Skip to main content

Tag: federal funding

What to know about this year’s SS4A funding

USDOT has released its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the FY2025 round of the Safe Streets and Roads (SS4A) competitive grant program. Almost $1 billion is available for projects that improve roadway safety for people in and out of a vehicle. 

SS4A grants are open to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribes, municipalities, counties, or business improvement districts for projects to enhance roadway safety.  Unlike previous years, transit agencies that aren’t created by state authority are no longer eligible to apply. 

Of the available funding, $580 million is intended for implementation grants, while $402.3 million (or 40 percent) is set aside for planning and demonstration grants. Applicants can seek planning funds for road safety action plans, supplemental planning, or quick-build demonstration projects. If they already have a safety action plan, applicants must submit a self-certification eligibility worksheet by email no later than May 9, 2025 (5 p.m. ET). Applications for planning and demonstration grants and implementation grants must be submitted by June 26, 2025 (5 P.M. ET).  

The USDOT’s R.O.U.T.E.S. grant toolkit is available to support communities that may need technical assistance in navigating the grant application process. This toolkit is intended to ease the burden for communities, particularly rural or underserved, by providing information on competitive grant opportunities and strategies for putting together a successful application. 

What’s changed? 

Despite similarities to previous SS4A NOFOs, there are some notable changes that reflect the priorities of the current Presidential administration. 

One of the main updates is to the selection criteria section. Economic competitiveness, equity considerations, workforce, and the climate are no longer included. Additionally, projects that reduce lane capacity for vehicles will be viewed less favorably by the administration. Applicants who have not previously received funding from this program will be favored for both planning and implementation grants. To apply for an Implementation grant, applications must certify that they have a recent and valid safety action plan.  The components required for a valid safety action plan can now be found in up to three plans recently developed by the applicant. Examples of plans that could be eligible are a local Vision Zero plan or a regional transportation safety plan. The plans must be developed between 2020 and June 26, 2025. 

Big opportunity to test roadway change

The SS4A program offers a valuable opportunity for cities, towns, and counties to test roadway changes through quick-build demonstration projects. These temporary, low-cost interventions allow communities to experiment with new street designs, such as bike lanes and safer crosswalks, before making permanent changes. 

By testing these improvements, communities can gather feedback, measure the safety impact of the design intervention, and address concerns in real time. Piloting street design changes quickly and cost-effectively can help build valuable momentum towards long-term safety improvements. This was the case in Versailles, Kentucky, which secured an SS4A grant to fund quick-build demonstrations to inform updates to their Regional Safety Action Plan. Temporary installations were implemented to measure the impact of design changes on high-crash areas, and the lessons learned from these projects will guide long-term improvements to these areas and other locations across the county. 

Tips for writing a great grant application

SS4A is an important tool to advance roadway safety for all users. That’s why we believe it’s crucial that communities of all sizes capitalize on this opportunity. While there will be scores of competitive applications, we’ve compiled some key strategies that will better position applicants to win these grants:

  1. Communities must align their project objectives with the program criteria. Tailoring projects to meet the program criteria included in the notice of funding opportunity ensures their project is eligible for the program. A competitive application will clearly define the problem the community is facing and specify how the project will address those needs. 
  2. Build a diverse coalition of stakeholders, including local leaders and businesses, to demonstrate a broad base of support. Competitive grant programs often require a certain amount of non-federal funding to match the federal dollars. A wide array of supporters can help put together a local match, which can even include in-kind contributions.  Additionally, understanding the specific funding program parameters and administrative steps is essential for having a better chance at success.
  3. Preparation is key. Start the process early, and stay informed through webinars listed by the NOFO to get an overview of the opportunity, ask questions, and effectively coordinate your application to ensure your project stands out. 

Now is the time to prepare your SS4A Application

SS4A funding can help communities design safer, more connected streets for everyone who uses them. With SS4A applications due by June 26, 2025, cities, towns, counties, or other metro areas interested in pursuing a grant should start planning now to put together a strong, competitive application.

Three takeaways from T4A’s webinar on Trump’s executive orders

Yesterday, our Director Beth Osborne led a webinar that provided a high-level overview of our Reauthorization 101 resource and analysis of Trump’s recent executive orders and memos. Here are the top three takeaways from the conversation with over 400 attendees.

1. Many are still confused as to what the administration is trying to accomplish

During the webinar, multiple attendees questioned the purpose of these speedy memos and executive orders. These are largely unprecedented actions and are difficult to calculate since there seems to be much back and forth with legality push backs (even internal push backs with Congress). Much of these actions are difficult to predict and it’s unknown if they are even capable of being implemented. One attendee pointed out how these EO’s could possibly clash with foundational legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, only time can tell and there are multiple variables at play that can reverse or accelerate these actions.

2. Everyone wants to know what they can do during this chaos

As advocates and transportation enthusiasts, attendees questioned what could be done during these times of uncertainty. At this point of time, the most impactful action is to let respective Congressional representatives know about the weight of these issues. Identify your representatives and call their office to explain what projects could be at risk in your community and what those projects bring to enhance life. Emails are another option to inform offices of the possible impact these memos can have on districts and states. DC offices are not the only option to contact, state legislators and state DOTs are also liaisons to contact and escalate how these actions could harm cities.

3. Who is at risk?

A large theme from the webinar was wondering whose communities are at risk of losing out on their obligated funding. T4A wants to equip our partners, advocates, and communities with all the right information and resources. Check out our analysis on funding that is at risk, broken down by state, county, and congressional districts. Be informed, know what is at risk and escalate to your legislators!

