Skip to main content

Tag: budget

Strides towards Building Back Better the US transportation program

a full bus of commuters

The revised version of the Build Back Better Act preserves $40 billion in important additions that will advance racial equity, address climate change by lowering emissions, and foster community-oriented economic recovery. T4America is encouraged to see these inclusions, but they’ll be a drop in the bucket compared to the much larger infrastructure deal, which doubles down on our dangerous, disconnected, high-speed-vehicle-dominated status quo.

UPDATED 11/8/2021: The infrastructure deal (the IIJA) passed on its own on Friday night (Nov. 5), minus the budget reconciliation act (BBB) detailed below. Read our short statement here and see the updated sections noted below.

a full bus of commuters
Image from Max Pixel

“We are encouraged that the revised Build Back Better Act maintains several important proposals to improve the infrastructure deal by reducing emissions and addressing climate change, improving access to transit service—especially for those who can benefit from it most—and advancing racial equity,” said T4America director Beth Osborne.

“We are encouraged to know that Congress is taking seriously the need to address climate change, equity, and economic recovery. But the $40 billion included here unfortunately won’t be enough to redeem the $645 billion-plus infrastructure bill that will continue to make many of those same problems worse. As we’ve said throughout the second half of this year, the administration has a difficult task ahead to advance their stated goals of repair, safety, climate, equity, and access to jobs and services through these small improvements, while spending historic amounts on unchanged programs that have historically made those issues worse.”

How did we get here? An explainer

The last year has been one of the most complex for those who care about transportation policy, and it’s easy to get lost with all the acronyms and jargon as bills have been introduced and replaced and merged together. Over the past year the House and Senate made respective attempts at writing new five-year transportation bills to replace this year’s expiring FAST Act, with wildly diverging results. 

The House’s five-year INVEST Act “commits to a fix it first approach, prioritizing safety over speed, and connecting people to jobs and essential services—whether they drive or not,” as T4 Director Beth Osborne said in the summer when it passed. It made notable strides to fix past problems ($20 billion for tearing down divisive highways) while taking the vital step to update the underlying programs that are continuing to create those same problems.

The Senate took a different approach, ignoring the INVEST Act and crafting their five-year transportation policy as part of the larger infrastructure bill (the IIJA). Their bill doubled down on the status quo—more money for the same old things—with important but marginal attempts to account for equity, climate, repair, electric vehicle infrastructure, safety, and community connections. The Senate approved that infrastructure bill and sent it to the House for final consideration, leaving the House in the unenviable position of choosing between their INVEST Act or supporting the larger infrastructure bill—one of the president’s key priorities.

UPDATE 11/8/2021: After months of the debate about combining the above infrastructure deal with the budget reconciliation act detailed below (read on for details about that), Congress finally moved on the infrastructure deal alone and approved it on Friday, November 5. This means that everything detailed above has now passed through Congress: the $600+ billion infrastructure deal which also included a five-year reauthorization to replace the expiring FAST Act. Read our short statement about that deal here.

The Build Back Better Act and the modest but notable transportation improvements within it (detailed below) are still awaiting action from Congress. Some other updates have been made to the post below to reflect that only the Build Back Better Act is still up for consideration at this point.[End of update. -Ed]

During the fall, Congress also began considering President Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act through the mechanism known as budget reconciliation to advance funding for all sorts of programs, including transportation and the infrastructure bill. This gave the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee an opening to make additive improvements to the lackluster infrastructure bill (IIJA) included in reconciliation that would focus on climate, equity, transit, and connecting communities.  Here are three notable improvements we urged T&I to include, which were included in the initial version:

  • Affordable Housing Access Program – Provides $10 billion for competitive grants to support access to affordable housing and the enhancement of mobility for residents in disadvantaged communities or neighborhoods, in persistent poverty communities, or for low-income riders generally.
  • Community Climate Incentive Grants – Provides $4 billion towards addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, specifically $1 billion for state incentives and $3 billion in competitive grant funding for regional and local government entities to pursue carbon and GHG reduction projects.
  • Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants – Provides $4 billion for competitive grants towards improving affordable transportation access via removing transportation barriers, building community connections that promote active and affordable transportation, and community capacity building aimed at assessing community impacts and enhancing public involvement in the decision making process.

Though members of the House were ready to move on this budget reconciliation bill and the infrastructure bill in September, the deal stalled due to opposition in the Senate from Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Sinema (D-AZ), who objected to the reconciliation bill’s top line spending extremely late in the process. 

Where are we now?

In late October, Congress presented a revised and pared-back $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act. We are encouraged to see that the drafters maintained the above three provisions which will significantly contribute towards equity, climate change mitigation, and fostering community connections. 

But the (now approved!) $645-plus billion infrastructure deal (the IIJA) is the elephant in the Build Back Better Act room, and its’ shortcomings dwarf these good and worthy $40 billion improvements. As we said in our statement upon the IIJA’s passage, “the transportation portion of the infrastructure bill spends a lot of money but fails to target it to the needs of the day: building strong economic centers, providing equitable access to opportunity, addressing catastrophic climate change, improving safety, or repairing infrastructure in poor condition.”

It will be critical to build upon the work laid out upon passage of both the IIJA and the Build Back Better Act to make the most of the US transportation program to advance repair, safety, climate, equity, and community connection priorities and hold Congress and the administration accountable to deliver on what they are promising.

Why the House and Senate owe transit $10 billion

The Senate’s infrastructure deal came up short on transit in two key ways. The House can address these concerns by restoring the funds cut from transit. More on this in our fact sheet.

Originally, the Senate proposed $49 billion in new transit spending in their infrastructure deal. But without any explanation, the final bill cut transit down  to $39 billion. Reliable, accessible transit will be key to an equitable economic recovery after the pandemic, and there are two key reasons that the funding provided by the Senate is not sufficient and the $10 billion originally promised for transit is returned.

