Skip to main content

Tag: reauthorization

Five reasons why transportation reauthorization matters in 2026 

U.S. Capitol building against blue sky.

As Congress continues to work on the next surface transportation reauthorization, it’s important to understand what’s at stake, why it matters, and how today’s decisions will shape our transportation system for years to come. On top of that, the administration’s decisions to override or ignore Congress on transportation funding, rising costs, and emerging technologies present new challenges that underscore why reauthorization is an opportunity to build something better—if lawmakers are willing to rethink the status quo.

Every five years, Congress is supposed to renew the roughly $77 billion federal surface transportation program, which sets the policies, priorities, and funding for the nation’s highway, transit, safety, and rail programs. As we anticipated, lawmakers missed the end-of-September deadline to pass a new reauthorization and instead extended the current program, leaving out billions in funding for transit, rail, safety, and other priorities. (Extensions are nothing new: Congress has relied on extensions about a third of the time since 1997.) 

New to reauthorization? Read our guide to understand what it is and how it works.

Rather than simply hitting pause to focus on the midterm elections, Congress should treat this extension as an opportunity to rethink the federal transportation program,  ensure it will be faithfully implemented by any administration, and establish stronger accountability measures so the next one can actually deliver its stated goals. While every reauthorization offers another opportunity to make long-overdue changes, several issues make the current process especially urgent: The program’s failure to deliver on past goals, an administration refusing to implement the congressionally approved program, rising costs, and emerging technologies that require new rules.

Here are five reasons why this reauthorization matters more than ever:

1. Tracking progress on past goals

The lead-up to a new reauthorization is an ideal time to evaluate whether the program has made progress on its stated goals of improving safety and infrastructure conditions, reducing congestion, and protecting the environment and public health. Over the past 30-plus years, the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars without making any meaningful progress toward its goals. And despite a historic increase in funding, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) doubled down on the same failing status quo—even before the Trump administration began withholding and delaying funds Congress had already approved for the program. 

Take safety, which should be the number one priority in our transportation system. The U.S. faces a safety crisis unlike that of any other peer country, marked by a 72 percent increase in people struck and killed while walking on our roads between 2009 and 2024. If the U.S. had taken the same steps as every other peer country, 63,441 lives could have been saved over the last decade alone.

2. Protecting our priorities

The federal transportation program doesn’t have enough funding to cover every priority. Its funding model has been broken for years, with user fees failing to cover costs since 2008, requiring repeated infusions of additional taxpayer dollars. With funding levels under closer scrutiny and the Trump administration already withholding funding for public transit projects, transit investments face a very real risk of cuts during the next reauthorization.

The administration slowed transit funding during its first term, but made history during its second by not approving or advancing a single transit capital project—including metros, light rail, and bus rapid transit lines—during its initial year and a half in office. And stalling, canceling, rescinding, or pressuring changes to approved projects doesn’t seem likely to stop anytime soon. Last year, USDOT floated ending all federal transit funding, and this summer, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed eliminating the entire Mass Transit Account. 

Transit isn’t the only priority at risk. USDOT recently removed proven safety solutions such as speed cameras, bike lanes, and road diets from its official online list of Proven Safety Countermeasures, making it harder for communities to secure funding and make these improvements. Unless we closely watch the reauthorization process, any remaining support for these interventions could disappear.

Congress can use reauthorization to make safety the top priority by strengthening accountability and by encouraging more transparent data, roadway safety research, and evidence-backed guidance for roadway design. To make transit a priority, lawmakers should start by restoring recent cuts to the IIJA’s Division J advance appropriations, which slashed previous investments in public transit and passenger rail. And while drafting the next program, Congress can give transit the same funding levels and streamlined project processes as highways.

3. Gaining leverage with the current administration

This reauthorization offers Congress an opportunity to make agencies more accountable to taxpayers, especially as the current administration continues to withhold or delay funding for programs Congress has already approved.

As outlined above, the Trump administration has refused to advance projects through programs like Capital Investment Grants. If the administration is already undermining existing programs, why should Congress assume that a new bill—even one with meaningful policy improvements—would be implemented any differently? And why is there a rush to put together a new bill when the last one hasn’t even been seen through? 

Congress shouldn’t be eager to advance the next reauthorization while the administration keeps refusing to implement the current program. That’s why we’ve recommended extending it for at least one year. Congress should use that time to include airtight language in the next bill that would ensure consequences for any administration that refuses to carry out the law.

4. Improving affordability for everyday Americans

Americans across the country face an affordability crisis across many aspects of daily life. Studies from 2023 show that nearly half of all people live in economically insecure families, and one-third of middle-class Americans cannot afford basic necessities. Transportation is already the second-highest expense for most households, and given the rising costs of owning and operating a car, reauthorization is a critical opportunity to provide much-needed relief. 

In a recent letter to the bipartisan leaders of four committees, Senate Democrats acknowledged transportation’s role in addressing this crisis: “Families deserve affordable options for daily travel, including transit, passenger rail, walking, and biking. By developing other ways to get around, families can save money on fuel, reduce vehicle maintenance costs, reduce insurance costs, and even avoid purchasing additional vehicles altogether.” 

Through reauthorization, Congress has the opportunity to invest in more rail, transit, and active transportation options that give people across the country cheaper ways to reach jobs, school, and other essential services. These investments could save the average American household an estimated $750 annually in gas and vehicle maintenance and $1,300 in vehicle depreciation.

5. Charting a course for emerging technologies

As we speed toward another major technological transformation with the emergence of autonomous vehicles (AVs), the federal government has not established meaningful guardrails, leaving the private sector free to operate with little oversight. Although they present an opportunity, especially for non-drivers, AVs could also threaten safety, public health, the environment, and the overall functioning of our transportation system. 

We’ve already outlined how the federal government can ensure AVs meet their potential: require transparent data reporting on general operations, any incidents, and other anomalies; audit new vehicle models; allow localities to determine how AVs operate on their own streets; and penalize empty AVs that congest our roads. Without meaningful standards, empty AVs have already started crowding streets and even neighborhoods across the country.

To learn more about reauthorization, see our existing resources on the process, including our platform outlining the policy proposals we’d like to see and explainers on the process and how to engage.

Billions for transit, safety, and repair will expire tonight while highway funding continues

The sun rises behind the U.S. Capitol, casting the dome in a golden glow

Tonight, billions of dollars in federal transportation funding will expire. Even though Congress extended the IIJA through December, it failed to continue billions of dollars in advance appropriations for transit, passenger rail, safety, bridges, and other essential programs—meaning those funds will no longer be available. Highway funding, on the other hand, will continue through December 11 without interruption.

Once again, Congress is prioritizing highway funding at the expense of everything else—even though this approach undermines our safety, maintenance, and transit goals.

This failure comes at the expense of communities across the country that rely on these investments for safer streets, reliable transit, and better transportation options. According to APTA, the loss of this funding will result in a 20% cut to public transit investment and an over 80% cut to passenger rail funding.

Road and bridge repair will take a hit, too. Despite an annual maintenance backlog of over $40 billion, the Union of Concerned Scientists says bridge funding will be cut significantly, and nothing has changed to prevent states from prioritizing costly expansions over roadway maintenance.

This funding lapse is negligent. In the lame duck, Congress should restore this funding to support rural transit, passenger rail, safer streets, and road and bridge repairs.

But this is also a symptom of a larger problem: We continue to prioritize highway expansion at the expense of everything else. We should learn from today. The next transportation bill should make repair, safety, transit, and passenger rail priorities, and not an afterthought.

Extend the IIJA for one more year—and potentially more

After we consistently predicted that Congress could not write and pass a new transportation law before the September 30 expiration of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress has finally thrown in the towel and is moving to extend the IIJA before that deadline. What is an extension, how long should it be, and what should it include?

After we were lightly ridiculed inside and outside of the Capitol for consistently predicting that Congress was never going to get a new bill finished this year, you can nail that coffin shut on 2026 reauthorization: It’s not happening in this Congress. The House’s (bad) BUILD America 250 Act (we call it the BUILD Act) is not scheduled for a floor vote anytime soon, but even if a miracle occurred, the Senate is already working on an extension and would not consider it. Senator Shelly Moore Capito, who chairs the core Senate committee with jurisdiction, has already told reporters that the committee is working on text to extend the IIJA.

While it’s nice to (once again) be right, we can now ask: What will we see in that extension, and how long should it be? And most importantly, why should Congress keep passing extensions for the foreseeable future and refuse to negotiate on reauthorization?

Why and what is an extension?

One of the reasons we were so confident that Congress would never pass something before this year’s deadline was that doing so would have been completely unprecedented. They’ve simply never done it before! Extensions have happened every single time a reauthorization is facing an expiration in the modern era. Our Reauthorization 101 guide shows that the federal program has been operating on an extension literally a third of the time since 1997!

Originally due to expire in 2009, SAFETEA-LU was extended a mind-boggling TEN times for 33 total months before MAP-21 was passed to replace it in 2012. It’s notable that the same core issue Congress was stuck on back then—how to pay for a bankrupt transportation program that spends way more money than the gas tax brings in—is the same fundamental sticking point today.  

The reason for these past extensions is the same reason as today: To buy more time for negotiations and policy development because Congress couldn’t get the job done in the time allotted. But in this case, the issue will be punted to a new Congress in January.

The historical precedent is a “clean” extension

This is a phrase you’ve probably heard already. All this means is continuing existing programs at current year funding levels, with no major changes to the policy that Congress approved back in 2021 with the IIJA. No new major programs are created, nor are any existing programs repealed. Funding-wise, it’s basically a bonus year of IIJA, although with funding levels typically remaining at the same level as this current fiscal year, rather than increasing as they ordinarily do during each successive year of a long-term law.

The only major changes included in past extensions have been financing-related steps to transfer money into the Highway Trust Fund to keep it solvent for the life of the extension, which is almost certainly needed in this case.

There should be one exception to this precedent: Congress should include language that requires USDOT to restore rescinded grants and fully implement the programs and funding that they wrote into law in the IIJA. There’s a good chance that USDOT will just ignore any requirements Congress chooses to insert, just like they’ve already done with the IIJA. This is just more proof that Congress needs to force this issue and start complaining loudly and publicly about the ways the administration has undermined the bipartisan will of Congress. 

A new wrinkle in 2026: Advance appropriations 

One complicating factor that did not exist in past extension cycles is the novel mechanism Congress used in the IIJA called “advance appropriations.” This was a way for Congress to provide more money that would automatically become available in the future fiscal years of the IIJA, without requiring further action by Congress in annual appropriations bills. One example of this is the transit capital grants program that funds new transit. (Yes, the same one currently frozen by the Trump admin, which was covered this week by the New York Times.) In the past, this program would have funds “authorized” for it over the life of the five-year authorization law, but Congress’ appropriations committees would have to debate and approve money for that program each year. But in the IIJA, around a third of the total funding for transit capital grants was provided by guaranteed advance appropriations. Two-thirds of the historic $66 billion for passenger rail was also provided by this method. 