Long Distance Rail Study fails to address the needs of passengers

The Long-Distance Rail Study, released by the Federal Railroad Administration in the twilight hours of the Biden Administration on January 20, 2025, prioritizes lengthy projects that have little chance to succeed instead of shorter-term projects that can deliver service to Americans. It is imperative that Amtrak focus on routes that run daily and not only serve major employment centers but the small urban towns that lie between.

Cardinal Train passing by L’Enfant Station on 2/23/25 (Photo By Author)

In January 2025, just before the change of Presidential Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released the Amtrak Long-Distance Service Study as a report to Congress. The study, which was due in November 2023, was mandated by Congress as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), with the goal of evaluating the restoration of several long-distance passenger rail routes to be operated by the National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak).

The United States has lost many long-distance passenger rail routes in the decades following the founding of Amtrak in 1971. (Long-distance routes are routes that travel over 750 miles). The study found that many of the remaining 15 long-distance routes serve as a vital link for many rural communities that lack other transportation options, such as interstate highways or airports. Investing in more routes within the Amtrak network will offer increased access to communities across the country by a method other than driving or flying.

1940 map of passenger rail routes in the United States (Source)

Comparison map of Amtrak routes in 1971 vs 2021 (Source)

While it is admirable to recommend 15 more long-distance routes (some of which are the restoration of previous services, while others are brand new service proposals), many of these projects are not able to be completed in a short period of time. Many of the recommendations require complex negotiations with the freight rail companies that own the tracks, constructing new or refurbished accessible stations and boarding platforms, and brand new corridor alignments in order to meet the needs of these proposed services. It is important to think in terms of four-, six-, and eight-year increments for project timelines, as that is the time frame in which Congress and the Presidency operate. And it is often extremely difficult to convince elected leaders to support a project that they may not even see while they are in office.

Quick win opportunities: The Cardinal and the Sunset Limited

Figure 4-1 of the report

Of the 15 remaining long-distance routes, 13 have departures seven days a week. However, two of the proposed 15 trains have a lower frequency, only departing three times a week instead: the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited. Unlike many of the other new route proposals, upgrading the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to daily service is a feasible project that could be implemented in a shorter timeframe and deliver impactful results.

Houston, TX, the fourth most populous city in the United States and on the Sunset Limited route, is the largest city in the country without daily passenger rail service. The Cardinal exclusively connects Charleston, WV; Cincinnati, OH; and Indianapolis, IN, while the Sunset Limited exclusively connects Houston, TX; El Paso, TX; and Tucson, AZ. Cultivating daily service on these two routes would allow for reliable connectivity for many rural communities and small towns to economic and education opportunities and to health/social services.

North Coast Hiawatha Proposed Route (Source)

The North Coast Hiawatha, prominently listed as the “Seattle-Chicago” route, was a long-distance route that was discontinued in 1979. It was similar to the current Empire Builder route that travels between Chicago and Seattle or Portland (splitting service in Spokane), operating three times a week between Chicago and Seattle. However, unlike the Empire Builder, the North Coast Hiawatha took a more southern route through North Dakota and Montana, connecting cities such as Bismark, Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula. All of these cities currently lack passenger rail, which the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is advocating to change. Restoring the North Coast Hiawatha and upgrading it to daily service would allow for reliable connectivity and would increase access to everyday destinations.

Another branch of an existing service that was considered but not incorporated in the study was branching the Crescent, which runs from New York to New Orleans, at Meridian to have a branch to Fort Worth. This line has even received federal grants and currently has a supportive freight host (CPKC) for much of the route.

Tangible opportunities for tomorrow’s wins

With passenger rail funding at a crossroads in the United States, it is important that the FRA and Amtrak utilize existing rail assets in relation to population, economic, and health centers and prioritize starting passenger rail operations quickly. Projects such as the daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited, restoration and enhancement of the North Coast Hiawatha, and splitting the Crescent at Meridian to go to Dallas are shorter-term projects that would construct a brighter future for passenger rail. These projects would create new connections for riders, and allow greater mobility around the United States for a more reasonable cost and within a more reasonable timeframe.

After spending over $1 trillion, the roads are still crumbling, unsafe, and congested. Does Congress care?

Congress is starting to talk about the next federal transportation bill, due next year. But they seem more concerned with how the money is distributed, to whom, and how fast it is being spent, rather than what the American people are getting for their tax dollars.

With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) sunsetting in 19 months, Congress has to prepare a bill to reauthorize the federal highway, transit and rail programs. But numerous committees so far tasked with that work have not even started to consider the most fundamental question: how well is the highway system working? 

The federal government has spent $1.5 trillion of American taxpayer dollars over the past 30-plus years to build a world-class surface transportation system. In 2012, a strong bipartisan majority—373 to 52 in the House and 74 to 19 in the Senate—passed a transportation reauthorization bill that refocused the program on national transportation goals, increasing accountability and transparency, and improving project decision-making through performance-based planning and programming.

The seven national goals Congress wrote into law (23 USC 150) finally captured the priorities that have been highlighted since 1991: safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and better project delivery. After 34 years of increasingly spendy bipartisan transportation bills, how have we fared on these goals?

Safety

The United States has the most dangerous roads in the developed world. By a lot. Twice as deadly as Greece, three times as deadly as Israel, and six times as deadly as Norway. In fact, the U.S. is twenty percent more deadly than Chile and 30 percent more deadly than Serbia. Most of these countries are getting safer, but not us.

Roads in the United States are so deadly and unsafe that our numbers change the narrative on worldwide traffic safety in the developed world. The 2024 roadway safety report on the 70 countries in the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD) notes that overall road deaths would have actually fallen by 12.8 percent if the US had been left out. We are dragging the performance of the rest of the developed world in the wrong direction.

