Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs is required by the end of FY2009,
although it will likely be difficult to meet that target. Reauthorization has become a difficult
undertaking in the last two decades. This is primarily due to controversy over how and to whom
federal-aid highway funds should be distributed. The most recent law, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA)
(P.L. 109-59) was enacted 22 months after previous legislation had originally expired. Previous
reauthorization bills also arrived well after their required reenactment dates.
The most difficult issue likely to be considered during reauthorization is how to finance it. The
highway trust fund and the revenue sources that feed it have been a reliable mechanism for
financing highway and transit programs for five decades, but no more. Almost all transportation
industry observers see a need for a larger federal contribution to national infrastructure creation in
the years ahead. For a number of reasons discussed in this report, fuel taxes, which provide most
of the money for surface transportation are unlikely to provide a foundation for this desired
growth, even if Congress were to raise them modestly. The choice for policymakers, therefore, is
to find new sources of income for an expanded, program, or alternately, to settle for a smaller
program that might look very different than the one currently in place.
Debate on the specifics of the highway program will focus on the donor-donee funding
distribution issue, earmarking, and possible programmatic reorganization.
Specific programs, such as the highway bridge program, can be expected to receive extensive
congressional attention due to public concerns about the condition of the nation’s transportation
infrastructure.
Transit industry advocates also seek additional funding in the reauthorization bill. Many
supporters believe the nation is under-investing in public transit infrastructure and that should be
significantly increased to deal with an existing backlog of projects and other future needs. Against
this backdrop, Congress can be expected to look closely at existing transit program spending
priorities and perhaps modify them. Other issues such as rural transit, paratransit, productivity,
service optimization, and competition are likely to arise as well.
Surface transportation program reauthorization also includes a number of programmatic and issue
areas beyond those specifically associated with funding, highways, and transit. Freight issues
have been of growing importance in recent years and figure to get significantly more attention as
part of the reauthorization debate. Highway safety, motor carrier safety, research, planning, and
environmental issues will each be addressed in detail in the months ahead.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Structure............................................................................................................................2
The Federal-Aid Highway Program..........................................................................................2
Core (Apportioned) Programs.............................................................................................2
Allocated (Discretionary) Programs...................................................................................3
The Transit Program..................................................................................................................3
Other Transportation Programs.................................................................................................3
Surface Transportation Finance.......................................................................................................4
The SAFETEA Legacy....................................................................................................................5
Donor/Donee .................................................................................................................... ......... 5
Earmarki ng ................................................................................................................................ 6
SAFETEA Funding...................................................................................................................7
Reauthorization Issues.....................................................................................................................7
National Goals and Purposes.....................................................................................................7
Productivity and Performance Measurement............................................................................8
Economic Stimulus...................................................................................................................8
Background Studies...................................................................................................................9
Revenue Issues........................................................................................................................10
Highway Issues...............................................................................................................................11
Funding Equity Issues: the Donor-Donee State Debate...........................................................11
Existing Law: SAFETEA’s Equity Bonus Program (EB).................................................12
Equity Related Reauthorization Issues.............................................................................13
Earmarki ng .............................................................................................................................. 16
Highway Programmatic Structure...........................................................................................16
Bridge Policy...........................................................................................................................17
Transit Issues.................................................................................................................................18
Transit Funding Issues............................................................................................................19
Federal Fuel Tax................................................................................................................20
Federal Matching Share....................................................................................................20
PPPs and Innovative Financing........................................................................................20
Transit Structural Issues..........................................................................................................20
Small Cities and Rural Areas............................................................................................21
Paratransit .................................................................................................................... ..... 21
Transit Industry Productivity...................................................................................................22
Performance Measurement...............................................................................................22
Service Optimization........................................................................................................22
Competition ...................................................................................................................... 22
Work Rules........................................................................................................................23
Fares .......................................................................................................................... ........ 23
Congestion Pricing............................................................................................................23
Freight Issues.................................................................................................................................23
Freight Transportation Planning..............................................................................................24
Freight Funding.......................................................................................................................25
Targeting Freight Investment..................................................................................................26

Highway Safety.............................................................................................................................27
Highway Safety Countermeasures..........................................................................................28
The Role of Driver Behavior............................................................................................28
Current Driver Behavior Incentive Programs...................................................................28
Highway Safety Issues............................................................................................................29
Consolidating the Application Process.............................................................................29
Increased Flexibility in the Use of Incentive Grant Funding............................................29
Switching from Incentives to Sanctions............................................................................30
Linking Grants to Performance.........................................................................................30
Motor Carrier Safety Issues...........................................................................................................30
Research, Development, and Technology Deployment (RD&T)..................................................31
Amount of Federal Spending on RD&T.................................................................................32
Effective Use of RD&T Spending...........................................................................................32
Environmental Issues....................................................................................................................33
Environmental Compliance.....................................................................................................33
Environmental Reviews Under NEPA..............................................................................33
“Section 4(f)” Requirements.............................................................................................34
The CMAQ Program.........................................................................................................35
Conformity of Transportation Plans and State Implementation Plans (SIPs).........................35
Climate Considerations...........................................................................................................36
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles...........................................................37
Table 1. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations FY2005-FY2009......................................................7
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................39
CRS Highway, Highway Safety, and Transit Policy Staff.............................................................39

Since the early 1980s, the periodic debate leading to reauthorization of federal Surface
Transportation Programs has been primarily about money and its distribution. In each of the five
reauthorizations that took place during that period (1982, 1987, 1991, 1998, and 2005) the federal
fuel taxes and other sources of revenue dedicated to the highway trust fund were reliably
providing the various surface transportation programs with more money to spend on an annual
basis. In 2009 this will not be the case. For the first time in decades driving has declined
significantly with a concomitant decrease in fuel tax revenues. Going forward the program cannot
count on new money from the old familiar sources. At the same time, there is growing concern
that investment in the nation’s infrastructure is lagging. Against this backdrop the Nation is
dealing with an ongoing recession, the effects of which could play a major role in the
reauthorization debate.
Reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs is required by the end of FY2009, ¹
although it will likely be difficult to meet that target. Reauthorization has become a difficult
undertaking in the last two decades. This is primarily due to controversy over how and to whom
federal-aid highway funds should be distributed. The most recent law, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or
SAFETEA)(P.L. 109-59) was enacted 22 months after previous legislation had originally ²^st
expired. The bill prior to SAFETEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century
(TEA21)(P.L. 105-178, as amended by P.L. 105-206) was also passed well after previous
legislative authority had originally expired. In fact no surface transportation act has been enacted
on time since the 1970s. There are a variety of explanations as to why it is becoming more
difficult to pass reauthorization legislation in a timely manner. Suffice it to say for the moment,
that these bills have become increasingly complex in their structure and in their politics, as states,
other program beneficiaries, and related interest groups compete for very desirable federal
transportation resources in a potentially constrained funding environment.
Many observers believe that SAFETEA’s alleged excesses, its seemingly endless discussions
about funding parity among the states (the so-called donor-donee debate), its large number of
earmarks (including the so-called bridge-to-nowhere), and the funding problems ahead, could
cause Congress to make significant changes to the surface transportation program in this
reauthorization. This would represent a significant change from the last two reauthorization acts
which were structurally organized in the same manner as predecessor legislation. As will be
discussed, there are many in the transportation world who view this structure as being out of date,
and more importantly, a barrier to focusing federal spending and effort on the projects that would
do the most to meet the nations’s most pressing infrastructure needs.

¹^Su^rf^{ace tran}^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^b^{ills au}^th^o^r^{ize a w}ⁱ^d^e^v^a^riet^y^o^f^f^e^d^e^{ral tran}^sp^o^r^tati^oⁿ^p^r^o^g^ram^s^b^u^t^{are o}^f^ten^referred^to^as
^“h^ig^h^w^a^y^{” b}^{ills b}^ecau^{se th}^{e h}ⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^p^r^o^g^ra^m^coⁿ^s^titu^{tes a sig}ⁿ^if^ican^{t m}^a^jo^rit^y^o^f^th^{e b}^{ill’s f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^v^isioⁿ^s^.
²^For^a^de^ta^ile^d^de^s^c^rⁱ^ptioⁿ^of^the^pr^ov^is^io^ns^of^SA^FET^E^A^-^L^U^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³³¹^19,^Sa^f^e^,^A^ccouⁿ^t^a^b^l^e,^F^l^exi^b^l^e,
^Effic^ie^{nt Tr}^ans^port^a^tio^{n E}^qui^ty^A^c^{t - A Le}^g^a^c^y^{for Use}^{rs (}^S^AFETE^A^{-LU or}^SAFET^EA):^Se^le^c^t^e^d^M^a^{jor Prov}^isi^ons^{, by}
^J^ohn^W^.^Fis^c^he^r^.

For the unfamiliar, the federal surface transportation programs and especially the highway
program can be difficult to understand. The language of transportation finance—contract
authority, obligation limitations (also known as the ob limit), and so on—are even unfamiliar to
many who already have a basic understanding of the annual congressional budget process.
Therefore, this report begins with a discussion of how the surface transportation program is
structured and how it is financed. Those already familiar with the program may wish to skip over
these sections.

The federal-aid highway program is fundamentally a state run program. Funds are provided
annually to each state Department of Transportation (or equivalent) to construct and maintain a
designated system of roads known as the federal-aid highway system. The modern federal-aid
highway program dates to the 1956 enactment of legislation that provided for the construction of
the interstate highway system and created the highway trust fund to finance its construction. The
program has been reauthorized and expanded on numerous occasions during the last five-and-a-
half decades. The federal-aid highway program can be viewed as an umbrella term for the
separately funded programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The
programs, which are mostly for construction project spending, receive their funding in two ways:
they are either “apportioned” (formula) programs or “allocated” (discretionary) programs.
Most highway funding is reserved for five major programs, which are usually referred to as the
core programs. They, along with the equity bonus program, account for the vast majority of
highway spending, 80% of the amount authorized for the FY2005 - FY2009 period covered by
SAFETEA. These programs are: the national highway system program (NHS); the interstate
maintenance program (IM); the surface transportation program (STP); the bridge replacement and
rehabilitation program; and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
(CMAQ). Each of these programs provides funding for specific segments of the federal-aid
highway system and/or other statutorily enunciated activities, e.g., congestion relief projects
using CMAQ funds. SAFETEA created a new large program that combines many formerly
separate highway safety programs, the highway safety improvement program (HSIP) that many
believe could also be viewed as a core program. If HSIP is treated as a core program the spending
for core programs rises to 82.5% of the total highway program.
Although it does not itself provide direct spending for highways, the equity bonus program,
which will be discussed in more detail later in this report, could also be thought of as a core
program because it provides additional funds for each of the five core programs. The equity
bonus is the largest single highway program in SAFETEA accounting for approximately 20% of
all available funding. NHS and STP are the next two largest programs by far, accounting for
15.3% and 16.3% of total funding respectively. Funds for these programs are apportioned to the

³^T^h^is^s^e^c^{tion pr}^ov^ide^s^a^br^ie^f^ov^er^vⁱ^ew^of^the^or^g^a^niz^a^tion^of^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l hig}^h^w^a^y^pr^og^r^a^m^.^For^g^r^e^a^te^r^de^ta^{il s}^e^e
^http:^//w^w^w^.f^h^w^a^.^dot.g^ov^/s^af^e^t^e^a^l^u/^inde^x^.^htm^.

states on an annual basis using formulas found in SAFETEA. As a result they are sometimes
referred to as the “apportioned” programs.
In addition to the core programs there are a couple of smaller apportioned programs: coordinated
border infrastructure program; metropolitan planning; and the recreational trails program.
SAFETEA also creates some formulas within formulas. This is most notably the case for STP
which has a minimum set-aside for transportation enhancements and a sub-state distribution
formula that allocates funds within states.
All remaining highway programs are subject to allocations that are based on criteria established in
highway authorization and appropriation law and/or subject to congressional earmarking.
Although all of the programs in this category are smaller than the core programs there are
nonetheless some programs with significant funding. The largest allocated program is for
congressionally mandated high priority projects (earmarks). This program, which has a five-year
authorization of $14.8 billion, is reserved for projects specifically designated in SAFETEA. Two
other large earmarked programs, Projects of National and Regional Significance and
transportation improvement projects, received $1.78 billion and $2.55 billion over the same
period. Other relatively good sized programs in the allocated category are the federal lands
program, the national corridor infrastructure improvement program, the interstate maintenance
discretionary program, the bridge discretionary program, and the transportation and community
and system preservation program (TCSP). (CRS contacts: John Fischer and Bob Kirk)
The federal transit program, administered by the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), is a collection of individual programs, each with different funding
distribution mechanisms and spending eligibility rules. The two major transit programs are the
Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program and the Capital Investment Program. Of the $10.4
billion authorized by SAFETEA for transit programs in FY2009, the Urbanized Area Formula
Program accounts for about 40% of the total ($4.2 billion), and the Capital Investment Program
accounts for 43% ($4.5 billion). The Capital Investment Program has three elements, the Bus and
Bus Facilities Capital Program, the Rail Modernization Program, and the New Starts Program
that are funded on a roughly 20-40-40 percentage share of program funds respectively.
The remaining 17% of federal transit monies ($1.7 billion) authorized by SAFETEA in FY2009
funds several other programs, such as the Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Program
(commonly referred to as the Rural Formula Program), the Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities Formula Program, the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, as well as
state and metropolitan planning, research, and FTA operations. (CRS Contact: Will Mallett)
There are a number of transportation activities that are outside of the highway and transit
programs that are authorized by surface transportation legislation. These include highway safety,
motor carrier safety, transportation research, hazardous materials transportation, some elements of

rail transportation, and transportation planning activities. Some of these programs are discussed in
more detail later in this report. (CRS Contacts: Randy Peterman and John Frittelli)

Federal funding for surface transportation has historically been linked to the revenue stream
provided by the highway trust fund. The trust fund is two separate accounts—highways and mass
transit. The primary revenue sources for these accounts are the 18.4 cent per gallon tax on
gasoline and a 24.4 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel. Although there are other sources of revenue
for the trust fund (truck registrations, truck tires, etc.), the fuel taxes provide about 90% of the
income to the funds. The transit account receives 2.86 cents per gallon of fuel taxes, and there is
also a 0.1 cent per gallon fuel tax reserved for an unrelated leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) fund. Over the 50 plus year life of the trust fund there have been several increases in the
level of taxation. The last increase in the fuel tax occurred in 1993 (all of these funds were not
actually deposited into the trust fund initially, but were deposited in the Treasury general funds
for deficit reduction purposes until FY1998).
Other changes have been made in recent years that have modestly increased trust fund revenues.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357) provided the trust fund with additional
future income by changing elements of federal gasohol taxation. At the time, there were estimates
that these changes could provide the trust fund with an additional $4 billion per year. SAFETEA
also included a number of tax and other changes that were part of the finance title of the act. The
revenue increases in this title were viewed as quite modest and derive mostly from cutting back
on tax fraud and by transferring some Treasury general fund revenues associated with
transportation related activities to the trust fund. Nonetheless, it was believed at time of passage
that the changes identified in SAFETEA when combined with the changes in gasohol legislation
enacted in 2004, and enhanced by expected economic growth, would be sufficient to finance the
act.
Historically, the trust fund based revenue collection system has been a reliable, and ever growing,
source of funding for surface transportation. In FY2007, for example, the highway account
received tax revenues of $34.3 billion, while the mass transit account received $5 billion. By way
of comparison, FY2004 highway revenues had been a lower $29.9 billion and transit revenues
were just slightly lower at $4.9 billion. For most of their history the trust funds have collected
more than has been expended relative to the size of the program defined by Congress. This
situation has been changing in the last few years as spending on highways and transit has
exceeded both highway and transit account revenues on a regular basis. According to the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the highway account will have estimated outlays of $35 ⁴
billion for FY2007 against the aforementioned receipts of $34.3 billion. Outlays have only been
able to exceed revenues during the SAFETEA authorization period because the highway account
had a significant unexpended balance, $10.6 billion, at the end of the year in which SAFETEA
was enacted. The same overall situation also existed for the transit account. Due to technical and
other changes, however, the transit account has a healthier unexpended balance at present than the
highway account and its problems are not quite so immediate.

⁴^D^a^ta^pr^ov^ide^d^by^C^B^O^f^r^o^m^its^Sum^m^e^r^FY^{2008 B}^a^s^e^line^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^T^r^us^{t Fund}^Pr^oje^c^tⁱ^ons^f^o^r^FY²⁰⁰^{8 -}^F^Y²⁰¹⁸^.

