Transportation for America, Author at Transportation For America

About Transportation for America

For general inquiries about the campaign, email info [at] t4america [dot] org.

Transportation for America statement on reports of Amtrak restructuring

Recent reports indicate that the U.S. Department of Transportation may direct Amtrak to undertake a significant organizational restructuring. Transportation for America offers the following statement.

Transportation for America has spent decades pushing for the reforms needed to deliver the reliable, affordable, and connected service Americans deserve. But the current structure is not delivering on those outcomes.

For that reason, we support reimagining how we organize passenger rail in this country, and any reform must preserve and strengthen the national network and its funding, improve operational transparency, and modernize equipment and maintenance practices.

We’re withholding judgment until the Administration releases its final restructuring proposal. The Federal Railroad Administration has engaged us in discussions, and we have consistently raised our principles. Advocates should continue pressing for the principles that will make American passenger rail truly world-class, but let’s take a breath and let the process play out before assuming the worst.

If the proposal strengthens the national network and aligns with our principles, we will support it. If it falls short, we will say so. We remain committed to working with the FRA, Congress, Amtrak, and other stakeholders to ensure passenger rail in the United States is positioned to succeed.

Watch the World-Class American Transit webinar recording

On February 11, we hosted a webinar on Transportation for America’s latest report, World-Class American Transit

Led by report author Corrigan Salerno, the webinar broke down what it would take to deliver frequent, reliable transit across the U.S. The report examines 452 urbanized areas with populations over 50,000 and finds that a $4.6 trillion investment over 20 years would be required to approach the level of service provided by global peers.

Watch the webinar to see Corrigan walk through the findings and discuss what they mean for communities and decision makers.

What stood out to our team at TCamp 2026

Nearly 20 staff from Transportation for America and Smart Growth America attended TransportationCamp DC. While it’s hard to understand just how special TCamp is unless you’ve been there, some of these reflections from staff can help paint the picture.

Special thanks to our underwriting sponsor, Arnold Ventures, and our local sponsors, Coalition for Smarter Growth and Greater Greater Washington, for making the day possible.

For our full recap of TransportationCamp DC, read this blog.

On TCamp being the most optimistic, forward-looking transportation gathering:

“Despite the headwinds that transit and multimodal transportation have faced this past year, attendees did not hesitate to bring forward countless new and innovative ideas for sessions about how to make transportation work better in the future.” – Corrigan Salerno, Policy Manager, Transportation for America

“This was my second TransportationCamp. Our world has changed significantly since the first one I attended in 2024, but where you might expect folks to be discouraged by the many barriers to creating equitable and healthy communities, the opposite was felt. Everyone at TCamp this year seemed not discouraged by the obstacles we’re facing, but instead brought even more energy and dedication. Anyone who attended TransportationCamp left feeling empowered to go do the important work of creating systems that work for everyone.” – Coutney Cole, Program Associate, Thriving Communities, Smart Growth America

“This was my first time at TransportationCamp. The thing that surprised me most was the fun and joy! Despite the rain, early start time, and heavy topics, people seemed genuinely happy and excited to be together.” – Dustin Robertson, Program Manager, Thriving Communities, Smart Growth America

“This was my first TCamp, and you really have to be there to understand and appreciate the idea of an “unconference”. Seeing so many transit enthusiasts and advocates come together on Saturday to pitch their sessions and enthusiastically discuss and teach feels so communal. I loved how creative each individual period and workshops were, it gives me hope and keeps the momentum going on transit advocacy, which always feels like an uphill battle.” – Elisa Ramirez, Policy & Outreach Associate, Transportation for America

On TCamp bringing people together, and how new voices helped set the tone:

“My favorite session at TCamp was led by two high school students who reviewed what makes transit work well, how it is working in the Washington, DC area, and how we could improve it. What impressed me was how two young people, untrained in transportation and urban planning, were able to discuss what makes transit work and do so in a way more connected to the outcomes we seek than professionals do. They also pushed the rest of the attendees, most of whom were transportation professionals, to think bigger.” – Beth Osborne, President and CEO, Smart Growth America

“There’s always been a feeling at TCamp that it’s predominantly full of “regulars,” a tight crew of people who know what TCamp is and attend almost every year. And while that may have been the case in years past, one of my favorite things about this year’s camp was just how many first-timers we had. In the morning, while going through instructions for the day, I asked everyone in the auditorium to raise their hands if this was their first TCamp. And it felt like at least 60 percent of the room raised their hands! That not only shocked me, but I found it very encouraging, because bringing in new people and new voices is precisely at the heart of what TCamp is all about.” – Steve Davis, Interim Director, Transportation for America

“The best thing about Transportation Camp DC is the spontaneity and sense of fun that all the attendees bring with them. We had what seemed to be a record number of new attendees, and with it, new ideas for sessions. Despite the headwinds that transit and multimodal transportation have faced this year, attendees did not hesitate to bring forward countless new and innovative ideas for sessions about how to make transportation work better in the future. Leading a session at TCamp is a great opportunity to share your thoughts, work, gripes, and creativity in a fun, low-stakes environment with others passionate about better transportation.” – Corrigan Salerno, Policy Manager, Transportation for America

On some standout sessions at TCamp:

“My favorite session of TransportationCamp was a session on jargon. As an attendee before I got my job at T4America, I remember being overwhelmed by the intense use of acronyms by attendees. Now that I’m on the other side of things, it was great to have a reminder that avoiding jargon is not dumbing things down…it’s communicating clearly. The session consisted of people explaining their jobs. The host honked a clown horn every time a contestant used an acronym or an industry-specific term without explanation. As the session went on, people got better at explaining the specifics of their jobs without falling back on their usual speech patterns. I would really enjoy it if most transportation professionals had to do something like this every few months.” – Jaibin Mathew, Policy Associate, Transportation for America

“helped lead a debate about this important question: Is the concept of Complete Streets still useful, or has it run its course? It was a great conversation among a diverse group of transportation professionals, fans, and nerds from across the country. The conversation was serious (based on years of experience and data), fun (the word “sexy” was used at least 4 times), and inspirational (as we thought together about what the future of transportation can and should look like).” – Dustin Robertson, Program Manager, Thriving Communities, Smart Growth America

“I am partial to the workshop that Raveena John (SGA Senior Program Associate, Thriving Communities) and I hosted. We provided maps of streets in Tennessee, Texas, and Florida, and supplied groups with markers and cut-outs of bus stops, benches, bushes, and parks. Groups would then design green and complete streets, and we received so much positive feedback! “I feel like a kid again” was my favorite comment. It is awesome to get creative juices flowing and to imagine how we can improve our streets simply by a few design choices.” – Elisa Ramirez, Policy & Outreach Associate, Transportation for America

Inside TransportationCamp DC 2026

TransportationCamp DC was back and better than ever. On a rainy January Saturday, more than 400 transportation professionals, advocates, and first-time attendees proposed and led more than 50 original sessions, shared big ideas, made new connections, and challenged one another to think differently about the future of transportation. The day demonstrated why TransportationCamp is so vital—and why we were so glad to be able to bring it back.

On a rainy Saturday in Washington, DC, more than 400 transportation professionals and advocates gathered at Catholic University’s Pryz Student Center for TransportationCamp DC 2026. Despite the weather, attendees showed up with energy to break through any bad-weather blues. TransportationCamp DC once again proved that when people are given space to share ideas, challenge the status quo, and learn from one another, momentum for exciting new ideas will follow. Before we dig into the excellent content shared at TCamp, we want to thank our underwriting sponsor, Arnold Ventures, and our local sponsors, Coalition for Smarter Growth and Greater Greater Washington, for making the day possible.

Jarrett Walker kicked off TransportationCamp DC 2026 with an incredible keynote that set the day’s focus with a clear call to design transit around people and outcomes, not just boxes to check. Above and beyond Jarrett’s presentation, the last question he answered about the misconception of there only being “choice” and “captive” transit riders helped capture the sentiment of his speech. Jarrett pushed back on the question’s framing because, as he said, when planning transit delivery, everyone should be considered a choice rider. If transit does not meet people’s needs, they will find another way to get where they need to go. He argued that we should treat every rider as though they had the choices they do and give them a better reason to choose transit.

For the Transportation for America team, the best part of the day was the palpable sense of joy and passion that filled the Pryz. There’s always been a feeling at TCamp that it’s predominantly full of “regulars,” a tight crew of people who know what TCamp is and attend almost every year. While that may have been the case in years past, this year’s camp was loaded with first-timers. In the morning, while going through instructions for the day, Steve Davis, Interim Director of T4America, asked everyone in the auditorium to raise their hands if this was their first TCamp. It felt like at least 60 percent of the room raised their hands! While that was an astounding response, it was also encouraging, because bringing in new people and new voices is precisely at the heart of what TCamp is all about.

On top of that, TCamp DC 2026 saw the highest number of session proposals we have ever received, with more than 70 individuals and groups submitting ideas. From the pool of submissions, attendees voted, and the T4America team identified the top 50 sessions to put on the “Big Board.” Topics ranged widely, from jargon and communications to Complete Streets and roadway safety, to youth perspectives on transit, green street design, and the future of service and funding.

And for Beth Osborne, our President and CEO, one of the most memorable sessions came from some of the youngest voices in the room. Two high school students led a standout session that included a presentation on what makes transit work, how it is performing in the DC region, and where it falls short. Their energy and excitement to present was infectious, but it was the way that they focused on real-world outcomes that pushed a room full of seasoned advocates and practitioners to consider what success actually looks like for all riders, and how we talk about it.

Understanding your audience and communicating with them clearly were recurring themes throughout the day. Multiple sessions focused on the way transportation professionals talk about their work, and how jargon and acronyms can unintentionally shut people out. In one session attended by a T4A team member, participants were literally called out with a clown horn every time they used a wonky phrase or acronym. The exercise was fun and playful, but the message of the session was clear: it’s easy to get used to speaking in wonky terms or acronyms, but to ensure our ideas are easily understood by everyone who might join the fight for better transportation, we need to communicate clearly.

Another interactive workshop led by T4America team members invited small groups of participants to redesign actual streets in Tennessee, Texas, and Florida using maps, markers, and cutouts of bus stops, benches, greenery, and public space. After the session, our team heard from several participants who said the activity made them feel like a kid again. That’s an important reminder that approaching transportation in fun, creative, and collaborative ways can help us identify new solutions that can help us achieve better outcomes.

Throughout the attendee-led sessions, impromptu hallway conversations, and the event reception at City-State Public House, it was clear that people were genuinely glad to be back with other transportation nerds at TransportationCamp. After a pause in 2025, we heard from so many attendees how meaningful it was to be back to reconnect in person and pick up on sharing and generating new ideas that push transportation to work better for everyone. By the end of the day, it was clear that, after 50 attendee-led sessions, the attendees—including T4America staff—went home energized for the year ahead and were better equipped to take these big ideas back to their communities.

New report: World-Class American Transit

New analysis shows U.S. transit falls far short of global peers and what it would take to close the gap.

Achieving world-class service would require nearly tripling the national transit fleet

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 14, 2026 — Transportation for America today released a new report, World-Class American Transit, which, for the first time, details the level of investment needed to create world-class transit service in each of the 452 U.S. urbanized areas with populations over 50,000. These communities are home to more than 230 million people, representing nearly 65 percent of the U.S. population.

The analysis finds that a $4.6 trillion investment across all levels of government over 20 years ($230 billion per year) would be required to build, operate, and maintain a transit network that approaches the level of service within a cohort of 17 global cities with world-class transit systems. While that represents a significant increase in current spending, it still falls short of the $6.3 trillion the U.S. is expected to spend on highways over the same period.

“Americans deserve top-quality transit,” said Beth Osborne, President and CEO of Smart Growth America. “Right now, most of the country has infrequent, unreliable transit service that doesn’t go to all the places people need to go. Not even New York City reaches the level of the places we studied. But if we triple our investment in transit, every single city over 50,000 people—over 450 communities—can have top-notch transit service connecting them to necessities and opportunity. It just requires a sustained commitment to frequent, reliable transit service, and a willingness to stop governing as if Americans should settle for less.”

To establish a benchmark for world-class service, we evaluated a diverse global set of 17 cities and found that each urban area’s transit fleet scaled with population, averaging over 130 transit vehicles in service per 100,000 residents. In comparison, the analysis finds that on average, American cities operate just 27 transit vehicles per 100,000 residents, offering just a fifth of the service provided by our peers.

To approach world-class transit service over the next 20 years, the report finds the United States would need to:

Nearly triple the number of transit vehicles in service, investing $180 billion to add roughly 115,000 buses and rail vehicles.
Invest more than $859 billion to build more than 7,500 miles of dedicated transit right-of-way, allowing service to operate reliably and independently of traffic.
Running the new expanded vehicle fleet at reliable and frequent levels would require doubling the annual investment in transit operations to $170 billion by 2045.
To eliminate the existing transit repair backlog and to keep pace with the operation of new services, an additional $403 billion would be required to maintain the new assets acquired in this scenario.

Federal policy has consistently prioritized highways, with transit receiving less than one-third of federal transportation spending since 1956. Since the 1980s, federal transportation funding has followed a roughly 80/20 split: 80 percent for highways, and only 20 percent for transit.

“Americans should be able to rely on transit that gets them where they need to go, when they need to be there,” said Steve Davis, Interim Director of Transportation for America. “Good transit saves families money and provides vital access to jobs, housing, and opportunity. We also need dramatic changes in how we plan, build, and operate transit, but this report starts to show the level of commitment required to finally deliver the kind of transit Americans deserve.”

While the report focuses on the investment required to reach a new world-class transit benchmark, the analysis finds that investing in world-class transit would pay for itself in household savings. By modestly reducing the need for car ownership, Americans could save more than $5.4 trillion over 20 years, even without accounting for broader economic, environmental, and public health benefits.

This report establishes a clear benchmark for world-class transit and provides a number to get there, giving advocates and decision-makers a concrete target at both the national and local levels. It does not prescribe a specific funding source. Instead, it sets a credible baseline for the scale of investment needed as lawmakers discuss the next federal surface transportation and question the future of the Mass Transit Account.

Future analysis will build on this foundation by identifying funding options and advancing the policy reforms needed to ensure Americans have transit that is not just better, but truly world-class.

###

T4America statement on USDOT proposal to eliminate federal transit funding

Washington, D.C. (November 17) — In response to reports from Politico that the Trump administration is proposing to eliminate federal transit funding and the flexibility states have to determine how to spend their own formula dollars, Steve Davis, Director of Transportation for America, offered this statement:

“This short-sighted proposal will annihilate state and local transportation budgets, strand millions of Americans who depend on transit every day in red and blue states alike, produce chaos and increase congestion, seize control from states, and utterly fail to actually solve our most pressing long-term transportation funding issues. The highway formula program alone spends $20 billion more than what the gas tax brings in every year—stealing transit funds won’t change that. Eliminating federal transit funding would cut the transportation options millions depend on and leave families paying even more just to get to work, school, or anywhere else they need to be. This unserious idea should be dead on arrival in Congress, as was a similar proposal in 2012 that was booed out of the room.

The FHWA proposal says that “highway funds should be spent on highway projects,” but gas tax dollars haven’t been exclusively “highway” funds since 1982, when the federal gas tax was raised from 4 to 9 cents and 20 percent of all gas tax funds were permanently devoted to transit. This historic practice—enshrined in a bipartisan deal approved by President Ronald Reagan—has continued for 43 years with broad support in Congress and amongst stakeholders, including the association representing state departments of transportation (AASHTO).

So who would bear the burden of this change? Everyday Americans of nearly every stripe, in communities of all sizes. Hospital workers who use transit to get to their jobs so they can care for us. Millions of rural and urban households without any access to a car. Millions who depend on transit to get them somewhere vital, in cities and towns small and large. Millions of older Americans who can no longer drive. And millions of others who benefit from the trips and cars that transit removes from the road. This proposal would take away travel options from everyday Americans, erode the significant local and national economic benefits of transit, and instead reward those who want to build more highways, no matter the cost.

Any state or country that wants to compete in the modern world is investing in transit. Even highway-happy Texas provides nearly 230 million transit trips for riders each year and is planning for more urban and rural transit as well as intercity connections. We should be building out transit in this country with the same gusto we built the highway system.

A silver lining is that this kind of insanity from the administration should put a nail in the coffin of the “business-as-usual” bipartisan approach to reauthorization. The federal transportation program has produced terrible results for decades, with unsafe, crumbling roads and unrelenting congestion, all while taking more than $275 billion from taxpayers to do it because Congress keeps spending more than the gas tax brings in. The trust fund is broken and beyond repair, and it’s time to stop propping up a program that’s failing both to pay for itself and deliver on its promises. This proposal piles insult on injury as the administration continues to systematically pull funding from local transportation priorities for things like transit and the safety of people walking and biking.

No one in Congress should be willing to negotiate with partners sitting on their hands as the administration takes a blowtorch to their constitutional power of the purse and to the last bipartisan authorization passed in 2021. We’re encouraged to hear Rep. Rick Larsen, the minority leader on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, call this proposal “harebrained.” But members like Rep. Larsen—who have made it clear that their top priority is passing a largely status quo bipartisan bill—should now be asking themselves: Why spend political capital to help negotiate and pass a bill where my priorities are either going to be targeted today, or eliminated tomorrow?”

###

USDOT initiated another arbitrary freeze sowing chaos for chaos’s sake: Congress should take note

The Trump administration’s delay of the nation’s largest public transit and intercity passenger rail project underscores what Congress should already know: the Trump administration is a bad-faith partner and a clear threat to the legislative process.

Earlier this week, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought via X (formerly known as Twitter) and the United States Department of Transportation, announced the Trump administration has frozen approximately $18 billion in USDOT funding for the nation’s largest transit and passenger rail projects: the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)’s Second Avenue Subway and the Hudson Tunnel Project (a component of the Gateway Program), justifying the hold “to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.”

“The same people who say roads can’t be racist seem to think a tunnel will enact DEI. Everyone knows this project is extremely important to the Northeast Corridor, and the Northeast Corridor makes up 20 percent of U.S. GDP. We need this tunnel, and we have been waiting for it for decades. Get it done and stop making excuses.”
Beth Osborne, President and CEO of Smart Growth America

No matter the justifications, this is just another example of what the administration has been doing since taking office: acting out of retribution, illegally rescinding funds, and canceling congressionally authorized spending. This is nothing new, merely the latest and largest in a series of politicized, confidence-destroying attacks on transportation and bipartisan governance that should make any member of Congress think twice before entrusting authority to this administration in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.

In the words of Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Shelley Moore Capito, we need to “avoid top-down mandates from Washington, D.C.” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves would agree, in his own words, “we need to continue to empower states and limit federal intrusion,” but will not check an administration intent on governing by vendetta. Democrats are unable to stop the creep of administrative overreach by doing anything other than shutting down the government, and the country’s transportation infrastructure continues to both crumble and kill people while Congress pursues a business-as-usual approach to surface transportation reauthorization.

The transportation system is broken, but negotiations over the surface transportation reauthorization bill don’t align with that reality—the administration will not faithfully implement any bill that Congress passes in a bipartisan fashion. Any agreement on reauthorization will not matter because it will be rendered ineffective the moment it’s signed by the President, who will do everything in his administration’s power to undermine and delay whatever he doesn’t agree with. This is the lesson of the Second Avenue Subway and the Hudson Tunnel Project delay, and the cancellation and impoundment of dozens of other projects last month. If Congress doesn’t learn that lesson now, taxpayers will be left with a transportation system that continues to fail to meet Americans’ needs.

“The Gateway project will be built one day. It will just be much more expensive than it would be if we got moving today. That is, if there is not a bigger emergency caused by a problem that closes the existing tunnel before we can get the Gateway project built.”
Beth Osborne, President and CEO of Smart Growth America

What got us here? Vengeance as governing

Transportation for America has been tracking the administration’s actions for months. Time and again, they have proven that, from the smallest bike lane to the most significant passenger rail infrastructure project in America, USDOT cannot be trusted to execute the programs authorized by Congress as they were intended to be carried out.

This administration has proven they are not a faithful steward of federal funds by exercising a normal or near-normal scope of administrative interpretation—they are malignant actors with an agenda that far exceeds traditional administrative authority and the outlined programs and priorities in law.

“A functioning transportation system that is safe and in good condition is the point. The Gateway project is a big part of that. Instead, USDOT is undergoing a paperwork exercise of unknown parameters and length. Stop studying it, talking about it, and reviewing it, and just build it already.”
Beth Osborne, President and CEO of Smart Growth America

As we have previously cautioned members of Congress, they would be foolish to move forward with a new bipartisan infrastructure deal if the administration can pick and choose, down to the smallest project, what they deem acceptable. The faith is broken—the terms of the agreement no longer exist. Under these conditions, it would be incredibly short-sighted to vote for any long-term reauthorization and believe that their wishes would be faithfully implemented.

Statement: Trump administration stalls nation’s largest transit and rail project

Statement: To demonstrate that the country can “build stuff again” and that it supports states setting transportation priorities, the Trump administration has delayed the nation’s largest public transit and intercity passenger rail project that is supported across the northeast.

Washington, D.C. (October 1) — Today, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought via X (formerly known as Twitter) and the United States Department of Transportation, announced the Trump administration has frozen approximately $18 billion in USDOT funding for the nation’s largest transit and passenger rail projects: the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)’s Second Avenue Subway and the Hudson Tunnel Project (a component of the Gateway Program), justifying the hold “to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.”

Beth Osborne, President and CEO of Smart Growth America, issued the following statement in response to the announcement.

“The same people who say roads can’t be racist seem to think a tunnel will enact DEI. Everyone knows this project is extremely important to the Northeast Corridor, and the Northeast Corridor makes up 20 percent of U.S. GDP. We need this tunnel, and we have been waiting for it for decades. Get it done and stop making excuses.

Transportation leaders on the Hill have been quoted as saying they want to “avoid top-down mandates from Washington, D.C.” and “let states lead.” They say they want to speed project delivery to keep costs down and get things done for the taxpayer. It is unclear how they think actions like this one demonstrate either of those principles. The transportation system is broken, but negotiating a new surface transportation reauthorization while actions like these are ongoing is naive to the extreme.

The Gateway project will be built one day. It will just be much more expensive than it would be if we got moving today. This is the lesson of the Second Avenue Subway and the Hudson Tunnel Project delay. That is, if there is not a bigger emergency caused by a problem that closes the existing tunnel before we can get the Gateway project built.

What got us here?

Transportation for America has been tracking the administration’s actions for months. While they are worrying about how an off-road walking and biking trail might somehow inconvenience drivers, the U.S. has real needs now. The U.S. has a truly embarrassing roadway safety record, trailing several third-world countries. The overall highway and bridge safety and repair record hasn’t budged in the last 20+ years, according to ASCE. Congestion is getting worse in major cities, including those that have lost population—something that makes no sense at all.

A functioning transportation system that is safe and in good condition is the point. The Gateway project is a big part of that. Instead, USDOT is undergoing a paperwork exercise of unknown parameters and length. Stop studying it, talking about it, and reviewing it, and just build it already.

As we have previously suggested to Congress, moving forward with a new bipartisan infrastructure deal if all we will get is more bureaucracy like this is silly. Clearly, real infrastructure investment is not moving forward like promised. To talk about more money for this approach to federal transportation would be a disservice to taxpayers and a self-delusion so staggering that it stretches the mind to grasp how one justifies it.”

###

Helping small and mid-sized communities repair the damage of divisive infrastructure

T4A’s principle to invest in the rest aims to create a complete transportation network, which includes not just building out networks of transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes for safe and affordable transportation options, but also repairing the damage of the car-centric infrastructure that’s already been built. The hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has invested in highways has repeatedly and deliberately torn communities apart. Under the guise of “urban renewal,” cities and states built dangerous arterials through Black and low-income communities to divide these neighborhoods from the rest of the city or destroy them entirely. But we don’t have to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can actively work together to restore connection and communities across this divisive infrastructure.

Though the majority in Congress has moved to essentially kill the popular Reconnecting Communities program by rescinding and taking back more than $2.4 billion for these projects—much of that already awarded to local communities—that does not mean these types of projects cannot move forward. Although costly projects to remove or cap an entire highway or repair the damage of an enormous legacy interstate project will be far more difficult without this program, there are countless ways to use existing federal, state, or local money to quickly make dangerous and divisive roadways safer and more accessible. And implementing a quick-build demonstration project on roads like these can be an important first step toward a more ambitious permanent project.

Smart Growth America’s Community Connectors program seeks to equip small and mid-sized communities to identify, remove, or repair the wounds of divisive infrastructure. This iteration of the program is focused on divisive arterial highways and other dangerous roads that have divided or damaged communities.

This call for applications will support three teams from small to mid-sized cities (between approximately 50,000 and 500,000 in population) to participate in a yearlong cohort (September 2025 – June 2026) for training and support, culminating in the design and implementation of a temporary street safety pilot project to test out permanent changes to reconnect the community.

These joint teams consisting of local government and a community-based organization of some kind will receive in-depth instruction in building safer, complete streets through virtual training, a $25,000 grant to implement a street safety demonstration project, as much as $20,000 in in-kind support from outside engineering experts to support project design, and travel budget for a two-day convening in one of the three cities in fall 2025 for a site visit, walk audit, training, and project design.

Applications for Smart Growth America’s Community Connectors program are open until September 11. Learn more here and apply today!

Getting America’s passenger rail back on track requires a radically different approach

The inspection train arrives in Mobile, greeted by a crowd lined up by the tracks

$66 billion was dedicated to rail in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), but this historic amount was directed into a federal structure that has repeatedly failed to efficiently manage passenger rail projects, including those already funded. We cannot afford to repeat that experience. We can’t build tomorrow’s rail system with yesterday’s tools—reform is long overdue.

Transportation for America’s policies to restructure federal rail governance

In our platform for reauthorization, under our core principle of Invest in the Rest, we propose building a world-class passenger rail network. One of the five specific policies we recommend is to restructure the roles and responsibilities of the federal entities that govern passenger rail. To build a world-class rail network, we need a coordinated system working toward a clear goal—one with clear authority, transparency, and accountability. This proposal includes four specific policy changes:

Amtrak should be responsible for the operations of every federally funded long-distance route and for operating the Northeast Corridor. It would work with state rail commissions on planning, identifying funding needs and priorities, and conducting outreach to communities.
Amtrak and new service providers should be responsible for the state-supported routes, as well as managing stations and marketing passenger rail routes.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) should oversee national planning for passenger rail infrastructure, network connectivity, and safety standards. FRA would set standards for stations and maintain a registry of station features and conditions. The agency would also facilitate information sharing between freight and passenger rail providers and enforce regulation and oversight of both sectors.
The Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) authority should include initiating independent proceedings, expediting cases with additional funding, and ensuring access to data for decision-making. Congress must ensure the STB has the funding and authority to move actions expeditiously and in compliance with legal deadlines.

For decades, the federal government has poured hundreds of billions into highways, while rail, transit, and other options have been left behind. That lopsided approach has left much of the country without viable alternatives to driving. T4America’s Invest in the Rest principle aims to change that by committing real resources to the modes that have been underfunded for generations, particularly passenger rail.