1. It isn’t the amount of funding, it’s the mix

From job creation to mobility, transit provides key benefits to communities, but highways routinely receive far more federal funding than transit. Before the bipartisan infrastructure package passed in the Senate, some policymakers finally started  discussing altering the 80-20 highway-transit split, which provides 80 percent of new funds to highways and 20 percent to transit. Though the House’s INVEST in America Act altered the split to 77-23, when the Senate passed its bipartisan infrastructure bill, the 80-20 split remained in place and transit funding was cut from $49 billion to $39 billion—one of the only programs that was cut when compared to the original proposal.

$39 billion is still a historic investment in terms of funding levels, but it won’t lead to major shifts in transportation outcomes. With the highway program getting equally historic funding levels and the 80-20 split still firmly in place, we can expect the majority of funds to go to highway expansions, which can make transit more difficult to access and use. More funding for everything will just lead to more of the results we have today.

2. Operations funding

New funding for transit will help buy more buses or railcars, but these investments could be rendered useless without proper investment in operations costs. Operations funding pays for drivers and other labor, mechanics, and electricity to run the new buses and lines.

Transit, like other industries during the pandemic, has been put under economic strain due to low ridership cutting into farebox revenues. In the midst of the Great Recession, transit faced a similar situation. New funding paid for brand new buses or railcars at the same time that transit agencies were laying off drivers and cutting service because of the drop in sales taxes and other non-fare revenue sources. The irony is that proper investment in public transit can spur even more economic recovery and job growth compared to other types of spending.

As T4America Director Beth Osborne recently put it, “There’s a lot of money for new buses and updated facilities, and things like that. It still will likely be as dangerous and difficult as ever to reach that facility, but it’ll be real pretty.”

In the budget reconciliation, the House can restore the $10 billion taken from transit and make funds available for operations.

Download the fact sheet about why “Congress and the White House owe transit $10 billion cut in the infrastructure deal.”

Three ways reconciliation can restore funds taken from transit and equity

Nancy Pelosi speaking into a microphone with Chuck Schumer on her right, AFGE behind her
Nancy Pelosi speaking into a microphone with Chuck Schumer on her right, AFGE behind her
Image from Flickr/AFGE

With the bipartisan infrastructure deal approved by the Senate, opportunities to shift long-term transportation policy will shift to the House and to program implementation. The opportunity in the House is through targeted investments via the budget reconciliation bill that will accompany the House infrastructure bill vote.

(UPDATE 8/18: Clarified details on the passage of the Affordable Care Act)

After a strong five-year reauthorization proposal was approved by the House, the Senate transformed their reauthorization offering into a larger bipartisan infrastructure deal, funding everything from broadband to water infrastructure, which passed the Senate last week. This deal, which was crafted and passed in the Senate with the White House’s backing, doubled down on maintaining the status quo in regards to transportation policy, focusing on highway construction and expansion without incorporating maintenance of roads and bridges as the priority, improving transportation safety, and better connecting communities. 

Rep. Peter DeFazio criticized the deal, specifically citing the bill’s treatment of public transportation.

From Washington Post Live

Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly refused to approve the Senate’s deal, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act without the Senate first approving a sweeping budget reconciliation bill that focuses on strategic national investments across a broad spectrum of infrastructure concerns, including but not limited to agriculture, environment (air and water), education, first responders, and public health. The Senate granted her wish, passing a budget resolution, kicking off the reconciliation process, and this bill provides an opportunity to invest more in transit funding, including transit operations.

What is budget reconciliation?

As noted in the graphic below, the Senate budget resolution provides key directions to specific committees on both the House and Senate side on how to program the specific budget called for in the resolution. (Budget reconciliation is often used to pass more controversial or partisan legislation. For example, the final Affordable Care Act package resulted from the House passing the Senate’s healthcare bill and then amending it through the reconciliation process. However, reconciliation only happens once each year as part of the annual budget-making process.) The House will return next week, with respective committees deliberating how they will program and craft legislative text to the directives of the Senate’s budget resolution, before cobbling together the final reconciliation bill for passage in both chambers of Congress.

Diagram listing the steps of budget reconciliation
Image from Peter G. Peterson Foundation

As the respective committees in the House and Senate contemplate legislative text for the final reconciliation bill, there are key restrictions for what can be included. Unfortunately, introducing brand new policies or making major policy changes not connected directly to new funding are difficult if not impossible. 

As the graphic illustrates, any legislative text in the final reconciliation must pertain to policy that has budgetary impacts and stays within the programming directions and funding limits of the budget resolution.

Table showing changes that are permitted and not permitted in budget reconciliation
Image from Twitter/ House Budget GOP

As it pertains to transportation, the resolution allocates $60 billion to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to program as they deem prudent, while also adding unspoken pressure not to revisit items called for in the IIJA. The resolution also calls for an additional $30 billion for respective Senate committees focused on surface transportation to program accordingly.

Within those constraints in place for this reconciliation process, T4America has outlined three key investments that need to be made to better connect communities and improve equity and climate outcomes.

1. Increasing public transportation funding levels by $10 billion

The original bipartisan infrastructure framework, agreed to and announced by the President and the Senator’s part of the negotiations in June, called for $49 billion for transit. As the final IIJA was set, transit was the only part of the plan that took a cut (of $10 billion) from that original proposal, down to $39 billion. Less money for transit means greater challenges for transit agencies, for keeping transit running, and making the necessary capital investments, including transit electrification. There is much more that can be done to improve transit, but advocating simply for restoring the agreed funding amount is an easy fix within the limits of the budget resolution.

2. Increasing funding for the reconnecting communities program by $12 billion

President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (AJP) contained approximately $24 billion for reconnecting communities (tearing down highways that separate marginalized communities, reintegrating community mobility and streetscapes). The Senate’s deal slashed that program down to just $1 billion. (The House’s INVEST Act allocated $20 billion.) By restoring at least some of this program’s funding, meaningful progress can be made to reconnect and reinvest in diverse communities across the United States.

