Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB1096

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/17/25
• Refer: 11/17/25
• Refer: 12/9/25

Caption

Providing for supplemental funding for rural infrastructure.

Summary

SB1096 would create a new chapter in Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to authorize the Department of Transportation to incur up to $600 million in additional debt for capital bridge projects. The bill is aimed at improving PennDOT bridges on three- and four-digit state routes that are part of the non-Federal-aid highway system, with the stated purpose of providing supplemental funding for rural infrastructure. The bill requires that these funds supplement, rather than replace, existing project funding. The measure also directs PennDOT to use any savings from the bridge borrowing for highway improvements on the same class of state routes. It sets project delivery rules, including consultation with legislative transportation leaders, publication of a statewide bridge plan on PennDOT’s website, use of the department’s engineering and construction management system for bidding, and deadlines requiring projects to be bid within two years and completed within five years. Certain maintenance-style activities, such as sealcoating, patching, sealing, and work done by county maintenance districts, are excluded from eligible uses.

Impact

If enacted, SB1096 would expand PennDOT’s borrowing authority and create a dedicated financing mechanism for bridge rehabilitation and related highway work on lower-numbered state routes, especially in rural areas. The debt would be repaid from the Motor License Fund, and the bill also appropriates money from that fund to cover debt service and any required arbitrage rebates. It would therefore affect state transportation finance, bridge capital planning, and the allocation of Motor License Fund revenues, while leaving local maintenance activities outside the program.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill at the committee level: the Senate Transportation Committee reported it as committed on a 14-0 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate in the provided materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably, at least in committee, as a targeted infrastructure funding measure.

Contention

No explicit opposition is shown in the provided record, but the bill’s structure suggests the main policy questions are likely to be about borrowing and debt repayment, the use of the Motor License Fund, and whether the program should prioritize rural bridge needs over other transportation needs. Another possible point of discussion is the bill’s exclusion of routine maintenance and county maintenance district work, which narrows the eligible uses to capital bridge and highway projects. The requirement to consult legislative transportation leaders and publish a statewide plan may also reflect concern about oversight and project selection.