Reauthorization of the
January 15, 2021
Federal Public Transportation Program
William J. Mallett
The federal public transportation program was authorized through FY2020 as part of the Fixing
Specialist in
America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). A one-year extension of the FAST
Transportation Policy
Act through September 30, 2021, was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021

and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). Several major issues may arise as Congress considers
program reauthorization.

Public transportation includes local buses, subways, commuter rail, light rail, paratransit (often service for the elderly and
disabled using small buses and vans), and ferryboats, but excludes Amtrak, intercity buses, and school buses. The FAST Act
authorized $61.1 billion for five fiscal years beginning in FY2016, an average of $12.2 billion per year. Of the total amount,
80% was authorized from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, and 20% was authorized from the general
fund of the U.S. Treasury. Most federal funding from the mass transit account is distributed to transit agencies through
formula programs. Most of the general funding authorized is for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program, also known as
New Starts, which provides discretionary funding for large capital projects to create and extend rail and bus rapid transit
systems.
The context for reauthorization of the federal public transportation programs is declining ridership, which is related to both
the underlying conditions in the sector and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Annual transit ridership
reached a modern-era high of 10.7 billion trips in 2014, but fell by almost 8% to 9.9 billion trips in each of 2018 and 2019.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, national ridership in 2020 was less than 5 billion trips, an unprecedented decline of
more than 50% compared with 2018 and 2019. Likely reauthorization issues include the following:
 Funding levels and the solvency of the mass transit account. Even if travel fully recovers from the
pandemic, spending from the mass transit account is projected to exceed revenues by an average of $5
billion annually through FY2025. Bringing receipts and expenditures into balance would require a cut in
spending on the federal transit program, an increase in revenues paid into the account, or a combination of
the two. Revenue options include increasing taxes that are dedicated to the mas s transit accounts and
transferring money from the general fund.
 Changes to two federal loan programs that may be used for transit capital expenditures, the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Finance (RRIF) program. Issues include TIFIA’s share of project
costs, the speed and cost of obtaining a loan, and the authorization of federal funding to pay the credit risk
premium of RRIF loans.
 Declining public transportation ridership. Options include linking federal formula funds to transit
agencies’ success in boosting ridership; redirecting CIG funding from building new rail facilities to
refurbishing lines in dense cities where rail transit currently carries large numbers of riders; and funding
research to explore partnerships between transit agencies and firms offering other mobility options such as
ridesharing and bike sharing.
 Funding the CIG program. CIG has been proposed as a major source of funding for the Gateway
Program, which is intended to build new rail tunnels and repair existing tunnels between New Jersey and
New York. The amount sought for the Gateway Program is equal to several years of funding for CIG at
recent funding levels, and could overwhelm a program that is responsible for aiding projects throughout the
country.
 Public transportation and climate change. Congress may consider how to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from surface transportation and adaptation provisions that aim to make the public transportation
system more resilient. Options considered might include dedicated funding for resilience projects and
greater funding for buying low- and no-emission buses.
 Buy America. This law places domestic content restrictions on federally funded transportation projects,
including procurement of rolling stock. Issues that might arise include the share of components and
subcomponents that have to be domestically sourced, the availability of waivers, and the standardization of
requirements across modes.
Congressional Research Service

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

Introduction
Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation
program administered by the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program was authorized from FY2016
through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-
94). A one-year extension of the FAST Act was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). This report discusses the major issues that
may arise as Congress considers reauthorization.
In federal law, public transportation—also known as public transit, mass transit, and mass
transportation—includes local buses, subways, commuter rail, light rail, paratransit (often service
for the elderly and disabled using smal buses and vans), and ferryboats, but excludes Amtrak,
intercity buses, and school buses (49 U.S.C. §5302). Prior to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, which has had a major effect on public transportation ridership, about
48% of public transportation trips were made by bus, 37% by heavy rail (also cal ed metro and
subway), 5% by commuter rail, and 6% by light rail (including streetcars). Paratransit accounted
for about 2% of al public transportation trips, and ferries about 1%.1
Public transportation accounted for about 3% of al daily transportation trips prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic, and about 7% of commute trips.2 Although ridership was heavily concentrated in a
few large cities and their surrounding suburbs, especial y the New York City metropolitan area,
public transportation was provided in a wide range of places, including smal urban areas, rural
areas, and Indian land.3 The pandemic caused an unprecedented drop in ridership nationwide
beginning in March 2020, but the longer-term effects on transit service and use are uncertain.
The Federal Public Transportation Program
Most federal funding for public transportation is authorized in multiyear surface transportation
acts. The FAST Act authorized $61.1 bil ion for five fiscal years beginning in FY2016, an average
of $12.2 bil ion per year. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act
extended the FAST Act for one fiscal year, authorizing $12.6 bil ion for FY2021. Of the total
five-year amount in the FAST Act, 80% was authorized from the mass transit account of the
Highway Trust Fund. Funding authorized from the Highway Trust Fund is provided as contract
authority, a type of budget authority that may be obligated prior to an appropriation. The other
20% was authorized from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury as appropriated budget authority.4
Funding for public transportation is sometimes provided under other authorities. The FY2018,
FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 appropriations acts (P.L. 115-141, P.L. 116-6, P.L. 116-94, P.L.
116-260), for example, provided additional general fund money for several programs that
typical y receive funding only from the Highway Trust Fund, thereby raising the general fund
share of federal public transportation expenditures to about 28% in FY2018, 26% in FY2019,

1 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2020: Appendix A, Washington, DC,
2020, T able 2, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/.
2 Federal Highway Administration, Summary of Travel Trends: 2017 National Household Travel Survey, Washington,
DC, 2018, T ables 9b and 25, at https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf.
3 For information on rural public transportation, see Upper Great Plains T ransportation Institute, Rural Transit Fact
Book, 2017, October 2017, at https://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2017-rural-transit-fact-book.pdf.
4 CRS Report R42706, Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief, by William J. Mallett.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 5

