Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Surface Transportation Reauthorization and the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act (S. 2302) [September 3, 2019]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Surface transportation programs are currently authorized through FY2020 by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94). In a step toward FAST Act reauthorization, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on August 1, 2019, reported the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (ATIA; S. 2302). The bill includes the highway elements of surface transportation reauthorization under EPW's jurisdiction. In the Senate, other elements of reauthorization, such as public transportation, highway safety agencies, rail, and tax revenues, are under the jurisdiction of other committees."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2019-09-03
• Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [March 17, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In the 112th Congress, which convened in January 2011, the House and Senate began observing an earmark ban. Earmarks--formally known as congressionally directed spending--directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place. Currently, about 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. Most rail funding goes to Amtrak to operate national intercity passenger service. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. Most of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and DOT."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William; Peterman, David Randall

  2016-03-17
• Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [December 3, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, convened in January 2011, the House and Senate have observed a ban on earmarks, formally known as congressionally directed spending. The ban has led to changes in the way transportation funding decisions are made. This report explains what earmarks are and discusses their use in surface transportation finance. It then discusses how federal transportation funding is distributed with a ban in place and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William J.; Peterman, David Randall

  2018-12-03
• Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [January 4, 2017]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In the 112th Congress, which convened in January 2011, the House and Senate began observing an earmark ban. Earmarks--formally known as congressionally directed spending--directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place. Currently, about 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. [...] Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. Most of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. [...] In practice, however, much of this funding was earmarked by Congress prior to 2011. Banning earmarks has not eliminated the opportunity for Members to influence the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. [...]"

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William; Peterman, David Randall

  2017-01-04
• Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the September 11 Attack [Updated December 14, 2001]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "The September 11, 2001 hijacking of four airliners, and the enormous loss of life from the use of these airplanes as weapons, has focused congressional concerns on aviation security. During the debate in Congress the overarching issue was the degree of federal involvement needed both to make commercial air travel safer and to restore the public's confidence in the security of our Nation's airway and airports. On October 11, 2001, the Senate passed, after multiple amendments, the Aviation Security Act of 2001, S. 1447 (introduced by Senator Hollings). The bill provided for the federalization of most aspects of airport security. The responsibility for much of the law enforcement aspect of airport security would have been shifted from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Front-line screening of passengers and baggage would be carried out by federal agents under the authority of the Attorney General. DOT would have continued to administer the Federal Air Marshals (FAM) program but under DOJ guidelines."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2001-12-14
• Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems [August 29, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Disaster-damaged roads and public transportation systems are eligible for federal assistance under two U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) programs, the Emergency Relief (ER) Program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Public Transportation ER Program administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The two programs have different histories and legal and regulatory authorities, but they share a similar intent and face some of the same issues. For example, there are concerns with both programs about the extent to which federally funded activities should go beyond restoring infrastructure to predisaster conditions, including so-called resilience projects. This report begins by discussing FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways and bridges damaged by disasters (such as the 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria) or catastrophic failures (such as the collapse of the Skagit River Bridge in Washington State in 2013). This includes information on the use of ER funds on disaster-damaged federally owned public-use roadways, such as National Park Service roads and U.S. Forest Service roads, under an affiliated program, the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program. This is followed by a discussion of FTA's assistance program, established in 2012, which has provided assistance to public transportation systems on two occasions, once after Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again after the 2017 hurricanes."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William J.

  2018-08-29
• Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress [January 17, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Of the 614,000 public road bridges in the United States, about 56,000 (9%) were classified as structurally deficient in 2016. These figures--along with events such as the July 20, 2015, washout of the Interstate 10 Bridge near Desert Center, CA, and the partial closure of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which connects Washington, DC, to Northern Virginia--have led to claims that the United States is experiencing a crisis with respect to deficient bridges. Federal data do not substantiate this assertion. The number of bridges classified as structurally deficient has fallen consistently since at least 2000, and the proportion of all highway bridges classified as structurally deficient is the lowest in decades."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2018-01-17
• Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [Updated May 5, 2020]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "Since the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the House and Senate have observed a moratorium on earmarks, formally known as congressionally directed spending. The moratorium has led to changes in the way transportation funding decisions are made. This report explains what earmarks are and discusses their use in surface transportation finance. It then discusses how federal transportation funding is distributed with a ban in place and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2020-05-05
• Sequestration at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Air Traffic Controller Furloughs and Congressional Response [May 7, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. [Public Law] 112-25) provided for automatic reductions to most federal discretionary spending if no agreement on deficit reduction was reached by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Such reductions, referred to as sequestration, went into effect on March 1, 2013, which was the extended deadline for a deficit reduction agreement established under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240). In general, sequestration requires agencies to reduce spending for certain suballocations of funds--programs, projects, and activities--within nondefense discretionary accounts by 5.3% in FY2013. To implement the sequester-related reductions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began to furlough personnel, including air traffic controllers, on April 21, 2013. In the wake of concerns about the adverse effects of furloughs on air travel, the Senate passed S. 853, the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 (RFDA), on April 25, 2013, by unanimous consent. The bill provided new authority to the Secretary of Transportation to transfer up to $253 million to FAA's 'operations' account from other FAA accounts, including discretionary grants-in-aid for airports. The next day, the House agreed to H.R. [House Resolution] 1765 under suspension of the rules. Under agreement, H.R. 1765, being identical in content to S. 853, was presented to the President on April 30, 2013, and was enacted on May 1, 2013, becoming P.L. 113-9. FAA halted furlough actions even before the bill was signed by President Obama. This report provides a brief overview of FAA's implementation of the sequester in April 2013, as it relates to air traffic control operations and staff furloughs. It then considers the congressional response, including the potential impact of the funds transfers authorized under P.L. 113-9 on FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Elias, Bartholomew; Brass, Clinton T.; Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-05-07
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [May 7, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $15 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Luther, Linda G.; Canis, Bill; Frittelli, John . . .

