Grant Funding for Freight Infrastructure: House and Senate Proposals

Grant Funding for Freight Infrastructure: House and Senate Proposals

INSIGHTi
Grant Funding for Freight Infrastructure:
House and Senate Proposals
June 23, 2020
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act, P.L. 114-94) created two grant
programs to facilitate freight movement, especial y multimodal freight using some combination of trucks,
trains, and/or ships. The National Highway Freight Program (NHFP, 23 U.S.C. §167) distributes funding
to states according to a mathematical formula and can be used for projects located on a predefined
highway network with some flexibility for multimodal infrastructure. The National y Significant Freight
and Highway Projects Program (23 U.S.C. §117) is a competitive discretionary program that can be used
for a wider variety of projects that may outstrip an individual state’s financing capacity. Committees in
each chamber have advanced legislation reauthorizing these programs with modifications. The House and
Senate proposals for the NHFP have relatively few differences. In contrast, the proposals for the Section
117 program differ more dramatical y. Broadly speaking, the Senate bil would retain the existing
program with slightly increased funding while adding new eligibilities and set-asides, while the House
bil would replace it with an entirely new program and nearly twice the funding.
Changes to the National Highway Freight Program
The Senate bil (S. 2302, America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019) would authorize $8.5
bil ion for the NHFP over five years, to be distributed to the states according to the same formula used in
the FAST Act. However, it does al ow states to designate additional urban and rural connector routes as
eligible for funding. It also would al ow states to use up to 30% of their NHFP apportionments on
multimodal infrastructure, including new eligibility for lock, dam, and inland waterway (“marine
highway”) projects, provided they are connected to a state’s highway freight network and are deemed
likely to reduce truck emissions once in service.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11431
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

link to page 2
Congressional Research Service
2
The House bil (H.R. 2, INVEST in America Act) is relatively similar; it would authorize $8.6 bil ion over
five years without altering the formula. Changes to the program, including a funding increase, would not
go into effect until FY2022; the NHFP as currently enacted would be extended to FY2021 at FY2020
levels (Figure 1). Like S. 2302, H.R. 2 would al ow states to designate new urban and rural connectors,
but only under certain circumstances. It would also al ow states to spend more of their grants on
multimodal port and rail projects, but would not extend eligibility to locks, dams, or marine highway
projects.
Figure 1. Authorized Funding for 23 U.S.C. §167, FY2016-2025, as Enacted and Proposed
in nominal dol ars

Source: P.L. 114-94, S. 2302 (116th Congress) as reported to the Senate, H.R. 2 (116th Congress) as ordered to be
reported to the House, compiled by CRS.
Note: H.R. 2 extends Section 167 as enacted through FY2021 at FY2020 levels.
Changes to Section 117
S. 2302 would authorize $5.5 bil ion over five years, and expand eligibility to include wildlife crossings,
the U.S. side of border-crossing facilities, and marine highway projects, similar to the expanded
eligibilities under the NHFP. It also would al ow states to begin spending their matching contributions
from the moment a project is selected but before federal funds are legal y obligated, to accelerate project
delivery. The Senate bil also would maintain or create several overlapping set-asides:
 25% ($1.375 bil ion) set aside for projects in rural areas (unchanged).
 $1.65 bil ion (30%) maximum for multimodal transportation infrastructure.
 $500 mil ion for “critical rural state Interstate projects,” for sparsely populated states with
few intersecting Interstates, and $500 mil ion for “critical urban state projects” for
densely populated states. At least $1 bil ion would therefore be unavailable to at least 21
states that meet neither density requirement. Funds may be awarded to any project in
FY2025 if the full set-asides are unable to be used.
 15% ($825 mil ion) set aside for “smal ” projects that do not meet the minimum project
size requirements, up from 10% in the FAST Act. The maximum federal funding share
for smal projects would be raised from 60% to 80%.
 $750 mil ion set aside for projects with 50% or higher nonfederal funding shares, via a
$150 mil ion set-aside each year. Priority would be given to projects requesting a smal er
federal share. Within these funds, 10% would be set aside for smal projects, and 25%
would be set aside for projects in rural areas.

link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
3
The House bil would preserve the current level of Section 117 funding through FY2021, but then would
replace the program with a new Projects of Regional and National Significance Program beginning in
FY2022. This program would be authorized at roughly $9 bil ion over four years (Figure 2) and would
have
 new eligibility for public transportation and intercity passenger rail projects;
 no cap on intermodal or nonhighway spending;
 new evaluation criteria, including a methodology for approving grants to be published by
the Department of Transportation;
 no set-asides for smal projects or projects in rural areas; and
 new ability to issue multiyear commitments of funds to projects with total costs above
$500 mil ion.
Both the House and Senate bil s would require the Department of Transportation to provide a justification
for each project selection and, if asked, to explain why any project was not selected.
Figure 2. Authorized Funding for 23 U.S.C. §117, FY2016-2025, as Enacted and Proposed
in nominal dol ars

Source: P.L. 114-94, S. 2302 (116th Congress) as reported to the Senate, H.R. 2 (116th Congress) as ordered to be
reported to the House, compiled by CRS.
Note: H.R. 2 extends Section 117 as enacted through FY2021 at FY2020 levels.

Author Information

Ben Goldman

Analyst in Transportation Policy

Disclaimer

Congressional Research Service
4
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 not 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.

IN11431 · VERSION 1 · NEW