Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Mallett, William" in: author
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).
-
Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program [January 23, 2020]
From the Document: "The federal public transportation program is currently authorized through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). This report highlights several major issues that may arise as Congress considers program reauthorization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2020-01-23
-
Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing [Updated July 2, 2019]
From the Introduction: "Congress over the years has passed several domestic content laws that aim to protect American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. In 1978, Congress began placing domestic content restrictions on federally funded transportation projects that are carried out by nonfederal government agencies such as state and local governments. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the Buy America Act, or more simply, Buy America; they differ from requirements under the Buy American Act of 1933, which governs purchases made directly by the federal government. Although there has been ongoing congressional interest in domestic preference policy over the years, statements and actions by the Trump Administration concerning the need to bolster domestic manufacturing and investment in infrastructure have reinvigorated the issue. Today, Buy America refers to several similar statutes and regulations that apply to federal funds used to support projects in highways, public transportation,aviation, and intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak. Unless a nationwide or project-specific waiver is granted, Buy America requires the use of U.S.-made iron and steel and the domestic production and assembly of other manufactured goods, such as rolling stock used in public transportation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.; Mallett, William J.
2019-07-02
-
Climate Change and the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019 (S. 2302) [September 3, 2019]
From the Document: "Highway, public transportation, and rail programs are authorized through FY2020 by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). In August 2019, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a bill that would reauthorize the highway elements of surface transportation programs from FY2021 through FY2025. The bill, S. 2302, the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019, would be the first surface transportation authorization act to include major provisions that address climate change."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William
2019-09-03
-
Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [March 17, 2016]
"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]
"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]
"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
-
Public Transit Ridership Continues to Decline [October 16, 2019]
From the Document: "Despite suggestions that ridership on the nation's public transportation systems is beginning to grow again, available evidence suggests this optimism is premature. According to data from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), 2018 marked the fourth straight year of declining ridership, falling by about 2.5% from the year before. [...] Two major federal transit policies related to these issues are the general funding of public transportation, distributed mainly by formula, and the discretionary funding of new large capital projects such as rail and bus rapid transit systems through the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program, also known as New Starts. [...] Congress may consider options to address public transit ridership trends as it weighs reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs. The current authorization expires at the end of FY2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2019-10-16
-
Reauthorization of the Federal Public Transportation Program [Updated May 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation program administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program was authorized from FY2016 through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114- 94). A one-year extension of the FAST Act was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). This report discusses the major issues that may arise as Congress considers reauthorization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2021-05-03
-
Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief [Updated April 30, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation program administered by the Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program was authorized from FY2016 through FY2020 as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. [Public Law] 114-94). A one-year extension of the FAST Act was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159). This report provides an introduction to the program as authorized by the FAST Act as extended through FY2021. Major federal involvement in public transportation dates to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365). Prior to the mid-1960s there was very little public funding of public transportation. With much lower ridership than existed at the end of World War II and mounting debts, however, many private transit companies were reorganized as public entities. Federal funding was initially used to recapitalize transit systems. Today, the focus of the federal program is still on the capital side, but the program has evolved to support operational expenses in some circumstances, as well as safety oversight, planning, and research."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William
2021-04-30
-
Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems [August 29, 2018]
"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
-
Buy America and the Electric Bus Market [August 6, 2018]
"Buy America requirements are an integral aspect of federal transportation funding. In a series of statutes, Congress has required that federally funded highway, public transportation, aviation, and intercity passenger rail projects use U.S.-made manufactured goods. But determining whether a product is made in the United States is not always simple. A current controversy over how Buy America applies to battery-powered buses illustrates the challenges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Canis, Bill; Mallett, William J.
