2018 budget Archives - Transportation For America

With the 2018 fiscal year over, how much money has USDOT obligated to transit projects?

The 2018 fiscal year closed yesterday, wrapping up a year in which USDOT received more than $1.4 billion from Congress to invest in new transit construction and improvement projects across the country. With another infusion of cash for FY 2019 coming (eventually), it’s time for a look at how much USDOT still has on hand from 2018—as well as the unspent funds from FY 2017.

With fiscal 2018 now in the books and 2017 more than a year behind us, USDOT still has nearly $1.8 billion in unspent funds at their disposal from these two years for new transit. They’ve obligated a total of $532 million in 2017-2018 dollars to just eight transit projects, with just $100 million of that from FY 2018.

Perhaps one reason why USDOT has awarded so little of the funding from this year is because they still have almost half of the $925 million that Congress gave them back in May 2017. That fiscal year now closed more than a year ago.

USDOT’s bank account is actually about to get even bigger.

While the 2019 budget is still awaiting final action by Congress, the relevant committees from both chambers have already approved their 2019 budgets for transportation (and housing) programs. And as it stands now, both the House and Senate would infuse the transit capital program with more than $2.5 billion. While about half of that money would be for advancing ongoing multi-year transit projects that USDOT already approved, approximately $1.5 billion would be intended to advance new projects in the pipeline that are expecting to sign agreements with USDOT sometime in 2019 or beyond.

Before the end of the calendar year, without advancing any big-ticket transit projects, USDOT could have more than $3 billion on hand to obligate to transit projects.

If this budget is approved by Congress, it will mark the third straight time that they’ve rejected USDOT’s preference to receive zero dollars to advance new transit projects. Remember, this was their request for the 2019 budget (emphasis ours):

The FY 2019 [budget] proposal limits funding for the CIG Program to projects with existing full funding grant agreements. For the remaining projects in the CIG program, FTA is not requesting or recommending funding. Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects.

To hear FTA tell it, they’re wondering what the big fuss is all about. Last week the FTA’s Acting Administrator Jane Williams spoke to the American Public Transportation Association at their annual conference. During her remarks, she expressed surprise at all the hand-wringing about FTA’s signature transit program:

Unfortunately, the administration’s efforts to support our nation’s infrastructure are many times overlooked by the focus on the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program. I know a lot of you in the room have very strong opinions about this administration’s approach toward the CIG program. Even though this program represents less than 20 percent of FTA’s budget, it seems to occupy 80 percent of the attention.

A huge share of FTA’s funds are distributed via formulas—FTA has no discretion to turn off that faucet even if they wanted to. So yes, the public is very interested in the single biggest available federal funding stream to pair with billions raised by local taxpayers to advance new transit projects across the country. Leaders in places like Atlanta might understandably be wondering about the future of their ambitious $2.5 billion transit plan that hinges on receiving funding from a program that USDOT would prefer Congress wind down.

Hmm…have Atlanta transit and elected leaders realized that this USDOT currently wants to wind down the very program they’re counting on to pay for a big share of these projects? https://t.co/2IfixjXgEy pic.twitter.com/qf9lBVayRv

— Transport. 4 America (@T4America) October 1, 2018

Further on in her remarks, Acting Administrator Williams claims credit for projects that they actually haven’t funded yet:

In fact, in just the last six weeks…

Allocated $100 million in funding toward our planned multi-year FFGA for the Seattle Lynnwood Link Extension light rail line, and

Allocated $99 million in funding toward our planned FFGA for the Santa Ana, California streetcar project.

USDOT has not yet signed funding agreements nor obligated any funds to the Lynnwood (WA) Link light rail project and the Orange County (CA) Streetcar. Claiming credit for “allocating” funding to them is like telling your kids that they need to write thank-you notes for the presents they might get for Christmas, if they’re good.

Congress isn’t likely to act on the 2019 budget before the November elections—the president signed a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through December 7—but when they do, they’ll be filling up the USDOT purse with yet more funding for transit. Stay tuned.

House making final decisions on cuts to TIGER, transit construction & rail this week

With the current federal transportation budget expiring at the end of this month, this week the House is considering a handful of amendments and taking a final vote on the 2018 fiscal year budget. Up for debate are amendments that could improve — or further damage — the House’s already problematic transportation budget for 2018.

With the September 30th deadline rapidly approaching, appropriations committees in both the House and Senate have been debating and setting funding levels for transportation programs for next year, including the discretionary programs that the Trump administration has targeted for cuts (i.e., those not funded by the Highway Trust Fund.)

While the Senate largely rejected the Trump administration’s request for cuts to programs like TIGER, new transit construction, and passenger rail programs (read our detailed breakdown of the current House/Senate bills here), the House’s version of the 2018 budget eliminated TIGER funding and reduced the transit capital program down near levels that would only fund transit projects that already have signed funding agreements in hand.

This week the House is scheduled to consider their final House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill, and there are crucial amendments that could improve the bill by restoring funding for some of these programs — or make the damage far worse.

We’re asking T4America supporters to take action and send a message to their representatives this week urging them to protect and preserve the TIGER competitive grant program, funding for new transit construction, and passenger rail programs that keep towns and cities of all sizes connected to one another. It’s important that the House pass a bill with robust funding for these programs to set their starting point for negotiations with the Senate on the final product.

TAKE ACTION

Read about the amendments that we’ll be watching closely in the tracker below. Feel free to include information on these amendments as you send emails or make phone calls to your reps, and follow along on Twitter @t4america for updates as the debate begins this week. (Some of these amendments may be rejected by the House Rules Committee before they reach the floor — they are expected to only allow a few amendments for full floor consideration.)

Logged-in T4America members can read our detailed summary of the House THUD appropriations bill and vote below.

[member_content]Members can read T4America’s full members-only memo here.[/member_content]

Number	Sponsor	Description	Outcome
7	Maxine Waters (D-CA)	Provides $7.5 billion for the TIGER program.	Ruled out of order
8	Maxine Waters (D-CA)	Provides $550 million for the TIGER program, includes the current TIGER project eligibility criteria, specifically requires the Secretary to award the funds using the 2016 NOFO criteria, and requires that the Secretary distributes the grants 225 days after the enactment of the bill.	Ruled out of order
13	Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)	Provides $500 million for the TIGER program.	Ruled out of order
66	Rod Blum (R-IA)	Provides $200 million for the TIGER program and reduces HUD tenant rental assistance by $200 million as an offset.	Ruled out of order
46	Mark Amodei (R-NV)	Requires the Secretary of Transportation to continue administering the current transit Capital Investment Grant Program and enter into a grant agreement with any Small Starts project that has satisfied the current eligibility requirements.	Ruled out of order
38	Darren Soto (D-FL)	Increases the amount of funding for Small Starts funding by $48 million and decreases funding for intercity passenger rail projects by the same amount as an offset.	Withdrawn
48	Mo Brooks (R-AL)	Eliminates funding for Amtrak's National Network only.	Failed by a vote of 128-293
50	Mo Brooks (R-AL)	Eliminates both the funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor and Amtrak's National Network.	Ruled out of order
51	Mo Brooks (R-AL)	Eliminates funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor only	Ruled out of order
54	Jim Himes (D-CT)	Increases funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor account by $30 million and decreases essential air service funding by $30 million as an offset.	Ruled out of order
83	Ted Budd (R-NC)	Eliminates the $900 million allocation for the Amtrak gateway program, increases funding for national New Starts Projects by $400 million and applies savings from the elimination of the TIGER Grant program to deficit reduction.	Failed by a vote of 159-260
78	Al Green (D-TX)	Restores $250,000 in funding for the Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights and reduces U.S. DOT salary and expenses by $250,000 as an offset.	Ruled out of order