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

21% in FY2020, and 22% in FY2021. Funding for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief
(ER) Program, which makes grants from the general fund for emergency repairs following natural
disasters or other emergencies, is typical y provided in supplemental appropriations acts.5
Additional y, $39 bil ion in emergency funding from the general fund has been provided to transit
agencies outside the ER Program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.6 Transit projects can
also be funded with money transferred (or “flexed”) from federal highway programs by state and
local officials. In FY2019, $1.3 bil ion in highway funds was flexed to transit.7 Excluding flexed
highway funds, COVID-19 relief funding, and ER program funding, funding provided in FY2017
through FY2021 was above the level authorized in the FAST Act (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding, FY2016-FY2021
Current Dol ars

Sources: Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94); Senate appropriations reports;
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6);
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94); Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other
Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
Notes: Funding provided includes contract budget authority and appropriated budget authority; and excludes
flexed federal highway funding, Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program funding, and COVID-19 relief
funding in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) and Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
There are six major programs for public transportation authorized by the FAST Act: (1)
Urbanized Area Formula; (2) State of Good Repair; (3) Capital Investment Grants (CIG) (also
known as “New Starts”); (4) Rural Area Formula; (5) Bus and Bus Facilities; and (6) Enhanced
Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities. Typical y, funding for al of these programs,

5 Appropriations for the P ublic T ransportation Emergency Relief Program since its creation in 2012 are $10.9 billion in
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2); $330 million in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-123); and $10.5 million in the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act , 2019 (P.L. 116-
20).
6 For COVID-19 relief, $25 billion was provided in FY2020 in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) and $14 billion was provided in FY2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(P.L. 116-260).
7 Congressional Budget Office, “Highway T rust Fund Accounts—CBO’s Baseline as of March 6, 2020,” at
https://www.cbo.gov/data/baseline-projections-selected-programs.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 6

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

except CIG, comes from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund. CIG funding comes
from the general fund. There are also a number of other, much smal er programs (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Federal Public Transportation Program Funding Shares
Funding Authorized, FY2016-FY2020

Source: Federal Transit Administration, “FAST Act Program Totals,” https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/
fast-act-program-totals.
Reauthorization Issues
Program Funding
The average of $12.2 bil ion per year authorized for the federal public transportation program in
the FAST Act represented about a 14% increase (unadjusted for inflation) from the previous
authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141).8
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a bil in August 2019 (S.
2302, 116th Congress) that would have reauthorized highway infrastructure programs through
FY2025 with a 27% increase over the funding provided by the FAST Act.9 A similar increase in
the annual authorization of public transportation funding would provide for federal expenditures
of about $15.5 bil ion per year. In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed a bil (H.R. 2,
116th Congress) to reauthorize surface transportation programs through FY2025, including the
federal public transportation programs. H.R. 2 would have authorized an increase in public
transportation funding from $12.2 bil ion per year to $21.4 bil ion per year, a 75% increase over
the funding provided by the FAST Act. As has traditional y been the case, H.R. 2 would have

8 General fund appropriations in FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 have provided additional money, on average
about $637 million per year, for several programs typically only trust funded.
9 CRS In Focus IF11300, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act
(S. 2302), by Robert S. Kirk.
Congressional Research Service
3

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

authorized about 80% of the funding for the public transportation programs from the mass transit
account of the Highway Trust Fund and the other 20% from the general fund.10
A higher level of federal funding might improve the condition and performance of public
transportation infrastructure. One indicator of the condition of public transportation infrastructure
is the reinvestment backlog, which DOT defines as “an indication of the amount of near-term
investment needed to replace assets that are past their expected useful lifetime.”11 DOT estimated
the reinvestment backlog to be $98 bil ion in 2014, about 13% of the total value of transit assets.12
In its biennial Conditions and Performance report, DOT projects how various future spending
levels might affect the condition of public transportation infrastructure. The most recent report
was published in November 2019 and used 2014 as the base year for projections. Capital
expenditures on public transportation in 2014, DOT noted, totaled $17.7 bil ion from al sources,
including federal, state, and local government support. Of this amount, $11.3 bil ion was spent on
preserving the existing system and $6.4 bil ion on expansion. If this spending pattern were to
continue over the 20 years between 2015 and 2034, DOT estimated, the investment backlog
would grow to $116 bil ion (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), an increase of 18%.13
DOT constructed two scenarios to estimate how much spending would be needed to eliminate the
backlog and accommodate new riders. Under the assumption of low ridership growth, DOT
estimated, $23.4 bil ion would be needed annual y, an increase of about 32% (in 2014 inflation-
adjusted dollars). In a scenario projecting high ridership growth, $25.6 bil ion would be needed
annual y, an increase of 45% (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars). DOT did not estimate the
spending necessary if ridership stagnates or declines. However, it did estimate that $18.4 bil ion
annual y (adjusted for inflation) would eliminate the reinvestment backlog over 20 years if there
is no spending on expansion.14
The focus of the federal public transportation program is on capital expenditures, but the program
also supports operational expenses in some circumstances, as wel as safety oversight, planning,
and research. Greater federal support for transit operations could increase the quantity of transit
service offered or reduce fares. In the past, particularly in the 1970s and early 1980s, such support
caused the costs of providing service to increase, particularly through increases in wages and
fringe benefits and by expanding services on routes with less demand.15 With greater flexibility to
use federal funding for operating expenses, transit agencies could neglect maintenance and asset
renewal, leading to a more rapid decline in the condition of capital assets. Existing flexibility to
use capital funds for maintenance may help agencies preserve equipment and facilities.
The Conditions and Performance Report does not make recommendations about the relative
shares of public transportation funding that should be borne by federal, state, and local
governments. The federal share of government spending on public transportation has been around
15% to 20% over the past 30 years.16 A higher level of funding by the federal government may