Extending the program for a year while potentially providing additional advance appropriations is definitely more complex than in the past, though it’s also still just another form of deficit spending, which is going to be required no matter what.

What now? Pass a one-year clean extension

When Congress is chugging along in the reauthorization process, with proposals moving through both chambers, shorter extensions could make sense to keep the pressure up and provide just enough time. But with just one chamber having passed a bill they should honestly scrap and forget about (The BUILD Act) and with an election looming just 33 days after expiration, that is not the context for this Congress. While many members will return,  reauthorization will ultimately be handed over to the 120th Congress, which will include scores of newly elected members. 

A year is the most prudent length to give the next Congress so that they have enough time to get seated and start their work, which will not get going immediately in 2027 as members will face a range of competing issues. A six-month extension would expire in March, giving them a ticking clock and almost certainly requiring another extension anyway.

Make it a year.

Forget about reauthorization—Congress should keep passing extensions

Yes, you read that right.

There is no deal to be made on a new long-term surface transportation reauthorization as long as this administration is failing to follow the existing law. Congress should keep passing one-year extensions of the IIJA until they see faithful implementation of the law by the administration and USDOT.

The administration is disrespecting both the intent of Congress’s bipartisan action on the IIJA as well as the American people and their local communities getting jerked around by USDOT’s unprecedented action to withhold or rescind funding for grant programs, delay (possibly indefinitely) all transit Capital Investment Grants, reinterpret grant-funding criteria, and weaponize programs like the Safe Streets for All program. Congress passes the laws; the executive branch implements them. USDOT is not, nor should it be, above that respect. 

Faithful implementation of IIJA would mean ensuring that authorized programs, competitive grant processes, and statutory requirements are administered according to the law and without unauthorized delay, reinterpretation, substitution, or withholding. 

We find it baffling that Congress—especially the Democrats and those leading the negotiations in the House and Senate—would choose to strike any deal to give this administration additional money when the same people are telling you loudly and publicly that they will not honor the full scope of whatever bipartisan deal you reach.  

Until Congress sees the full and faithful implementation of the IIJA, they should stay away from the negotiating table and keep extending the law one year at a time until there is an administration that can be trusted to implement the law as written.

USDOT letter shows it will likely undermine any bipartisan reauthorization deal

Image of USDOT Headquarters

If there was any lingering confusion about the Trump administration’s willingness to faithfully and fully implement any current or future bipartisan deal on transportation reauthorization that Congress might consider, USDOT Secretary Duffy’s unhinged letter to Senate leadership about the administration’s reauthorization priorities should put a nail in that coffin. 

Congress should extend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for a year to keep the transportation funding moving, and then they should not even consider coming to the negotiating table on a long-term bill until past grants that are rescinded are restored, frozen transit capital projects are restarted, and ironclad protections are put in place to ensure that USDOT faithfully implements whatever Congress assembles—whether it aligns with the administration’s priorities or not.

During the surface transportation reauthorization process, Congress sets policies, priorities, and funding levels for multiple years to come. USDOT’s role is to implement the law as Congress has written it, which includes issuing regulations and managing grant programs. But Congress—not the Executive Branch—decides the nation’s long-term transportation policy, strategy, and funding. 

But these well-established roles have been upended by this administration. 

USDOT has shown blatant disrespect for the intent and allocation of Congressional funding from the IIJA since the Trump administration took office in 2025. 

USDOT has usurped Congress’s constitutional authority by withholding funding for projects and programs they oppose, delaying the Capital Investment Grants pipeline, killing research programs that they did not agree with, and reinterpreting grant-funding criteria to align with their agenda by weaponizing programs like Safe Streets and Roads for All by refusing to select projects that propose data-backed safety measures like new crosswalks, bike lanes, or lane configurations. Despite the courts saying that withholding congressionally appropriated funding is illegal, it is clear that the Executive Branch holds the fundamental belief that USDOT has unilateral discretion to determine how transportation funding should be spent, regardless of what the law says. Many of the specific priorities in Secretary Duffy’s letter for the next reauthorization align precisely with the ways the administration has already undermined the existing law on the books. This letter is another clear example of USDOT’s belief that if they disagree with a grant program that Congress codified into law, it does not need to implement it. 

The administration’s track record and this letter should be a clear signal to Congress that, even if members negotiate in good faith and preserve bipartisan grant programs, putting those good-faith negotiations into the next reauthorization bill will not matter—because there is no guarantee that USDOT will actually implement them. This letter is just a preview of how the administration plans to carry out whatever deal Congress may make on reauthorization: However they please. 

The Executive Branch’s audacity to intervene in this way signifies that we have reached the end of the premise of surface transportation reauthorization as we know it. Even if the Senate does the right thing and decides not to capitulate to USDOT’s requests, the damage has already been done. 

The question now is whether Congress understands what this means for their attempt to pass a new “bipartisan” transportation law.  If USDOT decides that it does not have to do what the law says, it begs the question of why members should continue to negotiate the law as though the old rules still apply.

Congress needs to decide between striking a deal that the administration will not implement, or waiting for proof that USDOT will faithfully implement the law before signing the next deal. This decision is more important than ever, because without assurance that the law will be followed, the bipartisan legacy of transportation is dead, and USDOT will have killed it.

“Fix it first” was common sense in 2020. Now Congress calls it radical.

U.S. Capitol dome rising above green treetops.

We are repeatedly told that it’s a bridge too far for Congress to require states to fix it first—to prioritize repairing their existing infrastructure before building new roadway capacity. Yet that’s the exact approach laid out in the House’s bipartisan INVEST Act proposal in the last reauthorization cycle.

One of the most common objections to repair-first transportation policy is that Congress cannot require states to prioritize maintaining existing roads before they build new ones. But why not?

As Congress works toward the next surface transportation reauthorization, lawmakers don’t need to start from scratch. They already have a blueprint from the negotiations that produced the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021.

In 2020, the House passed the INVEST Act, which included bipartisan provisions authored by Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI). Those provisions demonstrated that prioritizing maintenance isn’t just good policy—it is a politically viable approach with bipartisan backing.

Congress has both the authority and the proven legislative model for repair-first policy.

How the INVEST Act prioritized repair like never before

The INVEST in America Act was dramatically strengthened by a bipartisan amendment from Rep. García and Rep. Gallagher, who came together to codify new repair requirements that had never been included in a federal transportation bill. With that in place, the INVEST Act’s impressive final provisions included three core requirements:

First, it required transportation agencies to develop a maintenance plan for any new capacity they wanted to build to prove they had the means to maintain it. If a state wanted to widen a highway or add new lanes, it would have to publicly demonstrate how it planned to maintain the new infrastructure while also taking care of the roads and bridges it already owned. This is a minimum level of fiscal prudence that most voters are astonished to learn is not required in the federal program. Transit agencies are already expected to plan for long-term maintenance, and roads should not be treated differently. 

Second, the amendment required states to use travel-demand models with a demonstrated record of accuracy when evaluating highway expansion projects. These models forecast future traffic volumes and estimate whether adding lanes or building new roads will reduce congestion enough to justify investment. Since these forecasts heavily influence decisions, their accuracy matters. Yet many traditional models assume steady traffic growth and overstate the benefits of highway expansion while overlooking induced demand and long-term maintenance costs. The amendment sought to improve decision making by requiring states to ground their investment decisions in more concrete evidence rather than these assumptions. 

Third, the amendment required a more complete accounting of project benefits and costs. Instead of evaluating projects primarily on expected congestion reduction, states would need to consider a broader set of outcomes, including safety, greenhouse gas emissions, access to jobs and essential services, and other performance measures established in the bill. In practice, highway expansion projects are often justified by projections that promise faster travel times or reduced congestion, even though evidence shows those benefits are short-lived. As a result, projects that increase emissions, create barriers for people walking or biking, or consume limited transportation dollars that could have been used to repair existing infrastructure can still move forward because congestion reduction is treated as the overriding priority. The amendment sought to ensure that transportation investments are evaluated based on their full range of impacts, not just their ability to move more vehicles.

The Senate scrapped it all

Despite the progress made in the House, the INVEST Act never became law. The Senate pursued a different path with its own transportation reauthorization proposal, which utterly failed to include key reforms like prioritizing repair, improving project evaluation, or addressing emissions and equity outcomes. Unfortunately, that Senate framework became the basis for the IIJA, which largely carried forward the policy structure of the 2015 FAST Act rather than adopting the House’s more ambitious reforms. 

The House’s current reauthorization proposal, the Build America 250 Act , fails to move the needle on prioritizing repair. It’s a far cry from what the House proposed (and approved!) in 2020 with the INVEST Act.

The BUILD Act preserves the status quo that has produced a system too big to maintain without borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from our grandchildren. States retain broad flexibility to spend federal dollars on repair, expansion, or new construction, and the bill does not require meaningful progress toward reducing maintenance backlogs before adding new capacity. State DOTs and asphalt and concrete manufacturers win, and voters and the traveling public lose. Again.

This matters because despite historic amounts of funding being poured into America’s transportation system, the share of roads in poor condition has only declined by 3 percentage points between 2018 and 2024. States have failed to make meaningful improvements in reducing the share of the maintenance backlog, which is increasingly expensive to maintain. Simply increasing transportation funding without requiring states to prioritize repair over expansion will not fix the problem.

2026’s BUILD Act misses the same opportunity

Rep. García recently proposed an amendment to the BUILD Act that would have incorporated the same principles requiring greater accountability that he helped to advance in the INVEST Act, but it failed on a voice vote. (Rep. Mike Gallagher left the House in 2024.) 

The cheap lip service continues: Congress continues talking about the importance of repair. Transportation agencies routinely say that maintaining existing infrastructure is a priority. Yet the federal program still allows states to expand systems they cannot afford to maintain. Instead of spending on highway expansion, we could invest in viable transportation alternatives that give households options when gas prices rise and other household costs increase. We could reduce future maintenance liabilities instead of increasing them.

The lesson from looking back at the INVEST Act is that fixing what we have first isn’t controversial, but common sense. Requiring agencies to explain how they will maintain new infrastructure, justify expansion with accurate analysis, and consider broader public outcomes is responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

The Senate now has another opportunity to prioritize repair. INVEST offers them a clear starting point, but the Senate can go further and deliver what voters actually want: fixing it first.

Tell your representative to vote “NO” on the BUILD America 250 Act

Camera looks up at the white facade that makes up the front of the Capitol building.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently marked up and approved the BUILD America 250 Act to reauthorize the country’s surface transportation program. As we’ve previously stated, this rushed proposal continues the status quo established in past reauthorization processes, failing to improve or even maintain our system.

BUILD America 250 allocates $474 billion to the federal surface transportation program, but these funds aren’t set to improve safety, repair infrastructure, or support public transit, even as Americans face increasingly dangerous roads, rising gas prices, and an ongoing affordability crisis. Although the current bill includes language to address further grant cancellations by the Trump administration and preserves some safety programs, these programs are limited by weak structures and accountability mechanisms and are likely to be implemented in bad faith. For more details on the different provisions, read our recent blog.