CBO, and others, long predicted that the trend of spending down the unexpended balance was
unsustainable. CBO, for example, was predicting in the summer of 2008 that the unexpended
balance at the end of FY2009 would be a negative $3.7 billion. Responding to this prediction
several transportation groups and several Members of Congress sought to shore up the highway
account for the remainder of the SAFETEA authorization period by transferring funds from the
Treasury’s general fund accounts to the trust fund. This transfer was opposed by DOT and some
Members of Congress as unnecessary for most of 2008 on the grounds that such a transfer was ⁵
premature and, perhaps, fiscally imprudent.
The events of mid-2008 overtook this debate, however, changing it from one about FY2009 to
one about FY2008. As fuel prices skyrocketed through the spring and summer of 2008 American
drivers did something they had done only briefly during the gas shocks of 1973 and 1979, they
reduced their driving and they did so by historic percentages. For example, driving was off by ⁶
4.4% year over year in September alone. Ultimately, revenue collections for the trust fund for
FY2008 fell by $3 billion. As this shortfall was becoming more apparent late in the summer, DOT
changed its position and reluctantly supported an $8.017 billion transfer from the general funds to
the highway account. The result was P.L. 110-318, enacted September 15, 2008.
With this legislation in place the unexpended balance in the highway account was positive at the
end of FY2008 and there is some hope that this will be a sufficient amount to insure that the
account is financially sound through the SAFETEA authorization period. Whether the highway
account will remain healthy is an open question. Fuel prices have fallen dramatically late in 2008,
but they have done so as the economy has fallen steadily into recession. It remains to be seen,
therefore, whether driving will increase in the months ahead, with positive effects for the trust
fund, or remain below historic levels, thereby engendering a trust fund crisis before the end of
FY2009.

The public faces of the SAFETEA debate were the so-called donor/donee debate, which
dominated the legislative discussion, and a later, more public, controversy over earmarking. The
actual process of getting to a final passage, however, was complicated by the need to meet the
policy imperatives of the large number of interest groups and the programs they specifically
support, most of which are funded from the highway trust fund, but not all of which focus
specifically on highways.
The donor/donee debate as it has evolved over the years focuses on the distribution of federal
highway funds amongst the states, and more importantly, the “fairness” of that distribution. A
Donor state is a state whose highway users pay more in revenues to the trust fund highway
account then the state receives back in federal highway assistance. Conversely, a Donee state
receives more in assistance than the revenues it contributes to the trust fund. Although this

⁵^For^a^de^ta^ile^d^dis^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^the^a^r^g^u^m^e^nts^a^g^aⁱ^ns^{t a}^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^of^f^unds^{, s}^e^e^htt^p^://^bu^dg^e^t^.s^eⁿ^a^t^e^.^g^o^v^/^r^e^pub^lic^aⁿ^/
^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^/200^8/^bb0^8-²⁰⁰⁸^.p^df^.
⁶^W^h^ite^{, Jose}^ph^{B. Cre}^a^ting^a^P^r^ob^le^m^b^y^Driv^ing^L^e^s^s^.^W^a^{ll Str}^e^e^t^J^ourⁿ^a^l.^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^25,²⁰⁰⁸^{. p}^.^D³^.

distinction would appear to be straightforward it is far more complicated. For example, federal
fuel taxes are not actually collected at the state level, which requires a somewhat complicated
mechanism that attributes fuel usage and associated revenues to individual states, to determine ⁷
what rate of return any particular state receives.
The donor/donee issue has only been resolved in the last three reauthorization cycles by the
creation of a funding redistribution process of massive proportions, and, more importantly, the
availability of new money to make those processes work. In SAFETEA the new Equity Bonus
(EB) program, designed to provide distributional fairness, has become the largest single highway
program. The EB program is complicated. Very few individuals understand how the process
determines fund distribution. Partially as a result of this complexity and because of other factors,
some states no longer believe they will get the 92% return on receipts promised by the bill.
During the SAFETEA debate, the House and Senate versions of the bill took somewhat differing
approaches to solving the donor/donee dispute. Previous legislation, TEA21, promised states a
90.5% return. Early versions of the House bill promised states a 95% return, an amount that has
become sort of a benchmark goal for some donor states and is expected to remain so during the
upcoming reauthorization debate. The Senate, however, started from a lower percentage. Over the
next two years this percentage would change often, as would the parts of the overall highway
program to which it applied, until the 92% compromise was arrived at.
The other major debate over SAFETEA was on earmarking. When ISTEA was passed in 1991 it
included 548 individual highway earmarks with a total value of $6.2 billion. In 1998 when
TEA21 was passed there 1,883 highway earmarks adding up to $9.6 billion. In SAFETEA,
highway earmarking expanded exponentially with over 5,600 earmarks accounting for $21.7 ⁸
billion in the highway title of the act alone.
Some view earmarks, and the Equity Bonus program, as the price of getting a bill passed. There is
some concern, however, that if their exponential growth continues it will not be long before the
earmarks become not the grease for the wheel, but the wheel itself. And it should be pointed out,
aside from a few notorious earmarks there was very little debate about the benefits or drawbacks
of any individual earmark in the bill.
Although they did not receive a lot of public notice at the time SAFETEA reached final passage,
there were several new programs added to the overall highway program and transit programs.
Among these were two reasonably large programs, the HSIP and Safe Routes to School program,
as well as a number of smaller programs.

⁷^For^a^de^ta^ile^d^dis^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^the^D^onor^/D^one^e^de^ba^te^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³¹⁷^35,^Fe^de^r^a^l-^Ai^{d H}ⁱ^gh^w^a^y^Pr^ogr^am^:
^“D^on^or^-^D^one^e^”^Sta^t^e^I^s^s^u^e^s^{, by}^Robe^{rt S}^.^Kⁱ^rk^.
⁸^P^r^e^s^eⁿ^ta^tion^by^Je^ff^D^a^vⁱ^s,^T^r^aⁿ^s^p^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Weekl^y^{. A}^u^tom^obilityⁱⁿ^A^m^e^r^ic^a^Semⁱ^na^{r, s}^pons^ore^d^by^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ
^Hig^h^w^a^y^Use^r^{s A}^llia^nc^e^.^Ma^rc^{h 200}^6.

SAFETEA provided $286.4 billion in guaranteed spending authority, for the six-year period
FY2004 - FY2009. This is a significant nominal increase over the level in TEA-21 which
provided $218 billion over the six-year period FY1998 - 2003.
In reality, SAFETEA, however, was just barely a five-year bill at the time of its passage (only two
months remained in FY2005 at that point). A more useful representation of SAFETEA, therefore,
is that it provides just over $244 billion in guaranteed spending authority between FY2005 -
FY2009. As Table 1 shows, all major programs affected by the legislation received significant
new funding (the exempt obligation category is provided for equity bonus and emergency funding
purposes and does not reflect a program per se). Total annual spending increases occur in each ⁹
year and total spending in FY2009 is almost 23% higher than spending in FY2005. (CRS
contacts: John Fischer and Bob Kirk)
Table 1. SAFETEA Guaranteed Obligations FY2005-FY2009
^{($ billions)}
^FY20⁰⁵^FY20^{06 FY20}^{07 FY20}^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^Total^5-years
^{Highway Obligation}^34.4²²^36.0^{32 38.2}^{44 39.5}^{85 41.2}⁰⁰^189.⁴⁸⁴
^Limitation
^Exem^{pt Highway}^0.73⁹^0.73^{9 0.73}^{9 0.73}^{9 0.73}^{9 3.69}⁵
^Obligations
^{Highway Safety and}
^{Motor Carrier Safety}^0.74²^1.18^{9 1.21}^{7 1.23}^{9 1.27}^{0 5.65}⁶
^Obligations
^{Mass Transit}^7.64⁶^8.62^{3 8.97}^{5 9.73}¹^10.3³⁸^45.3¹³
^Obligations
^Totals^43.5⁴⁹^46.5^{83 49.1}^{75 51.2}^{94 53.5}⁴⁷^244.¹⁴⁸
^Source:^Trans^{portation Weekly. August}^{4, 2}⁰⁰^{5. p. 5.}

The studies discussed in the next section and numerous public forums held during the last few
years on what should be considered during the reauthorization debate have often focused on a few
overarching issues. These issues are broad concepts that could be viewed as an overlay to the
coming debate rather than being specific program proposals.
Today’s surface transportation programs have their origins in the creation of the interstate
highway program (1956) and the need to save public transit (early 1960s). Many observers

⁹^A^s^u^m^m^a^r^y^of^f^unding^f^o^{r m}^a^{jor prog}^ra^m^s^a^{nd a}^c^tiv^itie^s^is^a^t^http:/^/w^w^w^.^f^h^w^a^.^dot.g^ov^/s^a^f^e^t^e^a^l^u/f^undta^b^le^s^.^htm^.

believe that in the intervening decades the federal programs have become very unfocused and that
it is hard to discern how a lot of surface transportation spending relates to true national needs. In
the view of program critics the federal highway program in particular, and the transit program to a
lesser extent, have become giant revenue sharing programs in which the states and localities make
most of the decisions based not on national requirements for mobility and connectivity, but
instead on parochial issues. The result, in the view of critics, is that while much infrastructure is
created by federal spending, the focus is not necessarily on the creation of the infrastructure that
would do the most to benefit the national economy.
Those seeking to retain the status quo, primarily states, localities, and other stakeholders with
links to specific existing programs, argue that changing the existing decision-making process
would be a mistake. In this view, the federal government long ago decided that the operation of
these programs should occur at the state and local level, and if anything, existing federal
regulations—such as those dealing with environmental issues—should be streamlined to make
project construction and selection easier and less costly.
There has been an ongoing concern that those at the federal level, having left the actual operation
of surface transportation programs largely to the states and localities, often have a poor
understanding of how federal funds are ultimately being used and whether they are being used in
the most efficient and effective manner. This is not to say that there are no performance and
productivity measures in use in the surface transportation programs. States and localities have, in ¹⁰
many cases, very robust processes in place to measure and analyze their programs. The
problem, in the eyes of those seeking additional attention to this issue, is that the mechanisms are
largely internal to the states and localities operating them, that there is a wide variation amongst
the states and localities as to the sophistication and ultimate effectiveness of these measures, and
that they fail to create a data set that allows those at the federal level to determine whether
federally provided funds are being spent wisely and well. Critics of performance standards,
however, express concern that once federal performance measures are put in place states will
quickly learn to “game” the system, thus negating their value. A further issue, should Congress
decide to enforce performance measures by funding penalties, would be to come up with a
structure that would not be counteracted by any equity bonus distribution.
Reauthorization is occurring during a major economic recession. At the time of this writing,
Congress is considering a number of stimulus packages aimed at fostering increased economic
activity. Infrastructure creation is a significant focus of many of the discussions likely to lead to ^th
congressional action in the early days of the 111 Congress. The size and scope of a possible
stimulus package are not known at this time. Regardless of how an infrastructure component to a
stimulus program might be structured it would provide a backdrop to this reauthorization debate
unlike any previous debates. A large infrastructure assistance package would raise several
questions. For example, would any surface transportation component of a stimulus package be

¹⁰^F^o^{r exam}^p^l^e:^P^oⁱ^s^t^e^r,^T^h^eo^do^re^H.^“P^erf^o^rm^an^{ce M}^easu^r^e^m^en^tⁱⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^:^S^t^at^{e o}^f^t^h^e^P^r^actⁱ^{ce” Reso}^u^r^ce
^P^a^p^e^r.^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Research^B^o^ard^.^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce P}^r^o^ceedⁱⁿ^{gs 3}⁶^.^W^a^shⁱⁿ^gt^oⁿ^,^D.^C^.^p.⁸¹^-98^.^A^v^ai^l^a^b^l^{e at}
^http:^//o^nliⁿ^e^p^u^b^s^.^tr^b.or^g^/^onliⁿ^e^p^u^b^s^/^c^onf^/C^P³^6.p^d^f^.

seen exclusively as an addition to the existing program, or alternately, would an extraordinary
amount of stimulus spending be seen as a short term substitute for the regular surface
transportation program? Also, could the entire focus of the surface transportation program, in
terms of the types of infrastructure it funds, be changed by the rapidly changing economic
situation?
As the reauthorization debate moves forward, it does so against the backdrop of a considerable
amount of study and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the program. SAFETEA
created two commissions to study the program structure and the financing imperatives of the
program respectively. The first of these commissions, the National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Study Commission (Surface Commission) issued its report, entitled Transportation ¹¹
for Tomorrow early in 2008. The report called for a substantial increase in overall federal
transportation spending, a major reorganization of the entire federal surface transportation
program into 10 new program areas (often across existing programmatic modal boundaries) and,
controversially, called for a dramatic increase in the federal fuel tax, as well as possible new taxes
and fees from a number of potential sources. The second Commission, the National Surface
Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (Revenue Commission), has not yet ¹²
completed its work, but is expected to produce its final report in January 2009. The Revenue
Commission released an interim report in February 2008 that discussed the issues it was
considering for inclusion in its final report and offered some preliminary observations on the ¹³
current state of transportation finance.
In mid-2008 DOT provided its own thoughts on how reauthorization should proceed in a report ¹⁴
entitled “Refocus, Reform, Renew: A New Transportation Approach for America.” The report
provided several proposals for new and reorganized surface transportation programs and a heavy
emphasis on how market forces and the private sector could play an expanded role in the
provision of surface transportation infrastructure. The views in this report reflect the policy
positions of the Bush Administration. It remains to be seen whether the incoming administration
will incorporate some of these views into its own policy recommendations in the months ahead.
Additional studies and documents touching on reauthorization have been prepared by a wide
spectrum of think tanks, research organizations, and transportation groups. Among these are the
National Academy of Public Administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Road
and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), and the American Association of State ¹⁵
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All of these documents and the perspectives
of many other individuals and organizations can be expected to influence the next surface
transportation bill in the months ahead.

¹¹^htt^p^://w^ww^.tra^nsporta^tionf^ortom^o^rrow^.^org^/^fⁱ^na^l_re^port/^.
¹²^h^t^t^p^://fⁱⁿ^an^ceco^mm^issioⁿ^.^d^o^t^.^gov/.
¹³^h^t^t^p^://fⁱⁿ^an^ceco^mm^issioⁿ^.^d^o^t^.^gov/Do^cu^m^eⁿ^t^s/^In^terim^%²⁰^R^ep^o^r^t^%²⁰^-^%2⁰^Th^e^%^20P^a^t^h%²⁰^F^o^r^w^a^r^d.p^d^f^.
¹⁴^htt^p^://w^w^w^.^fⁱ^g^htg^r^idloc^k^now^.g^ov^/ref^orm^/^re^f^o^r^m^propos^a^l⁰⁸^.p^df^.
¹⁵^Fin^ancⁱⁿ^{g Tr}^ans^por^t^a^tio^{n i}ⁿ^t^h^e²¹^st^C^e^nt^ur^y^:^{a Re}^por^t^{of t}^h^e^Iⁿ^te^r^gov^e^r^nm^eⁿ^tal^For^u^m^oⁿ^Tr^ans^p^o^r^t^ati^oⁿ^Fin^anc^e^,
^the^N^a^tiona^l^A^c^a^d^em^y^of^P^u^b^lic^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion (}^W^a^s^hing^to^n,²⁰⁰⁸⁾^,⁹⁵^p.^The^Tr^ans^p^o^r^t^a^tio^{n C}^h^al^le^nge^:^M^o^vⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e
^U^.^{S. Ec}^o^nom^y^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton,^N^a^tiona^{l C}^h^a^m^be^r^Foun^da^tio^n,²⁰⁰⁸⁾^,¹¹^{6 p}^.^AR^{TBA Re}^c^o^mmeⁿ^dat^io^{ns for S}^AFETE^A^-
^LU^Re^aut^hor^iz^ati^oⁿ⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^n,^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^R^o^a^d^&^T^r^aⁿ^s^por^ta^ti^oⁿ^B^uⁱ^l^de^r^s^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^tion,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,⁷²^p.^AA^S^H^T^O
^Auth^orizati^oⁿ^Po^lic^y⁽^p^r^o^duc^e^d^a^s^a^s^e^rⁱ^e^s^of^topic^pa^pe^r^s⁾⁽^O^c^t^o^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁸⁾^{. 2}³⁰^p.

