Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

June 15, 2015 – December 21, 2015 R44063

Department of Transportation (DOT):
FY2016 Appropriations

December 21, 2015
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44063

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. Neither the surface
transportation reauthorization legislation (H.R. 22) that the House and Senate are currently
negotiating nor the DOT appropriations bill as passed by the House or reported out by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 2577) would increase transportation funding on the scale
requested by the Administration.
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. The House-passed version of H.R. 2577 would provide $70.6
billion for DOT, $1 billion less than DOT received in FY2015 (after rescissions are subtracted
from the FY2015 total, the difference is reduced to $646 million) 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 funding. The House-passed bill also
includes significant cuts to the TIGER discretionary grant program and the transit New Starts
program. These three programs account for most of the bill’s cut in transportation funding from
the FY2015 level.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a version of H.R. 2577 providing $71.3 billion
for DOT, a reduction of $368 million from the FY2015 level (after rescissions are subtracted from
the FY2015 total, the difference is reduced to $17 million) and $22 billion less than the
Administration request. The committee recommended funding the TIGER grant program and
Amtrak at their FY2015 levels. It recommended a 25% ($535 million) cut to the New Starts
transit grant program, the major change in the recommended FY2016 levels from FY2015 levels.
On November 18, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released a substitute
amendment to H.R. 2577 that would increase DOT discretionary funding by $690 million,
reflecting the Balanced Budget Act of 2015 (which increased the amount of budget authority for
FY2016). Specifically, the substitute amendment would change the following accounts:
 Under the Office of the Secretary, the National Infrastructure Investment
(TIGER) grant account would change from $500 million to $600 million.
 The Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment account would
change from $2.6 billion to $2.855 billion.
 The Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment grant (New Starts)
account would change from $1.585 billion to $1.896 billion.
 The Maritime Administration account would change from $373 million to $397
million.
On December 18, 2015, the DOT Appropriations Act was passed as Title I of Division L of P.L.
114-113. The tables in this report have been updated to reflect the enacted numbers. The
remainder of this report has not been updated to reflect the substitute amendment or enacted bill.
Congressional Research Service

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 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 was $55.646 billion, $376 million more than the House level.
There is little prospect for significantly increasing DOT’s overall funding. The Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) was signed into law on November 2, 2015, increasing the overall
FY2016 discretionary budget authority for nondefense accounts by $25 billion. That increase
could be divided among 12 appropriations bills; the amount of the increase that will be made
available for transportation, if any, is not yet known. And while the House and Senate are
currently negotiating the differences between their versions of surface transportation
authorization legislation (H.R. 22), the FY2016 funding levels provided in both the House and
Senate bills are not significantly higher than the FY2015 levels.
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
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
1

link to page 6 link to page 7 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, 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
(in 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.
Note: 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
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
2

link to page 8 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 3. DOT Grant Accounts and Amounts, FY2015
(in 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 and Rail Safety Grants
1,400
Federal Transit Administration: Formula Grants
8,595
Federal Transit Administration: Capital Investment Grants (New Starts and
2,120
Small Starts)
Federal Transit Administration: WMATA Capital and 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.
Note: 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 FY2016. 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) in the 114th Congress,
by Bart Elias and Rachel Y. Tang for more information.
DOT Funding Trend
DOT’s nonemergency 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
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
3

link to page 9

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Figure 1. DOT 10-Year Funding Trend (FY2006-FY2015)
(in millions of constant 2015 dollars)

Source: Calculated by CRS based on figures in annual House THUD Appropriations
committee reports. Current figures converted to constant dollars 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
collections (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 Events
On November 10, 2015, the House and Senate went to conference to resolve their differences on
H.R. 22, legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, which would set funding
levels for surface transportation programs for FY2016 and subsequent years.
Congress passed a revised budget agreement (P.L. 114-74) on October 30, 2015, which increased
the amount of budget authority available for nondefense accounts for FY2016 by $24.6 billion.
Depending on how this additional funding is divided among nondefense accounts, this may allow
appropriators to increase funding for transportation programs.
Table 4 presents a selected account-by-account summary of FY2016 appropriations for DOT,
compared to FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
4

link to page 11 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2015-FY2016 Detailed Budget Table
(in millions of current dollars)
H.R. 2577
Department of Transportation
FY2015
FY2016
H.R. 2577
Senate-
Enacted
Selected Accounts
Enacted
Request
House
Reported
P.L. 114-113
Office of the Secretary (OST)

