HOW DOES DRIVE ACT & STRR ACT COMPARE TO T4AMERICA S PLATFORM

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "HOW DOES DRIVE ACT & STRR ACT COMPARE TO T4AMERICA S PLATFORM"

Marilyn James
5 years ago
Views:

1 1707 L Street NW Suite 250 Washington, DC Phone: Fax: HOW DOES DRIVE ACT & STRR ACT COMPARE TO T4AMERICA S PLATFORM On July 30 th, the Senate passed its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, known as the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act. T4America s summary of the DRIVE Act can be found here. Recently, the House approved the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform (STRR) Act on November 5 th to move to conference with the Senate to resolve the differences between the DRIVE Act and STRR Act. T4America s summary of the STRR Act (prior to House T&I Committee action) can be found here and the T4America summary of the House floor process can be found here. The House and Senate conferees are working fast to try and reach agreement by early the week of November 16 th so that they can pass a bill before the current MAP- 21 extension expires on November 20 th. While we believe the House and Senate authorization proposals represent more of the same, there are provisions within each bill worth fighting for in conference. Unfortunately, inserting provisions not currently found in either bill (e.g. Davis- Titus/Wicker- Booker local control) represents a major uphill battle. This memorandum provides a list of confirmed conferees and those not yet confirmed but expected to be included shortly. A comparison of how each bill lives up to T4America s priorities and the outcomes that T4America would like to see prevail in conference are included as well. Conferees Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Sen. Jim Inhofe (R- OK) Chair Sen. Barbara Boxer (D- CA) Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso (R- WY) Sen. Deb Fischer (R- NE) also a Commerce member Sen. John Thune (R- SD) - Chair Commerce Committee Sen. Bill Nelson (D- FL) Ranking Member Banking Committee Sen. Sherrod Brown (D- OH) Ranking Member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- UT) Chair Finance Committee Sen. Ron Wyden (D- OR) Ranking Member Sen. John Cornyn (R- TX) Majority Whip Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R- AK) Chair Energy & Natural Resources Committee Leadership Sen. Dick Durbin (D- IL) Democratic Whip Sen. Chuck Schumer (D- NY) Democratic Committee Vice Chair Transportation for America (T4America) is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally- driven transportation solutions because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity.

2 Page 2 of 10 House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Rep. Bill Shuster (R- PA) Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio (D- OR) Ranking Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R- TN) Member Rep. Sam Graves (R- MO) Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D- DC) Rep. Candice Miller (R- MI) Rep. Jerry Nadler (D- NY) Rep. Rick Crawford (R- AR) Rep. Corrine Brown (D- FL) Rep. Lou Barletta (R- PA) Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D- TX) Rep. Blake Farenthold (R- TX) Rep. Elijah Cummings (D- MD) Rep. Bob Gibbs (R- OH) Rep. Rick Larsen (D- WA) Rep. Jeff Denham (R- CA) Rep. Michael Capuano (D- MA) Rep. Reid Ribble (R- WI) Rep. Grace Napolitano (D- CA) Rep. Scott Perry (R- PA) Rep. Dan Lipinski (D- IL) Rep. Rob Woodall (R- GA) Rep. Steve Cohen (D- TN) Rep. John Katko (R- NY) Rep. Albio Sires (R- NJ) Rep. Brian Babin (R- TX) Rep. Crescent Hardy (R- NV) Rep. Garret Graves (R- LA) Ways & Means Committee (Expected) Rep. Kevin Brady (R- TX) Chair Rep. Sander Levin (D- MI) Ranking Member Rep Dave Reichert (R- WA) Rep. Richard Neal (D- MA) Financial Services Committee (Expected) Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R- TX) - Chair Rep. Maxine Waters (D- CA) Ranking Member Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R- TX) Rep. William Lacy Clay (R- MO) Energy & Commerce Committee (Expected) Rep. Fred Upton (R- MI) Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D- NJ) Ranking Member Rep. Michael Burgess (R- TX) Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D- IL) Policy The charts on the following pages give top- line highlights of the two bills and how they compare to T4America s policy platform here. Please consider weighing in with your Member of Congress over the coming days, especially if your Member is a conference member. This authorization will guide our transportation system s development for the next 3 or 6 years L Street, N.W., Suite 250 Washington, DC

3 Goal: Strengthen the nation s transportation fund 1. Replenish a stand- alone transportation trust fund with dedicated revenue for all modes of surface transportation No. The bill uses a variety of non- transportation pay- fors, instead of a dedicated revenue stream, and only partially funds the bill for 3 out of 6 years. No. The bill adopts the Senate non- transportation pay- fors and provides the option of using an infusion from the Federal Reserve surplus account to fund the last 2-3 years of the bill. DRIVE Act Neither bill provides dedicated revenue through changes to transportation user fees (i.e. raising the gas tax), but in this case we d prefer a shorter funded bill to provide us the ability to address structural transportation policy before Provide a multi- year commitment of funds to give states and local communities the certainty they need to undertake major projects Possibly. Provides 3 years of guaranteed funding, and 6 years of authorization. Possibly. Provides for a potential 6 years of funding and authorization. 3. Reinvest in the programs that repair and preserve our aging infrastructure Authorizes $350 billion over 6 years and largely maintains the program structure of MAP- 21, which marginally prioritizes repair or preservation. Authorizes $325 billion over 6 years and maintains the program structure of MAP- 21, which marginally prioritizes repair or preservation. 4. Raise additional revenue to support locally driven projects that support economic growth No. The bill doesn t direct new new revenue to local transportation projects. No. The bill doesn t direct new funds to local transportation projects. Page 3 of 10

4 Goal: Spur local initiative through competition and incentives 1. Establish a national program of merit- based grants to help state and local applicants accomplish projects that fix existing infrastructure and improve critical links for moving people and freight 2. Within states, does it give local communities increased access to federal funds, through mechanisms such as state- administered competitive grants or additional sub- allocation of funds, to help them meet pressing local transportation challenges No. Doesn t authorize a multimodal discretionary capital construction grant program similar to the TIGER program. The bill does establish a general funded discretionary multimodal freight program and a highway trust funded discretionary research program. No. Local communities lost out through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and see the Transportation Alternatives (TAP) program capped at $850 million per year, but does increase sub- allocation of TAP from 50% to 100% of the program. Within STP, suballocation increases to 55% of the program, but the amount reserved to direct to locals decreases and decreases the overall funding levels for local communities. No. Doesn t authorize a multimodal discretionary capital construction grant program similar to the TIGER program. The bill does establish a highway trust funded discretionary freight program and a highway trust funded discretionary research program. Slightly. The STP pot gradually increases with inflation and suballocation to local governments increase by 1% per year until it reaches 55% of the program in FY20. The TAP program is capped at $819 million per year, and doesn t increase the suballocation rate. Reps. Davis (R- IL) & Titus (D- NV) and Sens. Wicker (R- MS) & Booker (D- NJ) were strong champions but their approach to increase local control over more federal highway funding was shutdown by AASTHO in the end and we are left making marginal gains. We are strongly advocating that any additional funding that may come available in the conference agreement be directed to local communities, and, at a minimum the conference committee agree to the House s approach to increase STP sub- allocation,, but remove the cap on TAP funding and use the Senate s approach to suballocate all of this program s funding. 3. Reward communities that take action to address long- term transportation challenges - such as raising local revenues - with opportunities for additional funding Page 4 of 10

5 Goal: Reduce freight bottlenecks 1. Target funding through competitive grant programs to projects that relieve freight bottlenecks and improve last- mile connections, and ensure that all appropriate modes are eligible 2. Expand the national Primary Freight network to include all freight modes Yes. The proposed Assistance for Freight Projects is a competitive grant program that rewards projects to all transportation options. However, this program is not likely to receive funds as it doesn t receive guaranteed funding through the highway trust fund, but rather with general funds at $200 million per year. This bill also provides freight funding through formula, but requires that 90% of the program go to highway freight projects. Yes. Expands the primary freight network to include both highway and intermodal networks. Establishes a discretionary Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program that replaces Projects of National and Regional Significance program. The program encourages multimodal freight planning, but restricts multimodal projects to just 11% of the program s funding. Yes. Expands the primary freight network to include both highway and intermodal networks. We recommend that the conference remove arbitrary funding caps placed on multimodal freight projects in both the House s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Project s program and the Senate s annual multi- billion dollar freight formula program. This ensures the thoughtful national- and state- level freight planning required by USDOT, states and MPOs will result in the best outcomes by funding freight projects that create greater efficiency and reliability in freight movement, regardless of mode. 3. Incentivize and support regional planning for freight movement, particularly with regard to last- mile connections Yes, encourages robust multimodal freight planning, Yes, encourages robust multimodal freight planning,. Page 5 of 10

6 Goal: Leverage innovative financing for taxpayer benefit 1. Structure innovative financing programs to protect the public interest while supporting projects that ensure a strong return on investment and capture the benefits of economic development 2. Expand innovative financing programs to provide the upfront credit needed for transit- oriented development Yes. Lowers the estimated project cost threshold for TIFIA from $50 million to $10 million for TOD, local government, and ITS projects. Yes. Makes TOD an eligible project type for TIFIA loans. Yes. Lowers estimated project cost threshold for TIFIA from $50 million to $10 million for local government projects. Would establish a National Surface Transportation & Innovative Finance Bureau to administer the application process and reduce uncertainty of innovative financing programs. No. Does not make TOD an eligible project type for TIFIA loans. We request that the conferees use the Senate s approach by making TOD an eligible project for TIFIA loans, and lower project cost threshold for TOD, local government, and ITS projects. We further request that the conferees agree to the House s National Surface Transportation & Innovative Finance Bureau 3. Measure performance of financed projects to learn from and replicate best practices Page 6 of 10

7 Goal: Connect workers with employers 1. Allow local communities to apply for grants for targeted transportation services and connections to job centers, particularly those with a concentration of low- wage workers We request that the conferees use the House s approach to improving employee, including low- income populations, job connections and travel options in the congestion management plan. 2. Provide the technical assistance and tools to encourage local communities, companies and employees to work together to craft the suite of commuter benefits, incentives, and options that not only gets employees to jobs, but also helps relieve over- burdened transportation networks and supports the economy Slightly. Encourages MPOs with a Transportation Management Area to include projects and strategies in their congestion management plan reduce the vehicle miles traveled during peak rush hour and improve connections between areas with high job concentration and areas with high concentrations of low- income households. Page 7 of 10

8 Goal: Improve return on investment & recognize good performance 1. Build on MAP- 21 by measuring a full range of outcomes from our transportation investments, including efficiently moving goods to market and workers to jobs 2. Strengthen MAP- 21 s framework so that results on performance inform the selection of projects, and that sufficient funding is targeted to areas where progress falls short Slightly. The bill will establish a new goal and performance measure to improve the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities. We recommend to conferees to use the House s approach to adding a new national goal and performance measure to improve the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities. 3. Expand assistance to local communities to ensure they have the capacity to plan projects so that they benefit all users and deliver the greatest possible return Page 8 of 10

9 Goal: Nurture the next generation of innovation 1. Establish pilot grants for communities to conduct real- world testing of innovative practices and technological solutions Yes. Creates two new competitive research deployment programs: the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program and the ITS Systems Deployment Program. The former is funded with at least $31 million per year and the ITS program will receive $30 million per year. Both programs are accessible to all sizes of government. The bill will also develop a competitive grant program to pilot research on two alternative funding mechanisms for the highway trust fund. The program would receive $15 million for FY 2016 and $20 million per year for FY Yes. Creates one new $75 million per year innovative research deployment. This program will provide 5 to 8 competitive grants per year accessible to government of all size for development of model deployment sites for large- scale installation and operation of advanced transportation technologies to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investment. The bill will also develop a competitive grant program to pilot research on at least two alternative funding mechanisms for the highway trust fund.. The program would receive $15 million for FY 2016 and $20 million per year for FY Prefer the DRIVE Act language to be maintained in conference. 2. Provide the technical assistance and training needed for the pilots to serve as models, should they succeed, for communities nationwide Page 9 of 10

10 Other Items for Consideration: 1. New Starts program The House made negative changes to this oversubscribed transit capital construction grant program by decreasing federal match for form 80 to 50 percent and restricting STP funds for local match eligibility for New Starts projects. We are requesting that the conferees recede to the Senate position on these provisions. 2. Roadway Design The House and Senate bills make progress to develop safer roads through better design requirements. Both bills include NACTO s Urban Design Guide as a required design manual to be used by USDOT when developing the nation s design standards, and both will permit a local government to use its adopted design guide if they are the lead project sponsor, even if it differs from the state s. The Senate bill require states and MPOs to incorporate Complete Streets standards while the House encourages States to adopt these standards. We are requesting that the conferees recede to the Senate position on these provisions. 3. CMAQ PM2.5 Flexibility The Senate restricts project selection flexibility for a portion of funds for areas of non- attainment for PM2.5 to truck engine retrofits. We are requesting that the conferees strike this provision. 4. Eliminate High Density Bus program funds The House included an amendment that would transfer funding for recipient states of the High Density Bus program (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI) to the Bus & Bus Facilities competitive grant program. This has received strong reactions from Senate conferees, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D- NY). 5. Passenger Rail Title The House and Senate are planning to include passenger rail authorization in the broader surface transportation authorization for the first time ever. This is a huge step forward in establishing a multimodal surface transportation program. We are concerned that the House s bill (HR 749) will effectively separate the Northeast Corridor form the rest of the national system and prioritize funding for this segment at the expense of planned rail development throughout the rest of the country. We are requesting that the conferees recede to the Senate position on this important issue. 6. TOD & RRIF The Railroad Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Financing program provides low interest federal loans to public and private entities to improve rail infrastructure and assets. We are requesting that the conferees make TOD projects eligible for the RRIF program that will improve return on investment through supportive station area land uses. Page 10 of 10

Falling Forward: A Guide to the FAST Act

Falling Forward: A Guide to the FAST Act August 18, 2016 www.t4america.org @t4america Today s Presenter Joe McAndrew Policy Director Transportation for America joe.mcandrew@t4america.org 202-955-5543 x