S-5114-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by John Curtis (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal fixed guideway capital investment grants program (commonly known as the "New Starts" program) to allow ridership forecasting methods that account for population growth rate and development planning activities — in addition to the existing factor of current population density — when evaluating whether a proposed transit project is justified for federal funding. It would apply this expanded forecasting approach to both "New Starts" and "Small Starts" grant categories under 49 U.S.C. § 5309.
Who benefits
Fast-growing communities and suburban or exurban areas with lower current population density but high projected growth, which have historically been disadvantaged by density-only forecasting. Local transit agencies in Sun Belt and Mountain West cities seeking federal funding for new rail, bus rapid transit, or other fixed guideway projects. Real estate developers and landowners near planned transit corridors in growth areas, whose properties may increase in value. Commuters in high-growth regions who would gain access to new transit options. State and local governments seeking to leverage federal dollars for transit infrastructure ahead of population growth.
Who is hurt
Established dense urban transit agencies that currently score well under density-based metrics may face increased competition for a fixed pool of grant funding. Taxpayers and fiscal watchdogs who are concerned that funding projects based on projected rather than demonstrated ridership could result in underperforming transit investments. Existing transit riders in high-density corridors whose projects could be deprioritized if grant dollars shift toward growth-area projects. Communities that lose out in grant competitions to newly eligible applicants.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current density-only forecasting model systematically disadvantages fast-growing communities that will need transit infrastructure before population density fully materializes, locking them into car-dependent development patterns that are costly to reverse. They contend that building transit ahead of growth — as development planning data can predict — is more cost-effective than retrofitting infrastructure into already-dense areas, and that states like Utah and Arizona, represented by the bill's bipartisan sponsors, have documented high-growth corridors where current density metrics fail to capture future demand.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that basing federal grant decisions on projected ridership rather than demonstrated demand introduces significant forecasting uncertainty, and that transit agencies have a well-documented history of overestimating future ridership — a pattern the Government Accountability Office has flagged in multiple reports. They contend that shifting evaluation criteria toward growth-rate projections could direct scarce federal transit dollars away from high-ridership urban corridors where transit is already proven to work, potentially reducing the overall cost-effectiveness of the federal transit grant portfolio.
Constitutional context
This bill modifies an existing federal spending program under Congress's broad authority to tax and spend for the general welfare (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and to regulate interstate commerce (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). No significant constitutional tension is present; Congress has well-established authority to set the criteria by which federal transportation grants are awarded.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by expanding the criteria agencies may use in grant evaluations; the Federal Transit Administration retains administrative discretion in applying the new forecasting methods, and its interpretations are now subject to independent judicial review under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Historical precedent
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, 2012) previously modified the New Starts evaluation criteria to include population density as a ridership forecasting factor, establishing the framework this bill would now expand.