.

Department of Transportation (DOT):
FY2016 Appropriations
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy
June 15, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44063

c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Summary
On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration proposed a $93.7 billion budget for the
Department of Transportation (DOT) for FY2016. That is about $22 billion (31%) more than was
provided in FY2015. The budget request for DOT reflected the Administration’s call for
significant increases in funding for highway, transit, and rail programs. Such changes depend on
action by transportation authorizing and tax-writing committees to restructure the programs and
provide the additional funds. Pending such actions, Congress faces the challenge of evaluating the
Administration’s request in the context of discretionary budget caps imposed by the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) that limit the amount of discretionary funding available for
DOT, as well as the inability of the Highway Trust Fund, the source of most of DOT’s funding, to
fully support the surface transportation program in its present form.
The annual appropriations for DOT are combined with those for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill. The House has passed H.R. 2577, which would provide
FY2016 appropriations for THUD. H.R. 2577 would provide $70.6 billion for DOT, $646 million
less than DOT received in FY2015 and $23 billion less than the Administration request.
The House-passed bill cuts funding for Amtrak by $242 million (17%) from its FY2015 level, to
$1.148 billion, less than half the amount requested by the Administration. The House
Appropriations Committee marked up the bill one day after an Amtrak passenger train derailed in
Philadelphia, which raised the profile of the cuts to Amtrak. The House-passed bill also includes
significant cuts to the TIGER discretionary grant program and the transit New Starts program. For
TIGER, the bill would provide $100 million, an 80% reduction from the $500 million provided in
FY2015 and $1.15 billion below the Administration request. For New Starts, it would provide
$1.9 billion, a 9% reduction from the $2.1 billion provided in FY2015 and $1.3 billion below the
Administration request. These three programs account for most of the bill’s cut in transportation
funding from the FY2015 level.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Understanding the DOT Appropriations Act ................................................................................... 1
Most DOT Funding Comes from Trust Funds ........................................................................... 1
Most DOT Funding Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary, Budget Authority ................................. 2
DOT Is Primarily a Grant-Making Agency ............................................................................... 2
Reauthorization of Surface and Air Transportation Programs ................................................... 3
DOT Funding Trend ......................................................................................................................... 3
DOT FY2016 Appropriations .......................................................................................................... 4
Selected Issues ........................................................................................................................... 7
Highway Trust Fund Solvency ............................................................................................ 7
National Infrastructure Investment (TIGER Grants) ........................................................... 8
Essential Air Service (EAS) ................................................................................................ 9
Intercity Rail Safety .......................................................................................................... 11
Intercity Passenger Rail Development .............................................................................. 11
Amtrak ............................................................................................................................... 12
Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts (Capital Investment
Grants) ............................................................................................................................ 14
Grant to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ......................................... 15
Commercial Driver Hours of Service and the 34-Hour Restart Requirement ................... 16

Figures
Figure 1. DOT 10-Year Funding Trend (FY2006-FY2015) ............................................................ 4

Tables
Table 1. DOT Budget Authority Sources, FY2015 .......................................................................... 2
Table 2. DOT FY2015 Budget Authority ........................................................................................ 2
Table 3. DOT Grant Accounts and Amounts, FY2015 .................................................................... 3
Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2015-FY2016 Detailed Budget Table ........................... 5
Table 5. Recent TIGER Grant Appropriation Pattern ...................................................................... 9
Table 6. Essential Air Service Program: Number of Communities and Annual Budget,
FY2008-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 7. Essential Air Service Funding, FY2015-FY2016 ............................................................ 10
Table 8. Amtrak Budget and Request, FY2015-FY2016 ............................................................... 13
Table 9. Amtrak’s FY2016 Budget ................................................................................................ 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 17

