{ "id": "RL34183", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL34183", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 444056, "date": "2010-04-09", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T01:45:54.884378", "title": "Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization", "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nRL34183\nSummary\nAs enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), federal public transit assistance programs were authorized through September 2009. Congress has so far failed to enact a multi-year reauthorization; consequently, federal transit programs have been operating as a result of a series of short-term legislative extensions. Decisions about reauthorization will likely hinge on the amount of funds available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, the source of about 80% of federal transit funding. Without an increase in the federal fuels tax, the use of other dedicated revenue mechanisms, or more money from the general fund, federal funding available to support both highways and transit will slow in the short term, and may decline in the medium term. Because of the growth in authorized spending in SAFETEA and the spending down of unexpended balances over the last few years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the transit account will have trouble meeting its obligations in a timely fashion in FY2013. This is about two years later than previously estimated because of an infusion of $4.8 billion from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury enacted in the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (P.L. 111-147).\nCBO estimates that expenditures from the transit account will exceed revenues by about $3.1 billion in FY2011. To remedy this deficit, the fuels tax would need to be raised by approximately 5 to 10 cents per gallon overall to close the gap, with 20% of the increase (1 to 2 cents per gallon) dedicated to the transit account. This would allow for no growth in the program to deal with growing needs or inflation. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), however, estimates that the country needs to spend an extra $1.0 billion annually over the next 20 years to maintain the current condition and performance of transit systems, and an extra $3.6 billion annually to make substantial improvements. At the current federal share of overall transit finances, this translates to an additional 3 cents per gallon in the federal fuels tax (0.6 cents for the transit account) to maintain the system and 10 cents per gallon (2 cents for the transit account) to improve the system. Two congressionally created commissions have estimated greater capital investment needs than DOT.\nWithout new revenue, Congress may have to modify transit program priorities or, alternatively, may want to reexamine the federal role in the financing of transit systems. Some of the options that may be considered include reducing the federal matching share, encouraging more private-sector involvement, including the use of public-private partnerships and innovative financing, encouraging improvements in transit system productivity, and the broad restructuring of current federal transit programs.\nThe report outlines several ways of restructuring federal public transit programs, each an alternative to the possibility of leaving the existing system unchanged. First, Congress might decide to focus more resources on major capital expenses for the rehabilitation and expansion of transit service in places that are best served by this mode, primarily the densely populated parts of large cities that are often severely congested. Second, Congress might focus on supporting and rehabilitating existing services rather than major capital expansion. Third, Congress might eliminate the capital improvement programs altogether, to be replaced with a simple \u201cblock grant\u201d that could be distributed based on transit ridership or population. This would allow state and local governments to decide how best to allocate transit funding support among existing and new services.\nContents\nIntroduction\t1\nPublic Transit Finance\t2\nIssues for Congress\t5\nTransit Funding Level\t5\nHighway Trust Fund Issues\t9\nRate of Return\t11\nFederal and State/Local Funding Shares\t11\nTransit and Highway Matching Shares\t12\nPrivate-Sector Involvement\t13\nInnovative Financing\t15\nTransit System Productivity\t16\nFederal Public Transit Program Priorities\t19\n\nFigures\nFigure 1. Public Transit Revenue From All Sources, 2006\t2\nFigure 2. Public Transit Revenue From Government Sources, 2006\t3\n\nTables\nTable 1. Public Transit Revenue Sources for Operating Expenditures, 1975-2006\t16\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t21\n\nIntroduction\nAs enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), federal public transit assistance programs were authorized through September 2009. Congress has so far failed to enact a multi-year reauthorization; consequently, federal transit programs have been operating as a result of a series of short-term legislative extensions. Decisions about reauthorization will likely hinge on the amount of funds available for surface transportation, particularly revenues from the federal fuels tax and related taxes. Currently, approximately 80% of federal transit funding is derived from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and the other roughly 20% is taken from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Without an increase in the fuels tax, the use of other dedicated revenue mechanisms, or more money from the general fund, federal funding available to support both highways and transit will slow in the short term, and may decline in the medium term. In its most recent estimates, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests that on its current course the Mass Transit Account will have trouble meeting its obligations in a timely fashion in FY2013. This is about two years later than previously estimated because of an infusion of $4.8 billion from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury enacted in the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (P.L. 111-147). The Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund received $14.7 billion in the HIRE Act, after previously receiving two other infusions of general funds, $8 billion in FY2008 and $7 billion in FY2009. Consequently, the Highway Account is also now estimated to have enough money to meet its obligations until sometime in FY2013.\nFiscal austerity may require a reassessment of federal transportation priorities. A significant increase in the fuels tax, the identification of other revenues, or a combination of the two, on the other hand, may allow the programs to grow as they have in the recent past. In terms of transit programs, SAFETEA authorized approximately $53 billion from FY2004 through FY2009. In nominal terms, this was a 46% increase in transit spending over the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), as amended, P.L. 105-178 and P.L. 105-206, and double the amount authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), P.L. 102-240.\nIn this context, this report examines the financing of the federal public transit program, and transit financing in general. The report begins with an overview of public transit finance and the role of the federal government. This is followed by a discussion of the funding issues that Congress is likely to face in the reauthorization of the transit programs. These include the overall level of funding, issues with the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, state and local matching shares, the role of the private sector and innovative financing, and transit industry productivity. The report concludes with a discussion of broad options for restructuring federal transit program finances.\nPublic Transit Finance\nIn 2006, a total of $43.4 billion from all sources was spent on providing transit service in the United States, with $30.9 billion of this amount derived from public funds and $12.5 billion from system-generated revenues such as passenger fares and advertising. The federal contribution amounted to about $8 billion, representing 19% of all transit revenue sources if system-generated revenue is included (Figure 1). If system-generated revenue is excluded, local government contributed almost half of the funding spent on transit provision, with both state and federal government contributing slightly more than one-quarter each (Figure 2).\nFigure 1. Public Transit Revenue From All Sources, 2006\n(in Billions)\n\nSource: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 2008 Status of the Nation\u2019s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, DC, 2009).\nNote: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.\nThere was very little public funding of transit until the mid-1960s, when, with falling ridership and mounting debts, many private transit companies were reestablished as public agencies. The federal government supported this process with capital grants beginning in a substantial way with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365). Public funding for transit at all levels of government expanded rapidly toward the end of the 1960s and through the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, overall public funding remained relatively constant at about $22 billion per year (in constant 2006 dollars), followed by a period of growth from 1999 through 2003 to a level of about $30 billion per year. The federal share of public funding for transit grew rapidly in the 1970s, peaking in the early 1980s at around 40% before stabilizing at around 25% during the past decade.\nFigure 2. Public Transit Revenue From Government Sources, 2006\n(in Billions)\n\nSource: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 2008 Status of the Nation\u2019s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, DC, 2009).\nAlthough the federal government provides only 19% of total transit revenues, including system-generated revenues, this support is particularly important for capital expenditures. Almost three-quarters of federal funds go for capital, representing 44% of transit capital expenditures. As rail modes are generally more capital-intensive than non-rail modes, about 70% of total capital support goes to rail, with most of the remaining 30% used for bus and bus-related capital expenses.\nAs noted in the introduction, about 80% of federal transit funding comes from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, with the remaining roughly 20% from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Of the 18.4 cents federal tax on a gallon of gasoline, 2.86 cents is deposited in the transit account. Of the rest, 15.44 cents is deposited in the highway account, and 0.1 cent is deposited in the Leaking and Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. Revenues credited to the trust fund also come from taxes on diesel, gasohol, and special fuels. Since the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-424), it has been customary for 20% of federal fuels tax increases to be dedicated to the transit account. In 1983, the transit account was established with a dedicated 1.0 cent of a 5.0-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal fuels tax. Increases in the fuels tax since then have seen the amount per gallon dedicated to transit increase to 1.5 cents in 1990, 2.0 cents in 1995, 2.85 cents in 1997, and to 2.86 cents in 1998 (retroactive to October 1, 1997).