as an alternative to the typical surface transportation reauthorization
funding plan, in which funding levels gradually increase over an authorization period of several
years. This appropriation would front-load a large increase in funding in the first year of the
Administration’s proposed six-year surface transportation reauthorization plan, with funding
levels for each of the subsequent five years lower than the total for FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

Highway Trust Fund
Most highway and transit funding is taken from the Highway Trust Fund, whose revenues come
largely from the federal motor fuels excise tax. For several years, expenditures from the fund
have exceeded revenues; for example, in FY2010, revenues were approximately $35 billion,
while expenditures were approximately $50 billion. Congress transferred a total of $34.5 billion
from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund during the period FY2008-
FY2010 to keep the trust fund solvent. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the trust
fund will become insolvent around the end of FY2012.
The President’s budget proposes to increase authorized expenditures from the renamed
Transportation Trust Fund to $554 billion over the next six years by increasing the funding levels
of existing surface transportation programs and by adding the Federal Railroad Administration
and the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts transit construction program to the programs
funded by the fund. The budget request does not explain how the fund would support the higher
level of expenditures; it says that the President does not support an increase in the federal
gasoline tax, but will work with Congress to find new revenue sources.
National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank)
The budget proposes $5 billion for a national infrastructure bank. The bank would provide loans
or grants to finance transportation projects having national or regional significance. Such projects,
such as major bridges on the interstate highways system, are often difficult to build under the
current structure of transportation funding, because they benefit the residents of many states but
their costs fall on the residents of the state in which the project is located. In the past, such
projects have sometimes been financed through specific funding designations by Congress. The
national infrastructure bank would, according to the Administration, provide a means for such
projects to be evaluated and for the most productive projects to be selected and financed.
High Speed Rail
The budget proposes $8 billion for high speed rail, the first year of a proposed six-year, $53
billion program. High speed rail development is seen as a way of creating new jobs, providing a
new transportation option for intercity travel, and increasing the capacity, competitiveness, and
environmental sustainability of the transportation system. To date, Congress has provided $10.5
billion for DOT’s high speed and intercity passenger rail grant program, beginning with $8 billion
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Critics have questioned the economic efficiency of building an expensive high speed rail network
in the United States. While grants have been awarded to 23 states, since the elections of
November 2010, the new governors of three states—Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida—have rejected
high speed rail projects for which their states had received grants totaling $3.6 billion.1 The
governors said their states could not afford the costs of building and maintaining high speed rail
lines that would likely require ongoing operating support. The Administration has said that the
grant money will be redistributed to other states pursuing high speed rail; California, New York,

1 Although Florida’s governor has rejected the project, the project apparently had not been officially canceled as of
February 23, 2011, and press reports indicate that efforts are being made to salvage the project.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

and Illinois have been among the states requesting the money. The Full Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1), passed by the House on February 19, 2011, would eliminate
the high speed and intercity passenger rail grant program for the balance of FY2011, and would
rescind the unobligated portion of the $10.5 billion already appropriated.
Amtrak Funding
The budget proposes to place Amtrak funding into a new Federal Railroad Administration
account, System Preservation. This account would fund public rail asset development and
maintenance; at present, Amtrak would be the only recipient of grants, though in the future
competition for the grants is envisioned. Amtrak’s FY2012 grant request totaled $2.2 billion; it
received $1.6 billion in FY2010.2 It appears that Amtrak would receive $1.5 billion from the base
funding, and another $2.5 billion from the up-front supplemental funding.3
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Although the request proposes a $13 million cut in funding for NHTSA from the $873 million in
FY2010, the request notes that, with the ending of NHTSA’s $124.5 million Safety Belt
Performance Grants program, “the request will allow the agency to increase funding for all
ongoing primary enforcement, safety, or rulemaking activities.”4
Detailed Budget Table
The budget table below presents more detail about the President’s FY2012 budget request. The
FY2012 request is presented in two columns: one for the $50 billion “up-front boost” request for
FY2012, the other for the base FY2012 request. In addition, comparative data are provided for
three recent fiscal years: FY2008, to show the extent of the reduction required to return to that
year’s level of funding, as some have proposed; FY2010, as the most recent full year of enacted
appropriations for DOT; and the President’s request for FY2011. Funding for FY2011 is being
provided by a continuing resolution, at roughly the level provided in FY2010, though
discretionary grant programs will not make grants pending enactment of appropriations
legislation for the full year.