TIGER amendments

T4America supports efforts to fund TIGER because it is a crucial program that gives local governments direct access to federal dollars for innovative projects. TIGER projects are overwhelmingly multimodal and multi-jurisdictional projects – like rail connections to ports, complete streets, passenger rail, and freight improvements – that are often challenging to fund through the traditional, narrow formula programs. However, T4America opposes paying for a TIGER program by cutting other necessary programs like the HUD tenant rental assistance program. Recent appropriations bills show that there is enough resources to sufficiently fund both of these two important programs.

Transit construction grants

T4America supports legislative language that increases the likelihood that the transit capital program will continue operating as it should and also moves future Small Starts projects forward by ensuring these projects get grant agreements when they are ready. T4America opposes proposals to offset funding for Small Starts by taking money from intercity passenger rail.

Passenger rail

T4America opposes eliminating funding for passenger rail, which is crucial to the economy vitality of our nation and communities across our country. The full national network provides mobility options for and acts as an economic catalyst to small and rural communities across the country. For many residents in these communities, the Amtrak connection is their primary way of traveling around the country, especially in areas that are losing Essential Air Service. Similarly, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is the primary travel option for millions of people traveling that congested corridor every year. Not only does it take cars off our congested roadways, benefiting train and road users alike, but is a huge economic driver for communities located along the Corridor. Cutting funding for Amtrak’s National Network and Northeast Corridor would decrease our nation’s prosperity, harm the economic vitality of communities that Amtrak serves, and greatly lower the amount of personal mobility and freedom that people that use Amtrak currently have. The House of Representatives rightly voted down these amendments two years ago and should do so again.

T4America opposes cutting funding from the Essential Air Service program to pay for the Northeast Corridor. While rail funding is important to the urban communities along the corridor and our nation’s economy as a whole, we need both and T4America opposes amendments that pit one infrastructure priority against another.

Elected officials and local organizations: Support TIGER & public transit funding

Facing the prospect of severe cuts from the Trump administration and Congress, T4America is looking for elected officials and organizations to show their support for investing in smart projects to move goods, move people and support the local economies that our nation’s prosperity is built on.

Updated 9/6/2017 9:00 a.m. — The letter is closed. We’ll publish the final letter and share the signatories soon. Thanks!

Calling all elected officials, local, civic and business leaders, and local, regional or state organizations! Sign a letter urging those currently assembling the federal transportation budget for the upcoming year (FY 2018) to prioritize funding for TIGER competitive grants, new transit construction, and passenger rail programs.

Read the full letter and sign it today — we’re aiming to deliver it before the end of August. Ed note: This letter is intended for organizations and is not open for individuals, other than elected officials at any level.

(letter is closed)

Where do we stand in the budget process?

For these three programs, this simple chart below shows four things: the current funding levels for this year, what the President proposed in his budget earlier this year, and what was recently approved by appropriations committees in the House and the Senate.

	Enacted 2017 levels	President Trump's request for 2018	House 2018 Appropriations	Senate 2018 Appropriations
TIGER Grants	$500 million	$0	$0	$550 million
Transit Capital Grants	$2.4 billion	$0	$1.75 billion	$2.133 billion
Amtrak & passenger rail	$1.495 billion	$795 million (All cuts come from eliminating federal funding for all long-distance routes)	$1.4 billion	$1.6 billion
TOTAL THUD FUNDING	$57.65 billion	$47.4 billion	$56.5 billion	$60.058 billion

As you can see, while committees in the Senate ignored the president’s call to eliminate TIGER and funding for new transit construction outright, those final decisions will be made by Congress as they debate the budget on the floor and then try to reconcile their different versions. (Worth noting: The House proposed eliminating TIGER funding and a barebones budget for keeping in-progress transit projects moving, which means that’s their starting point on negotiations.)

What we’re asking for is for Congress to approve a budget that fully funds the FAST Act, the current transportation authorization, already agreed to by Congress and approved by a bipartisan vote back in 2015.

More background is below:

TIGER

The majority of all federal transportation dollars are awarded to states and metro areas in a way to ensure everyone gets a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars or how well-conceived their projects are. TIGER operates differently.

The TIGER program has illustrated a productive way to use a small amount of money (about $500 million annually since 2009) to incentivize smarter projects based on their merits. This fiercely competitive program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects. Projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to spend the dollars more effectively. They also bring more private, local, or state dollars to the table. Through the first seven rounds, each TIGER dollar brought in 3.5 non-federal dollars, in contrast to federal money for building new roads, for example, which only bring in about 20 state/local cents for each 80 federal cents.

Transit Capital Investment Grants

The Transit Capital Investment Grants program (often broadly referred to as New Starts) supports metro areas of all sizes that are investing their own money in building or expanding transit service.

While making the case for eliminating the program, the Trump Administration recently stated that “localities should fund these localized projects,” but local voters and leaders are doing that already, putting their own skin in the game to meet the growing demand for well-connected locations served by transit. At the ballot box last November alone, voters approved more than $200 billion dollars in tax increases to invest in these projects. But cities of all sizes are counting on the federal government to continue supporting these bottom-up efforts, as they’ve done for decades. Eliminating this program or even just reducing its funding will threaten their economic prospects and their ability to satisfy the booming demand from residents and employers alike for well-connected locations served by transit.

Passenger rail

President Trump proposed cutting Amtrak’s budget nearly in half, with nearly all cuts coming from eliminating long-distance passenger rail service. Funding for the Northeast Corridor would survive, as would the funding for state-supported routes.

But neither chamber heeded this call from the administration: the House approved slightly less funding compared to last year, while the Senate provided the full amount outlined in the FAST Act, allocating competitive funds for safety, state of good repair for the Northeast Corridor, and operating and capital support for restored or new passenger service throughout the rest of the country.

House & Senate reject president’s request to end all federally supported transit construction

Over the last week, House and Senate committees have both passed transportation budget bills for the upcoming year. While the House made a few cuts, the Senate flatly rejected President Trump’s requests to eliminate the TIGER grant program, halt all new federally supported transit construction, and slash passenger rail service.

After a budget deal was struck in May that avoided most cuts for the rest of this year, negotiations begun on the budget for the 2018 fiscal year which starts this October. This means appropriations committees in both the House and Senate setting funding levels for transportation programs for next year, including the discretionary programs that the Trump administration has targeted for cuts (i.e., those not funded by the Highway Trust Fund.)

