Talking Michigan Transportation

What to expect as Congress looks to renew transportation funding

• Michigan Department of Transportation • Season 8 • Episode 252

Share episode

Surface transportation reauthorization is the regular federal legislative process to renew and fund U.S. transportation programs for highways, transit, rail and safety, setting policies and priorities for billions in spending, with the current major authorization (part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) set to expire Sept. 30, 2026, prompting ongoing discussions for the next bill. 

On this week’s edition of the Talking Michigan Transportation podcast, Zach Rable, a federal policy specialist at the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), talks about priorities for Michigan.

He explains those priorities largely dovetail with those the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are pushing.

Photo by Adam Michael Szuscik on Unsplash.





SPEAKER_02:

Hello, welcome to the Talking Michigan Transportation Podcast. I'm Jeff Cranson.

Jeff Cranson:

Right now, one of the big issues on the minds of state DOT officials across the country is federal surface transportation reauthorization. That's because on a regular period, about every five years, there's a federal process to renew and fund transportation programs for highways, transit, rail, and safety. This involves setting policies and priorities for billions in spending. And the current authorization, which was called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will expire on September 30th. So the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been working hard at this. Michigan has three members of that committee. So we've got representation there that will be advocating for what we see as the top priorities in our state. So I spoke with Zach Rabel, who is MDOT's Federal Affairs Specialist. He analyzes these things, follows them very closely, always has uh a good take on what it all means and does a good job of breaking it down. So I hope you enjoy the conversation. So, Zach Rabel, uh, as promised, a repeat visitor to the podcast. I kind of set up in the intro what it is you do and why we're here to talk about this again. Before we get into some of the specifics and uh MDOT's priorities and how they tend to dovetail for the most part with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, otherwise known as ASHO. Um, why don't you give me your high-level take on this process? And I'm not going to ask you to come up with a better way to do this, but one of the things that everybody agrees on, um, whether they're in business or in government, is that we need more certainty so that we can plan budgets uh several years out. That applies um especially to transportation agencies. So, what are your thoughts about that?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, thanks for having me back, Jeff. And, you know, transportation in particular, as you mentioned, relies on that stable, well-known funding and reauthorization, the ability for state DOTs to know what money is coming their way is a great way for us to plan, program, and facilitate the um development of transportation infrastructure. The process is one that you know almost never ends, right? You get through one reauthorization and you start turning your attention almost immediately to the next one, or at least the folks who think about the policy, like me and some of the folks at Ashto, like you mentioned previously, begin thinking, all right, well, what will this mean in four or five years? And how can we improve upon the processes? And so it's a long, drawn-out process. And one of the ways that Congress helps facilitate this is by getting all the members together and allowing them the opportunity to talk about priorities that they have, things that are specific to their districts or to their states as they prep for a new reauthorization bill for surface transportation programs. Um, for folks not aware, the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee just held what many would consider to be a kickoff meeting for surface transportation reauthorization. And so yesterday they held what was known as a member day. Folks were able to go in front of the committee and talk about, and when I say folks, I mean other members of Congress, were able to go in front of the committee and talk about things that were important to them, their districts, their states, and really provide feedback and ideas to the committee as they start contemplating the text that will then supply the guardrails for the funding we receive as state DOTs.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, I was surprised that uh in addition, and I mentioned in the intro that uh Michigan has three members on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is, you know, relatively good representation for our state, but that three non-committee members uh showed up to to testify and talk about what they see as priorities. Um, I guess I didn't expect that, and I guess that's a good sign that they're engaged on the issue.