2 Amtrak, FY2012 Grant and Legislative Request, February 7, 2011, Table 1; available at http://www.amtrak.com
(Inside Amtrak>Reports and Documents).
3 Based on the crosswalk table in the Federal Railroad Administration’s FY2012 Budget Estimate, p. 109.
4 Department of Transportation, FY2012 Budget Highlights, p. 24; available at http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/
fy2012budgethighlights.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

Table 1. Department of Transportation Budget FY2012 Budget Request
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
“Up-
Department of Transportation
FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Base
Front
Selected Accounts
Enacted
Enacted
Request Enacted Request
Boost"
National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund
—
—
4,000
—
—
National
Infrastructure
Bank
— — —

5,000 —
Office of the Secretary
157
890
352
343
—
Essential Air Servicea
117
200
182
173
—
National Infrastructure Development
—
600
—

—
2,000
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations 8,740
9,350
9,793

9,823
—
Facilities & Equipment
2,514 2,936 2,970
2,870
250
Research, Engineering, & Development
147
191
190
190
—
Grants-in-Aid for Airports (AIP) (limitation on obligations)
3,515
3,515
3,515
2,424
3,100
Total, FAA
14,794
15,992
16,468
15,307
3,350
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
41,985
42,789
42,857
42,764
27,650
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs
230
240
260
276
—
Motor Carrier Safety Grants to States
300
310
310
330
—
Total, FMCSA
530
550
570
606
—
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Operations and Researchb 238
249
250

304
—
Highway Traffic Safety Grants to States
600
620
621
556
—
Total, NHTSA
838
873
878
860
—
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
High-speed and intercity passenger rail grant programc
— 2,500 1,000

1,000 3,000
Total, Amtrakd
1,325 1,565 1,637

1,546 2,500
Total,
FRA
1,561 4,360 2,856

2,809 5,500
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
9,492
10,733
10,800
10,851
11,500
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
307
363
352
358
—
Assistance to smal shipyards
10
15
—
—
—
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
154
193
202
221
—
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
12
13
17
18
—
Office of Inspector General
66
75
80
89
—
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
17
32
32
34
—
Surface Transportation Board
25
28
28
30
—
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Department of Transportation Budget FY2012

FY2012
FY2012
“Up-
Department of Transportation
FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Base
Front
Selected Accounts
Enacted
Enacted
Request Enacted Request
Boost"
Department of Transportation Subtotals
Appropriation (discretionary funding)
15,460
21,877
23,143
13,431
—
Limitations on obligations (mandatory funding)
53,739
54,244
54,821
64476
50,000
Exempt contract authority (mandatory funding)
739
739
739
739
—
Total non-emergency budgetary resources, DOTe 69,906f 76,860 78,703

78,646 50,000
Emergency
appropriations
1,065 — — — —
Non-emergency discretionary total
10,774
14,739
14,000
13,431
—
Source: FY2008 figures from the Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority table in Division I of the
House Committee on Appropriation Committee Print on the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, pp. 2274-2277
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_house_committee_prints&docid=
f:47494i.pdf); FY2010 enacted and FY2011 request figures from the CSBA tables in H.Rept. 111-564 and S.Rept.
111-230, except non-emergency discretionary totals from the FY2012 President’s Budget; FY2012 figures taken
from the President’s Budget for FY2012 and the Department of Transportation’s FY2012 Budget Highlights
(http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/fy2012budgethighlights.pdf).
Notes: Totals do not include rescissions of contract authority, which reduce the budget total but do not reduce
the amount of funding made available.
a. These figures include the $50 million in mandatory funding received by the Essential Air Service each year.
The FY2012 request also counts $22 million in unobligated balances from previous years, for a total of $195
million.
b. Includes National Driver Register Modernization funding.
c. FY2012 base figure is calculated by CRS.
d. FY2012 base figure is calculated by CRS.
e. Figures reflect budgetary resources, except DOT FY2012 request reflects budget authority; DOT FY2102
budget requests $123.9 billion in budgetary resources, $128.6 billion in budget authority.
f.
A $33 million rescission of budget authority reduced the total to $69,906 million.

Author Contact Information

David Randall Peterman

Analyst in Transportation Policy
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267


Congressional Research Service
5

---