STRR Act Archives - Transportation For America

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.

Full bill text (pdf)
Joint explanatory statement from the conferees (pdf)
Summary of the bill (pdf)

[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]

With conference underway, how do the House and Senate bills stack up?

While the multi-year transportation bills passed by the House last week and the Senate back in July are fairly similar, there are still some notable differences between the two. With the conference committee getting underway to reconcile the bills, it’s worth looking at the similarities and differences.

While we believe both of these bills largely represent three (or possibly six) more years of the status quo for the most part, there are still some provisions within each bill worth fighting for in conference. Unfortunately, however, for some of our most significant priorities, that ship may have sailed. It’s unlikely that anyone will be successful in getting provisions inserted during conference which aren’t currently found in either bill. So if something isn’t already included in the House or Senate bill, it’s almost certainly not going to be included during conference (e.g. the Davis-Titus/Wicker-Booker local control amendment).

We’ll be keeping a close watch on the conference committee over the next week, so stay tuned. The staff of the conferees is meeting this week while Congress is on recess, and the members will meet next week for the first time. They’ll have to produce a deal and pass it through both chambers again before next Friday (November 20^th) in order to avoid having to pass another short-term extension of MAP-21.

We produced a much more detailed summary for our members that also includes all named and likely conferees and how the bills stack up to T4America’s platform, available below.

[member_content]Members, we produced a much more detailed memo for you, which provides a detailed chart comparing each bill to one another as well as a comparison to the seven goals contained in our policy platform. You can access that detailed summary here.[/member_content]

The two bills are similar in their overall approach to funding. The overall levels are slightly better in one bill or the other for several key programs, and neither bill made any progress toward providing new sustainable revenues for our nation’s transportation trust fund.

This searchable table below covers 11 key provisions or big-picture goals and how the Senate and House bills stack up on each point.

Item	Senate DRIVE Act	House STRR Act
Does the bill stabilize the trust fund with new sustainable revenue sources?	No. It does not raise or index transportation user fees. The bill uses $45 billion in largely non-transportation funding sources to fill the gap between gas tax revenues and spending in the bill. Unlike the House bill, it only partially funds the bill for 3 out of 6 years.	No. It does not raise or index transportation user fees. The bill adopted most of the Senate's funding sources and added the option of using an infusion from the Federal Reserve surplus account to fund the last 2-3 years of the bill. (Where did that extra funding come from? Read this post.)
Funding levels	The Senate bill provides about $350 billion over six years.	The House provides about $325 billion over six years.
Complete Streets Join with the National Complete Streets Coalition in sending a message to the conferees urging them to adopt the Senate language.	The Senate bill requires states and MPOs to incorporate Complete Streets standards. It allows NACTO’s Urban Design Guide as a required design manual to be used by USDOT when developing the nation’s design standards, and will permit a local government to use its adopted design guide, even if it differs from the state’s.	The House bill only "encourages" states and MPOs to incorporate Complete Streets standards. The House bill does also include NACTO's design guide and allows local governments to use their preferred guide even if it conflicts with the state's
Local control & funding	The Wicker-Booker amendment to increase local funding and control was not included. The Senate bill provides less money for local communities than the House bill. • It suballocates 55% of the Surface Transportation Program to locals instead of 50%. • A smaller pot of STP funds overall = fewer total dollars going to local communities.	The Davis-Titus amendment to increase local funding and control was not included. House bill does provide slightly greater funding for local communities. The Surface Transportation Program increases with inflation, and the amount suballocated to local governments increases by 1% per year until it reaches 55%.
TIGER grants	Does not authorize TIGER or any other multimodal discretionary grant program.	Does not authorize TIGER or any other multimodal discretionary grant program.
TIFIA loans for TOD projects	Yes. The Senate bill lowers the cost threshold for local, TOD and ITS projects to apply for TIFIA loans from $50 million to $10 million, and makes transit-oriented development projects eligible.	No. The House lowers the cost threshold for projects to apply for TIFIA loans from $50 million to $10 million. It does NOT make transit-oriented development projects eligible.
Rail improvement grants for TOD projects	No. Transit-oriented development projects are not eligible to apply for loans from this financing program that provides low interest federal loans to public and private entities to improve rail infrastructure and assets.	No. Transit-oriented development projects are not eligible to apply for loans from this financing program that provides low interest federal loans to public and private entities to improve rail infrastructure and assets.
More performance measures?	No significant progress. MAP-21 took the first step in a transition to a performance-based system of investing dollars based on measurable outcomes and return on our investments. Neither bill takes the next logical, significant step forward in this regard.	No significant progress. MAP-21 took the first step in a transition to a performance-based system of investing dollars based on measurable outcomes and return on our investments. Neither bill takes the next logical, significant step forward in this regard. The House bill does include a new performance measure intended to “assess the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities.”
Transportation Alternatives Program	Senate caps the TAP program at $850 million per year (higher than the House), and suballocates 100% of it to metro areas.	House caps the TAP program at $819 million per year (less than Senate) and moves it within the STP program. It maintains status quo of sending 50% of the program to states and 50% to metro areas.
Passenger rail	Both House and Senate will likely include a passenger rail title in the final bill. The Senate incorporated theirs into the DRIVE Act while the House passed theirs separately.	Both the House and Senate will likely include a passenger rail title in the final bill. The House rail proposal will effectively separate the Northeast Corridor from the rest of the national system and prioritize funding for this segment at the expense of planned rail development throughout the rest of the country.
Transit & transit funding	The Senate bill marginally increases funding for transit. Other policy changes are relatively minor.	The House decreased the allowed federal match in New Starts capital transit grants from 80 to 50 percent and restricting locally-controlled STP funds for counting as local match dollars.