Payments to air carriers (Essential Air
155
175
155
175
175
Service)a
National infrastructure investment (TIGER)
500
1,250
100
500
500
Safe transport of oil
—
5
—
—
—
Total, OST
803
1,612
389
835
832
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Operations
9,741
9,915
9,845
9,898
9,910
Facilities and equipment
2,600
2,855
2,503
2,600
2,855
Research, engineering, and development
157
166
157
163
166
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport
3,350
2,900
3,350
3,350
3,350
Improvement Program) (limitation on
obligations)
Total, FAA
15,847
15,836
15,855
16,011
16,281
Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)
Limitation on administrative expenses
426
442
429
429
429
Federal-aid highways (limitation on
40,256
50,068
40,256
40,256
42,361
obligations)
Total, FHWA
40,995
51,307
40,995
40,995
43,100
Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA)
Motor carrier safety operations and programs
271
329
259
259
267
Motor carrier safety grants to states
313
339
313
313
313
Total, FMCSA
584
669
572
572
580
National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)
Operations and research
269
331
278
249
296
Highway traffic safety grants to states
562
577
562
576
573
(limitation on obligations)
Total, NHTSA
830
908
840
825
869
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Safety and operations
187
204
190
199
199
Research and development
39
39
39
39
39
Railroad Safety Grants
—
—
—
—
50
Rail Service Improvement Program
—
2,325
—
—
—
Current passenger rail service
—
2,450
—
—
—
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
5

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

H.R. 2577
Department of Transportation
FY2015
FY2016
H.R. 2577
Senate-
Enacted
Selected Accounts
Enacted
Request
House
Reported
P.L. 114-113
Amtrak operating grants
250
—
289
289
289
Amtrak capital and debt service grants
1,140
—
859
1,102
1,102
Total Amtrak grants
1,390
2,450
1,148
1,390
1,390
Total, FRA
1,626
5,018
1,377
1,678
1,678
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Formula grants (M)
8,595
13,800
8,595
8,595
9,348
Capital investment grants (New Starts)
2,120
3,250
1,921
1,585
2,177
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
150
150
100
150
150
Authority
FTA Total
10,887
18,399
10,726
10,463
11,757
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
341
407
361
373
399
Assistance to small shipyards
4
—
—
5
5
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Subtotal
220
256
227
218
223
Offsetting user fees
-127
-154
-125
-127
-125
Emergency preparedness grants (M)
29
29
29
29
29
PHMSA net total
94
102
103
91
99
Office of Inspector General
86
87
86
87
87
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
32
36
29
28
28
Corporation
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Salaries and expenses
31
32
31
32
32
Offsetting collections
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
STB net total
30
31
30
31
31
DOT Totals
Appropriation (discretionary funding)
18,184
24,016
17,180
17,816
18,696
Limitations on obligations (M)
53,485
69,666
53,460
53,467
56,355
Subtotal—new funding
71,284
89,744
70,549
71,251
75,051
Rescissions of discretionary funding
-122
—
—
-31
-47
Rescissions of contract authority
-260
—
—
—
—
Offsetting collections
-1
-7
-1
-1
-1
Net new discretionary funding
17,801
24,008
17,179
17,784
18,648
Net new budget authority
71,286
93,674
70,639
71,251
75,003
Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on information in H.R. 2577, H.Rept. 114-129, S.Rept. 114-75, and the
Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.
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
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
6

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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.
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, but have been extended. The Highway Trust Fund was projected to
fall below the level needed to make timely payments to grantees during FY2015, but Congress
transferred $8 billion to the trust fund by means of spending offsets in July 2015 (P.L. 114-41) in
order to maintain the fund’s solvency.
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
reflected its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, which called 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.
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 $62 billion, mostly from the
general fund of the Treasury, to the Highway Trust Fund during the period FY2008-FY2015 to
keep the trust fund solvent.
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
to $38 billion annually from FY2014 to FY2024, well short of the current $53 billion annual level
of authorized expenditures from the fund.4

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.
4 Ibid., Table 4-3.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
7

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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 seven rounds of TIGER grants (from ARRA funding and from FY2010-FY2015
annual appropriations). After the restructuring of DOT programs in the 2012 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 $10.1 billion in
applications for the $500 million available for FY2015 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
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