Before Congress votes on BUILD America 250, we need you to join us in urging members to vote no. Use the form below to contact your representative.

Ten things to know about the BUILD Act’s failure to produce better outcomes

The BUILD America 250 Act, approved by a House committee early on Friday, May 22nd, is a lot like the IIJA—minus a whole lot of funding for transit, rail, and reducing emissions. Here are ten things to know about the bill and how it will fail to advance T4America’s simple three priorities.

After a year of hearing that “the House is definitely going to release and markup a draft bill sometime this month,” Lucy kept the football on the ground, and the House finally released a five-year, $474 billion reauthorization proposal last Sunday on the eve of this year’s Infrastructure Week. Predict the same thing every month, and eventually it will come true. 

How will Congress pay for this enormous bill? The short answer is they won’t—your grandkids will. A modest amount of new funding will come via a controversial new fee on electric vehicles, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous gap between revenues and spending. Just like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), an enormous subsidy from all taxpayers would be required to cover annual spending that is roughly double what the gas tax brings in each year. And all that for a fairly status quo proposal that fails to meet the moment and will not deliver a transportation system that safely, affordably, and reliably gets us all where we need to go. 

But in a bill with less money than the IIJA, it’s transit and passenger rail that take the hit. 

Though leadership on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee describes it as a $580 billion bill, in reality, it includes only $474 billion in guaranteed funding, representing a cut from the $539 billion guaranteed by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Nearly all of that difference comes from cuts to transit, passenger rail, and scrapped competitive grant programs. Highways? They get a healthy bump in guaranteed funding.

1) There was a notable attempt to prevent a repeat of the Trump administration’s massive flood of grant cancellations

This administration has been unwilling to follow the current transportation law, as evidenced most clearly by their abrupt 2025 cancellation of billions in grants that were previously awarded to states and local communities. The BUILD Act included some surprising language aimed at preventing a repeat: “the Secretary may not terminate, withhold, or delay the execution of a grant agreement for a grant or award (in part or in whole) made using funds made available under this Act” based on any arbitrary reasons or a change in preferences of a new administration.  While this provision would be a step in the right direction, it unfortunately does nothing to restore the billions in grants rescinded under the IIJA. 

Another way to think about this provision: it will successfully prevent the cancellation of grant funding for the kinds of projects that this administration will absolutely not select in the first place. This is a move in the right direction, but it’s slamming the proverbial barn door after the horses are already in another zip code.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) did attempt to restore the canceled IIJA grants via this amendment during Thursday’s marathon committee markup. This amendment, which failed on a voice vote, would have retroactively applied to all grants awarded under IIJA, noting that “the Secretary shall obligate and execute grant agreements for any project that was selected, awarded, or publicly announced for funding by the Department on or after November 15, 2021” via the IIJA or Inflation Reduction Act, and prevent the Secretary from canceling them. When it was offered during the markup, Chairman Sam Graves backed the Trump administration’s decision to cancel these grants, noting that Sec. Duffy inherited a backlog of unobligated funds, so the only solution was obviously to cancel them all and take back the money. 

Rep. Huffman had some support, but considering the fact that canceled grants spanned republican and democrat districts alike, you’d think that a sizable number of committee members—but especially those in the minority—would be loudly standing up for those communities and making the restoration of these grants one of their fundamental prerequisites for support. 

Apparently not.

Grant cancellations aside, here are nine other things to know about the BUILD America 250 Act, organized around our three simple principles. (Note: We’re just calling it the BUILD Act from here on.)

Fix it first

Overall, this bill fails to make meaningful strides towards prioritizing maintenance and repair on our roadways. States are not required to demonstrate progress toward any hard and fast targets for road or bridge conditions before building new road capacity with federal-aid highway programs. There is no change to the current paperwork exercise of performance management, and states are not required to set any targets they’d be held accountable for meeting. (Read more about this T4America principle)

2) Dedicated bridge repair funding is back, but lacks accountability

Congress eliminated a dedicated bridge repair program back in 2012, but what’s old is always eventually new again, and the BUILD Act creates a new dedicated formula program for bridge repair. Some IIJA bridge programs are consolidated into a new $9.2 billion annual program—creatively called the Bridge Program. Each state would receive $75 million, plus an amount based on factors like bridge area and the amount of bridge area in poor condition. Some money is set aside to be spent on the thousands of oft-overlooked bridges not on the federal-aid highway system (though states can opt out of this), and 25 percent is set aside for states to run a competition for awards to locally-owned bridges. States have to produce a new report describing progress made on reducing the number of bridges in poor condition, but there are no real penalties for failure. 

Beyond this formula program, there’s a new $2 billion annual competitive grant program (without guaranteed funding) that’s focused on improving the safety, efficiency, and reliability of bridges on the National Highway System only. While the details are different, with dedicated funding and little accountability, the BUILD Act’s approach is not that dissimilar from our pre-2012 approach to bridge repair. 

3) The slightest of head nods toward repair accountability

The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) is the largest highway-focused program that states have control of. Within this program, states will have to develop and maintain a state asset management plan. Under BUILD, any state that fails to develop and implement its asset management plan will see the federal share for projects within NHPP drop down to just 65 percent. While that sounds like a move in the right direction, there are no requirements that states set or meet binding, positive targets on repair. That’s not going to cut it.

UPDATE: This 65 percent provision already existed in current law. The updated language makes some small changes to how USDOT will assess compliance, but this is not a notable change in the BUILD Act. – Ed. 6/17/2026

4) Reconnecting Communities is functionally dead

This bill completely eliminates the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant program, which was best understood as the authorized, long-term version of the Reconnecting Communities pilot program, which technically ended this year. This likely means the end of federal money spent on repairing divisive infrastructure, and the end of a program T4America helped create back in 2020. 

The concept of Reconnecting Communities survives as a project eligibility within a new grant program (STAG) that would replace the BUILD competitive grant program. (Yes, this is confusing. The BUILD grant program is the one formerly known as TIGER and RAISE.) But considering that this administration canceled nearly every single unobligated Neighborhood Access and Equity grant project, it’s unlikely that any reconnecting-style projects would win funding in this new grant program under this administration. The Senate should resuscitate this program, and there was an amendment offered during the markup to restore the Reconnecting Communities program and rename it.

Safety over speed

While there are a few changes that could be perceived as small improvements to safety policy, the program fails to make improving safety a centerpiece priority across the entire program and will do very little to reverse the U.S.’s roadway safety crisis. (Read more about this T4America principle)

5) Safe Streets for All local grant program survives

Tucson residents paint the street orange, green, blue, and white to draw attention to a bike lane in their Complete Streets demonstration project.
Photo courtesy of Living Streets Alliance staff. From Smart Growth America’s profile of Tucson’s Complete Streets policy. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/tucson-complete-streets-is-about-more-than-pavement/

Perhaps the best news in this entire bill is the survival of the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant program, which is only available directly to cities and local communities (including tribes) for projects to make concrete changes to their streets to improve safety.  SS4A’s survival is good news for safety, and it was also moved into the highway title of the bill and given guaranteed funding through contract authority, sparing it from future appropriations fights.  In IIJA, 40 percent of SS4A funds were (likely mistakenly) set aside for planning, and one of the eligible uses was for quick-build demonstration projects. The BUILD Act reduces that set-aside to a much more rational 5 percent. That might seem too low, but considering how much money has been put into planning over the last five years, it’s time to pour more money into implementation and actually building projects to improve safety.

The bad news is that the program is roughly half the size it was during the IIJA, and all mentions of Vision Zero were eliminated. And we’re putting a lot of faith in a program that has already been weaponized by this USDOT. USDOT has selectively canceled SS4A grants they didn’t like and also changed the criteria to let applicants know they won’t select projects that make people safer by removing parking or repurposing lane space. This USDOT wants to improve safety with SS4A grants, as long as those improvements don’t come at the expense of their other, higher priorities. 

6) States aiming for more people to die on their roads have to inform the Secretary

Under our weak system of measuring performance, numerous states have routinely set targets for more people to be injured/killed on their roadways. These targets have been posted publicly on FHWA’s website, but the BUILD Act makes a subtle change to require the Secretary to notify Congress when states do it in the future. But there will continue to be no penalty for setting these regressive targets, and Congress has not shown any appetite to create actual accountability for reducing roadway deaths. But it will be harder for Congress to claim they didn’t know that states were aiming for such bad performance. 

Invest in the rest 

While the BUILD Act increases guaranteed funding for highways, guaranteed transit funding is going down. There are a few changes to provide some modest flexibility to use capital dollars for operations, but there are none of the dramatic increases in transit capital or operations funding on par with what it would truly take to invest in the rest and build a world-class transit system. (Read more about this T4America principle.)

7) Guaranteed highway money is going up while transit is decreasing. 

IIJA provided an historic increase in guaranteed funding for highways and transit. That’s only the case for highways this time around. 

Though the bill’s authors are quick to note that transit contract authority is increasing over IIJA levels, the guaranteed amount for transit is actually going down, thanks to the loss of advance appropriations. Transit goes from $91.2 billion in guaranteed funding in the IIJA down to $87.6 billion in BUILD. Highways, meanwhile, jump from $351 billion up to $376 billion in guaranteed funding. This also means that transit is dipping below its typical 20 percent share of the overall bill. The 80/20 split has often fluctuated slightly above or below that 20 percent threshold, but the decrease is still notable.

8) Changes to the transit capital program…which is currently frozen by the Trump administration

No one should be celebrating any positive changes in the program for building and expanding transit systems, considering that it has been ground to a halt by the current administration. The bipartisan authors in the House have failed to recognize this reality nor have they done anything in this bill to attempt to require this administration to follow the law and administer this program in this new five-year proposal.

There are some changes to streamline transit capital project delivery, including rewarding transit agencies that have recently navigated the federal process successfully with a speedier process. Likely recognizing the increasing costs of bus rapid transit projects and other “Small Starts” projects, BUILD raises the funding threshold for these projects up to $1 billion (with a 50 percent max federal share) and changes their name to Streamlined Starts. The law would broaden the eligibility for Core Capacity projects, which could make it possible for projects to do things like investing in automation to increase throughput on a busy rail line. And transit projects in the pipeline can receive extra credit in the evaluation process for local policies in favor of housing development near transit. 

On the negative side, the IIJA-created program for procuring low- and no-emission buses is toast.

9) A new focus on transit safety, crime, and fare evasion

bus driver wearing mask adjusts mirror
Image from Flickr/MTA NYC

There’s a significant new focus on transit safety and fare evasion—both with funding set aside from transit formulas, but also in new policy requirements. 

Instead of just one percent, urban agencies will be required to spend 1.5 percent of their transit formula funds on a wide range of eligible transit safety and security projects, including fare evasion prevention, new technology, and new police officers. Agencies have to start gathering and reporting data to FTA on how much money they are losing to fare evasion, and there are requirements for making fare evasion a criminal or civil offense. There are no penalties for the states or cities that continue building streets and roads that ensure that anyone’s walking trip to transit might be the most dangerous part of their journey.