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, for sure. And infrastructure covers so many wide variety of topics. Um, the committee is responsible, of course, for surface transportation, like we talked about. That some members were there yesterday to talk about um the Water Resources Development Act, which um somewhat touches our department as we work closely with the Army Corps and some of our maritime initiatives, um, but a lot to do with you know water quality. And so folks were there to talk about that. Our uh non-committee members, but delegates from Michigan came and talked about a wide variety of infrastructure topics from lead-free water to hazard hazardous materials on the roads, wanting to improve local airports, um, FEMA funding. Uh, this goes back to the Midland Dam failure a couple of years ago. And then another member talked about active transportation and safety. And so it was good to hear from the wide array of members on their um various important topics.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, it's a good reminder that while we're very focused on reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, which covers, you know, all the modes that travel on the surface, that everybody's Maslow pyramid is built differently.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah, that's right. And, you know, goes back to what was unique about this last authorization bill, the IIJA, which covered not only surface transportation, but the breadth of all the other infrastructure needs um within our country. And so that was a massive bill. I wouldn't expect a similar looking bill, looking forward reauthorization, but it was a way for Congress at the time to tie together a lot of these interrelated needs.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, that's right. And I I'm not gonna handicap it and I won't ask you to either, but I know the the fervent hope in in the corridors of Ashto and certainly at MDOT is that we could get at least what the IAGA provided, uh, plus inflation. While we'd like to see even more than that, uh, we'd consider that a win. So talk about that a little bit and and what that means.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, absolutely. So we have a suite of federal priorities, and as you've mentioned, they align pretty closely with our federal part federal trade agency partner, um, Ashto. Um, and really they're pretty simple. Um, you know, we'd like on-time reauthorization. It's difficult, as we mentioned earlier, to plan and make use of big amounts of money without knowing if we're going to have big amounts of money or when that money might come. And so on-time reauthorization allows state DOTs to have the certainty of what to expect in the future. This is something that's rare. We typically get a few um what's known as continuing resolutions, which are short-term extensions of funding that keep the funding where it was um at the previous bill. Something that would be difficult for us to handle would be a lapse in funding. Um, you know, no one expects this to occur, but it's a possibility where, you know, without an authorizing act, no one would be given the obligation authority to use or um request receipts of highway trust fund dollars, which is the money that comes from the federal fuel tax. So when you go to the gas pump to fill up your car, that's where that revenue ends up landing. Beyond that, you mentioned keeping funding at and then building upon IIJ funding levels. We'd like for that funding to come to us um through formula funding. What's different about the last reauthorization bill is that a lot of the new money that was up for state DOTs to receive came through what's known as competitive grant programs. So these are more opportunities than guarantees, right? Um, states are able to bid or apply for the chance to gain access to the funding, but formula funding is a known quantity. State DOTs are able to rely on it. We can say, hey, the formula says this, that means we'll get X. And again, that gives us the ability to put the funds to good use for our state. As part of that, we appreciate the ability to have program flexibility and transferability within the programs. And so this allows Michigan to say, this works best for us, right? You know, well within the federal and policy guardrails that are set within the bill. But our state doesn't look like California, and California doesn't look like Texas. And for these reasons, state duties appreciate those sorts of flexibilities. And then another thing that we've noted with the last bill is that we were afforded the opportunity to receive new formula programs, but they were smaller programs. So they came with fewer funds, but a lot of administrative red tape. We're talking about um Nevi, Carma Reduction, Protect. These were great opportunities for us to focus on environmental-related initiatives that you know are really important, but were difficult for us to spend. And so um combining these smaller bucket programs because they have similar objectives and adding in eligibilities to improve the use of the funds is something that we would really appreciate. Those are um likely our top priorities this time around.

Jeff Cranson:

And fortunately, those dovetail with Ashtow in at least most of the states, I guess I'm sure that some states that have have done or feel that they've done very well with being awarded these discretionary grants, might say, geez, no, don't don't take that away. You know, that's been really good for us. But for the most part, it kind of takes the lottery aspect out of it. And that's that's a good thing, I think. Again, like you said, in terms of planning and in terms of certainty. Um, and you know, transparency and knowing how it is these decisions are made, how the funding is handed out. So talk about, I guess, what you see uh as as those priorities. You you talked about stability. One of the things I noticed in Ashto's bullet points, um, and I'm I'd like you to talk about what you think this means. It says in addition to prioritizing formula funding, Congress should reserve discretionary grants only for projects of utmost federal interest.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. The way I read that priority or interpret that priority is that formula funding should be the number one source of money flowing to state DOTs, except when there are these nationally significant or regionally significant projects that may require a robust infusion of funds that would otherwise be difficult to use formula dollars to um work through. A Midwestern project that comes to mind is the Brent Spence Bridge between Ohio and Kentucky, which had been snarled with funding issues for a while, badly needed improvements, and again um encompassed two states. So an extra level of coordination required there, right? Allowing for that bridge to utilize federal competitive grant to supplement, augment um the process was something really beneficial to those states and improved a regionally and nationally significant bridge. Um, this was important for the economy, important for the safety of the residents who were moving through that corridor. And so for that reason, it made sense to look to federal funding. I really think that that's what Ashto was hinting at. These bigger projects that are very difficult to apply for and get done with just formula funding.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, I think that that makes perfect sense. And that that's a that's a very good example. I mean, that's that that even affects Michigan, right? Uh you talk about the the reason that folks in Ohio have had a keen interest in the Gordy Howe International Bridge is because of what it's going to mean to the I-75 commercial corridor, which ultimately goes to Cincinnati. And then that Kentucky connection and going further south in the United States, all of that ties together. So yeah, I think that's a that's a very good example.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, and you meant you mentioned that, Jeff. Interestingly enough, that Gordy the Gordy Howe International Bridge came up during member day, not from any of the Michigan-based uh delegates, but actually from an Ohio delegate for that reason, because they see it as an opportunity to improve the freight flow uh in their state. So, to your point, highly significant regional projects impact all states, even if the project itself is not just in your state.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, that's fascinating. And I'll an Ohio member uh talked about that in the hearing yesterday. That's really interesting. Stick around, there's more to come. Right after this short message.

SPEAKER_00:

The Michigan Department of Transportation reminds you that when a vehicle collides with another vehicle, person, or other object, it is a crash, not an accident. By reducing human error, we can prevent crashes and rebuild Michigan roads safely.

Jeff Cranson:

One of the other things they're talking about, and this can be a little scary on the surface to environmental advocates, but I've come to understand um what it could mean in terms of um moving things forward more efficiently, and that's uh delegation of NEPA authority. Can you talk a little bit about what that means?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, absolutely. So um and spell out what NEPA is, I guess. I mean yeah, the um gosh, the National Environmental Protection Act, I believe it was signed into law in the late 60s. Um NEPA and the guidelines encompass within it sort of um control the environmental aspects and considerations that must be required as part of building and developing infrastructure. Um, you know, for us, that means for transportation. Federal government is the primary overseer of this, right? It's run through the federal highway administration. There were several states who use a lot of state-funded dollars in order to support and prop up their national highway system. And for this reason, they sort of lobbied the federal government to allow for them to take on the ability to do the NEPA review and assessment. And because of that, um, there are other states now interested in doing the same thing. And one of the things that Michigan is looking at right now is taking over this process because as things have changed, the approval process for our projects has slowed down. And we're hoping to maybe alleviate some of the bottlenecks that are occurring. Do taking over the oversight of the regulatory process would we view be something that would improve it. There are several hurdles, you know, one of which is take eliminating the waiver for sovereign immunity. Um, this would mean that Michigan would potentially be exposed to more lawsuits over NEPA projects. And so that is a barrier for our legislature.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, that's that's a good point. Legislature is obviously thinking about uh government immunity, sovereign immunity, and what that means. But we also know that the states that have done this said that they didn't find themselves um as the subject of any more litigation than they did previously.

SPEAKER_01:

So hopefully I can see I I think so. And I don't want to get too political in this. I'm not trying to put it on the um new administration, but that that really is the reason we're reconsidering NEPA assignment. And so um maybe I can say something I maybe I said it fine enough already, um about how we're looking to reduce bottlenecks that have popped up. Um I think that was a good way to frame it.