3. Increasing funding for zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure by $7.5 billion

Currently, transportation is responsible for a significant portion of climate change-inducing emissions, but emerging technologies are making it possible for reliable zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). Meeting the moment with significant investments in ZEVs (especially medium and heavy duty vehicles such as transit, school bus, and municipal fleet vehicles) and their associated charging infrastructure will help drastically curb emissions. This funding would also involve investments in domestic manufacturing to help ramp up capacity and lower costs to deliver on ZEVs and their charging infrastructure.

While Congress is in recess and members are in their home districts, it is a great time for constituents to engage their members on these issues. Share these three simple, key investment priorities for reconciliation with your members of Congress, while explaining what these investments can mean in your local community in regards to jobs, equity, and climate change.

Eight things to know about the president’s budget and infrastructure plan

After promising the release of an infrastructure plan since the early days of his administration over a year ago, President Trump finally released his long-awaited plan for infrastructure investment. Since he did it on the same day he released his budget request for the next fiscal year, it’s worth considering them together and asking: what do these proposals mean for infrastructure?

Here are eight things worth knowing about both the president’s infrastructure plan and his budget for 2019. Read T4America’s full statement on both proposals here.

1) “One cannot claim to be investing in infrastructure on the one hand while cutting it with the other.”

By only including a modest $200 billion in federal investment over ten years, the president’s so-called $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan isn’t a real plan—it’s a hopeful call for local communities, states, and the private sector to invest $1.3 trillion of their own money in infrastructure while the federal government largely sits on the sidelines. Look even deeper and you’ll discover that the $200 billion in federal investment isn’t actually new money overall—it’s mostly sourced from cuts to other programs, including key transportation programs. The president calls for large investments in infrastructure on the one hand while proposing to cut infrastructure programs in the budget with the other hand. Considered together, the infrastructure plan is like getting a bonus from the boss after their new budget just slashed your salary.

2) If the goal is to repair “crumbling” infrastructure, why not require it?

If our infrastructure is “crumbling,” why advance an infrastructure plan that doesn’t do anything to require that states or cities prioritize repair and maintenance with the new funding? Why give out new money that states can spend on costly new infrastructure with decades of built-in maintenance costs when we can’t afford to maintain what we’ve already built? A proposal meant to address America’s crumbling infrastructure almost never mentions maintenance or repair anywhere within it.

“One of the reasons there’s a break in trust between the taxpayer and the federal government is that there’s only so many times you can come before the taxpayer and say, ‘our nation’s roads and bridges are crumbling, please give us more money to fix it,’ and then not dedicate it to fixing it,” noted T4A senior policy advisor Beth Osborne on CBC News on Monday evening. We’ve made this point routinely over the years: Why do we keep spending hefty sums on new roads and new lanes while repair backlogs get ignored?

Little accountability, no performance measures: In addition, though this proposal claims to be outcomes-based, there is almost no mention of actual goals. It proposes to invest new money, but to accomplish what exactly? It includes no requirements to measure how these billions will lead to improved roads, bridges or transit systems, better connect people to jobs and opportunity, or move people and goods more efficiently. There are no requirements to measure performance or hold anyone accountable for accomplishing specific goals with the money.

3) Ends federal support for building or improving public transportation

Just like the president’s first budget proposal released a year ago, this one also calls for an immediate halt to federally supported transit projects by eliminating 100 percent of funding for transit projects in development that don’t already have signed funding agreements with the federal government. This pulls the rug out from under at least 41 cities—many of whom have already raised new transportation revenues from voters at the ballot box—that were fully expecting the federal government to share around 50 percent of the cost. While transit projects could still theoretically compete for funding from the plan’s “incentives” program, they would have to compete against transportation, water, waste, power, and broadband projects for a smaller pool of funding.

Seattle is one of many cities that have raised new transportation revenues for transit at the ballot box with the full expectation of a federal contribution to help complete their projects.

4) Roadway projects will be free of new requirements to create value that would be imposed on transit projects

Value capture is a creative way to finance transit projects by “capturing” some of the increased land value that transit provides and using those anticipated revenues on the front end to pay a share of the costs. It can help fund transit improvements, but it’s not a solution that works everywhere, in part because many states don’t allow it and/or most transit agencies have zero control over land use. This infrastructure proposal treats transit projects differently than all other modes by requiring the use of this financing mechanism. New roads? They won’t even need to create a dime of new value to win funding from new incentive or grant programs, much less capture any of that value to pay for their costs. Like Alabama’s $5.3 billion, 52-mile bypass, known as the Northern Beltline, to be constructed north of Birmingham. At $102 million per mile, the project will be one of the country’s most expensive roadway projects, yet it and projects like it would be exempt from these requirements to create any value to pay a share of the costs.

This top-down requirement would put a burden on new transit projects that is not placed on any other new transportation investment and would essentially halt the development of dozens of smart transit projects across the country. It would also jeopardize funding for capital improvements for more than 400 rural transit providers where value capture is rarely feasible.

5) Cities and states already raising new transportation funding will have to do even more

The federal government hasn’t raised the gas tax since 1993. Since just 2012, 31 states have raised new transportation revenues — mostly by raising or otherwise modifying their fuel taxes. Yet the largest program ($100 billion) in this proposal flips the script and puts the onus on these same local and state taxpayers by changing the federal match on new projects from 80 percent to 20 percent. Asking localities to simply kick in more money would do little to guarantee better projects or even less reliance on federal funding—it’ll just occupy more of the local funding that states or cities could invest elsewhere or spend on long-term maintenance, and could just incentivize huge tolling projects, others with some sort of repayment mechanism, or the sale of public assets.

It either devalues or ignores outright local dollars already raised: This proposal penalizes cities like Indianapolis, Seattle, Raleigh, Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Atlanta and scores of others that have already done the hard work of securing new local funding for transportation. How? Though localities are required to come up with 80 percent of a project’s cost, the plan ignores any funds raised more than three years ago—even if it’s a tax producing new revenue today. And for new funds raised within the last three years, there’s a sliding scale for how much those dollars are worth. The specific percentages aren’t detailed in the plan, but for example, $1.00 raised at the ballot box two years ago might only be worth 0.50¢ toward the 80 percent local share required by this plan. Many of those cities (and the 31 states) would have to raise yet more new funding to qualify.

