CRS Issue Statement on Surface Transportation

CRS Issue Statement on Surface Transportation

.

CRS Issue Statement on Surface
Transportation
William J. Mallett, Coordinator
Specialist in Transportation Policy
January 6, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40391
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
CRS Issue Statement on Surface Transportation

ighway and transit program finance, transportation demand, system congestion, the
physical condition of the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure, highway safety,
H and transportation’s effects on the environment are likely to be key issues under
congressional consideration in the 111th Congress. Since the expiration of the current long-term
authorization of surface transportation programs at the end of FY2009, Congress has enacted
several short-term extensions of highway and transit programs. Due to the complicating effects of
an end-of-FY2009 rescission, however, contract authority for highway programs is now being
provided at a level about one-third lower than in FY2009. This lower level of highway funding
authorization is mitigated to some extent by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5), which appropriated nearly $50 billion for transportation projects. With
consideration of the long term surface transportation reauthorization bill, programs and funding
are likely to remain prominent. Issues under active consideration include the possibility of more
funding for transportation infrastructure from a second economic recovery bill, attempts to repeal
the rescission of highway contract authority, and problems with the Highway Trust Fund.
The faltering Highway Trust Fund (HTF) has thrust the finance issue to the forefront in surface
transportation policy debates. An $8 billion infusion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to
the Highway Account was necessary in September 2008 and another $7 billion infusion was
necessary in August 2009. Based on current spending rates the Mass Transit Account is expected
to have problems by FY2012. Almost all federal highway funds and approximately 80% of
federal transit funds were derived from the Highway Trust Fund, which relies on a federal fuels
tax and other vehicle-related taxes. Although the short-term problems of the highway account
may once again be an issue before the end of FY2010, the debate is likely to focus on longer-term
measures in the context of the size and shape of the federal role in transportation. Options include
reducing and refocusing the federal highway and transit programs, increasing the federal fuels
tax, establishing a new tax, such as a carbon tax, more vigorous support for highway user tolling,
and greater private sector involvement in infrastructure provision through public-private
partnerships.
Related to the financing issues, Congress may also consider the operational performance and
physical condition of the nation’s surface transportation system. Growing transportation demand
and transportation congestion may stimulate significant debate about the level, type, and location
of future federal infrastructure investments. As part of that debate, Congress may consider the
state-by-state distribution of money into and out of the Highway Account of the Highway Trust
Fund, the basis of the so-called “donor-donee issue.” With an ongoing reliance on Treasury
general fund payments to support the Highway Account of the HTF, general fund “donor” states
may contend that their general fund donor status also be taken into account. Moreover, Congress
is likely to consider its options in the physical upkeep of the current highway and transit systems,
an issue that gained visibility in the wake of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis,
Minnesota in August 2007. In terms of the bridge program, some of the options that may be
debated are levels of spending and financing mechanisms, program operation, particularly
program funding flexibility, and federal bridge inspection standards. In addition to discussing
spending levels in the debates on the transit program, Congress may also deliberate on the extent
to which its focus should be on helping to rehabilitate existing transit services, particularly the
older and heavily used rail systems, versus its support for building major new capacity.
Another surface transportation policy area of continual interest to Congress is safety. Although
major improvements have been made since the 1970s, more than 35,000 people die on the
nation’s roads each year and many more are injured. Although the specific issue areas that may be
of interest are not yet evident, they typically involve the level of federal funding for infrastructure
Congressional Research Service
1

.
CRS Issue Statement on Surface Transportation

improvements and other safety initiatives, such as programs to encourage seat belt use and
discourage impaired-driving, the use of penalties on states that fail to adopt certain traffic safety
laws, and motor carrier safety initiatives. One issue of particular relevance at the moment is
distracted driving, particularly the use by drivers of hand-held electronic devices. Due to several
fatal subway system crashes and incidents, most notably one in the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area, another issue receiving attention in Congress is rail transit safety. Congress may consider
changes to the existing structure of transit safety responsibility and oversight.
Transportation’s effect on the environment is another policy area that often generates considerable
debate. In particular, Congress may consider conformity of transportation plans with the Clean
Air Act, environmental review of transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), and review of the effects of transportation projects on public parks, refuges, and
historic sites (known as Section 4(f) requirements). One major policy question is whether
regulations for protecting the natural and human environments are making it unnecessarily costly
and time-consuming for implementing major improvements to transportation infrastructure.

Issue Team Members

William J. Mallett, Coordinator
Robert S. Kirk
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Transportation Policy
wmallett@crs.loc.gov, 7-2216
rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
Vanessa Cieslak
Linda Luther
Information Research Specialist
Analyst in Environmental Policy
vcieslak@crs.loc.gov, 7-8978
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
Robert Jay Dilger
James E. McCarthy
Senior Specialist in American National Government Specialist in Environmental Policy
rdilger@crs.loc.gov, 7-3110
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
John W. Fischer
David Randall Peterman
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Analyst in Transportation Policy
jfischer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7766
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
John Frittelli
Todd B. Tatelman
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Legislative Attorney
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
ttatelman@crs.loc.gov, 7-4697
Carol Glover
John Williamson
Information Research Specialist
Information Research Specialist
cglover@crs.loc.gov, 7-7353
jwilliamson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7725
Sandra L. Johnson

Information Research Specialist
sjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7214

Congressional Research Service
2