Amtrak’s national network, which includes long-distance routes, the Northeast Corridor, and state-supported lines, connects small towns and major cities alike. These services are essential. But the past few years have taught us that these existing structures and systems are poorly suited to building what we need tomorrow. To make lasting progress, the next surface transportation bill must not only invest in rail, but it must also build a modern system to plan and deliver it.

That starts with restructuring the federal roles and responsibilities that determine how rail service gets on the ground.

Learn more about how our policy proposals help to unlock the power of passenger rail in this webinar.

A new federal structure for rail

Each agency needs a clear mission and the authority to fulfill it. Amtrak should run service. The FRA should lead planning and regulation. The STB should resolve disputes swiftly and transparently. This kind of structure is how we move from good intentions to real outcomes. And it is the only way to build a passenger rail network that lives up to the investment we are making.

The vision: many routes, many providers

Amtrak should retain operational authority over its long-distance routes and the Northeast Corridor. These are the core services it already runs, and it remains best positioned to manage them. But even within this scope, Amtrak’s role should be strictly operational: running trains, managing stations, marketing the routes, and ensuring service quality. When it comes to state-supported routes, however, the model needs to change: Amtrak has proven that they are poorly situated to be in charge of developing new rail service.

Over the past 15 years, the federal government has made significant investments in passenger rail with the goal of making Amtrak a more flexible, responsive partner to states. However, this funding has not translated into fast or widespread service expansion. The reality is that Amtrak has not successfully expanded either long-distance or state-supported services. As the only show in town, Amtrak is the only partner that those trying to launch or grow service can turn to, regardless of how easy or difficult they are to work with. The delays are not associated with one side of the aisle. While the Trump administration did not prioritize passenger rail during his first term, the Biden administration was slow to get the historic amount of funding in the IIJA out the door.

Under current investment planning practices, where Amtrak plays a central role, reinvestments in passenger rail corridors such as the Northeast Corridor now struggle with ballooning expenses and inefficient project management. The Northeast Corridor is critically overdue for repairs and upgrades, facing a $5 billion State of Good Repair backlog. Despite owning a significant portion of the corridor’s track, tunnels, and bridges, Amtrak has struggled to maintain or modernize the corridor at the pace needed to meet today’s demand.

The current structure simply struggles to deliver. Amtrak is not set up to rapidly deploy new routes or scale service across states. This is not a criticism of Amtrak’s core mission. Instead, our proposal recognizes that no single entity can meet every state’s needs, and Amtrak should focus on its core mission of running existing routes. That is why states should have the flexibility to work with other qualified rail operators that meet their needs. Amtrak could be one option to provide service, but it should not be the only one.

Brightline, a private passenger rail provider, is in the process of building a new service from Southern California to Las Vegas and currently operates regular service in Florida. Amtrak is not the only organization in the United States that can run a passenger rail operation. States, ideally through interstate rail commissions like the Southern Rail Commission or similar entities, should have the authority to choose the operator that best fits their needs. A more competitive model would drive innovation, improve customer experience, and help translate policy support into real-world results.

We will explore the role of alternative service providers in a future post. For now, the takeaway is clear: the current system is not working fast enough. If we want better rail service in America, we need to reorganize how it is delivered and give states the power to move forward.

Planning a national network with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

The FRA should take the lead on national passenger rail planning. While it currently serves as a regulator, grant administrator, and technical advisor, its authority is often too limited to proactively guide development. That needs to change. We envision a stronger FRA that leads network planning, enforces safety standards, and maintains a national database of station conditions and network assets. The FRA should also be empowered to facilitate data sharing and coordination between passenger and freight railroads. Right now, too many delays stem from freight railroads withholding critical data, leaving other parties in the dark. The FRA must have the authority to compel the disclosure of data and ensure that proprietary claims are not used to avoid transparency. Knowing how many trains and how long they run on a line should never be considered confidential. That is public infrastructure, and the public deserves to understand how it’s being used.

Empower the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to be proactive in problem-solving

The STB, meanwhile, needs expanded powers and resources to actually serve as an effective arbiter of passenger rail access disputes. The STB is an independent federal agency that regulates certain surface transportation modes, including freight rail. Right now, the STB is reactive. It must wait for a provider to bring a complaint, and often waits years before anything happens.

A case in point is the long-running effort by the Southern Rail Commission, an interstate rail compact comprising the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, to restore passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast, which was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This 20-year, multi-state effort was continuously stalled due to freight rail opposition. Despite the Commission and its partners clearing every conceivable obstacle, from station renovations to funding commitments, the freight railroads operating in the region (CSX and Norfolk Southern) refused to comply with sharing their tracks for the passenger rail service, claiming that the proposed two trains per day between New Orleans and Mobile would “unreasonably” impair their freight operations.

As a result, it took nearly ten years and direct intervention by the FRA to force a resolution. In 2021, Amtrak finally submitted an application to the STB, petitioning them to intervene and arbitrate the conflict if CSX and Norfolk Southern continued to delay the project in bad faith. Notably, the FRA Administrator at the time himself testified to the STB to compel the freight railroads to adhere to federal law and provide Amtrak the use of track for the service. Two decades after Hurricane Katrina disrupted the line, the Gulf Coast Mardi Gras service is finally launching on August 18, 2025. It should never have taken this long to deploy service on a previously existing route. Government partners need to be positioned to deliver projects on clear timelines, starting with allowing the STB to mediate disputes efficiently.

STB is too cautious and deferential. Congress should give the STB the authority to initiate proceedings on its own when there are substantial disputes, delays, or risks to public investment. If a host freight railroad is blocking a funded passenger rail project, and the STB knows about it, the Board should not have to wait to step in and render a verdict. Regional commissions or public agencies should be allowed to initiate or request action even if they are not the operator or the host. And to make this possible, the STB needs the funding to hire staff with specific passenger rail expertise. Too often, the Board has treated these cases like freight conflicts, when they require an entirely different set of experts.

Why it matters

Right now, the biggest threat to passenger rail is not just a lack of funding—it is a lack of a functioning system to deploy existing funding efficiently to create and support new or expanded passenger rail service. The IIJA allocated $66 billion to rail, but without clearer roles for the key players, a clear, scalable structure, and real accountability, this money is not delivering the transformation the public expects.

Rather than creating new layers of bureaucracy, we are calling for a clear division of responsibilities between Amtrak, the FRA, and the STB that is designed to support growth, increase transparency, and speed up service delivery. We’ve had record levels of funding, new laws and programs, and a decade of political momentum, and yet we still don’t have real results. That’s not just a policy failure, it’s a structural one. If we want to make rail work in this country, we need to start building a system that can deliver it.

Someone who is good at the economy please help AASHTO budget this our country is dying

The stakeholders most responsible for producing the mediocre outcomes on transportation—poor road conditions, increased congestion, continued emissions, record pedestrian deaths—believe all taxpayers should hand over an additional $210 billion above what the gas tax brings in to keep producing more of the same for the next five years. Haven’t they been given enough?

With transportation investment priorities this misguided, it’s easy to draw comparisons to this popular absurdist tweet. When our budget is $190 and you’re asking for $400, there’s a basic math issue we’re not addressing.

As the nation approaches the expiration of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Highway Trust Fund’s insolvency looms large once again (save the date: 2028), forcing policymakers on Capitol Hill to contend with tough questions on who, what, where, and how federal transportation funding is spent.

The trade group for state departments of transportation

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, is a trade group that represents state departments of transportation. Under the IIJA, state DOTs received record levels of funding—approximately $270 billion in flexible formula funding, a 50 percent increase compared to what they received in the 2015 FAST Act, the previous federal transportation bill. (By comparison, their funding only increased by 15 percent in that 2015 law over 2012’s MAP-21).

But apparently, this record level of funding didn’t go far enough. As Congress debates the replacement for the IIJA, AASHTO says that the funding levels from the IIJA—plus inflation since 2021—should be the floor for funding in the next law, despite the fact that this will wildly outspend future gas tax revenues and only deepen investment in a broken approach. How much money are they really asking for?

The ask: IIJA funding levels (plus inflation!) as the starting point

Assuming state DOTs are asking for an inflation adjustment to account for their ballooning highway construction costs, the next bill’s highway elements alone could cost over $400 billion over a five-year authorization. The gas tax is only projected to bring in $190 billion over this period. Read that again: For highway spending alone, they are asking for more than double what the program’s revenues are going to be. Right out of the gate, they believe that taxpayers should pony up more than $210 billion over five years to pay for highway and bridge-focused programs alone. Forget about transit and every other form of federally funded transportation.

To further put that into perspective, that’s greater than the Gross Domestic Product of Denmark ($400.1 billion, according to United Nations stats).

That’s just for the programs they cared enough about to support. AASHTO is not defending programs with specific goals to improve resiliency and mobility options (like the PROTECT program and Transportation Alternatives program). They are instead asking to consolidate programs like these and give themselves even greater capability to shift program funding around from goal-oriented programs to those with wide-ranging project eligibility and little in the way of actual direction (though these programs seemed plenty flexible to status quo priorities before). While state DOTs are asking for more money and less accountability, the federal government is at a point where we’re discussing cuts to programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and early child education (Pre-K).