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Introduction
The Obama Administration released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015. It requested
$93.7 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT), $22 billion (31%) more than DOT
received in FY2015. This request reflected the Administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the
federal surface transportation program and restructuring accounts and funding sources in several
DOT sub-agencies. Around 75% of DOT’s funding is mandatory budgetary authority, and the
Administration’s request maintained this split, with $24 billion of the request coming from
discretionary budgetary authority—$6 billion (33%) more than provided in FY2015.
DOT’s discretionary budget allocation is shared with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, as the allocation is given to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill. The discretionary funding allocation given to
the House THUD subcommittee for FY2016 was $55.27 billion, $1.5 billion (3%) higher than the
enacted FY2015 funding; most of that increase would cover a decline in offsetting receipts to
HUD accounts in FY2016. With other changes in offsets recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee, the net increase in discretionary funding is $25 million, and the
committee recommended a $25 million reduction in mandatory funding, so there is no net change
in actual funding in the committee-recommended House THUD bill from FY2015. The Senate
THUD allocation is $55.646 billion, $376 million more than the House level.
There is little prospect for increasing DOT’s overall discretionary funding so long as
appropriators must abide by the spending limits established by the House and Senate Budget
Committees. And with the Highway Trust Fund, the primary source of DOT’s mandatory funding,
unable to support the current level of expenditures from the fund, there is little prospect for
increasing DOT’s funding, barring passage of a surface transportation authorization bill by
Congress that provides significant additional funding sources and/or passage of an agreement that
increases current spending caps.
Understanding the DOT Appropriations Act
DOT’s funding arrangements are unusual compared to those of most other federal agencies. Most
of DOT’s funding comes from trust funds rather than the general fund of the Treasury and most of
DOT’s funding is mandatory rather than discretionary. Also, most of DOT’s funding is passed
through to state and local governments through formula grants.
Most DOT Funding Comes from Trust Funds
Most of DOT’s annual funding comes from two large trust funds: the Highway Trust Fund and
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (see Table 1). The scale of DOT’s annual funding coming
from these funds is not entirely obvious in DOT budget tables; for while virtually all of the
funding from the Highway Trust Fund is in the form of contract authority (which is a form of
mandatory budget authority), most of the funding from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is in
the form of discretionary budget authority and so is mingled with the discretionary budget
authority provided from the general fund of the Treasury.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 1. DOT Budget Authority Sources, FY2015
(in billions of dollars)
% of Total DOT Budget
Source Amount
Authority
Airport and Airway Trust Fund
$15.0
21%
Highway Trust Fund
50.8
71%
Subtotal, trust fund budget authority
65.8
92%
Other 5.8
8%
Total budget authority
$71.7
100%
Source: Calculated by CRS using information from the Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 83 (113th
Congress), Division K, and H.Rept. 114-129.
Most DOT Funding Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary, Budget
Authority
For most federal agencies, their discretionary funding is close to, if not the same as, their total
funding. But roughly three-fourths of DOT’s funding is mandatory budget authority derived from
trust funds (contract authority), rather than discretionary budget authority. Table 2 shows the
breakdown between the discretionary and mandatory funding in DOT’s budget. See CRS Report
R43420, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk
et al.
Table 2. DOT FY2015 Budget Authority
(billions of dollars)
Budget Authority (BA)
Amount
DOT net discretionary BA
$17.8
DOT mandatory BA
53.5
DOT total budgetary resources
$71.3
Source: Comparative Statement of Budget Authority in H.Rept. 114-129.
Notes: Budget authority figures in this table are net of rescissions, advance appropriations, offsetting receipts,
and other adjustments.
DOT Is Primarily a Grant-Making Agency
Approximately 80% of DOT’s funding is distributed to states, local authorities, and Amtrak in the
form of grants (see Table 3). Of DOT’s largest sub-agencies, only the Federal Aviation
Administration, which is responsible for the operation of the air traffic control system and
employs roughly 83% of DOT’s 56,252 employees, largely as air traffic controllers, has a budget
whose primary expenditure is not making grants.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 3. DOT Grant Accounts and Amounts, FY2015
(millions of dollars)
Account Amount
Office of the Secretary: National Infrastructure Improvement (TIGER)
$500
Federal Aviation Administration: Grants-in-Aid to Airports
3,333
Federal Highway Administration: Federal-aid Highway Program
40,569
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Motor Carrier Safety Grants
313
Federal Railroad Administration: Grants to Amtrak & Rail Safety Grants
1,400
Federal Transit Administration: Formula Grants
8,595
Federal Transit Administration: Capital Investment Grants (New Starts & Small
2,120
Starts)
Federal Transit Administration: WMATA Capital & Preventive Maintenance
150
Grants
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Highway Traffic Safety Grants
562
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: Emergency
28
Preparedness Grants
Total Grant Accounts
57,449
Total DOT Funding
$71,790
Source: Accounts and amounts taken from Comparative Statement of Budget Authority, H.Rept. 114-129.
Notes: Amounts shown in this table represent totals for grant-making accounts, except that where
administrative expenses were broken out in the source table they have been subtracted from the account total.
Reauthorization of Surface and Air Transportation Programs
Since most of DOT funding comes from trust funds whose revenues typically come from taxes,
the periodic reauthorizations of the taxes supporting these trust funds, and the apportionment of
the budget authority from those trust funds to DOT programs, are a significant aspect of DOT
funding. The current authorizations for both the federal aviation and surface transportation
programs are scheduled to expire during 2015. Reauthorization of these programs may affect both
their structure and their funding levels. See CRS Report R43420, Surface Transportation
Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk et al., and CRS Report R43858,
Issues in the Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by Bart Elias and
Rachel Y. Tang for more information.
DOT Funding Trend
DOT’s non-emergency annual funding peaked in FY2010 at $82.7 billion (in constant 2015
dollars) and has been declining since (see Figure 1). Starting in FY2013, it has received less
funding each year, in real terms, than it received in FY2006.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Figure 1. DOT 10-Year Funding Trend (FY2006-FY2015)
(millions of constant 2015 dollars)
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Calculated by CRS based on figures in annual House THUD Appropriations committee reports.
Current figures converted to constant dol ars using the GDP (Chained) Price Index column in Table 10.1 (Gross
Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2020) in the FY2016 Budget Request:
Historical Tables (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals), rebased to 2015.
Notes: Budget authority in this chart reflects an attempt to measure the amount of new funding available to
DOT each year; it equals discretionary appropriations plus limitations on obligations. It does not include
emergency appropriations (for example, to repair storm damage) or rescissions of budget authority, rescissions
of contract authority, and offsetting col ections (which reduce the amount of discretionary budget authority
shown as going to DOT without actually reducing the amount of funding available to DOT).
DOT FY2016 Appropriations
Recent Developments
The House passed H.R. 2577 on June 9, 2015, with several amendments.
Transportation amendments adopted include adding $9 million to Amtrak’s capital grant funding for installing inward-
facing cameras in locomotives (offset by reductions in other accounts), adding $4 million to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s Operations & Research account (offset by reductions in the DOT Secretary’s Office
Salary & Expenses account), and adding $3.5 million to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Safety & Operations
account (offset by another reduction in the DOT Secretary’s Office Salary & Expenses account).
The Administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2577 criticizing the funding levels in the
bill, saying that the President’s advisors would recommend that the bill be vetoed.

