Skip to main content

Senate Transportation Infrastructure Act makes welcome additions but fails to change the status quo

Today the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act, a bill that will reauthorize the FAST Act once it expires in September 2020.  T4America director Beth Osborne offered this statement:

“This first attempt at reauthorization from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has some notable new additions worth praising, including the first-ever climate title and new programs aimed at measuring transportation by access to jobs and services, reconnecting communities torn apart by highways, reducing carbon emissions, increasing resilience, and improving safety. The bill also includes a focus on complete streets and increased funding for existing programs that make biking or walking safer such as the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP.) 

“But overall, four years later, this bill unfortunately fails in many of the same ways the FAST Act did in 2015. First, it does very little to accomplish what is perpetually promised by lawmakers: actually repairing our existing infrastructure. Despite the rhetoric we’re sure to hear in the days ahead, this bill has zero new, binding requirements to ensure that states use their core formula programs to actually bring their roads and bridges into good condition, while providing them with more than $32 billion more for existing road building policy. While the inclusion of a new bridge maintenance program is a welcome step, it’s a relative pittance at just two percent of overall funding. T4America believes anything short of holding states and metro areas accountable for cutting the maintenance backlog in half is unacceptable.

“Secondly, although the National Transportation Safety Board has been repeatedly sounding the alarm on speed as a primary risk factor in traffic fatalities—especially for people walking—this bill fails to require states to use complete streets designs to address the alarming 35 percent increase in people struck and killed while walking from 2008-2017. Instead, the bill makes these designs optional, and history has shown us that ‘optional’ will result in many states failing to take advantage of the option to save lives. 

“Third, it’s time to organize this overall program around connecting people to jobs and opportunity. T4America is delighted to see a pilot program based on the COMMUTE Act to help a select group of states and metros measure whether or not their investments are connecting people to jobs and services. But we need to reward the boldness of this proposal by expanding it to more of the population by measuring whether all $358 billion in this bill is connecting people to daily essentials.

“The inclusion of a climate title is an overdue addition and the committee is to be commended for their bipartisan approach to this pressing issue. We need more lawmakers like these willing to step out and tackle the risks of climate change. Though new money for reducing carbon emissions, resilience, alternative fuels, and reducing port emissions are notable, this approach unfortunately fundamentally fails to recognize that a federal program still focused primarily on delivering high-speed roads guarantees more driving and will undercut the committee’s worthwhile efforts to reduce emissions or stem the tide of climate change.

“Lastly, we also welcome the inclusion of new safety formula and discretionary programs, designed to invest in proven strategies for reducing fatalities and reward communities that have demonstrated progress in reducing fatalities. However, the funds available through these programs could be put to better use by requiring them to be used for complete streets and rewarding communities for specific investments in complete streets. As with the climate title, these programs will be undercut by substantial funding increases for high-speed roadways in the base formulas without any additional constraints to improve safety.”

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.

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING: Assessing performance on the NHS, freight movement on the interstate system, and the CMAQ program

DATE EFFECTIVE: FEBRUARY 17, 2017

[FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, HERE]

Overview

Less than one year after the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) first proposed outdated measures of congestion (see T4America’s blog post here) and after thousands of our members and partners provided comments, FHWA is now finalizing this rule. Published on January 18, the final rule rolls back some of the redundant, vehicle-focused measures initially proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and incorporates some significant changes, many of which we advocated for.

In response to comments from T4A and others, the final rule adds two new measures – a carbon dioxide emissions measure and a multimodal measure. To better reflect the number of people traveling on the system, two of the other proposed measures were modified so they are based on person-travel instead of vehicle travel.

In addition, the faulty measures for percentage of the interstate freight mileage uncongested and Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (PHTTR) included in the NPRM were both deleted from the final rule. The final rule also simplifies the required data processing and calculation of metrics.

While the final rule is much improved, changes to the speed thresholds for the congestion measure may have some negative impacts on signalized downtown roads with low speed limits.

Background

On the same day that FHWA released this final rule on system performance and congestion, FHWA also released its final rule establishing regulations to assess pavement and bridge conditions. (See T4America summary here). These final rules are the last of several regulations issued to implement the performance management framework established by the recent national transportation authorizations bills, known as MAP-21 and the FAST Act.

In addition to these two rules, FHWA published rules on safety performance measures and the integration of performance management into the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in March 2016 and published a rule on asset management plans in October 2016. In May 2016, both FHWA and FTA published a joint rule implementing changes to the planning process.

Together these rulemakings establish regulations for state DOTs and MPOs to evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the nation.

Final measures

In the draft rule, 7 of the 8 proposed measures were based on vehicle travel time data. Now, only four of the final measures are derived from vehicle travel times, three of which are weighted to reflect all people traveling on the system.

The seven measures established in the final rule include:

  • Three measures of system performance
    • Percentage of reliable person-miles traveled on the Interstate
    • Percentage of reliable person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS
    • Percent change in CO2 emissions from 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the NHS
  • A measure for freight movement on the Interstate system
    • Average truck travel time reliability index (TTTR)
  • Three measures to assess the CMAQ program, including two measures on traffic congestion
    • Total emission reductions for applicable criteria pollutants, for non-attainment and maintenance areas
    • Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita
    • Percent of non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel, including travel avoided by telecommuting

Timeline and enforcement

State DOTs will establish their first statewide targets one year after the effective date of this rule, February 17, 2017. MPOs have up to 180 days after state DOTs establish their targets to establish their own targets.

State DOTs must establish both 2-year and 4-year targets. The MPOs are subject only to a 4-year target-setting requirement. MPOs must either: (a) agree to plan and program projects so that the projects contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant state DOT target for the performance measure, or (b) commit to a quantifiable 4-year target for the performance measure for the MPA. FHWA will assess every 2 years to determine if a state DOT has made significant progress toward achieving their targets.

If States/MPOs fail to meet their targets after 4 years, they have to set new ones for the next 2- and 4-year performance period. If they fail again, there is no real consequence.

Under the new administration, the White House ordered a freeze on the regulatory process. For regulations that have been finished but have not taken effect, the order calls for temporarily postponing their effective date for 60 days or possibly longer. This order could delay the effective date of this rule.

