Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Mallett, William" in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 67) 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).

Federal Role in Rail Transit Safety [July 6, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Rail transit operations are an inherently local activity, and the federal government has limited responsibility for the safety of rail transit operations. Congress directed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to establish the State Safety Oversight Program in 1991; this program went into effect in 1997. […]. States are required to establish a state safety oversight agency which sets requirements for rail transit safety and monitors the performance of rail transit agencies in following those requirements. FTA sets minimum requirements for the safety programs that the state agencies implement, and oversees the efforts of the state agencies in carrying out the program. […]. In a congressional hearing on the program in 2006, and in a related Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the program, representatives of FTA, state safety oversight agencies, and rail transit agencies said they felt the program was effective, though it could be improved. […]. At the hearing, and in the GAO report, several issues were mentioned by representatives of FTA and state oversight agencies as offering opportunities to improve the program. These included increasing the level of rail safety expertise and the level of safety resources in the state oversight agencies; providing federal funding to support the work of the oversight agencies; and providing additional enforcement authority to ensure compliance with the requirements of the program. Given that states are responsible for the safety of rail transit operations within their borders, the existence of rail transit systems that operate in more than one state poses a challenge for the program."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Peterman, David Randall; Mallett, William

2009-07-06
Metropolitan Transportation Planning [February 3, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Federal law requires state and local governments to designate a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in each urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more to help plan surface transportation infrastructure and services. There are currently 381 MPOs nationwide. Despite some strengthening of their authority over the years, MPOs have generally remained subordinate to state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the planning and selecting ('programming') of projects using federal surface transportation funds. Moreover, it can be argued that at the metropolitan level MPOs are subordinate to local governments that own and operate many elements of the transportation system, and also control land use planning and zoning. […]. This report discusses several issues that Congress may want to consider: the authority of MPOs to plan and program funds; representation and participation in MPOs; MPO funding and technical capacity; and implementation of livability initiatives. It may also want to consider a number of issues having to do with planning requirements such as the need for a long-range plan, the proper scale of planning, and the incorporation of freight transportation interests. The report begins with a brief description of the metropolitan transportation planning process."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Mallett, William

2010-02-03
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
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)
"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
Federal Public Transportation Program: An Overview [September 6, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"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 is authorized through FY2014 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. [Public Law] 112-141). Signed into law in July 2012, MAP-21 made significant modifications to the public transportation program, effective October 1, 2012. This report provides an introduction to the program as modified by MAP-21. 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

2012-09-06
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
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
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
Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery [September 21, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"During the recent recession, policymakers took a number of monetary and fiscal policy actions to stimulate the economy. Notably, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that provided increases in federal spending and reduction in taxes in order to increase demand for goods and services. However, as the economy is only slowly emerging from the recession, interest in using federal government spending to boost U.S. economic recovery has again intensified. There is widespread desire to accelerate job creation and economic recovery, although consensus on how to do so is not apparent. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with one approach that also was included in ARRA: using accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure as a mechanism to benefit economic recovery."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Copeland, Claudia; Levine, Linda (Linda H.); Mallett, William

2011-09-21
National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation [December 14, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Conceptually, an infrastructure bank is a government-established entity that provides credit assistance to sponsors of infrastructure projects. An infrastructure bank can take many different forms, such as an independent federal agency, a federal corporation, a government-sponsored enterprise, a state government entity, or a private-sector, nonprofit corporation, but is distinguished from a commercial bank or private-sector infrastructure fund by being government established. Unlike government departments that mainly fund infrastructure through grants, an infrastructure bank would be expected mainly to provide credit assistance, typically loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. As with a traditional commercial bank, infrastructure bank borrowers would be expected to repay their loans with interest, and may have to pay other fees associated with the bank's credit instruments. But unlike a commercial bank, an infrastructure bank takes no deposits and conducts no other 'over-the-counter' transactions. Examples of existing infrastructure banks are the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, in the United States, state infrastructure banks, and possibly the Export-Import Bank."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Kosar, Kevin R.

2011-12-14
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
Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [August 10, 2007]

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 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
Public Transit Program Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization [September 10, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"With looming fiscal difficulties but growing demand on the transportation system, there may be significant debate about the overall funding level, the structure of the current transit program, its priorities, and the resulting distribution of federal support geographically and by transit mode. Three among many possible alternatives for restructuring federal public transit programs are outlined in this report: 1) focusing more resources on major capital expenses for rehabilitation and expansion of transit services; 2) supporting and rehabilitating existing services rather than major capital expansion; and 3) the elimination of capital improvement programs altogether to be replaced by a simple 'block grant' that could be distributed based on transit ridership or population. Debate is likely to be particularly intense over the size and structure of the New Starts program that provides federal funding for expanding transit capacity and accounts for about 18% of total transit program funding. This report begins with a brief background on the characteristics of the transit sector and ridership trends. This is followed by a description of the current structure of the federal transit program. The next sections focus on potential reauthorization issues: the overall funding and structure of the transit program; the size and shape of the New Starts program including funding level, types of transit modes funded, project evaluation criteria, the share of local matching funds, and distribution of New Starts funding; issues with the Fixed Guideway Modernization program; distribution of federal funds to rural and small cities; and federal support for paratransit."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Mallett, William