10 H.R. 2 (116th Congress) included an extension of FAST Act funding for FY2021 and a reauthorizatio n for FY2022
through FY2025.
11 Department of T ransportation, Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance,
23rd Edition, November 2019, p. 10-28, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/.
12 Ibid., p. 6-39.
13 Ibid., pp. 7-16 to 7-18.
14 Ibid., p. 7-27.
15 Charles Lave, “It Wasn’t Supposed to T urn Out Like T his: Federal Subsidies and Declining T ransit Productivity,”
Access, No. 5, Fall 1994, pp. 21-25, at http://www.uctc.net/access/access05.pdf.
16 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2019: Appendix A, Washington, DC,
Congressional Research Service
4

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

not necessarily translate into more spending overal if transit providers substitute federal dollars
for their own.
COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic may upend DOT’s condition and performance projections. Beginning
in March 2020, transit ridership and fare revenue declined by an unprecedented amount
nationwide. In April 2020, transit rail ridership was about 90% less than it had been in April 2019.
In November 2020, the decline was about 71% from the same month a year before. The
corresponding decline in fixed route bus ridership was 72% for April and 55% for November.17 It
is uncertain when or if ridership wil return to the pre-pandemic level. Some riders wil return
once the health threat recedes and economic activity increases. However, travel patterns,
particularly commuting that is responsible for about 50% of transit ridership, may be different
post-pandemic. Telecommuting, for example, may be more common than in the past. This could
reduce demand overal , but it could also shift the relative share of transit demand from rail to bus
because rail riders have, on average, higher incomes and more education, factors that are
associated with the ability to telecommute.18 Rail riders are also more likely to have a motor
vehicle available to travel.19
The amount of transit service provided may also decline as a result of COVID-19, partly as a
result of reduced demand and partly because of transit agency budget constraints. Passenger fares
and other operating revenue contributed about 25% of transit agency budgets in 2018, the last
year for which comprehensive information is available. Directly generated revenue, such as fuels
taxes and sales taxes that are dedicated to transit agency budgets, contributed another 12% in that
year. These revenue streams have also been affected by the pandemic. The remaining 63% of
funds pre-pandemic were federal, state, and local government subsidies. For the foreseeable
future, state and local government resources are likely to be constrained by the pandemic-related
recession.20
The federal government has provided $39 bil ion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for
public transportation agencies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While most federal
funding is typical y directed toward capital expenditures, this pandemic-related funding was
mainly intended to support operating expenses, such as employee pay, fuel, and extra costs
resulting from the pandemic, such as the more intensive cleaning of vehicles and stations and the
purchase of personal protective equipment for transit workers.
Despite existing and future support from the federal government, it is likely that in the short-term
transit agencies wil redirect existing resources away from capital expenses toward operating
expenses. This may result in a curtailment of planned expansion projects and a deterioration in
existing capital assets. Another possibility is for transit providers to reduce capital and operating

2019, T able 95, at http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx.
17 Bureau of T ransportation Statistics, “Monthly T ransportation Statistics, T ransit Ridership,” at https://data.bts.gov/
stories/s/m9eb-yevh.
18 Matthew Day, et al., “ Ability to Work From Home: Evidence From T wo Surveys and Implications for the Labor
Market in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Monthly Labor Review, June 2020, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/
pdf/ability-to-work-from-home.pdf.
19 American Public T ransportation Association, Who Rides Public Transportation, January 2017, at
https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/who-rides-public-transportation/.
20 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States Grappling With Hit to Tax Collections, Updated November 6, 2020, at
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-grappling-with-hit-to-tax-collections.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 9 Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

expenses through a reduction in current service, although this could result in a downward spiral of
reduced demand and shrinking fare revenue.21
Highway Trust Fund Issues
The solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and its two accounts, the highway account and the mass
transit account, is a major issue in reauthorization of funding for the public transportation
program. Outlays from the mass transit account have outpaced receipts for over a decade, an
imbalance the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects wil continue in the future under
current law. For the five-year period that began in FY2021, CBO expects the gap between
revenues and outlays to total $25 bil ion, an average of $5 bil ion annual y (Table 1).22
Table 1. Projected Mass Transit Account Revenue and Spending Imbalance
Dol ars in Bil ions
Fiscal Year
Revenue
Spending
Difference
2021
$6.2
$10.5
-$4.3
2022
$6.3
$10.8
-$4.5
2023
$6.3
$11.2
-$4.9
2024
$6.3
$11.7
-$5.4
2025
$6.3
$12.1
-$5.9
Five-year: FY2021-FY2025 total
$31.4
$56.4
-$25.0
Five-year: FY2021-FY2025 average
$6.30
$11.3
-$5.0
Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Highway Trust Fund Accounts—CBO’s September
2020 Baseline.”
Notes: Mass transit account revenue includes a projected $1.2 bil ion transferred annual y
from the highway account. Totals may not add due to rounding.
The primary revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund is motor fuel taxes, which were last
raised in 1993. Currently, of the 18.3 cents-per-gal on tax on gasoline and 24.3 cents-per-gal on
tax on diesel that go to the Highway Trust Fund, 2.86 cents is deposited in the mass transit
account. Congress has chosen to transfer general fund monies into the mass transit account to
permit a higher level of spending than motor fuel tax revenues alone could sustain. These
transfers have totaled $32.1 bil ion since they began in 2008. The FAST Act transferred $18.1
bil ion to the mass transit account from the general fund, and the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2021 and Other Extensions Act transferred another $3.2 bil ion.
According to FTA, a balance of at least $1 bil ion in the mass transit account is required to ensure
that the agency has sufficient funds to make mandated payments to transit agencies. CBO
estimates that if Congress were to extend current law without providing for further transfers from
the general fund to the mass transit account, the balance in the mass transit account would
approach $1 bil ion at some point in FY2022. This would likely require FTA to slow payments to

