Big Cuts in 2018 Budget Plan

13% DOT Reduction Eliminates TIGER Grants
Image
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

This story appears in the March 20 print edition of Transport Topics.

An expansive grants program for freight projects and guidance for reforming regulations designed to boost commerce were included in President Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal — though the trucking sector went without specific mention.

The $1.15 trillion funding blueprint, a preface to a complete budget document likely to be unveiled in May, was meant to outline the White House’s intention of increasing funding for the military and cutting environmental protection programs.

Specific to freight, the request noted the administration’s support for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grants.



Established by the 2015 FAST Act highway law with $900 million in funding approval through 2020, the program is designed to help improve the flow of trucks and rail along freight corridors.

“It shows that the administration recognizes the value of investing in infrastructure projects that promote the safe and efficient movement of freight,” American Trucking Associations spokesman Sean McNally said of the freight program.

The administration also expressed interest in rolling back regulations targeting air, water and wetlands protection, a move most of the freight sector, along with several governors and Republicans on Capitol Hill, have supported.

“Many regulations, though well- intentioned, do not achieve their intended outcomes, are not structured in the most cost-effective manner and often have adverse, unanticipated consequences,” according to the document.

Not surprisingly, the White House took aim at the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, grants, used by state and municipal officials for financing small rural projects and large-scale highway expansions aimed at promoting commerce. The move drew opposition from many of the program’s supporters on Capitol Hill.

Congress approved $500 million in fiscal 2016 for the Obama-era TIGER program. Since 2009, DOT distributed $5.1 billion in TIGER grants for 421 projects. Recent grant recipients included the Little Rock Port Authority; a freight mobility project along U.S. 169 in Scott County, Minnesota; and a freight rail project in South Carolina. In 2015, the Kansas Department of Transportation was awarded a $25 million TIGER grant for a regional system meant to assist truckers with finding parking spots across the upper Midwest. Proponents of the program lamented the proposed cuts.

“Any actions that would result in a reduction to U.S. transportation system investments is a concern. So we’re anxious to see the president’s whole infrastructure investment package and put this proposal outlining his budget in some kind of context,” Lloyd Brown, director of communications at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, told Transport Topics.

“While the administration has suggested that the cuts made in the fiscal ’18 budget will be restored through an infrastructure-specific package, that is not the way to effectively invest in, modernize and maintain our aging and underperforming infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers President Norma Jean Mattei said in a statement.

To be sure, several Republican transportation observers critical of TIGER grants have argued its award process had been politicized. “There have been grants made out of that program that I don’t think could possibly have survived a serious cost-benefit analysis,” Jim Burnley, secretary of transportation under former President Ronald Reagan, told Transport Topics.

Left out of Trump’s first budget were allocations for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration safety performance scoring system for motor carriers. A plan for ensuring long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund account was not outlined, either. Energy-efficient and greenhouse-gas emissions rules governing the trucking industry also were not addressed, nor were specifics for programs at the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The omissions drew criticism from Democrats, including Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who said the proposal did nothing to “rebuild and replace our aging network of crumbling roads.”

“The president’s budget, released today, guts many of those very investments — the exact opposite of what he promised,” DeFazio said. “Bottom line: This so-called ‘skinny’ budget exposes the big fat lies President Trump has told the American people.”

“President Trump has shown that he does not value the future of our children and working families,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.

A few key GOP lawmakers did not endorse the budget blueprint, mainly Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), House Appropriations Committee chairman, who said his committee would review it.

“I’m optimistic that we can strike a balance that will enable us to fund the federal government responsibly and address emergency needs, while ensuring this legislation will clear the Congress,” Frelinghuysen said.

Overall, the request would reduce discretionary transportation funding by 12.7%, to $16.2 billion from $18.6 billion. Environmental Protection Agency funding would be reduced by 31%. At the Department of Energy, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which is researching battery technology and automated vehicles, would be eliminated.

“[The] budget reduces or eliminates programs that are either inefficient, duplicative of other federal efforts or that involve activities that are better delivered by states, localities or the private sector,” according to the blueprint.

Robert Puentes, president of Eno Center for Transportation, said the so-called “skinny” budget plan puts many federal agencies on a diet.

Trump told Congress to approve a $1 trillion infrastructure funding bill that would rely on private and public financing. Details of a plan that would fund pipelines, schools, roads, bridges and tunnels have not been revealed.