Where did the additional billions in new revenue come from for the House transportation bill?

In the early morning hours on Thursday during negotiations over the House transportation bill, Rep. Neugebauer presented a fairly surprising amendment that tapped billions from a to-date unmentioned Federal Reserve surplus account to help cover the cost of the bill.

Details are still a little uncertain about exactly how much money will eventually be transferred from this account — House leadership could hang on to some of the money for some other need and choose to only fund three years of their transportation bill — we’ll be keeping a close eye on how that develops. But we do know that the House now has as much as $85 billion in new general fund revenues to cover the gap between what the gas tax brings in and current levels of transportation spending.

From his speech, even Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX) agrees with our assertion that we shouldn’t be filling the trust fund with non-transportation revenue sources (i.e., general taxpayer funds). So what was the reasoning for tapping this Federal Reserve fund in this amendment? One reason was to eliminate one of the Senate’s funding sources that many did not like. Here’s the speech that Rep. Neugebauer gave on the floor in the early morning hours of Thursday when most of us were all fast asleep.

First, I don’t think it’s good policy to fund transportation from other sectors of the economy.

This amendment does seek to address two major issues in the budget offsets sent over from the Senate: the Federal Reserve dividend reduction and the ‘G-fee’ increase. Moving forward with the Federal Reserve dividend reduction without studying it could have a devastating consequence for the supervision of the financial sector and the stability of the Federal Reserve system. The cost that banks, especially community banks, could face as a result of the dividend reduction would be passed on to hard working consumers. At a time when many Americans continue to struggle from the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank it would dangerous and irresponsible to move forward with the Senate version.

Second, this amendment addresses what I see as a further entrenchment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is particularly timely because just this week we learned that Freddie and Fannie may need to tap the Treasury once again and saddle the taxpayers with the bill. This amendment further protects the taxpayers. Allowing Congress to continue to raise g-fees will make comprehensive housing financial reform impossible.

Our amendment addresses both problems by liquidating and dissolving the Federal Reserve Capital Surplus Account. The Federal Reserve Capital Surplus Account currently has about $29 billion in capital surplus. This Account is made up of the earnings that the Federal Reserve has retained from investing member banks money. Let me say that again. The Surplus Account is made up of the earning that the Federal Reserve has made from investing member banks money. The Federal Reserve continues to hold this account in surplus at a time that our nation has over $18.5 trillion in debt.

This is not a perfect policy but it’s better than the alternative. This preserves the budget neutrality of the transportation bill and counters irresponsible proposals sent over to us by the Senate. Further, it protects consumers from the potential for cost increases while reforming the Surplus Account to meet the needs of the current fiscal crisis. When the Surplus Account was created no one could have imagined the debt and deficits that we are facing. It is appropriate to liquidate this account to meet these days’ realities.

“Moving forward, I hope that this body will ensure that transportation funding comes from transportation users and not completely unrelated sectors of the economy.

House transportation bill uses tomorrow’s revenues to pay for yesterday’s policies

Following final consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (STRR) Act by the full House of Representatives, Transportation for America chairman John Robert Smith offered this statement:

“In a country that’s drastically changing, the House has doubled down on the status quo and declared that our country’s current model for investing in transportation is the best approach for another six years to come. Congress has once again failed to have a meaningful conversation about raising new revenue from users of the transportation system, choosing instead to tap as much as $85 billion in general taxpayer funds to close the yawning gap in our country’s transportation trust fund — leaving the hard decisions for those willing to lead some other day. We’re as disappointed with Congress as we are with many in the transportation community who are willing to accept a flat-funded multi-year bill that’s paid for by any means necessary.

“On policy, this bill falls far short of the transformational, reform-minded policy that we need to keep our cities and towns prospering as the country changes dramatically. It largely fails to award more money competitively to the best projects on the merits, to increase accountability or transparency for taxpayer dollars, to increase innovative low-cost financing that can leverage local dollars, or to provide greater flexibility for states and metro areas to invest in whatever transportation solutions can bring the greatest benefits.

“In addition, the House bill also fails to give cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access to and control over federal transportation dollars. Instead, this bill sends yet more control and funding to unelected bureaucrats at the state level, doubling down on a broken process that local voters overwhelmingly believe chooses projects based on politics, not need.

“There were numerous opportunities to improve the bill, but they were largely ignored or blocked from consideration. A bipartisan proposal from Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Dina Titus (D-NV) that would have given more funding and control to local communities had at least eight other cosponsors and support from local elected leaders in cities small and large. Yet House leaders in key committees refused to let this amendment with broad support even come up for a vote. They refused to let their fellow representatives stand up and speak about the ambitious plans in the local communities they represent. They refused to publicly hear an argument in favor of giving more funding and authority to the local leaders who best know their communities’ needs.