This request is despite the immense, “once in a generation” transportation funding infusion from the IIJA in 2021, the $1.5 trillion in total transportation investment over the last 35 years, and the growing insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).

The gap between what the gas tax brings in and current spending levels on transportation is so large that the House’s modest but disproportionately punitive fees on electric vehicles would barely dent the growing gap between revenues and spending. It is getting more and more expensive to undertake road projects, meanwhile, adding new lanes here and there on existing interstates and highways brings diminishing to potentially negative economic returns.

As we suggest in our own platform for reauthorization, it’s well past time we assess the value proposition of the Federal Aid Highway Program. Why should we continue to pour money from all taxpayers into a program producing such bad outcomes? Decades of flexibility for state DOTs and other agencies without any significant accountability for accomplishing specific, measurable things have led to our infrastructure’s current state of mediocrity.

The fundamental difference between groups like AASHTO and T4America (and others in Congress starting to bring a critical eye to this program) comes down to this question: Why does our federal transportation program produce such bad outcomes? Is it because this program is underfunded (AASHTO), or are the problems more fundamental? Why does throwing more money at this system fail to solve problems efficiently?

The primary barriers to achieving world class transportation—meaning transportation that cheaply and reliably gets you to work and does not kill you at a rate far exceeding the rest of the world— are current policy and practice.

As a default, many states still try to prioritize building road infrastructure that leaves communities fundamentally disconnected despite an abundance of existing, decaying roads, creates unsafe conditions by prioritizing speed over safety (in vastly higher proportions than other developed nations), and leads to perpetually worsening traffic congestion. For decades, state DOTs have spent an inordinate amount of funding on road expansion versus repair, and what good has that done us? The current approach often does not solve these problems, but instead can worsen them.

We know how much it should cost to fix things

While there is always plenty of fanfare and coverage accompanying the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card release¹, there’s little public praise for the original source of much of its data. Federal Highway Administration data, especially the Conditions and Performance Report, undergirds most recommendations in ASCE’s report. The most recent edition of the C&P report finds that, pre-IIJA, if we were to spend approximately $87 billion* annually on repairing existing assets, we would be on track to eliminate the road repair backlog entirely.

*2018 dollars. Amounts are not adjusted in this post.

While that seems pricey (and we’re overdue for a report update), we spent well over double that on highways already: $206 billion was spent across all units of government in 2021, even before the IIJA. Instead of planning to address repair directly, it seems the plan is to ensure that topline funding levels are so absurdly high that at least some of the money gets spent on maintenance before expansion.

Our priorities call for a federal program that prioritizes fixing it first. Before building new capacity, we need to address the growing backlog. The 25th edition C&P report estimates that there will be $1.9 trillion in new maintenance needs alone between 2019-2038. Adding new lane miles simply expands the total number of liabilities we must care for in the future.

Even ASCE agrees: “you can’t build your way out of congestion.” Instead, as roads reach the end of their lifecycle, we should rebuild them to more effectively serve everyone who needs to use them according to the basic principles of Complete Streets—serving transit and people walking and biking in addition to driving. Shifting funds away from overbuilt roads to allow for more robust active transportation networks and transit systems is one way to reduce long term maintenance costs, increase access to jobs, reduce transportation costs, and improve safety outcomes.

Giving states these blank checks with almost no oversight plays into bad political incentives for state politicians and the infrastructure lobby to continually greenlight boondoggles that don’t serve people. Congress needs to take a stronger stance to ensure federal funding is spent in some minimally responsible manner. Without ensuring that funding is directed to accomplish specific outcomes, the next reauthorization will lead us down the same dangerous, congested and dirty road we’ve been down the past 35 years.

USDOT’s new memo requires a review of competitive grant awards

A leaked policy memo from leadership at USDOT will add a new layer of extra-legal review of all awarded competitive grant projects without fully signed federal funding obligations, calling for bicycle infrastructure, green infrastructure, and EV chargers to be cut from projects.

What’s in USDOT’s new memo?

Drawing authority from the President’s inaugural slate of executive orders and the Secretary of Transportation’s first round of policy memos, the Department of Transportation Secretary’s office has, according to a leaked policy memo, issued another round of unprecedented orders, calling for the removal of all elements of projects related to bike infrastructure, charging infrastructure, climate change or those that take equity into account competitive grant funding. The memo specifically applies to competitive grants that have not yet completed grant agreements or obligated the funding, including those that have only been partially obligated. Projects with existing and executed grant agreements are not subject to additional review, but any new federal dollars made out to those projects would be.

What’s the difference between funding that is announced or obligated?

When the federal government announces an award, the awardee does not get that funding as a grant. First, the federal government and the awardee have to negotiate and sign a funding agreement, which lays out the project scope, schedule, and budget and demonstrates the availability of required nonfederal funding match.

Funds can be canceled or reclaimed until they are obligated, which is a binding commitment to pay out money. Funding cannot be obligated until the grant agreement is signed and all permitting and relevant regulations are complied with. Planning grants that don’t have those regulatory requirements are obligated once there is a signed grant agreement. However, capital (ie, construction) projects would need to complete regulatory review and permitting before being obligated.

Once there is a grant agreement and funds are obligated, an awardee must spend their own funding and file for reimbursement from the federal government.

This memo instructs USDOT operating administrations, like The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to conduct a project-by-project analysis to identify any activities that include primary elements of “equity, climate change, environmental justice, green infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure.” Once projects are identified for non-compliance with the administration’s priorities, they will be subject to individual scrutiny for a final decision on whether they will be canceled, modified, or continue as planned. Projects that contain “flagged activities” could be revised, even if they meet all requirements of law, to comply with this administration’s agenda. This comes full circle from the “Woke Rescission” memo, which we unpacked in a previous blog, and follows the episode of STIP and TIP review of obligated projects that were recently walked back (though the new burdensome review remains an issue for environmental permits, according to a recent letter from AASHTO).

While it is normal for a new administration to set its own agenda, it has always applied to spending and policy going forward. This administration is setting the precedent that any project not underway can be undone when there is a new president. This memo furthers the agenda laid out in the “Unleashing American Energy” memo, which calls for increased reliance on fossil fuel consumption.

Under this approach, USDOT will reach back to 2022 to defund many projects that Congress specifically defined as eligible activities in the text of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Congress defines the scope of what federal programs can fund. Even under the Biden administration—despite its commitments to advancing zero-emission transportation—USDOT still followed congressional intent by awarding the statutorily required 25% of funds to more emitting fossil fuel buses under the Low or No Emission bus program, despite strong demand for zero-emission buses from applicants.

By nature of being eligible for funding, the bike, green infrastructure, and EV chargers elements of projects already got the okay for funding from Congress on a bipartisan basis. If this becomes precedent, future presidents could make unilateral decisions to freeze funding for any project that does not align with their own priorities. Allowing the pendulum to swing back and forth every four years undermines the rationale of the supposedly stable highway trust fund—perhaps further evidence that the model is no longer sustainable. If funding appropriated years in advance can be arbitrarily revoked, why even plan beyond the next fiscal year?

For an administration that has spoken at length about the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, even absent the hugely dangerous and detrimental impact this will have on people’s health, safety, and long-term environmental sustainability of the transportation system, these reviews are going to slow down projects they would want to proceed. Actions like these continue to sow confusion and are inefficient, waste staff time, and squander funds and resources at the federal and local levels.

What’s at stake

Nearly $2.9 billion in funding was announced for the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program for projects in over 1,700 communities. Only $515 million has been obligated across 979 grant,s according to a search of USASpending data. The vast majority of this program’s funding, $2.4 billion, and hundreds of communities receiving assistance through this program would now be subject to review and renegotiation due to this memo.

About $7.6 billion was announced under the RAISE/BUILD program for federal fiscal years 2022 through 2025. Still, only $1.25 billion, or less, of funding has been secured and obligated, leaving the rest of the announced funds, representing potentially hundreds of projects, stuck once again in the grant review process.

Zooming out to the whole program, based on data last updated by the USDOT on January 31, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration have a combined $51 billion in funds unobligated for non-formula programs. Much of these funds are now likely subject to review, cuts, and delays.

It likely will not stop there

While the current memo applies to competitive grants, there is good reason to expect that this administration will expand this review to cover other programs, too, if they find they don’t agree with how states, regions, localities, and transit agencies are using the funds.

For example, new, flexible formula programs created in the IIJA designed to address infrastructure resiliency, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and build out the national network of electric vehicle infrastructure remain at risk and could be the next target for politicized review and freezes. Further, if Congress decides to rescind funds for impounded or frozen climate-related programs, the impacts would disproportionately hit rural states, likely disrupting planned projects of all types. Carbon Reduction Program and PROTECT funds have been programmed for anything from new highway lighting to tunnel rehabilitation. Members of Congress should be aware of how cuts to these programs may fall hardest on whose constituents.

A pause for TransportationCamp DC

backs of people at tcamp sticking sheets of paper with session proposals on the board

After careful consideration, Transportation for America is announcing that we have decided to pause TransportationCamp DC this coming January. For years, we’ve enjoyed hosting the event and particularly enjoyed bringing together all of the dedicated transportation leaders and advocates to share ideas, shape the future of mobility, and tackle pressing challenges like emissions reduction and street safety.