System performance

In the NPRM, FHWA proposed calculating performance on the interstate and non-interstate system by using two metrics: (1) Level of travel time reliability (LOTTR), and (2) Peak hour travel time ratio (PHTTR).

T4America and others expressed concern about the PHTTR measure as a poor measure of performance because it assumes the goal is for roadways to operate in free flow conditions at all times of day – a prohibitively expensive and infeasible goal that can undermine local economic development and multimodal travel. There was already another congestion measure under the CMAQ program and a different reliability measure looking at how consistent travel was from one day to the next. Due to this, we recommended that this measure be vacated, which FHWA did in the final rule..

The final rule also changes the weighting of the travel time reliability measures from system miles to person-miles traveled using overall occupancy factors from national surveys. This prioritizes roadways that move more people through carpooling and transit over roads that only move SOVs.

New CO2 emissions measure

The final rule adds a new emissions measure – percent change in tailpipe CO2 emissions on the NHS from calendar year 2017. This measure applies to the NHS in all states and metropolitan planning areas. All state DOTs and MPOs that have NHS mileage in their state geographic boundaries and MPAs will be required to establish targets and report on progress.

State DOTs will calculate the measure by multiplying motor fuel sales volumes by the FHWA-supplied emissions factors of CO2 per gallon of fuel and percentage VMT on the NHS.

Freight movement on the interstate

The draft rule proposed two measures of freight movement on the interstate: (1) Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR), and (2) percent of the interstate system mileage uncongested. T4A and our partners were concerned that the TTTR measure would prioritize freight movement over the movement of people. In response, FHWA removed the TTTR measure from the final rule.

FHWA also changed the form of this measure from one based on the percent of the system providing for reliable travel to an overall average truck reliability index for the Interstate. This change removes the hard threshold in the definition of reliable travel for trucks and recognizes incremental improvements that could be made to improve reliability.

CMAQ program

Three measures are established for the CMAQ program, including total emissions reduction measure and two traffic congestion measures.

Traffic congestion

The NPRM proposed measuring traffic congestion under the CMAQ program by looking at annual hours of excessive delay per capita. As mentioned above, a separate peak hour travel time reliability (PHTTR) measure was also proposed for measuring system performance on the interstate and non-interstate systems. The PHTTR measured percent of the interstate system in large urbanized areas over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet expectations. These two measures merge in the final rule creating the Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) measure.

In response to comments, a new multimodal measure – percent of non-SOV travel – was also added in the final rule.

APPLICABILITY

Both the PHED and the multimodal measure adhere to the same applicability requirements. As proposed, the CMAQ congestion measure applied to areas in nonattainment with a population over 1 million. The final rule expands applicability to also include areas with a population over 200,000.

The applicability of both CMAQ traffic congestion measures will be phased in, beginning with urbanized areas with a population over 1 million that contain any part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for one or more air pollutants in the first performance period (2018). It will be expanded to urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 that contain any part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for one or more air pollutants beginning in the second performance period (2022).

The final rule also moves up the date of measure applicability determination to one year earlier than initially proposed. FHWA will determine measure applicability based on the most recent available data on October 1, 2017.

PHED – SPEED THRESHOLD

As proposed in the NPRM, the traffic congestion measure would have established a 35 mph threshold for freeways and a 15 mph threshold for other NHS roadways. In the final rule, FHWA responded to concerns about these static speed thresholds by setting the excessive delay threshold to 60 percent of posted speed limit, with a minimum limit of 20 mph. This may be a slight improvement for measuring excessive delay for expressways, but this same threshold will also apply to non-expressway facilities. Particularly when applied to signalize urban roads marked at 25mph, vehicle speeds might fall below 60% of the speed limit even during free-flow conditions.

In the final rule, FHWA encourages state DOTs and MPOs to share their strategies using volume limiting techniques to address concern when extremely slow speeds exist. FHWA plans to make provisions within HPMS to capture posted speed limit data by adding a field that can be populated for the full extent of the NHS.

PHED – PEOPLE-CENTRIC CHANGES

FHWA agreed with comments that the measure should represent the cumulative delay of all people using the NHS and not just the delay experienced by vehicles. As a result, the PHED measure requires the use of average vehicle occupancy (AVO) factors for cars, buses, and trucks and hourly traffic volumes to calculate person-hours of excessive delay. To support this approach, FHWA will establish AVO factors for applicable urbanized areas using the National Transit Database for buses and national surveys, such as the American Community Survey, for cars. State DOTs and MPOs have the flexibility of choosing to use these AVO factors or substituting more specific AVO data that they may have.

In response to comments, including comments from T4A, the final rule requires the use of annual population estimates using U.S. Census estimates (i.e. most recent ACS 5-year estimates) as opposed to the decennial census populations to normalize the excessive delay measure. The most recent annual population estimate will be used each time the PHED per capita measure is calculated.

PERCENT OF NON-SOV TRAVEL 

This measure includes modes that are in the ACS Journey to Work data, which includes travel avoided by teleworking. State DOTs and MPOs have three options for calculating modal share:

  1. use the ACS Journey to Work mode share data
  2. use locally specific surveys, or
  3. use volume counts for each mode.

FHWA encourages state DOTs and MPOs to report data not currently available in national sources, such as pedestrian or bicycle counts. For state DOTs and MPOs that chose to use count data, FHWA encourages this data to be voluntarily submitted to FHWA via national sources or databases (such as TMAS, NTD, or GTFS-RT).

On-road mobile source emissions

APPLICABILITY

While FHWA acknowledged T4A’s comments, FHWA did not agree that this emissions measure should apply more broadly to include all states or regions that receive CMAQ funds, or to consider all capital and operational opportunities to reduce emissions, not just those that receive CMAQ funding.

The measure is applicable to all states and MPOs with projects financed with funds from the CMAQ program, apportioned to state DOTs for areas designated as non-attainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. FHWA clarified in the final rule that the baseline non-attainment and maintenance area designations should be based on area status as of October 1, 2017.