  2014-05-07
• Tolling U.S. Highways [May 30, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The failure of federal highway user taxes and fees to provide sufficient revenues to support even baseline surface transportation spending levels has encouraged Congress to consider expanded toll financing. Congress has cautiously encouraged increased use of tolling in recent transportation legislation, including the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). Recent projections of a $15 billion annual gap between revenue anticipated from taxes dedicated to surface transportation and the cost of maintaining the current federal surface transportation program have stimulated interest in changing tolling policy in conjunction with reauthorizing or replacing MAP-21. Congress could achieve an expansion of tolling in several ways. At one extreme, it could simply encourage additional tolling pilot projects and a further expansion of tolling-supported innovative finance, such as more loans for road and bridge construction through the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which would be repaid through user tolls. At the other extreme, Congress might authorize states to toll federal-aid highways as they see fit, or even require that Interstate Highway segments be converted to toll roads as they undergo reconstruction in the future, eventually turning all Interstates into toll roads."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-05-30
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [September 3, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the report summary: "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. [...] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-09-03
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [January 28, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. […] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-01-28
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [March 10, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $16 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William; Peterman, David Randall . . .

  2014-03-10
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [September 23, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report begins with a discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system (which supports both federal highway and public transportation programs) and then explores possible options for financing surface transportation infrastructure. Among the key points: [1] Raising motor fuel taxes could provide the highway trust fund with sufficient revenue to fully fund the program in the near term, but it may not be a viable long-term solution due to expected future declines in fuel consumption. [2] Replacing current motor fuel taxes with a fuel sales tax or a fee based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) raise a variety of financial and administrative concerns. [3] The political difficulty of adequately financing the highway trust fund could lead Congress to consider the desirability of changes to maintain the trust fund system or eliminating it altogether. Such changes might involve a reallocation of responsibilities and obligations among federal, state, and local governments. [4] Interest in improving transportation infrastructure with private and non-grant funding sources, such as tolls, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and federal loan programs is increasing, but many projects may not be well suited to alternative financing."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-09-23
• DRIVE Act Would Increase Highway Funding Faster than Projected Inflation [July 13, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On June 22, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) ordered reported favorably the highway title of a six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. The EPW bill, called the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (DRIVE Act; S. 1647), provides for spending on highways to rise faster than the projected rate of inflation. Three other Senate committees, the Committee on Banking, the Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Finance, would need to add their pieces if the Senate is to approve a bill to supplant the existing authorization act, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). That 2012 legislation, which provided for a major consolidation of highway programs, has been extended twice, most recently through July 31, 2015."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-07-13
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged-Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [October 2, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge in Washington State), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. […] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program. There have been no further appropriations since 2013."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-10-02
• House Transportation Bill Would Hold Spending Below Senate Bill [October 29, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On October 22, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) approved and ordered reported the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (STRRA; H.R. 3763). The T&I bill provides only those spending increases the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined are needed to cover projected inflation in the cost of the existing surface transportation program. Unlike the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (DRIVE Act; H.R. 22), adopted by the Senate on July 30, 2015, STRRA does not increase spending beyond this CBO 'baseline.' The two bills have important similarities, which might simplify negotiations should the House pass STRRA and should both chambers agree to a conference committee to reconcile their differences: [1] Both bills would provide for six-year authorizations (FY2016-FY2021). Both bills would provide only three years of full funding for the Highway Trust Fund, requiring Congress to come up with new revenues or spending offsets starting in FY2019. [2] Both bills would create new discretionary programs administered by the Department of Transportation. STRRA's Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program (NSFHP) would be funded at a higher level, averaging $740 million annually, whereas the DRIVE Act's Assistance for Major Projects program would average $525 million. [3] Both bills provide for a discretionary competitive grant program for buses and bus facilities. Both bills would make major reductions in the amounts available to support leveraged funding under the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which provides loans and loan guarantees for large transportation infrastructure projects. […] [4] With the exception of changes to the Surface Transportation Program (STP), much of the formula program structure for highways would remain similar to existing law, although some eligibility requirements have been modified."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-10-29
• Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress [April 13, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Of the 612,000 public road bridges in the United States, about 59,000 (10%) were classified as structurally deficient in 2015, and another 84,000 (14%) were classified as functionally obsolete. These figures--along with events such as the July 20, 2015, washout of the Interstate-10 Bridge near Desert Center, CA, and the partial closure of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which connects Washington, DC, to Northern Virginia--have led to claims that the United States is experiencing a crisis with respect to deficient bridges. Federal data do not substantiate this assertion. The numbers of bridges classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete have fallen consistently since at least 2000, and the proportion of all highway bridges falling into one or the other category is the lowest in decades. The vast majority of structurally deficient bridges, roughly four out of five, are in rural areas. These bridges tend to be small and relatively lightly traveled. Structurally deficient bridges in urban areas, while far fewer, are generally much larger and, therefore, more expensive to fix: 55% of the deck area of structurally deficient bridges is on urban bridges. Bridges on roads carrying heavy traffic loads, particularly Interstate Highway bridges, are generally in better condition than those on more lightly traveled routes."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2016-04-13
• Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [June 27, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012 or the West Virginia flooding of 2016), or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge in Washington State) ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. The program is funded by a permanent annual authorization of $100 million from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) along with general fund appropriations provided by Congress on a 'such sums as necessary' basis. […] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program. There have been no further appropriations since 2013."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2016-06-27
• Tolling U.S. Highways [August 26, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "Since FY2008 [Fiscal Year], federal highway user taxes and fees have been inadequate to fund the surface transportation program authorized by Congress. Although the 2015 surface transportation act addressed the revenue shortfall through FY2020 by authorizing the use of general funds for transportation purposes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that after FY2020 the gap between dedicated surface transportation revenues and spending will average $20 billion annually. The search for revenue to fill this gap may revive congressional interest in tolling as a means of financing transportation projects without federal expenditures. Although states are free to impose tolls on roads, bridges, and tunnels that have been built and maintained without federal assistance, federal law limits the imposition of tolls on existing federal-aid highways, especially on the Interstate Highways. This report explains current federal policies governing tolling and discusses issues related to increasing the use of tolls as a source of revenue for surface transportation projects."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2016-08-26
• Mileage-Based Road User Charges [June 22, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "A mileage-based road user charge would involve assessing owners of individual vehicles on a per-mile basis for the distance the vehicle is driven. Currently, federal highway and public transportation programs are funded mainly by motor fuel tax receipts that flow into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The tax rates, set on a per-gallon basis, have not been raised since 1993, and receipts have been insufficient to support the transportation programs authorized by Congress since FY2008. The long-term viability of motor fuels taxes is also questionable because of increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and the wider use of electric vehicles. Economists have favored the use of mileage-based user charges as an alternative to motor fuels taxes to support highway funding. […] Under this user charge concept, motorists would pay based on distance driven and, perhaps, other costs of road use, such as wear and tear on roads, traffic congestion, and air pollution. Mileage-based road user charges could range from a flat cent per mile charge based on a simple odometer reading to a variable charge based on a global positioning system (GPS). […] Experiments with road user charges have been conducted in the United States. Although useful, most of these have been small-scale experiments done at the state or local level. Other countries have implemented full-scale road user charge systems that offer more information on the potential costs and benefits. These include road user charges on trucks in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, as well as charges on both trucks and automobiles in New Zealand."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Levinson, Marc