While it was a hard decision, it ultimately came down to two things: timing and resources. With the New Year’s Holiday falling on the Wednesday before TCamp, there’s not sufficient time for our staff to conduct the intense preparations that make this event so successful. Additionally, hosting the event requires significant funding and venue flexibility, which have been harder to secure in recent years, and this year in particular.

We understand that this year’s pause may be disappointing, but it offers a chance to reimagine how we can sustain the “unconference” in Washington, DC. If you or your organization would like to support future TransportationCamps through sponsorship or other contributions, we’d love to hear from you.

Thank you for being part of the TransportationCamp community. We look forward to working together to advance the conversations and new ideas that make this event so special.

We’ll see you soon!
Transportation for America

Another hurdle cleared for passenger rail on the Gulf Coast

Today, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Port of Mobile, CSX, and Norfolk Southern (NS) signed a $178 million grant agreement to fund necessary construction between Mobile and New Orleans, an important hurdle for passenger rail service to return to the Gulf Coast.

The signed agreement for a $178 million Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant is a critical step that represents 17 years of concerted efforts toward restoring passenger rail on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. This agreement includes funding for station and rail infrastructure improvements along the route in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, all required for service to return.

“Every step towards the return of passenger rail is a victory for the people who call the Gulf Coast home,” said Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith. “The past two decades of tireless efforts by the Southern Rail Commission and other champions have made it possible for service to come back even better than before, giving people more freedom to choose how they want to travel.”

This announcement coincides with a groundbreaking for passenger rail in Mobile, Alabama with Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and other federal leaders, where these funds will be used toward station siding and an ADA-compliant platform. The CRISI will fund station improvements in Mobile and New Orleans, safety improvements along the route, multimodal connection, and rail line improvements. Once these improvements are made, local leaders will be able to create safe routes and welcoming places for all travelers along the Gulf Coast. We look forward to the ultimate result of these efforts: the return of service.

Progress on the Gulf Coast would not have been possible without Senator Wicker’s leadership in creating CRISI and for his steadfast support for this project for the past decade. In addition, Senators Cochran and Hyde-Smith have dedicated invaluable time and resources to the restoration of service.

Transportation for America supports the Southern Rail Commission to champion the efforts to return service in the Gulf Coast and across the Deep South.

A smaller footprint for freight

A cyclist rides his cargo-bike down a New York Street

Freight plays a valuable role in keeping our communities and local economies thriving, but heavy freight vehicles pose unique challenges to community roads and air quality. Fortunately, not all good things have to arrive in a diesel-powered package.

The following post was co-authored by T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno and T4A Policy Intern Sam Packman.

The size of the vehicles on our roadways can make a big impact on our travel. Larger vehicles are harder on our roads, leading to an increased need for maintenance. Large freight vehicles, often diesel-powered, produce harmful emissions that have historically hurt marginalized communities the most. And the larger a vehicle is, the more likely a crash will result in a death, particularly for people walking. However, they also serve an essential purpose: carrying the goods we need.

Fortunately, efforts to address the size and carbon-footprint of freight vehicles are already making inroads across the country.

Reducing freight emissions

Because medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are major sources of both greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution, reducing tailpipe emissions and oil use in this sector can support improved public health outcomes and help mitigate the climate crisis.

In our work co-leading the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE), we advocate for policymakers to engage closely with communities most impacted by freight pollution and maximize benefits to create or maintain high-quality manufacturing jobs. Multiple groups in CHARGE are leading the way to help reduce medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Among them, the Electrification Coalition leads a consortium of industry partners toward freight electrification. CALSTART’s Trucks and Non-Road Vehicle Initiative supports faster adoption of low-emission, high-efficiency trucks and heavy equipment. Last year, the Environmental Defense Fund released a report to guide municipalities on how to form and evaluate Urban Freight Partnerships, stakeholder engagement groups that shape decision-making around urban freight.

CHARGE also supports policies that reduce distances traveled by larger freight vehicles while transitioning shorter, urban freight deliveries to electric micromobility, where applicable.

What does micromobility have to do with freight?

While large freight vehicles come in handy for long trips, when they make last-mile deliveries below full capacity, they produce just as many harmful tailpipe emissions as they do at full capacity. In these instances, cleaner, smaller, and safer microfreight options can help.

A man in an orange vest drives a pedal-powered vehicle that can fit in a bike lane — *NYC DOT pedal-assist e-cargo bicycle, “Cargi B” (NYC DOT)*

From more traditional electric bikes with space for cargo to new types of wider pedal assist bikes with semi-enclosed cabins and capacious holds, the flexibility of microfreight enables deployment in a variety of contexts. These vehicles can transport smaller amounts of cargo and thanks to their smaller size, they’re able to bypass road congestion, avoid clogging up the road themselves, and reduce wear on local roads. As an added bonus, the cost to charge e-cargo bikes can beat out fueling heavy vehicles.

Already on streets across the country, microfreight works well with a microhub model, where goods are first transported by traditional heavy- or medium-duty vehicles to an urban hub, then taken to their final destination. Learn more about how microfreight can support last-mile deliveries here.

Modernizing and improving the efficiency of our freight vehicles can support the nation’s efforts to maintain our roadways, improve traffic safety, and reduce harmful emissions. As innovations continue to move forward, policy will play a key role in ensuring efforts to reduce the most negative impacts of freight will succeed.

Even in California, infrastructure spending is a climate time bomb. Here’s how to fix it.

Governor Gavin Newsom wears a blue suit and tie, smiling from a podium

Without full transparency on California’s transportation spending, the state’s transportation investments will never align with our climate goals.

This post by Transform Policy Director Zack Deutsch-Gross and T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno was originally published by Next City. Click here to read the original.

With the fifth largest economy in the world, California has for decades set the tone for what is possible on climate, with other states and even countries looking to it for bold policy leadership and direction. Yet while Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to tout California as a climate leader, his transportation agency—operating with little public oversight or accountability—continues to advance harmful projects that will guarantee future increases in emissions.

Nowhere is this contradiction more apparent than in how California is spending its Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) dollars.

The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was hailed by the Biden Administration as the biggest investment in climate in U.S. history. It devoted $1.2 trillion to “rebuild America’s roads, bridges and rail, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.” But states were given enormous latitude in choosing how to spend the hundreds of billions intended for transportation.

Both states and the federal government failed to embrace climate-forward policy to implement the infrastructure law, predictably directing funds to emissions increasing highway building. California’s current IIJA spending will result in a net increase of over 2.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses above pre-IIJA levels by 2040, according to a recent analysis of IIJA grant awards in California by Transportation for America. Despite ambitious climate legislation and impressive emissions reduction targets, California has dedicated more IIJA funds toward emissions-increasing projects than any state except Florida and Texas.

Driving this increase in emissions is the over $2 billion of federal dollars alone that California’s Department of Transportation, Caltrans, is spending on highway expansion. Building more and wider roads encourages more people to drive, undercuts public transit investments and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and one of the few sectors where emissions are still increasing annually. Yet while the state is literally on fire, Caltrans is doubling down on climate arson—a term we do not use lightly.

California’s IIJA spending begins to explain why we are off track when it comes to meeting climate goals. What about the rest of the state’s $30 billion in annual transportation spending?

Unfortunately, we don’t know. Caltrans does not collect and publicly display data in an accessible manner, and reports to the legislature are piecemeal at best. RebuildingCA.ca.gov, the public dashboard Caltrans uses to report on projects, is the best available resource to learn how transportation dollars are being spent in your community. But the website includes no information about how these projects contribute to improving safety, increasing opportunity in disadvantaged communities, or addressing climate change.

This lack of accountability allows Gov. Newsom to proclaim himself a climate leader even as his transportation agency fails to live up to his public promises. We need transparency if we are to hold state agencies to account.

Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo’s Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086, which Transform is cosponsoring with The Greenlining Institute, will change that.

AB 2086 requires Caltrans to publicly demonstrate how its annual spending on major transportation programs is advancing the vision and goals of the California Transportation Plan. It will streamline existing, fragmented transportation reporting efforts into a uniform and consistent format made publicly available online. This will ensure that the public, lawmakers, and transportation decision-makers can easily access and understand how California’s transportation investments impact their communities and align with the state’s goals.

Now more than ever, we need more than rhetoric. We can’t expect another generational infrastructure investment from the federal government, and in tight budget years to come, California needs to maximize the return on every transportation dollar it spends.

We need to rebuild public trust by demonstrating results to voters through transparent, public reporting. We need to put our money where our mouth is by prioritizing climate-friendly transportation investments. While AB 2086 won’t change transportation spending overnight, it is an essential step toward addressing the climate crisis with fundamental good governance. Without it, all we can expect is continued inaction.

Building a charging network that works

An assortment of people walk down a wide sidewalk near a brightly colored apartment building

It’s nearly impossible to move forward with a transition to electric vehicles without a network of chargers in place. However, though some federal funds have rolled out to the states, efforts to build out a charging network still have a long way to go.

Transportation is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Take it from USDOT—any effective strategy to reduce emissions requires both a transition to electric vehicles and opportunities to travel outside of a car.

To support the shift toward more sustainable transportation, federal and state governments are funding vital infrastructure for non-gas and non-diesel options. Highways that reliably connect sustainable fuel sources are gaining a shiny new distinction: alternative fuel corridors, or AFCs.

