Biden Administration Again Proposes Temporary Operating Assistance Authority for Larger Transit Agencies
INSIGHTi
Biden Administration Again Proposes
Temporary Operating Assistance Authority for
Larger Transit Agencies
March 21, 2024
In the FY2025 budget, the Biden Administration again has proposed allowing larger public transportation
agencies greater flexibility in the use of Urbanized Area Formula funds to cope with the larger operating
deficits caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. (This policy proposal was
included in the FY2024 budget but was not taken up by Congress in the FY2024 appropriations bill or in
other legislation.) Currently, agencies in urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more can use
federal funds for capital expenses or maintenance only, unless they operate 100 buses or fewer. This
excludes the main operating expenses of labor and fuel. Small bus agencies along with public
transportation providers in small urbanized areas and rural areas are already permitted to use federal
funding for all types of operating expenses.
The Administration’s proposal includes a few other elements: it would exempt operating expenses from
inclusion in transportation plans; it would allow federal highway program funding transferred (“flexed”)
to the public transportation program to be used for operating expenses; and it would require a
“maintenance-of-effort” for state and local funding. Maintenance-of-effort requirements typically attempt
to address the possibility that federal dollars would replace state and local dollars. The budget proposal
does not propose changing the minimum nonfederal matching share for operating costs, which, at 50%, is
higher than the 20% nonfederal minimum for capital costs. Current law generally allows flexed highway
funds to be used with a nonfederal matching share of 20%.
Background
COVID-19 had an unprecedented effect on public transportation ridership, operating revenues, and public
transportation agency budgets. Taxes and tolls dedicated to public transportation agencies recovered
relatively quickly from the disruptions, but ridership and fare revenue have been slower to bounce back.
For example, ridership in 2022 was about 62% of what it had been pre-pandemic. Consequently, fares
collected in 2022 amounted to $9 billion, down from $16 billion in 2019. Subway and commuter rail
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12335
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
link to page 2 link to page 2
Congressional Research Service
2
ridership declined more than bus ridership due to COVID-19, particularly early in the pandemic (Figure
1).
Figure 1. Quarterly Public Transportation Ridership by Mode
Source: American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Ridership Report.
To maintain services and jobs, public transportation agency budgets were supported by federal
supplemental appropriations in FY2020 and FY2021 totaling $69.5 billion, about five times the pre-
pandemic $12 billion in annual federal public transportation support and more than three times the $19
billion from fares and other operating revenue annually. Most of the emergency operating support had
been committed by the middle of FY2023.
Federal Funding for Operations
Without new sources of support, keeping transit operations ongoing in the face of larger sustained
operating deficits may require fare increases, service cuts, fewer employees, or a combination of these
measures. Some transit agencies are struggling with staff shortages, a situation that complicates their
financial outlook. Reduced or more expensive service could lead to falling ridership, requiring further fare
hikes and service cuts. These difficulties are likely to fall most heavily on public transportation agencies
that operate rail systems because rail ridership has suffered more than bus ridership, and rail systems have
traditionally had a greater share of their expenses covered by fares.
Federal operating support has been of concern since the creation of the federal public transportation
program in the 1960s. Issues include its effects on service, productivity (i.e., service provided per dollar
of input), and asset condition. Research on the rapid expansion of operating support in the 1970s
generally concluded that it allowed transit agencies to maintain a higher level of transit service and lower
fares than would have prevailed without it, but such support also caused supply-side productivity (e.g.,
the operating cost per vehicle mile) to worsen. With growth in vehicle miles traveled of about 50% since
the late 1990s, the operating cost per vehicle mile has remained relatively constant over the same period.
Demand, measured by ridership, however, grew much less over the same period, about 14%, resulting in
substantial growth in the operating cost per trip.
The effects of federal operating assistance on transit infrastructure condition are difficult to establish in
any conclusive way. Greater flexibility in the use of federal funding for operating expenses may be
associated with a more rapid decline in the condition of capital assets as some transit agencies focus on
day-to-day needs rather than asset maintenance and renewal. However, existing flexibility to use capital
funds for maintenance may help agencies preserve equipment and facilities. Estimates of spending needed
Congressional Research Service
3
to renew and expand public transportation infrastructure by the Department of Transportation suggest
that more of the funding provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) could be
used for operating expenses. Doing so might slow the reduction of the so-called “state of good repair
backlog” and reduce the amount of funding available for expansion projects.
Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements
The Administration’s maintenance-of-effort proposal raises several possible issues. A transit agency
would have to certify that it is continuing nonfederal spending at a comparable level under the Urbanized
Area Formula program. It is unclear whether a maintenance-of-effort requirement would be necessary
when the minimum nonfederal match of 50% for operational expenditures is higher than the 20% for
capital expenditures. Nevertheless, the provision might also allow transit agencies to transfer state and
local funds under other transit programs to meet the requirement.
A maintenance-of-effort requirement in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-
5) was linked to $48 billion in additional support provided for transportation programs and because the
federal share of transportation projects using ARRA funds was generally 100%. Governors were required
to certify that their states would spend amounts already planned. In a study of transportation ARRA
funding, the Government Accountability Office found that although maintenance-of-effort requirements
might keep nonfederal spending from falling, they were challenging to comply with and to administer.
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 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.
IN12335 · VERSION 1 · NEW