Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, commonly known as the FAST Act, is a pivotal piece of United States federal legislation that authorized long-term funding for the nation's surface transportation infrastructure. Enacted in December 2015, it was the first law to provide more than five years of guaranteed funding for highways and transit since 2005, aiming to bring stability to state and local planning. The act authorized over $305 billion in budgetary resources for fiscal years 2016 through 2020, addressing roads, bridges, rail, and public transportation systems across the country.

Background and legislative history

The push for the FAST Act emerged from a period of chronic short-term extensions and funding uncertainty following the expiration of the previous long-term bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Congress, led by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its chairman Bill Shuster, sought to end the cycle of temporary patches that hampered major project development. The legislative process involved complex negotiations between the Republican-controlled Congress and the administration of President Barack Obama, as well as debates over how to fund the bill without increasing the federal gas tax. After passage in the House and Senate, the bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015.

Major provisions and programs

The act established and continued numerous critical programs under the oversight of the United States Department of Transportation and its agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Key provisions included the creation of a new Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, later known as the INFRA grant program, to fund major infrastructure investments. It continued the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program. The legislation also mandated the establishment of a national freight strategic plan and continued funding for crucial safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Funding and financing mechanisms

The FAST Act authorized $305 billion in contract authority over five years, drawing from the Highway Trust Fund, which is primarily supported by federal fuel tax revenues. To address the Trust Fund's structural revenue shortfall, the legislation utilized a series of budgetary offsets and transfers from general funds, a contentious method that included provisions from the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. It maintained the core apportionment formulas for distributing funds to states but also created new discretionary grant opportunities. The act did not increase the federal gasoline tax, instead relying on a combination of Internal Revenue Service compliance measures, strategic sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and reductions in Federal Reserve dividends to banks to finance the package.

Implementation and impact

Implementation of the FAST Act provided state departments of transportation, such as the California Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of Transportation, with the predictable funding needed to advance large-scale projects like bridge repairs on the Interstate Highway System and expansions of public transit in cities like Chicago and Atlanta. The stability it offered was credited with accelerating project delivery and encouraging private investment in public infrastructure. The freight and grant programs funded significant improvements to key trade corridors, including routes serving the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. However, many analysts noted that the funding levels, while stable, remained insufficient to fully address the nation's documented infrastructure deficit as reported by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Controversies and criticism

The FAST Act faced criticism from various quarters for its financing mechanisms, which many budget watchdogs, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, deemed as budgetary gimmicks that did not provide a long-term solution for the insolvent Highway Trust Fund. Environmental groups criticized provisions that streamlined the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act, arguing it weakened protections. Some urban planning advocates and transit supporters, such as the American Public Transportation Association, argued the bill maintained an outdated bias toward highway spending over public transportation. Furthermore, the failure to raise the federal fuel tax or establish an alternative sustainable revenue source ensured that the fundamental fiscal challenge for U.S. surface transportation funding was merely postponed, not resolved.

Category:United States federal transportation legislation Category:2015 in American law Category:114th United States Congress