\nSAFETEA authorized approximately $53 billion for transit programs from FY2004 through FY2009. In nominal terms, this was a 46% increase in transit spending over the TEA-21, as amended, and more than double the amount authorized in the ISTEA. In addition to federal funding for transit from the transit programs themselves, federal funding is also available from several surface transportation programs that allow highway money to be spent on transit projects and vice versa. Most funds \u201cflexed\u201d to the transit programs come from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Flexing funds is largely the decision of state decision-makers; hence, the amount transferred can vary widely from year to year. In 17 years, from FY1992 through FY2008, a total of $14.9 billion has been flexed from highways to transit, ranging from $0.3 billion in FY1992 to $1.6 billion in FY2000. Very little transit funding has been flexed from transit to highways.\nParatransit is another area in which funding is available from the federal government outside the transit program. Paratransit, also known as demand response or dial-a-ride, is non-fixed route service for people with disabilities and the elderly, and typically involves the use of small buses, vans, or passenger cars. In a 2003 report, the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), or GAO, found that 56 federal programs in seven federal agencies other than U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) fund transportation services to transportation-disadvantaged populations. The same report could not estimate the transportation spending in these programs because the money often was not tracked separately from other types of spending.\nBecause of the complexity of federal programs and overlapping responsibilities in paratransit, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13330 on Human Service Transportation Coordination on February 24, 2004, directing federal agencies to examine and improve the coordination of federal programs supporting paratransit, and, to implement the effort, created the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM). The CCAM launched a national initiative, United We Ride, and prepared a report to the President on the issue of coordinating federal paratransit programs with five recommendations that focused on (1) coordinated planning, (2) vehicle sharing, (3) cost sharing, (4) performance measures, and (5) demonstration grants. According to CCAM\u2019s latest progress report, 40 states have United We Ride-coordinated transportation plans, and a number of grants have been distributed to help demonstrate the various strategies.\nIssues for Congress\nWith looming fiscal difficulties and growing demand on the transportation system, there is likely to be vigorous debate over the level of funding for surface transportation programs in the reauthorization of SAFETEA. The overall level of transit funding, therefore, is likely to be a major issue for Congress. Without new revenue, Congress may have to reexamine the federal role in the financing of transit systems. Some of the options discussed below include reducing the federal matching share, encouraging more private-sector involvement, including the use of public-private partnerships and innovative financing, encouraging improvements in transit system productivity, and the broad restructuring of current federal transit programs.\nTransit Funding Level\nThe overall level of federal transit funding is likely to be a major issue in the reauthorization of SAFETEA, particularly as it relates to the relative balance between highway and transit funding. A number of groups, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, argue that America is underinvesting in transportation infrastructure, including public transit infrastructure. These groups contend that the physical condition and operational performance of public transit is suffering and will continue to suffer unless there is an increase in funding levels. In their view, federal infrastructure investment should be significantly increased to deal with an existing backlog of projects and other future needs.\nThis view is bolstered, to some degree, by the most recent highway and transit \u201cneeds assessment\u201d by DOT, which suggests that capital spending by the nation as a whole, including all levels of government and the private sector, to maintain the current condition and operational performance of transit systems in the United States would need to increase from the $12.8 billion spent in 2006 to $15.1 billion annually over the 2007 through 2026 period (in 2006 dollars). Of this $15.1 billion, $10.7 billion is for replacement and rehabilitation of current infrastructure, and $4.3 billion is for new vehicles and infrastructure to accommodate new riders. Capital spending to improve conditions and operational performance is estimated to require $21.1 billion annually.