For people walking, it’s even worse. Compared to a 29 percent improvement in the rest of these countries, pedestrian fatalities in the US have increased 75 percent since 2010, which you can find in the National Complete Streets Coalition’s report on pedestrian safety, Dangerous by Design.

While the federal transportation program has included a specific program to address safety, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which has existed since 1973, has always been a tiny part of the overall program—currently, 6 percent of the highway program. Add in the Transportation Alternatives program, which helps build sidewalks and other infrastructure to help people without a car get around safely, and you get up to 9 percent. Whatever constitutes our approach to safety is failing for everyone who uses the road.

Congestion reduction/Reliability/Freight

USDOT chose to assess congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement, and economic vitality through overly simple measures of vehicle speeds, so we will address these areas together. One of the biggest excuses for not taking established steps to improve safety (the steps every nation doing better than us is taking) is the need to support the economy by eliminating congestion. Saving lives with slower speeds has taken a back seat in favor of trying to eliminate congestion at all costs, which has been the ultimate goal of all federal transportation spending for the last 30 years. Yet, no matter how you measure this effort, it has failed.

Between 1993 and 2017, the most populous 100 U.S. cities added 30,511 new freeway lane-miles, an increase of 42 percent. That rate of freeway expansion significantly outstripped the 32 percent growth in population in those regions over the same time period. So congestion should have gone down, right? Nope, it went up 144 percent. Congestion increased in every single one of these 100 metro areas. It went up in places that tried really hard to build their way out of congestion, like in Brownsville, TX, where the population increased 73 percent, they increased freeway lane miles by 287 percent and congestion increased by 1230 percent. It also went up in places that lost population, like in Detroit, MI, where the population decreased by 5 percent, they increased freeway lane miles by 15 percent, and congestion still increased by 45 percent. Let that sink in. Fewer people, more highways, and congestion increased—a lot!

Infrastructure condition

What have record levels of investment in infrastructure gotten us when it comes to the basic condition of our roads and bridges? USDOT’s Conditions and Performance Report for 2024 found that the share of federal-aid highway pavements with good ride quality improved during the 2008–2018 period—from 40.7 percent to 47.2 percent (not even half). But the share of federal-aid highway pavements with poor ride quality also worsened during that time, rising from 15.8 percent to 22.6 percent. In terms of bridges, the share of federal-aid bridges in good repair decreased from 47.8 percent to 46.0 percent; however, the share of federal-aid bridges in poor repair also decreased from 10.1 percent to 7.6 percent. Pretty lackluster results.

USDOT likes to note that the busiest roads (by amount of vehicle miles traveled) are in (slightly) better condition, as they likely have more repair dollars spent on them. While this is true, either all roads you’ve built are important enough to maintain, or they should not have been built in the first place. This claim also runs directly counter to rhetoric often deployed about the “importance” of rural areas—as if it’s ok if their less trafficked roads are poorly maintained.

Emissions

We covered this just two months ago. Based on current investment patterns, over the course of the current infrastructure law, federal surface transportation spending could increase emissions by nearly 190 million metric tonnes of emissions over baseline levels through 2040 from added driving. This is the emission equivalent of 500 natural gas-fired power plants or nearly 50 coal-fired power plants running for a year.

And we weren’t doing well before the IIJA either, as we showed in our 2020 report, Driving Down Emissions.

Speeding up project delivery

Why would we want to speed up the delivery of projects producing such terrible results? Slow them down. Stop them.

Members of Congress preparing the replacement of the IIJA this year and next should be warned that the collective failure to make improvements in these priority areas will be given as the primary reason to pump more money into the same programs we have been funding for decades. They may have changed names, shifted from formula to discretionary or vice versa, or seen their proportions change, but they are basically the same programs.

If you point out that the results have been truly disappointing, you will hear how the transportation agencies aren’t to blame, even as they ask for more money to do the same things. For example, we regularly hear that roadway fatalities are up because of the misbehavior of people using those roadways rather than the design or function of those roads. Their counterparts in other countries don’t feel that way, which is one reason they are successfully saving lives. If state DOTs aren’t able to improve safety, then we should give funding to other entities that can.

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, whose committee will be writing a large chunk of this law, is starting with the wrong questions and assumptions. She told POLITICO that she wants to look at formula vs. discretionary to see if the discretionary [grants] getting out and to determine kind of efficiencies need to be made. The most essential question to ask is whether or not the enormous amount of spending on transportation has resulted in better outcomes, like the goals Congress overwhelmingly supported and put into the U.S. Code: making the roads safer, reducing congestion, improving infrastructure conditions, and reducing emissions. If the answers are no, then clearly it’s time to stop throwing good money after bad.

Congress is looking at spending another $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. People will point to the overwhelming bipartisan support. Inevitably (as happens at every reauthorization), there will be calls for more money for the same programs, more flexibility for states to spend federal funds however they like, and less accountability overall.

This strategy has failed to deliver, and it won’t deliver anything different, whether we give it more money or less.

We shouldn’t spend another dime on a program that fails so completely to deliver on all of the priorities we have set for it. This is the issue that Congress should be grappling with over the next year as they prepare the next transportation law.

 

Webinar: Executive orders and reauthorization—Navigating the future of federal transportation funding

Join us for a webinar on Tuesday, February 25th at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the state of transportation funding, including recent executive orders and the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization.

Register to join us!

Federal transportation funding is at a crossroads, with executive orders and USDOT directives reshaping priorities and halting projects, not to mention federal surface transportation program planning already underway. In a rapidly shifting USDOT, what is the latest on projects across the country facing uncertainty, delays, and outright cuts to obligated funding? How will the Trump administration’s policies influence long-term funding decisions? And could a shift in the reauthorization status quo really be a bad thing?

Join Beth Osborne, Director of Transportation for America, for a timely discussion on the state of federal transportation funding, what to expect in the coming months, and how advocates and practitioners can navigate this evolving landscape.

