Transportation funding competition heats up

Ports, states, counties, and public transit organizations are making policy moves and launching lobbying efforts to have their voices heard in the debate over where the federal government will be directing infrastructure dollars. 

“Public transportation remains the backbone of economic mobility in communities across America, with 87% of trips directly impacting the economy by connecting people to work, retail, and entertainment opportunities,” said Paul P. Skoutelas, president and CEO of the American Public Transit Association. 

The statement accompanies fresh data from APTA showing five years of ridership growth in a sector that was decimated by the pandemic. 

“These numbers tell a story of resilience and growth, and why investment in public transit and passenger rail is essential,” said Skoutelas.  

The future of federal transit funding is cloudy as the House Appropriations Committee is proposing a $1.7 billion cut and the Senate is floating a $203.3 million increase. 

Infrastructure spending soared during the Biden Administration with much of it coming through competitive grants that typically require local matching funds that were often raised by issuing bonds.  

APTA lobbied U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in August requesting “$138 billion for public transit and $130 billion for passenger rail over five years.” 

The American Association of Port Authorities also contacted DOT in August requesting $10.9 billion over five years for its Port Infrastructure Development Program.  

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $2.25 billion of funding for the PIDP that was used to rehabilitate docks, expand container terminals, and dredge harbors. 

“Infrastructure takes time to build,” said Cary Davis, AAPA President and CEO.  “It cannot be expanded or contracted rapidly in response to crises or market trends.”

The National Association of Counties isn’t requesting specific dollar amounts to maintain county-owned roads and bridges, but it would like to see policy changes in how formula funding from federal and state fuel taxes is distributed. 

Per its August letter, “Currently, state DOTs are able to transfer up to 50% of the funding within each formula program to another program. We are concerned that this authority is predominantly used to transfer money out of sub-allocated programs. This means less funding is available for locally selected projects.” 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has signaled that it is moving towards strengthening formula funding and away from infrastructure grants.

“While expanding and strengthening access to formula dollars will be crucial for counties, we also would like to see the retention discretionary grant programs that provide a valuable opportunity for counties to secure funding for discrete projects in their communities,” said NaCo. 

The states have their own problems with formula funding due to the well-documented financial troubles of the Highway Trust Fund, reliant on traditional fuel taxes.

“Funding alternatives like registration fees, kilowatt hour charges or distance-based fees are all worthy of attention and examination,” writes Patricia Hendren executive director of the Eastern Transportation Coalition, in an article for the Eno Center for Transportation. 

“Concerns over fairness, privacy and the cost of collection pose challenges but, continued real-world exploration provides opportunities to define a user-based system that can maintain and expand our transportation network for the needs of the future economy.”