2018-08-06
-
Public Private Partnerships (P3s) in Transportation [November 02, 2017]
"Public private partnerships (P3s) in transportation are contractual relationships typically between a state or local government, who are the owners of most transportation infrastructure, and a private company. P3s provide a mechanism for greater private-sector participation in all phases of the development, operation, and financing of transportation projects. Although there are many different forms P3s can take, this report focuses on the two types of agreements that generate the most interest and discussion: (1) design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM); and (2) longterm lease. [...] Two broad policy options for expanding use of P3s would be to actively encourage P3s with program incentives, but with regulatory controls to protect the public interest, or to aggressively encourage the use of P3s through program incentives and deregulation. This report discusses several possible issues and policy options that Congress may want to consider. These include P3 project evaluation and transparency, asset recycling, incentive grants, a national infrastructure bank, equity investment tax credits, and deregulation of Interstate highway tolling. The report also discusses changes to the existing TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) and PABs (private activity bonds) programs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William
2017-11-02
-
Highway Bridge Conditions: Issues for Congress [January 17, 2018]
"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
-
Infrastructure Investment and the Federal Government [November 19, 2018]
"The condition and performance of infrastructure are generally thought to be important for the nation's health, welfare, and economy. More contentious are the optimal level of infrastructure investment, the effectiveness of this investment, and the appropriate role of the federal government. The current federal role in infrastructure investment is important but limited in size and scope. There is no agreed meaning of 'infrastructure.' The term generally refers to long-lived, capital-intensive systems and facilities. Some definitions are limited to systems and facilities that have traditionally been provided largely by the public sector directly, such as highways and drinking water systems. Others add predominantly private facilities, such as electricity production and distribution, reflecting both their importance to the economy and the different public-private arrangements through which services can be provided. Some definitions include a narrow range of 'core' systems, typically transportation, energy, water, and telecommunications, whereas others include facilities for such purposes as education, recreation, and health."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2018-11-19
-
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program [Updated February 15, 2019]
"The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, administered by the Department of Transportation's Build America Bureau, provides long-term, low-interest loans and other types of credit assistance for the construction of surface transportation projects (23 U.S.C. §601 et seq.). The TIFIA program was reauthorized from FY2016 through FY2020 in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). Direct funding for the TIFIA program is authorized at $300 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020. Additionally, state departments of transportation can use other federal-aid highway grant money, both formula and discretionary, to subsidize much larger loans. To date, states have not had to use other grant funding to subsidize credit assistance because the TIFIA program has a relatively large unexpended funding balance."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2019-02-15
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 3, 2013]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, longterm revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed. 1) Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), 2) Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress and H.R. 6249 in the 112th Congress), 3) Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), 4) Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 2084 and H.R. 505 in the 113th Congress), 5) Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and 6) Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and H.R. 535 and H.R. 789 in the 113th Congress). A number of these issues and options were examined in hearings by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia
2013-06-03
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [August 9, 2012]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven
2012-08-09
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 3, 2012]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven
2012-04-03
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [March 17, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. […] Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, S. 1716, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2014-03-17
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [May 16, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia
2014-05-16
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 14, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, H.R. 2881, S. 1716, S. 1957, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift restrictions on private activity bonds for water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, H.R. 3939, and S. 2203 in the 113th Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2014-04-14
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [February 18, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-02-18
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 1, 2016]
From the summary: "This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-06-01
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 27, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-04-27
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 8, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-04-08
-
Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban [Updated May 5, 2020]
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
-
Transportation Infrastructure Investment as Economic Stimulus: Lessons from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [May 5, 2020]
From the Introduction: "Congress is considering federal funding for infrastructure to revive an economy damaged by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is not the first occasion on which Congress has considered funding infrastructure for purposes of economic stimulus. This report discusses the economic impact of the transportation infrastructure funding that was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William
2020-05-05
-
Condition of Highway Bridges Continues to Improve [May 19, 2020]
From the Document: "A construction-industry group recently estimated that more than one-third of all U.S. highway bridges need major repairs or replacement, construction work that could cost federal, state, and local governments about $164 billion. When compared to total bridge capital spending of about $17 billion per year, of which roughly $7 billion is federal support, some might consider this bridge investment 'backlog' to be a significant budgetary challenge. Others say the situation is probably not as dire as this analysis suggests. The data used in that estimate, published every year by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), continue to show that the number and share of bridges in poor condition have dropped significantly over the past 20 years. Furthermore, repairing every deficient bridge in just a few years is unrealistic, and not every bridge repair is likely to be justified when considering both the economic benefits and costs. FHWA's own analysis of bridge data suggests a relatively modest increase in spending could substantially reduce or eliminate the backlog of economically justifiable investments if sustained over a 20-year period."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2020-05-19
-
Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy [March 26, 2018]
"Many public transportation agencies across the United States are losing riders. While ridership nationally has risen about 3% over the past decade, that increase is due largely to strong gains in the New York area, which accounts for about 40% of all U.S. transit riders. Patronage has fallen in many of the other top 50 transit markets. This downward trend, despite significant investments in light rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit lines in many communities, has led to warnings that transit service in the United States is in crisis1 Some of the factors contributing to the ridership decline, such as low gasoline prices and service problems at particular transit systems, may be transitory, but others, such as the growing popularity of telework and the rise of ridesourcing companies such as Uber and Lyft, may be longer lasting. Technological changes on the horizon, such as autonomous highway vehicles, might revolutionize transportation mobility, but whether this will increase or decrease transit ridership is by no means clear. The federal government supports public transportation by distributing general funding for capital and operating expenses, mainly by formula, and by providing grants for major capital projects on a discretionary basis. This report discusses the implications of recent trends in transit ridership for future federal policy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William J.
2018-03-26
-
Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing: Policy Options [June 14, 2017]
From the Introduction: "To evaluate the implications of Buy America on domestic manufacturing, this report analyzes the effects of Buy America on steel and rolling stock manufacturing in the context of industry trends. It also briefly discusses the effects of Buy America on the transportation system. The report begins by explaining Buy America restrictions in more detail; how Buy America comports with international trade agreements that generally forbid procurement restrictions favoring domestic products; and how a relatively new provision enacted by Congress may require imports of materials on federally funded transportation projects to be carried on U.S.-flag ships. The report identifies policy options Congress might consider in light of recent legislative proposals."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Platzer, Michaela D.; Mallett, William
2017-06-14