“While Chairmen Shuster and Graves and Ranking Members DeFazio and Holmes Norton are to be commended for moving beyond short-term extensions and toward the multi-year funding certainty needed by states and cities to see their ambitious plans come to life, we need to pair that funding with the right policies, and this bill falls short. We’re hopeful that improvements can continue to be made in conference, including choosing to include the higher funding amount for local communities and incorporating the passenger rail authorization contained in the Senate bill.”

CONTACT:
Steve Davis, Director of Communications
steve.davis@t4america.org // 202-955-5543 x242

Amendments to the House transportation bill we’re tracking

The Rules Committee is considering which amendments to the House transportation bill to send to the full House, which will begin debating and voting on them over the course of this week. We’ll be tracking a handful of these amendments closely and you can find out more about each of them right here.

Bookmark this page and table — we’ll be fleshing out this post over the coming 24-48 hours with more information on some of the amendments and keeping it updated as the Rules Committee finishes approving or rejecting amendments, and as the full House begins debating and voting on them and their multi-year transportation bill. Debate on the House floor begins today, and the Rules Committee is expected to finish up deciding on the 250-plus amendments by this evening. (The Rules Committee’s full list of amendments and their status can be found here.)

Amendments that we’re tracking

Improvements or helpful changes

Amendment number	Description	Offered by	Rules Committee Approve? (Y/N)	Final floor outcome
#18 - TOD in RRIF (sense of Congress)	(Nonbinding) bipartisan amendment to express the Sense of Congress that TOD is an eligible activity under the Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing program (RRIF). (See #37 below, which would actually make this policy change binding.)	Reps. Lipinski, Quigley, Dold	Approved	Not offered
#21 - Improved project selection process	This would improve planning and project selection performance measures and transparency.	Rep. Desaulnier	Approved	Rejected by recorded vote.
#37 - TOD in RRIF	Bipartisan amendment to make transit-oriented development projects (TOD) eligible for funding from the Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing program (RRIF).	Reps. Lipinski, Quigley, Dold	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#47 - Ped safety performance measures	This would require a study and rule on safety standards or performance measures to improve pedestrian safety.	Rep. Schakowsky	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#66 - Ped safety	Bipartisan amendment to create a new national priority program for non-motorized safety, increase the number of states eligible for funding through the non-motorized National Priority Safety Program, and double the funding for that program.	Reps. Blumenauer and Buchanan	Approved	Rejected by voice vote
#75 - Accessibility performance measures	This would establish performance measures for accessibility for low-income and minority populations and people with disabilities; cumulative increase in residents’ connection to jobs; and the variety of transportation choices available to users, such as public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and roads and highways. (This improves upon the changes made in the committee markup by Rep. Carson's amendment. See #7 in our "Ten Things" post.)	Reps. Ellison, Grijalva, Waters and Huffman	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#87 - CMAQ funds for bikesharing & shared mobility	Bipartisan amendment to make innovative new shared mobility options like bikesharing, carsharing, and transportation network companies, among others, eligible to receive funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement and Federal Transit Administration programs. Expands associated transit improvements to include these shared-use projects that can directly enhance transit.	Reps. Swalwell and Schweikert	Approved	Rejected, 181-237
#101 - TIFIA loans for TOD projects	Bipartisan amendment to make transit-oriented development projects eligible to receive low-cost TIFIA loans, and lower the threshold for loans from $50 million down to $10 million to help smaller projects access the program — both of which are zero cost to the program. (This amendment was offered in markup but not voted on. See #3 in our amendment tracker from the committee markup.)	Reps. Edwards and Comstock	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#110 - Restore transit flexibility	Bipartisan amendment to restore the current ability that states and metros have to flex federal CMAQ funds toward New Starts projects — increasing the possible federal share of these projects back up to 80 percent from the reduced federal match of 50 percent in the STRR Act. But this amendment would not change the STRR Act's restriction on states or metros using their Surface Transportation Program funding as local matching dollars. (Read more about the STRR Act's changes for transit in #5 in our "Ten Things" explainer, though this amendment does not fix the reduction in federal match from 80 to 50 percent.	Reps. Nadler, Lipinski, Dold	Approved but modified	Approved as modified
#131 - Local control	Bipartisan amendment to increase the total amount of flexible funds, send more money directly to local communities, and improve the process by which the state chooses projects to fund in smaller communities with fewer than 200,000 people. Read more about the Davis-Titus amendment in #3 of our "Ten Things" explainer.)	Introduced by Reps. Davis and Titus (and co-sponsored by Reps. Rouzer, Lipinski, Frankel, Edwards, Rokita, Bustos, Moore and Gwen	Rejected by Rules	n/a