FHWA narrowed the definition of ‘maintenance area’ to exclude any areas that have completed their 20-year maintenance plan for an applicable pollutant. States and MPOs can also request exclusion from this requirement at the midpoint of the performance period, if their designation changes (i.e. the 20-year maintenance plan is achieved, or the area is no longer designated as non-attainment or maintenance).

While state DOTs and MPOs can still use CMAQ dollars to fund projects where is it not possible or easy to quantify the emissions benefit, these projects will not be accounted for in this performance measure.

METRIC & TARGET ADJUSTMENT

The final rule removes the conversion from kilograms per day emissions data to tons per year data. The final rule calculates total emission reduction as cumulative reductions in emissions over 2 and 4 federal fiscal years.

As in the proposed rule, the final rule allows states or MPOs that believe they would not be able to meet a target due to a change in models to adjust the target at the performance period’s mid-point or explain in their final performance report why they were unable to meet their targets due to model-based emissions estimate.

TIMELINE

Consistent with CMAQ Program Guidance, state DOTs must enter their CMAQ project information for the previous fiscal year into the CMAQ Public Access System by the March 1 deadline. In this rule, FHWA adds a new July 1 deadline, for when all information must be in the CMAQ Public Access System. This due date will apply on July 1 after the final rule is effective.

States and MPOs must use projects in the 4 years prior to the first performance year as a basis for establishing a target for the first performance period. The projects entered into the CMAQ Public Access System during the 2-year and 4-year performance period will be taken as is to calculate the measure.

Additional measures

FHWA notes that state DOTs and MPOs may voluntarily report additional measures beyond their baseline requirement. Additional measures, or variations, could include metrics for per capita emissions, VMT-based estimates, or other useful indicators. Some of the priority outcomes not addressed by the Congressionally mandated measures promulgated by this rule are jobs access, freight movement off the Interstate, public health, stormwater runoff, and household transportation cost.

Review & analysis

FHWA will review this rule after the first performance period to assess effectiveness of the requirements and identify any necessary changes. FHWA also plans to revisit the reliability and congestion measures after the completion of its multimodal research study in Fall 2018.

USDOT made significant improvements in this final rule. However, the ability to set negative targets (e.g., a target of more fatalities) remains an area of concern as does the lack of real accountability for failing to meet any of the self-set targets. This is a flaw in the underlying legislation and not anything FHWA could have addressed in the rulemaking.

Furthermore, the progress made under this rule could be rolled back, if the new Congress overturns this rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). At a minimum, the effective date of this rule may be delayed for 60 days. T4America continues to monitor this rule and will provide updates as necessary.

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING: Assessing pavement and bridge condition for the national highway performance program

DATE EFFECTIVE: FEBRUARY 17, 2017

[FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, HERE]

Overview

This rule establishes measures for state departments of transportation (DOTs) to evaluate bridge and pavement condition. These measures are intended to direct states to spend federal-aid funds from the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) to achieve the performance targets in states’ asset management plans.

Background

On the same day that FHWA released this final rule regarding pavement and bridge conditions, FHWA also released its final rule establishing regulations to assess performance of the NHS and Interstate System, freight movement on the Interstate System, and congestion and mobile source emissions. (See T4America summary here). These final rules are the last of several regulations issued to implement the performance management framework established by the recent national transportation authorizations bills, known as MAP-21 and the FAST Act.

In addition to these two rules, FHWA published rules on safety performance measures and the integration of performance management into the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in March 2016 and published a rule on asset management plans in October 2016. In May 2016, both FHWA and FTA published a joint rule implementing changes to the planning process.

Together these rulemakings establish regulations for state DOTs and MPOs to evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the nation.

Summary of Requirements

State DOTs and MPOs must establish targets for each of the following performance measures:

  • Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in good condition;
  • Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in poor condition;
  • Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in good condition;
  • Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in poor condition;
  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in good condition; and
  • Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in poor condition.

“Good” and “poor” pavement ratings are based on quantitative measures of roughness, cracking, rutting and misalignment of pavement surfaces. Since 2010, most state DOTs have reported roughness, cracking, rutting, and faulting data annually to FHWA through the Highway Performance Monitoring System. Ratings for bridge conditions are based on measures submitted to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). State DOTs have been required to submit NBI reports to FHWA since 1978. Bridge ratings are based on the lowest component (e.g. deck, superstructure, substructure) rating.

Process

State DOTs must set 2- and 4-year targets for a 4-year performance period for the condition of highways and bridges. State DOTs will establish their first statewide targets in 2018. Each state DOT will submit its established targets in a baseline report at the beginning of the performance period and report progress at the midpoint and end of the performance period. DOTs will be allowed to adjust their 4-year target at the midpoint of the performance period.

MPOs will establish targets by either supporting a state DOT’s statewide target, or defining a target unique to the metropolitan area each time state DOTs establish a target. The MPOs have up to 180 days after state DOTs establish their pavement and bridge condition targets to establish their own targets. MPOs are not required to provide separate reporting to FHWA. However, state DOTs and MPOs must develop a process for coordinating their targets, which will be included in the MPOs’ metropolitan planning agreements or documented in another, mutually determined manner.

Targets and measurement apply to all highways and bridges on the NHS, regardless of ownership. MPO targets will apply to the extent of the metropolitan planning area; state targets apply to the entire state.

State DOTs and MPOs set their own targets; there is no provision in statute for FHWA to review or approve the targets these agencies set.

State DOTs may set additional targets for portions (e.g. urbanized or non-urbanized areas) of the state.

State DOTs must submit the following reports to FHWA:

  • Baseline performance reports, due October 1, 2018 and every four years thereafter, will include baseline conditions and 2- and 4-year performance targets.
  • Mid performance period progress reports must be submitted three years into the four-year performance period (to address the first two years of the period). This report will include the actual condition, progress toward performance targets, target adjustments, any extenuating circumstances that prevent the state from achieving its targets, and a description of the actions to be taken to meet the targets.
  • Full performance period progress reports, due one year following the end of the referenced period, will include actual condition, four-year progress toward targets, any extenuating circumstances that prevent the state from achieving its targets, and a description of the actions to be taken to meet the targets

The report timeline is summarized in the Figure 1 below.

