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).

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Public Transit Ridership Continues to Decline [October 16, 2019]

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

  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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Earthquake Risk and U.S. Highway Infrastructure: Frequently Asked Questions [June 5, 2013]

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

  "The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan, on March 11, 2011, renewed concerns about the seismic risk to America's infrastructure, including its highways. Concerns about the U.S. highway system's seismic risk stem from interest in protecting public safety, facilitating response and recovery efforts, and minimizing economic loss and social disruption. Seismic resilience of the U.S. highway system has improved in recent decades as investments have been made to build new, more resilient infrastructure and to retrofit existing structures. However, not all existing highway infrastructure has been retrofitted, and no infrastructure can be constructed in a cost-effective manner to be immune from the most intense earthquakes, so some seismic risk to the U.S. highway system remains. Although earthquake hazards in the United States generally are well documented, little national or federal data exist about the seismic risk to U.S. highway infrastructure. Instead, seismic highway risks typically are assessed and addressed by state and local entities which are generally responsible for building and maintaining that infrastructure. The federal government supports these nonfederal efforts by providing data on the seismic hazard for different locations, assisting in the development of construction standards and guidelines, and undertaking research, training, and the development of tools to assist in risk reduction. In limited circumstances, the federal government invests directly in improving resiliency of specific highway structures. This report addresses frequently asked questions about the risk from earthquakes to highway systems, including bridges, tunnels, pavements, and other highway components. Particular attention is given to highway bridges, which often are the most vulnerable highway structures. The report also discusses federal and nonfederal actions to reduce seismic risk to the U.S. highway system. Japan is generally regarded as the country with the most earthquake-resilient infrastructure. Research into the performance of Japan's highway structures and systems during and after the massive Sendai earthquake and resulting tsunami is ongoing. Japanese and U.S. earthquake science and engineering researchers have well-established collaborations aimed at gathering empirical data and drawing lessons from significant events. It is too soon to know how the events in Japan will affect understanding of the seismic risk of U.S. highway infrastructure, and whether changes in U.S. seismic highway design standards and guidance will result."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Carter, Nicole T.; Mallett, William

  2013-06-05
• Federal Support for Streetcars: Frequently Asked Questions [April 3, 2014]

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

  "Streetcars, a type of rail public transportation, are experiencing a revival in the United States. Also known as trolleys, streetcars were widespread in the early decades of the 20th century, but almost extinct by the 1960s. Several new streetcar systems have been built over the past 20 years, and many more are being planned. In early 2014, there were 12 operating streetcar systems, 7 new systems under construction, and approximately 21 new systems in the planning stages. Many streetcars systems, though not all, have been built or are being built with the support of federal funds. This report answers some frequently asked questions about streetcars and federal involvement in their construction and operation. It concludes by laying out policy options for Congress in dealing with streetcars."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2014-04-03
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [March 17, 2014]

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

  "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
• Highway and Public Transportation Infrastructure Provision Using Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) [March 5, 2014]

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

  "Growing demands on the transportation system and constraints on public resources have led to calls for more private sector involvement in the provision of highway and transit infrastructure through what are known as 'public-private partnerships' or 'P3s.' A P3, broadly defined, is any arrangement whereby the private sector assumes more responsibility than is traditional for infrastructure planning, financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Some P3s involve the leasing by the public sector to the private sector of existing infrastructure, while others provide for a private role in designing, financing, building, and operating new infrastructure. […] This report discusses two broad policy options for Congress as it considers reauthorizing federal surface transportation programs. The first would be to actively encourage P3s with program incentives as has been done in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), but with relatively tight regulatory controls. This might include a requirement for an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the P3 against traditional public delivery methods, new requirements regarding public information and public involvement, and a prohibition against noncompete clauses in P3 agreements (which could prevent public authorities from providing new, competitive infrastructure near a privately controlled facility). The second broad option would be to aggressively encourage the use of P3s through program incentives and deregulation. This might include fewer restrictions on the tolling of Interstate Highways and the enhancement of existing financing programs that encourage P3s, such as the TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) program and private activity bonds, or new initiatives, such as the creation of a national infrastructure bank."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2014-03-05
• 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
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [May 16, 2014]

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

  "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
• 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
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [December 26, 2012]

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

  "Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through taxes on motor fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the tax rates, which are fixed in terms of cents per gallon, 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. This is no longer the case. Future increases in fuel economy standards are expected to suppress motor fuel consumption in the years ahead even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2012-12-26
• Deficient Bridge Count Drops Again [March 6, 2015]

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

  "Recent news reports on the condition of highway bridges, based on newly released data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), generally focus on the large number of bridges classified as deficient or on an increase in deficient bridges in a particular state. These reports, however, tend not to address the overall decline in the number of deficient bridges in 2014 and the long-term downward trend, particularly among bridges posing structural safety concerns."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2015-03-06
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 1, 2016]

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

  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]

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

  "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]

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

  "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
• Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [February 18, 2016]

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

  "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
• Earthquake Risk and U.S. Highway Infrastructure: Frequently Asked Questions [May 19, 2016]

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

  "Earthquakes and related events, such as soil liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, flooding, and fires, pose risks to highway infrastructure. Concerns about the U.S. highway system's seismic vulnerability stem from interest in protecting public safety, facilitating response and recovery efforts, and minimizing economic loss and social disruption. This report addresses a number of frequently asked questions about earthquake risk and highway system components, especially bridges."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Carter, Nicole T.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin)

  2016-05-19
• Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy [March 26, 2018]

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

  "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
• 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
• Infrastructure Investment and the Federal Government [November 19, 2018]

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

  "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]

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

  "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
• How a National Infrastructure Bank Might Work [September 15, 2016]

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

  "The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates both propose increasing federal infrastructure investment. Hillary Clinton recommends increasing federal infrastructure spending by $275 billion over five years. Donald Trump proposes to at least double that amount, but without details about how this would be spent. As part of her proposal, Hillary Clinton includes the creation of a national infrastructure bank with an initial appropriation of $25 billion. Although the proposal offers few specifics, legislation introduced in the 114th Congress helps explain how an infrastructure bank might work. Proponents of a national infrastructure bank typically see it as a way to provide low-cost, long-term loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit on flexible terms to support infrastructure projects. [...] Advantages of an infrastructure bank might include the leveraging of state, local, and private-sector investment and data-driven project selection. Potential drawbacks of a national infrastructure bank might include the limited number of suitable projects for support, politically driven project selection, and the duplication of existing programs such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. A bank may also not be the lowest-cost means of increasing infrastructure spending. The Congressional Budget Office notes that a special entity issuing its own debt would not be able to offer the low interest and issuance costs of the U.S. Treasury. Some see a larger federal role in infrastructure as a drawback as well, and suggest that Congress might enhance the operation of state infrastructure banks as an alternative."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William

  2016-09-15
• 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
• Infrastructure Finance and Debt to Support Surface Transportation Investment [November 17, 2016]

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

  "Investment in surface transportation infrastructure is 'funded' mainly with current receipts from taxes, tolls, and fares, but it is 'financed' by public-sector borrowing and, in some cases, private borrowing and private equity investment. Financing is normally not arranged at the federal level, as the federal government builds few transportation projects directly. This report discusses current federal programs that support the use of debt finance and private investment to build and rebuild highways and public transportation. It also considers legislative options intended to encourage greater infrastructure financing in the future."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Driessen, Grant A.

  2016-11-17
• Public Private Partnerships (P3s) in Transportation [November 02, 2017]

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

  "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