In the span of the last week, House and Senate appropriations committees & subcommittees have finalized and voted to approve spending bills for the upcoming year. And while the House did make some cuts, the Senate appropriators unanimously repudiated many of the president’s budget requests for transportation and even made an interesting change when it comes to selecting the best TIGER grant applications.

But first, how does each committee’s bill stack up to what the president requested in his budget outline from earlier this year?

Comparing House & Senate 2018 appropriations

	Enacted 2017 levels	President Trump's request for 2018	House 2018 Appropriations	Senate 2018 Appropriations
TIGER Grants	$500 million	$0	$0	$550 million
Transit Capital Grants	$2.4 billion	$0	$1.75 billion	$2.133 billion
Amtrak & passenger rail	$1.495 billion	$795 million (All cuts come from eliminating federal funding for all long-distance routes)	$1.4 billion	$1.6 billion
TOTAL THUD FUNDING	$57.65 billion	$47.4 billion	$56.5 billion	$60.058 billion

Logged-in T4 members can read our House appropriations summary below.

[member_content]T4A members, you can find the full House appropriations summary here. (pdf)[/member_content]

When it comes to the popular TIGER grant program that the Trump administration had targeted for outright elimination, the Senate actually proposed increasing its funding by $50 million.

And they didn’t stop there.

Senate @USDOT funding bill for FY18 requires Trump Admin to give out $550m in #TIGER grants using Obama Admin FY16 selection criteria.

— Jeff Davis (@JDwithTW) July 27, 2017

While the new administration at USDOT had produced their own criteria for how to choose winners for the competitive TIGER grants, the Senate appropriators apparently didn’t approve of them. This language directs USDOT to continue using criteria developed under the last administration to select the winners, the same used for the last eight rounds of TIGER grants. (The Senate Appropriations bill was approved by a bipartisan 31-0 vote, it’s worth noting.)

Though the House did eliminate all funding for TIGER, this is likely unrelated to the president’s request. This has been the norm for the last several years. The House eliminates the funding, the Senate preserves it, and then the Senate number for TIGER has been taken during conference as the House and Senate hammers out the differences. But this doesn’t happen automatically. When/if the appropriations process moves forward, your representatives will need to hear once again your support for TIGER.

Neither House nor Senate appropriators heeded the president’s call to eliminate the federal funding for building shovel-ready transit projects; funding that always gets paired with local or state dollars to make those projects a reality. While the House’s version did make cuts, the Senate provided exactly what’s required to support all of the projects that currently have full-funding grant agreements and are ready to break ground (or are already underway), though the amount is indeed slightly less than the current year’s funding level ($2.13 billion vs $2.4 billion.)

While the House didn’t follow the president’s request to eliminate the program, under no circumstances should a 27 percent cut to transit funding be received as good news.

This cut would result in a handful of transit projects that have local or state dollars already in hand not receiving the full funding they were promised to proceed. And it would delay every other transit project in line behind them waiting for their turn to get a share of this tiny annual amount of federal funding.

We all need to be prepared to continue fighting these cuts to the transit capital grants program. (Get more info on the threats to transit funding here below)

Building public transit back better

About that infrastructure package

Lastly, the appropriations bill included some interesting language about President Trump’s so-called $200 billion infrastructure package. Does the Senate Appropriations Committee know anything about it, and do they believe the stated goals are the right ones?

To date, no such proposal has been submitted to the Committee. While the Committee fully supports additional spending for our nation’s infrastructure, it strongly disagrees with the administration’s assertion that providing federal dollars for infrastructure has created, “an unhealthy dynamic in which state and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving federal funds.” Without federal investment in infrastructure, particularly in our nation’s highway network and transit systems, the ability to move freight across the country and the free movement of people between states with vastly differing abilities to fund infrastructure would be compromised.

The budget process will continue moving forward, though as with the last several years, Congress is not expected to complete any of these individual FY 2018 appropriation bills before the fiscal year begins on October 1. In all likelihood, they’ll once again have to resort to an omnibus budget or continuing resolution to just keep things moving forward without any agreement to be had on the individual bills.

Trump admin’s full budget proposal makes clear their intent to end federal support for transit construction

The Trump administration released their full budget proposal for 2018, ending any possible uncertainty about their belief that highway projects are always inherently in the national interest, transit of any type is explicitly a local concern, and leveraging greater local and state investment in transportation is not a trend to be encouraged.

Flickr photo by Michael Vadon – https://www.flickr.com/photos/80038275@N00/32744150430/

Update (5/24/17): Comments from Seattle added. In the full budget proposal from the White House, released this morning, the administration fleshed out the specifics of their “skinny budget” proposal from back in March. In this longer document that now includes line-item amounts for individual programs, the administration calls to end the TIGER grant program, cut all funding for new transit construction (other than projects that already have federal funding agreements in hand), and terminate the funding for long-distance passenger rail.

[member_content]Logged-in T4America members can view and download our more detailed members-only summary here.[/member_content]

The administration reiterates their belief that transit is just a minor, local concern.

“Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects,” they write, making it clear that they see no benefit in providing grants to cities of all sizes to build new bus rapid transit or rail lines, or expand existing, well-used lines so they can carry more passengers.

Unfortunately, they provide an extremely misguided justification for eliminating this funding.

Several major metropolitan regions have recently passed multi-billion dollar revenue measures to fund transit projects, and the Administration believes that is the most appropriate way to fund transit expansion and maintenance efforts. Localities are better equipped to scale and design infrastructure investments needed for their communities. Several major metropolitan areas, including Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle, have already begun to move in this direction by asking residents to approve multi-billion dollar bond measures to speed the delivery of highway and transit investments. These regions realize waiting for Federal grant funding is not the most efficient way to meet their local transportation needs.

They’ve taken note of the positive trend of voters approving scores of ballot measures to raise taxes or fees to invest in transit, but have sorely mistaken that trend to mean that federal funding is no longer necessary and that these metro regions can make these ambitious projects happen all on their own.

We were wondering how the local leaders from Seattle, Los Angeles or Denver felt about being used as examples for why federal transit funding is no longer needed, so we reached out and asked a few for their thoughts.

Here’s Denny Zane with Move LA, the organization that led the grassroots effort to pass last year’s successful ballot measure in Los Angeles. (Mr. Zane is also a member of T4America’s Advisory Board.)

It is shocking that the Trump administration would play so fast and loose with such a longstanding and effective local-federal partnership to build transportation infrastructure — and to call out for abuse cities in western states simply because we took that partnership seriously. Yes, we have each gained the support of our local voters — Americans all — for investment in our transportation infrastructure. We were successful in part because we could assure them that our larger, more significant projects like the Wilshire subway, or the Sepulveda pass light rail, or the West Santa Ana light rail would all be good candidates for federal partnerships. Suddenly, without notice, the federal partner wants to pack it in. This is no way to unite the nation.