6) It eliminates TIGER, one of the few competitive programs that exist today

The proposal completely eliminates the fiercely competitive TIGER program. This $500 million grant program 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. 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. There’s a reason that TIGER remains so popular with local communities even though around 95 percent of applicants lose in every round—it’s one of the only ways to fund the multimodal projects that are difficult to advance through conventional, narrowly-focused federal programs.

7) Money is set aside for rural areas, but governors will still control it

The plan sets aside $50 billion for rural areas, allocated directly to governors and awarded at their discretion to the projects that they choose. Each governor’s share will be determined via a formula that considers only lane miles and population while purporting to build transportation, water, waste, power, and broadband infrastructure. Is lane-miles an adequate metric for the full range of needs that our rural areas have? Block-granting money to states does not guarantee that local communities will get funding to invest in their highest priority infrastructure projects. Incentivizing cities and towns through competition is proven to be more effective in producing long-term results.

Without this money set aside, rural areas (and smaller cities) would have few chances to successfully win funding from the plan’s $100 billion incentives program. As Aarian Marshall wrote in Wired today, it “would favor applicants that can ‘secure and commit’ continuing funds for their project, including future money for operation, maintenance, and rehab. The ventures, in other words, that can pick up most of the tab. That’s a problem for cities that don’t have steady funding streams, or that find themselves in any of the 42 states that restrict locales’ rights to tax their citizens.” And these smaller areas will never be attractive places for the private investment that this plan assumes will materialize to make up that $1.3 trillion funding gap.

8) Makes long-term cuts to overall transportation funding

Buried in the document is a tiny yet significant detail about scaling down overall transportation spending by as much as $21 billion each year by the end of the decade due to the declining value of the gas tax. So in addition to making cuts to core transportation programs and providing no new revenue for transportation in the infrastructure proposal, the budget actually proposes to reduce transportation investment overall year by year, putting the screws to the cities, towns, and transit properties that depend upon formula funding to operate and maintain existing transportation programs or to make critical capital improvements.

Considered with the president’s FY19 budget request, this infrastructure plan will result in a net reduction in transportation spending and investment. It does not require that we first repair the myriad of assets already in a state of disrepair. It punishes communities that have already stepped up to address their own infrastructure challenges. It leaves rural areas without any guarantees and it hollows out the core funding for transportation that has carried the program for more than a generation. We strongly urge Congress to start over and craft a plan that provides real funding, fixes our current infrastructure inventory, funds smart, locally-driven and supported projects, and requires performance measures that enable taxpayers to understand what benefits they will receive for their investments.

“One cannot claim to invest in infrastructure while also cutting it”—T4 statement on President Trump’s infrastructure proposal and 2019 budget request

press release

Upon the release of the president’s infrastructure plan and his budget request for FY19, T4America Director Kevin F. Thompson offered the following statement:

“One cannot claim to be investing in infrastructure on the one hand while cutting it with the other. The president’s infrastructure plan is merely a shell game, ‘investing’ money that his budget proposes to cut from other vital transportation and infrastructure programs. Taken together, they provide zero new dollars to invest in our country’s pressing infrastructure needs.”

“This proposal makes no progress on the four simple priorities we believe are essential for success. It provides no new money, does nothing to prioritize the smartest projects, and eliminates the programs that are most responsive to local needs. The president’s plan also fails to include any requirements to prioritize repair, even though he stated a clear preference for repair in his remarks this morning.

“The budget signals to local elected officials and taxpayers that they are on their own if they are to invest in transit, penalizing the communities that have already taken the initiative to raise local funding for new or improved transit service. The infrastructure plan gives blank checks out to governors to spend on projects with the greatest political sway—hardly the kind of accountability that taxpayers are clamoring for.

“We’re eager to work with Congress as they begin drafting their own infrastructure plan and setting the budget for the rest of this year and the next, and we hope they’ll follow our four simple principles and advance a national transportation program that invests more real dollars, rewards innovation and local revenue, funds only the smartest new projects, and provides states and localities with a trustworthy federal partner in their efforts.”

Recent Federal Activity Summary – Week of December 8th

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you the latest information and developments around federal policy.

Tax Reform

Congress, in coordination with the White House, has been considering comprehensive tax reform, and the proposed bills could have large effects on transportation and infrastructure. The House passed their tax reform bill, H.R. 1 or the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” on November 16th by a vote of 227 to 205.

The House version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repeals private activity bonds and eliminates the ability of employers to deduct the cost of providing transit benefits to employees. These proposals undermine efforts to rebuild our infrastructure and make it difficult to envision how the Administration can achieve its stated goal of creating a new $1 trillion infrastructure package.

On Saturday December 2nd, the Senate passed its version of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” by a vote of 51 – 49. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) was the only Republican to join all Democrats in opposing the bill. While deeply flawed, the Senate bill retains private activity bonds (PABs), which are a critical tool for financing investment in a variety of infrastructure projects.

President Trump has set an ambitious goal of signing tax reform legislation into law before Christmas. There are substantial differences between the Senate and House bills that will have to be bridged, including the disparate private activity bonds provision, if tax reform will become law. To do that, the House and Senate both voted this week to go to a Conference Committee to reconcile their differences and leaderships from both Houses have appointed their conferees.

The Senate Conferees are: Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Thune (R-SD), Rob Portman (R-OH), Tim Scott (R-SC), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Tom Carper (D-DE). The House Conferees are: Representatives Kevin Brady (R-TX), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Diane Black (R-TN), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Don Young (R-AK), Greg Walden (R-OR), John Shimkus (R-IL), Richard Neal (D-MA), Sander Levin (D-MI), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Kathy Castor (D-FL).

