Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)
Generated by GPT-5-miniExpansion Funnel Raw 72 → Dedup 7 → NER 6 → Enqueued 2
| Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) |
| Established | 2018 |
| Agency | United States Department of Transportation |
| Budget | discretionary grant program |
| Jurisdiction | United States |
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) is a United States federal discretionary grant program administered by the United States Department of Transportation to fund surface transportation infrastructure projects. Launched in 2018, BUILD consolidated earlier programs and aimed to support multimodal and multi-jurisdictional projects across urban and rural areas. The program interacts with a range of federal, state, and local entities and has been cited in discussions involving urban planning, regional development, and infrastructure finance.
Background and Origins
The program succeeded the TIGER program and drew on precedents set by the ARRA, reflecting debates from the 116th United States Congress and the United States Senate on infrastructure prioritization. Administrative evolution involved the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Maritime Administration, influenced by policy proposals from the Trump administration and legislative language from the FAST Act. Key moments in its origin included congressional hearings involving the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, testimony from state governors such as Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo, and input from municipal leaders like Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Objectives and Strategic Priorities
BUILD sought to advance priorities articulated in strategic guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation and presidential directives from the Executive Office of the President. The program emphasized safety outcomes highlighted by the National Transportation Safety Board, economic competitiveness themes from the Council of Economic Advisers, and equity issues raised by advocacy groups including the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association. Objectives reflected intermodal connections promoted by entities such as the Association of American Railroads, freight interests like the American Trucking Associations, and environmental considerations raised by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Program Structure and Funding Mechanisms
Administered through annual notices by the Federal Highway Administration and coordinated with the Federal Transit Administration, BUILD provided competitive grants with cost-share requirements involving state and local sponsors such as California Department of Transportation and MTA New York City Transit. Funding allocated through the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act interacted with budget proposals from the Office of Management and Budget and legislative appropriations by the United States House Committee on Appropriations. Projects could leverage financing tools promoted by the U.S. Department of Transportation Build America Bureau, bonds issued through Municipal bonds, and public–private partnerships modeled after transactions involving firms like Bechtel and Fluor Corporation.
Project Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Selection criteria incorporated metrics used by the Transportation Research Board, indices from the American Society of Civil Engineers, and best practices documented by the Brookings Institution. Performance measures included assessments of state of good repair as described by the Government Accountability Office, congestion mitigation prioritized by metropolitan planning organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and resilience considerations emphasized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Stakeholders from Amtrak, port authorities like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and transit agencies submitted applications evaluated against statutory factors set by Congress and regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Implementation and Partner Roles
Implementation involved lead sponsors—state departments such as the Texas Department of Transportation and regional authorities like the Chicago Transit Authority—working with consultants from firms such as HDR, Inc. and legal counsel experienced with the Federal Transit Administration grant processes. Partnerships included coordination with tribal governments represented through the National Congress of American Indians, nonprofit organizations such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, and research partners at institutions like Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California, Berkeley. Contracting and procurement intersected with standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and compliance reviews by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.
Impact, Outcomes, and Case Studies
BUILD-funded projects included improvements to corridors involving the I-95, rail upgrades impacting Amtrak Northeast Corridor, port enhancements at locations like the Port of Los Angeles, and multimodal station projects in cities such as Seattle and Atlanta. Evaluations by the Congressional Research Service and analyses from think tanks like the Urban Institute and RAND Corporation reported on job creation, travel time reductions, and freight throughput increases. Case studies referenced investments in rural connectivity in Montana and Iowa, urban transit modernization in LA Metro service areas, and resilience projects in coastal regions such as Florida.
Criticisms, Challenges, and Reforms
Critiques emerged from observers including the American Civil Liberties Union regarding equity distribution, from the National Taxpayers Union on federal spending efficacy, and from academic critics at Harvard University concerning long-term impact measurement. Challenges cited by the Government Accountability Office involved grant oversight, matching fund barriers noted by small municipal sponsors like Minneapolis and Birmingham, Alabama, and coordination difficulties across agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers for water-related projects. Reforms proposed by policymakers in the 117th United States Congress and policy recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center suggested adjustments to scoring, increased technical assistance via the Economic Development Administration, and enhanced transparency enforced by the Office of Management and Budget.