In Seattle, voters approved over $27 billion for transit at the ballot box last November. Seattle Department of Transportation director Scott Kubly made it clear that those voters were counting on using those dollars to leverage federal transit grants:

We are incredibly disappointed that President Trump’s budget proposal cuts infrastructure funding and is totally out of step with his administration’s rhetoric promising to increase infrastructure investments. He needs to put his money where his mouth is. Seattle voters have done their part. They have stepped up to provide local dollars to leverage federal resources. Our local funds are meant to complement federal investments, not replace them. His proposal slashes important city initiatives. We will work closely with our coalition, community partners and congressional leadership to ensure continued support for the Seattle’s transportation priorities.

In their justification for eliminating all funding for the extremely popular TIGER program, the administration describes all of the benefits as local, and direct the towns, cities or states seeking TIGER grants to other ill-suited federal programs. As we wrote back in March:

The administration blithely suggested in their proposal that local communities instead turn to other programs that are explicitly designed not to meet same needs as TIGER. ‘DOT’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program, authorized by the FAST Act of 2015, supports larger highway and multimodal freight projects with demonstrable national or regional benefits. This grant program is authorized at an annual average of $900 million through 2020’ Well, sure, but only $100 million of that $900 million in any year can be used on projects that aren’t on the national freight highway network, so if your project is multimodal or otherwise not on a key national highway, you’re probably out of luck.

What about that “big” infrastructure package?

People from across the political spectrum were energized by candidate Trump’s promises to invest in infrastructure; excitement that ramped up after inauguration as Trump continued talking about a $1 trillion infrastructure package. Aside from the dissonant and jarring promises to invest in infrastructure while proposing to take an axe to vital transportation programs that support smart investments today, these promises have been slowly downgraded.

After starting with the mind-bending $1 trillion number, it was soon revealed to be an anticipated $1 trillion in total economic benefit (or combined investment/financing, including private dollars, depending on who was being quoted) with a total direct investment of around $200 billion. That’s nothing to sneeze at though — $200 billion would be a little over four times current federal surface transportation spending in any given year.

Today, those promises are further laid bare by this budget, as the $200 billion is revealed to be the total amount invested over ten years, with just a paltry $5 billion extra included in 2018. (The amounts are reported to be higher in later years.)

$5 billion is just 0.5 percent of 1 trillion dollars. Though if you want to be as charitable as possible and go with $200 billion as the number for the total direct federal investment, then 2.5 percent of the administration’s promised infrastructure investment is included in their budget for this upcoming year.

“Our nation’s infrastructure serves as the backbone for economic growth and prosperity,” We said back in March when the preliminary budget outline was released. Few details have changed since, and just like the outline did, this full budget “falls short of prioritizing investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of the national economy.”

UPDATE: Geoff Anderson, President and CEO of Smart Growth America, issued a statement on the budget. (T4America is a program of Smart Growth America.)

This budget ignores why communities need federal community development and transportation programs. It’s not just that they need money or innovative tools — which, for the record, they do. They also need a reliable partner who can support their work, not austerity measures that punish them for taking action.

If the federal government quits being that partner — which this budget absolutely implies — it’s going to cause lasting damage to American communities at a time when they need greater security and opportunity, not less. Trump promised these very things, but this budget is a reversal on that promise. We urge Congress to reject this austerity budget and create a budget that reinvest and rebuilds America for the future.

Read the full statement here.

Detailed administration budget proposal to be released this week

Tomorrow (Tuesday, May 23), the Trump administration is expected to release their full budget proposal for all government programs in fiscal year (FY) 2018, which begins on October 1 of this year, and we wanted to provide our members an early update with what to expect.

Last week a spreadsheet that contained some details about funding levels leaked and was widely circulated in Washington. Overall, the numbers in this leaked budget proposal align with the topline numbers in the initial “skinny” budget proposal released back in March.

We expect this week’s full budget proposal to significantly cut funding for the transit Capital Improvements Grant (CIG) program and long-distance Amtrak service:

$1.232 billion is allocated for the CIG program, about half of the $2.4 billion the program received in FY 2017. These cuts seem to align with the Administration’s proposal in the skinny budget to only fund projects with existing full funding grant agreements.
$525 million is allocated to Amtrak National Network, less than half of the FAST Act authorized amount of $1.1 billion and less than half of the FY 2017 appropriation. The Northeast Corridor would receive $235 million, which is also a cut from the $328 million allocated in FY 2017.

The leaked budget is clearly a draft, as some line items are repeated, or missing altogether. Programs such as REG or TIFIA that are not listed or appear to be zeroed out may be a reflection on the incomplete nature of the draft.

However, as we’ve believed all along, significant cuts to Amtrak’s national network and the program for all new transit construction are likely to appear in the final version of the administration’s 2018 budget proposal. T4America will provide members with a detailed summary of the final budget once it is released. We’ll send you a copy but logged-in members will also be able to see it within our public blog post that goes up either Tuesday or Wednesday at https://t4america.org/news-and-blog

Please stay tuned for additional information.

[VIDEO] The future of federal passenger rail funding

After months of talk about investing in infrastructure, one of President Trump’s first acts on infrastructure was to propose eliminating funding for several crucial transportation programs, including long-distance passenger rail. We convened a small panel of experts to explain about the impacts on passenger rail and what interested advocates and local leaders need to know.

Did you miss the session? You can catch up with the full discussion here:

When the current short-term appropriations bill runs out near the end of April 2017, Congress will be debating passenger rail funding levels for next year as well as the remainder of FY 2017. Here are few things that interested advocates should know and do:

FIND STATIONS IN YOUR AREA THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED

We’ve posted a detailed table online that lists all the stations that would be immediately affected by eliminating long-distance passenger rail service, crosswalked with House districts. Find the station(s) in your district and include that information in any letters or phone calls to your representatives.

GET UP TO SPEED ON THE ISSUE

Equip yourself with these short talking points on passenger rail and the threats posed to it in the federal budget.

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

Beyond just cuts to passenger rail, the Administration’s proposed budget falls short of prioritizing investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of the national economy, and we need you to help stand up and send that message loud and clear to Congress.

Take Action

WATCH OUR GULF COAST VIDEO

As mentioned on the webinar, we produced a short video about the amazing groundswell of bottom-up, grassroots support in cities and towns all along the Gulf Coast for restoring passenger rail service from Louisiana to Florida. Watch that and share it here.

162 organizations and local business and elected leaders from 30 states urge Congress to support TIGER & public transit funding

162 organizations, including elected state/local officials and chambers of commerce, sent a letter to House and Senate appropriators today urging Congress to continue investing in smart projects to move goods, move people and support the local economies that our nation’s prosperity is built on.

The letter, signed by 19 local elected officials, 9 state legislators, 9 chambers of commerce and over 120 other organizations, urges those currently assembling the federal transportation budget for the rest of 2017 and 2018 to prioritize funding for both TIGER competitive grants and Transit Capital Investment Grants — programs that have been targeted for outright elimination in President Trump’s budget requests for 2017 and beyond.