AFCs have become a key aspect of national strategy toward reducing environmental harms. First name-dropped on Capitol Hill in 2009, state governments from California to New York have been supporting efforts toward non-gasoline or diesel fuels even before that, naming their own corridors as well as establishing tax credits and HOV lane access for electric and alternative fuel vehicles.

Federal legislation from as early as 2015 called for the designation of AFCs, allowing them to be mapped out on a national level. Alternative fuel corridors could be designated for five specific fueling types: hydrogen, propane, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and electricity. Among the alternative candidates on the list, electric vehicles have been the option of choice for everyday Americans looking to commute to work, school, and the grocery store with the occasional road trip for leisure.

While this early effort helped link individual states’ efforts to build a connected sustainable highway network, money to build infrastructure would not arrive until the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Under the IIJA, it’s up to states to deploy the majority of EV funds through the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, and the administration to handle the $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program. The Departments of Transportation and Energy jointly administer and manage these programs through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, though the Federal Highway Administration plays the leading role.

Funding charging options

While the Biden administration has faced criticism for a sluggish EV charging station rollout, with fewer chargers deployed than hoped after 3 years, states each had to spin up individual programs for two-thirds of that funding. As states roll out their plans and start scaling deployment, we’ll begin to see progress accelerate.

In many states, NEVI sites are meeting trends in industry standardization, adopting the Tesla-led NACS guidelines for chargers while also including adaptors for CCS vehicles. The Department of Transportation has made progress in loosening and clarifying certain requirements for federal electrification programs. Under the first round of Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grants, half of the funding for EV and alternative fueling stations was initially required to be placed within 1 mile of alternative fuel corridors, a rule that helped functionally limit chargers largely to car-dependent gas stations and roadside malls.

However, the CFI Alternative Fuel Corridor program’s second round of funding expanded this radius to 5 miles, a change T4A has previously advocated for. This change comes just in time too, as applications for the current notice of funding are open until September 11, 2024. On top of that, the CFI grant can help build more than just car chargers — FHWA has clarified that some e-micromobility improvements can be added on top of CFI projects. Recently announced awardees of CFI Round 1B, like New York City, may be taking advantage of this. While CFI fills in many gaps, future programs should go all the way on supporting e-micromobility.

The gas station model won’t be enough

The EV transition alone can’t be the sole strategy toward fighting transportation emissions, and it’ll fail if we follow the same patterns as the gas-powered status quo. The basic mechanics of fueling are different, taking an average of two minutes for gas-powered cars versus the twenty required for EVs.

People stand to benefit from healthy, walkable services and amenities, but that environment is not easily found given the current infrastructure. Building charging stations in small town main streets off the highway, even if they may take slightly longer to access, could boost local economies while also providing a more engaging break from the road: walking to local parks, checking out mom-and-pop stores, or grabbing groceries from nearby markets.

Additionally, more thought must be placed into how chargers’ placements can influence driving patterns. Focusing charger construction along highways could lead to more time spent driving, leading to tire emissions and increased wear on our roadways due to the high weight of EV batteries.

Alternative fuel corridors are only as efficient as the types of vehicles that they transport: for natural gas and hydrogen options, which are more focused on long-distance freight, it makes sense for these fueling stations to be placed near industrial areas and highways. However, EVs that largely serve commuters should have charging stations placed where individuals live and work, not necessarily where people drive the longest.

While these programs are taking steps forward, we could go further to ensure that the EV transition is making the biggest benefit. Perhaps a new designation can be created for urban areas, where residents and pedestrians are forced to walk near the polluted air of crowded city streets. Alternative fueling zones, similar to the low emissions zones that limit polluting vehicles from accessing some city centers, could provide charging solutions to promote cleaner population centers. Prioritizing charging in urban offices and apartment buildings can boost charging access, making communities more energy-efficient and more convenient places to live and travel.

The bottom line

Constituents and markets—even in states deeply entrenched in America’s fossil fuel industry—have an appetite for greater choice in transportation. While the IIJA contained major funding wins for cleaner transportation options, its 2026 expiration is quickly approaching. As federal legislators plan the next transportation reauthorization’s funding for EVs, they need to remember it is not just how much funding to allocate, but what policy to enact to maximize benefits for all.

Transportation and extreme heat

A man in jeans and a white t-shirt walks along the side of a wide, sunny street

The following post was written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier.

Recent record-breaking temperatures demonstrate that we can no longer rely on old design approaches to meet the needs of our communities. Transportation infrastructure is no exception. Extreme heat can cause road surfaces to buckle and rail tracks to warp, leading to significant travel disruptions and safety concerns for commuters.

The heatwaves this past summer, where temperatures soared to record highs in the eastern and western parts of the US, starkly highlighted the vulnerability of our transportation infrastructure designed to meet the demands of past climate trends, not the trends we see today.

Sweltering heat has pushed transportation infrastructure, from roadways to railroads, to the brink, potentially leaving thousands of travelers stranded in the aftermath. Extreme heat has already caused major damage and disruptions, from planes being unable to take off in Phoenix to pavement buckling in Minnesota. Amtrak, too, recently witnessed service disruptions across the Northeast Corridor, and WMATA announced widespread delays in service. Asphalt and metal rails can expand and buckle under high temperatures, creating potentially unsafe travel circumstances. This results in delays caused by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, brought about by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, impacting travel plans for commuters. Extreme heat and other climate change induced weather events, such as rising sea levels, are poised to drastically increase the costs of maintaining, repairing, and replacing transportation infrastructure—at a time when the nation is already behind on roadway maintenance and repair.

Transportation infrastructure can also exacerbate the effects of extreme heat on our communities. The urban heat island effect, which occurs in urbanized areas, is partly caused by the large amounts of heat-absorbing materials found in buildings and roads. The impacts can make these heat events drastically more extreme, with pavement reaching temperatures of 160° F when the outdoor temperature breaches 100° F.

Community impacts

The impact of heat waves is not limited only to infrastructure. During the heatwaves this past June, over 30 million people were subjected to extreme heat advisories and their deadly effects as treacherously hot conditions persisted across the country. People walking, biking, or utilizing public transit are especially vulnerable to the health risks associated with extreme heat.

Imagine a bus user, navigating their typical commute on a record hot day where temperatures are breaking 100° F. The five-minute walk to the bus stop in the sweltering heat causes sweat droplets to form as soon as they leave their home. The sunlight bounces off surrounding buildings and structures, creating an almost blinding light, and fatigue sets in immediately. These conditions, exacerbated by the delay of a bus, or non-shaded shelters, can spiral into emergencies, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke.

Often referred to as the ‘silent killer,’ extreme heat has profound health risks due to its effect on the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Health impacts of extreme heat disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, as emphasized in a recent video released by Smart Growth America on the disparate burden of extreme heat experienced by communities in Atlanta. Low-income neighbors and communities of color more often lack trees, shade, and natural landscapes that can reduce the urban heat island effect. For some, a hot day means driving instead of taking transit, but for others, that option is nonexistent, and they are forced to endure the high temperatures out of necessity. Communities can use tools, such as the CDC’s Health and Heat Tracker, to determine if they are more vulnerable to extreme heat and develop their own heat preparedness plans (advice for decision makers on how to develop a heat preparedness plan can be found here).

At a recent congressional briefing on extreme heat resilience for community well-being co-hosted by the American Public Health Association and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, experts brought these impacts to the attention of federal legislators. At the core of Markey’s opening statement was the sentiment that “prevention is preferable to cure,” highlighting the importance of both responding to climate change-induced warming and reducing carbon emissions in order to avoid exacerbating climate conditions. It is clear that we will continue to contend with increased and more intense heatwaves in the future, requiring governments, community leaders and planners, and residents to urgently develop a vision for adapting to, and preparing for, a changing environment.

Resilience in the face of extreme heat

The impacts of extreme heat can threaten urban infrastructure that was not built to withstand such extreme weather events. Just as we created these conditions, we also have the opportunity to create environments that protect communities from the dangers of climate change and extreme heat.

With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. In combating extreme heat, a necessary strategy is measuring and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the transportation sector is one way to help combat the impacts of extreme heat. With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. Tackling car-oriented design can play a significant role in not only reducing emissions but also mitigating the negative outcomes associated with extreme heat.

Other ways that we can address extreme heat in urbanized areas are heat mitigation and heat management. Heat mitigation seeks to reduce heat in our cities by changing the design of built environments. These initiatives might include incorporating more tree shade and native vegetation or using different building materials like more permeable and reflective pavements.

Heat management protects those in our communities when extreme heat can not be avoided. Management strategies could include improving bus shelters, establishing cooling centers, and creating heat preparedness plans. Approaching heat management with smart growth policies—like prioritizing location-efficiency, improving conventional zoning and land-use regulations, and adapting existing infrastructure—can drastically enhance effective response capabilities.

Additionally, our federal government should direct current and future investments toward building more resilient infrastructure. When government agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, set standards for materials used in new builds to be greener and better able to withstand high temperatures, they will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to build a future that is sustainable and livable for all of the nation’s residents.