21 CRS Report R45144, Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy, by William J.
Mallett .
22 Congressional Budget Office, “ Highway T rust Fund Accounts—CBO’s September 2020 Baseline.”
Congressional Research Service
6

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

transit agencies. Outlays also outpace receipts in the highway account, and based on its current
balance, payment problems are also expected to begin in FY2022.23
Bringing the receipts and outlays of the mass transit account into balance would involve a cut in
program spending, an increase in revenues paid into the account, or a combination of the two. An
increase in revenues could involve a commitment to regular transfers from the general fund. With
the highway account facing similar problems, another possible change would be to redirect
revenues from the mass transit account to the highway account and to fund the transit account
with a general fund appropriation each year. This likely would make transit funding less certain,
and it would not make up the entire shortfal in the highway account.
Financing
In addition to grants, the federal government supports public transportation infrastructure with
direct loans and tax preferences for municipal bonds.24 Changes to two major federal loan
programs relevant to public transportation—the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Finance
(RRIF) program—could be considered in reauthorization.
TIFIA provides long-term, low-interest loans and other types of credit assistance for the
construction of surface transportation projects (23 U.S.C. §601 et seq.). Although the maximum
federal share of project costs that may be provided by the TIFIA program was raised in MAP-21
from 33% to 49%, DOT has stated that it wil provide more than 33% only in exceptional
circumstances.25 To date, TIFIA has not covered more than 33% of the cost of any project. By
limiting the TIFIA share in this way, DOT appears to be trying to maximize the leveraging of
nonfederal resources, but it may be excluding projects that may not be financial y viable without
greater federal assistance. Public transportation projects typical y cover a relatively smal share of
their costs from user fees, thus they usual y need more government support than highway and
bridge projects. Congress could direct DOT to consider a higher federal share in more
circumstances or across the board.
Some project sponsors have stated that the lengthy process and upfront costs for obtaining TIFIA
assistance led them not to seek TIFIA loans. The FAST Act required DOT to expedite projects
thought to be lower-risk—those requesting $100 mil ion or less in credit assistance with a
dedicated revenue stream unrelated to project performance and standard loan terms—but this has
apparently not had a significant effect: two projects have received TIFIA loans of less than $100
mil ion since the passage of the FAST Act. Congress could make smal TIFIA loans more
attractive by changing a requirement that project sponsors obtain two credit ratings; at present,
that requirement applies to TIFIA loans for projects with debt of $75 mil ion or more. Less
stringent requirements for credit ratings may increase the risk to the government of these loans.26
Reauthorization legislation also could incorporate various proposals that have been suggested to
speed up approvals, such as requiring more frequent meetings of the DOT officials who make

23 Ibid.
24 CRS Report R43308, Infrastructure Finance and Debt to Support Surface Transportation Investment, by William J.
Mallett and Grant A. Driessen.
25 Department of T ransportation, Build America Bureau, Credit Programs Guide, March 2017, p. 2-2, at
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/programs-and-services/tifia/
Bureau%20Credit%20Programs%20Guide_March_2017.pdf .
26 CRS Report R45516, The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program , by William J.
Mallett .
Congressional Research Service
7

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

recommendations on project loans to the Secretary of Transportation (known as the Council on
Credit and Finance), hiring additional staff to more quickly assess applications, and mandating
that DOT regularly publish information about the time it takes loan applications to reach
milestones.
The RRIF program was original y created to support freight railroads, particularly smal freight
railroads known as short lines, but loans are increasingly being made to commuter railroads.27
Legislative changes have made RRIF loans more attractive to commuter railroads. Recent
changes also permit loans for transit-oriented development—economic development projects,
including commercial and residential development, physically or functionally related to a
passenger rail station. Several large loans have been made to transit agencies for commuter rail
projects in the past few years, including $908 mil ion to the Dal as Area Rapid Transit to finance
a project from Dal as-Fort Worth Airport, $220 mil ion and $851 mil ion to the Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority for positive train control (PTC), and almost $1 bil ion to the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also for PTC.
The federal government requires project sponsors to make a payment known as a credit risk
premium to offset the risk of a default. No federal funding has been authorized to pay the credit
risk premiums for RRIF borrowers, although $25 mil ion was made available for this purpose in
the 2018 appropriations act.28 To enhance the attractiveness of RRIF for public transportation
projects, Congress could authorize a federal subsidy for the credit risk premium from the
Highway Trust Fund. Alternatively, Congress could provide for the credit risk premium from the
general fund directly or as part of another program. For example, the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) makes RRIF credit risk premiums eligible for grants
under the BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grants Program. Another RRIF-related proposal
is to extend the authority to provide loans for transit-oriented development projects, which
expires on September 30, 2021.29
Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program
Because the CIG program receives funding from the general fund, not the Highway Trust Fund,
appropriators have greater influence over its funding than they do over other transit programs.
Nevertheless, the authorization sets a benchmark for the program’s funding level, creates the
program’s overal structure, and can provide more or less discretion for FTA in the program’s
implementation.
During the Obama Administration, FTA, among others, recommended significant increases in
CIG funding to accommodate demand by project sponsors, especial y because projects to expand
the capacity of existing transit facilities, known as Core Capacity projects, were made eligible for
funding beginning in FY2013. FTA noted in its FY2017 budget submission that the number of

27 CRS Report R44028, The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program, by David Randall
Peterman.
28 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). DOT announced in December 2019 that it would use the
appropriation to offset the cost of the credit risk premium for loans to shortline freight railroads. Department of
T ransportation, Office of the Secretary, “ Notice of Funding Opportunity for Letters of Interest for the RRIF Express
Pilot Program Under the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program,” 84 Federal Register 68298-
68300, December 13, 2019.
29 45 U.S.C. §822(b)(3). T his deadline was extended from December 3, 2019, to September 30, 2020, by the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) and from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021, by the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act ( P.L. 116-159).
Congressional Research Service
8