MPOs must report their targets, baseline conditions, and progress toward targets to their states’ DOTs in a mutually agreed upon manner.

FHWA will determine states’ progress toward their targets after receipt of the mid- and full-performance period progress reports. FHWA will determine that a State DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if either:

  • The actual condition/performance level is better than the baseline condition/performance; or
  • The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better than the established target.

State DOTs that fail to meet or make significant progress toward meeting pavement and bridge condition performance targets in a biennial performance reporting period will be required to document the actions they will undertake to achieve their targets in their next biennial performance report.

Additionally, this rule sets minimum standards for Interstate highway pavement condition and bridge condition. These thresholds are not more than 5 percent of Interstate pavement in poor condition and not more than 10 percent of bridge deck area rated structurally deficient. FHWA will annually determine if these conditions are met.

If a minimum pavement condition on the Interstate is not met the state DOT must set aside an amount equal to the state’s 2009 federal apportionment for the pre-MAP-21 Interstate Maintenance program. However, in some cases this amount of funding may be less than the state is already spending on Interstate maintenance and less that is necessary to fix the problem.

If the minimum bridge condition is found to have not been met for the previous three year period the state DOT must set aside and amount equal to the state’s 2009 federal apportionment for the pre-MAP-21 bridge maintenance program. This set-aside requirement remains in effect for each subsequent year until less than 10 percent of the total deck area of bridges in the state on the NHS is classified as structurally deficient. However, in some cases this amount of funding may be less than the state is already spending on bridge repairs and less that is necessary to fix the problem.

Changes from the proposed rule

Two changes were made to comport with new statutory provisions from the FAST Act.

The proposed rule required a state DOT to document how it would meet its performance targets if it failed to meet these targets over two, consecutive biennial reports. The final rule requires a report on corrective action if a state DOT does not make significant progress in a single biennial performance report.

Similarly, under the final rule, FHWA will impose a requirement for additional repair spending if the state’s Interstate pavement condition has fallen below the minimum condition level for the most recent year (instead of most recent 2 years).

The final rule makes several technical adjustments to the way particular measures are calculated and revises certain thresholds.

T4America critiqued the provision of this rule that allows state DOTs to adjust their 4-year performance targets when they submit their two-year, mid-period progress report. Especially considering that states already set their own targets, allowing states to change their targets halfway through the performance period when they see their results lagging undermines the accountability of performance management system. However, several DOTs commented requesting more flexibility to revise their targets. In the final rule FHWA did not change the provision and allows for state DOTs to reset their targets in the mid-period report. The final rule additionally adds a provision that state DOTs must coordinate with MPOs before adjusting performance targets.

T4America also urged changes to the rule to assign state DOTs and MPOs equal responsibilities in setting targets. This final rule, however, makes requirements primarily of states while encouraging coordination with MPOs.

Review

FHWA will review this rule after the first performance period to assess the effectiveness of the requirements to identify any necessary changes.

U.S. DOT proposes updates to NEPA implementing procedures

On December 20, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released a proposed order, DOT Order 5610.1D, that would update the department’s procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). USDOT has not updated its current procedures since 1985.

Under the proposed order, USDOT would incorporate various procedures, rules, and approaches for implementing and streamlining NEPA that came out of federal transportation authorization legislation, including most recently the FAST Act. A cursory look of the proposed order suggests that the order does not propose any major changes, but rather formalizes current practices.

T4America encourages members to review the proposed order here. The comment period closes on January 10, 2017. A few state transportation agencies have filed requests to extend the comment period.

Contact your representative – new administration talking points & transportation asks

With the new administration and transition, how do you approach your representative to push your existing projects forward and or seek funding for new projects? We have created a few talking points you can use when contacting your state representative. See our T4A member recommended talking points drafted for you.

New Administration Talking Points – Transportation Asks

IF INCUMBENT REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you [insert representative title and name] for your work on Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to ensure long-term authorization of vital transportation programs.

IF NEWLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE: [Insert representative title and name], we congratulate you on your win and look forward to working with you in the new administration.

As a result of operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) through April 28, no funding provided under the short-term appropriations bill may be used to initiate or resume any project or activity for which funds were not available during FY2016. This means that there are no funds available for New Starts / Small Starts programs. In addition, the CR does not increase transportation funding to FAST Act authorized levels.

The CR’s lower level of funding overlaps with, and thus may impact, next year’s construction season. This overlap will especially impact regions where the construction season is already constrained due to seasonal weather.

Recently, we have also heard concerns that funding for the TIGER program may be targeted for funding cuts under the new administration. This program is a very high priority for local governments because it is extremely flexible and one of the only ways they can receive support from the Federal government for transportation priorities.

Highlight Your Transportation Project

Direct access to federal transportation funding is especially important for our community, because of our [insert project name].

As you know, this project is particularly important to our community, because [insert information about your transportation project, such as economic benefits, community support, improved access to jobs or education, etc.].

This project is currently at the stage of [insert information about how far along this project is; i.e. if it is in the pipeline for federal funding or if you are planning to apply to get federal funding].

Make the Link between Your Project & the Federal Funding Program

We appreciate your support for our community and know you understand the significance of [this project] for our region.

In order for our community to ensure the successful completion of this vital project, we need a federal funding partner. The [insert federal funding program, such as TIGER, New Starts, Small Starts, etc] program is one of the only avenues for us to get that necessary funding.

Congress no longer has the ability to earmark funds for specific projects. The transit and TIGER programs are the few programs that offer local communities a path to directly access federal funding support.

Without funding for these programs, how do we, as local communities, directly access federal dollars?

New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity are grouped under the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program under the FAST Act.

Catch up on the launch of our guide to the FAST Act

Last week, we launched our guide to the FAST Act, covering the shortcomings, omissions and opportunities in the federal transportation law that sets policy and funding for transportation until the year 2020. Download your copy of the guide below and if you missed the launch webinar, catch up with the presentation at the end of this post.

In 2015, Congress adopted their first long-term surface transportation law in more than a decade. Known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the bill provides federal transportation policy and funding for five years (FY2016-2020).