10) Passenger rail loses out big time

After $66 billion guaranteed in IIJA for rail, the BUILD Act provides zero dollars in guaranteed funding for passenger rail and reduces authorized spending below IIJA levels, while making some marginal improvements around rail permitting and Amtrak accountability, and logically combining several programs. 

The result of losing the guaranteed funding means that Congress will have to do something it didn’t have to do over the last five years: consider every year whether or not it will provide the authorized amounts of rail funding. Policy improvements aside, the rail title overall decreases federal investment in passenger rail and is a step back. We expect the Senate Commerce Committee to take a different approach.

The bill was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a 66-2 vote in the wee hours of Friday morning. Stay tuned on the blog for more on the law and the next steps.

The good, the bad, and the ugly: early signals for reauthorization

U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., with the white dome centered in the background and green trees and lawn in the foreground.

The debate over the surface transportation reauthorization bill is already underway, and early proposals show just how much is at stake for the future of our transportation system.

As Congress gears up for surface transportation reauthorization, a slew of marker bills has emerged. These standalone proposals signal priorities, test ideas, and lay the groundwork for the final package. While they rarely pass on their own, these bills play an outsized role in shaping the debate. Taken together, they offer an early look at whether federal transportation policy is moving toward building a more accountable, multimodal system or doubling down on outdated approaches. 

So far, the picture is mixed. Here’s a look at three recent proposals that together capture the good, the bad, and the ugly of where things might be headed.

The good: measuring what matters in transportation 

The Generating Resilient, Environmentally Exceptional National (GREEN) Streets Act, introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and its companion legislation introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), would meaningfully shift how we approach transportation and climate policy. The bill would establish clear goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across our transportation system at a time when transportation remains the largest source of emissions in the U.S.

For decades, federal transportation policy has prioritized expanding highway networks, based on the assumption that most trips will be made by car. The result is a system that encourages more driving, leading to increased congestion, higher emissions, and greater burdens on communities already facing public health challenges and an affordability crisis.

The GREEN Streets Act would begin to address this by directing the U.S. Department of Transportation to set minimum standards for states to reduce emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and air pollution on public roads. By focusing on outcomes rather than infrastructure expansion, the bill would help reorient transportation policy toward improving access and affordability.

The bad: punitive EV fees that won’t fix the Highway Trust Fund

There’s no question that the Highway Trust Fund faces a real fiscal challenge, but not every proposed solution actually addresses this.

One idea that has been circulating for years and is now gaining renewed traction is putting federal fees on electric vehicles (EVs). House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves (R-MO) has made clear that EV fees are very much in play in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization. He signaled that if they don’t make it into a Senate package, he will pursue them through other legislative options, including in the House’s draft of the 2025 budget reconciliation bill. 

It makes sense that EV drivers should contribute to transportation investments, especially as their share of the vehicle fleet grows, but this proposal misses the mark entirely. For starters, the proposed fees are wildly disproportionate. In 2019, the average gas-powered vehicle paid roughly $95 in federal gas taxes each year. A $250 annual fee on EVs would be more than double that amount, despite EVs currently making up a relatively small share of vehicles on the road. Finally, Chairman Graves’ proposal does not direct those funds into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Other marker bills—like one from Sen. Fischer and Rep. Dusty Johnson that would impose a one-time $1,000 fee on all EVs—are even more extreme. 

Many states already have their own EV registration fees, often at similarly inflated levels. Piling on a federal fee risks creating a punitive system that discourages EV adoption without improving the Highway Trust Fund’s long-term outlook.

You can’t solve a structural funding problem on the backs of a growing but small minority of drivers. Aggressive EV fees won’t change the underlying math of rising highway construction costs and declining gas tax revenues. A sustainable solution will require a broader rethink of how we fund transportation, not a band-aid solution that’s unfair and ultimately ineffective.

The ugly: more“flexibility” that undermines accountability

The Highway Funding Transferability Improvement Act, introduced by Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), and its companion bill introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) would increase how much flexibility states have to transfer federal highway funds to other highway programs from 50 percent up to 75 percent. Supporters of the bill frame this change as allowing more local control and streamlining transfers between programs, but in reality, it risks weakening one of the few tools Congress has to ensure federal dollars are spent as intended. 

States already have significant flexibility under current law, including the ability to transfer unlimited funds to transit programs, as long as the projects are eligible under both funding categories. If states aren’t investing in transit, safety, or emissions-reducing projects today, it’s not because they lack flexibility. It’s because the state isn’t interested in those investments.

This proposal would allow states to shift further funding away from programs that specifically address safety, air quality, and multimodal transportation. In practice, it could shrink already limited investments in these projects to an even smaller fraction than Congress intended.

We’ve seen how this plays out. Flexibility can be valuable, but not when it comes at the expense of accountability. Expanding that authority risks opening the floodgates, particularly in places with poor safety records or ongoing air quality challenges.

What does this mean for surface transportation reauthorization?

Marker bills are initial ideas that can be incorporated into a surface transportation reauthorization package that allocates how hundreds of billions of dollars are spent.  It will shape whether we double down on outdated, car-centric policies or move toward a system that prioritizes repair, safety, and multimodal investment. 

The good news is that there are thoughtful ideas on the table, but the challenge is that there are just as many that would move us backward. When the draft of the surface transportation reauthorization bill is released, T4America will examine proposals and grade them against our core principles, which have broad support from voters across the political spectrum. Bills that fall short of these very attainable goals will be rated accordingly, while those that meet the mark will earn our ringing endorsement.

Here’s how we will grade the next surface reauthorization bill

Empty scorecard to grade a bill against three principles: safety over speed, fix it first, invest in the rest.

With the IIJA expiring in September, a draft version of the next surface transportation reauthorization will eventually be released. As with previous bills, T4America plans to release a public scorecard on how well Congress’s proposal would steer the federal program toward achieving its stated goals. Here’s what we are looking for.

Transportation for America is ready to grade the next surface transportation reauthorization, and our rubric is incredibly simple.

Empty scorecard to grade a bill against three principles: safety over speed, fix it first, invest in the rest.

The federal government has spent $1.5 trillion over the past 30 years to achieve its stated goals of improving safety, fixing infrastructure, reducing congestion and emissions, and improving public health. The reality is that despite the massive amount of money poured into the system, we don’t have much to show for it. The success of the next transportation bill should not be measured by how much or how little money we put into the program, but by how well it holds the system accountable for achieving our national goals and being responsible to the American taxpayer. 

Similar to our past scorecards, T4America will be grading legislative text on a pass/fail basis against our three core principles. In line with these principles, T4America will be looking for how the text prioritizes 1) safer roads over speed, 2) the maintenance of existing infrastructure, and 3) investing in more transportation options.

Safety over speed

The roads in most developed countries are safer than ours and continue to improve, but Congress continues to prioritize vehicle speed above all else, including safety.  Safety needs to come first. 

What we’ll be looking for: States and MPOs should be required to set concrete targets to improve roadway safety and reduce roadway deaths and to report progress on safety goals. When states fail to meet those safety targets, their flexible funding under the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program should be dedicated to projects that are proven to move the needle on safety. Localities also need evidence-based guidance for roadway designs, and the federal government needs to overhaul its own road safety guidance and provide localities the freedom to experiment. Read T4America’s policy recommendations for prioritizing safety over speed in surface transportation reauthorization. 

An emerging consideration: As the autonomous vehicle (AV) market continues to expand, it is vital to ensure that the rapid growth of this industry does not come at the expense of safety. The next law must promote transparency, make AV data public, and require reporting of collisions, malfunctions, and other anomalies. Local oversight also needs to be preserved, and localities should be able to determine how autonomous vehicles are deployed and operated on their streets. Finally, left unchecked, empty AVs could clog our roads while waiting for passengers. USDOT should establish a pricing mechanism that disincentivizes AV operators from allowing their vehicles to operate without passengers, preventing roads from being filled with empty cars.  Read T4America’s other policy recommendations on ensuring AVs meet their potential. 

Fix it first 

Prioritizing roadway expansion and leaving maintenance as an afterthought, with no long-term plan for decades of maintenance costs, is nonsensical. We can’t afford to keep expanding the size and scope of the system without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built. Our last Repair Priorities report showed that we’d need $231.4 billion per year just to keep our existing road network in acceptable condition. Every new road, lane-mile, or bridge adds a costly new financial obligation for decades to come, pushing that number even higher.  We need to be accountable to taxpayers and cannot continue to defer maintenance.  Federal funding should prioritize fixing what we have before building anything new.

What we’ll be looking for: Legislative language must center accountability to ensure that maintenance is not on the back burner. If federal funds are given to grantees to increase roadway capacity, recipients should first demonstrate that they can maintain that asset over the course of its entire lifetime. Grants should not be distributed to agencies that cannot maintain the capacity they claim to need. States and MPOs should be required to set clear, measurable targets for improving pavement conditions, and when they fail to meet those targets, USDOT should step in and reorient National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grant funds toward repair. See the rest of T4Americas’s policy recommendations to prioritize existing maintenance needs. 

Fixing roads should also include reconnecting communities and addressing the harms of previous infrastructure decisions. Projects built in the 1950s (and continuing through today) destroyed local economies and undermined the health and connectivity of people living near highways. Language that expands programs like the Reconnecting Communities Program (RCP), a competitive grant that funds the redesign and deconstruction of outdated infrastructure, must be included in the text (we’ll be looking out for the REPAIR Infrastructure Act, which continues the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program). Opportunities like RCP offered communities the chance to improve access to daily needs such as jobs, schools, food, recreation, and healthcare resources by building complete streets, fixing sidewalks, and investing in access to public transit. Additionally, models need to be updated for accuracy so agencies can accurately assess the impacts of highway alternative projects, and agencies must be transparent with the public about which models they use. Read the rest of our policy recommendations for an idea of what we are looking for in the next surface reauthorization bill to fix our past infrastructure history. 

Invest in the rest

As the U.S. has built out the highway system, there has been too little support for other modes of transportation. Households need choices for how to get around, and we do not have freedom if there is a monopoly on mobility. The next surface reauthorization bill text must ensure we can build out a world-class transit system, a strong passenger rail network, and take charge of the electric vehicle market (EV).

What we’ll be looking for: One of the biggest challenges localities face is securing reliable funding for transit operations. Fare revenue does not cover the full cost of transit operations, and only smaller systems are allowed to use their federal funds on operations. Larger systems do not have that flexibility, and even if they did, that flexibility comes at the expense of money for capital improvements. In the next surface bill, T4America will be looking for policies that provide robust support for federal transit operations (similar to the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act). Rural communities also rely on transit, and we will be looking for language that improves mobility services in rural areas by streamlining funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Read T4America’s full policy recommendations on how to build out world-class transit. 