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

projects in the CIG “pipeline” had grown from 37 in FY2012 to 63 in FY2016.30 In addition, FTA
asked Congress in its FY2017 budget request to increase annual CIG funding from the $2.3
bil ion authorized by the FAST Act to $3.5 bil ion, to accelerate projects to “not only potential y
lower financing costs incurred on these projects, but also al ow FTA to better manage the overal
program given the ever growing demand for funds.”31
For FY2018 and FY2019, the Trump Administration proposed that funding should be limited to
projects with existing commitments from the federal government, and that CIG funding should be
phased out. In its funding recommendation for FY2018, FTA noted that “future investments in
new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized
projects.”32 House and Senate appropriators rejected this approach, directing FTA to continue
working with project sponsors to develop projects, including issuing project evaluation ratings,
and requiring the al ocation of appropriations, with deadlines, to projects that have met the
program requirements.33
With pressure for continued operation, FTA subsequently dropped its cal for phasing out the
program; it recommended funding of $1.5 bil ion in FY2020 and $1.9 bil ion in FY2021,
including $500 mil ion and $925 mil ion for new projects, respectively. Congress agreed to nearly
$2 bil ion for the program in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) and
slightly more than $2 bil ion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). In
December 2020, FTA stated that from the beginning of the Trump Administration on January 20,
2017, FTA had “advanced” funding for 41 new CIG projects totaling $10.7 bil ion in CIG
funding.34
The INVEST in America Act (H.R. 2, 116th Congress) proposed an average authorization for the
CIG program of nearly $4.6 bil ion from FY2022 through FY2025, increasing from $3.5 bil ion
in FY2022 to $5.5 bil ion in FY2025. This would represent a doubling of the annual average
authorization level from the FAST Act (in nominal dollars).
New York and New Jersey Gateway Program
The Gateway Program, which involves a set of projects in a 10-mile section of the Northeast
Corridor (NEC) between Penn Station in Newark, NJ, and Penn Station in New York City, would
be designed to improve intercity passenger rail service by Amtrak, which owns the underlying
infrastructure, as wel as commuter rail service provided by New Jersey (NJ) Transit. NJ Transit

30 Federal T ransit Administration, Budget Estimates FY2017, AE-18, at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/FT A-FY-2017-CJ.pdf.
31 Federal T ransit Administration, Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2017: Capital Investment
Grant Program , p. 6, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FY17_Annual_Report.pdf.
32 Federal T ransit Administration, Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2018: Capital Investment
Grant Program , p. 7, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/grant -programs/capital-
investments/60771/fy18-annual-report_0.pdf.
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on T ransportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies, Departm ents of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Developm ent, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018 , 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 21, 2017, H.Rept. 115-237, pp. 58-59; U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on T ransportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies, Departm ents of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Developm ent, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2018, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 27, 2017, H.Rept. 115-138, pp. 79-80.
34 Federal T ransit Administration, “ Capital Investment Grant Funding Comparison Chart, December 17, 202 0,” at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/capital-investment-grant-funding-comparison-chart-december-17-2020.
Congressional Research Service
9

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

ridership in the corridor is approximately 50 mil ion passenger trips per year, making this among
the most heavily traveled public transportation routes in the country.35
The project sponsors—the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in cooperation with the
Gateway Program Development Corporation, New Jersey Transit Corporation, and Amtrak—
have proposed $5.3 bil ion in CIG program funding for the costliest Gateway Program project to
date. The $12.1 bil ion project is for the construction of a new tunnel under the Hudson River, the
restoration of the current tunnel that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and the
preservation of the Hudson Yards right-of-way linking the proposed new tunnel with
Pennsylvania Station in New York City. In addition, the project sponsors propose to borrow about
$6 bil ion for tunnel construction from the federal government through the RRIF program. NJ
Transit, the lead sponsor of the $1.9 bil ion Portal North Bridge project across the Hackensack
River in New Jersey, has secured a CIG grant to cover about 40% of the cost.36 The Gateway
Program overal is estimated to cost about $30 bil ion.37
The federal amount sought for the Gateway Program is equal to several years of funding for CIG,
at recent funding levels, and could potential y overwhelm a program that is responsible for aiding
projects throughout the country. The largest CIG grant since FY2007 is $2.6 bil ion. FTA
typical y pays out such grants in smal er amounts over a prolonged construction period; single-
year al ocations of funding for individual projects have rarely exceeded $200 mil ion.
The proposed use of federal loans in conjunction with federal grants for the Gateway Program has
been controversial.38 The statute governing TIFIA (23 U.S.C. §603(b)(8)) states that proceeds
from a TIFIA loan “may” be used as a nonfederal share of project costs if the loan wil be repaid
from nonfederal funds. The Trump Administration was critical of CIG project sponsors using both
federal grants and loans on public transportation projects. In June 2018, FTA circulated a letter
stating the following:
given the competitive nature of this discretionary program, the [CIG] statute specificaly
urges FTA to consider the extent to which the project has a local financial commitment
that exceeds the required non-government share of the cost of the project. To this end, FTA
considers U.S. Department of Transportation loans in the context of all Federal funding
sources requested by the project sponsor when completing the CIG evaluation process, and
not as separate from the Federal funding sources.39
The appropriations committees took action to prevent this policy from being implemented. For
instance, Section 166 of Division H of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L.