The majority of all federal transportation dollars are awarded to states and metro areas by relatively simple formulas that ensure everyone gets a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars or how well-conceived their projects are. Yet, through the TIGER grant program, the federal government has found a smart way to use a small amount of money (about $500 million annually since 2009) to incentivize the best projects possible. This fiercely competitive program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects. Projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible and through the first seven rounds, each TIGER dollar has brought 3.5 non-federal dollars to the table.

The Transit Capital Investment Grants program supports metro areas of all sizes investing their own money in building or expanding transit service. While making the case for eliminating the program, the Trump Administration recently stated that “localities should fund these localized projects,” but local voters and leaders are doing that already, putting their own skin in the game to meet the growing demand for well-connected locations served by transit. At the ballot box last November alone, voters approved more than $200 billion dollars in tax increases to invest in these projects. But they’re counting on the federal government to continue supporting these bottom-up efforts, as they’ve done for decades.

Indianapolis, Albuquerque, Atlanta, Seattle, Kansas City, Minneapolis and a plethora of other towns and cities have already raised their own money to invest in building new transit service. Eliminating this program will threaten their economic prospects and their ability to satisfy the booming demand from residents and employers alike for well-connected locations served by transit.

Here’s the full text of the letter:

Dear Chairmen Cochran, Frelinghuysen, Collins, and Diaz-Balart and Ranking Members Leahy, Lowey, Reed, and Price:

As you prepare the omnibus Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 appropriations bill and the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for FY2018, we write to respectfully request that you fund the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program at or above FY16 level of $500 million and that you fully fund the Transit Capital Investment Grants program at the FAST Act authorization level of $2.3 billion.

Local and regional governments generate nearly three quarters of U.S. gross domestic product, represent two- thirds of the nation’s population, and account for 95 percent of all public transportation passenger miles traveled. Yet, our local jurisdictions receive less than 10% of the federal highway program’s funding.

The incredibly popular TIGER grant program is one of the only ways that local communities can apply for and secure funds from the federal government for priority transportation projects. The TIGER competition spurs innovation, leverages federal funding far greater than what’s available through formula programs, and awards funding to projects that provide a high-return on investment.

Year after year, the demand for TIGER far exceeds the amount of funding available. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) received 627 applications requesting more than $10.1 billion in funding, which was 20 times the amount available. Since its creation in 2009, TIGER has made critical investments in multimodal projects in every state in the nation, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Likewise, the transit Capital Investment Grants program (i.e. New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity) is the federal government’s primary resource for supporting locally-planned, major transit capital investments. The program has facilitated the creation of new or extended public transportation systems across the country.

Under this program, FTA awards grants on a competitive basis for large projects that cannot traditionally be funded from a transit agency’s annual formula funds, such as new fixed guideway systems, including heavy rail (subway), light rail, streetcars, or bus rapid transit. Projects are encouraged to leverage public-private-partnerships (P3) to participate in a streamlined grant process. Recognizing the importance of this program, Congress increased its authorization by $400 million in the FAST Act.

Both the TIGER and Capital Investment Grants programs complement DOT’s traditional formula-based programs. Both programs provide unique, cost-effective, and innovative solutions that leverage private, state, and local investment to solve complex transportation opportunities and spur economic development.

While we are writing today about the TIGER and CIG programs in particular, we also want to make clear that these programs should not be paid for by significant cuts in other essential discretionary domestic programs. The Trump administration’s budget proposal falls short in prioritizing investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of our national economy. We urge Congress to uphold its promise to the American people and reinvest in our nation’s communities.

Thank you for considering these critical programs, which invest in our nation’s infrastructure, create jobs for American workers, and boost our regional economies.

Sincerely,

See the full letter (pdf) for the full list of organizations and officials that signed the letter.

Trump admin moving to end transit construction program and TIGER immediately

New documents released this week by the Trump administration make it clear that 2018 won’t be soon enough to eliminate funding for future transit construction and TIGER competitive grants — they want them gone now, in 2017.

After months of promises to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure, President Trump’s 2018 budget request proposed eliminating the popular TIGER competitive grant program and ending the support for helping cities of all sizes build new transit lines, among other cuts.

This week, it’s become clear that the 2018 fiscal year (which begins this October) isn’t soon enough for the administration — they are now asking Congress to make most of the same cuts and changes in (the rest of) this year’s budget for 2017.

“The Administration proposes to suspend additional projects from entering the [transit capital grants] program, and believes localities should fund these localized projects.”

That’s what the Office of Management and Budget is requesting for the federal transit capital construction program, according to Jeff Davis’ Eno Transportation Weekly. That’s paired with a request to cut funding for transit construction by about $400 million for the rest of this fiscal year. Unlike the President’s recent proposal for the next fiscal year (2018), these cuts are proposed for the budget that Congress is negotiating now to keep the government operating through October.

You can help save these vital programs
We’re looking for national, state and local organizations to demonstrate their support for fully funded TIGER and transit Capital Investment Programs. Sign onto T4America’s nationwide support letter by Friday, March 31st.

Budget background: The government is operating under a continuing budget resolution (CR) because Congress failed to pass individual spending bills in late 2016 for this fiscal year. They instead passed a single bill to keep the government functioning at 2016 funding levels for most programs. Congress must produce budgetary legislation of some kind before the current CR expires on April 28, or run the risk of once again shutting down the government.

What does this mean for transit?

For one, it means $400 million less available this year to distribute to the ready-to-go transit projects that the federal government has already promised to fund by signing a full-funding grant agreement (FFGA). That means some unknown number of transit projects that were initially recommended to receive funding from FTA this year would be left out.

Secondly, suspending the pipeline means that transit projects in cities like Indianapolis, Tempe, Albuquerque, Ft. Lauderdale and dozens of others would be at the front of a line that would not move again under President Trump. Some of these cities expected to move ahead this year and were even recommended for funding by the Federal Transit Administration. Many have already pledged millions of their own dollars or have started development, engineering or construction work on projects that are on the cusp of receiving a federal grant to help complete it. And despite the administration’s belief that “localities should fund these localized projects,” the federal government funds interstate interchanges, highway widenings and road construction projects that are inherently local in nature almost every single day. There’s nothing more “local” about a transit project at all.

The administration is not satisfied to see the pipeline of transit projects shut down in 2018 — they want it shut down as soon as possible, in whatever budget Congress produces to carry us through the rest of this year.

What’s the news for TIGER?

It could mean the end of TIGER grants this year, with no grants awarded in 2017 at all.

CQ Roll Call reports that congressional housing/transportation appropriators are being asked to cut $2.7 billion from their budget for the rest of this year and eliminate $500 million from the TIGER program for this year — the entirety of this year’s funding. In years past, spring had been the time of year when USDOT would typically open the application period for this year’s batch of awards, with the aim to award TIGER grants sometime this fall. Though TIGER is technically funded for this year, with no certainty about a budget for the second half of the year from April to October, USDOT won’t make funding available that could be rescinded by Congress. And this is exactly why.

If you represent an organization of some kind, sign onto T4America’s nationwide support letter for these programs by Friday, March 31st.