Impact of Tax Reform on Infrastructure

The “Statutory Pay As You Go Act,” of 2010 requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to keep an annual debt scorecard and institute across-the-board spending reductions to a select group of mandatory programs to offset an increase in the debt in any calendar year. Congress can avoid these mandatory reductions by either cutting spending elsewhere or passing legislation to wipe the OMB scorecard. Each the House and Senate tax reform plans would add approximately $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade. Under the law, OMB would have to make $150 billion in mandatory spending cuts every year for the next 10 years, unless Congress takes additional action as described earlier. It is important to note that additional action to cut spending or wipe the scorecard would require 60 votes in the Senate, whereas the special rules – known as reconciliation – being used to pass tax reform only require 51 votes. $639 million in the highway trust fund used for the equity bonus program is considered mandatory spending and that $639 million would be subject to mandatory reductions.

It’s unclear if Congress will allow the mandatory reductions to take effect, as it would slash funding from a variety of programs including Medicare. Two possible scenarios are that Congress would either institute spending reductions in discretionary programs – such as TIGER, Capital Investment Grants (CIG), and others – or it will wipe the scorecard and allow for an increase in the debt. In the latter instance, it is likely that a future Congress will seek to cut spending to address the increased debt. This means that critical transportation programs are at risk as a result of the tax reform proposals under consideration. One way or the other, T4America is concerned that Congress may pay for these tax cuts by choosing to cut programs that reinvest in our country, including critical transportation programs like TIGER, CIG, and Amtrak.

Government Appropriations

Fiscal Year (FY18) Appropriations

The House and Senate approved legislation on Thursday, December 7th – one day before the deadline – to fund the federal government through December 22nd.

Funding was extended by two weeks in order to give the President and Congressional leaders more time to negotiate a full year appropriations package. The main sticking point is how much to raise the discretionary spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Democrats want non-defense discretionary spending to be raised by the same amount as defense spending, while Republicans want to increase defense spending more than non-defense discretionary spending. Finally, other issues may need to be dealt with, including the inclusion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and health care insurer payments to stabilize the Affordable Care Act.

House and Senate Appropriators are waiting for an agreement on the budget caps so they can finalize FY18 appropriations. An agreement allows each subcommittee to know how much they have to allocate to programs within their jurisdiction. At this stage, we expect that the spending caps will be raised. It is important to note that an increase in the budget cap will not guarantee full funding for key transportation programs like TIGER, CIG, and Amtrak.

Fiscal Year (FY19) Appropriations

One final thing to remember is that while Congress is finalizing FY18 appropriations, House and Senate Appropriators and the Administration are already starting the FY19 appropriations process. If you have FY19 funding or language requests, it’s important to start talking to your member of Congress and the Appropriations committees

Update on Senate Autonomous Vehicle Legislation

As you know, T4America has been working to improve the autonomous vehicle (AV) legislation that is working its way through Congress. The House passed their AV legislation, the SELF-DRIVE Act, in September. The Senate Commerce Committee has approved its bill, the American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act” or the “AV START Act. We are particularly concerned about language that would preempt the enforcement of local laws as well as how the legislation would address data sharing, among other issues.

Last week, the full Senate began the process of advancing the AV START Act. Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune “hotlined” the Senate bill, a process by which the Chairman notifies Senators that he is seeking unanimous consent, and provides them with a final opportunity to object. Senators seeking further change to a bill will seek to address their concerns by objecting to passing legislation by unanimous consent.

T4America continues to have major concerns with the legislation. At least four Senators are known to have formally objected to passing the bill by unanimous consent: Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA). We are working with Senators who share our concerns with regard to preemption and data sharing.

T4America and our partners have urged the Senate Commerce Committee to include data sharing requirements to provide states, municipalities, and law enforcement the real-time data necessary to ensure the safety of AVs in their communities. Such data would potentially cover areas like the number of crashes and disengagements an AV has had, the types of roads AVs have had problems on, and the weather conditions at the time of a crash or disengagement. Unfortunately, the Committee so far has declined to do so.

As a reminder, the Senate AV START Act (S. 1885) does a number of things including:

  • Delineating the federal and state/local roles when it comes to regulating automated vehicles via a preemption clause;
  • Establishing a specific exemption from federal motor vehicle safety standards to test automated vehicles;
  • Raising the number of safety exemptions a manufacturer can get to test vehicles to 80,000 over three years; and
  • Establishing an automated vehicle advisory committee to advise the Secretary of U.S. Department of Transportation on a number of issues related to automated vehicles.

Click here for more about T4America’s concerns with the AV START Act.

Chairman Thune has stated his desire to approve AV legislation quickly. If the Committee is unable to satisfy the Senators, the Committee would have to pursue other ways for approving legislation. This would likely include attaching the legislation to another bill that is advancing through the Senate.

Recent Federal Activity Summary – Week of October 9th

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you the latest information and developments around federal policy. This dedication includes in-depth summaries of what is going on in Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). Check out what you may have missed these past two weeks in Congress and at U.S. DOT.

President and Congressional Leaders Release Tax Reform Proposal

On September 27th, the Trump Administration, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance released what they call the “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code”. The full framework is available here, and a one-page overview is available here. The proposal would eliminate many tax benefits, including the commuter transit benefit. In 2016, federal law was changed to establish permanent parity between the transit benefit and parking benefit, raising the cap on transit and vanpool benefits to $255.

Tax reform efforts are focused on eliminating many provisions of the tax code, including transportation fringe benefits that cover parking, transit, and vanpools. T4America is concerned that, under the recently released framework, the commuter benefit is at risk of disappearing for good. Eliminating this benefit will end a critical incentive to take transit to and from work, taking money from transit systems already struggling to maintain a state of good repair. T4America will keep you updated as Congress moves forward with this process.