As mentioned earlier, the revenue stream for the trust fund is in a precarious position. Although
fuel prices have declined in the last months of 2008, the economic situation is such that there is
no guarantee that fuel use will return to previous levels, let alone increase significantly in the
future. It is the future that perhaps causes the most concern for those seeking increased funding
for transportation programs. An ongoing change appears to be underway in the U.S. vehicle fleet.
There is an expectation that sales of hybrids and other alternatively powered vehicles will
increase in the years ahead either as a result of economic or perhaps government driven forces. As
a result, fuel use could decrease on a relative basis, even if driving increases. Without an increase
in the existing fuel taxes, a difficult political issue in recent years, the fuel-based trust fund
taxation system will not be able to support increased surface transportation spending. The choice
for policymakers, therefore, is to find new sources of income for the existing, or perhaps
expanded, program, or alternately, to settle for a smaller program that might look very different
than the one currently in place.
In the past nothing has solved the political problems of the highway program faster than plenty of
new money. TEA21 especially benefitted from a run up in fuel usage during the boom years of
the late 1990s, that was at least partially the result of growing SUV purchases during the period.
SAFETEA did not have quite the same financial backing, but the authors of the act were
nonetheless able to find sufficient new revenues to make the act possible.
SAFETEA created a mechanism for studying the revenue issue and the concomitant
programmatic issues, the aforementioned national commissions. At this writing the Revenue
Commission has not yet forwarded its recommendations to Congress. The Surface Commission
called for a dramatic increase in the fuel taxes, indexing these taxes to inflation, and the study and
potential adoption of a wide range of levies, including a possible vehicle mile traveled (VMT)
tax.
It is this last item that many in the transportation community view as being most promising for
the long term. VMT taxes are use taxes, hence they are favored by those calling for programs to
be funded by user taxes directly related to an individual’s use of the transportation system. VMT
taxes are not the only potential types of user fees available for study. For example, weight-
distance taxes, which are already imposed in some instances on trucks, also fit the definition of a
user fee. The concept of user fees has received significant study in recent years, not just by the
Commission, but by other organizations such as the Transportation Research Board (TRB). There
are significant technological and other barriers (including privacy issues) to imposing a VMT tax
likely enabled by GPS tracking systems. Further, the collection of such a tax is considered more
complicated than the fuels tax collection system already in place. As a result, the transition to a
VMT system is viewed as a long-term solution to the transportation funding issue that is likely to
be mentioned in the next reauthorization act, but not likely to provide much by way of funding for
it.
The outgoing Bush Administration was a major proponent of increased use of tolling and public-
private partnerships (PPPs) to decrease reliance on the trust fund, especially vis-a-vis highway
projects. The Surface Commission agreed that these market alternatives to the trust fund system
should play a major role in the creation of transportation infrastructure in the future. Most
observers in the transportation community, however, think that tolling and PPPs can only provide
from 5% to 10% of estimated system needs. Also, most PPP proposals rely, in part, on federal
funds and tax-exempt financing, both of which impose a cost on the federal budget. Nonetheless

most observers believe that enabling PPPs, and perhaps increased tolling, will be an important
element in the reauthorization debate.
Similarly, there is likely to be considerable discussion of expanding alternative funding
mechanisms already part of the surface transportation program. Funding could be increased for
the so-called “innovative financing” mechanisms: the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program,
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, and Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (known as GARVEE Bonds), and the private activity bond
creation process created by SAFETEA. In addition, there is an interest in how Congress might
proceed with the establishment of a national infrastructure bank program, as outlined in
President-elect Obama’s campaign platform, and on how such a program would interact with the
existing surface transportation program.
A number of other taxes and fees have been mentioned by the Surface Commission, AASHTO,
and others as worthy of consideration during the reauthorization debate. Among these are the
establishment of freight-related taxes or fees such as a freight waybill tax, container fee, or
terminal facility charge. These revenues could be used to address freight bottlenecks. Similarly,
some argue that Customs duties, which are deposited in the general fund, should be made
available for primarily freight related port-of-entry infrastructure. In addition, some believe that
transportation in general, and perhaps the trust fund specifically, should benefit from any
revenues generated by a broad based carbon tax that might be imposed primarily for
environmental reasons.
If Congress chooses not to impose new taxes and fees as part of the reauthorization process it
could still grow the surface transportation program by authorizing an annual general fund
contribution for highway programs, thereby reducing their dependence on the Highway Account.
Some express concern, however, that this would weaken the historic link between the revenue
derived from taxes and fees paid by highway users and spending on the nation’s highways and
bridges.
Finally, Congress could ultimately choose to reduce the highway program’s size. It could, for
example, relegate some programs currently, but not historically, funded by the trust fund, such as
the Appalachian Roads Program, to general fund status. It could also consider reducing the
existing program matching ratios (90:10 for interstates, 80:20 for most everything else, with a few
exceptions) to levels in place in the 1980s or earlier (72:25 or 70:30), thereby spreading the
available federal funds more broadly. More dramatically it could consider limiting surface
transportation funding to programs that fulfill clear national needs, such as the Interstate
Maintenance program or the Federal Lands Highways program, and devolve any other highway
program responsibilities to the states. (CRS contacts: John Fischer, Bob Kirk, and Will
Mallett)

As was mentioned earlier the donor-donee debate has historically been one of the major hurdles
that authorizers must overcome during the periodic reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs.

The donor state argument is that for the sake of equity each state should receive federal highway
funding that is roughly equal to the transportation fees and taxes that their state’s highway users
pay into the highway account of the trust fund. Donor state advocates generally contend that for
too many years they have been subsidizing the repair and improvement of donee state
infrastructure, especially the older highway infrastructure in the Northeast. Most also argue that
they are more road dependent and do not benefit from federal transit spending to the same degree
as some donee states. Southern and Western donor states also argue that they are fast growth
areas, relative to most donee states, and that, consequently, their needs are as great or greater.
Finally, they argue that with the completion of the Interstate Highway System there is no valid
rationale for the donor-donee disparity.
Donee state advocates argue that fairness should not be separated from needs. They assert that the
age of their highway infrastructures (especially in the Northeast), the high cost of working on
heavily congested urban roads, and large, sparsely populated Western states with limited financial
resources, justify their donee status. They also argue that there are needs that are inherently
federal rather than state and that a national highway network cannot be based solely on state or
regional boundaries. Donee states also argue that midwestern and southern states often spend less
local and state money on highways than donee states, and chide these donor states for pleading
for federal funds when they are unwilling to ante up their own state and local resources.
The 111^th Congress faces a difficult policy problem in resolving the seemingly contradictory goals
of meeting donor state demands for a higher rate-of-return and donee state demands to be held
harmless at a time when the highway account revenue base is declining and is expected by most
observers to be insufficient to fund both goals. Providing equity is very expensive. The Equity
Bonus program (EB) under SAFETEA is the largest highway program ($41 billion over the five
year life of the bill).
Historically, some have challenged the basic concept that states should be entitled to a balance
between the federal taxes collected from a state’s citizens, businesses, or highway users and the
federal spending that eventually occurs in the state. The Federal-Aid Highway Program is the
only federal program that uses a rate-of-return criteria. Those who challenge the basic donor-
donee conceptual framework generally refer to studies have shown that some highway program
donor states are donee states in terms of federal tax and spending flows in general, or in other ¹⁶
kinds of federal spending such as defense or human services programs.
The current equity mechanism is the Equity Bonus Program. Basically, the individual program
formulas determine the initial apportionment amounts that are provided for each state and then
the equity bonus funding is added to these levels to bring donor states up to their guaranteed rate-
of-return.
Under the SAFETEA EB program FHWA is directed to allocate sufficient funds to ensure that
each state receives a minimum return. For FY2008 and FY2009 the rate is 92%. Only the core

¹⁶^The^Fe^de^r^a^{l Bu}^dge^t^a^{nd t}^h^e^S^t^at^e^s^:^Fis^c^{al Ye}^ar¹⁹^99.^By^H^e^r^m^aⁿ^{B. L}^e^ona^{rd a}ⁿ^{d J}^a^y^H^.^W^a^lde^r^{, (}^C^a^m^bridg^e^{, MA}^,
^T^a^ubm^aⁿ^C^e^nte^r^f^o^r^Sta^t^e^a^{nd L}^o^c^a^l^G^ove^rⁿ^m^e^{nt, 20}⁰⁰⁾^{, 1}²⁵^p.^Se^e^a^l^s^o^,^Fe^de^r^a^{l Tax}^B^u^r^d^eⁿ^s^an^{d Ex}^pe^ndit^u^r^e^s^by
^State^:^W^h^ic^{h S}^t^ate^s^G^a^{in t}^h^e^M^o^s^t^fr^om^Fe^de^r^a^{l Fis}^c^al^O^p^e^r^ati^ons^?^{, by}^C^u^r^tis^S^.^D^u^ba^y^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, T}^a^x
^Fou^nda^ti^on^{, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{), a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^h^t^tp://w^w^w^.taxf^ounda^ti^on^.org^/^publⁱ^c^a^tions^/^s^how^/62.htm^l^.

formula programs, the High Priority Program, and a few specialized programs are subject to the
EB. Together these programs and the money apportioned to them are referred to as the “scope” of
the EB (these programs are also sometimes referred to as being “below-the-line”). Since the EB
percentage guarantee is only applied to funding within the scope of the EB program, some view
the guarantee as a partial one.
The EB program also includes a number of “hold harmless” provisions that provide that certain
states will either receive the greater of the annual percent return described above, or otherwise
receive their share of total apportionments over the six-year life of TEA-21. These provisions
include certain thresholds based on state population, population density, highway fatality rates,
median household income, and state fuel tax rates. In part, these criteria appear to have been
devised to assure the bill would get at least 60 votes in the Senate. The EB program also sets an
annual percentage floor, relative to a state’s TEA-21 average apportionment, beneath which no
state can fall. The programmatic distribution of Equity Bonus Program funds to the states is
accomplished by increasing the amounts apportioned to the core formula programs.
The persistence of the donor-donee debate as part of the reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs is a reflection of the differing views and expressed needs of the many
stakeholders in federal highway spending policy and the difficulty in addressing these differences.
For most years under the last two authorization bills more Highway Account funding was being
spent than was flowing into the Highway Account for these years. Because of this, based on a
dollar-in/dollar-out basis, almost all states have become donee states (i.e., the excess of spending
over revenues has pulled most donor states ratio to near or above 1.0). As this situation unfolded,
donor state advocates began to argue against the dollar-in/dollar-out method for determining
donor-donee status. Instead they argue that, instead of using dollars, each state’s percentage share
of tax payments to the Highway Account should be the benchmark and should be compared to the
state’s percentage share of total highway funding distribution. This method of calculation allows
most donor states to continue to argue that they still are not getting their fair share. Donee states
generally prefer the dollar-for-dollar determination of donor or donee status. Some observers
within the transportation community argue that the percentage-in/percentage-out statistical
method is questionable and also note that among its most ardent supporters are some of those who
argue that inequitable distribution of highway funds is a reason to eliminate the federal highway ¹⁷
program and devolve its responsibilities and financing to the states.
The structure of the EB program and its method of distribution had consequences that were a
surprise to some state departments of transportation as well as some Members of Congress. High
Priority Program (HPP) earmarks provide an opportunity to Members of Congress to define their

¹⁷^Highw^ay^Trust^Fu^{nd I}ⁿ^e^q^uitie^s^W^{ill Ge}^{t W}^o^rse^{in Fu}^ture^Ye^ars^,^by^R^ona^{ld D}^.^U^t^t^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^,^H^e^r^ita^g^e
^Fou^nda^ti^on^{, 2}⁰⁰⁸^{). A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^h^ttp://w^w^w^.he^r^ita^g^e^.org^/^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^/^S^m^a^rt^G^r^o^w^th/w^m^2100.c^f^m^.

project priorities through the authorization process to their State DOTs.¹⁸ HPP earmarks, however,
do not add significant amounts of money to a state’s total below-the-line funding (i.e., the total of
core formula funds plus total HPP funds), on a relative basis. This seemingly counterintuitive
situation occurs because the below-the-line funding is subject to the Equity Bonus Program (EB).
Because the total funding under the line is fixed in the authorization bill, this leads to the situation
where states that do not get many HPP earmarks tend to receive, in a relative sense, larger
distributions from the EB program while states that get a high value of HPP earmarks tend to
receive relatively smaller EB distributions (or no EB distribution). This means that the total
amount received by a state below-the-line tends to be roughly the same whether or not they
receive high or low dollar totals of HPP funds. A corollary of this situation is that the more of a
state’s total below-the-line funding is derived from HPP funds the less funding is ultimately
available to the state for the federal-aid highway core formula programs. State DOTs depend on
these funds to fulfill their state transportation plans. The EB distribution also negates the
imposition of penalties that are designed to discourage certain activities of the states. For
example, a state that transfers some of its Highway Bridge Program funds to other programs is
penalized by having its deficient bridge cost-to-repair total reduced a like amount in the next
year’s formula calculation. This was meant to reduce the total used to calculate their
apportionment for the HBP. However, the EB distribution in effect gives back what the penalty ¹⁹
takes away. The factors used in the distribution formulas for the core highway programs were
designed with certain federal goals in mind. Some observers believe that the Equity Bonus
overlay combined with the extensive ability given states to transfer funds across programs
undercuts the effectiveness of the programmatic structure to implement these national goals.
Since 1982 the equity provisions in surface transportation have been changed many times and at
least perfecting changes to the EB are also likely in reauthorization. An increase in the guaranteed
rate-of-return percentage above the 92% level could be considered. However, the closer the
guaranteed percentage comes to 100% of the total program the more difficult an increase
becomes. Expanding the scope of the equity provisions is also something favored by donor states.
In any case, such changes would require a growth in program size to fund a larger equity overlay
unless the underlying core program formulas were rewritten to bring the initial program
apportionments more in-line with the goals of an increased percentage return guarantee. The
“hold harmless” provisions that protect certain donee states from losing share could be retained,
modified, or eliminated. Again, to bring the percentage guarantee closer to 100% would probably
require a weakening of some of the hold harmless provisions. Hold harmless provisions, however,
exist primarily due to the practical politics utilized to get the bills through both houses of
Congress. Congress could also consider eliminating the counteracting impact of the EB
distribution on the Highways Program penalty provisions by imposing the penalties after the
distribution of the EB funding. This could affect some state’s guaranteed percentage share,
however, and could be seen by some as creating a double penalty.

¹⁸^Mos^t^of^the^r^e^s^t^of^the^f^e^de^r^a^l-^aⁱ^{d hig}^h^w^a^y^pr^og^r^a^m^s^tha^t^a^r^e^be^lo^w^the^“^line^”^a^r^e^f^o^r^m^ula^pr^og^r^a^m^s^w^hos^e^f^unding
^is^a^d^mⁱ^nis^t^e^r^e^d^by^the^s^t^a^t^e^s^’^de^pa^r^t^m^e^nts^of^tr^aⁿ^s^por^ta^ti^on.
¹⁹^Hⁱ^ghw^ay^Br^id^ge^Pr^o^g^r^a^m^:^C^l^e^a^r^e^r^G^oals^aⁿ^d^Pe^r^f^or^m^a^nc^e^M^e^as^ur^e^s^N^e^e^d^e^d^for^{a M}^o^r^e^F^o^c^u^s^e^d^a^nd^Sus^t^aⁱⁿ^ab^le
^Pr^ogr^am^,^“^G^A^O^-^08-¹⁰⁴^3,”⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^{n, G}^A^O^{, 2008)}^{, p}^.²²^.

Congress could decide to forgo an equity provision altogether and allow the program formulas to
determine the distribution of highway funds to the states. One way of doing this would be to
modify the core formula programs so that they are all entirely weighted at or near 100% on states’
annual contributions to the Highway Account. Most donee states would probably oppose such a
change.
Over the first 50 years of the life of the trust fund significant amounts of money have been ²⁰
transferred to it from the Treasury’s general fund. Although much of transferred funding
reflected federal interest payments on the trust fund’s unexpended balances, the interest was paid
by revenues provided by the general taxpayers, not directly by highway user fees. Some other
funds have been transferred to the trust fund for a variety of reasons including the impact of
compensating the trust fund for lower ethanol tax rates. Given the sufficiency problems faced by
the trust fund, general fund support for the Federal-Aid Highway Program (similar to that which
is in place for Federal Transit Administration authorization) is one of the options likely to be
considered. The general funds are problematic for the basic donor-donee argument based on
return on user fees and taxes paid by highway users. The pattern of the flow of revenue from the
taxpayers in the states to the general fund is different than that for highway taxes and fees. The
larger the general fund share the harder it is to argue that states should get a return based on their
highway users payments to the Highway Account.
Roughly 80% of the FTA’s budget comes from the fuel taxes paid by highway users. Some donor
state advocates argue that this funding should also be subject to a rate-of-return guarantee. While
such a scenario might be attractive to some donor states not already receiving significant transit
assistance, there are other donor states which might not benefit from a transit equity distribution.
Further, any inclusion of transit in an equity bonus scenario is likely to be opposed by heavily
urbanized states and/or states with large transit systems.
The 111^th Congress is expected to consider a stimulus bill that will include substantial amounts of
transportation spending. Most observers expect that the highway funding in the bill will be
distributed through the existing highway programs. Should this be the case, Congress would face
a decision of whether to exempt the spending from the Equity Bonus mechanisms. The surge of
general fund money as stimulus funding could also increase the likelihood of a reexamination of
the donor-donee calculation methodology. (CRS contacts: Bob Kirk and John Fischer)

²⁰^From¹⁹⁵^{6 t}^h^ro^ug^{h FY}²⁰⁰⁶^the^$60⁹^billi^onⁱⁿ^ta^x^a^{nd f}^e^e^pa^y^m^eⁿ^{ts in}^{to t}^h^e^f^und^{is ro}^ug^hly^90%^o^f^the^tota^{l $}⁶⁷⁵
^billi^{on a}^p^p^o^rtio^ne^d^{or a}^l^l^o^c^a^t^e^d^f^r^om^the^HT^F.

