Transportation Bill Passes: Here’s the Good and the Bad
On Friday, the transportation bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in both chambers. In the Senate, the bill passed by a bi-partisan vote of 74-19, and in the House, all but the 52 Tea Party Republicans voted for the bill. The “compromise bill” is not ideal, and many reform provisions included in the approved Senate bill were taken out in the conference committee – but there are some victories.
The new, $127 billion bill will last 27 months. It provides funding for transit at about the same level as current law and the transit program continues to derive the majority of its funding from the Highway Trust Fund. Importantly, the bill continues direct suballocation of highway funding from one of the main highway programs – the Transportation Mobility program to metro areas over 200,000. The dollar amount is about the same as before but the percentage share for metro areas dropped from 62.5% of the program to 50% – a change we argued against – but the house wanted zero suballocation so it’s a partial victory. Details on a new $500 million program for projects of national significance are not clear, but it seems to be modeled on the popular TIGER grant program – although funding will be reserved for projects at the $50 million or higher level.
The Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes, Recreational Trails, and Scenic Byways programs were consolidated into a “Transportation Alternatives” program, with funding cut by 1/3 of what the previous programs received. (50 percent of the funds are to be suballocated to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with over 200,000 population, while the remaining 50 percent will be distributed by the state as in current law.) The states were given several ‘outs’ on this program including opting out of the program entirely under certain circumstances, including using all of the funds to repair damage caused by a natural disaster – tornadoes, hurricanes etc. Keeping a bicycle and pedestrian program at all was possible only because advocates turned up the heat last week and you made your voices heard.
A new pilot program provides $10 million for transit-oriented development planning, which allows communities to do station area planning, but there is no special TOD capital program. However, the bill does not restore parity between transit and parking tax benefits as the Senate bill did. This means the transit benefit that expired on the first of the year will remain in effect. Its expiration reduced the maximum monthly pretax benefit to $125 from the $230 it had been since the President’s stimulus package of 2009.
The bill requires regions over 1 million people to develop a performance plan that outlines baseline conditions and targets for each of the performance measures developed by USDOT. It also requires a description of the projects funded and how such projects will help to meet the goal. Unfortunately, in increasing the TIFIA program (loans and credit enhancement for innovative finance or public-private partnerships) from the current $122 million per year to $750 million the first year and $1 billion the second, the bill eliminates current program objectives and makes this a first come, first served program, rather than performance based. This is immediately most useful to agencies that either have a proven source of dedicated revenues from future projects, such as ports, airports and toll highway authorities, and to a handful of regions that have passed or might soon pass a dedicated revenue source for mass transit investments
All of the safety provisions from the Senate’s bill were successfully adopted into the new bill. The first of these provisions is an incentive grant program to encourage states to implement laws addressing teen drivers, distracted and impaired drivers, and occupant protection. Additionally, DOT is required to issue new safety standards addressing occupant protection in vehicles to improve seatbelts, roof crush strength, anti-ejection window glazing, tire pressure monitoring, and rollover prevention. Furthermore, interstate buses and trucks will be required to install electronic-on-board recorders (EOBRs) to improve safety by ensuring hours of service (HOS) rules are followed. Several child safety measures such as consumer information on the performance of child safety seats in front and side impact collisions and improvements on the latch that anchors the seat to the vehicle, were also included.
The Senate bill had included a rail title for the first time, including eligibility for passenger rail projects but the rail title was removed all together. Additionally, the Senate bill had included a national freight program but that also was struck. A national freight policy and goals, however, were established and national freight plan is now required.
This bill comes with several other problems. One of the most striking changes is that there is no dedicated funding for road and bridge repair, while under the current law roughly 32 percent of funding is restricted to repair. It also eliminates the current priority for toll revenues to go to projects that provide alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel. The bill also directs the transportation Secretary to suspend environmental reviews of highway and transit projects costing less than $5 million and makes other changes to “streamline” the process that was established under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Moreover, we lost the Senate provision to design federal aid roads to accommodate all users (Complete Streets), which is a big disappointment.
One of the biggest surprises (in a good sense) of the bill is that it did not include provisions to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline project. As an environmental bonus, the Act included the Gulf Coast Restoration fund (otherwise known as the RESTORE Act) which provides for 80 percent of civil penalties (estimated at $5 – 20 billion) related to the BP oil spill to be used to clean up coastal eco-systems.
Overall the bill is not what we had envisioned, and it seems the Senate bill was highly compromised to make this “compromise bill.” Be on the look-out for a piece on how this bill impacts cities in general and Chicago in particular.