35 Federal T ransit Administration, “Current Capital Investment Grant Program Projects: Hudson T unnels,” at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant -programs/capital-investments/hudson-tunnel-project-profile-0.
36 Federal T ransit Administration, “ U.S. Department of T ransportation Announces $766.5 Million Grant Agreement to
New Jersey T ransit for the Portal North Bridge Project in Hudson County, New Jersey ,” press release, January 11,
2021, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department -transportation-announces-7665-million-grant-
agreement -new-jersey-transit .
37 Jeff Davis, “ What Is the ‘Gateway Program’?” Eno Transportation Weekly, June 30, 2017. T he estimated cost of the
Gateway program was $24 billion in 2017, but the cost of the Hudson T unnel project has increased by $6 billion,
according to information provided to the Federal T ransit Administration. See Federal T ransit Administration, “Current
Capital Investment Grant Program Projects: Hudson T unnels,” at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/
capital-investments/hudson-tunnel-project-profile-0.
38 U.S. Congress, House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Examining the Administration’s
Infrastructure Proposal, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., March 6, 2018, 115-37 (Washington: GPO, 2018), pp. 43-45.
39 Federal T ransit Administration, “ Dear Colleague Letter—Capital Investment Grants Program,” June 29, 2018, at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/policy-letters/dear-colleague-letter-capital-investment-grants-
program.
Congressional Research Service
10

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

116-94) stated that “none of the funds made available under this Act may be used for the
implementation or furtherance of new policies detailed in the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter distributed
by the Federal Transit Administration to capital investment grant program project sponsors on
June 29, 2018.” In a potential reauthorization, Congress could seek to eliminate permanently
DOT’s discretion to block project sponsors from combining CIG grants and TIFIA loans on a
single project. Bil s introduced in the House in the 116th Congress, H.R. 731 and H.R. 1849,
would have al owed recipients of TIFIA and RRIF support to elect to have the loans treated as
nonfederal funds.
Expediting CIG Projects
Applying for CIG funding requires the development of extensive data and the preparation of
many detailed reports and other documents, al of which are reviewed by FTA in making project
approval determinations. These administrative processes can be a source of project delay,
although local issues, such as agreements for utility relocations, are more often the cause.40
Legislative changes in MAP-21 and the FAST Act sought to simplify the overal process. For
example, MAP-21 reduced the number of separate FTA approvals for more expensive projects
from four to three, and for less expensive projects from three to two. The less expensive projects,
known as smal starts projects, are those that cost $300 mil ion or less to build and require $100
mil ion or less of CIG funding. Moreover, MAP-21 authorized the use of project justification
warrants in certain cases “that al ow a proposed project to automatical y receive a satisfactory
rating on a given criterion based on the project’s characteristics or the characteristics of the
project corridor.”41 The FAST Act created an Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment
Grants Pilot Program to more quickly review up to eight projects involving public-private
partnerships in which the federal grant is 25% or less of the project cost. The federal share of a
CIG project is typical y about 50%.
There have been no comprehensive evaluations of whether these changes have resulted in
projects progressing more quickly through the CIG pipeline. However, there are options that
could be considered to further speed CIG projects. For instance, the threshold for projects to
qualify as smal starts could be increased, and the use of warrants could be permitted in more
circumstances. H.R. 2, for example, would have increased the smal starts cost threshold from
$300 mil ion to $400 mil ion and the federal assistance threshold for projects from less than $100
mil ion to less than $320 mil ion. H.R. 2 would have also raised the federal financial assistance
threshold for the use of warrants from $100 mil ion or 50% of total project cost to $500 mil ion
and a total project cost of $1 bil ion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that
FTA had not implemented the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot
Program as of March 2018.42 FTA issued a notice in September 2018 asking for expressions of
interest in the program and announced an al ocation of funding to one project in August 2019.43 It

40 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Capital Investment Grants Program: FTA Should Improve the Effectiveness
and Transparency of Its Reviews, GAO-20-512, July 2020, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-512.
41 Federal T ransit Administration, “Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal T ransit Administration Capital Investment
Grant Program,” June 2016, Chapter I, p. 30.
42 Government Accountability Office, Capital Investment Grant Program: FTA Should Address Several Statutory
Provisions, GAO-18-462, May 2018.
43 Federal T ransit Administration, “Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery,” 83 Federal Register 46521-46523,
September 12, 2018; Federal T ransit Administration, “ U.S. Department of T ransportation Announces $125 Million
Funding Allocation to Santa Clara VT A for BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Project ,” press release, August 28, 2019, at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department -transportation-announces-125-million-funding-allocation-santa-
clara-vta.
Congressional Research Service
11

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

issued a notice of funding opportunity for the remaining funding in July 2020.44 Increasing the
permitted maximum federal share of project costs under the pilot program, currently 25%, might
make the program more attractive to transit agencies.
Falling Public Transportation Ridership
According to data from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), annual transit
ridership reached a modern-era high of 10.7 bil ion trips in 2014. Ridership subsequently fel by
almost 8% to 9.9 bil ion trips in each of 2018 and 2019. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic,
national ridership in 2020 is likely to be less than 5 bil ion trips, an unprecedented decline of
more than 50% compared with 2018 and 2019.45 Ridership is likely to suffer for a few years
because of the pandemic, but the longer-term effects are uncertain. Other factors are more likely
to be important in the longer term.
National trends in public transportation ridership are not necessarily reflected at the local level;
thus, different areas may have different reasons for growth or decline. But at the national level,
the two factors that most affect public transportation ridership are competitive factors and the
supply of transit service. Several competitive factors, notably increased car ownership, the
relatively low price of gasoline over the past few years, and the growing popularity of bikeshare,
scooters, and ridesourcing services such as Lyft and Uber, appear to have reduced transit
ridership. The amount of transit service supplied has general y grown over time, along with
government investment, but average fares have risen faster than inflation, possibly deterring
riders.
The future of public transportation ridership in the short to medium term is likely to depend on
population growth, the public funding commitment to supplying transit, and factors that make
driving more or less attractive, such as the price of parking, the extent of highway congestion, and
the implementation of fuel taxes, tolls, and mileage-based user fees. Another factor that may be
more important is the extent to which people work from home rather than traveling to a
workplace, whether some or al of the time.
Under current law, federal grants to transit agencies are based mainly on population, population
density, and the amount of service provided. Congress could address the issue of declining
ridership by tying the al ocation of federal formula funds to agencies’ success in boosting
ridership or fare revenue.
Over the long term, the introduction of fully autonomous vehicles could reduce transit ridership,
unless restrictions or fees make them an expensive alternative. However, there is significant
uncertainty about when, or whether, fully autonomous vehicles wil affect ridership. If
policymakers are concerned about such a possibility, federal capital funding might focus on
buses, which last about 10 years, and not new rail systems that take many years to build and wil
remain in service for decades. Another option would be to redirect CIG funding from building
new rail systems and lines to refurbishing rail transit in the large and dense cities where rail
transit currently carries large numbers of riders.