Though the bill will provide a level of funding certainty through 2020, to accomplish this feat, Congress essentially killed the concept of a trust fund for transportation by transferring $70 billion in general taxpayer funds into the highway trust fund, offset by accounting maneuvers and budget gimmicks.

While there were a few positive changes, the FAST Act doubled down on the status quo of federal transportation policy and failed to make virtually any of the changes so urgently needed by our rapidly urbanizing and changing country.

For example, the bill is virtually silent on the issue of emerging tech-enabled mobility options or other coming innovations, provides no increase in local control over funding — continuing to defer almost all authority to states — and fails to move the ball forward on performance measures after the first steps made by MAP-21 in 2012, among other shortcomings and missions.

This short guide explores the shortcomings and opportunities presented by the law in further detail, and provides several short tables that show the funding available to states and metro areas over the life of the bill.

Get your copy here.

fast act webinar featuredOn July 14th, our policy team was joined by Mayor Chris Koos, T4America advisory board member and Mayor of Normal, Illinois, to discuss the FAST Act in detail, with a focus on the impacts for local communities.

Did you miss the webinar? You can catch up with a recording of the presentation, the slides, and the questions that were asked & answered here.

 

Join us on 7/14 for the release of a helpful new guide to the FAST Act transportation law

Next week, T4America will be releasing a new guidebook intended to help you understand the changes made in 2015’s five-year transportation law and provide you with the necessary information to best leverage the federal transportation program. Sign up for a kickoff webinar next Thursday afternoon and receive an early copy by email.

FAST Act Guide Promo

Join us Thursday, July 14th at 4 p.m. as we briefly discuss Falling Forward: A Guide To the Fast Act with some of our policy experts and other special local guests who will add some insight on what the bill means for local communities. Register for the webinar and we’ll email you a copy first thing on July 14.

REGISTER NOW

 

About the FAST Act and this new guide

In 2015, Congress adopted their first long-term surface transportation law in more than a decade. Known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the bill provides federal transportation policy and funding for five years (FY2016-2020). Though the bill will provide a level of funding certainty through 2020, to accomplish this feat, Congress essentially killed the concept of a trust fund for transportation by transferring $70 billion in general taxpayer funds into the highway trust fund, offset by accounting maneuvers and budget gimmicks.

While there were a few positive changes, the FAST Act doubled down on the status quo of federal transportation policy and failed to make virtually any of the changes so urgently needed by our rapidly urbanizing and changing country. For example, the bill is virtually silent on the issue of emerging tech-enabled mobility options or other coming innovations, provides no increase in local control over funding — continuing to defer almost all authority to states — and fails to move the ball forward on performance measures after the first steps made by MAP-21 in 2012, among other shortcomings or omissions.

There were also a few notable changes (positive and negative) made in the FAST Act, and we’ll explore the shortcomings and opportunities presented by the law in further detail in this guide.

Register today and join us on Thursday, July 14th to hear more and get your copy.

Senate transportation appropriations bill adheres to local leaders’ call to fund TIGER, public transit and passenger rail

The annual transportation and housing appropriations bill – known as T-HUD – was approved last week by the Senate Appropriations Committee and contains good news for transportation. The annual spending bill fully funds FAST Act-authorized programs receiving support from the Highway Trust Fund and funds important competitive programs such as TIGER, public transit construction grants, and intercity passenger rail.

Earlier this year, T4America—in partnership with over 170 elected officials and local, civic, and business leaders from 45 states—sent a powerful message to congressional appropriators that the competitive TIGER and New Starts programs are crucial local economic prosperity and competitiveness. The letter urged Congress to include at least $500 million for TIGER transportation grants as well as the full $2.3 billion authorized in last year’s FAST Act for the ‘New Starts’ public transit construction program. Senate appropriators listened and provided $525 million for TIGER and $2.3 billion for New Starts in the FY2017 T-HUD bill.

TIGER

The Senate bill increases funding for the TIGER program by $25 million, for a total of $525 million for FY17, of which $25 million is reserved for planning grants. This is a big win for a couple of reasons.

First, the TIGER competitive grant program is one of the few ways that local communities can apply for and win funds for their priority projects, helping to get smart, locally-supported projects with a high return on investment off the ground. The TIGER competition ensures the best projects receive funds based on merit and cost-benefit analyses, and provides a level of accountability and transparency not currently available in many statewide transportation programs.

Second, TIGER was not even authorized in the five-year FAST Act, making it all the more important that this vital program receive strong support this year.

Public transit

TIGER isn’t the only crucial program up in the air. The federal government’s primary resource for supporting new, locally planned and supported transit expansion projects was up for consideration. The Senate T-HUD bill fully funds the New Starts program in FY17 with $2.3 billion.

Passenger rail

The FAST Act authorized passenger rail programs along with the larger highway and transit authorizations for the first time ever. The Senate T-HUD bill continues support for passenger rail by providing $1.4 billion for Amtrak, and for the first time since 2010, 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee has placed a heavy emphasis on safety and short-line railroads in FY17.

Next Steps

The transportation funding bill now heads to the Senate floor for further consideration, with action likely starting this week. The House has yet to introduce its FY17 T-HUD bill, a measure that could get stalled by disagreement from party leaders over their broader budget blueprint. T4America will continue keeping a close watch as the critical annual FY17 spending bill progresses.

Oregon DOT provides a wake up call for local leaders in other states

In a move that should raise alarm bells for local leaders in other states, last week the Oregon Department of Transportation decided where to spend nearly $200 million in new money from last year’s FAST Act on their road system with limited to zero public engagement.

Interstate 5 - Oregon

I-5 over the Columbia River in Oregon. Flickr photo by Doug Kerr.

The FAST Act, the five-year transportation bill passed by Congress in late 2015, provided a level of funding certainty for state transportation programs that they’ve not had in years. Thanks to a $70 billion transfer from general taxpayer funds into the Highway Trust Fund, the FAST Act also provided a slight increase in funding for each state. This followed on the heels of $75 billion in transfers total over the prior seven years, just to keep the trust fund solvent.

Yet simply funneling more money into the same system won’t necessarily ensure better outcomes for the taxpayers’ investment or that local priorities will be addressed, and Oregon’s actions could be a preview of what might happen in countless other states, deciding not to equitably distribute the new funds to state and local priorities.