Supporting Reading:
Unflooding the zone: What do the Trump administration’s latest actions signal for transportation?
Reauthorization 101

Another hurdle cleared for passenger rail on the Gulf Coast

press release

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.

Fix it first in practice

VDOT Crew pulling ditches in a Work Zone on west bound Route 60.

One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away from grand openings and toward more resilient transportation infrastructure?

VDOT Crew pulling ditches in a Work Zone on west bound Route 60.
(D. Allen Covey, VDOT)

The problem

Make no mistake, requiring repair and maintenance before expansion would represent a complete reorientation of our transportation program. While some states certainly do better than others, the majority of them are ignoring or deprioritizing certain maintenance needs in favor of building new roads. And arguably none are creating long-term plans for financing the ongoing maintenance of those new roads or bridges. Which is why every five years, we hear the same rhetoric about why we need a massive increase in federal transportation investment to “fix our crumbling roads and bridges,” and why conditions rarely change. It’s a loop cycle.

A few years ago, before the passage of the 2021 five-year infrastructure law (the IIJA), we heard endless speechifying on Capitol Hill about the decaying infrastructure. Thousands upon thousands of deficient bridges. Bad roads. Unfathomable backlogs of neglected maintenance and repair. But with that historic infusion of infrastructure money in hand from the IIJA, state DOTs and a collection of senators lost their minds that USDOT would even deign to suggest that repair be prioritized first with that money.

It shouldn’t be a revolutionary principle: Federal dollars should not be spent on new roads and bridges if our existing ones are at risk of or already breaking down. The need for this reprioritization primarily stems from the staggering lack of priority that maintenance has historically been given. Instead of fulfilling repairs, our dollars are spent on expansion, resulting in the overwhelming 830 billion-dollar maintenance backlog.

If you have a flat tire, you don’t take a cross-country road trip before getting the tire replaced. We should have the same approach to our transportation infrastructure. In this video, bridges in Fife, Washington and East Providence, Rhode Island had to be closed due to safety concerns after decades of delayed maintenance. The closures reduced traffic flows to local businesses, causing significant concerns amongst local business owners seeing their revenues dip. Delayed maintenance also impacts access to necessary resources, such as healthcare, and can exacerbate damages caused by natural disasters, reducing our resilience to extreme events. On the other hand, investing in repairs holds numerous opportunities to improve quality of life and increase economic growth. If we invested only $1 billion per year into resolving delayed maintenance, an estimated 13,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created.

comic illustration
Illustration produced for T4America by visual artist Jean Wei. IG/@weisanboo

Implementing the principle

To reorient our federal program around repair and maintenance we’ll have to get to the root of the problem: policy, the resistance of state DOTs and their elected leadership to this idea, and a mistaken belief that new roads and lanes are the only viable strategy to reduce congestion, connect people to opportunity, and create economic benefits.

Congress came close in 2020 during the run-up to what eventually became the IIJA. In the House of Representatives, a much stronger and superior five-year reauthorization proposal (the INVEST Act) included an amendment from Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) that would have enshrined our ix-it-first principle into federal transportation policy. The amendment included three small but transformative changes to the bill:

  1. Require a maintenance plan for building new capacity.
  2. Require benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) on new capacity projects.
  3. Include a range of new performance measures in BCAs.

Although small, these changes would have ensured that our federal dollars were spent responsibly, that expansions would not crumble just a few decades after being built and that new capacity projects have considered a wide range of accurately predicted benefits.

Unfortunately, this and some of the other best parts of the superior INVEST Act were removed during negotiations with the Senate to produce the final 2021 Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA). This amendment is only one example that prioritizing maintenance is not an unpopular opinion, but it does happen to be less popular than a ribbon-cutting photo op. If state’s are going to prioritize spending on maintenance, it has to come from the top. As a former Mississippi DOT Commissioner told us a few years ago, left to their own devices, states will continue taking the blank checks to build new things. “If you want us to prioritize maintenance, then you’re going to have to tell us ‘you gotta do it!’”

Replicating the policies in the INVEST Act would be a good starting point, but the maintenance goals can be strengthened through a few other key details. The federal government could create strict requirements on deferred maintenance before states are permitted to utilize that funding for new builds. A strong example of this are transit formula funds, which currently prioritize funding maintenance over expansion. Furthermore, ties to federal dollars would require the federal government to develop stronger tracking methods on how state funds are being spent on maintenance. Additionally, the federal government should embed additional requirements to more accurately define the beneficiaries of expansion projects. Through stronger BCAs, the federal government can ensure that funds are being spent to improve the quality of life of those living in the communities near new projects.

So, why hasn’t this happened yet?

The longstanding myth that expanded roadways improve congestion has been debunked. Furthermore, expansion actually makes traffic worse. This idea is referred to as induced demand, and is an economic term that illustrates how an increased supply in something will make people want and/or use it more.

But most state DOTs still view expansion as the only tool in their toolbox, and are highly resistant to being good stewards if it comes at the expense of long-planned new highways and expansion projects. Shortly after the 2021 release of the IIJA, Federal Highway Administration Deputy Administrator Stephanie Pollack shared a memo gently urging states to prioritize repair over new capacity projects. As noted earlier, congressional reps carrying water for their state DOTs lost their minds at the humble suggestion (no requirement!) that they should prioritize repair. The outcry was so intense that USDOT had to recall the non-binding memo.

This controversy overshadowed the fact that their voters back home actually believe that repair is the best use of infrastructure dollars, as well as the fact that a majority also believe that new roads or lanes either don’t affect congestion or make it worse. (Focus groups we’ve conducted in the past have also shown that voters are shocked to discover that there are no requirements for repair first. Many assume there are.)