2007-09-10
Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events [June 28, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger rail transportation in the United States. The Obama Administration subsequently announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This initiative was reflected in the President's budgets for FY2010 through FY2013. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding. There are two main approaches to building high speed rail (HSR): (1) improving existing tracks and signaling to allow trains to reach speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), generally on track shared with freight trains; and (2) building new tracks dedicated exclusively to high speed passenger rail service, to allow trains to travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. The potential costs, and benefits, are relatively lower with the first approach and higher with the second approach."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Peterman, David Randall; Frittelli, John; Mallett, William

2012-06-28
Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Stimulus [January 6, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Interest in using federal government spending to stimulate U.S. economic recovery has intensified recently in response to indicators showing significant deterioration of the economy. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. Some favor using traditional monetary and fiscal policies. Others, however, favor making accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure in order to create jobs while also meeting infrastructure needs. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with the approach of using infrastructure as a mechanism for economic stimulus. When most people think about infrastructure, they probably have in mind systems that are publicly provided and are important to the productive capacity of the nation's economy. Today, policymakers define the term more broadly to include both publicly and privately owned systems and facilities and categories that vary considerably in the degree of historic federal investment in building or rebuilding physical structures. A relatively new dimension in today's context is the notion of coupling public works with investments in environmentally friendly systems that incorporate renewable technologies or energy efficiency--called 'green infrastructure.' Academics, economists, and policymakers debate two issues concerning the contribution of infrastructure investment to the economy. One is the effects of infrastructure investment on productivity and growth, including job creation. The second related issue is the role of infrastructure spending, which is typically a long-term activity, as a short-term mechanism to stimulate a faltering economy. Research conducted over time has resulted in a general consensus that there can be positive returns on productivity of investing in infrastructure."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Copeland, Claudia; Levine, Linda (Linda H.); Mallett, William . . .

2009-01-06
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
Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief [December 2, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"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 is authorized through FY2014 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). Signed into law in July 2012, MAP-21 made significant modifications to the public transportation program, effective October 1, 2012. This report provides an introduction to the program as modified by MAP-21. 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

2013-12-02
Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events [December 20, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated the development of high speed intercity passenger rail (HSR) transportation in the United States. While Congress has been interested in HSR since the 1960s, the ARRA funding represented an enormous appropriation in historical terms. The $8 billion was included in ARRA largely at the behest of President Obama, and a subsequent announcement in April 2009 made it clear that the development of HSR is a priority of his Administration. Another $2.5 billion was provided for high speed rail and intercity passenger rail projects in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). Since then, no additional funding has been appropriated for this program. The FY2011 THUD appropriations act (P.L. 112-10) rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances for high speed and intercity passenger rail projects. Other than the rescinded amounts, virtually all of the federal HSR funding made available over the past few years has been obligated and various projects are proceeding. In most places, these projects entail upgrading existing lines owned and operated by freight railroads to allow somewhat faster passenger train speeds than are currently possible. On the Chicago-St. Louis line, for example, funding is being used to increase the maximum speed from 79 miles per hour (mph) to 110 mph. Only the HSR project in California is using federal funds for tracks dedicated to passenger trains, on which speeds could reach 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states, including Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, were shelved by political leaders opposed to the substantial spending such projects entail, particularly for capital and operating costs. Some projects were stopped after federal funds were awarded; these funds were subsequently redirected to HSR projects in other states. Debate on the merits of HSR may continue where projects are ongoing because these projects are often only small steps along the way to providing much faster service in an entire corridor. A key aspect of the debate concerns prospects for the continued development of HSR if no more federal funds are forthcoming."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Peterman, David Randall; Frittelli, John; Mallett, William

2013-12-20
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 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
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
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
Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing: Policy Options [November 10, 2015]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "With the aim of protecting American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, Congress over the years has passed several domestic content laws. Buy America refers to several similar statutes and regulations that apply to federal funds used to support projects involving 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. One of the main manufacturing industries this applies to is the production of rolling stock (rail cars and buses) used in federally funded public transportation and Amtrak's intercity passenger rail service. This report examines the effects of Buy America on these two industries, iron and steel manufacturing and rolling stock manufacturing, in the context of industry trends."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Platzer, Michaela D.; Mallett, William

2015-11-10
Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief [December 28, 2015]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"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. 114-94). This report provides an introduction to the program as authorized by the FAST Act. 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

2015-12-28
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
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
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
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
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
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

1 2 3