Table 4 presents a selected account-by-account summary of FY2016 appropriations for DOT,
compared to FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2015-FY2016 Detailed Budget Table
(in millions of current dollars)
Department of Transportation
FY2015
FY2016
Selected Accounts
Enacted Request H.R.
2577
Senate

Enacted
Office of the Secretary (OST)




Payments to air carriers (Essential Air Service)a
155
175
155


National infrastructure investments (TIGER)
500
1,250
100


Safe transport of oil
—
5
—


Total, OST
803
1,612
389


Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)



Operations 9,741
9,915
9,845


Facilities & equipment
2,600
2,855
2,503


Research, engineering, & development
157
166
157


Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport Improvement
3,350
2,900
3,350
Program) (limitation on obligations)
Total, FAA
15,847
15,836
15,855


Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)



Limitation on administrative expenses
426
442
429


Federal-aid highways (limitation on obligations)
40,256
50,068
40,256


Total, FHWA
40,995
51,307
40,995


Federal Motor Carrier Safety



Administration (FMCSA)
Motor carrier safety operations and programs
271
329
259


Motor carrier safety grants to states
313
339
313


Total, FMCSA
584
669
572


National Highway Traffic Safety



Administration (NHTSA)
Operations and research
269
331
278


Highway traffic safety grants to states (limitation
562
577
562
on obligations)
Total, NHTSA
830
908
840


Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)



Safety and operations
187
204
190


Research and development
39
39
39


Rail Service Improvement Program
—
2,325
—


Current passenger rail service
—
2,450
—


Amtrak operating grants
250
—
289


Amtrak capital and debt service grants
1,140
—
859


Total Amtrak grants
1,390
2,450
1,148


Total, FRA
1,626
5,018
1,377


Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Department of Transportation
FY2015
FY2016
Selected Accounts
Enacted Request H.R.
2577
Senate

Enacted
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Formula grants (M)
8,595
13,800
8,595


Capital investment grants (New Starts)
2,120
3,250
1,921


Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
150
150
100
Authority
FTA Total
10,887
18,399
10,726


Maritime Administration (MARAD)
341
407
361
Assistance to small shipyards
3
3
3


Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Subtotal 220
256
227


Offsetting user fees
127
154
125


Emergency preparedness grants (M)
29
29
29


PHMSA net total
94
102
103


Office of Inspector General
86
87
86
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
32
36
29
Corporation
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Salaries and expenses
31
32
31


Offsetting col ections
1
1
1


STB net total
30
31
30


DOT Totals
Appropriation (discretionary funding)
18,184
24,016
17,182


Limitations on obligations (M)
53,485
69,666
53,460


Subtotal—new funding
71,284
89,744
70,549
Rescissions of discretionary funding
-122
—
—