Now is the time for our federal government to ensure that our roads and bridges are in a good state of repair before expanding a system with insufficient plans to ensure it will stand the test of time.

It’s Fix It First Week

Click below to access more content related to our second principle for infrastructure investment, Fix it first. Find all three of our principles here.

  • Fix it first in practice

    One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away…

  • We can’t afford to keep avoiding repair

    When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.

  • It’s time to stop expanding and start maintaining

    To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.

We can’t afford to keep avoiding repair

A pothole filled with caution signs

When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.

A pothole filled with caution signs
(Charlie Vinz, Flickr)

We’ve written a lot about how decision-makers justify spending money on expansions instead of repair, even when we have a $830 billion maintenance backlog on existing highways alone. The idea is that when they add a new lane, they are saving travelers time, primarily by allowing drivers to drive faster. If you’ve been following us for a while, you already know that this logic is fundamentally flawed, but let’s set that aside for a moment.

When we expand roadways at the expense of every other way to travel, we create a transportation system that all but requires owning and driving a personal vehicle for essential trips like going to work, school, or the grocery store. When we then fail to maintain those same roads and bridges, we see travel delays in the form of detours and slowed traffic—delays people must suffer through, because they have no other option.

Because the full transportation system is connected, when one intersection is rendered impassable due to poor maintenance, anyone traveling on the roadways around it can experience disruptions, even if those roads are in perfect condition. If time is money (as transportation officials like to believe), this is reason in itself to invest in more transportation options and maintain our existing infrastructure.

It gets worse

Infrastructure failures also have economic ripple effects. When bridges are closed due to maintenance concerns, changed routes can impact local businesses. Bridge collapses can cost local economies millions and disrupt national supply chains.

This doesn’t even factor in that every dollar we spend on expansion adds to our overall maintenance deficit, as new lanes and bridges have maintenance needs as well. And thanks to induced demand, new lanes often lead to more driving, which leads to even more wear and tear on our roads. These costs, too, will eventually be shouldered by taxpayers.

There are also real, physical costs to poorly maintained roads and bridges. When you don’t maintain the roof of your house, you end up with even more costs as water damages the interior. It’s the same with roads and bridges. Water percolates through cracked and potholed surface pavement leading to worse damage, leading to expensive rebuilds that could have been averted with proper resurfacing and minor repairs. Bridges that aren’t regularly cleaned, sealed and repainted have shorter lifespans leading to more frequent bridge replacements that are very expensive.

Costs accumulate for travelers as well. Driving over potholes risks damage to personal vehicles, which the city and state likely won’t pay. If pavement is in poor condition, risk of crashes can increase. And then there is the physical risk of driving over a poorly maintained bridge, hoping that it won’t collapse. When the Fern Hollow Bridge collapsed in Pittsburgh in 2022 due to lack of maintenance, a bus and six passenger vehicles fell with it, leading to multiple injuries. When a structurally deficient I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007, 13 people died and 145 more were injured.

You could put it this way: The maintenance costs state and local decision-makers fail to address are all eventually passed on to everyday Americans—to travelers, local business owners, and workers. The costs accumulate in the form of lost time, lost income, damage to personal vehicles, and increased risk of injury. They turn into even more maintenance expenses and higher taxes down the line.

When taxpayer dollars aren’t spent responsibly, we all pay for it, over and over again.

We don’t have the money for this

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was a historic investment in our nation’s infrastructure, but without a requirement to fix it first, a substantial portion of those funds went to more roadway expansions without any plan to maintain the roads we’ve already built. The environmental impact alone of these expansions will likely lead to even more maintenance needs in the future.

It’s unlikely we’ll see an investment like that again any time soon, which makes our maintenance needs even more concerning. In the next federal infrastructure investment, congressional leaders need to make sure that taxpayer money gets spent wisely. We simply can’t afford to keep this up.

It’s Fix It First Week

Click below to access more content related to our second principle for infrastructure investment, Fix it first. Find all three of our principles here.

  • Fix it first in practice

    One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away…

  • We can’t afford to keep avoiding repair

    When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.

  • It’s time to stop expanding and start maintaining

    To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.

Three principles to guide federal transportation spending

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invest in the rest

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

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

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

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

Safety over speed

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

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

Fix it first

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

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

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

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

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.

Passengers prepare to board an Amtrak train
(Amtrak)

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.

FTA helps deliver more buses for less

The Federal Transit Administration is working hard to ensure that the next rounds of the Low or No Emissions Grant Program and Buses and Bus Facilities Program do the most for riders—and the climate. Here’s how.

Read our original letter and our thank you to the FTA.

A bus rolls to a stop on a bustling city street as pedestrians walk down a wide sidewalk in the background

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Low or No Emissions Grant Program (Low No) and Buses and Bus Facilities Program have been delivering new transit vehicles to communities across the country since 2016. But when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, or the 2021 infrastructure law) passed, the bill supercharged the program. Funding for the Low No program increased over five times the previous levels, growing from $182 million for 49 awardees in fiscal year 2021 to $1.22 billion across 130 grant winners in fiscal year 2023. With all that money flowing into communities, the transition to zero emission transit systems should be accelerating at scale.

However, funding isn’t everything. Without proper policy in place, the way that funding is spent could mean less transit service per dollar, not more. According to the Eno Center for Transportation, zero emission buses purchased with federal funding cost more per bus than buses purchased without federal dollars.

Under the previous structure for the Low No program, transit agencies had flexibility to use federal dollars to customize their purchases nearly as much as they wanted, without sharing costs for extra features or preferences. And this doesn’t just create a nuisance—combined with other economic forces, this cost has worked to outweigh the benefits of historic funding increases. In battery electric bus manufacturer Proterra’s 2023 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, they claimed that excessive customization and long lead times for payments from transit agency customers played a role in their fall.