Jeff Cranson:

So what else, you know, I was gonna mention to you that I was uh recently reading some history about reauthorization and how that came to be part of this thing, and it took me, you know, into some some real history about Congress and its role in transportation, going back to uh, you know, Thomas Jefferson and uh early legislation for uh the national road. And then I learned that when the committees were combined back in the early part of the 20th century to create the predecessor of what became now the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, those first consolidated committees were chaired by um a Michigan rep named George Dondero, who did that from 1947 to 49. For what it's worth, Michigan's always had a leadership role in this.

SPEAKER_01:

That's fascinating. I was not aware of that, Jeff, but I appreciate the history.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah. Um what else do you uh do you see uh as important in this? Um as I mean, we kind of laid out our priorities and those that absolutely I guess uh combine well with what Ashto is pushing. Is there is there anything else that in your in your fervent hopes um you would see with this?

SPEAKER_01:

I think transportation classically has been a bipartisan issue, something that members of both sides of the aisle can get on board with, funding and thinking through logically. And so in an age of partisan politics sort of getting in the way or potentially derailing well-conceived legislation or ideas that could become legislation, I'm hopeful that this is something that could get both sides of the aisle together to push forward. It is an important issue. People are impacted by transportation every day. Um, our economy relies on a safe and efficient transportation network. And for that, those reasons and very many more reasons, it feels like there ought to be um enough similarities, commonalities, agreements that we should be able to reauthorize our surface transportation programs for the long term and make meaningful improvements. And so I'm hopeful that that will occur. I know that the last time I was on, we were just leaving DC after meeting with members from both sides of the aisle and kind of felt the same way that folks, no matter their political affiliation, were ready and eager and hoping to improve transportation. And so I think this is an opportunity to see that play out.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, I'd only add that um I'm I'm realistic just as you are about what could be done, and uh maybe we'll get a continuing resolution, but maybe they'll actually do something. By September 30th. But if if I really had my way, um, I would call for some kind of uh new revenue, something that the the federal government pushes for you know road user charges or some way of putting more of the burden uh on on a user fee, whether that's raising the federal fuel tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993, and nothing else costs the same thing now that it did in 1993. And that's why the highway trust fund has been insolvent for so long. And that's why when people still talk about Michigan being a donor state, I have to try to sadly explain that uh that hasn't been the case for a long, long time. I guess we won't hold our breath.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I'll I'll say this about potential uh new revenue for the highway trust fund. There were ideas kicked about during um some early discussion of um fiscal year 2026 appropriations. I know they're still working on those for us, but um, the idea of a national registration fee for all vehicles initially popped up. It would it was uh less for you know a traditional internal combustion engine car, those that rely on gas at the fuel pump, um, than for a hybrid or an electric car. But Congress is starting to get creative and thoughtful about bringing these ideas forward. I'm not sure that it would be included, but I think that there are ideas now popping up in serious discussions about ways in which to improve the highway trust fund.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, I I agree. There are some discussions about that, and uh we will follow that closely, and it'll be interesting to see what the comments are as we go forward. There's going to be a lot of discussion about electric vehicles um and you know other coming forms of propelling uh cars, vehicles, and that'll faster into it too. So it'll it'll it'll be interesting. Well, Zach, thanks as always for your insight. Um, I appreciate how closely you follow these things, and it's a very good job you do explaining it to all of us. So thank you. Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_01:

Happy to come back anytime.

Jeff Cranson:

I'd like to thank you once more for tuning in to Talking Michigan Transportation. You can find show notes and more on Apple Podcasts or BuzzSprout. I also want to acknowledge the talented people who help make this a reality each week, starting with Randy Deviler, who skillfully edits the audio, Jesse Ball, who proofs the content, Courtney Bates, who posts the podcast to various platforms, and Jackie Salinas, who transcribes the audio to make it accessible to all.