Rather than improve the underlying policies that directs each state’s transportation investments, Congress chose to largely direct the FAST Act’s increased funding into new freight programs, the largest of which is being distributed to states by a formula wholly unrelated to freight needs or merit. (This was one of the provisions we called out in our post covering ten things to know about the FAST Act. –Ed.)

This new National Highway Freight Program will dole out more than $1 billion per year to state DOTs with zero relation to the value or tonnage of the freight moved within its borders. It also predetermines that the solution to any freight problem is highway-related by directing all but 10 percent of each state’s funding to highway development only, disregarding the fact that these funds were not collected from gas taxes.

In addition, the increase in funds in the main highway programs are also directed largely to state DOT owned roads (interstates and highways). Thus, local governments must be prepared to ensure their priorities are addressed and the states share in their newfound resources, however large those may be. 

Case in point: Oregon.

As Bike Portland originally reported back on 3/17, The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), with the approval of its Transportation Commission, programmed $196 million in new funding from the FAST Act on Thursday, March 17. While ODOT is correct that the majority of its new funding is from the highway freight formula program, the agency has misinformed (pdf) their audience by stating the funds must be allocated to “freight-related projects on high-volume, high-priority truck freight routes, primarily the Interstate.”

Congress provides ODOT, and every other state, great flexibility to direct federal highway dollars to priority projects — state or local, highway or non-highway. Every state has the flexibility to transfer 50 percent of its funding for a highway program to a separate highway program such as the highly flexible and locally accessible Surface Transportation Program, which can be used on almost any type of important project.

While nearly 40 percent of the additional $200 million in Oregon will support fix-it-first projects – a priority that Transportation for America supports —95 percent of the new funding will likely go to state-owned highways and almost nothing is done to improve transparency and accountability for the public. To wit: the list of project types receiving funds does not provide a discussion or rationale for which projects will receive the new funding or why any particular project category received funding.

The murky process of picking projects in a way that is nearly impossible for the public to decipher will continue.

ODOT will not begin spending the nearly $200 million in newly programmed funds until 2018, which provides Oregon’s local leaders two years to build their case to receive a greater portion of the new funding from the FAST Act for their priorities.

But today and tomorrow, Oregon’s example illustrates why local leaders in other states need to proactively engage their state representatives and DOT to ensure their state’s new funding from the FAST Act is shared and supports both local and state priorities.

Click here to review the amount of highway funding directed to your state DOT from the FAST Act

President Obama releases robust final budget; summary included

Today, the White House released President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 (FY17) budget proposal, the final of his presidency. This budget adheres to the $1.07 trillion spending cap that resulted from the bipartisan two-year budget deal agreed to last November. The President’s budget proposal either falls in line with or exceeds FAST Act funding levels, increases transit and rail funding, and funds TIGER (the FAST Act does not authorize the program), among other programs. The budget also calls for the creation of a 21st Century Regions program, a clean communities competitive grant program and funds the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.

Speaker Ryan (R-WI) has asked congressman to maintain the funding levels agreed to last November, though there are signals that some may seek additional cuts.

Read a more detailed analysis here.

12 transportation policies states should consider in 2016 to stay economically competitive

To remain economically competitive, states must invest in infrastructure, but state legislatures have a critical choice ahead of them: continue pumping scarce dollars into a complex and opaque system based on outdated policies out of sync with today’s needs, or follow the lead of the states highlighted in Transportation for America’s new report, Twelve Innovations in Transportation Policy States Should Consider in 2016.

State legislatures, as incubators of innovation and more flexible than Congress when it comes to enacting new transportation policies, have a golden opportunity in 2016 to reform their transportation programs to expand transparency and accountability, boost state and local economies, invest in innovation across the state, save the state money and improve safety for the traveling public.

Why this focus on state transportation policy?

Similar to Congress’s action in 2015 with the passage of the FAST Act, most of the 23 states that increased their own transportation funding revenue since 2012 have failed to update the underlying policies governing the spending of those new funds. The distribution formulas for those funds are often relics of decades-old priorities that are out-of-touch with the new needs of increasingly diverse economies and demographics.

T4America’s new report outlines 12 transportation policy solutions recently passed legislatively or instituted through administrative action in states, many of which are being pursued by Transportation for America’s START network members and other key policymakers in 2016.

These dozen policy proposals have shown the ability to:

  • increase accountability and transparency to build taxpayer confidence;
  • make states economically competitive and empower locals to do the same;
  • invest in innovation and reward the smartest projects;
  • maximize savings through better project development; and
  • improve safety through better street design

Considering the fact that the federal program is still largely a block grant given to and controlled by the states, state leadership on transportation issues will be more important than ever in the years to come.

The START Network

T4America supports efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency. We do this through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders, providing our members easily accessible resources that arm decision makers and advocates with template policies, research and case studies from leaders nationwide. Join the START network today, and share with us any bills in your state legislature that you feel we should be tracking here.

State-level reform will be essential for advancing creative and innovative transportation funding and policy reforms to make the most of limited infrastructure dollars. Get engaged by joining the START Network and get your free copy of the report today.

Congress’ FAST Act provides needed funding certainty but fails to move the country forward

press release

After the House and Senate took action to approve the final five-year, $305 billion Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act transportation authorization this week, T4America director James Corless offered this statement:

“We’re grateful that Congress finally moved beyond short-term extensions and passed a five-year transportation bill with funding to provide the multi-year certainty states and cities have been clamoring for to bring their ambitious plans to life. The bill provides modest increases in funding for local communities, includes passenger rail in the surface authorization for the first time ever — recognizing its key role in connecting communities big and small — and makes it easier for cities and towns to apply for low-cost federal financing for locally-driven infrastructure improvements and transit-oriented development.

“While this new law does make a handful of notable improvements, the final product misses the mark on far too many counts and overall doubles down on a status quo approach to investing in transportation.

“The majority of our elected representatives, along with most of the traditional transportation industry, were all too willing to pass a bill at almost any cost. Only a handful of elected leaders were willing to even discuss raising or indexing the gasoline tax to pay for the level of investment our country desperately needs.