While some customization to meet performance needs is warranted, at the end of the day, a bus is a bus—frequency and network coverage matters above all for riders. So CHARGE, supported by the National Campaign for Transit Justice, sent a letter to the FTA urging for reforms to ensure that the IIJA’s historic funding is used more effectively to deploy clean buses in communities across the country.

In line with the administration’s equity and domestic industry goals, the FTA responded to our letter and updated the Low No and Buses and Bus Facility program to help ensure riders will get more buses, for less money, faster, while also making sure local manufacturing can work at scale. Along with new guidance, the FTA has made new changes to this year’s notice of funding, incentivizing applicants to minimize vehicle customization and reform procurement processes, helping more clean buses get out to communities faster than ever.

We thank the FTA for their responsiveness and willingness to pivot in its implementation of the IIJA to maximize the benefits it can provide, getting more buses to more people for fewer dollars.

Transportation for America co-leads the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE). Learn more about the coalition here.

It’s nearly impossible to understand how our tax dollars are spent on transportation

Highways overlap over a desert landscape in Arizona

T4America used artificial intelligence to find out how states are spending money from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Two findings are clear: More money alone will still fail to produce change, and it’s far too complicated to figure out where our transportation dollars are going.

Highways overlap over a desert landscape in Arizona
Photo by Jared Murray on Unsplash

In negotiations over the 2021 infrastructure law, the Senate discarded most of the ambitious policy improvements in the House’s INVEST in America Act, instead opting to create scores of new good but small discretionary grant programs for lowering emissions or investing in transportation options while increasing funding overall for the same flexible pots of money that states can spend with few restrictions. Still, the White House and many senators assured us that this bill would lead to a climate victory—often pointing to the small pots of money set aside for emissions reduction efforts.

As the infrastructure law continues to fund thousands of projects, we’ve developed new tools using artificial intelligence to individually categorize project descriptions to categorize how that funding is being spent. And while our methods for analyzing federal transportation spending have evolved into the 21st century, state spending is firmly stuck in the last one, devoting more than $33 billion from the IIJA (so far) to highway expansion. It turns out that giving state DOTs more money with few strings attached results in even more of the same: emissions-increasing highway widenings.

According to recent news coverage, our analysis has struck a chord:





While new discretionary grant programs have been able to offset some of these emissions, relying on cities, transit agencies, and localities to pursue small amounts of funding to offset this massive influx of emissions has produced limited results.

It shouldn’t take dedicated national nonprofits to sort out this information

The simple truth is that it’s incredibly complex to find out where the money from IIJA is being spent by states, and even then, results in a relatively limited view. How can the public have a chance to decide if the $1.2 trillion in new infrastructure money in the IIJA was a smart decision when it’s so difficult to find out where that money is being spent?

While this analysis shines a light on more than 57,000 projects, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. While federal dollars are eventually tracked on USASpending.gov, state-funded projects are not tracked in any central location. There are billions of dollars that this analysis cannot account for, programmed away in over 50 different formats within their State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) that spell out state spending plans across the country.

Federal sources could be improved as well. Of the projects we looked into, 56,106 were from the FHWA, which does a much better job of reporting and obligating funds to states compared to the FTA. And this dataset is changing every month. Already, over 2,000 new projects have been added to our initial USAspending.gov query since our first analysis—and we plan to revisit it in the future.

As a taxpayer, these federal dollars are coming out of your pockets. Yet the lack of transparency on how this money gets spent leaves much to be desired. Even more alarming than the lack of transparency is where the money is going. The new and widened roads that states built with the funding will not lead to freedom from congestion, but instead, might have just consumed dollars that could have been invested in alternatives to road congestion and the existing network of roads and sidewalks. Next time, if we want better outcomes for climate, connectivity, and the economy at large, our leaders need to be clear about how they’re spending our money. That means stronger policy in the next reauthorization, and better reporting as soon as possible.

Our analysis on state transportation spending isn’t over. Stay tuned for additional updates.

Supercharge your community’s quick-build safety demonstration projects with Safe Streets for All

Overhead photo of a three-lane street in Chattanooga, TN, where a quick build demonstration project has resulted in additional crosswalks, activated sidewalks, and bollard-protected bike lanes

Because of a mistake by Congress in the 2021 infrastructure law, 40 percent of the new $1 billion-per-year Safe Streets for All program must be directed to planning rather than constructing tangible infrastructure projects. A clarification that the planning grants can support quick-build safety demonstration projects presents an enormous opportunity for cities and towns to directly tap the available $400 million and experiment with low-cost temporary street safety projects. This is the first of two blogs regarding opportunities to use this funding. To learn more, read part two here.

Overhead photo of a three-lane street in Chattanooga, TN, where a quick build demonstration project has resulted in additional crosswalks, activated sidewalks, and bollard-protected bike lanes
Photo by Kurt Martig, courtesy of the City of Chattanooga.

Cities and towns can typically make street safety improvements in one of two ways: they can spend their own local money on streets that they control, which comes with its own set of challenges, or they can engage their state DOT which controls federal formula transportation dollars and many of the most dangerous streets. The new Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program was so crucial because it created a new way for cities, towns, and counties to directly access federal funds to quickly create and execute on Vision Zero plans.

After Congress’s mistake requiring 40 percent of SS4A to go toward planning grants, USDOT wisely broadened their definition of planning to include demonstration projects. This creates an incredible opening for cities to receive funding to pilot temporary street design changes.

The program has $5 billion over the life of the infrastructure law, or about $1 billion per year. The next round of funding is expected to be made available this month, and cities of all sizes should consider applying for planning grants that can support quick-build demonstration projects.