Large scale earmarking was a major feature of SAFETEA, and a controversial one (especially
concerning the so-called bridge-to-nowhere). Earmarking has not, however, always been a
significant feature of surface transportation bills and is a relatively recent issue considering the

50-year plus history of the trust fund supported federal-aid highway program. Until the late ²¹

1980s, earmarks amounted to about 1% of authorized federal-aid highway spending. By way of
comparison, SAFETEA earmarked almost $22 billion or roughly 11% of the $199.5 billion
highway construction title of the bill.
The debate over highway project earmarking at times reflects the broader pro and con arguments
that apply to the discussion of the appropriateness of congressional earmarking in general.
Supporters of earmarking often argue that the framers of the Constitution believed that Congress,
not the President (i.e., the Executive Branch), should allocate funding for the functions of the
federal government, and ending congressional earmarking authority would be a major transfer of
power to the Executive Branch. Supporters also argue that Members of Congress have a better
sense of their constituents’ needs than Executive Branch bureaucrats. Opponents of earmarking
make a number of general arguments, including congressional earmarking undermines the intent
of the programs and activities that Congress itself has authorized; many earmarks are designated
for political reasons rather than for demonstrated needs; earmarking may foster corruption; many
earmarks are inherently local and short-change projects of national interest; and earmarks unduly
enhance the role of lobbying firms in the spending process. The position of earmarking opponents
was bolstered with the findings of a 2007 DOT report which suggests that earmarking distorts the ²²
operation of the federal-aid highway program. Among the report’s findings are the following:
that the earmarking can reduce the states’ core transportation programs; many low priority,
earmarked projects are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects; and projects
that do not meet eligibility requirements are sometimes funded.
Despite the steady growth in the number of earmarks and amount of funding dedicated to them
during the last three reauthorization acts there is no certainty that the same levels of earmarking
will be a part of the upcoming reauthorization. And there are some indications that certain
transportation groups such as AASHTO, who were largely silent on this issue during the last
reauthorization debate, are now taking the position that earmarking needs to be controlled and ²³
limited going forward. (CRS contacts: John Fischer and Bob Kirk)
According to the Surface Commission there are currently 108 separate programs in the overall ²⁴
federal surface transportation program. Of these 62 are in the highway program, 20 are in the

²¹^“In^-^Dep^t^h^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^:^E^a^r^m^ar^ked^Hi^gh^w^a^{y P}^r^o^j^ect^s:^T^h^ei^{r Hi}^st^o^r^y^,^T^h^ei^{r Nat}^u^{re an}^d^T^h^ei^{r Ro}^l^eⁱⁿ^Hⁱ^gh^w^a^y
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion,”^T^r^an^spo^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Weekl^y^{, A}^p^r^{il 10,}²⁰⁰²^{, 3}^.^Se^e^a^l^s^o^A^{Primer o}ⁿ^L^o^bb^yists,^E^a^rma^r^ks,^an^d^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^l
^Re^form^{, B}^y^R^ona^{ld D}^.^U^t^t^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^H^e^r^ita^g^e^Fou^nda^ti^on)^,^B^a^c^k^g^r^ounde^rⁿ^o^.¹⁹^24,²⁰⁰⁶^,²¹^p.^For^a^dis^c^us^sⁱ^on
^of^s^p^e^nding^e^a^r^m^a^r^k^defⁱ^{nition s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁴^62,^H^o^us^e^a^nd^Se^na^te^Pr^oc^e^dur^{al R}^u^le^s^C^o^nc^e^r^ning^Ear^m^ar^k
^Disclo^su^re^{, by}^Sa^ndy^Stre^e^t^e^r^.
²²^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^T^r^aⁿ^s^por^ta^tio^n,^R^e^vⁱ^e^w^{of C}^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱ^on^{al E}^a^r^m^ar^k^s^W^{ithin D}^e^par^tm^eⁿ^t^of^Tr^ans^por^t^a^tio^{n Pr}^ogr^am^s^,
^“^R^e^por^{t n}^o^{. A}^V^-²⁰⁰^7-⁰⁶⁶^,”²⁰⁰⁷^,^1-^31.
²³^htt^p^://w^w^w^.tra^ns^porta^tion.^org^/^s^ite^s^/^polic^y^_doc^s^/^doc^s^/^v^iii.pdf^.
²⁴^S^u^rf^{ace Co}^mmi^ssi^oⁿ^.^p^.¹⁵^.^f^o^und^at^ht^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^t^ran^s^p^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^t^o^m^o^rro^w^.^o^r^g/^fⁱⁿ^a^l^_^rep^o^r^t^/^p^d^f^/^v^o^l^u^m^e_¹^.^p^d^f^.

transit program, and the remainder are scattered amongst the remaining surface transportation
activities. The Surface Commission would like to see all of these programs combined into 10
broad intermodal programs. The Surface Commission recommendations are only one of many
that Congress may consider in the months ahead.
It will be difficult, however, for Congress to make the kinds of program consolidation that many
of the studies and other outside observers are recommending. Partly this is because there are
numerous potential and competing organizing rationales that could be applied to the highway
program. Politically, however, the major complication is that each existing program has its
supporters and detractors, and that especially for some of the more specialized programs, for
example CMAQ, there are specific stakeholders whose support for the overall surface
transportation program is associated with the continuation of the mission the program was created
to carry out.
The federal-aid highway program has always been a partnership with the State DOTs. States have
a great deal of control over the selection, planning, construction, and oversight of federally
funded highway projects. Within this context, a number of programmatic issues could arise.
Historically, the states have argued for increased flexibility in the use of federal funds by allowing
for the transfer of funds across the federal highway programs. However, some in the
transportation community argue that there is currently too much flexibility, allowing states to
allocate money between programs, for example, from the bridge program to the STP, even though
a state might have unmet needs in the original program area. Also, broad program flexibility is
alleged to allow the spending of federal funds on projects that have no evident national purpose.
In addition, some highway supporters advocate the elimination of flexibility that allows fund
transfers between the highway and mass transit programs, again contending that these transfers
mitigate against the original program intents established by Congress.
As part of any program restructuring, Congress may also consider project eligibility changes. For
example, some construction interests are arguing for a broadening of project eligibility, under the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Act (CMAQ), that would allow more
projects designed to increase road capacity to improve traffic flow in congested areas.
As part of any program consolidation or modification, Congress might choose to reexamine the
program’s scope and intent, as well as the factors associated with the program’s funding formulas.
Alternately, Congress might opt to replace the existing formula programs with a true block grant
program provided directly to the states. Some argue that block grants would reduce a significant
amount of the existing program administrative overhead and give states and metropolitan areas
the ability to focus on the needs they have already identified through the mandatory federal
planning process subject perhaps only to certain performance standards.
In addition to restructuring of the existing program, many believe that Congress is likely to
consider some new programs as well. Some, for example, have pressed for programs to improve
major freight corridors and address bottlenecks.
The sudden 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 assuring the
safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. In 2007, roughly 72,000 bridges were

designated by FHWA as “structurally deficient.”²⁵ The Highway Bridge Program (HBP) is the
primary federal program to fund the replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete bridges. HBP funds are apportioned to the states by formula based on each
state’s relative share of the total cost to repair or replace deficient highway bridges. Each state is
guaranteed at least 1/4% of total program allocation, and no state may receive an allocation
greater than 10%. The federal share under HBP is 80%, except that for Interstate bridges the
federal share rises to 90%.
In reauthorization a number of programmatic and funding issues are likely to be considered. The
level of funding will be the major issue. The rate of repair and replacement of deficient bridges
and the funding needed to support any proposed acceleration of the rate could be an issue. The
scope of eligibility for HBP funding could be an issue, especially in regard to the use of HBP
funds for spending on non-federal-aid highway system bridges. Changes in bridge inspection and
inventory are likely to be proposed. A number of states have consistently used the Federal-Aid
Highway program flexibility provisions to transfer HBP funding to non-bridge purposes; this
could be an issue. Some have also argued that linking HBP funding to a state’s number of
deficient bridges creates a perverse incentive for some states to keep their deficiency rates high. A
recent GAO report found that the HBP lacks focus, performance measures, and sustainability. ²⁶
Congress could consider measures to improve the program. (CRS Contacts: Bob Kirk and
Will Mallett)

The Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is the source of approximately 80% of
federal transit program monies, with the remaining 20% drawn from the general fund of the U.S.
Treasury. Although the transit account is in somewhat better financial shape than the Highway
Account, it is also projected to go into deficit within a few years. Despite some uncertainty
surrounding this projection, it is clear that current revenue into the transit account will not sustain
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs and activities at current levels through another
four to six year authorization period. Within this context, there are both funding and ²⁷
programmatic issues that could arise during reauthorization.
The possibility of constrained future federal transit funding is occurring in conjunction with
substantial recent increases in transit ridership most likely caused by the spike in gasoline prices
in the middle of 2008. Despite an increase in revenue from these new riders, some transit
operators say financial problems may prevent them from expanding service capacity, and some
have suggested they may instead have to reduce current service levels. The immediate reasons for
the latest financial problems in the transit industry are the large price increases in fuel and other
commodities, and flat or declining government assistance at the state and local level that is

²⁵^Se^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴¹²⁷^,^Hⁱ^g^h^w^ay^Br^id^ge^s^:^C^oⁿ^d^iti^ons^an^{d t}^h^e^Fe^de^r^a^l/St^a^te^R^o^le^,^by^Robe^{rt S.}^Kirk^a^{nd W}^illia^m
^{J. Ma}^lle^tt.
²⁶^G^o^v^e^rn^m^e^nt^A^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Hⁱ^ghw^ay^Br^idge^Pr^ogr^am^:^C^l^e^a^r^e^r^G^oals^aⁿ^d^Pe^r^f^or^m^a^nc^e^M^e^as^ur^e^s^N^e^e^d^e^d
^for^{a M}^o^r^e^F^o^c^u^s^e^d^an^d^Sus^t^aⁱⁿ^a^b^le^Pr^o^g^r^a^m^{, (}^S^e^p^te^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰^8),^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http://w^ww^.ga^o^.g^ov^/ne^w^.ite^m^s^/
^d08¹⁰⁴³^.p^df^.
²⁷^Se^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴¹⁷¹^,^P^ubli^c^Tr^ans^it^Pr^ogr^am^I^s^s^u^e^sⁱⁿ^S^u^r^f^a^c^e^Tr^ans^p^o^r^t^ati^oⁿ^Re^au^th^or^iz^ati^oⁿ^{, by}^W^illia^m^J.
^Ma^lle^{tt; a}ⁿ^d^{CRS Re}^p^o^{rt RL}³⁴¹⁸^3,^P^ublic^Tr^aⁿ^s^{it Pr}^o^g^r^a^m^F^uⁿ^dⁱ^{ng I}^s^s^u^e^sⁱⁿ^Sur^f^a^c^e^Tr^ans^por^t^a^ti^on
^Re^aut^hor^iz^at^ioⁿ^,^by^W^illia^m^{J. M}^a^lle^tt.

directly or indirectly tied to economic activity via mechanisms like sales taxes or overall
government budget conditions. But financial problems in public transit are a long term issue,
primarily caused by declining transit system productivity, that results in an increasing
requirement for government support from all levels of government. Fares and other operating
revenue now only cover about 30% of industry costs. For that reason, Congress may want to
consider how the federal transit program and its individual programs can be modified to boost
transit ridership at a lower cost to the government.
How much to spend overall on transit is the main issue in the upcoming reauthorization.
Transportation, construction, business, and public transit interest groups argue that America is ²⁸
under-investing in transportation infrastructure, including public transit infrastructure. In their
view, federal infrastructure investment should be significantly increased to deal with an existing
backlog of projects and other future needs. Both the DOT and the Congressionally created
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (NSTPRSC) have
estimated that the capital cost to maintain and improve the current condition and operational
performance of transit systems in the United States is substantially more than is being currently ²⁹
spent on transit systems by all levels of government.
Some argue that the overall level of government transit spending has not been dramatically
deficient, if at all, by pointing out that the growth in transit capacity has outpaced the growth in
ridership, and that the condition and performance of transit systems have generally improved over
the past decade. Others go further to suggest that governments, including the federal government, ³⁰
spend too much on public transit relative to the benefits it provides. These analysts point out
that while transit spending amounts to about 16% of all government highway and transit spending
and about 14% of federal highway and transit capital expenditure, only about 2% of all trips and

5% of commuting trips are made by this mode. The effect, according to transit critics, is to short-

change highway spending, thereby causing highway conditions and performance, including ³¹
highway congestion, to be worse than they would be otherwise. A corollary to this view is that a
significant proportion of federal transit funding, roughly 80%, comes from taxes paid by highway
users.

²⁸^F^o^{r exam}^p^l^e,^Am^eri^c^an^S^o^ci^et^y^o^f^Ci^vi^l^Eⁿ^giⁿ^eers,^“Rep^o^r^t^Card^f^o^{r Am}^eri^ca’^{s In}^f^r^ast^r^u^c^t^u^{re 2}⁰⁰⁵^”^;^an^d^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l
^C^h^a^m^be^r^Foun^da^tio^n,^F^u^t^u^{re Hi}^gh^wa^{y an}^{d P}^u^b^lⁱ^c^T^r^aⁿ^s^p^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱⁿ^g^,^E^xecu^tⁱ^{ve Su}^mma^ry⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^,
²⁰⁰⁵⁾^.
²⁹^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^T^r^aⁿ^s^por^ta^ti^on,^Fe^de^r^a^{l H}ⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion a}^nd^Fe^de^r^a^{l T}^r^aⁿ^s^{it A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion,²⁰⁰⁶
^Stat^us^o^f^the^N^a^ti^on’^s^Hⁱ^ghw^ay^s^,^Br^idge^s^,^an^{d Tr}^aⁿ^s^it:^C^oⁿ^d^iti^ons^and^Pe^r^f^or^m^a^nc^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{, 20}⁰⁷⁾^{; a}ⁿ^d
^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^u^rf^ace^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^an^d^Reven^u^e^S^t^ud^y^Co^mmⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^,^Tr^aⁿ^s^por^t^a^ti^{on for}^T^o^m^o^r^r^ow⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^,
^D^C^{, 20}⁰⁷⁾^.
³⁰^C^o^x^,^W^e^nde^{ll, “}^T^r^a^ns^it’^s^Lⁱ^m^ite^{d C}^a^pa^bil^ity^a^nd^P^r^om^is^e^,^”^{in W}^e^nde^{ll C}^o^x^,^A^l^aⁿ^Pisa^rskⁱ^{, a}^{nd R}^oⁿ^a^{ld D. Utt (e}^ds),
²¹^st^C^e^nt^ur^y^Hⁱ^ghw^ay^s^:^Iⁿ^nov^a^tiv^e^Sol^utio^ns^t^o^Am^e^r^ic^a’^s^Tr^aⁿ^s^p^o^r^tatio^{n N}^e^e^d^s⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^{n, D}^C^,^H^e^r^ita^g^e
^Fou^nda^ti^on^{, 2}⁰⁰⁵⁾^.
³¹^C^o^x^,^W^.^A^{nd R}^.^O^’^T^oole^,^“^T^he^C^ontrⁱ^but^io^{n of}^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^s^a^{nd T}^r^aⁿ^s^{it to C}^ong^e^s^tio^{n R}^e^lie^f^:^A^R^e^alis^tic^Vie^w^,”
^H^e^r^itage^Fo^un^dat^io^{n B}^a^c^k^g^r^o^uⁿ^d^e^r^,^No^.¹⁷²¹^,^Janu^ar^y²⁴^,²⁰⁰⁴^.

