House Approves Conference Report for FY 2010 Transportation Spending (AASHTO Journal)
After months of delay, the House of Representatives approved Thursday the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2010 transportation appropriations bill. The report would greatly increase spending for the U.S. Department of Transportation, kill a proposed national infrastructure bank, provide new funding for high-speed rail, and require Amtrak to allow firearms in checked baggage.
The House voted 221-202 to approve the $447 billion conference report for HR 3288, which contains five other spending bills that also have not been enacted even though the current fiscal year began Oct. 1. The Senate is expected to consider the report over the weekend.
Overall, the 2010 spending bill for the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Housing & Urban Development provides $122.1 billion, a 12 percent increase from last fiscal year. That amount includes $67.9 billion in budget authority, up from $55 billion provided in FY 2009.
The conference report would provide the following amounts for selected key transportation programs:
$41.1 billion for federal-aid highways plus an additional $650 million from the General Fund
$10.7 billion for mass transit
$3.5 billion for airports
$2.9 billion for modernizing air-traffic control
$2.5 billion for high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail, $1.5 billion above the president’s original request. This money is in addition to the $8 billion appropriated in the recovery act.
$1.6 billion for Amtrak
$873 million for highway safety
$600 million for competitive grants to support significant transportation projects in a wide variety of modes (similar to a $1.5 billion grant program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Projects that support investments in inland ports and freight rail will be favored.
Overall, the U.S. DOT funding level is about 10 percent higher than it was in FY 2009.
Conferees declined to provide funding to start a national infrastructure bank, as President Barack Obama had requested. A statement from the House and Senate appropriations committees noted, “Due to the complexity of this proposal, it should be considered through the regular authorization process.”
