BASICS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 9, 2026
Bottom line
The BASICS Act decentralizes federal transportation funding and decision-making, directing more resources and authority to local and regional entities for bridge repair, safety, and planning.
What it actually does
This bill significantly reallocates federal transportation funding, establishing new formula programs for strengthening bridges and supporting regional transportation planning. It mandates increased consultation with local governments for certain funding streams, restricts states' ability to transfer specific safety funds without a competitive process, and empowers metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs) with more direct funding and control over project selection and planning activities.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill empowers local communities to address their specific infrastructure needs more effectively by providing direct funding and increasing local control over project selection. They contend that dedicated funding for bridges and rural planning will lead to safer roads and more resilient infrastructure, while the 100% federal share for planning and local off-system bridges removes financial barriers for smaller jurisdictions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's significant reallocation of funds and direct allocation to sub-state entities could fragment statewide transportation planning efforts and reduce the flexibility of State Departments of Transportation. Concerns could be raised about the administrative capacity of smaller MPOs and RTPOs to manage increased federal funding and compliance requirements, potentially leading to inefficiencies or delays.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical language regarding apportionment formulas and amendments to existing federal code. A reader would need a dedicated 15 minutes to understand its core provisions, which is a reasonable time investment given its potential impact.
Section 3
Federal-Aid Highway Program Apportionment Changes
This section amends existing federal law to adjust the percentage shares of funding for several core federal-aid highway programs, including National Highway Performance, Surface Transportation Block Grant, and Highway Safety Improvement. Crucially, it establishes two new formula programs: $5.5 billion annually for a 'Strengthening Bridges Formula Program' and $150 million annually for 'Regional Transportation Planning' for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, shifting a significant portion of federal transportation dollars.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue these changes ensure critical infrastructure needs, particularly bridge repair, receive dedicated and substantial funding. They also highlight the importance of dedicated funding for regional transportation planning, especially in rural areas, to foster more comprehensive and equitable development.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that reallocating existing funds and creating new dedicated programs could reduce the flexibility of states to address their unique transportation priorities, potentially leading to less efficient use of resources if state-level planning is undermined.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for dedicated funding for specific national priorities (bridges, rural planning) against the desire for state flexibility in allocating federal transportation aid. It also shifts control over a portion of funds from states to more granular local and regional entities.
Section 5
Strengthening Bridges Formula Program Establishment
This section formally establishes the 'Strengthening Bridges Formula Program' (new 23 U.S.C. 180), funded at $5.5 billion annually. It directs funds towards the construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, and protection of highway bridges on public roads. A quarter of the funds are suballocated to urbanized, urban, and other areas based on population, with the remainder flexible. Project selection is tied to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs), or consultation with local governments. Notably, it sets a 100% federal share for projects on off-system bridges owned by local governments or Tribes.
Section 6
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Set-Aside
This section amends the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to create a new local safety set-aside. For fiscal years 2027-2031, 25% of HSIP funds apportioned to a State must be obligated in urbanized, urban, and other areas based on their relative population shares. Project selection for these suballocated funds must involve MPOs, RTPOs, or consultation with local governments. Additionally, it expands the types of projects eligible for HSIP funding to include those previously eligible under Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Section 7
Restrictions on Fund Transferability
This section amends existing law (23 U.S.C. 126) to restrict the transferability of funds apportioned under several programs, including the newly established bridge and regional transportation planning programs, and the HSIP local set-aside. Specifically, before a State can transfer any Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, it must first make those funds available to local governments and regional planning organizations through a certified open and fair competitive process. This ensures that local entities have a direct opportunity to secure safety funding before a state can reallocate it.
Section 9
Metropolitan Planning Enhancements
This section makes several significant changes to metropolitan planning. It establishes a 100% federal share for metropolitan planning activities, eliminating the local match requirement. It expands the eligible uses of metropolitan planning funds to include fiscal administration of local projects, preliminary design, administrative overhead, local technical assistance, and housing/economic development studies directly linked to transportation. Most notably, it directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to become direct recipients of federal planning funds, bypassing state DOTs, and grants MPOs the same access to federal financial management systems as state DOTs.