Rescissions of contract authority
-260
—
—


Offsetting col ections
-1
-7
-1


Net new discretionary funding
17,801
24,008
17,181
Net new budget authority
71,286
93,674
70,640
Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on information in H.R. 2577 and H.Rept. 114-129.
Notes: “M” stands for mandatory budget authority. Line items may not add up to the subtotals due to omission
of some accounts. Subtotals and totals may differ from those in the source documents due to treatment of
rescissions, offsetting collections, and other adjustments. The figures in this table reflect new budget authority
made available for the fiscal year. For budgetary calculation purposes, the source documents may subtract
rescissions of prior year funding or contract authority, or offsetting collections, in calculating subtotals and totals.
a. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program also receives an additional amount in mandatory budget authority;
see discussion below.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Selected Issues
Roughly three-fourths of DOT’s budget is mandatory budget authority (contract authority)
derived from the Highway Trust Fund. The authorizations for that funding were scheduled to
expire at the end of FY2014, and have been extended through July 2015. The Highway Trust
Fund is projected to fall below the level needed to make timely payments to grantees during
FY2015. Thus, Congress is considering FY2015 DOT appropriations in the context of uncertainty
about DOT’s future program structure and funding.
Overall, the FY2016 budget request totals $93.7 billion in new budget resources for DOT.1 The
requested funding is $22 billion more than that enacted for FY2015. The Administration request
reflects its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, which calls for significant increases in
funding for highways, transit, and intercity rail. Transportation authorization is outside the
jurisdiction of the appropriations committees, but since most of DOT’s appropriations come from
the Highway Trust Fund, the status of the fund is a key concern.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended, and the House passed, $70.6 billion in net
new budget authority, $646 million (1%) less than provided in FY2015.
Highway Trust Fund Solvency
Virtually all federal highway funding, and most federal transit funding, comes from the Highway
Trust Fund, whose revenues come largely from the federal motor fuels excise tax (“gas tax”). For
several years, expenditures from the fund have exceeded revenues; for example, in FY2015,
revenues are projected to be approximately $39 billion, while authorized outlays are projected to
be approximately $52 billion.2 Congress transferred more than $54 billion, mostly from the
general fund of the Treasury, to the Highway Trust Fund during the period FY2008-FY2014 to
keep the trust fund solvent. DOT has projected that the trust fund will have insufficient revenues
to meet its obligations in a timely manner before the end of FY2015.
One reason for the shortfall in the fund is that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993.
The tax is a fixed amount assessed per gallon of fuel sold, not a percentage of the cost of the fuel
sold: whether a gallon of gas costs $1 or $4, the highway trust fund receives 18.3 cents for each
gallon of gasoline and 24.3 cents for each gallon of diesel. Meanwhile, the value of the gas tax
has been diminished by inflation (which has reduced the purchasing power of the revenue raised
by the tax) and increasing automobile fuel efficiency (which reduces growth in gas sales as more
efficient vehicles are able to travel farther on a gallon of fuel). The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has forecast that gasoline consumption will be relatively flat through 2024, as continued
increases in the fuel efficiency of the U.S. passenger fleet are projected to offset increases in the
number of miles driven.3 Consequently, CBO expects highway trust fund revenues of $37 billion

1 This number, taken from H.Rept. 114-129, may differ slightly from the figure in DOT budget documents because of
variations in the treatment of offsetting collections, mandatory funding, rescissions, and other budgetary considerations.
2 Congressional Budget Office, “Projections of Highway Trust Fund Accounts—CBO’s March 2015 Baseline,”
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43884-2015-03-HighwayTrustFund.pdf.
3 Ibid., p. 88.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

to $38 billion annually from FY2014 to FY2024, well short of the current $53 billion annual level
of authorized expenditures from the fund.4
National Infrastructure Investment (TIGER Grants)
The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program
originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), where it was referred to
as “national infrastructure investment” (as it has been in subsequent appropriations acts). It is a
discretionary grant program intended to address two criticisms of the current structure of federal
transportation funding:
• that virtually all of the funding is distributed to state and local governments,
which select projects based on their individual priorities, making it difficult to
fund projects that have national or regional impacts but whose costs fall largely
on one or two states; and
• that federal transportation funding is divided according to mode of transportation,
making it difficult for major projects in different modes to compete on the basis
of comparative benefit.
The TIGER program provides grants to projects of national, regional, or metropolitan area
significance in various modes on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by U.S. DOT.5
Although the program is, by description, intended to fund projects of national, regional, and
metropolitan area significance, in practice its funding has gone more toward projects of regional
and metropolitan area significance. In large part this is a function of congressional intent, as
Congress has directed that the funds be distributed equitably across geographic areas, between
rural and urban areas, and among transportation modes, and has set relatively low maximum ($15
million) and minimum ($1 million for rural projects) grant limits.
Congress has continued to support the TIGER program through annual DOT appropriations.6
There have been six rounds of TIGER grants (from ARRA funding and from FY2010-FY2014
annual appropriations), with the seventh round (FY2015) in process. After the restructuring of
DOT programs in the previous surface transportation reauthorization,7 the TIGER program is
virtually the only remaining discretionary grant program for surface transportation other than the
Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grant program (popularly referred to as New
Starts), discussed below. It is heavily oversubscribed; for example, DOT announced that it
received a total of $9.5 billion in applications for the $600 million available for FY2014 grants.8
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that, while DOT has selection
criteria for the TIGER grant program, it has sometimes awarded grants to lower-ranked projects
while bypassing higher-ranked projects without explaining why it did so, raising questions about