One way to increase transit funding would be increase the proportion of funds coming from the
general fund. An alternative would be to raise the federal fuels tax and dedicate 20% of any
increase to the transit account, as has been the case since 1983, and which transit supporters are
keen to maintain in any future legislation. Based on existing revenue assumptions, the fuels tax
would need to be raised by approximately 5 cents per gallon (with 1 cent per gallon dedicated to
the transit account) to close the gap between revenue and expenditures in the transit account for ³²
FY2009. This allows for no growth in the program to deal with growing needs or inflation. To
improve the current condition and performance, according to DOT’s needs estimates, would
require an extra $3.6 billion annually. This would require a 3.0-cent to 9.0-cent-per-gallon
increase in the total fuels tax (0.6-1.8 cents per gallon for the transit account). This does not
include any additional funding for non-capital expenses, currently about 30% of federal transit
support.
A potential way to make the federal transit dollar stretch further would be to lower the federal
matching share. Among other things, proponents contend that a larger local match would help
ensure that only the most important projects are supported by state and local officials. Opponents
of lowering the maximum federal share argue that lowering the cap might bias state and local
decision-makers to favor highway projects that have an 80% match. Some advocate reducing the ³³
federal share for both highways and transit, say to 50%.
Some suggest that one way to deal with the gap between government funding and estimated
investment needs is to encourage more private participation in developing transit projects through ³⁴
public-private partnerships (PPPs) and innovative financing. In both cases, PPPs and innovative
financing, the overall difference they may make to the financing of transit system services is
likely to be relatively small. This is particularly true in transit, where the possibilities for
generating new revenue streams or profit from operations are limited, although other possibilities
exist, such as land development near transit stations and stops often referred to as transit oriented
development or TOD. The tolling of roads, bridges, and tunnels is a much more likely source of
new revenue to make these types of financing vehicles possible. However, even on the highway
side, many believe that private funding might be only able to provide up to 5% - 10% of needed
funds.
Whatever happens with the overall level of federal transit funding, Congress may want to make
changes to the individual programs and the collective whole. As noted above, most funds are

³²^C^R^S^c^a^l^c^u^la^tio^{n ba}^s^e^d^on^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^T^r^us^{t Fund}^pr^o^j^e^c^tions^pr^ovⁱ^d^e^d^by^the^C^o^ng^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l B}^u^dg^e^t^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^A^u^g^u^s^t^4,
²⁰⁰^8.
³³^In^cert^aⁱⁿ^ci^rcu^m^st^an^ces,^esp^eci^a^l^l^yⁱⁿ^t^h^{e n}^e^w^st^art^s^p^r^o^g^ram^,^t^h^{e f}^e^d^e^ral^sh^{are c}^aⁿ^b^e^l^o^w^e^r.
³⁴^Se^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁵⁶⁷^,^P^ubli^c^-^P^rⁱ^v^a^te^Par^t^ne^r^s^hⁱ^p^sⁱⁿ^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^and^Tr^aⁿ^s^{it I}ⁿ^fr^as^tr^uc^t^u^r^e^Pr^ov^is^ion^{, b}^y
^W^illia^m^{J. Ma}^lle^tt.

authorized for the Capital Investment Program (New Starts, Rail Modernization, and Bus and Bus
Facilities Capital) and the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program. There are many possible
ways of restructuring federal public transit programs, each an alternative to the possibility of
leaving the existing system unchanged.
One way to reorder federal priorities would be to focus more resources on major capital expenses
for the rehabilitation and expansion of transit service in places that are best served by this mode,
primarily the densely populated parts of large and often heavily congested cities. This might
entail expansion of the programs that make up the Capital Investment Program—the New Starts
Program, the Rail Modernization Program, and the Bus Capital Program—and cutting back on
grants that are spread more broadly and go for smaller and more routine types of expenses under
the Urbanized and Non-Urbanized Formula Programs. This change would likely result in a
concentration of resources in a few large cities where transit usage is already relatively high, an
effect that has obvious potential political problems.
Alternatively, Congress may decide that the era of retrofitting large and medium-sized cities with
new transit rail systems is largely over, and that resources should now go to supporting and
rehabilitating existing services. This could entail a reduction in spending on the New Starts
program, currently about 18% of the federal transit program, and more support for the other
capital programs and the formula grants programs. The effect of these changes on the distribution
of funds is likely to be more mixed, and would depend on the share of funds dedicated to the Rail
Modernization program, a program that includes relatively few cities, and the share dedicated to
buses and formula programs that include a much larger number of places.
A third way to restructure the federal transit program would be to eliminate the capital programs
altogether, to be replaced with a simple “block grant” that could be distributed based on transit
ridership or population. This would allow state and local governments to decide how best to
allocate transit funding support among existing and new services. Funds distributed according to
transit ridership would reward areas that commit their own resources successfully to providing
transit service. The distribution of funding in this way would again depend on how this new
program is structured, but it might also depend on how states and localities react to the changes in
terms of how aggressively they promote transit ridership.
A fourth alternative would be to fold most of the transit programs into a broader “metropolitan
mobility” program that would distribute federal surface transportation funding to large urban
areas, say one million people or more, on a mode-neutral basis. It would then be up to states and
localities to decide how to spend the money, be it on transit or highway infrastructure or on some
combination of the two.
Because most transit ridership is concentrated in a few large cities, most formula funding goes to
the largest urbanized areas. Small city and rural advocates argued for a boost in funding in
SAFETEA and, despite some success, may do so again in the current reauthorization.
The demand for and cost of paratransit has grown rapidly over the past two decades, placing
added pressure on state and local government transit budgets. A number of federal transit

programs exist to help states and localities with providing paratransit service, and funding is also
available from the federal government outside the transit program. Nevertheless, transit agencies
are likely to ask for more federal help in providing paratransit service in the reauthorization of the
transit programs. Given the social service nature of paratransit services and the generally poor fit
of paratransit with regular transit provision, some question whether FTA should administer
paratransit programs and funding at all.
Regardless of whether federal transit funding is tightly constrained or not, but especially if it is,
Congress may want to consider a number of options for encouraging transit industry productivity.
A number of policy analysts believe that federal transportation programs, including the federal
transit program, should incorporate performance measures as a central tenet in the distribution of
funds. The main reason for doing this would be to reward transit agencies for providing more and
better service per dollar of public support. Detractors argue that greater use of performance
measures might unfairly reward or punish states and localities on the basis of factors outside their
control, such as regional economic conditions or climate. Moreover, they say, distributing funding
in this way might set off cycles that end up concentrating funding in a relatively few states and
locales. Others worry about the accuracy of data that would be needed to effectively measure
performance, the possibilities for data manipulation, and other problems with participants
“gaming” the performance measurement system.
Some suggest that transit agencies should stop many of the expansions of fixed-route transit
service, particularly in difficult-to-serve areas, and that the federal government should encourage
them to do so. According to this view, transit agencies may also need to consider cutting services
that lose the most money, except perhaps paratransit service. Service might be expanded in
transit-friendly environments with services that will generate a substantial number of new
customers. In cases where new transit services are appropriate, such as along densely populated
and congested corridors, agencies might look to invest in less costly transit modes, particularly
buses and bus rapid transit (BRT).
Another suggestion is for states and localities to inject more competition into the provision of
transit service or to find other ways to reduce costs. This usually entails proposals to
competitively bid transit service provision and to allow private operators to provide new services
to compete with public transit agencies. This could be accomplished, according to some
advocates, by making the elimination of local barriers to privatization a condition of federal
funding. In many places, these local barriers take the form of state and local laws and regulations
that give monopoly power to regional transportation agencies.

Some advocate loosening work rules in the transit industry in an effort to boost productivity. This
might, for example, include renegotiating contracts with transit workers unions that often do not
allow transit agencies to employ part-time workers or to require split-shifts to cover the peaking
of demand in the morning and evening. In addition, some argue that federal labor protections in
transit, commonly known as Section 13(c), should be abolished or modified, a position rejected
by unions representing transit workers.
Another potential way of reducing the need for public assistance is to increase fares, where
possible, to cover costs. Fares need not necessarily be increased across the board, but could be
adjusted to more accurately reflect the cost of providing a particular service. The federal
government might encourage transit systems to do this, particularly with the use of electronic fare
payment technology that makes it relatively easy to collect variable fares.
It might also be possible to reduce the need for government assistance of public transit by pricing
automobile use, particularly in congested periods. One way to do this is to institute new highway
tolls, particularly ones that vary based on traffic levels. This might encourage some drivers to
switch to transit and may provide a source of funds to enhance transit service. Such road pricing
schemes usually make the most sense in severely congested regions where good transit options
exist. Congress, therefore, might encourage congested metropolitan areas to design
comprehensive congestion management schemes that incorporate highway pricing and transit, as
DOT has done with its Urban Partnership Agreements. (CRS Contact Will Mallett)

Up until the recent downturn in the U.S. and global economies and the recent spike in fuel prices,
the immediate concern of freight carriers and shippers was congestion, particularly at major
gateways experiencing a steady run-up in import volumes and on certain segments of highway
with persistent traffic bottlenecks. Congestion frustrates a freight carrier’s ability to provide
reliable scheduling. Unreliability is costly because it requires shippers to carry buffer stock,
reducing an efficient “just-in-time” logistics strategy to a “just-in-case” strategy. The concern for
the capacity of the system to keep pace with rising freight volumes is borne out by a steady rise in
freight tonnage during the last decade. From 1996 to 2006, truck ton-miles increased by 21% ³⁵
while rail ton-miles increased by 35%. These modes are also using their respective
infrastructure more intensively. Between 1980 and 2002, truck travel grew by more than 90%
while lane miles of public roads increased by only 5% and railroad tons originated increased by
24% while the miles of railroad decreased by 40% (due to consolidation and mergers). Based on
steady yearly increases in freight tonnage in recent years, the U.S. DOT projects that total tons

³⁵^BT^S,^Natio^na^{l Tra}ⁿ^sp^ortatⁱ^oⁿ^St^atistic^s,^T^a^ble^1-⁴⁶^b^,^U^.^S^.^T^on-^M^ile^s^of^Fr^eⁱ^g^h^{t (}^B^T^S^Spe^cⁱ^a^l^T^a^bu^la^tion)^,^O^c^tobe^r
²⁰⁰^{8. A}^“^t^on-^m^ile^”^is^one^t^oⁿ^of^f^r^e^ig^{ht s}^h^ip^pe^d^one^m^ile^a^{nd t}^hus^r^e^f^l^ec^ts^both^the^v^o^l^u^m^e^s^h^ippe^{d (}^t^ons⁾^aⁿ^{d t}^h^e
^dis^t^aⁿ^c^e^s^h^ip^pe^{d (}^m^ile^s⁾^.

transported will almost double by 2035 and that international shipments will grow somewhat ³⁶
faster than domestic shipments. Since this forecast was made, freight volumes have decreased
due to recent economic circumstances but congestion still threatens trucking reliability and when
the economy recovers, a return to steadily rising freight volumes will likely strain the network in
some locations.
Doubts about whether the nation’s transportation infrastructure will keep pace with the projected
growth in freight traffic have led to calls for stronger federal leadership in the development of a
more systematic approach to addressing freight transportation needs. Many freight stakeholders
and some policymakers argue that the federal government needs to articulate a coherent national
transportation plan that identifies key freight corridors and gives priority to funding these
corridors. Some transportation policy experts have called for the formation of a national panel of
experts to prioritize federal transportation investments in order to de-politicize the project
selection process. Such a panel, they suggest, could be modeled after the Base Realignment and ³⁷
Closure Commission (BRAC) that was formed to de-politicize military base closure decisions.
Federal leadership in the development of a national transportation strategic plan or in the
selection of freight-oriented projects to receive priority funding would be a departure from the
current planning process which relies heavily on state DOTs and MPOs to plan and select which
transportation projects to fund in their jurisdictions. A criticism of addressing freight issues
predominantly at the state and local level is that a freight bottleneck may be merely relocated to
another community rather than addressed holistically. As the nation’s production moves towards
higher value goods and international trade becomes an increasingly important component of the
U.S. economy, U.S. goods are moving longer distances, often relying on an intermodal network ³⁸
that is North American in scope. Unlike commuter trips, which generally begin and end within a
metropolitan area, freight trip lengths often exceed the jurisdiction of a single MPO or even a
State. Thus, these planning institutions have difficulty providing a corridor or an “end-to-end”
approach in addressing freight improvements. They also may have a disincentive to do so
because, while they bear the costs of improvements, the economic benefits may accrue nationally.
Some hub cities have a preponderance of freight that is merely passing through their community
rather than serving local producers or retailers. Land border ports of entry, gateway seaports, and
interchange points in the rail network, in particular, must live with the negative effects of freight
traffic that is largely serving far away locations.
While one can argue that freight transportation is a national issue and thus elevating it to the
federal level is appropriate, it may not be able to compete with other pressing national priorities
such as health care, Iraq and Afghanistan, or the recent financial crisis. At the local level,
however, especially at major freight hubs like Los Angeles, for instance, freight transportation
may be a priority because residents recognize the pollution and congestion caused by port truck
traffic and thus support projects to streamline freight movement in the area. Because freight
issues vary dramatically from one hub or region to the next, it can also be argued that they are

³⁶^FH^WA^{, O}^f^fⁱ^ce^of^Fr^eⁱ^g^h^{t Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd O}^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^ons^,^Fr^eⁱ^ght^Fa^c^t^s^and^Fi^gur^e^s^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^{p. 11}^.
³⁷^T^hⁱ^s^w^a^{s o}ⁿ^e^o^f^t^h^{e reco}^mmen^d^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^o^f^t^h^{e Nat}ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^u^rf^ace^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^an^d^Reven^u^e^S^t^u^d^y
^Com^m^{ission. T}^h^e^Posta^l^Re^g^u^la^tory^Co^m^m^{ission a}^{nd sta}^t^e^traⁿ^s^p^o^r^ta^{tion c}^o^m^m^{issions a}^s^we^{ll a}^s^sta^t^e^pu^blic^u^tility
^c^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^w^e^r^e^a^l^s^o^s^u^g^g^e^s^te^{d a}^s^m^ode^ls^tha^t^c^oul^{d be}^e^m^ula^t^e^d^.
³⁸^N^o^{t o}ⁿ^ly^doe^s^N^A^FTA^f^r^eⁱ^g^h^{t c}^r^os^s^U^.^{S. la}^nd^bor^de^r^s^b^u^{t s}^o^to^o^d^o^e^s^a^por^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^U^.^S.^ov^e^r^s^e^a^s^f^r^eⁱ^g^h^t.

best addressed at the state and local level. For instance, air cargo hubs such as Memphis or
Louisville face different problems than large railroad hubs like Chicago or St. Louis, and seaports
are tackling different problems than land border crossings like Laredo or Detroit. Rural areas may
be more concerned with preserving short line rail access to the transcontinental rail network and
the (not unrelated) issue of upgrading roads to accommodate heavy trucks carrying agricultural
and mineral products. Also, a local desire to retain jobs that are tied to freight activity and a desire
to improve the quality of life for their residents may be sufficient incentive for state and local
transportation planners to address freight bottlenecks.
Greater collaboration and coordination among MPOs and State DOTs could facilitate a wider
geographic perspective in planning freight-related transportation improvements. Congress could
consider making funding for nationally or regionally significant projects contingent on state and
local coordination. The I-95 Corridor Coalition is one model of transportation planning from a
corridor perspective. The I-95 Corridor Coalition is an association of state DOTs and
transportation authorities from 16 states from Maine to Florida, that is examining ways to
improve fluidity on I-95 and that also investigates rail and waterborne modes as partial solutions
to mitigating I-95 congestion.
The dominance of the so-called “donor-donee state” debate can be an obstacle to developing and
improving a national freight transportation network. In previous surface transportation
reauthorization debates, the concern that each state receive back from the federal government as
close to the full amount of federal gas tax monies it generated dominated the floor debate in
Congress. On the one hand, the concern by Members of Congress for their state’s rate of return is
rational based on the fact that the preponderance of freight shipments, especially those over the
highway system, are of relatively short distance (about one-half of all trucks typically travel to ³⁹
destinations within 50 miles of their base, and almost three-fourths stay within their base state).
Yet, those shipments that are for longer-distance, and therefore more likely to cross state lines, are
not economically insignificant, considering that longer distance shipments also tend to be of
higher value. According to 2002 census data, while 34% of the total weight of shipments were ⁴⁰
interstate, nearly 60% of the total value of shipments were interstate. In 42 states, out-of-state
shipments accounted for more than 50% of the value of the state’s outbound shipments and in ⁴¹
only eight states, was the value of interstate shipments less than 50%.
Concerns about capacity limits on certain segments of the nation’s transportation infrastructure
and the shortfall in the current method of financing highway infrastructure has led to several
proposals for creating an additional transportation user charge dedicated to funding projects that
would improve goods movement. Proposals include assessing a container fee, freight waybill tax,
or an intermodal terminal facility charge. Trade offs involving equity, efficiency, and
administrative simplicity are involved in selecting a fee mechanism. Some freight interests,
because of their concern for the deteriorating performance of the surface transportation system,
have reluctantly supported the concept of new user fees, provided that they are fairly based on

³⁹^U^.^{S. D}^O^T^{, FH}^W^A^{, Of}^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Fr^eⁱ^g^h^{t Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd O}^p^e^r^a^tions^,^Fr^eⁱ^ght^Fac^t^s^an^{d Fi}^gur^e^s²⁰⁰⁷^,^T^a^ble^3-^{6, a}ⁿ^d
^te^x^t^quote^d^f^r^om^{p. 25}^.
⁴⁰^BT^S,^Fr^eⁱ^ghtⁱⁿ^Am^e^r^ic^a:^{A N}^e^w^N^a^ti^on^{al Pic}^t^ur^e^,^J^a^nua^r^y²⁰⁰^6,^{p. 4}⁰^.
⁴¹^BT^S,^Fr^eⁱ^ghtⁱⁿ^Am^e^r^ic^a:^{A N}^e^w^N^a^ti^on^{al Pic}^t^ur^e^,^J^a^nua^r^y²⁰⁰^6,^T^a^ble^{19, p}^.⁴⁰^.