44 Federal T ransit Administration, “Discretionary Funding Opportunity: Grants for Pilot Program for Expedited Project
Delivery,” 85 Federal Register 45460-45465, July 28, 2020.
45 American Public T ransportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book 2020: Appendix A, Washington, DC,
2020, table 1, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit -statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/;
American Public T ransportation Association, Transit Ridership Report, at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-
resources/transit -statistics/ridership-report/.
Congressional Research Service
12

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

The emergence of new mobility options may have reduced transit ridership, but it also may
present an opportunity for transit agencies to provide new services to improve customer mobility.
FTA has funded some pilot projects through the Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Deployment program. An option in reauthorization would be to fund a program that focuses on
boosting transit ridership through mobility and technological innovations.46
To encourage ridership, H.R. 2 (116th Congress) would have created a new competitive capital
grant program, the Multi-jurisdictional Bus Frequency and Ridership Competitive Grants.
Funding authorized from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund would have
averaged about $104 mil ion per year from FY2022 through FY2025. H.R. 2 would have also
modified the formula for the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. §5307) and the Bus
and Bus Facilities Competitive Grants Program (49 U.S.C. §5339(b)) to incentivize more
frequent service. H.R. 2 also proposed to create a pilot program for grants to implement reduced
fare transit service for low-income individuals.
Mobility on Demand Services
Although the growth of ridesourcing and other types of on-demand transportation has likely
caused a decline in public transportation ridership, such services can be complementary to public
transportation. For example, ridesourcing companies can provide short trips for people to access
public transportation stations and stops, and can substitute for public transportation during
periods of very low demand. This may encourage some people to choose not to have a personal
vehicle, a choice that is associated with higher transit use in general. H.R. 2 (116th Congress)
proposed to al ow certain formula funds to be used to fund mobility as a service and mobility on
demand services.47
Climate Change
Surface transportation is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the main
human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. At the same time, the
effects of climate change on environmental conditions, such as extreme heat and global sea level
rise, pose a threat to transportation infrastructure. Surface transportation reauthorization may seek
to address environmental conditions with mitigation provisions that aim to reduce GHG
emissions from surface transportation and adaptation provisions that aim to make the surface
transportation system more resilient. During the 116th Congress, H.R. 2 included climate change
provisions related to public transportation, intercity rail, and highways, and S. 2302 included
climate change provisions related to highways.48
GHG emissions from the transportation sector come mainly from passenger cars and light trucks.
Public transportation might contribute to a reduction of GHG emissions if trips made in personal
vehicles, particularly single-occupant trips, are made by trains and buses instead. The efficiency
of public transportation in terms of GHG emissions depends, in part, on the amount of ridership

46 For example, APT A has proposed the creation of the Mobility Innovation and T echnology Initiative with $25 million
of general funding authorized in FY2021 rising to $50 million in FY2025.
47 According to H.R. 2 (Section 2203), “the term ‘mobility as a service’ means services that constitute the integration of
mobility on demand services and public transportation that are available and accessible to all travelers, provide
multimodal trip planning, and a unified payment system.... The term ‘mobility on demand’ means an on-demand
transportation service shared among individuals, either concurrently or one after another.”
48 CRS Report R46452, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S. 2302, by William
J. Mallett .
Congressional Research Service
13

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

in relation to the amount of transit supplied. GHG emissions from public transportation are also
dependent on the sources of fuel used to power trains and buses, including the way in which
electricity is generated.49
In addition to increasing funding for public transportation, H.R. 2 proposed to create a
discretionary grant program for transit agencies that increased bus frequency or succeeded in
increasing ridership. Another policy option that might be considered to reduce GHG gases from
public transportation vehicles could include funding for alternatives to diesel-powered buses,
particularly electric buses using electricity generated from renewable sources. This could include
a higher level of funding for the existing Low or No Emission Vehicle (Lo-No) Program.50 H.R. 2
proposed to increase dedicated funding for the purchase of low- and no-emission buses and
related infrastructure from $55 mil ion per year to about $430 mil ion per year. Another
possibility would be to require buses purchased using federal funds to have low or no emissions.51
Electric buses cost more to purchase than traditional diesel-powered buses, although the lifecycle
cost is comparable. To overcome this, the federal government could offer low-interest or no-
interest loans for the nonfederal share of the cost of buying electric buses.52
Adaptation is action to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of the transportation
system to the effects of climate change. Although much of the funding administered by FTA can
be used to assess the potential impacts of climate change on public transportation infrastructure
and to apply adaptation strategies, there is currently no dedicated surface transportation funding
for adaptation projects. If a federal role were found to be appropriate, reauthorization could create
a new grant program dedicated to adaptation planning and projects or require that funds from
other programs be set aside for such purposes.
Emergency Relief Program
The Public Transportation Emergency Relief (ER) Program (49 U.S.C. §5324; 49 C.F.R. §602)
provides federal funding on a reimbursement basis to states, territories, local government
authorities, Indian tribes, and public transportation agencies for damage to public transportation
facilities or operations as a result of a natural disaster or other emergency and to protect assets
from future damage, so-cal ed resilience projects.
FTA’s ER program does not have a permanent annual authorization. Rather, al funds are
authorized on a “such sums as necessary” basis and require an appropriation from the Treasury’s
general fund. Because of this, FTA cannot provide funding immediately after a disaster or
emergency is declared. Transit agencies, therefore, typical y rely on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to fund immediate needs beyond the capacity of state and local
government. This could slow the response of transit agencies and blur the lines of responsibility
between FTA and FEMA if funds are later appropriated for the ER program. Adding a quick-
release mechanism to FTA’s ER program would al ow FTA funds to be approved and distributed
within a few days of a disaster. Such a program already exists for the Federal Highway