Potentially damaging changes

Amendment number	Description	Offered by	Rules Committee approve? (Y/N)	Final floor outcome
#8 - No additional road landscaping	Repeals the ability for the Secretary of Transportation to approve the cost of landscaping and roadside development as eligible project costs for highway projects	Rep. Hartzler	Approved	Rejected, 172-255
#26 - No federal funding for streetcars	Prohibits Federal financial assistance for any project or activity to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise support a streetcar service.	Rep. Russell	Approved	Rejected by voice vote
#41 - Opting out of federal transportation program	Provides the authority for states that raise transportation revenue to opt out of the federal program entirely, provided OMB scores the provision as deficit neutral.	Rep. Garrett	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#63 - Debt to equity for transit agencies	Requires transit agencies to have a debt-to-equity ratio of 1:1 to be eligible to receive any federal capital or operating funds.	Rep. Culberson	Approved	Rejected, 116-313
#68 - Metros can flex funds away from TAP projects	Allows large metropolitan planning organizations that control Transportation Alternatives Program funds to shift 100 percent of those TAP funds away from the required competition process and toward non-biking and walking projects.	Rep. Carter (GA)	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#69 - Removes STP flexibility for TAP projects	Removes the eligibility for flexible Surface Transportation Program funds to be spent on Transportation Alternatives Program projects and repeals the small Recreational Trails program	Rep. Carter (GA)	Withdrawn	n/a
#158 - Ending recreational trails program	Repeals Recreational Trails program funding, though it was modified to strike eligibility only for non-motorized recreational trails, still allowing funding for motorized recreational trails (ATVs, motorcycles, etc.)	Rep. Yoho	Rejected by Rules	n/a
#180 - (Sense of Congress) to end federal program	(Nonbinding) Sense of Congress that we should transfer authority for most taxing and spending for highway programs and mass transit programs to states.	Rep. DeSantis	Approved	Rejected, 118-310

An amendment to improve the House transportation bill and support greater local control

The House transportation bill that’s beginning debate on the floor this afternoon is a major missed opportunity for giving cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access and control over federal transportation dollars. But there’s still a chance for the House to include an amendment to fix that, but it needs more support to move forward.

First up, we’re holding an open conference call tomorrow (Wednesday) to discuss the House transportation bill as they begin debate today. Join us on November 4th at 12 p.m. EST for a short call along with Smart Growth America to discuss what’s happening in the legislative process, what advocates need to know, and to answer your questions about this version of the bill. Negotiations are happening quickly and the House is likely to approve their bill by the end of the week.

Secondly, the House is beginning floor debate this afternoon on the first batch of amendments to the bill, which means that the window is rapidly closing to improve it. With time quickly running out, we need to tell Congress why it’s important to give local towns and cities of all sizes more control over federal transportation dollars to invest in their local priorities, whether it be a project to improve a road, increase the reach of transit, or make a street safer for biking and walking.

Wherever you live, send a message to your representative and ask them to cosponsor the Davis-Titus amendment to give towns and cities of all sizes more access to and control over federal transportation dollars to invest in the smartest local projects.

But if you live in one of these districts listed below, your representative is one of just 13 that will ultimately decide today if this amendment can even be considered on the House floor. The House Rules Committee approved 29 amendments last night to move to the floor today, and they will decide on the rest of the 200-plus proposed amendments today. Without their approval, amendments will not reach the floor for a debate and vote. If you live in any of the thirteen districts listed below, call your representative today and urge them to move the Davis-Titus amendment to the House floor for consideration with the short script below:

“I’m calling to support amendment number 131 to the House’s transportation bill from Representatives Davis and Titus.

It would return more funding and control over federal transportation dollars to local communities like mine. More funding for local communities paired with greater transparency for how those funds are spent is exactly what we need from Washington right now. Amendment #131 from Representative Davis and Titus is endorsed by countless local officials and Transportation for America, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Regional Councils, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the National Association of Development Organizations.

I thank you for your consideration and respectfully ask for Rep. [NAME] and the Rules Committee to advance this amendment today to the House floor for consideration. Thanks for your time.”

House Rules Committee Members
Michael Burgess TX-26 (202) 225-7772	Dan Newhouse WA-4 (202) 225-5816	Bradley Byrne AL-1 (202) 225-4931	Jared Polis CO-2 (202) 225-2161
Tom Cole OK-4 (202) 225-6165	Pete Sessions TX-32 (202) 225-2231	Doug Collins GA-9 (202) 225-9893	Louis Slaughter NY-25 (202) 225-3615
Virginia Foxx NC-5 (202) 225-2071	Steve Stivers OH-15 (202) 225-2015	Alcee Hastings FL-20 (202) 225-1313	Rob Woodall GA-7 (202) 225-4272
James McGovern MA-2 (202)-225-6101

This is our very last chance to get this smart proposal into upcoming negotiations between the House and Senate on a new multi-year transportation law, which will lock policy into place for at least three and as many as six years. We’ve got just a few hours until the House decides what amendments can be voted on, so send a message now.

And join us tomorrow at noon for a short call discussing what you need to know about the House bill.