House and Senate Advance FY18 Budgets

The Process: The President submits the President’s Budget Request (PBR) to Congress in the spring. Soon thereafter, the House and Senate Budget Committee’s develop budgets that may or may not be informed by the PBR. Before Congress can consider the 12 appropriations bills that fund the entire federal government, it must first approve a budget. The Congressional budget sets the funding allocations for each of the 12 appropriations bills, allowing the appropriations committees to begin work on the bills. For FY18, the Congressional leadership has chosen to add “reconciliation instructions” to the budget. This is a special process, under which a bill can pass with without a filibuster, using only a majority vote in the Senate (as opposed to the traditional 60 votes). The FY18 budget will include instructions to approve comprehensive tax reform using this process. Passage of an FY18 budget allows Congress to complete its FY18 appropriations work.

The House: On October 5th, the House approved H. Con. Res. 71 — “Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027” by a vote of 219-206. H.Con.Res.71 cuts transportation funding, including cuts to Amtrak’s long distance routes, transit, TIGER, New and Small Starts, bike and pedestrian funding, and many other priorities.

The Senate: On September 29th, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi (R-WY) released his FY18 budget. The proposed budget reduces non-defense discretionary spending by $632 billion. This would have a significant negative impact on our transportation programs. The Committee marked up and approved the budget on October 4th and 5th. The full Senate will now consider the budget in the coming weeks.

T4America will provide additional analysis of the House and Senate budgets in the coming weeks.

Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on FHWA nominee

On October 5th, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee held a Hearing on the Nomination of Paul Trombino III to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Trombino is the President of McClure Engineering and the former Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Mr. Trombino has a history of public comments suggesting an openness to new ways of thinking about our nation’s highway system. T4America submitted suggested questions to the Committee to help prepare for the hearing. Chairman Barasso (R-WY), Ranking Member Carper (D-DE), and Members of the Committee focused their questions on the proposed infrastructure bill, project review and approval process, resilience, and Public Private Partnerships. Mr. Trombino stated he is not aware of the status of the proposed infrastructure package but that he will become aware and brief Congress should he be confirmed. On other issues, Mr. Trombino pledged to work to address Senators concerns.

Absent any additional and disqualifying information, T4America expects the EPW Committee to favorably report Mr. Trombino’s nomination to the full Senate.

Senate Commerce Committee Approves Autonomous Vehicle Legislation

On Friday, September 8, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved held a markup to amend and vote on S. 1885, The American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. The bill was approved by the Committee and will now be referred to the full Senate for further consideration. Despite some minor improvements, T4America remains concerned that this bill will preempt the ability of local governments to enforce their local traffic safety laws, potentially putting the public at risk. In addition, the bill does not provide the data-sharing framework necessary to ensure that local governments and law enforcement can adequately prepare for these vehicles.

Here’s the link to the statement T4America put out after the markup: https://t4america.org/2017/10/04/t4america-statement-senate-commerce-av-start-markup/.

What Happened at the Markup

There were 28 amendments offered during the Committee markup, a number of which were considered and approved en bloc, the result of an overnight deal. The full list of all approved amendments is available here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=BA5E2D29-2BF3-4FC7-A79D-58B9E186412C. T4America is analyzing the approved amendments and updated bill text and will continue to provide additional details.

For additional information, please see our previous policy update.

U.S. DOT Releases Proposal to Harmonize Environmental Reviews

At the end of September, US DOT released a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that will harmonize to a much greater extent the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects that need review from multiple U.S. DOT agencies. If you would like to submit comments to U.S. DOT about this regulation, comments are due to U.S. DOT on or before November 28th.

Under this SNPRM, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will be added to the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) existing rules and regulations for NEPA reviews under part 771 and part 774 of title 23 of the Code of Federal regulations. The SNPRM proposes to make some changes to part 771 and 774 to account for some of the unique characteristics of rail projects.

This proposed change will ensure that a project undergoing NEPA review through multiple U.S. DOT agencies has one set of rules and regulations to follow. Currently, FRA’s NEPA review regulations are different than FHWA’s or FTA’s. Additionally, the proposed rule change ensures that a record of decision related to NEPA from one U.S. DOT agency is accepted by another U.S. DOT agency. Finally, U.S. DOT is proposing to require that the lead U.S. DOT agency designated to conduct the NEPA review must explicitly include in their NEPA coordination plan “participating agencies that are responsible for providing input within their agency’s special expertise or jurisdiction” and reach an agreement between the two agencies on the timeline for that secondary agency to provide their input. This requirement will ensure that necessary agencies have a chance to give their input with respect to the NEPA review but that there is a concrete timeline for that review to take place.

The practical effect is that as a result of this rulemaking, there should be a “single NEPA document that can be used for all Federal permits and reviews for a project to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with Federal law.” That should speed up environmental reviews without harming the intent of NEPA, leading to faster timelines for the construction infrastructure projects without causing environmental harm.

 

 

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]

NumberSponsorDescriptionOutcome
7Maxine Waters (D-CA)Provides $7.5 billion for the TIGER program. Ruled out of order
8Maxine 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
13Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Provides $500 million for the TIGER program. Ruled out of order
66Rod 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
46Mark 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
38Darren 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
48Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates funding for Amtrak's National Network only.Failed by a vote of 128-293
50Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates both the funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor and Amtrak's National Network.Ruled out of order
51Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor onlyRuled out of order
54Jim 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
83Ted 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
78Al 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 levelsPresident Trump's request for 2018House 2018 AppropriationsSenate 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.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 4th

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week. 

  • “Infrastructure borrowing drops as U.S. states await” details on President Trump’s infrastructure plan. (Reuters)
  • Amid growing frustration with the lack of details from the Trump administration about their infrastructure plan, Congressional committees are moving ahead gathering input and drafting their own plans. (The Hill)
  • The Atlantic Magazine dives into why Congressional Republicans are having trouble passing a Fiscal-Year 2018 budget resolution and what it means for their legislative agenda, including tax reform. (The Atlantic)
  • The Federal Rail Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have withdrawn a proposed regulation from the Obama administration that would have required railroad and truck companies to test employees for sleep apnea. (USA Today)
  • Senators from New York and New Jersey have prevented confirmation of certain U.S. DOT nominees because of a dispute with U.S. DOT on the amount of federal involvement in the Gateway project that would build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City. (Cetus/Wall Street Journal)
  • U.S. DOT has announced the winners $79 million in FASTLANE/INFRA grant awards for small projects. Awards for large projects under FASTLANE/INFRA have been delayed until the fall and U.S. DOT is requiring entities seeking awards for large projects to resubmit their application. (Progressive Railroading)

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 levelsPresident Trump's request for 2018House 2018 AppropriationsSenate 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.