49 Federal T ransit Administration, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit Projects: Programmatic Assessment,
Report 0097, January 2017, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/greenhouse-gas-emissions-transit-
projects-programmatic-assessment -report-0097.
50 49 U.S.C. §5339(c).
51 T he Green Bus Act of 2019 (H.R. 2164, 116th Congress) proposed much higher levels of funding for the Low or No
Emission Vehicle (Lo-No) Program and that buses purchased or leased with federal funds will have to be zero -emission
beginning October 1, 2029.
52 T he Community Health and Clean T ransit Act of 2019 (S. 2403, 116th Congress) proposed a new federal loan
program for the purchase of battery-electric buses.
Congressional Research Service
14

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

Administration, with an annual authorization of funds from the Highway Trust Fund, and FTA’s
program could similarly be authorized an amount from the mass transit account of the fund. Such
an authorization, however, would place a new claim on resources of the mass transit account.
The FTA’s ER program does not have a limit on the amount that can be spent on resilience
projects. Although this may al ow for better projects, it can result in Congress appropriating larger
amounts than might otherwise be necessary, and it could also be a way for transit agencies to fund
betterments and new facilities that have little direct connection to the goals of repairing damages
and making the transit systems resilient to future natural hazards. A separate resilience program
and changes to the ER program may be considered a more effective way to protect public
transportation infrastructure from future disasters.
Public Transportation Safety
Public transportation is a relatively safe mode of passenger transportation compared with
traveling by car and light truck. The fatality rate per passenger mile for cars and light trucks is
about double that of transit buses and five times that of heavy rail. While the fatality rate per
passenger mile for commuter rail is more comparable to cars and light trucks, most commuter rail
fatalities are nonusers, such as trespassing pedestrians and those in vehicles struck at grade
crossings.53
The federal government’s role in public transportation safety has been expanded significantly
since 2008. One of the major changes was the requirement in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-432) for commuter railroads, along with Amtrak and freight railroads, to instal
positive train control (PTC), systems that use signals and sensors to monitor and control railroad
operations.
The federal requirement for PTC resulted in significant capital costs for commuter rail agencies,
of which about 10% has been borne by the federal discretionary and formula funds.54 In addition
to the initial costs of instal ing PTC, commuter rail agencies claim that there wil be ongoing
costs associated with PTC estimated to be about $160 mil ion per year. Agencies might also slow
or reduce service due to increased turnaround time at terminal stations.55 Consequently, PTC
implementation may have a detrimental effect on the overal financial condition of commuter rail
agencies, and, without more funding from federal, state, or local government, may have a
detrimental effect on the condition of commuter rail assets. Commuter rail agencies have
proposed the creation of a new federal PTC funding program that could pay some or al of these
ongoing costs.56 Separately, proposals have been advanced to dedicate federal funding for
commuter railroads to improve the safety of highway-rail grade crossings.

53 T odd Litman and Steven Fitzroy, Safe Travels: Evaluating Transportation Demand Management Traffic Safety
Im pacts, Victoria T ransport Policy Institute, Sept. 10, 20 19, p. 29; CRS Insight IN10753, Trespassing: The Leading
Cause of Rail-Related Fatalities, by John Frittelli.
54 American Public T ransportation Association, APTA Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law, October 12,
2019, at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APT A-RECOMMENDAT IONS-Surf.-T rans.-Auth.-for-Board-
Approval-10.12.2019.pdf.
55 T estimony of Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public T ransportation Association , in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, Challenges and Opportunities for Com m uter Railroads, hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2019;
Metra, “Q&A about PT C and its impact on train schedules,” at https://metrarail.com/node/5839.
56 T estimony of Mr. Jim Derwinski, CEO/Executive Director, Metra Commuter Railroad, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on T ransportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,
Challenges and Opportunities for Com m uter Railroad s, hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 24, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
15

Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program

Buy America
With the aim of protecting American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, Buy America laws
place domestic content restrictions on federal y funded transportation projects.57 Buy America
requirements vary according to the specific DOT funding program and administering agency. For
projects funded by FTA there is a 100% U.S.-made requirement for iron, steel, and manufactured
goods. However, Buy America does not apply to rolling stock if more than 70% of components,
by value, are produced domestical y and final assembly is in the United States. An addition to
Buy America law in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92,
§7613) prohibits transit agencies purchasing railcars and buses from certain government-
owned, -controlled or -subsidized companies, such as the China Railway Rolling Stock
Corporation and BYD, even if they are otherwise Buy America-compliant.
Waivers of Buy America requirements can be provided by DOT agencies under certain
circumstances, but these can be difficult and time-consuming to obtain. If the current waiver
process were found to be too slow, Congress could require that a waiver decision be made within
a specific number of days. Each DOT agency has its own Buy America requirements, creating
complications when a project involves funding from more than one of the agencies. Congress
might seek to standardize Buy America requirements across the department. Other proposals have
been to make Buy America requirements more stringent. For example, the Buy America 2.0 Act
(H.R. 2755, 116th Congress) would have increased the share of public transit rolling stock
components and subcomponents that must be produced in the United States by five percentage
points annual y beginning in FY2021, reaching 100% by FY2026. Such measures could make it
more costly and time-consuming for transit agencies to procure vehicles.

Author Information

William J. Mallett

Specialist in Transportation Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

57 CRS Report R44266, Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing , by Michaela
D. Platzer and William J. Mallett .
Congressional Research Service
R46191 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
16