Updated – Ten things to know about the House transportation bill

Updated 11/5/2015 5 p.m. EST. We wrote this post in preparation for consideration of this bill on the House floor. But after the House finished consideration of the bill on Thursday (11/5), we updated this post to reflect the changes made (or not made) over the last few days. Look for the updated notes in the blue boxes with each item below and read our full statement on the bill here. -Ed.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee debated and approved their multi-year transportation reauthorization proposal last week. Next step is consideration on the House floor and then, if approved, conferenced (merged through negotiations) with the Senate, which passed their multi-year DRIVE Act back in July. Here are ten things you need to know about what’s in (or not in) the House bill which is expected to be considered on the House floor early next week.

ten-things-house-bill-strr

1) The House will likely tap the same non-transportation revenue sources as the Senate did to pay the tab

Though the House has yet to officially pass a plan to pay for their bill (unlike the Senate), we expect them to closely emulate the Senate plan to cobble together about $45 billion from numerous future funding sources to fully cover the cost of the first three years of their bill. Though as many as 10 years would be needed to realize some of the new revenues to cover the next three years of spending, it would instantly transfer billions from the general fund to the transportation fund, increasing the deficit, a practice that Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) called “generational theft.” We’ve already tapped general taxpayer dollars to the tune of $73 billion over the last few years to keep the nation’s transportation trust fund solvent.

One factor possibly complicating this plan is that the House and Senate just reached a separate budget agreement (to keep the government operating) that also requires selling oil from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a mechanism that comprised the second largest stream of funding for the Senate’s bill. If that expected $9 billion in revenue for the DRIVE Act is no more, how will the House fill this gap?

For a detailed rundown of the Senate’s funding plan the House is expected to emulate, read our ten things post on the Drive Act.

Updated: The House did indeed use the Senate funding sources as their starting point, but there was a fairly stunning development late on Wednesday night when an amendment was proposed that taps billions from a Federal Reserve surplus account; an amount that could be sufficient to fund the bill for a full six years. It may be one way to allow other contentious payfors from the Senate to be removed — the dividend rate change for banks among them — but it could also nearly double the amount of money available. We’ll be watching this closely as more news develops.

2) Enshrines three more years of policy into law than we can pay for

The Senate bill — and we expect the House bill to follow suit as covered above — authorizes the surface transportation program for six full years but includes a funding plan that can only cover the first three years of the bill. The bill would use $46 billion in future offsets to cover its three-year length, leaving a future Congress to find another $50 billion or so to pay for the last three years. We’d be the first to say that we urgently need the certainty and stability that a multi-year bill provides to states and local communities as they plan transportation investments, but this is unprecedented and it’s incredibly shortsighted to lock our country’s transportation policy in stone for six years when we aren’t willing to pay for it. Especially when we’re enshrining transportation policy into law for the next six years, which simply doesn’t do enough to meet the needs of local communities of all sizes. Which leads us to…

Updated: Per the point above, it’s unclear just how much funding is going to be available. Enough funding for the first three years will be transferred, but the new funding sources tapped via amendment on Wednesday will provide far more funding and could be enough for the full six years of the House bill. Leadership will have decisions to make about what to do with the additional funding.

3) Misses a golden opportunity to provide more funding to local communities

The House bill is a major missed opportunity for giving cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access and control over federal transportation dollars. An amendment from Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV), with broad bipartisan support, would direct more flexible funding to towns and cities and increase transparency in how projects are selected, but it was not included by the committee. Representatives Davis and Titus will be offering this amendment on the floor and we are going to need your help to make sure it gets into the bill.

Just like the Senate, the House bill does slightly increase the share of the bill’s most flexible funds that go to local communities by five percent (up to 55 percent of just one of many core highway programs), but that improvement only happens incrementally over the six years of the bill. This means that the full increase comes in the later years of the bill that likely won’t be paid for anytime soon — see #2 above. The House bill does lower to $10 million the minimum cost of projects that can apply for low-cost TIFIA loans, making it easier for local communities to access this smart federal financing program, but far more must be done to ensure that towns and cities both big and small have the resources and control they need to stay to invest in the infrastructure they need to be economically competitive.

Updated: The Davis-Titus amendment was not allowed to be brought to the floor by the House Rules Committee, despite the significant bipartisan support — among the most for any amendment offered. This means that there was no airing of the argument on the House floor and no chance for even debating the merits of giving local communities more control or authority over transportation dollars. This was a major point of contention raised in our final statement on the bill.

4) Includes a freight program to help states and metro areas address goods movement issues, but needlessly limits innovative multimodal projects

Similar to the DRIVE Act, the House bill encourages crafting a multimodal freight plan but only about 10 percent of the new roughly $725 million per year discretionary freight grant program can be spent on multimodal projects. This means that the House is dictating from Washington exactly how states and metro areas should solve their freight challenges, robbing them of the flexibility to invest in whatever option can best keep freight moving.

This flies in the face of past statements from this same committee, which stated clearly in a report three years ago that our freight issues are multimodal and require multimodal solutions. “Moving goods and people effectively depends on all modes of transportation,” said Chairman Shuster in that report. “Because bottlenecks at any point in the transportation system can seriously impede freight mobility and drive up the cost of the goods,” Rep. John Duncan added, “improving the efficient and safe flow of freight across all modes of transportation directly impacts the health of the economy.” The committee’s recommendation was to “ensure robust public investment in all modes of transportation on which freight movement relies.” The committee should take its own advice.