Seven things to know about President Trump’s budget proposal

There is no good news for transportation in President Trump’s first budget request to Congress. We take a look beyond the headlines and unpack seven things you need to know about this first salvo in the annual budget-making process.

[member_content]T4A MEMBERS: You can read and download your full members-only analysis of the budget here.[/member_content]

The short version is that President Trump’s first budget request for Congress is a direct assault on smart infrastructure investment that will do damage to cities and towns of all sizes. After months of promises to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure, the first official action taken by the Trump administration on the issue is a proposal to eliminate the popular TIGER competitive grant program, cut the funding that helps cities of all sizes build new transit lines, and terminate funding for the long-distance passenger rail lines that rural areas depend on.

Tell your representatives that this proposal is a non-starter and appropriators in Congress should start from scratch.

TAKE ACTION

That’s the short version. Here’s a longer one with seven things worth knowing more about:

1) It ends the program for building new transit lines or service, putting the screws to local communities that have raised their own dollars to build vital projects.

Indianapolis would be facing the loss of more than $70 million in anticipated federal grants for their Red Line bus rapid transit project under this budget. Graphic courtesy of Indy Connect

This budget eliminates future funding for building new public transportation lines and service, threatening the ability of local communities of all sizes to satisfy the booming demand for well-connected locations served by transit. While the handful of projects with full federal funding grant agreements (FFGAs) already in hand would (theoretically) be allowed to proceed, all other future transit projects would be out of luck. The budget proposes to phase out future funding for what’s called the transit capital investment grants program — more informally referred to as New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity grants. As we said in our statement, it’s a “slap in face to the millions of local residents who have raised their own taxes, with the full expectation that [their funds] would be combined with the limited pool of federal grants, to complete their priority transportation projects.”

For example, here’s a list of eight transit projects we quickly identified that have already raised or set aside a share of the local dollars required and were recommended by the Federal Transit Administration for funding in 2017 — though they were just short of the last step of receiving a federal grant agreement.

Sacramento, CA — Streetcar extension
Expecting $74.9 million Small Starts grant to match $65 million in various city and county funding.
Kansas City, MO — Bus rapid transit
Expecting $30 million Small Starts grant to match to match $12 million in city and $3 million in regional sales tax funds.
Tempe, AZ — Streetcar
Expecting $74.9 million Small Starts grant in FY17 which would match $76 million in local sales tax funds approved by Maricopa voters in 2004. (Local voters have been paying local sales tax for 13 years in expectation of federal funding to build this project.)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL — Streetcar extension
Expecting $61 million Small Starts grant in FY17. Would match $48 million in combined city and county financing, including local gas tax, special district property assessment, and county general funds.
Indianapolis, IN — Red Line bus rapid transit project
Expecting $74.9 million Small Starts grant to pair with the income tax increase that voters just approved in November 2016 at the ballot box
Minneapolis, MN — SW Light Rail Line
Expecting $887 million New Starts grant in FY17 to cover 50 percent of the project. The other 50 percent would be covered locally. Local and regional entities (Counties Transit Improvement Board and Met Council) already stepped up in September 2016 and increased their commitment after the state backed out of their funding commitment to the project.
Albuquerque, NM — Bus rapid transit
Expecting $69 million Small Starts grant to match $25 million in various local (city and county) funds
Lynwood, WA — Sound Transit light rail extension
Expecting $1.172 billion New Starts grant, matched by the same amount of voter-approved, local sales and motor vehicle taxes. Local funds were approved by the Sound Transit 2 referendum in Nov 2008; voters just expressed their continued commitment by approving additional transit funding in the successful Sound Transit 3 referendum in Nov 2016.

Aside from these eight, there are at least 40 other transit projects in other various stages of development — engineering, planning, etc. — that will be left completely on their own with no future federal dollars for transit construction. (Yonah Freemark has a good list of them in this post from The Transport Politic.)

Practically speaking, it’s unclear how the administration would even go about phasing out the program. It would require several years of keeping spending level just to honor the federal government’s current obligations. Right now, there’s about $6 billion committed to the projects that have federal grant agreements. With over $2 billion budgeted annually for this program over the last few years, it would take almost three years of continuing current funding for the program just to clear those projects and end the program.

2) It eliminates the TIGER program, and then recommends unsuitable alternatives to fund those sorts of local projects

The proposal completely eliminates the fiercely competitive TIGER program, which is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects and one of the most fiscally responsible transportation programs administered by USDOT.

View our interactive map of winners through all rounds of TIGER

The federal government has found a smart way to use a small amount of money to incentivize the best projects possible through TIGER, as well as encourage local investment —TIGER projects brought 3.5 other dollars to the table for each federal dollar awarded through the first five rounds. And the competition for funds is in stark contrast to the majority of all federal transportation dollars that are awarded via formulas to ensure that all states or metro areas get a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars. Unlike the old system of congressional earmarks, the projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible.

In response to the elimination of the TIGER program, the administration blithely suggested in their proposal that local communities instead turn to other programs…that are explicitly designed not to meet same needs as TIGER. “DOT’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program, authorized by the FAST Act of 2015, supports larger highway and multimodal freight projects with demonstrable national or regional benefits. This grant program is authorized at an annual average of $900 million through 2020.”

Well, sure, but only $100 million of that $900 million in any year can be used on projects that aren’t on the national freight highway network, so if your project is multimodal or otherwise not on a key national highway, you’re probably out of luck. And the FASTLANE competitive grant program is wholly limited to freight projects.

There’s a reason that TIGER remains so popular with local communities even though around 95 percent of applicants lose out on funding — it’s one of the only ways to fund the multimodal projects that are difficult to fund through conventional, narrowly-focused federal programs. The replacements suggested by the administration aren’t appropriate and don’t come close to funding the same sort of projects or meeting the needs as TIGER.

3) It terminates the funding for long-distance passenger rail that keeps rural communities connected.

While preserving funds for the northeast rail corridor, it ‘terminates’ funding for long-distance passenger rail service. One of the things we were nervous about in the FAST Act was the way it started to separate out the northeast passenger rail corridor from the rest of the system. Bifurcating the funding for our rail network starts to chip away at the idea of a national system and will hit rural communities especially hard.

It’s jarring to read in the administration proposal that the intent of reducing Amtrak funding is to “focus resources on the parts of the passenger rail system that provide meaningful transportation options within regions,” especially when you consider that “providing meaningful transportation options” is precisely what the Gulf Coast communities trying to restore passenger rail service wiped out by Hurricane Katrina are trying to do.

Combined with the proposal to end the Essential Air Service program, rural communities could be more disconnected than ever before.

During last year’s Gulf Coast Inspection Train, hundreds of Gulfport, MS residents came out to voice their support for bringing passenger rail service back to the coast to provide them with “meaningful transportation options.”

4) This budget indicates that the much-discussed infrastructure package — if it ever even materializes — would be hostile to the approach taken by the above programs.

Are you one of the people who are still optimistic that a big infrastructure package from the President would provide robust funding for the types of projects that were just slashed in the budget? Let Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, disabuse you of that notion. When asked about the transportation programs that were cut or eliminated, Mulvaney said, “we believe those programs to be less effective than the package we’re currently working on.”