4 Ibid., Table 4-3.
5 For more information, see DOT’s TIGER website: http://www.transportation.gov/tiger.
6 Congress refers to the program as “National Infrastructure Investment” in appropriations acts.
7 Moving Ahead for Programs in the 21st Century (MAP-21), P.L. 112-141, enacted July 6, 2012.
8 U.S. Department of Transportation, “Strong Demand for TIGER Grants Highlights Continued Need for
Transportation Investment,” May 15, 2014, http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/strong-demand-tiger-grants-highlights-
continued-need-transportation-investment.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

the integrity of the selection process.9 DOT has responded that its project rankings are based on
transportation-related criteria (e.g., safety, economic competitiveness), but that it must sometimes
select lower-ranking projects over higher-ranking ones to comply with other selection criteria
established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban
awards.10
As Table 5 illustrates, the TIGER grant appropriation process has followed a pattern for several
years: the Administration requests as much as or more than Congress has previously provided; the
House zeroes out the program or proposes a large cut; the Senate proposes an amount similar to
the previously enacted figure; and the final enacted amount is similar to the previously enacted
amount.
Table 5. Recent TIGER Grant Appropriation Pattern
(millions of current dollars)
Budget
Request
House Senate Enacted
FY2013 $500
0
500
500
FY2014 500
0
550
600
FY2015 1,250
100
550
500
FY2016 1,250
100
—
—
Source: Committee reports accompanying Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies appropriations acts, various years.
Notes: Enacted figures do not reflect subsequent reductions due to sequester reductions or rescissions.
In addition to the reduced funding, the House Appropriations Committee recommends reducing
the federal matching share for TIGER grants from 80% to 50%.
Essential Air Service (EAS)11
The EAS program seeks to preserve commercial air service to small communities by subsidizing
service that would otherwise be unprofitable. The cost of the program in real terms has doubled
between FY2008 and FY2013, in part because route reductions by airlines resulted in new
communities being added to the program. Congress made changes to the program in 2012,
including allowing no new entrants,12 capping the per-passenger subsidy for a community at
$1,000, limiting communities less than 210 miles from a hub airport to a maximum average
subsidy per passenger of $200, and allowing smaller, less expensive planes to be used for
communities with few daily passengers.13

9 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office, Surface Transportation: Actions Needed to Improve Documentation of Key
Decisions in the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program, GAO-14-628R, May 28, 2014.
10 Ibid., p. 6.
11 For more information about EAS, see CRS Report R41666, Essential Air Service (EAS): Frequently Asked
Questions, by Rachel Y. Tang.
12 This limitation does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii. Forty-three (27%) of the EAS communities are in Alaska; none
are in Hawaii.
13 The program had previously required airlines to use 15-passenger aircraft at a minimum.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 6. Essential Air Service Program: Number of Communities and Annual Budget,
FY2008-FY2015
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

# of EAS
146 153 159 155 163 160 NA NA
communities
Budget (millions
$109 $138 $200 $200 $216 $255 $268 $263
of current $)
Budget in
121 151 217 213 226 262 272 263
constant 2015
dollars (millions)
Source: Prepared by CRS based on information from Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, FY2015 Budget Estimate, p. EAS/PAC -2; FY2014 and FY2015 budget data from H.Rept. 113-464,
p. 12, and H.Rept. 114-129.
Note: Budget figures deflated using the “Total Non-Defense Outlays” column from Table 10.1—Gross
Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables 1940-2020, Budget of the United States 2016;
numbers rebased to 2015 by CRS.
Supporters of the EAS program contend that preserving airline service to small communities was
a commitment Congress made when it deregulated airline service in 1978, anticipating that
airlines would reduce or eliminate service to many communities that were too small to make such
service economically viable. Supporters also contend that subsidizing air service to smaller
communities promotes economic development in rural areas. Critics of the program note that the
subsidy cost per passenger is relatively high,14 that many of the airports in the program have very
few passengers,15 and that some of the airports receiving EAS subsidies are little more than an
hour’s drive from major airports.
Table 7. Essential Air Service Funding, FY2015-FY2016
($ thousands)

FY2015 Enacted
FY2016 Request
H.R. 2577
Senate
Enacted
Appropriation $155,000 $175,000
$155,000

Mandatory
108,199 108,379
108,379
supplement


Total $263,199
$283,379
$263,379


Source: H.Rept. 114-129.
In addition to the annual discretionary appropriation for the program, there is a mandatory annual
authorization of $100 million16 financed by overflight fees collected from commercial airlines by

14 To remain eligible for the program, a community’s subsidy per passenger must not exceed $1,000. The per-passenger
subsidy varies among communities from $6 to over $1,000 in rare cases. Information on EAS communities’ subsidy
per passenger is on pp. 21-23 of S.Rept. 113-182.
15 In 2012, 27 EAS communities averaged fewer than 10 passengers per day. In 2012, Congress disqualified airports
averaging fewer than 10 passengers per day unless they are more than 175 miles from the nearest hub airport: P.L. 112-
95, Title IV, Subtitle B.
16 The amount made available to the EAS program from the fees may exceed $100 million, if the fees provide sufficient
revenue.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