\nDOT makes no recommendation about the shares of capital spending made by different levels of government in its estimates of capital needs. In the current ratio of capital spending, however, $6.6 billion annually of federal spending would be needed to maintain the system. In 2006, the federal government provided $5.6 billion for capital expenses. The other $2.5 billion in federal spending went for operating expenses. Federal law generally requires that federal funding in urbanized areas of 200,000 people or more be used for capital expenses and not operating expenses, except for preventative maintenance. In smaller urbanized areas and rural areas, federal funds can be used for capital expenses and all types of operating expenses.\nTwo congressionally created commissions have estimated greater capital investment needs than DOT. These commissions are (1) the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Surface Commission), created under Section 1909 of SAFETEA; and (2) the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (Finance Commission), created under Section 11142 of SAFETEA. To maintain the current condition and performance of transit systems, the Surface Commission estimated capital spending of $22 billion annually and the Finance Commission estimated $42 billion annually (both in 2008 dollars).\nIt should be pointed out, however, that, as with any attempt to estimate current and future system conditions and performance, there are a host of simplifying assumptions, omissions, and data problems that influence the results. Nevertheless, this analysis suggests that if total government spending is not increased above current levels, the physical condition and operational performance of system elements may decline.\nIn its most recent policy statement on national transportation infrastructure, AASHTO contends that it will be very difficult for the country to build enough highway infrastructure to keep up with the current forecasted growth in highway travel. Consequently, it argues that a national policy goal should be to double transit ridership over the next 20 years to reduce highway demand and to meet the needs of the transit-dependent. AASHTO believes this would require increasing federal transit assistance from $10.3 billion in FY2009, the amount authorized in the final year of SAFETEA, to $17.3 billion by FY2015, possibly the last year of the next authorizing legislation. One way to boost ridership, according to AASHTO, is to provide more funding for the New Starts program (49 U.S.C. \u00a75309), which provides up to 80% of federal matching funds for the creation or extension of fixed-guideway transit systems (including bus rapid transit). New Starts funding is in great demand. By AASHTO\u2019s estimate, $35 billion is needed to fund the 36 projects that have moved beyond the initial planning stages, and, in a survey of transit project sponsors, GAO found that there are another 141 projects planned, of which three-quarters are likely to request federal New Starts funding. In SAFETEA, the New Starts program is authorized at $1.8 billion in FY2009.\nAn alternative view of the overall level of government transportation spending in general, and transit spending in particular, is that it has not been dramatically deficient. In terms of the nation\u2019s transit systems, the DOT needs analysis shows that total government spending on capital and operations (excluding farebox and other revenue) grew by approximately 80% between 1980 and 2006 (in real terms), much faster than passenger trips and passenger miles, which grew by 17% and 31%, respectively. However, it is true that federal spending grew relatively slowly over this period, particularly compared with state and local spending, 13% and 129%, respectively (in real terms). Consequently, the federal share of total spending declined from 42% to 26%. The federal share of capital spending has also declined, from approximately 50% in the mid-1990s to 44% in 2006.\nAs a result of this increase in overall government spending, transit service has grown and the condition and performance of transit systems have generally improved over the past decade. Transit system capacity, measured in capacity-equivalent revenue vehicle miles, increased 36% between 1997 and 2006. With the opening of several new systems and extensions, light rail capacity more than doubled over this period. Bus capacity grew by a more modest 19%. The growth in ridership, on average, has generally lagged the growth in capacity; hence capacity utilization has slipped. Between 1997 and 2006, utilization, as measured in terms of annual passenger miles per capacity-equivalent vehicle decreased for heavy rail, commuter rail, and light rail, and remained about the same for motorbus.\nThe overall physical condition of transit systems is a more complex picture. In general, bus and rail vehicle conditions have improved over the past few years, while some components of rail infrastructure have improved and others have deteriorated. The condition of the urban bus fleet weighted for bus size has improved from 2.94 in 1997 to 3.01 in 2006 on a 5-point scale (1 = poor; 5 = excellent). Rail vehicle condition also improved slightly, going from 3.42 to 3.51 over the same period. Rail maintenance facilities are in reasonable condition. Of the 201 facilities in 2006, 30% were in excellent or good condition and 44% were rated adequate, but 25% were considered marginal and 1% poor. On average, rail systems\u2014communication, train control, traction power, and revenue collection\u2014all deteriorated between 2000 and 2006, except for communication systems. Other structures were also a mixed bag over this period, with elevated structures improving, tunnels deteriorating, and track remaining unchanged. Rail yards have deteriorated slightly over the past few years, and had an overall rating of 3.8 in 2006.