What are quick-build demonstration projects?

Quick-builds, also known as demonstration projects or tactical urbanism projects, are temporary, low-cost improvements to test new changes to street design.

These quick, light, flexible, adaptable projects allow everyone involved—community members, transportation staff, elected leaders—to test specific designs and interventions that measurably improve safety and convenience for everyone who uses the street, all while gathering valuable feedback. They incorporate methods and designs that are proven to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities—documented and supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Even though temporary, these projects are a vital first step toward making real, tangible changes. And many demonstration projects often end up staying in place indefinitely, or (more typically) forming the basis of the design for a permanent project to come later. The process of creating and executing them builds new knowledge and partnerships—within the transportation department and even with other jurisdictions, related agencies, and advocates—that are vital for building permanent projects.

Tucson residents paint the street orange, green, blue, and white to draw attention to a bike lane in their Complete Streets demonstration project.
Photo courtesy of Living Streets Alliance staff. From Smart Growth America’s profile of Tucson’s Complete Streets policy.

Why should a community consider quick-build projects?

Doing something concrete—even temporarily—is a powerful way to improve safety for people walking, biking, rolling (and driving), and demonstrate an ongoing commitment to protecting all road users. It also shows how stemming the tide of preventable traffic deaths and injuries requires immediate action, creativity, and a willingness to test new things. Despite the urgent need to make streets safer immediately, even the most simple, common sense projects to build new crosswalks, widen sidewalks, add a new bike lane, or make other improvements for safety and convenience can take a lot of time and money.

Quick-build projects are one way to make some level of improvement nearly overnight at an incredibly low cost, while providing a venue for gathering valuable feedback, testing the impact of the changes, and surfacing potential pushback from community members who might oppose a permanent project. In some cases, quick-build projects end up staying in place until capital budgets and planners can execute a permanent project.

Smart Growth America will soon be releasing a summary of their 2023 Complete Streets Leadership Academy, where they worked with 10 cities and four state DOTs to design quick-build demonstration projects on state-owned roads. Stay tuned!

Demonstration projects can also be incredibly cheap. We’ve supported numerous successful demonstration projects over the last few years with grants as low as $5k-15k. Imagine what a city could do with $1 million to support a Vision Zero planning effort that’s paired with as many demonstration projects as they can build with several hundred thousand dollars?

Nearly $1 billion will be available for planning grants alone

The notice of funding availability (NOFO) from the US Department of Transportation is expected to be released sometime in February, so cities, towns, counties, metro areas or others interested in putting an application together should be getting their act together now. Unlike other USDOT grant programs that are oversubscribed, this one is far less competitive: Nearly every jurisdiction that applied for planning grants so far has been awarded funds.

In fact, over the first two rounds, USDOT didn’t receive anywhere close to $400 million in applications for planning grants. This means that nearly $450 million is rolling into this round and between $900 million and $1 billion is expected to be available for planning activities (and demonstration projects!) in this round alone. That’s an enormous sum.

This is only a temporary fix—in more ways than one

Congress made this mistake, and Congress will have to be the one to fix it. But a legislative fix is a long shot and changes to the makeup of Congress or the administration next January could complicate things further. This is just the second year of SS4A funding, and many cities already have Safety Action Plans created. As more planning funds are awarded, cities will need more capital grants instead of planning dollars. A million more demonstration projects would have a significant impact, but we need permanent changes on our streets, and more of the SS4A program should be devoted to making those permanent changes.

Finally, while demonstration projects are productive for all the reasons listed above, they’re still just short-term solutions to the long-term crisis of streets that are unsafe and inconvenient for people to use without a car. The best quick-build projects will make people safer today while also supporting and advancing local plans to apply for future implementation dollars, or create a foundation for other long-term solutions to address fatalities.

Why we need the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act

A diverse set of passengers (women and men, young and old) rides a bus down a sunny street

Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04) reintroduced the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act, which would establish a federal funding program for transit operations, providing $20 billion in annual funding over four years ($80 billion) to expand the service of buses and trains. We are joining the National Campaign for Transit Justice, the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) in support of this bill.

Public transit is essential to communities, local economies, and the lives of millions of people across the country. As they work to deliver frequent and reliable service, transit agencies can use federal funding to repair and maintain their systems and to build out new services—but they can’t use it to help cover the cost of operating their systems, which accounts for two-thirds of a transit agency’s total expenses. Agencies have to turn to local taxes, fares, and fees to cover this gap.

Faced with fiscal cliffs in the years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic plus escalating inflation, many transit agencies have been forced to reduce service rather than focusing on increasing ridership back to—and beyond—pre-pandemic levels. This crisis has demonstrated that the current approach is failing to meet the needs of millions of Americans who rely upon transit to reach their essential destinations.

The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act would modernize transit operations funding by creating a new formula grant program that can be used to make “substantial improvements to transit service.” Furthermore, the bill aims to allot funding for places that need it most, clearly defining funding for areas of persistent poverty and underserved communities—places where transit ridership tends to be highest.

“Getting people to work and providing essential services is the primary purpose of the transportation system, and it fails if it can only do that for people who have the money and ability to drive. With the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act, Rep. Johnson not only offers needed support for increased transit service to connect people with the things they need, but for the high quality, dependable transit service that people require for true access to opportunity.” —Beth Osborne, Director of Transportation for America

The U.S. relies on public transit to make our economy work. Americans depend on transit to get to where they need to go and help their businesses thrive. The U.S. needs to invest in frequent, reliable, and affordable transit, and the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act is a crucial step forward in achieving this vision.

Take Action

Road feels unsafe? DOT says prove it!