Passenger rail needs to be preserved and expanded on in the next surface bill. Amtrak’s national network of long-distance and state-supported routes provides vital transportation connections for communities. We are looking for policies that restructure roles and responsibilities, so that Amtrak’s board includes representation from individuals with demonstrated interest in the system and regular experience using passenger rail. The legislation should also encourage residential, commercial, and mixed-use development near rail stations to support transit-oriented development. Read T4America’s complete policy recommendations on building world-class passenger rail. 

Federal transportation policy should position the U.S. to build a competitive advantage in electric vehicle manufacturing. An important part of supporting this market is expanding a reliable charging network by increasing the flexibility within the EV fueling program. The surface bill should include reducing unnecessary restrictions on the National Electric Vehicle (NEVI) program and ensuring that EVs pay into the system just like gas and diesel cars do. Read T4America’s other policy recommendations on investing in the EV market. 

Looking ahead

T4America will look closely at any reauthorization proposal and grade it against our three core principles—priorities with broad support from voters across the political spectrum. Bills that fall short of these very attainable goals will be rated accordingly, while proposals that deliver the mark will earn a ringing endorsement. We will publish our scorecards and determine whether the next surface reauthorization law would actually deliver measurable and improved outcomes. 

“Why do we do this bill?” Preparing congressional staff for surface transportation reauthorization

U.S. Capitol Building

Over the past month, T4America organized briefings for Hill staffers (one each for the House and Senate) about the federal surface transportation reauthorization process to help them advance their members’ priorities, but also hopefully to encourage them to take a more skeptical look at a program producing marginal and diminishing returns for taxpayers at enormous expense. 

Group of people seated at a table in discussion during Transportation for America Congressional staffer retreat.

When SGA president and CEO Beth Osborne asked the staffers present to raise their hands if they worked on developing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) back in November 2021, maybe two total hands went up in either briefing. Ninety-five percent  or more of the staff who showed up are knee-deep in their very first reauthorization cycle. This isn’t just because the briefings drew interns or newer, younger staffers. These were staffers who, in most cases, had worked on the Hill for years and were specifically responsible for transportation issues. 

In T4America’s experience, this is pretty typical for most offices. The fact that reauthorization happens about every five years has one notable effect: There’s little institutional knowledge of the process or the policy within many congressional offices. Most members of Congress (and their staff) don’t think or do much about it during the 4-6 years between reauthorization cycles.1

But this once-every-five-years cycle is one reason why the bipartisan status quo has so much inertia—there’s little reason to interrogate the overarching purpose of this program, to look back at how it has performed, or what everyone is getting for the money.

In both briefings, we wanted to try to get everyone to take a step back and think about the purposes of the federal transportation program. Why do we need this bill? Why does this program exist? We asked everyone in both briefings, and the answers started out largely the same: 

  • “To provide steady, predictable funding.”
  • “To allocate transportation money to states.” 
  • “To make a better transportation system.”

Look carefully: These answers are not about measurable outcomes but are simply outputs. This underscores many of the structural problems and defines how most lawmakers tend to approach this program: How much money is in the bill overall, and how much is coming to my state? Many are also interested in things like “How much is going toward transit vs. highways, or is the small program I like getting more funding?” But very few members of Congress are asking harder, outcomes-oriented questions like “Are we making measurable progress on outcomes that matter with the hundreds of billions in general funds that we have been using to subsidize this program?”

Eventually, many of the staffers started answering with goals for the program more oriented around outcomes, including the performance measures specifically codified into the program back in 2012’s MAP-21:

  • “To make a safer, faster, reliable, more predictable system.” 
  • “To reduce congestion.”
  • “To finally fix our crumbling roads and bridges.

If these are truly core goals for the program (and they are!), how has the program performed? If we’re going to do what the big industry groups think we should do and borrow another $200 billion or more from our grandkids to do more of the same, we should ask some questions about the returns we’re going to get for that money. 

Here’s what Beth had to say on safety, the state of repair of our roads and bridges, and congestion: 

As we said last year, after spending over $1 trillion on transportation, our roads are still crumbling, unsafe, and congested. So we asked these staffers: Why should any member of Congress be lining up to support continuing this program without significant changes? And for those in the congressional minority, why should they be lining up to provide bipartisan support for a law where their priorities in the last bipartisan bill—the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—have so often been meddled with, frozen, or eliminated outright by the White House? Especially while those with whom they forged the “bipartisan” agreement have largely stood on the sidelines and failed to defend what they collectively passed?

To that last point, as we’ve chronicled here, over the last year, billions of dollars in funding for community-led safety projects, electrification, transit, and passenger rail projects from the bipartisan-passed IIJA have been delayed, frozen, or outright cancelled by the administration’s USDOT.  But it’s not just the administration: Congress rescinded and reprogrammed over $2.3 billion in IIJA appropriations in the FY26 spending bill and even more in the partisan reconciliation bill. And this year, the Trump administration canceled another $963 million for clean transportation projects, targeting communities in Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois, and California.

It’s time to focus on opportunities and outcomes

Surface transportation reauthorization is an opportunity to reorient federal policy to address the issues that matter most to Americans. Such as making our streets and roads far safer for everyone who uses them. Or holding every single entity spending federal money accountable for actually repairing what they’ve built first, before building new stuff. Or focusing not on how much money gets spent on 1950s measures like congestion, but instead on making things more affordable by improving accessibility—making it easier and cheaper to get to what we need each day. Or finding ways to get more homes built in the areas that already have great transportation and transit access.

During the rest of the time in these two briefings, we had tables organized around issues like transit, rail, or safety, where staffers could dig into those issues with policy experts from other organizations and learn how those priorities can be advanced in the reauthorization process. 

More members of Congress (from both parties) should be more skeptically interrogating this program and asking: What are we getting for the huge price tag? Why should we deficit spend so much just to accomplish so little?

No more blank checks for unproductive infrastructure that makes life more unaffordable, produces terrible results on safety, and fails to actually improve the condition of our infrastructure. That’s the core message that we hope to continue communicating to these vital staffers and congressional offices who will be shaping what comes next after the IIJA.

Group of people seated at a table in discussion during Transportation for America Congressional staffer retreat.

Our sincere thanks to Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE) for helping us to organize the Senate briefing, to the Congressional Progressive Caucus for helping to organize the House briefing, and to our many partners and advocates who came to help educate staff. 

Letter to Congress calls for penalties for failing to improve roadway safety

Nearly 40,000 people are dying on our roads each year, and Congress must take action to address the crisis by requiring changes in policy and practice. Last week, the National Complete Streets Coalition, Transportation for America, and a coalition of 24 other national, state, and local organizations sent a letter to Congress, calling on them to immediately address safety in road design instead of letting thousands more die year after year.

Since the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was passed in 2021, roughly an average of 40,000 people have died per year on U.S. roads. If the trend continues, over 200,000 people will die over the course of the next five-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. The federal government has a fundamental duty to protect those who are getting killed everyday and they cannot wait until this transportation bill expires (or later) to address the roadway safety crisis. That’s why we wrote a letter calling on Congress to hold hearings on improving federal roadway design standards to prioritize safety for all roadway users, change the federal roadway design standards based on the lessons learned from those hearings, and penalize state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations that fail to improve safety.

Federal roadway design standards favor the speed of cars over the safety of everyone using the roadway, leading to a 40-year high in people killed while walking and biking, and higher roadway deaths per billion vehicle kilometers traveled than any of our peer nations. The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars each year to state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations which they then use to build dangerous roads constructed using roadway design standards that favor car speeds over regularly-placed crosswalks, daylighted intersections, and protected bike infrastructure. When more and more people walking and biking die on these federally funded roads, the government levies zero consequences against the main culprits, state DOTs and MPOs. Congress will try and pass a new “traditional” transportation bill by next year, a supposed “return to basics.” However, our traditional methods of funding transportation have resulted in congestion, crumbling roads, and a record number of lives lost. The U.S. cannot afford to continue with business as usual. Congress needs to hold hearings and learn from experts about road design that protects all road users, alter road design recommendations in response to what they learn, and restrict funding to states and MPOs who exacerbate the roadway safety crisis.

In a letter sent to Congress last week, we proposed three concrete actions for Congress and USDOT to take. You can read them in full in the letter, but they are:

1. Prioritize safety in all road design guidance and within the entire federal transportation program, rather than treating safety as an afterthought.

Federal roadway design guidance is inherently broken. Manuals such as the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets from AASHTO and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices value continuous movement of cars over the safety of those both inside and outside vehicles leading to wide, high speed roads. There is no requirement that our federal roadway design standards be proven to improve safety. It is well established that speed increases the deadliness of a roadway and that safety and speed are fundamentally incompatible, yet the design manuals our federal government recommends ignore this basic truth. This creates a dangerous environment for pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, and those inside vehicles. Congress needs to ensure that our roadway design guidance is evidence-based, allows for innovation, and protects those who are walking, biking, and driving.

2. Require measurable improvements on safety from all funding recipients—with penalties for failing to perform.

Congress funneled historic amounts of money to state DOTs and MPOs in the IIJA with big promises to improve roadway safety, however those results have yet to be seen. Congress cannot continue to dole out millions without any enforceable targets, therefore Congress should tie funding to outcomes, including safety. Congress must call on these states to answer for the disappointing outcomes resulting from federal funds. If states and metropolitan planning organizations fail to meaningfully decrease the number of people dying while walking and biking on their roadways, Congress should limit their funds to programs that improve safety and repair rather than allow them to burn millions on dangerous new or expanded roads.

3. Hold hearings in the House and Senate focused specifically on how road design contributes to the roadway safety crisis and holds the key to solving it.

Reauthorization in 2026 represents our best opportunity to orient federal policy and spending toward improving safety. But we need to lay the groundwork for that bill now. Congress must hold additional hearings focused specifically on the ways road design contributes to the roadway safety crisis, why we are failing at all levels to implement safer designs, and how Congress can actively help address this crisis. They need to quickly gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between roadway design and poor safety outcomes, successful interventions to address roadway safety through design best practices, and why states repeatedly fail to implement safe road design. They must call for the best roadway design practices from at home and abroad to be more widely implemented and recognize the roadway safety crisis as a public health emergency. Congress cannot spend the next year writing a transportation bill that fails to address dangerous roadway design and its contribution to the roadway safety crisis. They need to go beyond public support for safety and show their commitment by working with experts to problem solve and address the fundamental issue of flawed roadway design through legislation and appropriations.

Congress cannot ignore the catastrophe they’ve helped create. They need to listen to the local, state, and national voices that are demanding they use their legislative authority, act now, and save lives.

Five reasons why IIJA will expire without a replacement in September 2026

The general consensus starting to emerge around Washington these days amongst all the transportation trade groups, some in the media, and many legislators on Capitol Hill is that Congress will definitely pass a new five-year transportation law when the current one expires next September, and that it will have at least as much money in it as the IIJA did in 2021. This flies in the face of history and reality.