FAA. These overflight fees apply to international flights that fly over, but do not land in, the
United States. The fees are to be reasonably related to the costs of providing air traffic services to
such flights.
As Table 7 shows, the Administration requested $175 million for the EAS program in FY2016, in
addition to $108 million in mandatory funding for a total of $283 million. The House committee
recommended $155 million in discretionary funding and $263 million overall, the same amounts
as in FY2015.
Intercity Rail Safety
On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak passenger train derailed in Philadelphia; 8 passengers died and over
200 were injured. The incident is still being investigated, but preliminary findings indicate that
the derailment resulted from the train traveling at nearly twice the speed prescribed for that
section of track. National Transportation Safety Board officials have stated that the incident could
have been prevented if positive train control technology had been operating on that section of
track.17
In 2008, Congress directed railroads to install positive train control (PTC) on certain segments of
the national rail network (including the segment where this incident occurred) by the end of
2015.18 Amtrak had installed the necessary equipment but had not yet put it into operation. It is
unclear whether greater federal funding for Amtrak would have led positive train control to be
implemented earlier on this section of track. Freight railroads have reportedly spent billions of
dollars thus far to meet this requirement, but most of the track required to have PTC installed is
not expected to be in compliance by the deadline. Congress provided $50 million in FY2010 for
grants to railroads to help cover the expenses of installing PTC. The Administration’s FY2016
budget request included $875 million for the cost of positive train control implementation on
commuter railroad routes; the House Appropriations Committee did not include any funding for
this purpose, though in the accompanying committee report the committee urged affected
railroads to “move aggressively to implement this important technology.”19
H.Rept. 114-129 directs the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to
require all states to prepare railroad-highway grade crossing safety action plans identifying
specific solutions to improve safety at high-risk crossings. Currently only the 10 states that had
the highest number of grade crossing collisions during the period 2006-2008 are required to have
such plans.
Intercity Passenger Rail Development
Reflecting the Administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal, the budget
proposed a total of $4.8 billion for a new National High Performance Rail System program within
FRA, consisting of two grant programs: $2.45 billion for a Current Passenger Rail Service grant

17 Testimony of Christopher Hart, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, June 2, 2015, http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2015-06-02-
hart.pdf.
18 See CRS Report R42637, Positive Train Control (PTC): Overview and Policy Issues, by John Frittelli.
19 H.Rept. 114-129, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

program (which would primarily fund maintenance and improvement of existing intercity
passenger rail service, i.e., Amtrak) and $2.325 billion for a Rail Service Improvement grant
program (which would fund new intercity passenger rail projects as well as some improvements
to freight rail). The funding would come from a new transportation trust fund rather than
discretionary funding. The Administration made a similar proposal in FY2014 and FY2015.
Congress has not taken up the Administration reauthorization proposal, so the House committee
recommendations follow the existing FRA structure.
The 111th Congress (2009-2010) 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. Since then, Congress has provided no additional funding and in
FY2011 rescinded $400 million of the unobligated portion of the $10.5 billion already
appropriated.
This program has provided funding mainly to develop intercity passenger rail service with top
speeds of 90 or 110 miles per hour. One state, California, is actively pursuing development of a
high-speed rail line that would provide dedicated tracks for passenger trains traveling at speeds
greater than 150 miles per hour. California has received $3.6 billion in federal funding for this
project, but the total cost of constructing the line is estimated at more than $70 billion, and the
prospects for financing the full project are uncertain.
Amtrak
The Administration proposal for a new Current Passenger Rail Service account would almost
double the amount Congress provided Amtrak in FY2015. Amtrak submits a grant request to
Congress each year, separate from the Administration’s budget request. Amtrak requested $2.0
billion for FY2016,20 $450 million less than the Administration’s request for Amtrak. Amtrak’s
request used different categories than the Administration budget, making a comparison difficult.
The House committee recommended $1.139 billion for Amtrak for FY2016, $252 million (18%)
below Amtrak’s FY2015 funding. The House amended the bill to add $9 million, offset by
reductions in several other programs, increasing the total to $1.148 billion, 17% below the
FY2015 amount.
Table 8 shows the amount of funding provided for Amtrak grants in FY2015 and the amounts
requested and proposed for FY2016.

20 Amtrak, FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request, February 17, 2015, Table 1, available at http://www.amtrak.com/
ccurl/785/933/Amtrak-FY16-Grant-Legislative-Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 8. Amtrak Budget and Request, FY2015-FY2016
(millions of dollars)
FY2016
FY2016 Amtrak
FY2015
Administration
Independent Budget
Grant
Enacted
Request
Request H.R.
2577
Senate
Enacted
Operating grants
$250
—
$732 $289

Capital and debt
1,140 —
712
859
service grants
Current
— $2,425
—
—


Passenger Rail
Service
Northeast
— (550)
—
—

Corridor
State corridors
—
(225)
—
—


Long-distance
— (850)
—
—

routes
National assets
—
(475)
—
—


Stations ADA
— (350)
—
—

compliance
PRIIA Section 212
— —
556
—
Grant Program
Total $1,390
$2,425 $2,000 $1,148