usage, that 100% of the funds are dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvements and not
siphoned off for deficit reduction, and that they be dedicated only to net new capacity on new ⁴²
projects.
If Congress were to create a separate funding program specifically designed to target freight
transportation improvements, it could steer funding toward certain inefficiencies in the national
surface transportation network. Trucks, and therefore highway infrastructure, are vital for
efficient goods movement because they carry 65% of the tonnage and 75% of the value of
domestic cargo. FHWA has attempted to pinpoint locations on the national highway network ⁴³
suffering from recurring congestion problems, specifically from the perspective of trucks. This
study found that the preponderance of truck delays were at urban freeway interchange points and
that steep grades, signalized intersections, and lane drops were other problem areas. Most states
and many urban areas have conducted goods movement studies to better understand the patterns
of freight activity in their area and are cognizant of truck bottlenecks such as these. Some states
are evaluating the feasibility of segregating truck traffic from automobile traffic on highways with
heavy truck traffic. In some cases, this idea is under consideration with respect to highways
spanning hundreds of miles while in other cases short segments of highway connecting to a
seaport or other freight hub are under consideration.
Congress might consider the importance of roads linking airports, seaports, and rail terminals
with the interstate highway system. All air cargo begins and ends its journey in trucks as does
intermodal rail and containerized seaborne cargo. These intermodal combinations of freight
transport are the fastest growing segments of goods movement in the United States, consist of
higher-value goods, and are closely tied to international trade. While these “intermodal
connector” roads are relatively short segments, generally less than two miles in length, DOT
studies have found that they often suffer from poor pavement condition and substandard
geometrics (narrow lanes, small-radius curves) because the roads often were not originally
designed for the heavy truck traffic they handle.
Congress may also consider whether transfer points between ports and railroads and between
eastern and western railroad networks that still require a container to be trucked (drayed) in order
to make the interchange could not be more efficiently handled if a rail connection were available.
In Chicago (and to a lesser extend in St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans) where the eastern
and western rail networks converge, and at many seaports, truck drayage generates a significant
amount of truck traffic that co-mingles with commuter traffic on beltways and arterials.
Policymakers may consider whether additional “on-dock” or at least “near-dock” rail terminals
could be built at seaports to reduce truck drayage and whether “steel-wheel” interchanges could
be extended to additional rail interchanges in the Midwest. The development of “logistics parks”
by railroads—a cluster of warehouses built around a rail terminus, are essentially an effort by the
railroads to re-consolidate consumer product distribution centers that have been scattered by
circumferential highway building around cities. Rail logistics parks also offer opportunities to

⁴²^S^{ee f}^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^{e a sp}^eech^b^y^{a S}^eⁿⁱ^o^r^Vⁱ^ce^P^r^esi^d^en^t^o^f^UP^S^at^t^h^e^In^t^e^rm^o^d^a^l^A^sso^ci^atⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^No^rt^h^Ameri^ca,^E^x^p^o
²⁰⁰^{7, “}^A^g^e^nda^f^o^r^A^c^{tion: A}^v^oiding^N^a^tiona^{l G}^r^idl^o^c^k^,”^A^tla^nta^,^G^e^or^gⁱ^a^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^12,²⁰^07.
⁴³^FH^WA^,^An^In^itia^l^Assessmen^{t o}^f^Freig^h^t^B^o^ttleⁿ^{ecks o}ⁿ^Hi^g^h^w^a^y^s^,^Oct^o^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁵^,^htt^p^://w^ww^.^f^h^w^a^.^dot.g^ov^/^polic^y^/
^otps^/^bott^l^eⁿ^e^c^k^s^/inde^x^.^htm^.

reduce truck drayage in urban areas and Congress may consider ways to finance road
improvements to support these centers.
Even though railroads are private enterprises that, in modern times, have been largely privately
financed, Congress may consider whether greater public investment in freight rail infrastructure is
warranted. Trucking firms are among the largest customers of the railroads because they offer a
lower cost alternative for their long haul customers. Truck freight on trains has been vital for the
overland transport of U.S. containerized imports and exports but the recent spike in diesel prices
has pushed more domestic truckloads onto the railroads also. “Domestic intermodal,” as this ⁴⁴
traffic is called, may be the only freight segment experiencing volume growth in recent months.
While many argue that railroads have sufficient economic incentive to expand the capacity of
their network, and they are doing so, some of their customers are impatient with the pace of their
investment. The railroad’s intermodal customers, which generally ship higher value goods that
require faster, more reliable, and more precise scheduling than other rail shippers, would like to
see route miles with sufficient passing sidings or double tracking increased to better
accommodate freight trains traveling at different speeds. The railroads, which are seeking a
federal tax incentive to spur investment in their facilities, and others believe Congress should
create a dedicated trust fund, as it has done with the other transportation modes, to boost
investment in freight rail infrastructure. The increasing demand for commuter trains, which often
run on freight-owned track in metropolitan areas, also weighs in favor of expanded rail capacity.
Congress may also consider steering funding toward projects that mitigate the negative affects of
increases in freight traffic. Some cities and towns have experienced a significant increase in
freight train traffic, and frustrations are mounting at some rail-grade crossings. Congress may
consider whether additional funding should be directed for grade-separation projects along heavy
use rail corridors and whether the railroads should bear more of the costs for these types of
projects. (CRS Contact: John Frittelli)

The actual level of highway safety in the U.S. has been improving in recent years. This
improvement has been obscured by the relatively stable number of annual fatalities; the number
of people dying in traffic crashes each year has remained at a little over 40,000 for the past
decade. But since the number of vehicles, number of drivers, and number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) have all increased over this period, the fatality rate (the number of fatalities
adjusted for exposure to the risk of dying in a crash) has declined. In 2007 it was 1.37 per 100 ⁴⁵
million VMT, down from 1.42 in 2006, and down from 5.3 in 1965. However, DOT failed to
reach its goal of reducing the fatality rate to 1.0 by 2008 (which would have required a reduction ⁴⁶
in fatalities to around 30,000). Moreover, while the U.S. had the best safety record of any
country in the 1960s, since that time several other countries have surpassed the U.S., with some
already having reduced their fatality rates to 1.0 or less.

⁴⁴^A^c^co^r^dⁱⁿ^{g to}^t^h^{e I}ⁿ^t^e^r^m^o^d^a^l^A^s^s^o^ci^atⁱ^o^{n o}^f^No^r^t^{h Am}^erⁱ^c^a,^t^h^r^ough^t^h^{e th}ⁱ^r^d^q^u^a^r^t^er^o^f²⁰⁰⁸^,^do^mestⁱ^cⁱⁿ^t^e^r^m^o^d^a^l
^v^o^lum^e^is^{up 4.}^7%^y^e^a^r^-^t^o-^da^te^{. C}^o^m^p^a^r^e^d^{to 2}⁰⁰⁷^,²⁰⁰⁸^dom^e^s^tic^inte^rm^oda^{l v}^o^lum^e^s^w^e^re^{up 2}^%^{in the}^fⁱ^{rst q}^u^a^r^te^r,
^5.4%ⁱⁿ^t^h^e^s^e^c^ond^qua^r^t^e^r^,^aⁿ^d^6.^7%^{in t}^h^e^th^ir^d^qua^r^t^e^r^.
⁴⁵^NHT^S^A^,²⁰⁰^{7 Tr}^affic^S^a^fe^ty^Aⁿⁿ^ual^Asse^ssmeⁿ^t—Highli^g^h^t^s^{, D}^O^T^H^S⁸¹¹⁰^17,^A^u^g^u^s^t²⁰^08.
⁴⁶^DOT^re^vⁱ^s^e^{d the}ⁱ^{r tim}^e^t^a^b^le^{in 2}⁰⁰⁶^{, shif}^ting^t^h^e^ta^rg^e^t^da^te^f^o^{r a}^c^h^ie^vⁱ^ng^a^f^a^ta^lit^y^ra^te^{to 1.0 t}^o²⁰^11.

Most of the fatalities occur to three groups:
• Passenger car occupants (70% of the fatalities, with about 29,000 deaths in

2007);

• Motorcyclists (13% of the fatalities, with 5,154 fatalities in 2007; and
• Pedestrians (11%, with 4,654 fatalities in 2007).
Countermeasures to improve highway safety can be divided into three general categories: changes
to the roadway, changes to vehicles, and changes in driver behavior. Changes to the roadway are
the responsibility of FHWA, which distributed over $1.5 billion to the states in FY2008 under the
HSIP. Changes related to vehicles and drivers are the responsibility of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (and in the case of commercial vehicles and drivers, of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), though the focus of this discussion is
on NHTSA). In FY2008 Congress gave NHTSA $234 million for its own operations and for
research, and $599 million for grants to be provided to states to improve highway safety.
Driver behavior is the primary factor in the vast majority of fatal crashes, so programs directed at
altering driver behavior are considered to offer the greatest safety impact. The driver behaviors ⁴⁷
which are most significantly related to traffic fatalities are driving while impaired, not wearing a ⁴⁸⁴⁹⁵⁰
seat belt, or in the case of motorcyclists, a helmet, and speeding.
In SAFETEA, Congress established or renewed incentive programs that provided grants to states
that took specified actions to promote the use of seat belts and to reduce the incidence of drunk
driving. In some cases, the incentive programs achieved limited success: for example, in the case
of the program that provided grants to states that adopted a primary seat belt law (one that allows
a law enforcement agent to stop and ticket a motorist for not wearing a belt, which has been
shown to be an effective means of increasing the rate of seat belt usage), the number of states
qualifying for a grant under this program increased from 21 in its first year to 26 in its third year.

⁴⁷^12,⁹⁹⁸^driv^ing^f^a^ta^litie^s—36%^o^f^a^ll^m^o^{torist f}^a^ta^litie^{s in 2}⁰⁰⁷^—i^nv^olv^e^{d a}^driv^e^r^w^{ho w}^a^{s le}^ga^ll^y^im^pa^ire^d^{, i.e}^.,
^ha^vⁱ^ng^a^blo^{od a}^l^c^o^h^o^{l c}^o^nteⁿ^{t (}^B^A^C⁾^of^{0.08 or}^m^o^r^e^{. N}^H^T^S^A^,^{2007 Tr}^affic^Safe^t^y^Aⁿⁿ^u^a^l^As^s^e^s^s^m^eⁿ^t—Hⁱ^g^h^lig^hts^,
^D^O^T^H^S⁸¹¹⁰¹^{7, A}^u^g^u^s^t²⁰⁰⁸^.
⁴⁸^N^H^T^S^A^e^s^ti^m^a^tes^tha^t^if^s^e^a^t^be^lts^ha^d^be^eⁿ^w^o^rⁿ^by^a^{ll pa}^s^s^e^ng^e^r^v^e^hic^l^e^oc^c^upa^nts^ov^e^r^the^a^g^e^of^{4 d}^u^rⁱ^ng²⁰⁰⁷^,
^aⁿ^a^dditⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^5,⁰²^{4 l}ⁱ^v^e^s^c^ould^ha^v^e^be^eⁿ^s^a^v^e^{d. N}^H^T^S^A^,^Liv^e^s^Sav^e^dⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁷^by^Re^s^t^r^aⁱⁿ^{t U}^s^e^a^nd^Mⁱ^nim^u^m
^Driⁿ^kiⁿ^g^A^g^e^L^a^ws^{, D}^O^T^H^S⁸¹¹⁰⁴^{9, N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰^8.
⁴⁹^Natⁱ^oⁿ^wⁱ^d^{e m}^o^t^o^rcycl^e^h^e^l^m^et^u^s^{e i}ⁿ²⁰⁰⁸^w^a^{s 7}⁴^%^,^bu^tⁱⁿ^t^h^e³⁰^st^at^{es w}^h^{ere h}^e^l^m^et^{s ar}^{e n}^o^t^requi^red^,^u^s^{age w}^a^s
^54%^{. N}^H^T^SA^,^Mo^t^o^rcycl^{e Hel}^m^e^t^{Use i}ⁿ²⁰⁰⁸^—^O^vera^l^l^R^e^su^l^t^s^,^D^O^T^H^S⁸¹¹⁰⁴^{4, Se}^pte^m^be^r²⁰⁰^{8. R}^e^q^u^irⁱⁿ^g^a^ll
^ride^{rs to w}^e^a^r^a^he^lm^e^t^—^a^univ^e^rsa^l^he^lm^e^t^la^w^—^ha^{s be}^eⁿ^e^s^ti^m^a^t^e^{d to re}^duc^e^m^o^torc^y^c^list^f^a^ta^litie^{s by}^20%^{or m}^o^re^.
^N^a^tiona^{l C}^o^ope^r^a^tiv^e^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^P^r^og^r^a^m^,^Effe^c^tiv^eⁿ^e^{ss of Be}^havⁱ^o^{ral Hi}^ghw^ay^S^a^fe^ty^Co^uⁿ^te^rme^a^sure^s^,
^R^e^por^{t 62}^{2, 20}^08,^p.⁴¹^.
⁵⁰^Drivⁱⁿ^g^to^o^f^a^{st f}^o^{r co}ⁿ^d^itioⁿ^s^o^r^ex^ceedⁱⁿ^g^th^{e p}^o^s^ted^sp^eed^lim^it^h^a^{s b}^een^estim^ated^to^b^e^{a co}ⁿ^t^ri^b^u^tin^g^f^acto^rⁱⁿ
^one^-^t^hⁱ^r^d^of^f^a^ta^{l c}^r^as^he^s^.^D^O^T^,^Spe^e^d^M^aⁿ^age^m^e^nt^Str^a^te^gic^Iⁿⁱ^tia^tiv^e^{, 20}^05,^p.^1.

In the case of the program that provided grants to states to adopt measures to reduce drunk
driving, all fifty states and the District of Columbia qualified for grants in the first year of the
program; in the third year, as the number of measures required in order to remain eligible rose,
seven states and the District of Columbia failed to maintain their eligibility. And in some cases,
there are questions about the eligibility measures used for the program; for example, in the case
of the program that provided grants to states to improve motorcycle safety, promoting the wearing
of a motorcycle helmet—the single most demonstrably effective motorcycle safety measure was
not only not one of the eligibility measures, it was not even an eligible use for the program’s
funding, while the eligibility measures used in the program—such as motorcyclist training
programs and programs to promote motorist awareness of motorcyclists—are of unknown value ⁵¹
and in at least one evaluation were considered unlikely to be effective.
In reauthorizing the highway safety programs, Congress may wish to consider changes to these
incentive programs. These changes could include consolidating the application process for the
programs, allowing states more flexibility in the use of the incentive grant funds, switching from
an incentive grant program to a sanction program, or more closely linking grants to the
performance of states in achieving program goals.
States have complained that the application process for the programs (there are currently a total of
five NHTSA incentive grant programs) is difficult to comply with: each program has a separate
process, all the program applications are due within a 45-day period between June 15 and August
1 each year, and according to the states, each application requires significant amounts of staff
time, which is a particular problem for states with smaller safety offices.
One of the incentive programs allows states to use the funds for any safety-related expense that is
eligible for federal funding, but most of the programs restrict the use of the money received
through the program to activities related to the program. Some states would like the flexibility to
use some of the funds for other highway safety priorities. In some cases, the restrictions are even
more limiting; the Motorcycle Safety program grants can only be used for safety training
provided to motorcyclists, or motorcyclist awareness programs aimed at motorists, and for public
awareness and outreach programs. Officials in Montana told GAO that they would like to use
some of the funds to build new training sites or expand existing sites, but the grant does not allow ⁵²
that.

⁵¹^NCHRP^,^Effe^c^tiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^{of Be}^havⁱ^o^r^a^{l H}ⁱ^ghw^ay^S^a^fe^ty^C^o^unte^r^m^e^a^s^ur^e^s^{, R}^e^por^t⁶²^2,²⁰^08,^p.^7.
⁵²^G^o^v^e^rn^m^e^nt^A^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^T^r^affⁱ^c^Saf^e^t^y^P^r^og^ram^s^{: P}^r^og^re^s^s^,^Sta^t^e^s^{’ Cha}^lle^ng^e^s^{, a}^{nd Is}^s^u^e^s^f^o^r
^R^e^a^u^thor^iz^a^tio^{n, G}^A^O^-^08-^990T^,^J^u^ly^{16, 2}⁰⁰⁸^,^p.^18.

