HR-3822-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Sponsored by Scott Perry (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend federal transportation law to prohibit the use of funds from four major federal programs — the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Urbanized Area Formula Grants, and Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants — for the procurement, operation, or maintenance of streetcars. It would apply to all states and localities that receive funding through these programs.
Who benefits
Cities and transit agencies that do not operate streetcars and compete for the same federal funding pools, as more funds would be available for other transit modes. Bus transit riders and agencies, which could see a larger share of available grants. Taxpayers who believe streetcar projects are poor uses of federal dollars. Highway and road-focused transportation interests that prefer funding directed toward other surface transportation uses.
Who is hurt
Cities currently operating or planning streetcar systems — including Portland, OR; Kansas City, MO; Washington, D.C.; Cincinnati, OH; and others — that rely on these federal funding streams for operations and capital costs. Local transit agencies that would need to find alternative funding sources for existing streetcar lines. Streetcar riders who may face service reductions or fare increases if local governments cannot replace lost federal funds. Construction and manufacturing firms that build and maintain streetcar infrastructure and vehicles. Local governments that have already committed to streetcar projects in anticipation of federal funding eligibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that streetcars are among the least cost-effective transit investments, citing Federal Transit Administration data showing streetcars carry fewer riders per dollar than buses, light rail, or subway systems. They contend that federal transportation dollars are scarce and should be directed toward modes with demonstrated ridership and efficiency gains, and that cities wishing to build streetcars should fund them locally rather than drawing on national grant programs designed for broader transportation needs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill removes a transportation option that some cities have determined best fits their local needs, overriding local planning decisions with a one-size-fits-all federal prohibition. They contend that several federally funded streetcar systems — such as the Kansas City Streetcar, which saw significant ridership growth and economic development along its corridor — demonstrate that streetcars can be effective tools when matched to the right urban environment, and that Congress should not micromanage which transit modes localities may choose.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to attach conditions to federal grants under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) supports federal regulation of interstate transportation infrastructure. No active constitutional tension exists here — conditional spending restrictions of this type are well-established and have not been subject to recent doctrinal shifts.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict how executive-branch transportation agencies (FTA, FHWA) may distribute grants; states and localities retain the ability to fund streetcars with their own revenues, and the executive branch retains discretion in administering remaining eligible grant categories.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted specific uses of federal transportation funds — for example, prohibiting the use of certain highway funds for non-highway purposes — but no directly analogous legislation has specifically banned a single transit mode from all major federal grant programs.