Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Kirk, Robert S." in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 61) sorted by relevance sort by date

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief [Updated March 1, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The federal government has provided some form of highway funding to the states for more than 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.

2021-03-01
Repairing and Reconstructing Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges: The Role of Federal-Aid Highway Assistance [September 16, 2005]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"When Hurricane Katrina swept across the Gulf of Mexico coast and into Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, its winds, storm surge, and flooding did significant damage to the road and bridge infrastructure in the coastal areas of these states. Most of the major highways in the disaster area are part of the Federal-Aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance from the Department of Transportation (DOT) through the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Within the context of Hurricane Katrina, Congress faces a number of options in regard to the ER program."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.

2005-09-16
Repairing and Reconstructing Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges: The Role of Federal-Aid Highway Assistance [March 31, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Most of the major highways and bridges damaged during the 2005 Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes as well as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, MN, which collapsed suddenly on August 1, 2007, 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 or catastrophic failure (such as the I-35W bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoring the federal-aid highway facility to pre-disaster conditions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.

2008-03-31
Potential Impacts of a Federal Gasoline Tax Moratorium [March 9, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Even before the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major oil producer, the rise in the average nationwide price [hyperlink] at the pump for gasoline from its pandemic low [hyperlink] had led to interest in legislation that would suspend the 18.4 cents per-gallon federal gasoline tax through the end of 2022. Two identical bills introduced in the 117th Congress, S. 3609 and H.R. 6787, would suspend the gasoline tax through December 31, 2022, and transfer from the Treasury general fund amounts equal to any revenues forgone to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. Currently, 18.3 cents of the federal tax is dedicated to the HTF and 0.1 cent is dedicated to the LUST fund. The bills would encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that the benefit of the tax holiday is received by consumers. The bills would not suspend the tax on diesel fuel."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Cilluffo, Anthony A.; Kirk, Robert S.

2022-03-09
Transportation and Transportation Security Related Provisions of House and Senate Stimulus Legislation (H.R. 1) [February 17, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "This report discusses the major transportation and transportation security related provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1) as passed by the House on January 28, 2009, and the Senate on February 10, 2009. The report also discusses the major transportation provisions of the conference report on H.R. 1 (H.Rept. 111-16), which was passed by both the House and Senate on February 13, 2009, and signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.; Fischer, John W. (John Werner); Mallett, William

2009-02-17
Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [Updated July 15, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report, updated July 2008, discusses highway bridges. "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis 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. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expects to determine probable cause of the collapse by the end of 2008. An interim NTSB finding implicated a flaw in the original bridge design as a contributing factor. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 72,000, were classified as structurally deficient as of 2007. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. [...]. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or by catastrophic failures. The program provides funds for emergency repairs immediately after the failure to restore essential traffic, as well as for longer-term permanent repairs."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

2008-07-15
Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [August 10, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. Highway bridges are of particular interest both because of the recent tragedy in Minneapolis and the catastrophic results of a major bridge failure, in terms of loss of life and economic impact. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 74,000, are classified as structurally deficient. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. A policy question is how fast can and should the remaining deficient bridges be replaced or improved. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or that were subject to catastrophic failures."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

2007-08-10
Surface Transportation Funding and Finance [September 2, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through federal fuel taxes on gasoline, diesel, and other fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the basic fuel taxes have not been increased at the federal level since 1993. Prior to the recession that began in 2007, annual increases in driving, with a concomitant increase in fuel use, were sufficient to keep revenues rising steadily on an annual basis. This is no longer the case. Further, future changes in the nation's vehicle fleet as a result of federal fuel economy standards, including increased use of electric hybrid and fully electric vehicles, are expected to suppress future fuel use even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume. Congress has yet to address the surface transportation program's revenue issues, except by increasing transport spending from the U.S. Treasury general fund. Many Members of Congress have expressed an aversion to raising fuel taxes, and alternative methods of financing surface transportation have not received serious legislative consideration. […] With efforts to reauthorize the existing, but already expired, surface transportation program at a standstill, the programs authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59) continue to operate as a result of extension legislation and cash infusions to the trust fund from the U.S. Treasury general fund. This report focuses on possible revenue sources for surface transportation infrastructure. It begins with a brief discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system and then explores possible immediate and longer-term solutions to the financing problem."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

2011-09-02
Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [Updated January 31, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis 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. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expects to determine probable cause of the collapse by the end of 2008. An interim NTSB finding implicated a flaw in the original bridge design as a contributing factor. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 72,000, were classified as structurally deficient as of 2007. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. […]. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or by catastrophic failures. The program provides funds for emergency repairs immediately after the failure to restore essential traffic, as well as for longer-term permanent repairs."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

2008-01-31
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
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
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
Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141) [September 27, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has, due to a sluggish economy and improvements in fuel efficiency, received revenue substantially below projections. For the past several years, HTF revenue has been insufficient to finance the government's surface transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP- 21 did provide for the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Frittelli, John; Kirk, Robert S.; Luther, Linda G. . . .

2012-09-27

1 2 3