\nA third view on the overall level of transit funding is that governments, including the federal government, spend too much on public transit relative to the benefits it provides. It is often pointed out that although transit spending amounts to about 16% of all government highway and transit spending (and about 14% of federal highway and transit capital expenditure), only about 2% of all trips are made by this mode. Even for commuting trips, for which transit is better-suited, transit only accounts for 5% nationwide, a share that has changed little over the past two decades. Only in two cities, New York and Chicago, does the transit share rise above 10%. The effect, according to transit critics, is to short-change highway spending, thereby causing highway conditions and performance, including highway congestion, to be worse than they would be otherwise. A corollary to this view is that a significant proportion of federal transit funding, roughly 80%, comes from taxes paid by highway users.\nA number of critics of federal transit policy argue that it focuses too much on financial support for building new rail systems. These critics contend that such systems are expensive to build and maintain, less flexible compared with regular bus transit, and ill-suited to today\u2019s low-density, dispersed metropolitan areas. These critics contend that rail transit may only be worth the cost in high-density corridors, and that few of these corridors remain without rail service. Moreover, critics contend that construction of new rail systems in search of discretionary riders, primarily suburban commuters, have worked to the detriment of bus-dependent populations in the central city. Overall, these critics argue, the effect has been to switch those riding buses to riding rail, with little net gain in transit patronage. Even the environmental benefits of new rail lines have been called into question because many new rail riders must drive to a station to access the system. Consequently, the reduction in emissions from building new rail lines has been found in many cases to be negligible.\nIn the view of some, federal support for new transit capacity would be better spent on BRT, in which express buses run over roads with some sort of priority system ranging from signal preemption to an exclusive busway. Others argue that BRT projects, while cheaper than rail systems, are still more expensive and less effective than conventional bus service. For instance, one analyst contends that \u201cmodest improvements to basic bus services combined with an attractive fares policy have shown they can secure substantially greater ridership increases than capital-intensive projects involving either light rail or busway construction.\u201d Others note that BRT projects favor suburban commuters over more centrally located transit such as streetcars, a lighter, cheaper, but slower type of light rail.\nA counter argument to these critics, and one in favor of increased transit spending, is that transit\u2019s worth must be analyzed in terms of economic value, not just transportation value. The economic value argument includes economic development as well as mobility, such as mobility for non-drivers and congestion management. By this measure, according to proponents, transit investment is highly productive, often more productive than an alternative highway investment. The implication for transit\u2019s detractors is that \u201cthe reality that transit cannot as a rule make it financially seems to have created a belief in some quarters that it cannot make it economically either.\u201d This has been an issue in the New Starts program, as some have argued that federal funds should be used to support projects that provide the most transportation mobility benefits, such as bus rapid transit, and others have contended that funding ought to be available for projects that have fewer mobility benefits but may provide greater economic development benefits, such as light rail and streetcars.\nHighway Trust Fund Issues\nThe amount of funding available for transit programs, at least in the short to medium term, is likely to depend on decisions surrounding the Highway Trust Fund. At the moment, about 80% of federal transit funding comes from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, with the rest coming from general funds. In March 2010, CBO estimated that with current revenues and outlays at the level provided for in SAFETEA (with adjustments made for inflation after FY2009), and with an infusion of $4.8 billion from the General Fund as provided in the HIRE Act, the transit account will run into trouble in FY2013. The highway account, with three infusions of money from the General Fund, $8 billion in FY2008, $7 billion in FY2009, and $14.7 billion in FY2010, is likewise expected to run out of funds in FY2013. Excluding any further potential transfers of money from the General Fund, CBO estimates that expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund in FY2011 will exceed revenues by $7.2 billion, with a $4.1 billion difference in the highway account and $3.1 billion difference in the transit account.\nFunding shortfalls in the highway and transit programs are related to a few key underlying factors. To begin with, the fuels tax has not been increased since 1993, when 4.3 cents per gallon were added as a general budget deficit reduction measure. This tax increment was redirected to the Highway Trust Fund beginning October 1, 1997. In addition, the fuels tax is not indexed to inflation. Consequently, since 1993, inflation has eroded about one-third of the purchasing power of the fuels tax. One current estimate suggests that the fuels tax would need to be increased by about 10 cents per gallon to restore its 1993 purchasing power. Despite no increase in the federal fuels tax and the problem of inflation, SAFETEA authorized funding increases based primarily on spending down the unexpended balances that had accrued in the Highway Trust Fund accounts. These balances have been eliminated more quickly than estimated when SAFETEA was enacted.