Federal Public Transportation Program: An Overview

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

Federal assistance to public transportation is provided primarily through the public transportation program administered by the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The federal public transportation program is authorized through FY2014 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). Signed into law in July 2012, MAP-21 made significant modifications to the public transportation program, effective October 1, 2012. This report provides an introduction to the program as modified by MAP-21.

Major federal involvement in public transportation dates to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365). Prior to the mid-1960s there was very little public funding of public transportation. With much lower ridership than existed at the end of World War II and mounting debts, however, many private transit companies were reorganized as public entities. Federal funding was initially used to recapitalize transit systems. Today, the focus of the federal program is still on the capital side, but the program has evolved to support operational expenses in some circumstances, as well as safety oversight, planning, and research.


Date of Report: September 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R42706
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42706.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Why Some Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Are Not Sold Domestically

Bill Canis
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business

In 2011, more than 78 million light motor vehicles1 were produced around the world. The top five vehicle manufacturing countries (in order of production) were China, the United States, Japan, Germany, and South Korea, which together accounted for about 60% of global light vehicle production.

Although millions of vehicles are exported and imported annually, vehicle manufacturing is still primarily regional. Most cars sold in Europe are produced there, and most cars sold in North America are produced in the United States, Canada, or Mexico. In 2011, 13 million cars and light trucks were sold in the United States, including 2.8 million imported from outside North America.

Consumer preferences and vehicle regulations and standards differ from country to country and reinforce regional vehicle manufacturing. This makes vehicles distinctly different from some other consumer products, such as electronics, which are produced only in a few countries and then sold globally. The absence of global standards for vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions means that a vehicle may not be sold in certain countries if the manufacturer is not willing to make major investments to bring the vehicle into compliance with local standards.


Date of Report: August 17, 2012
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: R42666
Price: $19.95

To Order:

R42666.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Positive Train Control (PTC): Overview and Policy Issues

Jeffrey C. Peters
Research Associate

John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08) requires implementation of positive train control (PTC) on railroads which carry passengers or have high-volume freight traffic with toxicor poisonous-by-inhalation hazardous materials. PTC is a communications and signaling system that has been identified by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as a technology capable of preventing accidents caused by train operator or dispatcher error. PTC is expected to reduce the number of accidents due to excessive speed, conflicting train movements, and engineer failure to obey wayside signals. It would not prevent incidents due to trespassing on railroads’ right-of-way or at highway-rail grade crossings, where the vast majority of rail-related fatalities occur.

Under RSIA08, PTC is required on about 60,000 miles of railroad track by December 31, 2015. Many railroad companies are uncertain of their ability to fully implement PTC by this deadline. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) estimates full PTC implementation will cost approximately $14 billion. Although the larger freight railroads are well along in planning for PTC, some smaller railroads and commuter lines have not yet identified sources of funding for implementation.

PTC uses signals and sensors along the track to communicate train location, speed restrictions, and moving authority. If the locomotive is violating a speed restriction or moving authority, onboard equipment will automatically slow or stop the train. A more expansive version of PTC, called communications-based train control (CBTC), would bring additional safety benefits plus business benefits for railroad operators, such as increased capacity and reduced fuel consumption. However, CBTC is not currently being installed by any U.S. railroad, due to the additional cost and to uncertainty about implementation of PTC before the 2015 deadline.

Two bills introduced in the 112th Congress, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; S. 1813), as approved by the Senate, and the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R. 7), approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, would have extended the deadline and made other policy changes. No language relating to PTC was included in the final surface transportation bill (P.L. 112-141) enacted on July 6, 2012. However, existing law requires the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to report to Congress about the status of PTC implementation by December 31, 2012. If it wishes to reexamine the PTC mandate, possible options for Congress include

• postponing the implementation deadline;

• considering whether to make dedicated radio spectrum available to the railroads for PTC implementation and, if so, how to compensate current license holders of that spectrum;

• examining possible alternatives to PTC and their potential to create barriers to competition in the rail freight market; and

• providing federal financial support for PTC implementation by making PTC projects eligible for funding under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding Program or by appropriating other funding to FRA, as authorized in RSIA08.


Date of Report: July 30, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R42637
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42637.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

P.L. 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), was passed by the House and Senate on June 29, 2012, and signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. It reauthorizes federal highway and mass transit programs through the end of FY2014 (27 months) and authorizes to be appropriated $105.2 billion for these programs in FY2013 and FY2014 (about $118 billion including already appropriated funding for FY2012). MAP-21 follows 10 short-term reauthorizations of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), and lengthy consideration of federalism issues in surface transportation policy.

Although the federal presence, and influence, over surface transportation policy remains significant, MAP-21 represents a continuation of previous reauthorizations’ emphasis on increasing the decision-making authority of state governments. For example, MAP-21 provides states greater flexibility in the use of federal highway assistance by eliminating 60 federal highway programs, a two-thirds reduction. While many existing federal highway programs are discontinued as separate entities, states are authorized, but not required, to spend their federal highway funds for many of the same purposes. MAP-21 also made several changes to the project delivery approval process in an effort to reduce the anticipated average project delivery time for highway and mass transit construction projects. It also provides states additional flexibility by expanding the activities eligible for funds set-aside for non-highway related enhancements, such as landscaping, environmental mitigation, conversion of rails to trails, bikeways, and historic preservation. States were also provided expanded authority to transfer a portion of those funds, under specified circumstances, to other federal highway and safety programs.

For many years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They argue that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states added flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states.

Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.

This report provides an historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy and examines some of the key provisions in MAP-21, focusing on those provisions that are most likely to affect federalism relationships in surface transportation policy.


Date of Report: July 27, 2012
Number of Pages: 45
Order Number: R40431
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R40431.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events

David Randall Peterman, Coordinator
Analyst in Transportation Policy

John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger rail transportation in the United States. The Obama Administration subsequently announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This initiative was reflected in the President’s budgets for FY2010 through FY2013. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding.

There are two main approaches to building high speed rail (HSR): (1) improving existing tracks and signaling to allow trains to reach speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), generally on track shared with freight trains; and (2) building new tracks dedicated exclusively to high speed passenger rail service, to allow trains to travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. The potential costs, and benefits, are relatively lower with the first approach and higher with the second approach.

Much of the federal funding for HSR to date has focused on improving existing lines in five corridors: Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis; Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC); and Charlotte-Washington, DC. Most of the rest of the money is being used for a largely new system dedicated to passenger trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles, on which speeds could reach up to 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states were shelved by political leaders opposed to the substantial risks such projects entail, particularly the capital and operating costs; the federal funds allocated to those projects were subsequently redirected to other HSR projects.

Estimates of the cost of constructing HSR vary according to train speed, the topography of the corridor, the cost of right-of-way, and other factors. Few if any HSR lines anywhere in the world have earned enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs, even where population density is far greater than anywhere in the United States. Typically, governments have paid the construction costs, and in many cases have subsidized the operating costs as well. These subsidies are often justified by the social benefits ascribed to HSR in relieving congestion, reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, and contributing to employment and economic development. It is unclear whether these potential social benefits are commensurate with the likely costs of constructing and operating HSR.

Lack of long-term funding represents a significant obstacle to HSR development in the United States. The federal government does not have a dedicated funding source for HSR, making projects that can take years to build vulnerable to year-to-year changes in discretionary budget allocations.


Date of Report: June 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R42584
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:
 

R42584.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports