Medium-Sized Urban Transit Funding Formula

Full Title:
Medium Transit Intensive Cities Authorization Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill adds a new small formula for distributing some Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to medium-sized urban areas. It directs 1.5 percent of certain unallocated funds to be divided among urbanized areas with 200,000–999,999 people that meet specific performance tests. The aim is to reward medium-sized transit systems that perform at or above the average of very large systems.

  • Main change: Creates a new apportionment category for medium-sized urbanized areas and sets a formula for how that money is split.
  • Who qualifies: Urbanized areas with population 200,000–999,999 that meet or exceed industry averages (based on very large urban areas of 1,000,000+ people) in one or more defined performance categories.
  • Performance metrics used: six measures tied to ridership, service per vehicle mile/hour, and per-capita service.
  • Data source: Uses the National Transit Database (NTD) data the Secretary already uses to calculate apportionments.
  • Share: The new category gets 1.5 percent of amounts that were not apportioned under the existing listed categories.

What it means for you#

  • Medium-sized transit agencies (200,000–999,999 population): Some agencies that meet the performance thresholds could receive additional formula funds. This funding is tied to meeting or beating the large-area averages on at least one of six measures.
  • Large transit agencies (1,000,000+ population): Their performance averages are used as the benchmark. The bill does not give them new money, but their data determine eligiblity for others.
  • Local riders in medium cities: If an agency wins extra funds, that money could be used for operations, maintenance, or capital projects depending on agency priorities and existing program rules. The bill itself does not specify uses beyond existing FTA program rules.
  • Federal agency (FTA / Secretary of Transportation): Must calculate new apportionments each year using NTD data and add the new distribution step to existing formulas.
  • Taxpayers and the general public: The bill reallocates a small share of existing FTA formula dollars rather than creating a new large program. How visible the effects are locally will vary by city.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill directs 1.5 percent of certain unallocated formula amounts to medium-sized transit-intensive cities. The text does not state a dollar total.
  • The change reallocates existing formula money. The bill text does not say it raises total federal transit spending.
  • Calculating and administering the new apportionment will use NTD data. This could increase administrative work for FTA and for transit agencies that track or report performance metrics.
  • It is unclear whether there are extra reporting, auditing, or compliance costs beyond current NTD reporting.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to target a small share of transit formula funds to medium-sized urban areas that perform like large systems. Possible arguments in favor include:

  • It could reward medium-sized agencies that deliver high service or high ridership relative to their population.
  • The approach uses measurable data (NTD metrics), which may be seen as objective and transparent.
  • It recognizes that some medium cities operate transit at levels similar to larger cities and may need additional support.
  • The added share is small (1.5 percent of certain unallocated amounts), so changes to the overall program are limited in size.

Opponents' View#

One concern is that the bill leaves several details unclear and could create trade-offs:

  • It is unclear exactly which dollars are counted as “amounts not apportioned” and how the new 1.5 percent affects other recipients. This could shift funding away from some current recipients.
  • Using average performance of 1,000,000+ urbanized areas as the benchmark may not fit the service models or needs of many medium-sized cities.
  • The six chosen performance metrics favor certain types of services (for example, high ridership or long vehicle miles) and may disadvantage systems with different goals (coverage, frequency in low-density suburbs, paratransit).
  • Performance-based funding can encourage data focus or short-term changes aimed at meeting metrics instead of long-term planning.
  • The bill does not include a fiscal note in the provided text, so the administrative and compliance costs are not quantified.