Source: H.Rept. 114-129; Federal Railroad Administration FY2016 Budget Estimate, Amtrak FY2016 Grant and
Legislative Request.
Notes: ADA refers to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. PRIIA is the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Division B of P.L. 110-432. Numbers in parentheses are breakdowns
of the total number. Amtrak’s independent budget request breaks down its overal request differently; the
breakdown is altered here for better comparison with appropriations bills.
Amtrak’s operating grant request totals $732 million, reflecting projected operating losses of its
state-supported routes and long-distance routes. It projects a $367-million operating profit on the
Northeast Corridor (NEC), but plans to apply that toward capital investment on the corridor, the
capital needs of which are far greater than can be covered by its operating profits. Because
Amtrak’s budget request applies that operating revenue to its capital needs and also requests $556
million for matching grants to states for contributions to NEC infrastructure per PRIIA Section
212, which would offset a portion of Amtrak’s capital needs,21 comparing Amtrak’s budget
request to the funding proposed in the House bill can be confusing; a more direct comparison is
shown in Table 9:

21 Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) requires the Northeast Corridor
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (made up of Amtrak, U.S. DOT, states along the NEC, and other
NEC stakeholders) to develop and implement a method to allocate shared costs for NEC infrastructure and services.
The cost-sharing agreement has been approved and will go into effect in FY2016. The commission has recommended
that Congress establish a matching grant fund program for states to invest in the NEC; see testimony of a commission
representative before the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Infrastructure Safety and Security in May 2015, http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2015-
04-30-JPR-Testimony-Senate-Commerce-2015-05-04_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 9. Amtrak’s FY2016 Budget
(millions of dollars)

Amtrak Estimate
H.R. 2577
Senate
Enacted
Operating revenues
$3,354




Operating expenses
(3,642)




Net gain (loss)
(288.5)




Operating grant


288.5


Debt service
(169)




Capital needs
(1,804)




State & commuter contributions
261




Net capital needs
(1,543)




Net capital and debt service needs
(1,703)




Capital and debt service grant


859


Total request
2,000




Total funding
$3,354

1,147.5


Source: Amtrak FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request; H.Rept. 114-129.
Notes: Amtrak debt service amount includes federal holdback. Numbers in parentheses are expenses.
Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts
(Capital Investment Grants)
The majority of FTA’s almost $11-billion funding is funneled to state and local transit agencies
through several formula programs. The largest transit discretionary grant program is the Capital
Investment Grants program (commonly referred to as the New Starts and Small Starts program).
It funds new fixed-guideway transit lines22 and extensions to existing lines. Before 2012, the
program had two components, New Starts and Small Starts, based on project cost. The New Starts
component funds capital projects with total costs over $250 million that are seeking more than
$75 million in federal funding, and the Small Starts component funds capital projects with total
costs under $250 million that are seeking less than $75 million in federal funding.
In the transit program reauthorization enacted in 2012, Congress added a third component, Core
Capacity. This component funds expansions to existing fixed-guideway systems that are at or near
capacity.
The Capital Investment Grants program provides funding to large projects over a period of years.
Much of the funding for this program each year is committed to existing New Starts projects with
multi-year grant funding agreements. FTA reports that its existing grant agreements will require
$1.25 billion in New Starts funding in FY2016.
For FY2016, the Administration requested $3.25 billion for the program, $1.13 billion (53%)
more than the $2.12 billion provided in FY2015. The House Committee on Appropriations

22 Fixed-guideway refers to systems in which the vehicle travels on a fixed course; for example, subways and light rail.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

recommended $1.92 billion, roughly $200 million (9%) less than the FY2015 level. According to
the committee, that amount would fully fund all projects with existing grant agreements and
would provide $250 million for projects expected to sign a full funding grant agreement during
FY2016, plus $353 million for nine Small Starts projects included in the Administration request.
The federal share for New Starts projects, by statute, can be up to 80%. Since FY2002, DOT
appropriations have included a provision directing FTA not to sign any full funding grant
agreements that provide a federal share of more than 60%. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended lowering the maximum federal share to 50%.
Critics of this provision note that the federal share for highway projects is typically 80% and in
some cases is higher. They contend that, by providing a lower share of federal funding (and thus
requiring a higher share of local funding), this provision makes highway projects relatively more
attractive for communities considering how to address transportation problems. Advocates of this
provision note that the demand for New Starts funding greatly exceeds the amount available, so
requiring a higher local match allows FTA to support more projects with the available funding.
They also assert that requiring a higher local match likely encourages communities to estimate the
costs and benefits of proposed transit projects more carefully, reducing the risk of subsequent cost
overruns.
Grant to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 authorized $1.5 billion over 10
years in grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for preventive
maintenance and capital grants, to be matched by funding from WMATA’s three jurisdictions: the
District of Columbia and the states of Maryland and Virginia. Under this agreement, Congress has
provided $150 million in each of the past six years to WMATA.
WMATA faces a number of difficulties. It is dealing with a backlog of maintenance needs due to
inadequate maintenance investment years ago; it has experienced several fatal incidents, most
recently in January of this year, that have raised questions about the safety culture of the agency;
and an investigation that found numerous instances of mismanagement of federal funding has led
FTA to restrict WMATA’s use of federal funds. Richard Sarles, WMATA’s general manager since
January 2011, retired in January 2015 (he had announced his retirement date in September 2014);
WMATA’s board is searching for a new general manager, amid debate over whether the new
general manager’s expertise should be in transit or in reforming troubled organizations.23
For FY2016, H.R. 2577 would provide $100 million, $50 million less than in previous years. The
House Committee on Appropriations had initially recommended $75 million, and in the
committee report accompanying H.R. 2577, the committee noted that if it sees evidence that
WMATA is addressing its safety and financial issues, the committee would reevaluate its funding
recommendation. During committee markup, an amendment was approved adding $25 million to
the WMATA funding.