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.

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.

Summary of the FY2017 USDOT appropriations bill

As introduced on May 1, 2017

Early on May 1, Congressional leaders revealed a $1.163 trillion appropriations bill to fund the entire government for the remainder of fiscal year (FY) 2017. Somehow Congress has employed budget maneuvers that allow this appropriations bill to incorporate higher funding levels, without comparable funding cuts, and yet adhere to the budget cap of $1.07 trillion, which Congress agreed to in 2015. For example, tens of billions are allocated for either Overseas Contingency Operations or Global War on Terror, which does not count against the statutory budget caps. The bill also includes $8.2 billion in emergency and disaster funding.

The House Rules Committee is scheduled to consider the omnibus package on Tuesday, May 2, with the Senate to follow. Congress is expected to pass the bill within the week and before the current continuing resolution (CR) expires on May 5.

The appropriations bill has been held up for a number of weeks over a disagreement over funding a border wall, healthcare payments, and non-funding related policy riders. Recent concessions in the Administration’s demands allowed the bill to move forward. The full text of the bill can be found here. Summaries of the appropriations bill can be found on the Senate Appropriations Committee page here and the House Appropriations Committee page here.

Funding

The FY2017 omnibus appropriations package includes funding for all remaining 11 appropriations bills, (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations passed in the fall 2016), including the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill. Overall, transportation programs are mostly funded at levels consistent with the FAST Act authorized amounts. The bill provides $57.651 in discretionary spending, which is a $350 million increase from FY2016. Of this, $18.5 billion in discretionary spending is for USDOT.

Funding for both the federal-aid highways program and transit formula grants are consistent with FAST Act authorized levels. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $1.85 billion, an increase of $173 million above FY2016 level. The bill also provides $3 million for the National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau that was created under the FAST Act to consolidate the administration of several USDOT programs.

TIGER

The FY2017 appropriations bill provides $500 million for the TIGER discretionary grant program, also known as National Infrastructure Investment grants. This is equal to what the program received in FY2016 appropriations and is equal to the amount that T4America, along with over 160 organizations, asked legislators to support the program at.

This round of funding must be obligated by September 30, 2020.

New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity (Capital Investment Grant Program)

Within the amount appropriated for the Federal Transit Administration, $2.4 billion is allocated to the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, which is slightly above the FAST Act level of $2.3 billion.

The FY2017 appropriations bill encourages the Administration to continue the CIG program by distinguishing funding between projects that have Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) with USDOT and those projects that have yet to sign an FFGA. By setting aside funding for projects that are in the pipeline to receive federal funding, Congress demonstrated a show of support for those local communities that have in many cases have raised revenues for projects and have gone through years of planning with USDOT.

Within the New Starts program, $1.5 billion is allocated for all current FFGA projects and $285 million is set aside for projects that are in line to receive FFGAs. For the Core Capacity program, $100 million is available for projects with signed agreements and $232 million is available for projects anticipated to enter into an FFGA in FY2017. The Small Starts program is funded at $408 million.

Even though this funding has been appropriated, each project must still obtain a signed grant agreement with USDOT before the funds may be released to that project. In addition, the bill allows FTA to allocate more than $100 million per project under the core capacity, small starts, and expedited delivery programs.

The FY2017 appropriations bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to administer the CIG program funding as directed in the tables below:

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amtrak, CRISI, State of Good Repair, and REG

The FY2017 bill provides $1.167 billion for the National Network, a slight increase over the FAST Act authorized amount, and $328 million for the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which is a decrease from the $474 million authorized amount in the FAST Act.

The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program is funded at $68 million, a decrease from the $190 million authorized under the FAST Act. Of this funding, at least 25 percent will go to projects in rural areas and $10 million will support the initiation or restoration of intercity passenger rail. Up to 1 percent of the funds may be used for project management and oversight. The federal match is 80 percent and the program can fund rail safety technology, including PTC, capital projects, grade crossings, rail line relocation and improvement, short-line capital project, and planning for regional and corridor plans; among others.

The Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grants program is funded at $25 million and similar to CRISI, up to 1 percent of the funds may be used for project management and oversight. The FY2017 appropriations bill also directs FRA to consider the needs of the entire rail network when determining grant awards. This program aims to reduce the state of good repair backlog for publicly owned or Amtrak-owned infrastructure, equipment, and facilities. In addition to projects that target brining existing infrastructure into a state of good repair, activities that are eligible for funding also include projects that replace existing assets with those that increase capacity and service levels.

The Restoration and Enhancement Grants (REG) program is funded at $5 million, which is less than the $20 million authorized under the FAST Act. As with the CRISI program, up to 1 percent of funds may be used for project management and oversight of the grants. This program is intended to support the operation of new or expanded service. It can provide grants to six lines to support operating costs for three years on a tiered structure – up to 80 percent operating costs in year one, 60 percent in year two, and 40 percent in year three.

The bill also provides $98 million in rail grants to support the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC), a decrease from the $199 million authorized in the FAST Act. Within 120 days of enactment of the bill, Amtrak is also required to compile a report comparing actual food and beverage savings for FY2016 with projections.