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, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Announces $500 Million in TIGER Grants
Awarded to 39 Projects,” October 28, 2015, https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-foxx-announces-
500-million-in-39-tiger-grants.
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.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
8

link to page 13 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban
awards.10
There has also been criticism that TIGER grants go disproportionately to urban areas compared to
rural areas. However, for several years Congress has directed that at least 20% of TIGER funding
should go to projects in rural areas. According to the 2010 Census, 19% of the U.S. population
lives in rural areas.11
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
(in 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
500
500
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-passed bill would reduce the federal matching share
for TIGER grants from 80% to 50% (though it could go higher for projects in rural areas). The
Senate-reported bill keeps the matching share at 80% (or more, in the case of rural areas), and
directs that at least 30% of funding go to projects in rural areas.
Essential Air Service (EAS)12
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
since FY2008, 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,13 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.14

10 Ibid., p. 6.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, Frequently Asked Questions: “What percentage of the U.S. population is urban or rural?,”
https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971.
12 For more information about EAS, see CRS Report R44176, Essential Air Service (EAS), by Rachel Y. Tang.
13 This limitation does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii. Forty-three (27%) of the EAS communities are in Alaska; none
are in Hawaii.
14 The program had previously required airlines to use 15-passenger aircraft at a minimum.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
9

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,15 that many of the airports in the program have very
few passengers,16 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
(in thousands of dollars)
H.R. 2577
FY2015
FY2016
H.R. 2577
Senate-
Enacted

Enacted
Request
House
Reported
P.L. 114-113
Appropriation
$155,000
$175,000
$155,000
175,000
175,000
Mandatory
108,199
108,379
108,379
108,400
108,400
supplement
Total
$263,199
$283,379
$263,379
283,400
283,400
Source: H.Rept. 114-129 and Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.
In addition to the annual discretionary appropriation for the program, there is a mandatory annual
authorization, $108.4 million in FY2016,17 financed by overflight fees collected from commercial
airlines by FAA. These overflight fees apply to international flights that fly over, but do not land

15 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.
16 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.
17 The amount made available to the EAS program from the fees may exceed $100 million, if the fees provide sufficient
revenue.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
10

link to page 14 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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 bill would
provide $155 million in discretionary funding and $263 million overall, the same amounts as in
FY2015. The Senate-reported bill would provide a total of $283 million, the requested amount.
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.18
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
2015.19 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 will
not be in compliance by the end of 2015; Congress extended the deadline to the end of 2018—
with an option for individual railroads to extend to 2020 with Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) approval—in October 2015.20
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; neither the House-passed
nor Senate-reported bill included funding specifically for this purpose, though the Senate-reported
bill recommends $50 million for rail safety grant programs.
H.Rept. 114-129 directs the Administrator of 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. S.Rept. 114-75 notes that
the committee’s recommendations included an increase of $1.9 million to improve passenger rail
safety (by hiring staff to develop and implement passenger rail risk reduction system safety
programs, and additional inspectors) and $10 million for grants to states for highway-rail grade
crossing safety, plus an additional $1 million to reduce grade crossing incidents and improve
pedestrian safety.
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

18 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.
19 See CRS Report R42637, Positive Train Control (PTC): Overview and Policy Issues, by John Frittelli.
20 Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, §1302 of P.L. 114-73.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
11

link to page 17 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

FRA, consisting of two grant programs: $2.45 billion for a Current Passenger Rail Service grant
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.
Funding provided in H.R. 2577 follows the existing FRA structure, taking the form of grants to
Amtrak. The Senate-reported bill does recommend rescinding $17 million in unobligated
balances and making that funding available for improvements to the Northeast Corridor.
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 FY2016,21 $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-passed bill would provide $1.148 billion for Amtrak for FY2016, 17% below the
FY2015 amount. The Senate-reported bill recommended $1.39 billion for Amtrak, the same
amount as in FY2015.
Table 8 shows the amount of funding provided for Amtrak grants in FY2015 and the amounts
requested and proposed for FY2016.

21 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
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
12

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 8. Amtrak Budget and Request, FY2015-FY2016
(in millions of dollars)
FY2016
FY2016 Amtrak
H.R. 2577
FY2015
Administration
Independent
H.R. 2577
Senate-
Enacted
Grant
Enacted
Request
Budget Request
House
Reported
P.L. 114-113
Operating grants
$250
—
$732
$289
289
289
Capital and debt
1,140
—
712
859
1,101
1,102
service grants
Current
—
$2,425
—
—

