HR-8785-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Salud Carbajal (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal transit funding formula (49 U.S.C. § 5336) to set aside 1.5% of urbanized area formula funds for mid-sized cities — those with populations between 200,000 and 999,999. To qualify, a city's transit system would need to meet or exceed the performance averages of large cities (1 million+ population) in at least one of six categories: passenger miles per vehicle mile, passenger miles per vehicle hour, vehicle miles per capita, vehicle hours per capita, passenger miles per capita, or passengers per capita. Funding would be distributed proportionally based on how many of those six performance benchmarks each qualifying city meets.
Who benefits
Residents of mid-sized cities (200,000–999,999 population) with high-performing transit systems, who would gain access to a new dedicated funding stream. Transit agencies in those cities, which could use funds for operations, maintenance, or expansion. Cities like Santa Barbara, CA (represented by the bill's lead sponsor) or Salt Lake City, UT (represented by the co-sponsor) that may already outperform large-city averages on transit metrics. Commuters and transit-dependent populations in those cities. Urban planners and transit advocates who have argued mid-sized cities are underserved by existing formulas.
Who is hurt
Large cities (1 million+ population) and their transit agencies, which would see a modest reduction in their share of the overall formula pool since 1.5% is redirected before their apportionment is calculated. Mid-sized cities that do not meet any of the six performance benchmarks would receive nothing from this new set-aside despite being in the eligible population range. Small urbanized areas (under 200,000) are unaffected but receive no new benefit. Taxpayers in jurisdictions whose transit agencies lose relative funding share.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current formula systematically underserves mid-sized cities that have built efficient, high-ridership transit systems comparable to those in major metros. They contend that tying the new set-aside to objective, data-driven performance metrics — drawn directly from the existing National Transit Database — rewards demonstrated results rather than simply population size, creating an incentive for mid-sized agencies to improve service. They argue that 1.5% is a modest reallocation that corrects a structural inequity without significantly disrupting funding for large cities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting funds away from large cities — which carry the vast majority of the nation's transit ridership and face the largest infrastructure maintenance backlogs — to reward a narrow subset of mid-sized cities misallocates scarce federal resources. They contend that benchmarking mid-sized cities against large-city averages is methodologically flawed, since urban density, land use patterns, and transit mode mix differ fundamentally between the two tiers, making the comparisons potentially misleading. They also argue that the bill's eligibility criteria could arbitrarily exclude mid-sized cities with genuine transit needs that fall just short of a single performance threshold.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set conditions on federal spending under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) and the Spending Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 1). This bill modifies an existing formula grant program and does not raise significant constitutional concerns; it is a straightforward exercise of congressional spending power with no apparent conflict with the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, as participation in federal transit grants is voluntary.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the formula and eligibility criteria; the Secretary of Transportation calculates and administers apportionments using National Transit Database data; no significant new executive discretion is created, as the formula is rule-bound.
Historical precedent
The existing § 5336 formula has been amended multiple times to create targeted set-asides for specific urbanized area tiers, including the current very small urbanized area and growing states provisions, establishing a pattern of performance- and population-based carve-outs within the same statutory framework.