Analysis

By keeping transportation funding in line with the FAST Act authorized amounts and by doing so without devastating cuts to housing programs, T4America expects this bill will pass with wide bi-partisan support. Congress began negotiating the appropriations bills that collectively make up this omnibus package back in 2016, before the election in November and under a different political climate. Through all of the transitions since then and amidst pressure from the new Administration to make drastic funding changes, Congress engaged with a number of stakeholders and maintained funding for the programs that communities need. If Congress continues along this path, there may be broad support for FY2018 appropriations and the infrastructure package. However, it is not clear the extent to which Congress has additional budget maneuvers available to them to continue to spend so freely.

Avoiding a government shutdown, Congress moves to preserve TIGER and transit funding — for now

In a budget deal to fund the government through the end of September, Congress partially accommodated the President’s requests for more defense and security spending, but ignored his requests to eliminate funding for TIGER, new transit construction, and other programs vital for building strong local communities.

Congress agreed on a budget to fund the government through the rest of the current fiscal year, but they did so by increasing spending nearly across the board, avoiding any hard questions about what to cut to make room for the President’s desired defense increases (or tax cuts), performing some fiscal wizardry to keep the bill from scoring as if it won’t exceed the budget caps previously agreed to by Congress several years ago.

Though the President had urged Congress to make deep cuts to crucial transportation programs immediately this year, Congress responded to what they heard from state and local leaders of all stripes (and many of you!) and did not eliminate the competitive TIGER grant program or the funding that’s paired with local or state dollars to build or expand new public transit service.

“We applaud the appropriators in Congress for listening to the business leaders, local elected officials and advocates from across the country and protecting funding for these programs that are vital to the health and prosperity of their communities,” said T4America Interim Director Beth Osborne. “But we also know that this budget deal was underway before last November’s election and there will be real pressure in the coming months to make these same cuts when Congress considers the 2018 budget later this year.”

[member_content]T4America members, you can read our full summary of the 2017 appropriations bill, which includes the list of transit projects Congress recommends to FTA for funding this year.

USDOT 2017 Appropriations bill summary[/member_content]

Overall, transportation programs are mostly funded at levels consistent with what’s in the FAST Act, though Congress actually appropriated more ($2.4b) for transit capital construction than was proposed by the FAST Act for this year ($2.3b). They allocated the full $500 million for a ninth round of TIGER grants, though it’s unclear if USDOT will be able to move the process along fast enough to make grant awards this calendar year.

Despite the President’s previous request to completely halt the pipeline of transit construction projects immediately, the bill urges the Federal Transit Administration to keep it moving forward by writing checks for the transit projects that already have grant agreements, and — most importantly — to set aside funding this year for the scores of projects expected to sign grant agreements this year, like planned bus rapid transit projects in Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Everett (WA), and Kansas City, among many others.

This does not mean that the pipeline of transit projects is safe and back to normal — far from it. For the projects without signed grant agreements, they must still obtain them before any funds can be received, and there have been rumors that the Trump Administration would simply stop signing them — whether Congress allocates money for them or not.

Secondly, this budget only covers the rest of the year through September 30. President Trump’s blueprint for the 2018 budget is what made all the headlines a few weeks ago, in which he proposed zeroing out these vital programs. Congress largely avoided the tough questions by making Trump’s requested defense increases but not making other equivalent cuts to pair with them. How will Congress respond during negotiations on the 2018 budget?

We’ll call on you again to hold their feet to the fire then, but for now, we urge you to send all of your representatives a message of thanks for rallying on a bipartisan agreement to protect the transportation funding that local communities depend on.

Congress is expected to pass the bill before the current continuing budget resolution (CR) expires on Friday (May 5.)

Copy this tactic: Community Transit defends program by using unexpected voices

Last week, I visited with T4A’s members and partners in the Puget Sound region. In the time of “skinny budgets” and tenuous federal support for transit, it was encouraging to hear from local elected officials, advocates and transit agencies on how they’re progressing despite federal (and in their case state) uncertainty.

On the federal level, this region will be among the hardest hit if Congress declines to fund the capital improvement program, with more than $2 billion in federal New Starts investments at risk. These projects include:

  • $1.17 billion for the Lynnwood Link Extension
  • up to $720 million for the Federal Way Link Extension
  • $75 million for the Seattle Streetcar Center City Connector
  • $75 million for Tacoma Link Expansion
  • $43 million for Swift II BRT in Everett
  • $61 million for Madison Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit in Seattle

These numbers don’t include the threats to passenger rail service or to TIGER.

Rather than throw their hands up in frustration, Community Transit, a T4America member, is using this as an opportunity to tell the story about the economic and job benefits of their Swift bus rapid transit line. We are seeing more and more transit agencies talk not just about the direct benefits they provide to their community, but also the upstream jobs that are created…whether the buses they buy are manufactured in Everett, Washington or St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Community Transit’s Swift Green Line Infographic

Copy this tactic: Including suppliers and engaging your entire supply chain gives you the ability to reach other decision-makers that you may not otherwise have access to. It builds your advocate tent and adds unexpected voices to your issue.

For example, when Community Transit gives this powerful piece of information to one of their members of Congress, Rick Larsen, a Democrat…he can advocate to Tom Emmer, the Republican Member of Congress from St. Cloud. Additionally, their bus manufacturer can advocate to Rep. Emmer directly. This is just one way to show leaders how transportation is truly a bipartisan issue.

T4America continues to find stories like these to use in our work and highlight what’s working. If you have similar stories that you’d like to share with us, please send them our way. We want to know!

[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.

More from SGA:

States and local communities are ill-prepared to take over functions and costs that have heretofore been borne by the federal government. American infrastructure needs maintenance and reinvestment not disinvestment. Economic development will not be enhanced by cutting off the tools that local governments and the private sector use to revitalize and redevelop downtowns and neighborhoods. Asking local governments to fill these gaps will force communities to choose between good transportation and attainable housing, or between support for small businesses and support for low-income families and that is a losing proposition from square one.

Communities cannot be built piecemeal, and this issue can’t be solved with small changes to line items. Americans shouldn’t have to choose between good transportation and attainable housing, or between support for small businesses and support for low-income families. These programs need to work together in order to succeed.

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:

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