Policy observers in Washington report that the Bush Administration’s proposed bill for the reauthorization of the 1998 Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) may be delivered to Congress as early as today. TEA-21 is the primary authorization for federal funding for highway and mass transit projects around the United States. It expires this September. Its successor is also expected to cover a 5-6 year period.

Several accounts of the bill — dubbed the Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act (SAFETEA) — say it contains the policy provisions noted below. This is a preliminary synopsis intended to spotlight elements of note, rather than an exhaustive overview.

• Single occupant vehicles would be permitted to use HOV lanes upon payment of a toll, as long as the SOV traffic doesn’t jam up the lane in question. The operating threshold for such service degradation is set at 45mph, which could rule out some urban HOV facilities.

• States and public authorities would be authorized to impose tolls on highways, bridges and tunnels, including those on the Interstate system. Interstate tolls would be required to vary in price by time of day in order to create a congestion relief benefit. The FHWA’s small value pricing program would be eliminated.

• The definition of mass transit "new starts" would be broadened to include "development of corridors to support public transportation…including construction of dedicated bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes" or other capital projects designed to increase transit ridership in a corridor. Although bus rapid transit is a potentially very promising area of transit expansion for U.S. metro areas, blending HOV lane highway projects into the competition for scarce transit new start dollars is a terrible proposal. Several years ago, New Jersey transformed several federally-funded HOV lanes into general traffic lanes. Under this provision, the Long Island division of NY State DOT could grab transit new start funds to build HOV lanes under its widely-rejected "LITP" plan. The federal share of new starts projects would also be codified at 50%, as opposed to the traditional 80-20 federal-state split for transportation projects, including most federally-funded highway work. Note, however, that 50% is more or less today’s de facto federal share for large transit new starts.

• The bill distributes some of the funding previously under Federal Transit Administration discretionary programs like "rail modification" and bus capital funding to formula and new starts programs. It is not immediately clear that these changes herald adverse consequences for transit-rich states, though will continue to seek perspective on the issue.

• The bill directs US DOT to establish a national commission to assess the condition and future needs of the Interstate highway system, and another to investigate whether and how to replace the federal gas tax as the primary revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund, and provides for federal study of transportation and climate change.

• It would create "a freight transportation gateways" program to improve productivity, security and safety of freight transportation gateways, while mitigating congestion and community impacts in the area of such gateways." Publicly-owned multi-modal freight transportation projects would become eligible for Surface Transportation Program funding. The bill also creates a set-aside within the National Highway System program for connecting freight terminals to the NHS – such connections are eligible for a 90% federal share.

• "Environmental streamlining" provisions in the administration bill are generally less radical than those proposed by Republicans in Congress. Rep. Don Young’s bill seeks to constrain public agencies from even considering a variety of impacts and issues. The Bush approach has more emphasis on inter-agency relations than on limiting the scope of environmental review. Still, its provisions would erode protections for historic properties, weaken the linkage between transportation and air quality planning and enhance state abilities to "categorically exclude" some projects from environmental review.

Comment in Congress so far has focused on disappointment with the Bush bill’s funding level. It would authorize $247 billion for 2004-2009. TEA-21 authorized about $240 billion over its six-year time span. A variety of interests and agencies have pointed out the need for significant increases in U.S. infrastructure investment. Funding levels noted in House of Representatives statements indicate an intention to propose a $375 billion program, though House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders remain at odds with the White House over tax increases needed to create such a program. The Senate has indicated its interest in a program of approximately $310 billion. The Bush funding level has been described as "irrelevant" by lobbyists and congressional staffers. In past authorizations, Congressional proposals have held far more sway than administration bills. The issue of taxes, however, is likely to remain significant during this reauthorization.

Members of the House have reportedly submitted more than 5,300 "high priority" projects to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for inclusion in the bill. Their combined price tag comes to about $500 billion. TEA-21 contained 1,850 high priority projects, costing $9.4 billion. The requests average about 12 projects per member and a cost-per-member of over $1 billion. 

MTR search facility and back issues:

Search our database of all past issues of Mobilizing the Region since Fall, 1994.

Go to index of all Mobilizing the Region back issues