23 Robert Thomson, “Here’s What People Want in a New Metro GM,” Washington Post, April 23, 2015,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/04/23/metro-board-reviews-public-comments-on-general-
manager-search/.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Commercial Driver Hours of Service and the 34-Hour Restart Requirement
The House bill continues a provision (§132) from the FY2015 THUD act that suspends portions
of commercial driver hours-of-service rules pending a study of their costs and benefits. These
rules were imposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in June 2013. Drivers are
required to take at least 34 hours off duty, covering two consecutive 1 a.m.-5 a.m. periods, after
working for 60 hours in a seven-day period (or 70 hours in an eight-day period). And drivers are
only allowed to take this 34-hour “restart” once in a 168-hour (seven-day) span. If drivers work
for less than 60 hours in a week, they do not have to take the 34-hour restart; for example, if a
driver worked 8 hours every day, for a total of 56 hours in a seven-day period, that driver could
continue to work every day without taking a 34-hour rest period.
The purpose of the 2013 change in the hours-of-service rules was to promote highway safety by
reducing the risk of driver fatigue. Under the previous rules, drivers had to take a 34-hour restart
period after working for 60 hours in a seven-day period (or 70 hours in an eight-day period). But
drivers could start this rest period at any time, and could take more than one such rest period per
week. Thus a driver was able to work the maximum permitted time per day (14 hours) and take
the 34-hour restart after five days, and then, after a rest period of as little as one night and two
daytime periods, work 14 hours a day for another five consecutive days. FMCSA asserted that
this schedule allowed a driver to work up to 82 hours over a seven-day period, which it judged to
be insufficient to prevent the driver being fatigued while driving.
By limiting the use of the 34-hour restart to once in a seven-day (168-hour) period, FMCSA
sought to limit drivers to a maximum of 70 hours of work in a seven-day span. And by requiring
that the 34-hour restart period cover two 1 a.m.-5 a.m. periods, the current rule allows drivers to
get more sleep during the 1 a.m.-5 a.m. period, when studies indicate that sleep is most restorative
(compared to sleeping during other times of the day).
The provision in Section 132 of the House bill prohibits enforcement of the new requirement,
returning the requirement to what it was prior to June 2013, unless the study required by Section
133 of Division K of P.L. 113-235 (the FY2015 THUD act) finds that commercial drivers
operating under the new restart provisions showed “statistically significant improvement in all
outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, driver health and longevity, and work schedules.”
This is slightly different than the original standard in P.L. 113-235, which looked for whether the
study showed a “greater net benefit for the operational, safety, health and fatigue impacts of the
restart provisions.” FMCSA published a cost-benefit analysis in the final rule that implemented
the change, which found that the change was cost-beneficial, but critics of the change said that the
impacts were greater than FMCSA had estimated.

Author Contact Information
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

---

.
Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations


Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
General DOT funding, passenger rail,
D. Randal Peterman
7-3267
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov
NHTSA, FMCSA, surface
transportation safety and security
Aviation safety, aviation security,
Bart Elias
7-7771
belias@crs.loc.gov
Federal Aviation Administration,
National Transportation Safety Board
Federal Highway Administration,
Robert S. Kirk
7-7769
rkirk@crs.loc.gov
Highway and Airport and Airway Trust
Funds, tolling
Federal Railroad Administration,
John Frittelli
7-7033
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov
freight transportation, Maritime
Administration, Surface Transportation
Board
Federal Transit Administration, surface William J. Mallett
7-2218
wmallett@crs.loc.gov
transportation policy, private
investment in infrastructure
Airport Improvement Program,
Rachel Tang
7-7875
rtang@crs.loc.gov
Essential Air Service, airport and airline
issues
Motor vehicle safety, electric and
Bill Canis
7-1568
bcanis@crs.loc.gov
alternative-fuel vehicles and
infrastructure


Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

---