PEORIA, Ill. — In President Donald Trump’s federal budget proposal, he projected $1 trillion would go towards transportation and infrastructure repair. At the same time, his budget blueprint called for a 13 percent funding cut for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the elimination of federal funding for discretionary grants, which are under the department’s purview.

 

Trump’s budget blueprint left some agricultural transportation experts questioning whether the private-public partnership he proposed to fund transportation infrastructure repairs can be achieved through Congress – and, if approved and funded, whether the initiative will include adequate funding to make much-needed repairs to rural and agricultural infrastructure such as roads, bridges and locks and dams.

 

In other words, will rural America receive its fair slice of the transportation infrastructure funding pie?

 

“It’s incumbent on us to make sure that happens,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, which lobbies for rural transportation funding on behalf of farmers, elevators and shippers.

 

“When you ask policymakers if we have a transportation crisis, they usually (identify) urban traffic congestion and commute times. They don’t think about moving agricultural freight. We need to continue to make sure policymakers are thinking about rural transportation issues.”

 

Steenhoek, who has testified before Congressional panels about rural transportation needs, said the election support Trump was shown by rural Americans should result in an administration receptive to the needs of farm communities and citizens.

 

“But it will require us to be very vocal and insistent to make sure there is investment in infrastructure that serves rural industries,” he said. “(Trump) also should be very receptive to pro-export, made-in-the-USA products, and I think the best example of made-in-the-USA products comes in soybeans and other agricultural products. We obviously need the infrastructure to be able to continue to compete.”

 

Trump’s proposal to dump the discretionary grant Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program serves to ratchet up the tension over ag transportation infrastructure funding. Steenhoek calls the proposal “disappointing,” saying he would instead encourage an expansion of the Obamaera program.

 

“The TIGER program has been very popular. Demand for TIGER funding has far exceeded supply of funding,” Steenhoek noted. “TIGER grants were utilized for regional projects and generated a local match as well; it’s not really a grant program. “I think it’s a missed opportunity not to continue the program. I think it should be expanded, if anything.”

 

An analysis of Trump’s budget blueprint shows the justification for eliminating the TIGER program “appears flawed,” according to Scott Sigman, transportation and infrastructure lead for the Illinois Soybean Assoc. He is referring to the request directing DOT to focus on vital federal safety oversight functions and investing in nationally and regionally significant transportation infrastructure projects.

 

The blueprint projects that eliminating the TIGER program would save $499 million.

 

“Competitive grant programs, such as TIGER and the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) grant program (FASTLANE), are critical tools for transportation projects that are difficult to fund through formula programs. Furthermore, TIGER and the NSFHP program are not interchangeable,” said Sigman, in an email response.

 

“The TIGER program is available to address a multitude of mobility issues or various sizes – including freight and mixed-use infrastructure – while the NSFHP program is aimed at investing in large-scale, freight-specific infrastructure improvements. Both programs fill a niche that traditional distributions, such as highway formulas, have difficulty addressing.”

 

TIGER has provided a combined $5.1 billion to 421 projects in all states since 2009. The federal funds leveraged money from private sector partners, states, local communities, cities and towns, according to the DOT.

 

Steenhoek cautioned that eliminating the TIGER program before a new budget is passed and funding is appropriated could leave existing and shovel-ready projects in limbo.

 

“I think that could really apply to locks and dams,” he added. “If you don’t have a clear and consistent commitment to funding our inland waterway system, you could see some projects languish. And if you had a failure of any significance, the ripple effects would be felt throughout the Midwest.”