—
Passenger Rail
Service
Northeast
—
(550)
—
—
17
—
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
$1,390
$1,390
Source: H.Rept. 114-129, S.Rept. 114-75; Federal Railroad Administration FY2016 Budget Estimate, Amtrak
FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request, and Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.
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 overall request differently; the
breakdown is altered here for better comparison with appropriations bills. The $17 million for Northeast
Corridor grants in the Senate-reported H.R. 2577 is repurposed from previous years’ appropriated funding; it is
not added to Amtrak’s total funding to reflect treatment of the funding in the Senate committee report budget
table, but the grants would be made to Amtrak for work on the Northeast Corridor.
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,22 comparing Amtrak’s budget

22 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
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
13

link to page 18 Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

request to the funding proposed in the House bill can be confusing; a more direct comparison is
shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Amtrak’s FY2016 Budget
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 2577
H.R. 2577
Senate-
Enacted

Amtrak Estimate
House
Reported
P.L. 114-113
Operating revenues
$3,354

Operating expenses
(3,642)

Net gain (loss)
(288.5)

Operating grant

288.5
288.5
288.5
Debt service
(169)

Capital needs
(1,804)

State and commuter contributions
261

Net capital needs
(1,543)

Net capital and debt service needs
(1,703)

Capital and debt service grant

859
1,101.5
1,101.5
Total request
2,000

Total funding
$3,354

$1,147.5

$1,390
$1,390
Source: Amtrak FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request; H.Rept. 114-129 and S.Rept. 114-75, and Congressional
Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.
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 lines23 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.

23 Fixed-guideway refers to systems in which the vehicle travels on a fixed course; for example, subways and light rail.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
14

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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-passed bill would provide $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 Senate-reported
bill recommends $1.585 billion, 25% ($535 million) below the FY2015 level.
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-passed bill lowers the
maximum federal share to 50%. The Senate-reported bill does not lower the share, but directs
FTA to give priority to projects requesting a lower federal share.
Critics of lowering the federal share provided for New Starts projects 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. An FTA audit of WMATA’s safety practices in
2015 produced many recommendations for change, and in October 2015 FTA assumed oversight
of WMATA’s safety compliance practices from the Tri-State Oversight Commission, the agency
created by the governments of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to oversee
WMATA safety performance. Richard Sarles, WMATA’s general manager since January 2011,
retired in January 2015 (he had announced his retirement date in September 2014), and a new
manager was not appointed until November 2015 after other candidates chosen by the Board
backed out.
For FY2016, the House-passed 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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $150 million, the same amount as in previous years.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
15

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Commercial Vehicle Safety
Truck Size
Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills would increase the length of trucks permitted on
the Interstate System and National Network by amending 49 U.S.C. Section 31111(b)(1)(A) to
increase the maximum length of twin trailers from 28 feet to 33 feet.
DOT has published technical reports as part of a comprehensive truck size and weight limits
study mandated by Congress. In the reports the department found that this particular
configuration—a tractor unit towing twin 33-foot trailers—caused increased damage to road
surface and increased costs for bridge maintenance, while reducing enforcement costs and truck
vehicle miles traveled (since fewer trucks would be needed for the same amount of cargo). Its
safety impacts could not be estimated because such configurations are not currently in use (other
than in limited use on one route in one state).24
Some trucking industry interests support the increased length on the grounds of improved
productivity; it would enable a driver to haul a larger load.
Commercial Driver Hours of Service and the 34-Hour Restart Requirement
Both the House-passed and the Senate-reported bills continue a provision 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 eight 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 any 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).

24 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits
Study: Volume 1: Technical Reports Summary, June 2015, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/
technical_rpts/vol1technicalsummary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
16

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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.” The provision in the Senate-reported bill (§134) is similar to this original
standard, looking for “statistically significant net safety benefits.” 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 Information

David Randall Peterman

Analyst in Transportation Policy

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
General DOT funding, passenger rail, NHTSA, FMCSA, surface
D. Randall Peterman
transportation safety and security
Aviation safety, aviation security, Federal Aviation Administration, Bart Elias
National Transportation Safety Board
Federal Highway Administration, Highway and Airport and
Robert S. Kirk
Airway Trust Funds, tolling
Federal Railroad Administration, freight transportation, Maritime
John Frittelli
Administration, Surface Transportation Board
Federal Transit Administration, surface transportation policy,
William J. Mallett
private investment in infrastructure
Airport Improvement Program, Essential Air Service, airport and
Rachel Tang
airline issues
Motor vehicle safety, electric and alternative-fuel vehicles and
Bill Canis
infrastructure

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
Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
17

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

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.

Congressional Research Service
R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Dec. 21, 2015

HTML · PDF

Nov. 18, 2015

HTML · PDF

Jun. 15, 2015

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Transportation Policy

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department

Raw Metadata: JSON