Sanctions have been found by some studies to be more effective than incentives in gaining state ⁵³
compliance with federal goals. States generally oppose sanctions, but even amid this general
opposition the Governors Highway Safety Association testified that it would vigorously oppose
any effort to repeal an existing sanction, the one requiring states to make purchase and public ⁵⁴
possession of alcohol illegal for those under age 21. That sanction itself, established by
Congress in 1984, was preceded by an incentive program which did not succeed in getting many
of the states with lower minimum purchase ages to change their laws.
Most of the eligibility criteria for the various incentive programs are actions—passage of laws
and implementation of programs—rather than measures of results. Exceptions to this include the
seat belt performance grant—a state can qualify either by having a primary seat belt law or by
maintaining a seat belt use rate of 85% or better—and the motorcycle safety grant program,
whose eligibility criteria include a reduction in fatalities and crashes (though states can qualify for
the grant based on other criteria).
Thus, states can receive safety grants under these programs without demonstrating progress
toward the improving highway safety. Congress could choose to link the receipt of a grant, or the
size of the grant, more closely to a state’s performance. Not all of the data needed for such a
change is currently available; for example, reliable measures of motorcyclist VMT, which would
be the preferred basis of measuring changes in a state’s rate of motorcyclist fatalities, are not
available for all the states. But some measures are currently available, For example, Congress
provided funding for improvements to states’ traffic safety information systems in SAFETEA.
(CRS Contact: David Randall Peterman)

Issues that Congress may wish to consider in regards to commercial vehicle safety include both
issues regarding commercial vehicles and those regarding commercial drivers. Regarding
vehicles, issues may include the potential of in-vehicle technologies to promote safety, the safety
impact of potential increases in truck size and weight limits, and the amount of funding provided
to states for inspection of commercial vehicles. Examples of in-vehicle technologies that may
improve commercial vehicle safety include driver-fatigue warning systems and lane departure
warning systems. Some in the commercial vehicle industry would like to see increases in federal
limits on the size and weight of commercial trucks, in order to increase the productivity of the
trucking industry. Opponents of increasing the size and weight limits are concerned about the

⁵³^Sa^r^a^{h F.}^Lⁱ^e^b^s^c^hutz^,^T^h^e^N^a^tion^a^{l Minim}^u^m^A^g^e^D^r^inkⁱ^ng^L^a^w^,^Publ^ius^,^V.¹⁵^{, N}^o^.^{3, S}^u^m^m^e^r^1985,^pp^{. 4}⁹^-⁵^0,
^c^ite^{s a}^re^{port by}^the^U.S.^A^d^vⁱ^sory^Co^m^m^is^{sion o}ⁿ^In^te^rg^ov^e^r^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l Re}^la^tio^{ns w}^h^ic^{h n}^o^te^{d t}^h^a^t^f^o^{r prov}^isio^{ns i}ⁿ^tw^o
^la^w^s^—^t^he^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^B^e^a^u^tifⁱ^c^a^{tion A}^c^{t of}¹⁹⁶⁵^aⁿ^d^the^Fe^de^r^a^{l Em}^e^r^g^e^ncy^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^Ene^r^gy^C^ons^e^r^v^a^{tion A}^c^{t of}
¹⁹⁷^4—^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^ha^{d f}ⁱ^r^s^{t e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^inc^eⁿ^tiv^e^pr^og^r^a^m^s^w^h^ic^{h ov}^e^r^s^e^v^e^r^a^l^y^e^a^r^s^ha^{d r}^e^s^u^lte^{d in}^oⁿ^ly^a^bout^ha^lf^the
^s^t^a^t^e^s^a^doptiⁿ^g^the^p^r^ov^is^io^ns^{; C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^theⁿ^s^w^itc^he^{d to s}^a^nc^ti^ons^,^w^h^ic^{h quic}^k^ly^r^e^s^u^lte^{d in m}^o^s^t^if^not^a^{ll t}^h^e^r^e^s^t^of
^t^h^{e st}^at^{es co}^m^p^l^yⁱⁿ^g.
⁵⁴^Sta^t^e^m^eⁿ^{t of}^C^h^rⁱ^s^t^ophe^r^J^.^M^u^r^phy^{, C}^h^aⁱ^r^m^aⁿ^{, G}^ove^r^nor^s^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^Saf^e^t^y^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^{tion, be}^f^o^r^e^the^H^ous^e
^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on H}ⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^s^a^{nd T}^r^aⁿ^s^{it, H}^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on T}^r^aⁿ^s^por^ta^tⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^Iⁿ^f^r^a^s^tr^uc^tur^e^{, J}^u^l^y^{16, 20}^08,^p.^8.

safety impact of having even larger and heavier trucks on the road. Inspections of commercial
vehicles are considered important in promoting compliance with federal safety requirements, but
there is concern that the resources available to support inspections do not allow inspections to be
done on more than a fraction of the commercial vehicles, making the risk of discovery of
noncompliance low.
Issues that may be considered regarding commercial drivers include how to improve the
effectiveness of programs that prevent drivers from driving while drugged or with serious
medical conditions that may impair their driving. GAO found that it was easy for drivers to avoid
detection, both because many urine collection sites did not follow regulations intended to reduce
the opportunity for drivers to invalidate the test, such as substituting other samples or adding ⁵⁵
contaminants to the sample. And GAO found that drivers who have failed a drug test were able
to continue driving without submitting to the required return-to-duty process by hiding their past
drug history from employers, many of whom did not conduct thorough background checks of
applicant’s drug testing history. Among the measures that Congress may wish to consider to deal
with this issue are the establishment of a national database for drug testing, additional funding for
inspectors, and additional authority to impose fines for failure to comply with federal
requirements. (CRS Contact: David Randall Peterman)

The vast extent and degree of use of the nation’s surface transportation system brings with it
problems as well as benefits. Research has a role in helping to address the problems that affect the
efficiency and effectiveness of the system. These problems include loss of life and injuries
resulting from traffic crashes, congestion in the system, degradation of the environment, and the
desire for better security of the infrastructure.
The federal government seeks to promote basic research into ways of addressing these challenges,
the further development of research findings, and the deployment of technologies that can help
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The FHWA has the largest research
budget of the DOT agencies, while NHTSA, FTA, and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) also have significant roles in DOT’s support for surface transportation
research.
FHWA’s research program seeks improvements to the quality of highway pavements and road
structures (including bridges and tunnels), in the safety of roadway design and construction, and
in policies regarding highway development and use. NHTSA’s research program seeks
improvements in driver behavior and vehicle design. FTA’s research program seeks
improvements to the design and operation of transit systems. RITA is the in-house research office
of DOT, conducting research for other agencies in the DOT as well as through contracts with
outside parties.

⁵⁵^GA^O,^M^o^{tor Carrie}^r^Safe^t^y^:^Imp^r^ov^e^m^eⁿ^{ts to Dru}^g^Te^stin^{g Pr}^ogr^{ams Cou}^l^{d Be}^tte^{r I}^d^eⁿ^tify^I^lle^ga^l^{Drug Use}^{rs an}^d
^Keep^T^h^{em o}^f^f^t^h^e^R^o^a^d^,^G^A^O^-^08-⁶^00,^Ma^y²⁰⁰⁸^.

Title V was the research title of SAFETEA. It authorized $411 million annually. Of that, $196
million went to the surface transportation research program; $110 million went to research on
intelligent transportation systems (ITS); $70 million went to support research at University
Transportation Centers; $27 million went to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and $27
million went to support training and education programs.
Two of the leading concerns expressed by the research community regarding federal support of
surface transportation research are the amount of funding provided and the effectiveness of the
allocation of that funding.
Advocates of greater federal spending on RD&T contend that the amount of federal funding is far
below both what is needed and what can be economically justified, in light of estimates of over
$300 billion in annual costs to society from highway crashes and from the value of time lost to
congestion, to say nothing of the environmental costs of the surface transportation system—costs
which could potentially be reduced through research. They also contend that federal investment in
surface transportation RD&T can be compared to private industry investment in RD&T; as a
share of total federal expenditures on highways (around 0.9%), the federal share is significantly
below the average of industry RD&T spending as a share of sales (around 3.3%). On the other
hand, Congress faces constraints on the amount of funding that is available for transportation, and
virtually every other part of the federal transportation budget is also considered by various groups
to be underfunded.
Congress also faces competing claims for how transportation RD&T funding should be used. The
extent of earmarking of RD&T funding was a concern before SAFETEA. The research
community’s position is that earmarking of research funding should be limited, and instead that it
should generally be awarded on the basis of peer-reviewed competitive applications, as this is
thought to result in a more effective use of the limited resources. In SAFETEA’s research title,
Congress earmarked more funding than the total amount that was authorized by the title. The
result was that the individual research programs and projects received less funding than each was
authorized, in order that the available funding could be stretched to cover all the designated
programs and projects. Another impact was that there was no unearmarked research funding left
to fund some FHWA projects, such as the biennial Conditions and Performance reports, that in
previous years had been funded with such moneys. Other concerns about the effective use of
RD&T funding include how to improve the implementation and coordination of a diverse
research program that is conducted within a decentralized and diverse research community, and
how to improve stakeholder input into the federal RD&T process. (CRS contact: David Randall
Peterman)

Surface transportation projects may impact local air quality, water quality, wildlife, cultural and
historic resources, or community resources. Any of those impacts may in turn require compliance
with local, state, tribal, or federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Endangered Species Act, or National Historic Preservation Act.
During past reauthorization debates environmental requirements have drawn the attention of
some Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state transportation agencies,
transportation construction organizations, and environmental groups). This attention has been due
to both the impact that surface transportation projects can have on the environment and the
impact that compliance with environmental requirements can have on project delivery. Previous
reauthorization legislation has attempted to address environmental compliance issues by either
authorizing funding for projects that would help mitigate or minimize environmental impacts
associated with a surface transportation programs or projects; or by specifying procedures
intended to expedite compliance with certain environmental requirements. The upcoming
reauthorization process may also include debate regarding potential legislative provisions
intended to expedite the environmental compliance process and fund certain regulatory
requirements.
Before final design, property acquisition, or construction on a highway or transit project can
proceed, the FHWA and FTA must comply with all applicable environmental review
requirements, including those of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 ⁵⁶
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts
of their proposed actions. To ensure that environmental impacts are considered before final
decisions are made, NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)
for any federally funded project that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. If
the level of significance of a proposed project is unclear, the agency must prepare an
environmental assessment (EA), in order to make that determination. Projects that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant social, economic, or environmental effect, and
which DOT has determined from past experience have no significant impact, are processed as
categorical exclusions.
DOT’s NEPA regulations require the final NEPA documentation to demonstrate that the project ⁵⁷
will be in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and other related requirements.
This means that, for any given transportation project, any study, review, or consultation required
by law, that is related to the environment, should be conducted within the framework of the NEPA

⁵⁶^Aⁿ^“en^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^a^l^revi^e^w^{” re}^f^e^r^s^t^o^{a requ}ⁱ^r^em^en^t^t^o^sho^w^evi^d^en^{ce o}^f^f^o^rmal^coⁿ^sⁱ^d^eratⁱ^oⁿ^,^eval^u^a^tⁱ^o^n,^o^r^an^al^y^sⁱ^s
^of^the^im^pa^c^t^s^of^a^pr^opos^e^d^f^e^de^r^a^{l a}^c^tion.^Mos^t^of^te^{n, the}^us^e^of^t^h^e^te^r^m^is^{in r}^e^f^e^r^e^nce^{to the}^pr^oc^e^s^s^of^c^o^m^p^l^y^ing
^w^{ith N}^E^P^A^r^e^quir^e^m^e^nts^.^H^o^w^e^ve^r^,^de^peⁿ^d^ing^up^{on t}^h^e^pr^oje^c^t^a^t^is^s^u^e^,^aⁿ^eⁿ^vⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l r}^e^vⁱ^ew^m^a^y^r^e^f^e^r^{to the}
^pr^oc^e^s^s^of^c^o^m^p^l^y^ing^w^{ith pr}^ov^is^ions^of^an^y^ap^p^lⁱ^cab^l^e^en^vi^roⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^a^l^requⁱ^r^em^en^t^.
⁵⁷^{23 C}^F^R⁷⁷¹^.¹^33.

process. According to FHWA, legal requirements most frequently applicable to its projects are the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 460 et seq.), Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and “Section 4(f)”of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (40 U.S.C. 303). To meet the requirements of these
laws, various agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may be required to participate in the NEPA process. That participation may
involve performing scientific analysis or issuing permits.
More efficient interagency cooperation has been identified as an area in need of improvement in
implementing the NEPA process. Both SAFETEA and TEA-21 before it, included legislative ⁵⁸
procedures intended to streamline the process. Debate continues on the impact that ⁵⁹
environmental compliance requirements have on transportation project delivery. As a result,
additional legislative provisions intended to expedite the environmental compliance process
(particularly with regard to the NEPA process and environmental permitting process) may be
included in the upcoming reauthorization process.
Another requirement that is generally carried out within the context of the NEPA process is ⁶⁰
compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Section 4(f)
requirements apply to the use of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and to publicly or privately owned historic sites of national, state, or local
significance. The law prohibits the use of a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project
unless there is no “prudent and feasible” alternative to do otherwise, and the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource. When a project does propose the use of a
Section 4(f) resource, a separate “Section 4(f) evaluation” must be prepared and included with the
appropriate NEPA documentation.
SAFETEA amended Section 4(f) to allow for the use of parks, refuges, and historic sites if that
use results in “de minimus impacts.” SAFETEA also required DOT to issue regulations clarifying
factors to be considered and standards to be applied in determining whether alternatives are
“prudent and feasible” under the Section 4(f) requirements. Due to the continued prohibition on
most uses of Section 4(f) resources, further amendments to the applicable requirements may be
debated during the upcoming reauthorization process.

⁵⁸^For^de^ta^ils^oⁿ^SA^FET^E^A^-^L^U^’^s^N^E^P^A^-^r^e^la^te^{d pr}^ov^isⁱ^ons^aⁿ^{d D}^O^T^’^s^r^e^s^pons^e^{to t}^hos^e^pr^ov^is^io^ns^,^s^e^e^FH^WA^’^s
^“^S^A^F^E^T^E^A^-^L^U^Envⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^ta^{l Pr}^ov^is^ions^aⁿ^{d R}^e^la^te^{d I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^tion”^W^e^{b pa}^g^e^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.e^nv^ir^onm^eⁿ^t.f^h^w^a^.dot.g^ov^/s^tr^m^l^ng^/^e^s²^s^a^f^e^te^a^l^u.a^s^p.
⁵⁹^T^h^{e Nat}ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^u^rf^ace^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^o^{n an}^{d Reven}^u^e^S^t^ud^y^Co^mmi^ssⁱ^oⁿ^,^fⁱⁿ^a^l^rep^o^r^t^,^pp^.¹¹^-¹⁴^.
⁶⁰^Se^c^tion⁴⁽^f⁾^of^the^D^O^T^A^c^{t w}^a^s^or^ig^ina^lly^s^e^{t f}^o^r^t^{h a}^t^{49 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹⁶⁵³⁽^f⁾^a^{nd a}^p^plie^s^t^o^a^{ll D}^O^T^pr^oje^c^t^s^.^A^sⁱ^m^ila^r
^pr^ov^is^io^{n, f}^o^u^{nd a}^t²³^U^.^S.C^.^§¹^{38, a}^ppl^ie^s^s^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^l^l^y^{to Fe}^de^r^a^l-^aⁱ^{d hig}^h^w^a^y^s^{. I}ⁿ¹⁹⁸³^{, a}^s^pa^r^t^of^a^g^e^ne^r^a^l
^r^e^c^odifⁱ^c^a^{tion of}^the^D^O^T^A^c^{t, 49 U}^.^S.C^.^§¹⁶⁵³⁽^f⁾^w^a^s^f^o^r^m^a^l^l^y^r^e^pe^a^l^e^d^a^{nd c}^odifⁱ^e^dⁱⁿ⁴⁹^U^.^S^.^C^.^{§ 3}^{03 w}^{ith s}^l^ig^htly
^dif^f^e^r^eⁿ^{t la}^ng^ua^g^e^{. T}^h^is^pr^ov^is^ion^no^lo^ng^e^r^f^a^lls^unde^r^a^“^S^e^c^tion⁴⁽^f⁾^,”^{but D}^O^T^ha^s^c^ontⁱⁿ^ue^{d t}^h^is^r^e^f^e^r^e^nc^e^,^gⁱ^v^eⁿ
^t^h^at^o^v^{er t}^h^{e y}^ears,^t^h^{e w}^h^o^l^{e b}^ody^o^f^p^r^o^vⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^p^o^lⁱ^cⁱ^e^s,^an^{d case l}^a^w^h^a^{s b}^een^co^l^l^ectⁱ^v^el^y^re^f^e^ren^ced^{as S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ
⁴⁽^f⁾^.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program was created by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. CMAQ was reauthorized
under TEA-21 and again as part of SAFETEA. It provides funds to states for transportation
projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, particularly in areas of the
country that do not attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In particular, it
authorizes funding for programs and projects intended to reduce carbon monoxide (CO),
particulate matter, and ozone. CMAQ funds are apportioned in accordance with a formula based
largely on a state’s population and pollution reduction needs. During the reauthorization process,
there will likely be debate regarding the level of CMAQ funding and possibly the types of
projects eligible for funding.
From FY2005 to FY2009, the CMAQ program provided over $8.6 billion in funds to state
departments of transportation and local transit agencies. Specific types of projects eligible for
CMAQ funds include, but are not limited to: programs for improved public transit; traffic flow
improvement programs that reduce emissions; and programs to control extended idling of ⁶¹
vehicles. SAFETEA required states and MPOs to give priority in distributing CMAQ funds to
diesel engine retrofits, and other cost-effective emission reduction and congestion mitigation
activities that provide air quality benefits. SAFETEA also expanded the program funding
eligibility requirements to specifically allow certain types of projects to qualify for CMAQ
funding.
SAFETEA also directed DOT to evaluate and assess a representative sample of CMAQ projects,
in consultation with EPA, to determine their impacts on air quality and congestion levels and to
ensure the effective implementation of the program. Further, SAFETEA directed DOT to
maintain and disseminate a database describing project impacts (no direct funding was provided
for the evaluation or the database). In response to SAFETEA requirements, in October 2008,
FHWA released a report that studied the effectiveness of 67 CMAQ-funded project. Among other
factors, the report evaluated congestion and mobility benefits and air quality benefits of those ⁶²
projects.
Under the Clean Air Act, areas that have not attained one or more of the six National Ambient Air
Quality Standards must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) demonstrating how they will
reach attainment. As of November 2008, at least 57 areas with 132 million people were subject to
the SIP requirements. Other areas are likely to be added to this list in the next few years, as more
stringent air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter take effect.

