Since we now are in Fiscal Year 1986, the last year covered by The Surface Transportation Assistance Act or 1982, more and more questions are being asked about the future of Federal-aid for local highway programs. Some of the more frequently asked questions are:

1. Will the Federal-aid Secondary (FAS) and Federal-aid Urban (FAU) programs be continued?

2. Is there a possibility that the FAS and FAU programs will be replaced by "Block Grant" type programs?

3. How will the future program levels compare to what they have been in the past?

4. What funding will be available for bridges?

The purpose of this article is to give you some insight into what is happening in Congress relative to these and other pertinent questions.

Currently, HR 3129, entitled "Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1985", has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Committee action on the Bill is expected by mid October of this year.

Interestingly, HR 3129 continues the FAS and FAU programs in their current form and at the same funding level through Fiscal Year 1990. In addition, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) remains essentially the same except for an increase in the authorization for discretionary bridge funding. The HBRRP funds set aside for discretionary projects would increase from $200 million to $300 million a year for Fiscal Years 1986-1990. The amount set aside is taken off the top of the total amount of HBRRP funds authorized. Although this increase would be potentially beneficial to Illinois (which relies heavily on discretionary funds), the discretionary bridge funds are for high cost structures, few of which are on the local system.

HR 3129 continues, without changes, the Minimum Allocation Fund program through Fiscal Year 1990. This program was established by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 to provide each state a return of at least 85 percent of the revenue it contributes to the Highway Trust Fund, excepting revenues going, to the Mass Transit Account. This program has provided approximately $17 million of additional Federal funds over the past two years for needed local agency highway projects that could not have been funded by other means.

The Highway Safety Act portion of HR 3129 continues the Elimination of Hazards program at the current level through Fiscal Year 1990. However, the Rail-Highway Crossing program would be reduced by almost 25 percent through Fiscal Year 1990.

The Safety Act portion also replaces the law relative to the 55 mph speed limit with a weighted compliance formula to assess speed violations based on road type and degree of violation. The current law provides that any state is in non-compliance where, after adjustment, more than 50 percent of moving vehicles exceed 55 mph. The new process assigns the heaviest penalty to violations in excess of 65 mph on unlimited access highways, with the wieght of penalty decreasing incrementally to violations between 55 and 60 mph on limited access highways. The Bill extends the authority to impose penalties up to 5 percent of a state's following fiscal year primary, secondary and urban highway funds for the first year of non-compliance, increasing to 10 percent for subsequent years of non-compliance. The current law provides for a 10 percent sanction for each fiscal year of non-compliance. The Bill clarifies that all 55 mph highways are applicable. A redeeming clause in the existing law provides that withheld funds may be reinstated to a state if the compliance score has dropped to the level specified during the fiscal year for which funds were withheld.

Our Washington sources indicate that, although the proposal to replace the FAS and FAU programs with "Block Grant" type funding is not dead, it certainly is not given much of a chance this time around. However, it is expected to be a strong issue in 1990.

Please keep in mind that this article generally has been referring to the House of Representatives version of a surface transportation package. The Senate is expected to come up with its own bill next year. Then, a process of blending the two versions into one acceptable to both Houses will take place before the final bill is sent to the President for his signature.

At any rate, if there are any issues relative to local Federal-aid highway program funding that you feel strongly about, now is the time to be advising your Illinois Congressional Delegation.

Credits to:
Frank L. McCarthy
Engineer of Local
Planning & Programming

November 1985 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 15