\nAlthough receipts from the fuels tax are subject to a good deal of uncertainty, as they depend on projections of travel demand and fuel usage, the current rule of thumb is that a 1.0-cent-per-gallon tax increase generates approximately $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund as a whole and $0.3 billion to $0.4 billion for the transit account, assuming 20% of the increase goes to the transit account. At the funding level currently provided for in FY2011, with expenditures exceeding revenues by $7.2 billion in total and by $3.1 billion in the transit account, the fuels tax would need to be raised by approximately 5 to 10 cents per gallon to close the gap (with 1 to 2 cents per gallon dedicated to the transit account). This allows for no growth in the program to deal with growing needs or inflation. Indexing the fuels tax to inflation would allow the programs to remain at the FY2011 level in real terms. One estimate of indexing the fuels tax (beginning in FY2010) predicted that this alone would raise the current 18.3-cent-per-gallon tax, excluding the 0.1 cents dedicated to the Leaking and Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, to 21.8 cents per gallon by FY2017.\nCBO estimates that expenditures from the transit account will exceed revenues by about $3.1 billion in FY2011, but, under the current assumptions, this gap is expected to widen. CBO estimates that the difference will be $4.2 billion in FY2013, $4.6 billion in FY2016, and $4.8 billion in FY2020.\nAnother way to look at fuel taxes and future funding needs is to assess the fuels tax in relation to the DOT needs assessment discussed above. There is no requirement that the federal government provide extra funding to alleviate deficiencies in highway and transit infrastructure identified in the DOT report. But at the level of its current share, the federal government would have to raise an extra $1.0 billion per year, from 2007 though 2026, for capital expenditures to maintain the current condition and performance of the system. Assuming that 20% of an increase goes to the mass transit account, this would require about a 3 cent-per-gallon increase in the fuels tax overall. This does not include any additional funding for non-capital expenses, currently about 30% of federal transit support. Moreover, DOT\u2019s estimate of improving conditions and performance of the system would require an extra $3.6 billion annually, and its estimates are lower than those of the two congressionally mandated commissions discussed earlier. The extra $3.6 billion would require an approximate 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the fuels tax on gasoline, with 20% (2 cents) going to the transit account.\nIt should be emphasized that these are approximate calculations based on estimates of travel, fuel use, and other factors that may change in the future. Moreover, these calculations are based on assigning 20% of any fuels tax to the transit account, as has been the case since 1983, and which transit supporters are very keen to maintain in any future legislation. A number of highway advocates, however, argue that highway user fees should be used to improve the condition and performance of highways. These highway advocates note that the trust fund was created in 1956 to provide money for the construction of the interstate highway system and for other highway programs. They note that over time, however, an increasing share of trust fund revenue has been diverted to other purposes, particularly to public transit, but also to historic preservation, recreational trails, air pollution mitigation, and, through earmarking, to projects that reward specific constituencies to the detriment of transportation mobility. Continued large-scale federal funding, they argue, has also come at the price of burdensome federal regulation in a number of areas that raises costs and stifles innovation.\nRate of Return\nAside from consideration of tax rates and receipts into the Highway Trust Fund, reauthorization may also involve greater debate about each state\u2019s \u201crate of", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34183", "sha1": "745fd82597b87e482b709dcf25e929a61dc30235", "filename": "files/20100409_RL34183_745fd82597b87e482b709dcf25e929a61dc30235.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34183", "sha1": "f682f0f4881bf1a4eb59ad2da5f2b427ce07da13", "filename": "files/20100409_RL34183_f682f0f4881bf1a4eb59ad2da5f2b427ce07da13.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818824/", "id": "RL34183_2008Apr16", "date": "2008-04-16", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080416_RL34183_1117f71c510e00a3d036189557c8935680a25441.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080416_RL34183_1117f71c510e00a3d036189557c8935680a25441.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc811512/", "id": "RL34183_2007Sep27", "date": "2007-09-27", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070927_RL34183_269bac5313964c560a4ba0d75a0c827f45cd8691.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070927_RL34183_269bac5313964c560a4ba0d75a0c827f45cd8691.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Transportation Policy" ] }