“When it comes to policy, this bill falls far short of the transformational, outcome-based approach needed to keep our cities and towns prospering as our nation experiences profound shifts in demographics, consumer preferences and technology.

“The FAST Act fails to increase transparency and accountability in the process of picking transportation projects; a process that the taxpaying public finds murky, mysterious, and overly political. Though it does slightly increase funding directly to metropolitan areas, it failed to give smaller communities any more control over federal funding. It doesn’t increase the amount of money awarded competitively to the best projects on the merits and makes an enormous cut to the innovative TIFIA low-cost financing program for local projects. And though daily headlines are filled with an increasing number of stories about autonomous vehicles or shared mobility services changing the landscape of our cities, this bill is virtually silent on both counts.

“While states and metropolitan regions will enjoy the certainty of funding that they’ve not had in seven or eight years, they’ll be stuck with yesterday’s policies until 2020, and the tab will be passed on to our children. The FAST Act represents a major missed opportunity to do something much better that the country needs and deserves.”

Think FAST – the good, the bad and the ugly in Congress’ new five-year transportation bill

For the first time in a decade, Congress is on the cusp of passing a five-year transportation authorization bill that will carry us into the next decade. Though we await final floor votes and the President’s signature, it will almost certainly be approved in a matter of days. So how does the bill stack up against the pressing needs of our country? Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly of the FAST Act.

While the final bill has changed only slightly from the separate versions passed by the House and the Senate since July, we’re going to take a slightly different tack than our usual “ten things you need to know,” and break this bill up into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

T4America members can find a link to our full detailed memo with funding tables below,

[member_content]

Read and download the full members-only summary of the five-year FAST Act.

Note: This and all other bill summaries also live under the “legislative content” tab within the members-only portal.[/member_content]

The good

Preserves stable funding for transportation over five years
While this bill falls far short of meeting any financial sustainability test, it is nonetheless remarkable that Congress is about to pass a five-year bill with no cuts to overall funding levels — including funding for public transportation, which was targeted for outright removal by the House in 2012. The FAST Act provides a slight plus-up in funding over MAP-21 levels (estimated at about $10 billion over the life of the bill) by authorizing $230 billion for highways, $60 billion for public transportation, $10 billion for passenger rail and $5 billion for highway safety programs. While this bill will put a five-year hold on devolutionists calling for ending the federal program outright and dumping all the responsibility on cash-strapped states and metro areas, this “fully funded” bill comes at a steep cost in general fund revenues (that could be used elsewhere, remember) and a number of significant, innovative and locally-driven proposals that were left on the cutting room floor — which we’ll cover further down.

More support for smart transit-oriented development projects
Due in part to the hard work of T4America, Smart Growth America and LOCUS over the last year, transit-oriented development projects will be eligible for the low-interest TIFIA and RRIF federal financing programs. The small pilot program of TOD planning grants was also preserved; grants that help communities make the best use of land around transit lines and stops, efficiently locate jobs and affordable housing near new transit stations, and boost ridership.

Authorization for passenger rail is in the surface authorization for the first time
While the bill does far too little for truly making our system multimodal and making greater investments in more transportation options, it takes a positive step by bringing passenger rail into the larger surface transportation authorization for the first time ever. (This was typically passed as a standalone bill and Congress usually had little impetus for quick action.) Passenger rail will still have to go through the general appropriation process each year (getting started now for FY16, if you’ve been following along) to get their funding, but this positions it well for the long-term hope: including and funding passenger rail with guaranteed funds from a multimodal, 21st century transportation trust fund in the years ahead.

A (slight) increase in funding for metropolitan regions
Though the final product was far short of what we had been pushing for, local governments will receive slightly more money to invest in their priority projects, with an increase in what’s known as suballocated funds by 1 percent per year of the bill, up to 55 percent in 2020. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to give smaller communities under 200,000 in population any more control over how these funds are spent in their areas — the state will retain authority and can continue to choose to ignore local needs. Overall, funding directed to local communities is an improvement over MAP-21, but the funding and especially the control over those dollars still falls far short of what we need. (More on this below.)

Locals have greater access to low-cost federal loans
To apply for a TIFIA loan today, the total project cost has to be over $50 million, which makes it difficult or impossible for the projects in places that aren’t our biggest metro areas to receive funds. Our colleagues at LOCUS worked with other partners to get the threshold successfully lowered to $10 million, which opens the door to a wider range of project types in communities of all sizes, including complete streets, urban street retrofits, trails and other low-cost projects that are often the highest priority for local communities.

Safer streets for all users
Working alongside our colleagues at the National Complete Streets Coalition, we were successful in winning the requirement that state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) consider all users of the roadways when designing and building projects. Further, we were able to include a provision in the bill that allows local governments to use the street design manuals of their preference (like the NACTO guide) and preempt their state DOT’s design manual for locally constructed projects. Far too often, local governments are working hard to develop complete, safe streets, but are stymied by their state DOT’s desire to maintain fast speeds and wide lanes at the expense of other people who need to use the street and would benefit from narrower lanes, safe bike lanes or wider sidewalks.


The bad

Very little for innovation
In a world where demographic and technological change is upending the transportation industry, the FAST Act does alarmingly little to advance innovation. Despite a few glimmers of hope such as a new $60 million advanced technology deployment fund, the remainder of the bill is remarkably silent on how and where technological innovation can help improve mobility and accessibility. Even smaller changes to make car-sharing eligible for federal funds failed to get included in the bill, and Congress has even made it tougher for states to advance innovative tolling ideas as means of both managing traffic and raising new revenue.

No new performance measures
MAP-21 took a cautious first step into developing a system of measuring the performance of our transportation investments, but this bill generally refuses to continue that progress. Specifically, Congress missed an opportunity to include a new measure that would improve accessibility and measure how investments affect residents’ access to jobs and opportunity. A new national goal and performance measure was included in the House version by Reps. Waters and Carson (supported by many of their colleagues) that would require USDOT to develop a new performance measure on accessibility for urban disadvantaged populations. The conference stripped this provision.