Section 10
Rural Transportation Planning Funding
This section establishes a new program (new 23 U.S.C. 135(n)) to provide $150 million annually to States (FY2027-2031) to support regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs) and other regional entities in nonmetropolitan areas. Funds are distributed within states via a formula for federally designated RTPOs (with a minimum $300,000 allocation per RTPO) and through a grant process for non-designated regional entities. The program aims to increase understanding of planning requirements, provide technical assistance, strengthen rural partnerships, and enhance project prioritization. The federal share for these activities is 100%.
These subsections make specific numerical changes to the percentage shares of funds apportioned to various federal-aid highway programs (National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, National Highway Freight Program). For example, the National Highway Performance Program's share changes from 59.0771195921461% to 53.71%.
Section 3(1)-(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending complex apportionment formulas, but the specific impact of these percentage shifts can be easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on new programs.
Case for: Proponents would argue these adjustments are necessary to rebalance funding priorities, ensuring adequate resources for the newly emphasized programs (like bridges and rural planning) while maintaining support for other critical areas. These are often data-driven adjustments based on evolving infrastructure needs.
Case against: Critics might argue that such precise numerical changes, without clear justification in the bill text, could be arbitrary or favor certain states/regions over others, potentially leading to unintended consequences for existing programs.
Estimated impact: These changes reallocate billions of dollars annually across the federal-aid highway programs, significantly impacting the financial landscape for state and local transportation agencies.
This subsection states that for funding for a project used on an off-system bridge that is owned by a local government or Tribe, the Federal share shall be 100 percent.
Section 5(f)(2)
Why it matters:While technically placed in the appropriate section for cost-sharing, the 100% federal share is a major policy decision that could be highlighted more prominently. Its placement could be seen as standard legislative drafting or as a way to avoid drawing immediate attention to a potentially costly provision.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this 100% federal share is crucial for enabling local governments and Tribes, which often have limited financial resources, to undertake vital repairs on off-system bridges. These bridges are often critical for local connectivity and safety but are neglected due to funding constraints.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 100% federal share could reduce local ownership and accountability for bridge maintenance, potentially leading to less efficient long-term asset management. They might prefer a smaller federal share to ensure local buy-in.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly increase the number of off-system bridge projects undertaken by local and tribal governments, potentially leading to substantial federal expenditures within the $5.5 billion annual bridge program.
This subsection mandates that the Secretary of Transportation establish a process within 180 days for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to qualify as direct recipients of federal planning funding (apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(6) or 49 U.S.C. 5305(g)). This process is restricted to determining technical and financial capabilities and must occur concurrently with MPO recertification.
Section 9(b)(2)
Why it matters:The language focuses on the administrative mechanism rather than the direct outcome. This is a common legislative technique for delegating implementation details to agencies while still mandating a specific policy direction.
Case for: Proponents argue that direct recipient status for MPOs will streamline the flow of planning funds, reduce administrative layers, and empower MPOs to be more responsive and innovative in their planning efforts without state intermediary steps.
Case against: Critics, particularly state DOTs, might argue that bypassing the state could lead to a lack of coordination between metropolitan and statewide planning, potentially creating inefficiencies or conflicting priorities. Concerns about MPO capacity to manage federal funds directly might also be raised.
Estimated impact: This provision fundamentally alters the financial relationship between the federal government, states, and MPOs for planning funds, potentially shifting billions of dollars in direct federal disbursements over time.
This subsection mandates that States receiving funding for the Regional Transportation Planning program (under 23 U.S.C. 135(n)) shall provide each federally designated regional transportation planning organization (RTPO) not less than $300,000 in fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Section 10(4)(C)
Why it matters:While a critical detail for RTPOs, it's a specific numerical floor within a larger funding mechanism. Its placement is technically correct but doesn't highlight its significance as a guaranteed baseline for these organizations.
Case for: Proponents argue that this minimum allocation provides essential, stable funding for RTPOs, ensuring they have the baseline resources to carry out their planning duties, especially for smaller or newly established organizations that might struggle with competitive grants or formula distributions alone.
Case against: Critics might argue that a fixed minimum allocation could lead to less efficient use of funds if some RTPOs have lower needs or capacity, potentially diverting resources from areas with greater planning demands.
Estimated impact: This guarantees a minimum of $300,000 annually for each federally designated RTPO, providing a stable financial foundation for rural transportation planning across the country within the $150 million annual program.