[Update: On Wednesday, the Senate’s Commerce Committee voted to include much of the FREIGHT Act in its portion of the Senate’s transportation reauthorization bill. More at T4America’s blog.]

Among the changes introduced in MAP-21, the Senate’s version of the reauthorization bill which sets all federal surface transportation policy, is an unprecedented national freight program. With some changes, this program could fill the policy vacuum around federal investment in rail and port projects. This would make it easier for states to fund alternatives to long-haul trucks that aggravate congestion, damage roads, and lower quality of life in some residential neighborhoods. But if the program stays as is, it could end up becoming just another funding source for roads, and the tri-state region needs more than that.

Currently, poor connections between the national freight rail network and the northeast mean that 90% of cargo entering New York and Connecticut arrives via truck. Freight rail projects—such as the long-discussed Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel between NJ and NY, as well as smaller projects like those in New York’s State Rail Plan—would take some of these long-haul trucks off of the region’s congested roads, lowering emissions and reducing the heavy toll that trucks take on the region’s roadways  (one 18-wheeler truck causes as much road damage as 9,600 cars, according to the Government Accountability Office). Port projects are also critical, given how central the Port of New York and New Jersey is to both the regional and the national economy.

But while most federal transportation funds are distributed to states according to legislative formulas, no such program exists for freight rail or port projects. Instead, states have had to rely on earmarks (which are being phased out) and a handful of small grant programs. The proposed transportation bill would direct USDOT to designate a national freight network and, moreover, would create a $2.1 billion/year National Freight Program to fund state-level projects that make shipping faster.

In the current version of the Senate’s bill, however, only 10% of the freight program’s funds could be used for rail and maritime projects, and only if USDOT certified that such projects were more cost-effective than a road project. (The sign-off requirement would not apply to road projects). Although states would also be allowed to use up to 5% of another funding program in the bill for freight rail (the Transportation Mobility Program), they clearly wouldn’t have the flexibility they need to invest in the most critical freight projects.

New Jersey elected officials have proposed two fixes to the keep-on-truckin’ ethos. The first, an amendment to MAP-21 from Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), would remove the 10% cap on rail and port projects, remove the USDOT sign-off requirement, and require states to consider environmental impacts on communities when evaluating projects.  The amendment was first offered in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and could be reintroduced when MAP-21 is closer to a full Senate vote.

The second is the FREIGHT Act (S327/HR1338), which was sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Albio Sires. It would expand MAP-21’s freight provisions by:

• Establishing performance-based criteria to evaluate freight projects, so that federal policy incentivizes projects that improve shipping delays and safety, and reduce air, water, and noise pollution.
• Creating a competitive grant program for freight projects. (Read more about the FREIGHT Act on MTR and T4America’s blog.)

The Senate’s Commerce Committee, which handles freight issues, will meet Wednesday and is likely to debate the inclusion of the FREIGHT Act’s provisions in MAP-21.