Updated: This was unchanged.

5) Small changes to transit funding with sizable implications

While the bill largely preserves the historical share of funding overall intended for transit, it makes two changes that will have significant impacts on communities planning new or expanded transit service to meet the burgeoning demand for housing and jobs near public transportation.

First, while highway projects will continue to have 80 percent of their costs covered by federal highway funds, the committee lowered the share paid on transit capital projects to 50 percent. While many big transit projects already match more than half of the cost locally, especially in more prosperous metro areas, poorer and smaller communities will both be punished. Federal Small Starts transit capital funds often cover well over 50 percent of the cost for new bus lines or bus rapid transit service in smaller communities, which will be disproportionately impacted by this change.

Secondly, the House bill eliminates the flexibility for a state or metro area to use a portion of the flexible federal funds that they control outright as the local contribution or match for transit projects, taking away more of the flexibility and control from local communities that this committee professes to value. Representatives Lipinski and Nadler spoke up during committee and are working to fix these before the bill is finalized on the House floor.

One piece of good news is that the small grant program to help support smart development around transit to help boost ridership and the bottom line will continue to be funded at $10 million per year for 6 years.

Updated: An amendment from Rep. Nadler and several others to fix this was approved and incorporated into the bill, though it doesn’t quite return things to standard practice of today. Under the House bill as passed, states or metros will be able to shift their CMAQ funds to transit projects and use that as part of their local contribution to a project. This can raise the effective federal contribution to these projects over 50 percent, though the match rate will stay at the new lower 50 percent rate. We’ll have some more information on this soon.

6) A once sizable loan program (TIFIA) slashed by 80 percent; no support for transit-oriented development projects

The TIFIA low-cost financing program — where federal loans are paid back from local revenues often generated from the projects themselves — is cut significantly from $1 billion down to $200 million per year. Congress had just massively increased this program in the current MAP-21 law in order to stretch our limited federal dollars as far as possible and leverage other revenue sources. And with so much more loan money available after that 2012 increase, Congress directed USDOT to award dollars in a first-come, first-serve basis instead of by competition based on the merits of the projects. Now the House proposes to cut the program by 80 percent while still preventing USDOT from judging projects on need, performance or return on investment.

Secondly, Representative Edwards (D-MD) and Barbara Comstock (R-VA) were urged to withdraw their amendment to allow transit-oriented development projects to be eligible for receiving these low-cost TIFIA loans — a common sense proposal that would net more riders and revenue for the operating agencies and cost the federal government zero dollars.

Updated: This amendment was yet another rejected by the Rules Committee, which barred it from receiving a vote or debate on the House floor. This amendment had zero cost and allowed these projects only to apply for funding. TIFIA — one of the points of pride for the architects of MAP-21 — remains slashed by 80 percent (down to $200 million) in the final bill.

7) New performance measure on condition and access for disadvantaged urban areas

Thanks to the efforts of Representative Andre Carson (D-IN), the House bill does include a new performance measure intended to “assess the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities.” While we’d like for this section to include a more holistic measure for access — as in access to jobs or opportunity by any mode of travel as a better and broader indicator than relying on simply road condition — we’re happy to see the amendment’s inclusion. This signals that the House is open to conversations on adding new or improved performance measures to the bill. That’s a positive development.

Updated: No change made to this amendment. However, a similar amendment from Reps. Ellison, Grijalva, Waters and Huffman would have expanded on this idea and “established performance measures for accessibility for low-income and minority populations and people with disabilities; cumulative increase in residents’ connection to jobs; and the variety of transportation choices available to users, such as public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and roads and highways,” per our amendment tracker. This second amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee.

8) Better planning to alleviate income-draining commutes and connect more people to jobs

An amendment from Representatives Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Ryan Costello (R-PA) was included to expand transportation options for commuters — with a focus on low-income communities — by leveraging the resources of employers and the private sector. Larger metropolitan areas would be required to develop regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours and improve transportation connections between areas with lots of jobs and areas where low-income households are concentrated. They would be required to identify existing public transportation services and employer-based commuter programs that support better access to jobs and identify proposed projects and programs that could reduce congestion and help connect more people to jobs. This is modeled after the successful Commuter Trip Reduction program in Washington State, which we profiled indirectly in this case study on a vanpooling program there.

Updated: No changes made.

9) The TIGER competitive grant program for smart state and local projects? Where is it?

Following yesterday’s announcement of another successful round of TIGER competitive grant awards and the proud press releases flying out of representatives’ offices from both parties, one might ask why TIGER isn’t included in the House bill. With leaders in the House speaking regularly of the need to get a better return on investment for our limited dollars, leverage other funding sources, and encourage more local innovation, they’d be smart to formally authorize TIGER — a grant program which can help realize those goals. Neither the House or Senate bills do this, and the communities that rely on this program — one of the few ways they can directly receive funding for their projects — will have to wonder each year if Congress’ appropriators will keep the program going.