⁶¹^Se^e^FHWA^{’s Inte}^rim^P^r^og^ra^m^Guidaⁿ^c^e^“^T^he^Cong^e^s^tio^{n Mi}^tig^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d A}ⁱ^{r Qua}^lity^I^m^prov^e^m^eⁿ^{t (CMA}^Q)
^I^m^pr^ov^em^eⁿ^{t P}^r^og^r^a^m^unde^r^the^Sa^f^e^,^A^c^c^ounta^b^le^,^Fle^x^ible^,^Ef^fⁱ^cieⁿ^{t T}^r^aⁿ^s^por^ta^ti^on^Eq^uity^A^c^{t: A}^L^e^ga^cy^f^o^r
^U^s^e^r^s^,^”^O^c^tobe^r^31,²⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^onliⁿ^e^a^t^http:^//w^w^w^.f^h^w^a^.^dot.g^ov^/e^nv^ir^onm^eⁿ^t/cm^a^q06gm^.htm^.
⁶²^Se^e^“^S^A^F^ET^E^A^-^L^U^{1808: C}^M^A^Q^Ev^a^l^ua^{tion a}^{nd A}^s^s^e^s^s^m^e^nt,”^av^a^ila^ble^{on t}^h^e^FH^W^A^“^C^ong^e^s^ti^on^Mitig^a^tioⁿ
^a^{nd A}ⁱ^{r Qua}^lity^{(CMAQ) I}^m^prov^e^m^eⁿ^{t P}^r^og^ra^m^”^W^e^b^pa^g^e^a^t^http://www^.^f^hwa^.^dot.g^ov^/^e^nv^ironm^eⁿ^t/c^m^a^qpg^s/.

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act prohibits federal agencies from funding projects in these areas
unless the projects “conform” to the SIPs. To demonstrate conformity, a Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) must show that the projects to be undertaken will not lead to an
increase in emissions that would delay attainment of air quality standards. New highway and
transit projects cannot receive federal funds unless they can make this demonstration.
There are some exceptions: highway safety projects, rehabilitation and reconstruction of transit
facilities, purchase of replacement buses and rail cars, noise attenuation projects, and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities are all allowed to proceed whether or not an area’s conformity has lapsed. ⁶³
But the threat of a conformity lapse and the potential “loss” of highway funds has been a
powerful incentive to get local officials to focus on air quality considerations as they plan
transportation projects.
Although environmental advocates and regulators have generally argued that conformity is a
critical tool for the achievement of the nation’s air quality goals, some in the transportation ⁶⁴
community have found it burdensome. Thus, in its strategy for reauthorization of SAFETEA,
the Department of Transportation proposed to set up a Performance-Oriented Pilot (POP)
Program that would waive conformity and other planning and environmental requirements in up ⁶⁵
to 10 states or metropolitan areas, substituting performance standards in their place. In effect,
DOT proposed to remove a planning requirement in favor of a standard that could not be
measured until after the project was complete.
State and local air quality regulators, through their national organization (the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies) pronounced themselves “deeply disturbed” by DOT’s proposals, which
they said “would emasculate transportation conformity,” and “place a road block directly in front
of state and local clean air efforts.” It is unclear whether the POP Program or other modifications
to conformity will be considered in the surface transportation debate. (CRS contact: Jim
McCarthy)
If the United States is to address climate change, legislation and regulations will need to require ⁶⁶
significant reductions in emissions of “greenhouse” gases (GHG) from transportation sources.
Transportation accounts for about one-third of U.S. emissions of the leading greenhouse gas, ⁶⁷
carbon dioxide (CO²), and about 27% of the six major GHGs typically considered.
CO² is largely a product of combustion: the carbon in fuel (be it gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or
whatever) combines with oxygen in the atmosphere when the fuel burns. Thus, the principal
method of reducing CO² emissions from transportation sources is to burn less fuel. Emissions can
also be reduced by substituting fuels that have less carbon. Substitution of lower-carbon fuels has

⁶³^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^f^unds^a^r^e^{not a}^c^t^ua^lly^los^tⁱⁿ^a^c^onf^or^mⁱ^t^y^la^ps^e^.^A^s^note^d^{, m}^aⁿ^y^t^y^pe^s^of^pr^oje^c^t^a^r^e^e^x^em^{pt f}^r^om^the
^req^uⁱ^rem^eⁿ^t^an^d^go^f^o^rw^ard^{as p}^l^anⁿ^e^d^.^Ot^h^e^{r p}^r^o^j^ect^{s f}^{ace a t}^e^m^p^o^r^ary^su^sp^en^si^oⁿ^o^f^f^unding^uⁿ^til^the^y^s^ubm^{it a}
^c^onf^ormⁱ^ng^T^I^P^.^G^e^ne^ra^lly^{, the}^offⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^{s inv}^o^lv^e^d^re^fe^{r to this}^te^m^por^a^r^y^a^{nd pa}^r^tia^{l s}^u^s^p^eⁿ^sⁱ^on^a^s^“^l^os^ing^”^theⁱ^r^f^e^de^r^a^l
^hig^h^w^a^y^f^unds^{, w}^h^ic^{h u}ⁿ^d^o^u^b^te^dl^y^s^p^ee^ds^theⁱ^r^e^f^f^o^r^t^s^{to r}^e^m^e^d^y^the^s^itua^tⁱ^on.
⁶⁴^Re^foc^u^s^.^Re^f^o^r^m^{. Re}^ne^w^.^{A N}^e^w^Tr^ans^p^o^r^t^a^tio^{n A}^ppr^o^a^c^h^for^Am^e^r^ic^a^{, J}^u^ly²⁰⁰^8.
⁶⁵^T^h^e^de^pa^rtm^e^{nt a}^l^{so pro}^pose^d^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^{s to the}^Co^ng^e^s^tion^Mitig^a^tio^{n a}ⁿ^d^Aⁱ^{r Qua}^lity^g^r^aⁿ^{t prog}^ra^m^.
⁶⁶^G^r^e^e^nhous^e^g^a^s^e^s^a^r^e^polluta^nts^t^h^a^t^tr^a^p^t^h^e^s^u^n’^s^he^a^t^{, w}^{ith e}^f^f^e^c^t^s^{on t}^h^e^Ea^r^t^h^’^s^c^lim^a^t^e^.
⁶⁷^CO²^a^c^c^ounts^f^o^r^m^o^r^e^thaⁿ^80%^of^U^.^{S. G}^H^G^em^is^sⁱ^ons^.

been a particularly attractive option for stationary sources of emissions—e.g., a power plant can
significantly reduce its CO² and other emissions by substituting natural gas for coal. The same
possibility (substituting natural gas or other lower-carbon fuels for gasoline and diesel fuel)
would lower CO² emissions from surface transportation.
In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140), Congress required
both improved fuel economy for new cars and trucks and a lower carbon content in renewable
transportation fuels. The law requires that new motor vehicles attain an average improvement of
40% in fuel economy by 2020 with incremental improvements between now and then, and that
future renewable fuels have a lower carbon content on a life-cycle basis. Many are calling for
even more stringent standards than those set in EISA, as part of an effort to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions as much as 80% by 2050.
Surface transportation reauthorization offers the possibility to look at transportation emissions in
a broader context, and could provide incentives for systemic changes that might lower the carbon
footprint of the transportation sector. Idle reduction infrastructure (e.g., electrification of truck
stops), congestion mitigation, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, funding for pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, preferences for lower carbon vehicles in Federal Transit Administration grants,
incentives to shift freight and people to less-carbon-intensive modes, and incentives for Smart
Growth are among the potential policy options. (CRS contact: Jim McCarthy)
Alternatives to petroleum fuels, and ways to use petroleum more efficiently, are of key interest,
especially in light of recent high oil prices, the desire to lessen dependence on petroleum imports,
and concerns over greenhouse gas emissions. Current fuels taxes and other surface transportation
programs favor alternative fuels over petroleum, although these incentives may not be enough for
these alternatives to be competitive, especially when oil prices have dropped dramatically from ^th
their high point in the spring and summer of 2008. In the 111 Congress, issues surrounding
surface transportation and alternative fuels and advanced technologies will likely focus around
four key areas: 1) fuels taxes; 2) incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel/advanced
technology vehicles; 3) infrastructure for new fuels/technology; and 4) other incentives, such as
HOV exemptions.
A key incentive for many alternative fuels is that their use is effectively subsidized through tax
incentives for their retail sale and/or blending into conventional fuels. For example, all gasoline,
regardless of its ethanol content, is taxed at 18.4 cents per gallon. However, every gallon of
ethanol blended into gasoline is subject to a credit of 51 cents per gallon (scheduled to decrease to
45 cents per gallon in 2009). Therefore, the effective tax rate on a 10% blend of ethanol in
gasoline is 13.3 cents per gallon (14.9 cents per gallon in 2009). Similarly, retail providers of
natural gas, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels may claim a credit of 50 cents per gallon. These
various incentives were enacted as provisions in energy and economic legislation. However, there
may be interest in expanding or extending some of these incentives in surface transportation
reauthorization. Further, interest is growing in the environmental effects of various alternative
fuels. Therefore, there may be some interest in modifying these credits to reflect their
performance on environmental measures, especially greenhouse gas emissions.
Various incentives exist in the most recent surface transportation legislation, and in various
energy laws, to promote the purchase and use of alternative fuel and advanced technology
vehicles. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established tax credits for the purchase of

alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. Further, under Federal Transit Administration bus programs,
additional matching funds are available for transit agencies that purchase alternative fuel and
advanced technology buses—beyond those for conventional technology. However, these
incentives have been criticized by some because new, advanced diesel buses are considered
advanced technology under this program. There may be interest in expanding transit options to
promote more efficient transport. There may also be interest in modifying existing incentives to
focus more on their energy efficiency or environmental performance.
For the use of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles to expand, infrastructure to
support them must also grow. Just as there are incentives for the purchase of new vehicles, there
are tax credits for retail stations to install refueling infrastructure. As part of the surface
transportation reauthorization debate, there may be interest in providing additional incentives,
including grants, for tax-exempt entities (e.g., transit agencies) to install additional refueling
infrastructure, especially if those stations are accessible to the public. To promote more efficient
highway transport of goods, current programs to reduce heavy truck idling (e.g., truck stop
electrification) may be amended or expanded.
Other incentives for alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles may also be of interest.
Currently, states may exempt alternative fuel vehicles and vehicles that achieve 45 miles per
gallon or better from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) restrictions. Under earlier laws, some states
exempted hybrid vehicles (regardless of fuel economy) from HOV restrictions. In those states, the
HOV exemption became a key incentive for the purchase of hybrid vehicles. There may be
interest in expanding or modifying HOV exemptions to promote certain fuels or technologies.
Other potential incentives may include exemptions from highway or bridge tolls. (CRS Contact:
Brent Yacobucci)

^J^o^{hn W}^.^Fi^sc^he^r^,^Co^o^r^dⁱ^na^t^o^r ^Sa^nd^r^a^L.^J^o^hn^soⁿ
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Po^lic^y^In^f^o^r^m^a^tion^R^e^s^earch^Specialⁱ^s^t
^j^f^is^ch^er^@^c^rs^.loc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁷⁷⁶⁶^s^j^ohⁿ^s^on@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷²¹⁴
^R^obert^S^.^Ki^rk ^B^r^en^{t D. Yacobu}^cci
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Po^lic^y^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^En^er^g^y^aⁿ^d^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^eⁿ^{tal P}^o^lic^y
^rkⁱ^r^k@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,⁷^-⁷⁷⁶⁹^by^acobu^cci^@^c^rs^.l^oc.^g^ov^{, 7-}⁹⁶⁶²
^W^illia^m^J^.^Mallett ^V^a^ne^s^s^a^Ci^e^s^l^a^k
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Po^lic^y^In^f^o^r^m^a^tion^R^e^s^earch^Specialⁱ^s^t
^w^m^al^l^e^t^t^@^c^r^s^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}²²¹⁶^v^cⁱ^e^s^l^a^k^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7}^-⁸⁹⁷⁸
^Davⁱ^d^Raⁿ^d^{all P}^e^ter^m^an ^Ca^r^o^{l G}^l^o^v^e^r
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^P^o^lic^y^In^f^o^r^m^a^tion^R^e^s^earch^Specialⁱ^s^t
^dpet^e^rm^aⁿ^@^c^r^s^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}³²⁶⁷^cg^l^o^v^e^r^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷³⁵³
^J^o^hⁿ^Fr^ittelli ^J^o^hⁿ^W^illia^m^s^oⁿ
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Po^lic^y^In^f^o^r^m^a^tion^R^e^s^earch^Specialⁱ^s^t
^j^f^r^ittelli@cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁷⁰³³^j^wⁱ^llia^m^s^oⁿ^@cr^s^.lo^c^.^g^o^v^{, 7-}⁷⁷²⁵
^Lⁱⁿ^d^{a Lu}^t^h^er ^To^d^d^B^.^Ta^t^e^l^m^an
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^eⁿ^{tal P}^o^lic^y^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^at^iv^{e A}^t^torn^e^y
^l^l^u^t^h^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.^g^ov^{, 7-}⁶⁸⁵²^t^t^a^t^e^l^m^aⁿ^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁴⁶⁹⁷
^Ja^m^e^s^E^.^M^c^C^a^rt^hy
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^eⁿ^{tal P}^o^lic^y
^j^m^ccart^h^y^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁷²²⁵

^{Area o}^f^Expertise^Name^{CRS Division}^Telephone
^{John Fische}^r^RSI^7-77⁶⁶
^{Highway Program Is}^sues
^{Bob Kirk}^RSI^7-77⁶⁹
^{John Fische}^r^RSI^7-77⁶⁶
^{Trust Fu}^{nd Iss}^ues^{Bob Kirk}^RSI^7-77⁶⁹
^{Bob Kirk}^RSI^7-77⁶⁹
^{Donor/Donee & Formula Issues}^{John Fische}^r^RSI^7-77⁶⁶
^{Transit Program Iss}^ues^{Will Mal}^lett^RSI^7-22¹⁶
^{John Fische}^r^RSI^7-77⁶⁶
^{Transportation I}^nfrast^ruct^{ure Policy}^{Bob Kirk}^RSI^7-77⁶⁹
^{Will Mal}^lett^RSI^7-22¹⁶
^{Highway, Railroad}^{, & Truck Safet}^y^{Randy Peterman}^RSI^7-32⁶⁷
^{Auto and Traffic Safety (including}^NHTSA)^{Randy Peterman}^RSI^7-32⁶⁷
^{Intelligent Transportation System}^{s (ITS)}^{Randy Peterman}^RSI^7-32⁶⁷

^{Area o}^f^Expertise^Name^{CRS Division}^Telephone
^{Research Programs}^{Randy Peterman}^RSI^7-32⁶⁷
^{Transportation E}^nha^nceme^{nts &}^{Planning (MPOs)}^{Will Mal}^lett^RSI^7-22¹⁶
^{Intermodal/Freight Iss}^ues^{John Fritelli}^RSI^7-70³³
^{CMAQ Linda}^Luth^er^RSI^7-68⁵²
^Environme^{ntal Iss}^{ues, including st}^reamlining,^{Linda Luth}^er^RSI^7-68⁵²
^{stormwater, and section}^4f.
^{Conformity with the Clean Air A}^ct^{Jim McCarth}^y^RSI^7-72²⁵
^{Recreational Trails}^{Sandy Johnson}^RSI^7-72¹⁴
^{Surface Tra}^{nsportation Secu}^rity^{John Frittelli}^RSI^7-70³³
^{Jim McCarth}^y^RSI^7-72²⁵
^{Climate Considerati}^ons
^{Brent Yacobuc}^ci^RSI^7-96⁶²
^{Alternative Fuels & Advanced Te}^{chnology Vehicles}^{Brent Yacobuc}^ci^RSI^7-96⁶²
^{Vanessa Cieslak}^KSG^7-89⁷⁸
^{Highway and Tra}^{nsit Program Da}^ta^{Carol Glover}^KSG^7-73⁵³
^{John Williamson}^KSG^7-77²⁵
^{Selected Legal Issues}^{Todd Tate}^lman^ALD^7-46⁹⁷
^Dⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on^abbrevⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^:^RS^{I = R}^e^s^o^u^r^ce^s^,^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce, a}ⁿ^{d In}^du^st^r^y^Dⁱ^vi^sⁱ^oⁿ^;^K^S^G^{= K}ⁿ^o^w^l^e^dg^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e^s
^Gro^u^p^;^AL^{D =}^Am^erican^L^a^{w Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^.