  2016-06-22
• Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief [January 14, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The federal government has provided some form of highway funding to the states for roughly 100 years. The major characteristics of the federal highway program have been constant since the early 1920s. First, most funds are apportioned to the states by formula and implementation is left primarily to state departments of transportation (state DOTs). Second, the states are required to provide matching funds. Until the 1950s, each federal dollar had to be matched by an identical amount of state and local money. The federal share is now 80% for non-Interstate System road projects and 90% for Interstate System projects. Third, generally, federal money can be spent only on designated federal-aid highways, which make up roughly a quarter of U.S. public roads."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2016-01-14
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [November 1, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Almost every conversation about surface transportation finance begins with a two-part question: What are the 'needs' of the national transportation system, and how does the nation pay for them? This report is aimed almost entirely at discussing the 'how to pay for them' question. Since 1956, federal surface transportation programs have been funded largely by taxes on motor fuels that flow into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). A steady increase in the revenues flowing into the HTF due to increased motor vehicle use and occasional increases in fuel tax rates accommodated growth in surface transportation spending over several decades. In 2001, though, trust fund revenues stopped growing faster than spending. In 2008 Congress began providing Treasury general fund transfers to keep the HTF solvent. Every year since 2008, there has been a gap between the dedicated tax revenues flowing into the HTF and the cost of the surface transportation spending Congress has authorized. Congress has filled these shortfalls with a series of further transfers, largely from the Treasury's general fund. These transfers have shifted a total of $143.6 billion to the HTF. The last $70 billion of these transfers were authorized in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), which was signed by President Barack Obama on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act funds federal surface transportation programs from FY2016 through FY2021. When the act expires the de facto policy of relying on general fund transfers to sustain the HTF will be 12 years old. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections indicate that the imbalance between motor fuel tax receipts and HTF expenditures will reemerge and the HTF balance will approach zero in FY2021. In consequence, funding and financing surface transportation is expected to continue to be a major issue for Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2016-11-01
• Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress [December 19, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The sudden catastrophic failure of the I-5 Interstate System bridge in Washington State on May 23, 2013, has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role in funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. Of the 607,000 public road bridges, about 67,000 (11%) were classified as structurally deficient in 2012, and another 85,000 (14%) were classified as functionally obsolete. This is less than half the number classified as structurally deficient in 1990 and 16% less than were classified as functionally obsolete. Structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges are not necessarily unsafe. Nonetheless, public concern about bridge safety in the wake of the I-5 bridge collapse raises the policy question of how quickly these bridges should be replaced or improved. At current annual spending levels, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by 11% by 2028. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period is estimated to require an annual spending rate roughly 60% higher than recent levels. The most recent highway bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), eliminated the former Highway Bridge Program, which distributed federal money specifically for bridge improvements. States may use funds received under two major FHWA programs, the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation Program, for bridge repairs or construction, but the decision about how much of its funding to devote to bridges rather than roadway needs is up to each state. FHWA enforces certain planning requirements and performance standards established in MAP-21, but it does not make the determination as to which bridges should benefit from federal funding."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2013-12-19
• Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief [December 16, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The federal government has provided some form of highway funding to the states for roughly 100 years. The major characteristics of the federal highway program have been constant since the early 1920s. First, most funds are apportioned to the states by formula and implementation is left primarily to state departments of transportation (state DOTs). Second, the states are required to provide matching funds. Until the 1950s, each federal dollar had to be matched by an identical amount of state and local money. The federal share is now 80% for non-Interstate System road projects and 90% for Interstate System projects. Third, generally, federal money can be spent only on designated federal-aid highways, which make up roughly a quarter of U.S. public roads."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-12-16
• Repairing and Reconstructing Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges: The Role of Federal-Aid Highway Assistance [February 22, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report describes FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] assistance for the repair and reconstruction of disaster-damaged highways and bridges or catastrophic failures (such as a bridge collapse). It begins with a brief discussion of the legislative origins of federal assistance and describes the ER program in its current form. The report then discusses eligibility issues and program operation. The report briefly describes the major findings of a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on ER."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2010-02-22
• Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges [November 5, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The major highways and bridges recently damaged during Hurricanes Sandy and Irene are part of the federal-aid highway system and were therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster or catastrophic failure (such as a bridge collapse), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. [...] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. No money has been appropriated to or expended under this program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2012-11-05
• House Committees Release Guidance for Transportation Earmarks [April 8, 2021]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The House Committee on Appropriations and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have separately announced that individual Members may request funding for specific transportation projects. This ends an effective ban on earmarks [hyperlink] that has been in force in the House since 2011. This Insight summarizes the new rules applicable to Member-designated transportation projects and points out certain matters that appear to remain unclear. A congressional designation, the formal term for an earmark [hyperlink], is a provision in a law or report language that has four basic attributes. It [1] is included at the request of a Member, Delegate, Commissioner, or Senator; [2] recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other budget authority; [3] is for an identifiable entity or targeted to a state, locality, or congressional district; and [4] is not awarded through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2021-04-08
• Reauthorizing Highway and Transit Funding Programs [Updated March 1, 2021]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Surface transportation reauthorization acts fund federal highway and public transportation programs, along with transportation research, intercity passenger rail, and other programs. The five-year Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94) authorized federal spending on highways and public transportation for FY2016-FY2020. A one-year FAST Act extension, through September 30, 2021, was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, and other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). Infrastructure legislation could be considered in conjunction with FAST Act reauthorization."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William J.

  2021-03-01