Solutions to the extreme heat crisis require bipartisan support to ensure that protections are enshrined in legislation and our built environments’ standards. Urbanized areas need to improve their resilience to extreme heat, especially our transportation system, to help ensure residents can safely travel to where they need to go, regardless of the temperature.

Full speed ahead: How federal leaders can keep building on passenger rail progress

Passenger rail efforts in the Gulf Coast demonstrated tireless commitment to federal advocacy, funding development, and ultimately service implementation. But if our nation’s leaders are truly interested in advancing a national network, they can take action now to support future efforts.

In recognition of recent progress for passenger service in the Coastal South, we’re releasing a four-part series exploring how unified regional and national approaches, supported by local advocacy and sound policy, can help create a successful passenger rail network. This is part four of the series, written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier. Read part one, part two, and part three.

In our last three blogs, we outlined the challenges and opportunities in the maintenance and expansion of passenger rail service in the country, with an emphasis on the story of recent achievements in the Gulf Coast. It’s clear that the 2021 federal infrastructure law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA) unlocked a treasure trove of resources for advancing passenger rail in the United States, yet three years later, there’s still a great deal of progress to be made. This blog shares priorities for ensuring that we are making the most of this unlocked promise and possibility by creating a national vision for passenger rail.

National connectivity

Amtrak should continue to maintain and expand the connectivity and geographic coverage of the national network, as stipulated in the language of the IIJA. To ensure that the entire nation is served, both urban and rural, and judged by performance standards appropriate to the region served and type of service provided, the Northeast Corridor should not be treated as a separate entity to the entire national network.

Establish dedicated funding

Unlike public transit, aviation, and highways, passenger rail does not receive a dedicated source of revenue to build out its service. Instead, Amtrak relies on annual appropriations, which occur once each fiscal year. Our passenger rail network is living paycheck to paycheck, and that’s no way to invest in a long-term vision. In order to expand our network to its full potential, passenger rail needs to be treated as a service that has a future. Congress should set up a dedicated source of revenue for the development of passenger rail.

Encourage innovation

There are many private providers that, if given the opportunity, could lend their services and expertise to developing a robust passenger rail network. However, because Amtrak is the only passenger rail provider that can utilize the nation’s existing network of freight rail lines, it’s currently the only viable option to expand passenger rail across the country.

Extending the right-of-access to at least three providers would help spur innovation in passenger rail expansion, introducing new approaches, ideas, and competition. In addition, allowing freight or private providers to be eligible for federal funding for long distance service could further propel expansion.

Representation on the Amtrak Board of Directors

Amtrak’s existing board is not reflective of the geographic diversity of the communities across the nation that it serves or the types of service provided. An unrepresentative board prevents Amtrak from developing and advocating for strategic priorities that represent the interests of all of Amtrak’s users. The guidance laid out in the IIJA for representation on Amtrak’s board should be implemented and enforced.

Standardize the rail system

Right now, rail providers aren’t required to standardize their equipment, which means that any passenger rail network we create may require different equipment depending on the track design or power supply networks. This could lead to a disjointed rail network down the line, where only some trains are able to operate on certain tracks.

To ensure a streamlined customer experience and to make the most of taxpayer investments, equipment for conventional speed and high-speed rail should be standardized, as well as right-of-way infrastructure to ensure interoperability of the national system.

An upcoming opportunity

The 2021 infrastructure law is set to expire in 2026. At that point, our nation’s leaders will need to pass a new law, called the surface transportation reauthorization, to further enhance our nation’s transportation system. Reauthorization will present a monumental opportunity to reassert a consolidated vision for national passenger service. But we should be clear: there’s no need to wait. To make the most of the 2021 infrastructure law’s investments, our leaders can and should begin making progress on the priorities listed above right now.

From excitement to reality: Implementing passenger rail on the Gulf Coast

Passengers prepare to board an Amtrak train

Federal advocacy and allies were essential to turning local momentum for passenger rail from New Orleans to Mobile—set to reopen this very year—into a regional, and national, success story.

In recognition of recent progress for passenger service in the Coastal South, we’re releasing a four-part series exploring how unified regional and national approaches, supported by local advocacy and sound policy, can help create a successful passenger rail network. This is part three of the series, written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier. Read part one on the history of passenger rail, part two on building momentum for change, and part four on next steps for a national network.

As we explained in our last article on passenger rail in the Gulf Coast, in 2017, the Federal Railroad Administration’s Gulf Coast Working Group (GCWG) established that the region needs passenger rail expansion, first from New Orleans to Mobile—a major step in growing the region’s rail network. However, the restoration process would require infrastructure and operations investment.

At this point, Transportation for America had assisted the Southern Rail Commission with a variety of projects, including the 2016 ride-along that showcased local excitement for the restored route, but T4A started to take on a larger role to develop funding avenues, which could support the work that would come out of the FRA working group’s report.

Policy developments and funding

The first steps for the SRC and T4A was to find their champions, those legislators that would work to develop and support policy that could fund passenger rail restoration in the Gulf Coast. Senator Roger Wicker, former Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee; Senator Maria Cantwell, former Ranking Member and current Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee; and former United States Representative Peter DeFazio were key supporters of various initiatives brought to attention by the SRC and T4A.

A key initiative of the Southern Rail Commission, spearheaded by Chairman Knox Ross and Vice Chair John Spain, was advocating for the creation of passenger rail funding avenues on the federal level. They argued that federal funding sources, when combined with local financial support, would help build a cohesive and unified approach to restoration. Out of these efforts came two federal grant programs, the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program and the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) program, which provided the Gulf Coast with the resources needed to turn two decades of advocacy into action. These wins are a perfect example of the nationwide impact Gulf Coast efforts have had, as these federal grant programs provide funding for passenger rail expansion across the country.

The CRISI grant program makes funding available for projects which improve safety, efficiency, and reliability of intercity passenger rail and freight rail. In 2022, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was awarded this grant for the final design and construction of infrastructure needs for the Gulf Coast Corridor Improvement Project. These funds illustrate an exciting new phase of passenger rail restoration in the Gulf Coast as the SRC, Amtrak, and FRA step into the implementation phase. Additionally, funds matched by the state governments of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama in addition to matches provided by freight rail corporations CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway exemplify successful efforts to unify local, regional, and federal rail actors behind the project.

On the other hand, the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) grant would aid in operations support. These funding opportunities not only provide the necessary resources to complete the New Orleans to Mobile train; they also provide the entire nation with an opportunity to implement rail restoration.

These successes led to a broad recognition of the need for rail compacts, not only in the Gulf Coast Region, but across the nation. The SRC had successfully advocated for funding avenues and seen initiatives across the Gulf Coast awarded funding for project implementation. Rail compacts were born out of the recognition that a cohesive and unified approach to implementing policy and funding mechanisms was required to develop intercity passenger rail services, as proven by the SRC’s efforts. The Interstate Rail Compacts grant program was created to provide financial assistance to support the activities of entities implementing rail compacts for the purpose of unifying governments along a corridor. This served as a valuable coordination tactic for aligning stakeholders to further the development of passenger rail in a given area.

Once an institution is created to help develop, guide, and oversee a passenger rail vision, it will need support to create an implementation strategy. The FRA created the Corridor Identification and Development Program (CIDP) to direct federal investments and technical assistance towards priority rail corridors for new or improved intercity passenger rail services. This collaboration would help develop corridors that are desired by local communities and states, while also advancing passenger rail connectivity not only within their region but across the country. In December 2023, the FRA awarded the SRC $500,000 through this program to develop the I-20 passenger rail corridor, which would connect Shreveport, Ruston, and Monroe to Dallas, Texas. The commitment of funds towards developing passenger rail service reflects the interest of the FRA in continuing to invest in the future of passenger rail in the Gulf Coast region, and nationally.

A notable characteristic of the CIDP is the desire to highlight what communities find valuable, rather than solely rely on a national vision to develop new routes.

Mobile and Amtrak negotiations

Aligning state and local support for implementation was a crucial aspect of revitalizing passenger rail service, as funding is hinged on subsidies from the states. The states of Louisiana and Mississippi both agreed to supply the match required for a federal grant covering operating assistance for six years in the project federal matching fund, while the state of Alabama opted out of picking up the costs. This shifted the responsibility of providing a match for the project to the city of Mobile, leaving confirmed funding sources for Gulf Coast service hanging in the balance.

After a series of long negotiations lasting almost over a year between Amtrak and the Mobile City Council regarding an operations agreement and station site lease, a deal has been struck. Mobile’s funding obligation would be split equally between the city, the state of Alabama and the Alabama State Port Authority. Although the details of sustained operating funding is still to be ironed out, this represents significant progress and partnership between these entities in the realization of the Gulf Coast service.

The next stop

With service expected to begin at the end of the year, the creation of policy and funding vehicles for improving and expanding passenger rail services across the country has been a tremendous success.

The expansion of passenger rail on the Gulf Coast reflects the common challenges our nation faces when expanding non-car-centric infrastructure, yet it is also an example of how to right those wrongs. The road to passenger rail restoration in the Gulf Coast has been a long one, but rail service is soon to resume. At the heart of this story are shared efforts between the SRC, FRA, Amtrak, regional and local elected officials, and community leaders, which have culminated in a new path forward for passenger rail in the region. In our final blog in this series, we’ll share the final lessons we learned from the Gulf Coast.