I.e., they don’t think that the approach taken by TIGER, New Starts, etc. is an effective one, and they’re going to go in a different direction in any big infrastructure package, and these cuts reflect the transportation priorities of the administration.

5) It suggests a performance-based approach while delaying the rules on new performance measures

This is a smaller point, but the administration’s rhetoric on better-performing federal agencies doesn’t sync up with their actions thus far. From the proposal:

The Administration will take an evidence-based approach to improving programs and services—using real, hard data to identify poorly performing organizations and programs. We will hold program managers accountable for improving performance and delivering high-quality and timely services to the American people and businesses.

Meanwhile, new performance measures (like the new congestion rule) that could actually improve the effectiveness of federal transportation spending were put on hold as the new administration took office, to say nothing of the fact that competitive programs like TIGER are far more performance-driven than the simple formula grants that are handed out like blank checks to states regardless of how they’ve spent that money in the past.

6) It cuts scores of other programs that help support strong local economies.

As our parent org Smart Growth America said last week, the transportation-related cuts are just one aspect of a budget that is “a broadside against the things that make communities work.” It takes the axe to HUD’s Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), stormwater grant programs, USDA’s Rural Development Program, and scores of other programs that support redevelopment and strong local economies.

7) It’s important, but this is only the starting point for the budget process

Presidents make their request, but appropriators in Congress determine the budget and House appropriators will soon go to work on producing their own. From a Capitol Hill transportation reporter:

General Congressional GOP reaction to Trump’s budget: Thanks big guy but we’ll take it from here. Congress makes the budget.

— Tanya Snyder (@TSnyderDC) March 16, 2017

That said, appropriators in the House or Senate could propose some of the same cuts. After all, it was Congress in 2012 that tried to eliminate all federal mass transit funding, so it’s crucial to let them know what your priorities are.

Our nation’s infrastructure serves as the backbone for economic growth and prosperity, and we need a budget that prioritizes investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of the national economy.

Stand up and send that message loud and clear to Congress.

TAKE ACTION

Trump’s budget will hurt local communities

President Trump’s first budget request for Congress is a direct assault on smart infrastructure investment that will do damage to cities and towns of all sizes — from the biggest coastal cities down to small rural towns.

After months of promises to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure, the first official action taken by the Trump administration on the issue is a proposal to eliminate the popular TIGER competitive grant program, cut the funding that helps cities of all sizes build new transit lines, and terminate funding for the long-distance passenger rail lines that rural areas depend on.

Tell your representatives that this proposal is a non-starter and appropriators in Congress should start from scratch.

The competitive TIGER grant program is one of the only ways that local communities of all sizes can directly access federal funds. And unlike the old outdated practice of earmarking, to win this funding, project sponsors have to bring significant local funding to the table and provide evidence of how their project will accomplish numerous goals. The TIGER grant program has brought more than three non-federal dollars to the table for each federal dollar awarded.

Eliminating the funding to support the construction of new public transportation lines and service is a slap in face of the millions of local residents who have raised their own taxes to pay their share. Like the voters in Tempe, AZ, who approved a sales tax 13 years ago that’s been set aside to pair with a future federal grant to build a streetcar. Or the voters last November in Indianapolis, IN, who approved an income tax increase to pay their share of a new bus rapid transit project, and in Atlanta, GA, who approved a sales tax increase in part to add transit to their one-of-a-kind Beltline project.

These local communities and scores of others who are generating their own funds to invest in transit will be left high and dry by this proposal, threatening their ability to satisfy the booming demand from residents and employers alike for well-connected locations served by transit.

Terminating funding for long-distance passenger rail service will hit rural communities especially hard, like the communities along the Gulf Coast who are even now demonstrating their commitment to restoring service wiped out by Hurricane Katrina by stepping up and pledging their own dollars to match or exceed any federal dollars to make it happen.

Our nation’s infrastructure serves as the backbone for economic growth and prosperity. The Administration’s proposed budget falls short of prioritizing investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of the national economy, and we need you to help stand up and send that message loud and clear to Congress.

President Trump’s budget request severely undercuts stated commitment to investing in infrastructure

Earlier today, President Trump released his budget proposal for FY 2018 that cuts the U.S. Department of Transportation’s discretionary budget by 13 percent, ends the popular TIGER competitive grant program, eliminates the New & Small Starts transit construction program, and terminates funding for long-distance passenger rail funding, among other notable cuts.

In response, T4America Interim Director Beth Osborne offered this statement:

“This budget proposal severely undercuts the President’s stated commitment to infrastructure, and would leave behind many of the rural communities that supported him in November. After months of promises to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure, the first concrete action taken by the Trump administration on this issue is to propose drastic cuts to transportation programs that bring notable economic benefits to communities across the country, from small towns to large cities.

“Combined with the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant program, this will put even more pressure on already overstretched local governments. This is a slap in face to the millions of local residents who have raised their own taxes — with the full expectation they would be combined with the limited pool of federal grants — to complete their priority transportation projects.

“The proposal completely eliminates the popular TIGER competitive grant program that has funded more than 400 transformational projects spanning all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The program leverages billions to accelerate key projects that drive local, regional and state economic development. Through the first five rounds of funding, TIGER projects brought 3.5 other dollars to the table for each federal dollar awarded. Despite the budget proposal’s recommendation for these communities to apply for funding from other freight programs, these programs are either not multimodal at all or have caps on the funding for non-highway projects.

“This budget also entirely eliminates funding for building new public transportation lines and service. While it will theoretically allow the small number of new transit construction projects with federal funding agreements already in hand to proceed, ending this program threatens the ability of local communities of all sizes to satisfy the booming demand for well-connected locations served by transit. Tempe, AZ, has set aside money from a voter-approved sales tax for 13 years to pair with a future federal grant to build a streetcar. In November, voters in Indianapolis, IN, approved an income tax increase in November to pay their share of a new bus rapid transit project and voters in Atlanta, GA, approved a sales tax increase to add transit to their one-of-a-kind Beltline project. These local communities and scores of others generating their own funds to invest in transit will be left high and dry by this proposal.”

“While preserving funds for the northeast rail corridor, it ‘terminates’ funding for long-distance passenger rail service. This will hit rural communities especially hard, like the Gulf Coast communities that have been working to restore passenger rail service between New Orleans and Orlando wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. These smaller communities are demonstrating their commitment to realizing the economic development that restored service will bring by stepping up and pledging their own dollars to match or exceed any federal dollars. Combined with the proposal to end the Essential Air Service program, rural communities could be more disconnected than ever before.

“Our nation’s infrastructure serves as the backbone for economic growth and prosperity. The Administration’s proposed budget falls short of prioritizing investment in the local communities that are the basic building block of the national economy. We urge leaders to uphold their promise to the American people and reinvest in our nation’s communities.

President Trump’s federal infrastructure priorities likely to be revealed this week

There’s no need to wait months for President Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure package to discover the transportation priorities of this president — they’ll be clearly telegraphed with the release of his first annual budget later this week.