Updated: TIGER is still M.I.A. in the final House bill. The bill has no increased competitive funds for innovative multimodal projects, save for the slight amount of the new freight program available for multimodal freight projects. The House bill continues the status quo of awarding funds and largely stays away from any shift to awarding funds based on benefits, merits or possible return on investment.

10) Where did the TAP program go?

The Transportation Alternatives Program that states and local communities use to help make walking and biking safer and more convenient was folded into another program (the Surface Transportation Program) and capped at $819 million per year over the life of the bill. This program already makes up just two percent of the total highway budget, and it will be even less if this bill is approved as is. While the policy was not changed in any damaging way, capping these funds (in a bill where all other programs increase in funding with inflation over the life of the bill) more or less guarantees that TAP will be capped in any future House and Senate conference agreement.

Updated: TAP was unchanged, though there were several amendments rejected that would have further reduced its funding or allowed states and metros to flex its funding away to other programs. But in a bill where almost all other programs grew at least slightly, TAP’s size is capped over the life of the bill, which results in an actual decrease in funds due to inflation — “compound dis-interest.” With possibly six years of funding now procured by the House, we could be looking at no net increase in funds for biking and walking for six more years instead of just three.

House transportation bill is a missed opportunity

Washington DC — Following the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup of their Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (STRR) Act, Transportation for America director James Corless offered this statement:

“We thank Chairmen Shuster and Graves, and Ranking Members DeFazio and Holmes Norton for taking the lead in moving beyond the repeated short-term extensions of the nation’s transportation program. However, the House transportation bill falls far short of the transformational, reform-minded policy that our country needs at this time.

“First and foremost, the bill represents a major missed opportunity to give cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access and control over federal transportation dollars. We were disappointed to see a bipartisan amendment from Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV) fail to be included in the final bill approved by the committee; an amendment that would have directed more funding to towns and cities of all sizes and increased transparency in how projects are selected.

“There are other flawed and troubling provisions in the House bill that must be addressed. It enshrines in law that local transit capital projects receive no more than 50 percent of their funding from federal sources, creating a large inequity with highway capital projects. The bill diminishes the ability of states and metropolitan areas to use their most flexible funds for certain transit projects altogether. While the bill includes a multimodal freight program, funds for non-highway projects are capped at 10 percent. And Representative Edwards (D-MD) was urged to withdraw her amendment to allow transit-oriented development projects to be eligible for receiving low-cost loans from the federal TIFIA financing program — a common sense proposal that would net more riders and in return revenue for the operating agencies.

“Most alarming, when the check comes due for the six years of this law, the House still has no way to pay the tab. As much as 30 percent of the bill’s cost will have to be covered by general fund tax dollars, which have already been tapped to keep the trust fund solvent to the tune of $73 billion.

“The bill does preserve funding for the popular Transportation Alternatives Program and public transportation in general, includes employers and representatives of low-income job related services in the planning process, and includes an important complete streets provision that ensures a more comprehensive approach to road design and safety for everyone.

“While we’re thankful that the House has finally moved beyond short-term extensions and toward the multi-year funding certainty needed by states and cities to see their ambitious plans come to life, this bill needs to do much more. We look forward to working to improve it as the House advances their reauthorization proposal and Congress seeks consensus on a multi-year transportation authorization bill.”

Ten amendments worth watching closely during today’s House markup

The House is beginning markup of their transportation reauthorization proposal right now (10 a.m. EDT) and we have the lowdown on eleven amendments worth keeping your eyes on out of the more than 160 that were filed.

Update 10/22 3:30 p.m.: The markup concluded after 3 p.m. on Thursday. Details are in the table below.

Our list begins with this amendment from Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Dina Titus (D-NV), which would do three basic things:

Provide more flexible funds overall. The amendment increases the amount of funding in the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) overall, which are the most flexible transportation dollars that can be invested in almost any type of local project, whether a project to improve a road, increase the reach of transit, or make a street safer for biking and walking.
Send more money directly to local communities. The amendment increases the share of flexible STP funding that goes directly to local governments.
Help smaller communities too. It also ensures that the smaller regions with less than 200,000 people that don’t directly control STP funding have more certainty over how the funds reserved for their areas will be spent. This is accomplished by requiring the state to only fund the projects that local communities actively apply for. A new reporting process would make clear to the public which projects applied for funding and how the state prioritized and selected them.

Our full explainer on the amendment is here.

The time is short to get supportive votes for this amendment this morning, so send a message to your representative, especially if yours sits on the T&I Committee in the House. Even without a representative on the committee, you can still send a message to yours and urge them to call their colleagues this morning. We’re working hard to get enough votes for this bill and we need every bit of help possible.

SEND A MESSAGE

Amendment tracker

~~We’ll be tracking the outcomes on these amendments in realtime during the markup in the table below (refresh the page), and follow us on Twitter along the way.~~ @T4America The markup is over and the details are in the table below. Below the table is a short summary of each amendment.

