Skip to main content

US Senate Transportation Authorization – T4A Update

The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control. 

**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.

Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.

Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).

Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:

  1. Wicker-Booker STP local control amendment (corresponding fact sheet by USCM on changes to metro level funding)
  2. Murray TIGER authorization amendment
  3. Donnelly Job Access planning amendment (search for S. Amdt 2434, 2435 and 2436; this one is messy, our apologies)

Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):

Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.

Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.

Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?

Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.

Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.

Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.

Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.

*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.

The details on a new bill giving locals greater access to their federal dollars

Updated 3/18/15: This bill was reintroduced in the 114th Congress on 3/17/15 in both the House and the Senate with new bill numbers, H.R. 1393 and S.762. It is identical to the version released in 2014 detailed below and this post still serves as an explainer for what the new bill would do. -Ed.

Last week we reported on the introduction of an important bill to expand local access to federal transportation dollars, the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act. Today we want to provide a little more detail about how the proposed new grant program would work.

First, a reminder of the need: Local leaders are the ones who feel the heat when crumbling infrastructure stalls traffic, when workers can’t connect to jobs, streets are unsafe or goods get stuck in congestion. But they lack the access to federal funds that could help them fix those problems and boost their economies, and they have little say in how their state’s federal allocation gets spent.

That’s gotten worse in recent years, not better. When Congress adopted the current federal program, MAP-21, in 2012, it was touted as providing more “local control”. But while states did get more latitude, local communities actually lost access, to the point that only a fraction of the available dollars flow to the cities, towns and suburbs in the metro areas where 85 percent of us live.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would make good on the promise of local control by reserving a small share of transportation dollars in each state to make grants for local projects. (In the 114th Congress, the bill was introduced on 3/17/15 by Senators Wicker (R-MS), Booker (D-NJ), Casey (D-PA) and Murkowski (R-AK) in the Senate, and Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL), Dina Titus (D-NV) Gregg Harper, (R-MS), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA) in the House. See updated bill numbers in first paragraph above. -Ed.)

Q: How would projects be selected?

Grants would be awarded based on the strength of the proposal: Will the project result in the highest return on investment? Does it improve safety and reliability? Does the community have their own funds committed to the plan?

Projects would be selected by a statewide jury of local “peers” – other stakeholders who also understand local needs – in collaboration with state DOT representatives. This is critical, because while it ensures DOT involvement, it also makes sure the vision for state progress belongs not just to the bureaucracy but includes regional and local planning organizations, stakeholders from local chambers of commerce, the active transportation community, transit agencies, air quality boards, ports and others.

While each state can tailor their program to suit their needs, the bill outlines a range of selection criteria that should be considered, including improving safety and reliability for all users, promoting multimodal connectivity, improving access to jobs and opportunity, strengthening the overall return on investment, and contributing to a more efficient national multimodal freight network, to name just a few.

Q: Why competitive grants rather than doling out specific amounts to every community by formula?

For one, when projects compete against each other, the sponsoring communities work harder to develop better projects and stretch to make the most of every dollar. And that’s where the “innovation” from the act’s title comes in: Such projects are more likely to solve multiple problems at once and prompt the creation of new partnerships among public and private actors. The innovative, cost-effective and economically important projects will rise to the top, and applicants will learn to sharpen their thinking, planning and inclusiveness around transportation.

Q: What about the handful of states already providing local access to their federal dollars?

H.R. 4726 would allow states that already hold statewide competitions or allocate a majority of federal highway funds to metropolitan or local communities to certify out of the program altogether. If a state is already doing a good job directing money to the best local projects, their efforts would be recognized and rewarded. Additionally, along these same lines, any funds that are currently directed — competitively or otherwise — to metropolitan or local communities would be exempt from inclusion in the new program. These provisions ensure that the bill doesn’t negatively impact states currently providing local control, or require them to re-create the wheel.

For example, read about existing grant programs in Oregon and Pennsylvania.


As we travel the country meeting with local elected, business and civic leaders, we see community after community developing exciting, forward-looking plans to squeeze efficiencies out of road networks expected to move cars, pedestrians, transit riders, bicycles and freight. We hear about unmet repair needs with little help in sight. We see economic opportunities seized upon, or by-passed, based on the ability to invest in a high-quality transportation network.

For them and their constituents, this proposal is the most hopeful sign to come out D.C. in a long time. It could use a lot more co-sponsors to show just how important it is. Urge your representatives to sign on as a cosponsor today by clicking here and sending them a message.

Did you already send your letters and ask your representatives to cosponsor? Then help spread the word! Use the links to share on Twitter and Facebook below, OR, cut and paste the message in the box to send a message to your friends via email.

Shouldn’t the level of government closest to the people have more control over how transportation dollars get spent in their local communities? And shouldn’t they have more access to federal transportation funds?

I think so, and I asked my representatives to cosponsor this bipartisan bill that would give local communities more access to federal transportation funds that they can invest in homegrown transportation plans and projects, and more control over how those dollars get spent.

Will you join me and send a letter? It only takes a moment.

http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19843