For months there’s been endless discussion of the President’s $1 trillion pledge to “build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.” And while industry groups scramble to divvy up funding or financing from a package that may or may not materialize, President Trump’s first real infrastructure effort should be considered his annual budget request with top-line numbers for transportation spending, which will tell us much about his priorities.

When the first look at that budget comes later this week, we’ll likely face the dissonance of a President rallying support for a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure at the same time he’s proposing billions in cuts to transportation investment to accompany his plan to increase defense spending by $54 billion.

While trade groups, members of Congress and local advocates are discussing what projects they want to include in this dream of a huge infrastructure package that may or may not come up later this year, they could see devastating cuts proposed for crucial transportation programs that fund smart transportation projects all across the country in less than 48 hours.

Melanie Zanona wrote about this inconsistency in The Hill today, noting that “the optics of slashing federal transportation funds in his budget proposal while pushing for a separate financing package underscores Trump’s challenge of balancing his promises of massive infrastructure investment and dramatic cuts in government spending.”

While many people — even staffers or elected reps on Capitol Hill — tend to think transportation spending decisions are determined by the long-term transportation bill that gets passed every few years, the money for new transit and rail projects still has to be appropriated by Congress each year through the budget process.

This is an important point.

To get a big infrastructure package passed by Congress, the president will need the full coalition of transportation stakeholders, from those seeking funds for roads, to transit, rail and ports. But if there are cuts in the budget made to discretionary spending (i.e., programs not paid out of the highway trust fund), those cuts would fall disproportionately on funding for new transit construction (New and Small Starts) and multimodal and local priority projects (TIGER) — amongst other programs. Targeting parts of the infrastructure coalition with this budget now is a good way to make sure you have no coalition when you need it later.

President Trump had a meeting at the White House last week with some key transportation, real estate and infrastructure advisors about his priorities. Real estate developer Richard LeFrak talked to CNBC about what he heard in the meeting:

“One thing [Trump] said while we were in the meeting, he said ‘don’t bring me any projects that you want federal funding for that you can’t start and had completed the state approval processes,'” LeFrak said.

That’s because “‘most of these projects come from the state, in 90 to 100 days. If they’re not ready in 120 days, tell them to go back, get finished, and bring it back,’ [Trump said]. In other words, he’s not going to … devote the resources to things that he can’t implement immediately,” he added.

Of course, we’ve seen plenty of evidence that “shovel-ready” isn’t always the best qualifier to identify the best projects. Following 2009’s stimulus effort, we learned that many shovel-ready projects weren’t under construction for a reason, and many were just mothballed projects that had been sitting on a shelf for the last 20 years because they simply never merited moving forward.

Ed Mortimer from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce echoed that point while testifying alongside our Beth Osborne before a Senate Committee last week. Any new infrastructure package, he said, “should not be a replication of the Recovery Act [which focused entirely on shovel-ready projects.] Projects need to be selected to deliver long-term economic growth, not the speed at which they can be constructed.”

But not all shovel-ready projects are created equal, either.

Scores of local communities with well-conceived ready-to-go multimodal projects are eager to apply to the incredibly competitive TIGER grant program, and on average, winning TIGER projects brought at least three state or local dollars to the table for each federal dollar sought. There are transit projects all across the country that have already raised local or state funding and are literally just waiting on a check for capital dollars from the federal government to proceed, including “projects like Indianapolis’ Red Line bus rapid transit project which has already been promised more than $70 million in federal dollars to pair with nearly $20 million in local funds from an income tax increase that Indianapolis voters approved back in November at the ballot box,” as we noted last week.

USDOT has already promised over $6 billion to these shovel-ready transit construction projects that have local funding in hand and are ready to go. If this week’s budget does indeed cut (or even eliminate funding outright) for the New & Small Starts transit program which exists explicitly to help metro areas of all sizes build new transit systems, the projects in that pipeline could be immediately threatened, as will their promises of supporting economic development & improved mobility.

When any president starts talking about a big new investment in transportation, it’s natural for people to get excited — Congress has been begging, borrowing and dealing to keep federal transportation program solvent for the last decade.

But whether or not President Trump finds a way to successfully advance and pay for a massive investment in infrastructure, come hell or high water, there will be a budget for these crucial transportation programs this year. And it will tell us all we need to know about his priorities.

We’ll be breaking down the budget when it’s released and arm you with the information you’ll need to take action and weigh in with your members of Congress. Do you want to get this sort of information directly to your inbox? Sign up for email today.

Sign me up

Do our federal transportation priorities match the rhetoric we use to justify more spending?

With the Trump administration readying both an annual budget and discussing a possible large infrastructure package, Transportation for America yesterday urged a key Senate subcommittee to protect the investments in programs that promote innovation, encourage collaboration and maximize benefits for local communities.

Photo via WSDOT/Flickr httpswww.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/8670279118

The President’s first budget will almost certainly propose big cuts to discretionary spending programs. While the bulk of annual federal transportation spending is sourced from the highway trust fund and should be more insulated from these cuts, discretionary cuts would fall disproportionately on funding for new transit construction (New and Small Starts) and multimodal and local priority projects (TIGER).

House and Senate appropriators will have two decisions to make: a) whether to appropriate the amounts prescribed by the current long-term transportation law (the FAST Act) for the core programs, which is uncertain as well, and, b) how much to allocate for these other discretionary transportation programs.

As expected, with the heads of a few national trade groups also testifying yesterday alongside T4America before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, there was the usual rhetoric about America’s “crumbling” infrastructure amidst calls to invest more money overall in the federal transportation program.

And while T4America agrees on the need for greater levels of overall investment, T4A senior policy advisor Beth Osborne (pictured above) differentiated our overall position.

“As everyone testifying today will say,” she noted in her opening remarks, “we have great need to invest in our transportation system, including our roads, bridges, and transit systems. However, Transportation for America also believes that our problems run far deeper than just an overall lack of funding.”

When we have these discussions about the need to invest in infrastructure — especially in Washington — all sorts of ominous numbers are thrown around. Tens of thousands of deficient bridges. Pavement condition that’s worsening by the day. Backlogs of neglected maintenance and repair.

But where does the money go once we increase transportation spending and dole it all out to the states? Beth Osborne explained:

In fact, while we talk about the need for more funding to address our crumbling infrastructure, that is not necessarily where the funding goes. A 2014 report conducted by Smart Growth America called “Repair Priorities” found that between 2009 and 2011 states collectively spent $20.4 billion annually to build new roadways and add lanes. During that same time, states spent just $16.5 billion annually repairing and preserving the existing system, even while roads across the country were deteriorating. As we talk about large infrastructure packages, it’s only fair to ask that the priorities of our transportation program more closely match the rhetoric we use to justify more spending on it.

Why do we keep spending hefty sums on new roads and new lanes while repair backlogs get ignored? One reason is that transportation and development decisions are rarely well coordinated and we end up trying to address bad land use decisions with more transportation spending, and vice versa.