The House proposes painful cuts to transportation, but the Senate still has a chance to repair them now
|Senate Appropriations Committee members list. Take action if you see your state listed.
Alabama – Richard Shelby
Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Paul Ryan and the House released their budget for next year, and it proposed painful cuts to important transportation programs that our local communities depend on.
The TIGER grant program that rewards innovative local transportation projects, funding for new transit systems, passenger rail funding, and the office of sustainable communities that helps our towns and cities plan better for the future all were either slashed or eliminated.
Mr. Ryan and the House made it clear — making much needed transportation investments in our communities is not a priority to them.
But there’s a chance to make things better: Senate appropriators are writing their budget right now and they need to know that we’re counting on them to put together a better budget for transportation.
If you live in one of the states with a Senator on this powerful Appropriations Committee, can you take a minute to send them a short letter?
The small TIGER grant program has helped more than 130 communities build innovative transportation projects that are often ignored by the federal or state government — projects that improve freight rail, help give people more options to get around, fix broken bridges, or make walking or biking safer, just to name a few.
As we wait for the House to take action on the big multi-year transportation bill extended yet one more time until June, they still have to decide how much money to spend on transportation each year.
While it’s important to find ways to reduce spending, many of these important programs are being unfairly targeted by House members who are out of touch with what their constituents want and need from transportation: safe places to walk or bike, travel options that let us avoid pain at the pump, and bridges and roads that get repaired before we spend money on new things we can’t afford.
Yet the House is proposing to cut or eliminate the very programs that help do these things.