FERRIES Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill provides substantial, dedicated federal funding to enhance and modernize passenger ferry services, particularly focusing on urban and rural communities and promoting the use of low-emission vessels.
What it actually does
The FERRIES Act codifies and significantly expands funding for four key federal grant programs related to passenger ferry services: Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities, Urban Passenger Ferry, Ferry Fleet Modernization and Shipyard Job Creation, and Rural Ferry Grant Programs. It reauthorizes and appropriates a total of $3.5 billion from the general fund of the Treasury for these programs over fiscal years 2027-2031, aiming to improve and modernize ferry infrastructure and services across the nation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that investing in ferry services is crucial for improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, supporting local economies, and providing essential links for communities, especially in rural and island areas. They emphasize the environmental benefits of modernizing fleets with electric or low-emitting vessels and the job creation potential in shipyards.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that such a significant federal investment in ferry services could be better allocated to other transportation modes or that the funding mechanisms could lead to increased federal spending without sufficient oversight. Concerns might also be raised about the efficiency of these specific grant programs or the potential for local projects to become federally dependent.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and financial implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a) and Title II, Federal Highway Administration
Increased Authorization and Appropriation for Ferry Construction
This provision reauthorizes and increases funding for the program that helps states and local governments build new ferry boats and improve ferry terminals. It authorizes $160 million for FY2027, increasing to $168 million by FY2031, and additionally appropriates $500 million ($100 million annually) from the general fund for the same period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is vital for maintaining and upgrading critical transportation links, especially in coastal and island regions, enhancing safety, and supporting economic activity.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against general infrastructure funding, though some might question the specific allocation compared to other transportation needs.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for modern infrastructure with overall federal spending priorities.
Section 2(b) and Title II, Federal Transit Administration
Enhanced Funding and Apportionments for Urban Ferries
This section authorizes an additional $200 million annually for FY2027-2031 for urban passenger ferry grants, supplementing existing funds. It also significantly increases the apportionment for urbanized areas from $30 million to $100 million, making more funds available for these services. An additional $1.25 billion ($250 million annually) is appropriated from the general fund.
Section 2(c) and Title II, Federal Transit Administration
Codification and Expansion of Low-Emitting Ferry Program
This provision codifies the existing "Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program" from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into permanent law (49 U.S.C. 5313) and renames it. It expands eligibility to "covered entities" (recipients eligible under 5307 or 5311) and authorizes $140 million annually for FY2027-2031. An additional $500 million ($100 million annually) is appropriated from the general fund.
Section 2(d) and Title II, Federal Transit Administration
Codification and Increased Funding for Rural Ferry Services
This section codifies the existing "Ferry Service Grants" from the IIJA into permanent law (49 U.S.C. 5308) and renames it. It expands the definition of eligible service to include connections between two rural areas regardless of distance. It authorizes $300 million annually for FY2027-2031, with $100 million derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than Mass Transit Account). It also mandates that at least 80% of funds go to services connecting a rural area to another area (rural or non-rural) that is not more than 30 miles away. An additional $1.25 billion ($250 million annually) is appropriated from the general fund.
Transfers the "Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program" and "Ferry Service Grants" from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into new, permanent sections of Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C. 5313 and 49 U.S.C. 5308, respectively).
Section 2(c)(2) and 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to integrate temporary or pilot programs into the permanent U.S. Code once they are deemed successful or ready for long-term implementation.
Case for: Codification provides stability and permanence to these programs, ensuring their continued operation beyond the initial IIJA authorization period and integrating them fully into federal transportation law.
Case against: No specific case against codification itself, though the underlying programs might have critics.
Estimated impact: Ensures the long-term existence and funding framework for significant ferry grant programs.
Requires that not less than 80 percent of the funds made available for the Rural Ferry Grant Program are provided to eligible services described in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) – specifically, services connecting a rural area to another area (rural or non-rural) not more than 30 miles away.
Section 2(d)(1)(F) amending Section 71103 of IIJA (which becomes 49 U.S.C. 5308)
Why it matters:This is a policy choice to prioritize certain types of rural ferry services, potentially to ensure funds target shorter, more direct, and perhaps more frequently used essential links rather than very long-distance or less critical connections.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the majority of funds go to the most critical and frequently used rural ferry connections, maximizing impact where it's most needed for daily commutes and essential services.
Case against: Critics might argue it limits flexibility for states to address unique rural transportation challenges, potentially disadvantaging longer-distance or more remote rural ferry services that also serve essential needs.
Estimated impact: Directs a significant portion of the $2.75 billion rural ferry funding to specific types of routes.