|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
NAFTA set forth a schedule for implementing its trucking provisions
that would have opened the border states to cross-border trucking
competition in 1995 and all of North America in 2000, but full
implementation has been stalled because of concern with the safety
of Mexican trucks. Congress first addressed these concerns in the
FY2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L.
107-87) which set 22 safety-related preconditions for opening the
border to long-haul Mexican trucks. In November 2002, the U.S.
Department of Transportation announced that all the preconditions
had been met and began processing Mexican applications for U.S.
long-haul authority. However, a suit over environmental compliance
delayed implementation further. After the suit was resolved, in
February 2007, the U.S. and Mexican Secretaries of Transportation
announced a demonstration project to implement the NAFTA trucking
provisions. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate the
ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the
United States beyond the border commercial zones. Up to 100 Mexico-
domiciled carriers would be allowed to operate throughout the
United States for one year and Mexico would allow the same for up
to 100 U.S.-based carriers. With passage of the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veteran's Care, Katrina Recovery, and ...
On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act
authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation
programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail
programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21
authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It
also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the
end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to
approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface
transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund
(HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives
revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has experienced
declining revenue due to a sluggish economy and improvements in
vehicle fuel efficiency. For the past several years, HTF revenue
has been insufficient to finance the government's surface
transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization
for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year
reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a
long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP-21 did provide for
the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund
a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic
structure for both highways and public transportation and included
initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through
performance-based planning and the streamlining of project
development. Among its major provisions, MAP-21 included: for the
federal-aid highway program, research, and education,
authorizations for FY2013 of $40.96 billion and for FY2014 of
$41.03 billion; for public transportation, authorizations for
FY2013 of $10.58 billion and for FY2014 of $10.7 billion; for the
Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA),
which provides credit assistance for surface transportation
projects, a significant expansion that could provide credit support
of up to $690 million for FY2013 and $9.2 billion for FY2014; major
program restructuring, which reduced the number of highway programs
by two-thirds and consolidated public transportation programs as
well; more distribution of funding via apportionment to the states
and less discretionary funding via the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to individual projects; no project earmarks; no equity
program, instead basing the distribution of highway funding on the
FY2012 distribution such that each state will likely receive as
much federal highway funding as its highway users paid to the
highway account of the HTF; and changes in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process intended to
accelerate project delivery.
The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects
in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L.
111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger rail
transportation in the United States. The Obama Administration
subsequently announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1
billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This
initiative was reflected in the President's budgets for FY2010
through FY2013. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed and
intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in
FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the
FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year
unobligated balances of program funding. There are two main
approaches to building high speed rail (HSR): (1) improving
existing tracks and signaling to allow trains to reach speeds of up
to 110 miles per hour (mph), generally on track shared with freight
trains; and (2) building new tracks dedicated exclusively to high
speed passenger rail service, to allow trains to travel at speeds
of 200 mph or more. The potential costs, and benefits, are
relatively lower with the first approach and higher with the second
approach. Much of the federal funding for HSR to date has focused
on improving existing lines in five corridors: Seattle-Portland;
Chicago-St. Louis; Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC);
and Charlotte-Washington, DC. Most of the rest of the money is
being used for a largely new system dedicated to passenger trains
between San Francisco and Los Angeles, on which speeds could reach
up to 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states were shelved by
political leaders opposed to the substantial risks such projects
entail, particularly the capital and operating costs; the federal
funds allocated to those projects were subsequently redirected to
other HSR projects. Estimates of the cost of constructing HSR vary
according to train speed, the topography of the corridor, the cost
of right-of-way, and other factors. Few if any HSR lines anywhere
in the world have earned enough revenue to cover both their
construction and operating costs, even where population density is
far greater than anywhere in the United States. Typically,
governments have paid the construction costs, and in many cases
have subsidized the operating costs as well. These subsidies are
often justified by the social benefits ascribed to HSR in relieving
congestion, reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, and
contributing to employment and economic development. It is unclear
whether these potential social benefits are commensurate with the
likely costs of constructing and operating HSR. Lack of long-term
funding represents a significant obstacle to HSR development in the
United States. The federal government does not have a dedicated
funding source for HSR, making projects that can take years to
build vulnerable to year-to-year changes in discretionary budget
allocations.
This book is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills
that Congress considers each year. It is designed to supplement the
information provided by the Subcommittees on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. It summarises the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding
levels, and related legislative activity.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R383
R318
Discovery Miles 3 180
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R383
R318
Discovery Miles 3 180
|