FAST Act

FAST Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	FAST Act
Full name	Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
Enacted	December 4, 2015
Public law	114-94
Introduced by	Paul Ryan
Enacted by	114th United States Congress
Signed by	Barack Obama
Summary	Five-year reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs, funding highways and transit projects, streamlining project delivery, and reforming freight policy

FAST Act The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act provided a five-year authorization for federal surface transportation programs in the United States, funding highways, bridges, and public transit through fiscal year 2020. It combined reauthorization of the Federal-Aid Highway Act framework with provisions affecting National Highway System operations, Federal Transit Administration grant programs, and freight policy tied to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The law sought to balance Republican Party and Democratic Party priorities by coupling infrastructure investment with regulatory relief and project delivery reforms supported by house leadership and senate committees.

Background

During the early 2010s debate over transportation funding, stakeholders including American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO-affiliated agencies, metropolitan planning organizations like Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and freight interests such as Association of American Railroads pressed for stable multiyear authorization. Previous short-term extensions followed enactments like the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Surface Transportation Extension Act, creating pressure on Congress of the United States and leaders like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to produce a long-term package. The legislation emerged in the context of debates over the Highway Trust Fund, disputed revenue mechanisms advocated by U.S. Treasury officials, and competing priorities from urban delegations including representatives from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Chicago Transit Authority.

Provisions

The Act reauthorized core programs under statutes administered by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It established programmatic funding levels for the National Highway Performance Program, the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, and the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning processes. Freight policy received attention through the creation of a national freight program and a freight formula to allocate funds to states and regional bodies such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port of Los Angeles. The law codified provisions affecting project delivery including expanded categorical exclusions involving Council on Environmental Quality procedures and adjustments to National Environmental Policy Act timelines. Safety and performance measures linked to Highway Safety Improvement Program goals required coordination with agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for specific workplace considerations and with National Transportation Safety Board recommendations. Transit provisions amended formulas for capital investment grants and streamlined processes for state of good repair projects used by systems including Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and Bay Area Rapid Transit.

Implementation and Funding

Implementation responsibilities rested with the U.S. Department of Transportation operating through modal administrations, while oversight involved congressional panels such as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Funding came primarily from the Highway Trust Fund with apportioned sums to states via formulae executed by state departments of transportation including California Department of Transportation and Texas Department of Transportation. The Act used a mix of general fund transfers and trust fund receipts debated in hearings featuring Treasury projections and testimony from fiscal institutions like the Congressional Budget Office. Grant programs delegated discretionary funding to the Federal Transit Administration and competitive grant rounds drew proposals from regional entities including Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area) and port authorities such as Port of Long Beach.

Impact and Criticism

Supporters cited stabilized funding for capital projects in major metropolitan areas including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and praised freight provisions benefiting corridors like the I-95 Corridor Coalition routes. Infrastructure contractors such as Bechtel and engineering firms including AECOM anticipated multiyear project pipelines. Critics from advocacy groups like Public Citizen and policy analysts at Brookings Institution argued the funding approach did not solve structural shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund and relied on short-term transfers from the U.S. Treasury. Environmental organizations including Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council contended that categorical exclusion expansions weakened National Environmental Policy Act protections and limited public review. Labor unions such as International Brotherhood of Teamsters and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations debated the bill’s impacts on prevailing wage and procurement practices, while fiscal watchdogs at Government Accountability Office highlighted monitoring challenges for state implementation. Analyses by Urban Institute and National Academy of Sciences examined long-term implications for urban mobility, freight efficiency, and asset management.

Legislative History

The measure originated in the 114th United States Congress with leadership from Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives and was approved after negotiation between the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Passed by both chambers in late 2015, it was signed into law by Barack Obama on December 4, 2015. Post-enactment amendments and appropriations were subject to annual budget resolutions and continuing oversight by congressional delegations from transportation-heavy districts including representatives from New York (state), California, and Texas. Subsequent reauthorization discussions involved stakeholders such as American Public Transportation Association and state chief executives including governors from Florida and Ohio anticipating successor legislation.

Category:United States federal transportation legislation