Amendment	Offered by	Outcome?
Local control & transparency	Reps. Davis & TItus	Offered and withdrawn
Safe streets language	Reps. Curbelo and Titus	Included in approved manager's package; not modified.
Transit-oriented development in TIFIA	Rep. Donna Edwards	Withdrawn, opposed by Chairman Shuster
Job connections	Reps. Sires and Costello	Included in approved manager's package; the "shall" changed to "may".
Gas tax indexing	Rep. Barletta	Offered and withdrawn
Project selection transparency and performance	Reps. Bustos and Crawford	Not addressed during markup
Preserving transit and highway equity	Reps. Nadler and Lipinski	Offered and withdrawn. Assurances from Reps. Shuster and Defazio that they will address.
Eliminating public transportation	Rep. Sanford	Not addressed during markup
FUTURE Trip Act (Research)	Rep. Lipinski	Offered and withdrawn
Improving national freight program	Reps. Lipinski, Nadler, Brown & Sires	Offered and withdrawn
Local hire	Rep. Napolitano	Offered and withdrawn

The amendments

1) Transparency and local control – Reps. Davis and Titus

Covered above.

2) Safe Streets – Reps. Curbelo and Titus

The House bill already includes some language encouraging states and metropolitan planning organizations to plan and design for the safety needs of all users—regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation—in federally-funded projects. This amendment would improve that language by requiring the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide regular updates on states’ progress and best practices. The majority of pedestrian deaths occur on roads which are subject to federal oversight, but which are too often designed and operated only for speeding traffic—even in areas near homes or schools, and where people of all ages and abilities are out walking. The Safe Streets Amendment would help make sure these roads are planned and designed for the safety of all users.

3) Transit-oriented development in TIFIA – Rep. Donna Edwards

This amendment would expand the eligibility in the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program to include transit-oriented development (TOD) projects, and lower the minimum project cost down to $10 million to help include smaller projects in this innovative financing program. Demand for living near transit is projected to double over the next 20 years to over 15 million households and to meet this demand, significant new development near transit stations will be needed. This kind of amendment would make TOD projects easier by making them eligible for TIFIA financing.

4) Job connections (The Commute Less Act) – Reps. Sires and Costello

This amendment would expand transportation options for commuters (with a focus on low-income communities) by leveraging the resources of employers and the private sector. Larger metropolitan areas would be required to develop regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours and improve transportation connections between areas with lots of jobs and areas where low-income households are concentrated. They would be required to identify existing public transportation services and employer-based commuter programs that support better access to jobs and identify proposed projects and programs that could reduce congestion and help connect more people to jobs.

This is modeled after the successful Commuter Trip Reduction program in Washington State, which we profiled indirectly in this case study on a vanpooling program there. T4America endorsed this amendment, and we believe it’s included in the manager’s package of amendments, though it was modified on its inclusion.

5) Gas tax indexing — Rep. Barletta

This amendment would index the gas tax to inflation and establish a congressional task force on the Highway Trust Fund to report out bill language on increases to the gas tax or other funding changes that could be fast-tracked in the House — with mandatory votes required and no amendments possible.

6) Project selection transparency and performance – Reps. Bustos and Crawford

The Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act would both rebuild public trust by increasing transparency with how transportation projects are selected and ensure that limited funds are invested efficiently, by prioritizing projects that bring the most value to a state or region. Projects included and described in state or metropolitan transportation plans would be scored against other projects and selected against criteria that supports national and state goals. Most states currently have limited to no criteria, which make it challenging for the public to understand how their funds are being spent or how any additional revenue would improve their daily commute.

This is a start toward removing politics from the project selection process and ensuring that our limited resources are invested in projects that provide the highest return on investment. T4America endorsed this amendment.

7) Preserving transit and highway equity – Reps. Nadler and Lipinski

The House’s draft reauthorization included a dangerous provision that would lower the share that the federal government pays on new transit projects from 80 percent down to 50 percent. The federal match for highway projects would remain at 80 percent. While the federal government usually ends up only paying 50 percent of the costs for most transit projects because of the long line of projects applying for these limited transit funds in any given year, it’s important that we keep the playing field level and equitable between highway and transit projects. And with more general taxpayer funds being transferred to keep the trust fund afloat over the life of this bill, it’s even more important to keep the matches equitable. This amendment would eliminate that provision and preserve the 80 percent match.

8) Eliminating public transportation – Rep. Sanford

This amendment would cut the entire transit title (Title 49 chapter 53) from the bill, essentially eliminating all public transportation funding and policy from the House’s proposal. This amendment is a non-starter.

9) FUTURE Trip Act (Research) – Rep. Lipinski

This amendment would “support innovative technologies” and research into things like the deployment of technologies for connected and autonomous vehicles, among many other projects to improve research and data collection. Read the full summary of the amendment’s provisions here.

10) National Freight and Highway Projects – Reps. Lipinski, Nadler, Brown & Sires

There’s a freight program in the House bill, but it places arbitrary caps on how much money can be spent on any mode of freight transport, instead of letting states or metro areas decide themselves how to most efficiently invest their freight dollars to keep things moving. This amendment would remove the arbitrary cap on the amount of funding that can be spent on multimodal freight projects.

11) Local hire – Rep. Napolitano

Enables local hiring preferences to be considered during the procurement process on transit projects as long as one local jurisdiction within the entire region has per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average or an unemployment rate that is 1 percent greater than the national average.