Whether from press releases from trade groups, testimony in early hearings before Congress on reauthorization, or just conversations here and there, it has somehow become the conventional wisdom that we’ll see a new transportation law pass in September 2026 when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act expires. Sure, there might be a short extension while Congress hammers out some details in the fall, but “transportation has always been a bipartisan issue,” and “our country’s infrastructure is too important,” and “they came together last time to pass historic amounts of funding for highways, transit, and rail, so they’ll definitely be able to do that again.”

Anyone who has been around for the last ten years should know better. And there are countless signs on the wall that we are headed not just for a massive delay but for some fundamental changes in whatever ends up passing in 2026. Or 2029. Here are five reasons why nothing is happening by next October 1, starting with the most obvious:

  1. Reauthorization failing to pass on time is the standard
  2. Continuing the program at IIJA funding levels would require enormous deficit spending
  3. The novel spending mechanisms used to paper over the massive deficit last time won’t work this time
  4. The bipartisan coalition is already fragmenting as the administration unilaterally undermines the law Congress passed in 2021 
  5. If the majority tries to remove all non-highway spending from the program, that coalition dies

1) Reauthorization has never passed on time. Why would it happen now?

Just save this graphic to share anytime you read some rosy optimist prognosticating that Congress will find a way to pass a new law on time, or maybe by the end of 2026 at the latest. 

Since 1991—a time when we were swimming in gas tax surpluses and Congress just had to figure out how to spend all that extra money—the country has operated on a short-term extension of an expired transportation law for a full third of the time. And when we moved past those surpluses of the 1990s and the insolvency of the trust fund became the most pressing issue when SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009, it took Congress 33 months and 10 separate extensions to get to MAP-21 in 2012—which only covered two years because Congress couldn’t find enough money in the couch cushions to pay for anything longer. Financially speaking, which era is our transportation program closer to as it wildly outspends what the gas tax brings in each year? 

So, for the first time in modern history, something that has never happened before is definitely going to happen? Ok, if you say so! Especially considering what’s coming next:

2) The budget reconciliation bill, which added $3 trillion to the federal deficit, likely killed the appetite for further deficit spending

The budget reconciliation law passed on July 4 blew up the federal deficit, adding over $3 trillion to the deficit while making painful cuts to popular programs that ordinary taxpayers understand, like Medicaid. The appetite for further deficit spending by this Congress will be non-existent, especially when it comes to doing it for transportation, which we like to say is right at the top…of everyone’s second page of important issues. There are already conversations about finding ways to restore some of the most unpopular cuts in the reconciliation bill, but doing so would require more deficit spending. Does anyone think that transportation is going to rank anywhere near the top when we’re talking about restoring health care for millions of people who are losing this basic, essential benefit?

3) Congress will not be able to rely on the creative spending mechanisms it used last time to cover the gap

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—which is the current transportation law—provided the highest levels of funding ever for transportation. There were massive, historic increases across the board, for roads, rail, and transit, as well as $200 billion plowed into existing grant programs and so many new competitive grant programs that you couldn’t count them with several hands full of fingers. How in the world did Congress manage to find so much money for infrastructure when the gas tax brings in less and less money each year,  roads are getting pricier, and it doesn’t come anywhere near close enough to cover the IIJA’s price tag? 

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and behold the magic of “advance appropriations” and deficit spending! Even back in 2021, we were highly skeptical about how this novel funding mechanism was going to work: 

In a notable change from historic practice, these supplemental [i.e, deficit spending] funds will be appropriated in advance of other priorities in the annual budget process.   … As far as how these “advance” appropriations are going to work out in practice, no one is really sure what to expect in reality over the next five years as Congress could change several times over during the 2021 infrastructure law’s lifespan. In theory, these programs provided with appropriations in advance (like transit and passenger rail) should be safer than other programs that are wholly discretionary and left up to future appropriators to decide funding each year, but it’s a real possibility that a new Congress could certainly find a way to undo some of the advance funding for programs that they deem unworthy. This will be an issue that we will be keeping a close eye on in the years ahead.

We have indeed been watching closely, and this Congress is right now 100% “finding a way to undo some of that advance funding for programs they deem unworthy” during the ongoing appropriations process for FY26. While the budget reconciliation law already took back more than $2.4 billion in funds for reconnecting communities through the Neighborhood Access and Equity grant program, House appropriators are now proposing to take away more than $100 million in Reconnecting Communities funds that were “advance appropriated,” and they are redirecting supposedly “advance appropriated” funds for the National Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program into airport spending.  This is a great segue to…

4) The traditional left-right bipartisan coalition that produces these massive bills is already fragmenting

Members of Congress who were around back in 2021 and signed IIJA are now watching as their bipartisan, five-year agreement they thought they set in stone is being undermined by the Trump administration at USDOT and undone by the majority controlling the country’s purse strings. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was around for IIJA, and during a confirmation hearing for USDOT Assistant Secretary Sean McMaster, the Senator gave a foretaste of the kind of break in the traditional right-left coalition on transportation that we could see during the debate over IIJA’s replacement. From Philip Plotch at Eno: 

Senator Whitehouse told McMaster, “The chair and I both intend to deliver to you a robust bipartisan surface transportation.” But, he warned, “The gateway to success, to ultimately passing those bills, is confidence that this administration will faithfully execute the laws we pass and clear the projects we have already approved, appropriated, and obligated.” He said, “This administration has repeatedly unlawfully disrespected congressionally authorized and appropriated spending.” Looking directly at McMaster, Whitehouse rhetorically asked, “Do you understand how it would be hard for the minority to agree to a bipartisan bill if the upshot of that agreement was that only the majority’s parts of the bill were actually implemented and everything that we wanted got binned by the executive branch?” 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. 

That should be the lesson for smart members of Congress who are paying attention. Why spend your political capital on a bill where your priorities get shelved 3 years later? Any member of Congress—especially those in the minority—willing to cut a deal on a long-term transportation law without first exacting a promise from the administration and their colleagues to restore all of these cuts has failed to learn this lesson. Shame on them.

These actions have both undermined the use of a trust fund and the concept of a five-year authorization, where these decisions are made at once and then everyone abides by them for the law’s duration. It is yet more proof that the trust fund is dead, and the coalition that has made these past reauthorizations possible is on life support.

5) The only possible way to pass a law without deficit spending or advance appropriations is to eliminate the coalition that has made each law possible

Let’s do some math. The gas tax, which funds (a shrinking) portion of the federal transportation program, is projected to bring in about $44 billion in 2028. If the federal transportation program continues at IIJA spending levels, more than $102 billion would be going out the door, leaving a deficit of $58 billion per year.

One idea that will almost certainly be suggested at some point—especially as USDOT signals their preference for “refocusing” the federal program on core priorities—is removing a bunch of stuff from the federal transportation program, like transit, passenger rail, and other competitive grants that fund things they don’t like. This will present two problems for those who do this: 

  1. The highway formula program alone costs more than $20 billion over what the gas tax brings in, so removing everything else doesn’t solve all of the problems.
  2. Kicking all of those other programs out of the trust fund would be the nail in the coffin of the coalition that has made it possible to pass these expensive bills.

Does the majority feel confident that they could pass a transportation authorization on a party-line vote? If so, the Republicans will get to choose between a balanced bill that also cuts $20 billion per year from the highway program, or $20 billion in further deficit spending to finance a bill that they will need to pass entirely on their own.

 

The politics that have defined the passage of these laws since 1991 have been best described as “everyone gets what they want.” (And they all collectively undermine all of their priorities to do it! But that’s a conversation for another day!) Without this coalition where everyone gets what they want, it becomes infinitely more difficult to pass a law like this—especially one where Congress is deficit spending or making major structural changes.

A long-term law is not passing in 2026, so go ahead and get ready for extensions and uncertainty. It’s virtually guaranteed.

 

Three principles to guide federal transportation spending

T4A's three principles for transportation funding are Safety over Speed, Fix It First, and Invest in the Rest

It’s time for transportation investments that achieve results for all Americans. For future investments in U.S. infrastructure, Congress should follow three key principles: prioritize safety over speed, fix it first, and invest in the rest.

T4A's three principles for transportation funding are Safety over Speed, Fix It First, and Invest in the Rest
We’ve released our three principles for future federal investments in our nation’s infrastructure. Learn more about them at t4america.org/platform.

Federal transportation policy has very serious problems to solve. Our roads, bridges, transit, sidewalks, bikeways, and rail systems are in disrepair; congestion has increased; pedestrian fatalities and emissions are the highest in decades, and rising; and too many people lack safe, affordable, and convenient access to jobs and essential services.

For too long, Congress has thrown more funding at the problem, hoping that spending more dollars on the same thing will lead to different results. However, all this money has only continued to make our problems worse. As Congress makes decisions about limited taxpayer funds, it’s time that they invest smarter, prioritizing our dollars to create a transportation system that works for the average American.

With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act expiring in 2026, the next surface transportation reauthorization, a significant federal investment in our nation’s infrastructure, will be top of mind for the next Congress. Based on the results of the last reauthorization (and the one before that, and the one before that), it is clear that we need a fundamental change in approach. That’s why we’re calling on Congress to update the decades-old federal transportation program to design for safety over speed, prioritize maintenance, and invest in the full transportation system, including opportunities to walk, bike, and take public transit.

Invest in the rest

For more than half a century, we’ve invested hundreds of billions of dollars into building a sophisticated highway system that attempts to connect everyone to everything everywhere—by car. We’ve completed a highway system that was once the envy of the world, but now that same system is failing to meet today’s needs. Imagine what we could achieve if we applied the same level of funding and energy into investing in more options to get people where they need to go.

Past road projects destroyed walkable communities or eliminated walking as an option. Investments in highways have drastically outpaced transit investments, with roughly 80 percent of federal transportation money going to highways since the 1980s while only 20 percent has gone to public transportation. As a result, most Americans have to travel by car to get where they need to go—whether or not they want to or can afford to—which leads to more traffic, more lanes, and more harmful climate emissions.

It’s time for Congress to invest in the rest of our transportation system, which has been neglected for far too long, and bring the freedom of choice back to everyday Americans trying to get where they need to go as conveniently, safely, and affordably as possible.

It’s Invest in the Rest Week! In our next three posts, we’ll be diving into this principle and why it should be a top priority in federal transportation spending. Check out the first post here for more on this new T4A principle.

Safety over speed

Ask any member of Congress, and they’ll tell you that they believe our roads should be safe for all travelers. Yet federal investments in transportation have made our roads deadlier. In 2022, the number of people hit and killed while walking reached a 40-year high.

This is because our transportation models and policies prioritize the speed of vehicles over the safety of all road users. High-speed car travel makes sense in some environments, like on interstates or limited access highways. However, when fast-moving cars encounter people walking and biking on our local roadways, crashes, injuries, and deaths become far more likely. When it comes to roads like these, we have to choose between vehicle speed and the safety of all road users—we can’t have both.

Fix it first

There is an $830 billion backlog for repairing existing U.S. highways alone. The entire federal program spends about $50 billion per year, so even if we devoted 100 percent of all federal money to maintenance for ten straight years, we’d still be unable to fully address this backlog. This does not even account for the costs of maintaining and preserving the additional roads and bridges that we continue to build.

Our congressional leaders are well aware of this deficit. In fact, when they are determining how many taxpayer dollars to devote to our nation’s infrastructure, the need for maintenance is always top-of-mind. However, when states go to spend those dollars, they almost always prioritize costly highway expansion projects over needed repairs. And despite the clear public desire to see maintenance needs addressed, there is no federal requirement that they spend these funds any other way.

We can’t continue to build more roads and bridges if we can’t take care of the ones that already exist. Our federal funding needs to be focused on achieving a state of good repair.

For decades, Congress has poured money into the same flawed system. We’ve seen the results of that strategy. It’s time to make smarter investments in our transportation system. Starting now, we will continue to engage our congressional leaders to advance these three principles—and in the year ahead, we’ll be calling on you for help.

Setting priorities at Future of Transportation Caucus Roundtable

Representative Chuy Garcia sits in the center of an oval table, surrounded by advocates and legislatures

With federal transportation funding set to be reauthorized in three years, the congressional Future of Transportation Caucus met with advocates to discuss the country’s most pressing funding priorities.

Representative Chuy Garcia sits in the center of an oval table, surrounded by advocates and legislatures
Representative Jesús “Chuy” García speaks at the Future of Transportation Caucus, with Representatives Ayanna Pressley and Mark Takano seated on either side of him.

A crucial conversation about our transportation priorities

With every passing day, reauthorization for federal surface transportation funding grows closer and closer. Our current framework, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), expires in 2026, and it’s critical that the country gets its funding priorities right by then. If our dollars don’t go towards the right initiatives and objectives, spending more money on transportation and infrastructure will only result in the same poor outcomes. With many competing priorities, discussion between policymakers and advocates about the current state—and future of—our national transportation system remains essential.

Last Wednesday, July 12th, the Future of Transportation Caucus, led by Representatives Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), and Mark Takano (CA-39), led a roundtable discussion with advocates on transportation electrification, public transit, active transportation, public health, and road safety.  These leaders met to talk through transportation priorities and find common ground. 

What does our transportation funding need to focus on?

Advocates covered a wide range of issues, including transportation electrification, operations funding for public transit, and road safety. Advocates discussed the need to electrify public transit and medium/heavy-duty vehicles as well as affordable, safe, and equitable charging for electric vehicles (EVs). Regarding operations funding, advocates spoke about expanding and supporting operations in the face of transit fiscal cliffs, increasing service frequency, and exploring solutions to reduce barriers and increase transit ridership. Finally, road safety advocates discussed improvements for bicyclist and pedestrian safety as well as the dangers of poorly thought-out autonomous vehicle (AV) rollouts in cities.

One point in particular proved to be an underlying thread throughout the conversation: a need for the basics—the baseline infrastructure essential for cities—to be focused on people, at the very minimum. Advocates emphasized the importance of good bus systems and facilities, functional sidewalks, and more, recounting how much of a difference that investing in these essentials made in their communities and socioeconomic outcomes.

Looking ahead to the 2026 reauthorization

It’s essential that Congress gets the right transportation funding priorities in line before the next reauthorization cycle rolls around in 2026. With a massive rise in pedestrian fatalities, a focus on expansion that leaves , and a climate crisis that has only begun, America can’t afford to continue with more of the same. Instead, we need to rethink what our current funding dollars are going towards. T4A’s three key principles for transportation infrastructure investment—prioritize maintenance, design for safety over speed, and connect people to jobs and services—can serve as a guiding framework for a plan that brings the country towards safe, convenient, affordable transportation for all.

We need to move past the outdated “80/20” highway/transit funding split and resist getting distracted by fantasies that promote car dependence like smart cities dominated by AVs. Rather, our federal funding needs to prioritize the maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure, advance safer streetscapes centered on people first, and prioritize access to goods and services, including increasing operations funding for public transit so agencies can expand the crucial services that people rely on. 

At the end of the day, we need to commit to investing in our vision of an accessible and equitable transportation system that strengthens communities—one that focuses on moving people, not just vehicles.

Lemonade from lemons: Improvements worth celebrating within flawed infrastructure bill

Pier 1 embarcadero

Money from the finalized $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal is already flowing out to states and metro areas who are plugging it right into projects both already underway and on the horizon. After covering six things the administration should do immediately to maximize this mammoth infusion of unexpected cash, here’s a longer look at some of the law’s incremental or notable successes, with the aim of equipping the administration and advocates alike to steer this money toward the best possible outcomes.

promo graphic for a guide to the IIJA

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

Passenger rail

Amtrak train pulling into a station
Image from Wikimedia Commons

If you’re looking for good news in the infrastructure bill, passenger rail probably represents the most encouraging and exciting inclusion in the bill. After being woefully neglected over the past 40 years, passenger rail is one of the biggest winners, receiving a historic investment that totals just north of $100 billion over five years. (All of which is thanks to impressive bipartisan work by the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this summer—read our much more detailed take on all the passenger rail provisions here.) 

This will provide significant opportunities to reshape American passenger rail in a transformative way. With the record investment, there is ample opportunity to improve safety and state of repair for existing rail infrastructure, make existing service more reliable, and support new, expanded passenger rail service. Communities near rail and lacking in intercity mobility options could connect their community with affordable intercity mobility and integrate passenger rail service with first- and last-mile community connections. 

But these improvements are not going to happen automatically nor will they happen easily. The Biden administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak and others will have to be very aggressive in ushering this money out the door and supporting state and local plans for those improvements to see the projects that have been promised or mentioned in breathless news coverage come to pass. If the administration fails on this count, this could turn out just like the 2009 Recovery Act, where money sat idle or was even declined by governors. On top of that, freight railroads will be opposed to the improvements in some places, just like they’ve fought or negotiated in bad faith against the publicly and politically popular plan to restore passenger rail along the Gulf Coast.

Additionally, Amtrak’s mission and governing structure have been adjusted to bring a greater focus on expanding and improving the national network. For the majority of Amtrak’s existence, the mission of passenger rail service was to justify investments with performance and operate to make a profit, no matter the cost to user experience, and no matter that nearly every other transportation mode fails to turn a profit. This hampered innovation and opportunity to build and retain rail ridership. Small but significant changes in the infrastructure bill reorient Amtrak’s mission towards the value of the customer and the importance of connecting those customers across urban and rural communities. 

While the bill lays out goals for an Amtrak Board of Directors that better represents a diversity of perspectives and communities across the Amtrak system, as we noted last week, those slots need to be filled immediately if the administration is serious about improving passenger rail service and taking advantage of the funding and this historic opportunity.

By reinvigorating passenger rail infrastructure and user experience, this bill could lay the groundwork for other future advancements, including high-speed rail.

Connecting people to jobs and destinations

Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition in progress in Washington
Image from WSDOT via Flickr

As we’ve noted, the bill pours the lion’s share of the funds into the same old highway programs with few substantial changes. And states are already responding to their hard-won flexibility and historic amounts of cash by supercharging previously planned or ill-conceived projects. But there are some notable ways the bill recalibrates the highway program for the long run. 

First, a portion of every state’s funding will go to new programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions, improving transportation system resiliency, and congestion relief, in addition to existing money devoted to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) dollars. States and metro areas must also now dedicate a portion of their planning money towards Complete Streets planning and implementation. (2.5 percent of each state’s State Planning Research dollars and 2.5 percent of their metropolitan planning dollars.) This money will be dwarfed by the hundreds of billions going into streets and roads being designed the same old way, but this is an incremental step toward elevating active transportation and livable streets within the transportation program. 

Within the largest pot of funding that states and metro areas control (the Surface Transportation Block Grant program), the amount set aside for smaller but vital transportation projects like bikeways, new sidewalks, safe routes to school, and micromobility was increased from 1.5 percent up to 10 percent. This bill also lets local municipalities control more of this funding directly by increasing the share of that 10 percent that they directly control from 50 up to 59 percent

Lastly, while the $1 billion Reconnecting Communities program will be overpowered by hundreds of billions in highway funds perpetuating the very problem this program aims to solve, its inclusion is an important step toward repairing the damage of past highway projects and is worth celebrating. For the first time, Congress is acknowledging the racist and damaging history of highway building, laying the groundwork for future efforts and also providing a way for advocates to spotlight how some of the worst excesses of the past are still going on today in many urban areas. But devoting any federal dollars to tearing down divisive infrastructure plus the means to stitch communities together again is a vital step on the path toward reorienting the highway program to serving people and communities with the transportation system. 

Transit

A Philadelphia bus drives through a snowy intersection
Image from BruceEmmerling via Pixabay

Most of the headlines and coverage about transit focused on the fact that it will receive historic levels of investment over the next five years from the infrastructure deal. That’s certainly good news, but that also glosses over some important shortcomings. 

First off, unlike the Senate Commerce Committee did with passenger rail, the Senate Banking Committee never actually drafted a transit title to incorporate into the infrastructure bill. This preserved the transit policy status quo in amber for the next five years. Secondly, while the House’s superior INVEST Act proposal focused on trying to maximize transit service, frequency, and access, this bill failed to fix the current priority of keeping costs down no matter the effects on people when it comes to service, ridership, and access to transit. T4America is still looking to Congress to redress that wrong within the still-in-progress budget reconciliation bill (the Build Back Better Act), ensuring that public transportation, a fundamental backbone in our communities and a lifeline towards affordable housing opportunities, is properly funded.

Thirdly, while the $39 billion is a historic amount for transit and many excellent projects will be built because of it, this amount should have been higher. $10 billion was cut from the original infrastructure deal’s framework agreement with the White House back in June. 

While we weren’t anticipating the Senate increasing the share for transit, the infrastructure bill did maintain the historic practice of devoting at least 20 percent towards public transportation and did not decrease it. On a positive note, the bill emphasized improving the nation’s transit state of good repair, plus improving transit accessibility via a grant program to retrofit transit stations for mobility and accessibility.

Environmental stewardship and climate adaptation

A parking space painted green with a symbol indicating the space is dedicated for EVs
Image from Noya Fields via Flickr

Although the infrastructure bill continues to heavily fund conventional highway and road expansions, digging us into an ever deeper hole of traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, it is also the federal government’s biggest investment yet in climate adaptation and protection and recognizes the severity of the impacts of climate change which are already being experienced across America.

The new PROTECT program dedicates $7.3 billion (~2.9 percent of each state’s share of all highway funds) and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to shore up and improve the resilience of the transportation network, including highways, public transportation, rail, ports, and natural barrier infrastructure. Knowing where climate- and weather-related events are likely to be worse is a vital first step, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will invest $492 million in flood mapping and water modeling which could inform future infrastructure planning and investment.

The existing Alternative Fuels program is expanded and recalibrated to focus more, though not exclusively, on zero-emission vehicles and related infrastructure. A new Carbon Reduction program will dedicate ~2.5 percent of each state’s share of highway funds (~$6.4 billion total) to support active transportation, public transit, congestion pricing, and other strategies to reduce carbon emissions. (Although the core highway program will continue making emissions worse.)

All of this represents a positive first step in federal recognition of the severity of the impacts of climate change, but it is still not scaled to the level of risk that we face, though we applaud Congress for taking a bipartisan step on climate change and we hope to see more.

Safety

Cyclists on the Black Lives Matter Plaza in DC
Photo by Ted Eyton via Creative Commons

When it comes to safety, a new federal safety program, even a large one, is not what we need. The entire $300+ billion transportation program should be a safety program, with safety for all users as the highest and ultimate consideration in every single case on every single project. A transportation system that cannot safely move people from A to B should be viewed as a failure, regardless of whatever other benefits it brings.

With that backdrop in mind, there are key safety provisions that ensure a fairer shake for vulnerable road users. If injuries to and deaths of people walking, biking or using assistive devices exceed 15 percent of a state’s total traffic injuries and fatalities, then that state must dedicate at least 15 percent of their Highway Safety Improvement Program dollars towards proven strategies to make those people safer and lower that share. This helps put some teeth into highway safety dollars to target investments where they are critically needed, versus typical lip-service and disingenuous investments sold as safety projects that are really about increasing capacity, speed, or other goals.

The new Safe Streets and Roads for All program is a competitive grant program allowing applicants to seek funding to better plan and implement Vision Zero strategies in their communities and regions. Once deemed a niche concept, the Vision Zero safety framework has gained some prominence. For it to go mainstream, it will need to be fundamental to all highway spending.

Looking ahead

Though this bill leaves much to be desired, there are still some notable changes that will start to shape the direction of state, regional, and local transportation programs. The key will be how they are used. In the coming weeks, T4America will highlight key opportunities to better administer, deliver, and shape the US transportation program for generations to come. 

From policy to action: Six things USDOT should do yesterday to maximize the potential of the infrastructure deal

entrance to the USDOT headquarters

Because of the shortcomings in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)’s actual policy, an enormous amount of pressure now rests on USDOT and Secretary Buttigieg to deliver on the administration’s promises. But the good news is that there are scores of actions that USDOT can take to deliver positive outcomes for equity, climate, safety, state of repair, and enhancing community connections.

entrance to the USDOT headquarters
Image by U.S. Department of Transportation
promo graphic for a guide to the IIJA

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

After 200+ weeks of #InfrastructureWeek, Congress was sorely overdue to take action on surface transportation reauthorization since the FAST Act was fast expiring in 2021. The House took up the challenge by crafting and passing the bold five-year INVEST Act in July, which would have moved the needle in major ways. But the Senate failed to produce the same kind of transformative bill, instead playing the politics of “compromise” and “bipartisanship” in what would become the infrastructure deal as we know it (the IIJA). 

With the conclusion of #InfrastructureWeek on Capitol Hill and Congress pivoting to other issues of national interest, the media spotlight on the US transportation program will quickly dim.  

This is unfortunate, because in many ways, the real work on infrastructure is just beginning—especially for USDOT and the administration. Advocates and the media are failing to grasp that the first year of transportation funding from the IIJA is already flowing out to states and metro areas, supercharging project lists that were decided upon years ago in some cases. And states have made it clear that they plan to maximize the use of the flexibility that they have won from Congress to spend this money how they deem it in their interest.

Using this historic infusion of infrastructure funding to make meaningful progress towards equity, climate change, and fostering community economic opportunities is going to be an uphill battle, but that is what the Biden administration has promised. They certainly have the talent and the expertise to make it happen, but Secretary Buttigieg will need to exercise his authority and the flexibility of US transportation policy to realize these outcomes. 

Over the next few weeks, we will unpack the details on a range of actions that could be taken administratively to further our three principles and national priorities of economic development, equity, and climate change mitigation. For now, here are six immediate and important actions that would make a big difference:

1. A new commitment to passenger rail needs equally committed leaders.

As the country begins a heavy investment in intercity passenger rail and Amtrak, its Board of Directors is made up of members whose terms have expired (other than Transportation Secretary Buttigieg and Amtrak CEO Flynn). It is time for the President to nominate a new and current Board to lead Amtrak through this unprecedented opportunity to create a world class passenger rail system and push Amtrak to deliver on a new customer driven service delivery mission.

2. Find other ways to prioritize safety.

In late October, Secretary Buttigieg cited the country’s unacceptable traffic death “crisis”:

We cannot and should not accept these fatalities as simply a part of everyday life in America. No one will accomplish this alone. It will take all levels of government, industries, advocates, engineers and communities across the country working together toward the day when family members no longer have to say good-bye to loved ones because of a traffic crash.

—Secretary Buttigieg

With a call to action on safety, the USDOT should bring more attention to the impact of roadway design on safety, including the removal of references to the disproven 40-year old study that claimed 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error and discouraging grantees and the press from using the term ‘accident’ as opposed to ‘crash.’ Furthermore, the USDOT can look to prioritize safety investments across all funding streams (more on that next).

3. Bake important priorities into the many competitive grant programs.

Use competitive grant programs to reward project sponsors that have made a dedicated commitment to safety, state of repair, climate, and equity and to focus the sponsors that have not on addressing those issues. For example, those states who set regressive safety targets could be restricted from getting funding for safety-oriented projects.

4. Require clearer data for the public on transportation emissions.

Track climate emissions per capita from transportation by state and publish results and trends online.

5. Consider the poor track record of transportation models.

Require major NEPA (environmental review) documents to include a report on the past accuracy of any transportation demand modeling used, as well as documenting the expected induced demand from projects.

6. Streamline the arduous process of applying for competitive grants.

The IIJA also establishes several new competitive grant programs. To ensure they are accessible to communities of all sizes and capacity, USDOT should create an easier, more automated process for receiving applications and benefit-cost analyses for all competitive grant programs.

How this historic bill gets implemented and how the hundreds of billions in new transportation spending is spent will determine how far we are able to move the needle on key goals. We will continue to unpack more ways that the administration, states, metros, and advocates can engage in the implementation of the IIJA to produce a transportation system that is safer, cleaner, and more effective at connecting people to jobs and opportunity.

The infrastructure bill is finished—what you need to know

Infrastructure will be built, but what kind?

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill is notable both for including Congress’ most significant effort to address climate change, and its general failure to make fundamental changes to a transportation program that’s responsible for massive increases in transportation emissions, worsening state of repair, unequal access to jobs, and increasing numbers of people killed on our roadways.

promo graphic for a guide to the IIJA

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

First, you can read our short statement about the deal’s passage (signed by President Biden on Monday, November 15!) In a sea of media coverage and complicated explainers, we wanted to drill into just a few basic things you should know and remember about this new bill:

1) Transportation policy and funding is now wrapped up until 2026

Did you catch this one?

The way this deal was repeatedly referred to in the media as a standalone infrastructure bill created a lot of confusion, so it’s worth being clear on this count: Congress just wrapped up the every-five-years process of transportation reauthorization because the Senate’s five-year transportation policy proposals passed earlier this summer were the foundation of this larger infrastructure deal. There’s a lot of additional money that will go into various forms of infrastructure, but of the $645 billion total for transportation, about $300 billion is for a new five-year reauthorization to replace the expiring FAST Act. The additional ~$345 billion consists of annual appropriations of various kinds which are not guaranteed or sourced from gas taxes via the highway trust fund (see #4 below for more on that.)

So other than the annual appropriations process where Congress decides funding levels for some discretionary programs like the transit capital construction program or BUILD grants, funding and policy decisions are now finished for five years, and the focus now moves to implementation, i.e., how this money gets spent and where. 

2) So what was in the five-year reauthorization included in the deal?

We took a long look at the good, the bad, and the ugly when the deal passed the full Senate back in August, and almost nothing has changed since:

[It] includes a lot of new spending, but that spending isn’t directed toward outcomes, much less the priorities that the President articulated in The American Jobs Plan. Though this bill mentions safety, climate, and equity often, as it stands, it will fail to produce meaningful shifts. “The White House will soon discover that they’ve dealt themselves a challenging hand in their long-term effort to address climate change and persistent inequities, while kicking the can down a crumbling road that’s likely to stay that way,” T4America director Beth Osborne said in our full statement after Tuesday’s final vote.

There is some good news, though. When it comes to the next five years of policy and spending, passenger rail was the biggest winner, making the expansion of reliable, frequent rail service to more Americans a cornerstone of the deal’s approach. The rail portion ​​will “1) expand, increase, and improve service, 2) focus on the entire national network (rather than just the northeast corridor), 3) encourage more local, ground-up coalitions of local-state partnerships for improving or adding new service, and 4) make it easier to finance projects and expand that authority to transit-oriented development projects.” We explained these provisions in-depth in this post.

3) More money for transit but with policy crafted in 2015 (and before!)

The transit portion of reauthorization was never produced by the Senate Banking Committee, which means that this deal basically carried forward the status quo approach to transit policy from the now-replaced FAST Act, but with a historic amount of transit funding (along with a historic amount of highway funding.) The House’s discarded five-year INVEST Act proposal contained some vital improvements to transit policy, but it was ignored by the Senate when assembling the larger infrastructure deal.

We’ll have much more about the modest changes to the transit program in a later post—including what’s next.

4) What else was included in the non-reauthorization portions of the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag?

This great chart from the National Association of Counties shows where the additional transportation money— outside of the ~$300 billion, five-year authorization—is going:

For more on the non-transportation inclusions in the bill, you can read this post from Smart Growth America with a broader look at the package and what was included on climate resilience, broadband, and other areas. 

5) Time to hold the administration and Congress accountable for accomplishing their ambitious promises

The Biden administration has made significant promises to taxpayers about what they are going to accomplish with this historic investment when it comes to repair, climate change, safety, equity, and an equitable economic recovery from the past year and a half. They’ve assembled a tremendous team of superstar smart people at USDOT to make it happen. They’ve shown their willingness to use their administrative authority to at least temporarily halt damaging highway projects. They’ve created a litany of helpful new competitive grant programs they now need to write the rules for awarding. 

But watching the president sign the bill isn’t just a celebration, it’s a cue for them to get to work with some major urgency: the first year of this money is flowing out the door already, so states are already pouring this money into projects already underway. 

It will require a herculean effort from them to make sure this bill accomplishes what they believe it will. As we said when the deal was first approved by Congress on November 5, “The administration is confident they can make substantial progress on all of these goals despite those deficiencies. Most states are promising to use the flexibility they fought for to make marked improvements across these priorities. To make that happen, both the administration and the states will need to make major changes to how they approach transportation, but we know they can do it.” 

Because they missed the chance to codify a wholly different approach to transportation into law, they only have the option of making changes that are administrative or imposed by the executive branch—changes which can all be undone by a future administration.

Now is the time for us, the media, advocates and local leaders of all stripes to hold them accountable for what they have promised to accomplish with this historically massive infrastructure bill.