Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
Enacted by	114th United States Congress
Effective date	December 4, 2015
Public law	Public Law 114–94
Signed by	Barack Obama
Introduced in	United States Senate
Sponsor	Barbara Boxer

Contents

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act is a United States federal statute enacted in 2015 to provide multi-year funding and policy direction for surface transportation programs. The Act authorized highway, transit, and safety programs administered by agencies such as the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration, and established funding allocations and programmatic changes affecting states, metropolitan planning organizations, and tribal governments. It followed earlier legislative efforts including Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Highway Revenue Act debates, and preceded later reauthorizations under subsequent Congresses.

Background and Legislative History

The Act emerged from negotiations in the 114th United States Congress among committees including the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and stakeholders such as American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and American Public Transportation Association. Legislative history traces back to multi-year surface transportation authorizations like Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, with financing controversies involving the Highway Trust Fund, revenue forecasts debated by the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, and interest groups including National Association of Counties and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Floor consideration involved bipartisan negotiations between leaders such as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, with committee chairs including Bill Shuster and Barbara Boxer influencing markup and amendments.

Major provisions reauthorized core programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration and included designated programs like the Surface Transportation Program, the National Highway Performance Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Funding mechanisms combined guaranteed authorizations with transfers from the General Fund of the United States Treasury and changes to formula apportionments affecting states including California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The Act created programs for freight such as the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, adjusted Metropolitan Planning Organizations planning rules, and expanded eligibility for surface transportation projects by regional authorities like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and tribal entities including the Navajo Nation. Safety provisions referenced standards from National Transportation Safety Board recommendations and programs involving Occupational Safety and Health Administration partnerships.

Implementation involved rulemaking by agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration and coordination with state departments of transportation including California Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation, and New York State Department of Transportation. States adjusted capital programs, bond issuances, and project priorities to align with formula changes and new competitive grant programs used by jurisdictions like Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and Chicago Transit Authority. Rural impacts affected counties represented by organizations such as the National Association of Counties and projects on corridors like the Interstate 95 and Interstate 10 systems, while urban centers engaged metropolitan planning processes involving Metropolitan Planning Organizations and regional entities like Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Critiques centered on the use of transfers from the General Fund of the United States Treasury instead of long-term Highway Trust Fund solvency via fuel tax adjustments, with opponents including fiscal groups linked to Heritage Foundation policy analysts and proponents from industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute. Environmental and community advocates such as Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council debated the Act’s emphasis on highway capacity versus public transit investments advocated by TransitCenter and Transportation for America. Labor organizations including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations engaged debates over Buy America rules and prevailing wage provisions tied to Department of Labor guidance. Legal challenges and administrative litigation involved state attorneys general offices and nonprofit litigants, with commentary from think tanks like the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute.

Analyses by the Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, and academic institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California, Berkeley examined outcomes including impacts on construction employment measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, changes in freight movement on corridors monitored by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and effects on urban congestion in metropolitan regions like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Evaluations considered return-on-investment for highway and transit capital projects funded through formula and competitive grants, with studies from National Academy of Sciences transportation research boards and university research centers assessing asset management and life-cycle costs.

Subsequent legislative action included temporary extensions, amendments during the 115th United States Congress and later reauthorizations debated in the 116th United States Congress and 117th United States Congress, as well as related statutes like portions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and budget resolutions coordinated with the Congressional Budget Office. Executive actions and regulatory revisions by secretaries of transportation such as Anthony Foxx and Elaine Chao influenced program guidance and implementation timetables, while state-level ballot measures and bond initiatives in places like California and Colorado complemented federal funding streams.