BUILD (transportation grant)
Generated by GPT-5-miniExpansion Funnel Raw 56 → Dedup 0 → NER 0 → Enqueued 0
| BUILD (transportation grant) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grants |
| Established | 2018 |
| Agency | United States Department of Transportation |
| Predecessor | TIGER |
| Funding type | Discretionary capital grants |
BUILD (transportation grant) is a competitive discretionary grant program administered by the United States Department of Transportation to fund surface transportation infrastructure projects in the United States. Established as a successor to the TIGER (grant) program, BUILD awards capital grants for roads, bridges, transit, rail, port, and multimodal projects intended to promote economic development, safety, and State of good repair. The program allocates funds across urban and rural jurisdictions and involves coordination with federal agencies, state departments, and local authorities.
Background and legislative history
The BUILD program originated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 as a rebranding and statutory continuation of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program, commonly known as TIGER (grant). Congressional deliberations involved members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, including budget and appropriations committees influenced by priorities from administrations such as the Trump administration and parliamentary engagement from oversight entities like the Government Accountability Office. BUILD’s statutory authority and appropriations were shaped by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act debates and follow-on appropriations bills enacted by the 115th United States Congress and subsequent Congresses. Implementation guidance was issued by the Federal Highway Administration and coordinated with the Federal Transit Administration and the Maritime Administration for multimodal projects.
Program structure and eligibility
BUILD provides discretionary capital grants to a range of project sponsors, including State departments like California Department of Transportation, municipal governments such as the City of Chicago, transit agencies like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), port authorities such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and tribal governments including nations recognized under the Indian Reorganization Act. Eligible projects include roadway reconstruction near sites like Interstate 95, bridge replacement comparable to projects on U.S. Route 1, public transit expansions akin to Bay Area Rapid Transit, and port or freight improvements similar to work at the Port of Los Angeles. Program eligibility criteria reference statutory requirements derived from legislation considered by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (House of Representatives) and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the United States Senate. Matching requirements and cost-share provisions interact with state funding mechanisms such as state transportation trust funds and metropolitan planning organizations like the Metropolitan Planning Organization network.
Application and selection process
Applicants submit proposals through the United States Department of Transportation’s application portal, following Notices of Funding Opportunity issued by the Secretary of Transportation. The application process requires data and performance metrics often compared to standards used by agencies such as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and analytic frameworks employed by the Congressional Budget Office. Selection criteria include project readiness, cost-effectiveness, safety benefits often benchmarked to analyses like those used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and economic outcomes similar to those modeled by the Economic Development Administration. Peer review panels and departmental officials conduct technical evaluations, with final awards announced by the Secretary in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget where applicable.
Funding allocations and recipients
BUILD has awarded grants to a wide array of recipients, from large metropolitan projects in places like Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) to rural projects in states such as Iowa and Montana. Notable recipients have included port upgrades at the Port of Savannah, bridge work near Pittsburgh, and multimodal connections serving corridors like the I-95 Corridor Coalition. Funding levels per grant have varied, reflecting appropriations by Congress and priorities set by administrations such as the Trump administration and subsequent cabinets. Allocation decisions have interacted with federal programs including INFRA (grant) and CRISI (grant), and recipients often blend BUILD dollars with financing instruments from entities like the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program and state revolving funds.
Impact and evaluations
Evaluations of BUILD-funded projects have examined outcomes related to freight efficiency, safety, and regional economic development, employing methodologies similar to studies by the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND Corporation. Project-level reporting to the Federal Highway Administration and performance metrics tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis have been used to assess job creation, travel time reductions, and freight throughput improvements. Independent analyses have compared BUILD impacts to those from earlier TIGER (grant) rounds and concurrent programs like SMART Grants and state capital investment initiatives. Academic research published by institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Kennedy School has contributed to understanding long-term economic multipliers and congestion mitigation attributable to BUILD investments.
Criticisms and controversies
BUILD has faced critique over selection transparency, with stakeholders citing limited appeal processes and comparisons to scrutiny applied to earmarks and discretionary grants historically debated in Congress. Concerns have been raised about geographic distribution, perceived partisan allocation similar to controversies involving the Highway Trust Fund, and the sufficiency of environmental reviews under statutes like the National Environmental Policy Act. Observers from advocacy organizations including American Public Transportation Association and watchdogs such as the Project on Government Oversight have questioned whether evaluations adequately capture equity outcomes for disadvantaged communities represented by entities like the Environmental Justice Movement. Legal challenges and media scrutiny have occasionally accompanied high-profile awards involving major agencies like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.