No increase in accountability or transparency
The House and Senate shot down any and all provisions to improve accountability and transparency for the current way by which public agencies select projects, a process that the public feels is murky, mysterious, and overly political. At a time when Congress needs to take steps to restore taxpayer confidence in the system, we’ve preserved a system that wastes billions annually and fails to improve the experience of the traveling public or improve accessibility and quality of life for all Americans.

Funding for biking and walking preserved, but capped over the life of the bill
While the small but popular Transportation Alternatives Program that helps states and local communities build safe routes for biking or walking wasn’t eliminated, it’s one of the few programs where funding doesn’t grow with the overall increases in bill — it’s capped at $850 million. A new provision was included that will allow large metro areas to “flex” away half of this program to any other project they choose, so some decision-makers at the metro level will be allowed to ignore the demand for (and economic potential of) safer streets and other community-driven mobility projects.


The ugly

A one-size-fits-all freight program
Freight moves across the country on every mode of travel imaginable and our freight issues are inherently multimodal, but Congress didn’t see it that way when they earmarked 90 percent of the funds in a new freight program for highway projects. This new combination of a formula and separate discretionary grant program is the first time Congress has funded a freight program in the transportation bill, but unfortunately other options like ports, railroads, intelligent transportation systems, or better demand management are only eligible for a small share of the freight dollars. The bill creates a discretionary grant program with $800 million this year, rising to $1 billion in 2020, and creates a new formula program with $1.15 billion in the first year rising to $1.5 billion in 2020.

The bill requires states and metro areas to analyze their freight movement and come up with a multimodal plan to improve things (good!) but then only gives them funding to build highway solutions (bad!). This is a backdoor way to provide more unaccountable funding to states for highway projects that may have been on the drawing boards for decades, and does little to promote cost-effective solutions to freight mobility. One additional issue is that this new formula program relies on current highway formulas unrelated to freight movement and completely ignores freight tonnage or value that would ensure we get the biggest bang for the buck from these investments.

Local communities are left out and behind
Despite our best efforts and those of a handful of champions in both the House and the Senate, this bill does not provide significantly more transportation funding or control over that funding to local communities of all sizes. (It does increase suballocated funds by 5 percent over the life of the bill as noted in “the good” above.) It does nothing for smaller metro areas under 200,000 in population, leaving decisions about which projects to build in the hands of the state DOT, which often ignores local wishes and spends locally-earmarked funds on the projects of the state’s choosing. By failing to bring more dollars, control and accountability closer to the local level, the bill fails to restore the trust of the American people in how our transportation decisions are being made.

An astonishing cut to TIFIA loans
Just three years after MAP-21 increased the TIFIA loan program up to $1 billion, the FAST Act slashes it down to $275 million, leaving a far smaller pot for local communities to compete for. Despite some good reforms made to the program overall and at a time when Congress is eager to stimulate more investment with local or private dollars, it’s hard to fathom why the champions of TIFIA in MAP-21 sat by while this financing program was cut by 70 percent.

Using tomorrow’s funding to pay for yesterday’s policies
Rather than raise transportation user fees (or even talk about it) to fill the ever growing chasm between spending and gas tax receipts, Congress scrounged up $70 billion in non-transportation related general funds to pay for this bill. Somewhere between a third and a quarter of this bill’s cost will be covered by all taxpayers, which means places with more taxpayers and more revenue will be paying more. There won’t be a single project with its cost covered by its users over the life of this bill, and every state will be getting back far more money than they contribute in fuel taxes. This is a bad precedent and will make the hole all the harder to dig out of in 2021 when it comes time to reauthorize this program.


Wrapping it all up — the big picture

While states and metropolitan areas will appreciate the certainty of a five-year bill that guarantees funding for their planning and investments, almost a third of the bill’s cost will be paid up front by general tax revenue — not transportation user fees — offset by accounting maneuvers and budget gimmicks. We will all be paying the tab for Congress’ refusal to have an adult discussion about revenue, whether you buy a lot of gas or none at all.

With almost $75 billion in general taxpayer dollars transferred into the highway trust fund to keep it solvent over the last seven years, and more than $75 billion now pledged over the next five years, the notion of a true trust fund for transportation, funded by users of the system, is dead. Only a handful of elected leaders were willing to even broach the topic of raising or indexing the gas tax to cover the cost of their desired spending levels. The majority of our elected representatives, along with most of the traditional transportation industry, were all too willing to pass a bill at almost any cost.

As far as the bill’s policy goes, it uses tomorrow’s dollars to pay for yesterday’s ideas and represents a missed opportunity to do something much better. On the whole, Congress looked at our system for investing in transportation and said, “the approach we’ve been using for the last decade or so seems to be working. Let’s double down on that.”

Do you and your community’s leaders agree? Do you feel like the current system is working for you and your town or city? The answer to that question will tell you how you should feel about this piece of legislation.

House and Senate conference members reach agreement on five-year transportation authorization

Conferees from the House and Senate have reached agreement on a final transportation reauthorization that will tap Federal Reserve surplus funds and other accounting maneuvers to cover the bill’s full cost over five years.

The 1,300-page Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) was filed with the House this afternoon and Speaker Paul Ryan said that he expects to have a final vote this week. In the Senate, Senator John Thune told Bloomberg this afternoon that his chamber would attempt to take the bill up later this week, but it might slip to next week. MAP-21’s current extension ends this Friday, December 4th, so if action is not taken this week, expect to see a very short extension. Amendments or changes are beyond unlikely after the conference agreement, so this bill is the final product that will be voted on by the House and Senate and signed by the President.

We’re still reading through the full text of the bill and will have a more detailed analysis and statement coming in the next few days.

As expected, the bill would revive the U.S. Export-Import bank and use Federal Reserve surplus funds and numerous other budget gimmicks to produce the tens of billions in offsets required to cover the difference between current transportation spending and what the gas tax is projected to bring in each year over the life of the bill. It’s the first multi-year transportation bill since SAFETEA-LU passed in 2005, and according to Senator James Inhofe, the bill contains $227 billion for highways and $61 billion for transit.

[member_content]Members will receive some detailed summaries on the bill, so check your email inboxes for information from us over the next 48 hours.[/member_content]