An adult and small child cross the street at night without a crosswalk while cars approach

In the United States, where and how traffic deaths occur are painfully predictable. But even with historically high levels of funding available, traffic engineering standards and federal policy combine to create a safety catch-22, ensuring that a transportation agency walking the walk on traffic safety is the exception, not the rule.

An adult and small child cross the street at night without a crosswalk while cars approach

Photo by Nk Ni via Unsplash

If you’re somebody who walks or rolls to get to work, school, or any of your other daily needs, chances are that you know the most dangerous parts of your local transportation system: the crosswalk that cars don’t stop at because there’s no light, the bike lane that ends abruptly, or the sidewalk ramp pointed to the middle of an intersection instead of the crosswalk. When you go through these areas, you might think that they’re oversights, mistakes made by an inattentive traffic engineer or planner who would make the adjustment needed if they just walked or rolled a mile in your shoes. But in reality, these flaws are part and parcel of a broader system that requires either reckless behavior or deaths to make the case for safety.

Instead of proactively asserting a right for people to walk and roll safely and conveniently outside of a vehicle, the standards that DOTs use to determine when and where they put safety infrastructure actually require people to either risk their bodies or experience harm before any paint or concrete are poured.

Transportation for America is a program of Smart Growth America, an organization that empowers communities through technical assistance, advocacy, and thought leadership to realize our vision of livable places, healthy people, and shared prosperity. See how Smart Growth America is engaging with National Pedestrian Safety Month here.

The safety infrastructure catch-22

One hot summer morning in 2021, I went to an unsignalized intersection in Northern Virginia and watched people wait for a break in traffic to cross a road that was 60-feet wide, dividing homes and a bus stop from a food bank. Though state law makes it legal for people to cross on foot at unsignalized intersections, it’s obviously a risky, unsafe thing to do.

Google Maps screenshot of Fordson Road, Alexandria, VA at 7558 Fordson Road, showing three lanes of traffic and no marked crosswalk

Unsignalized intersection on Fordson Road in Alexandria, VA

But this is the catch-22: For the state DOT (VDOT) to paint a crosswalk there, they require that at least 20 people choose to cross that dangerous street each hour.1 Put another way, if enough people engage in risky, unsafe behaviors, the state might decide to make it safer. But when it’s unsafe to walk and roll, fewer people are going to do so. And with fewer people walking and rolling, DOTs like VDOT think that there’s little demand for safe infrastructure. 

This unproductive cycle is the product of street design standards and manuals that your local traffic engineer relies on and navigates in order to make their decisions. In some cases, as NACTO says about the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), it can actually “require multiple people to die at an intersection before a pedestrian signal is ‘warranted’.”

Why did the pedestrian cross the road?

The people who pay the price for this nonsense approach to safety are people like Filadelfo Ramos Marquez.  Filadelfo was killed in December 2021 while crossing an eight-lane road in Tysons Corner, Virginia. Those responsible for the street’s design can choose to blame the victim for not using a crosswalk as a way of abdicating their responsibility, or they can ask: why did he cross where he did, and how do we make it safer?

Google Maps screenshot of VA-123, showing the pedestrian bridge in the background connecting to the metro station on the right. A car enters the roadway through a slip lane. There are at least six lanes of traffic shown.

Road conditions where Filadelfo was hit and killed.

Although this intersection has traffic lights, the only way to cross it on foot is via a pedestrian bridge. However, when the metro station that the bridge connects to closes, so does the bridge itself. If Filadelfo thought that the station was already closed at 9 p.m., or that he had to pay a metro fare in order to use the bridge, then he had two choices: cross where he did, or add a third of a mile to his trip in order to use a painted crosswalk.

This leads us to the broader point: We do not currently measure OR care about the travel time of people who walk and roll. Pedestrians’ time isn’t just worth less than that of drivers, it’s not measured at all. In VDOT’s standards for an unmarked crosswalk at an unsignalized intersection, like the one I went to in summer 2021, the agency effectively says (starting on page A4) that saving pedestrians time is fine, so long as it doesn’t affect too many drivers.

The intersection where Filadelfo was hit, with signals for cars but no accommodations at all for pedestrians, illustrates this biased tradeoff just the same. When this metro station was built, planners and engineers could’ve viewed it as an opportunity to improve the pedestrian experience, both around this one stop and along this entire corridor where crosswalks are routinely over 130 feet long. Seeing as Tysons Corner has two huge shopping malls, is one of the largest job centers in Virginia, and aims to be home to 100,000 residents by 2050, some might say this would’ve been prudent. But that would have required deprioritizing the 46,000 vehicles per day that drove here pre-pandemic. So instead of building the much shorter, much less expensive straight-line street-level crossing, they built the longer, more expensive pedestrian bridge. And now, instead of asking why pedestrians like Filadelfo still choose to cross roads like this, DOTs like VDOT simply pray they don’t.

A Google Maps aerial screenshot showing Filadelfo's route on the day of the crash. An orange line routes along the sidewalk and crosswalk, showing the loop he would've had to make to be as safe as possible if the pedestrian bridge was closed. A green line shows the route using the pedestrian bridge. A red line shows the route Filadelfo took, cutting through several lanes of high-speed traffic, just to the west of bridge.

Potential pedestrian routes in the area where Filadelfo was hit and killed. The green line shows the path using the pedestrian bridge that connects to the metro station. The orange line shows the route to the only marked crosswalk nearby. The red line and white arrow show Filadelfo’s route and the general area where he was hit.

The safety funding catch-22

One reason agencies seem to prefer the thoughts and prayers approach to traffic safety is that federal policy encourages them to. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) poured over $400 billion into roads and streets across the United States, but with few requirements for anyone to measurably improve safety. Although all of that money could be used to ensure the safety of all road users, most of it won’t be. 

Instead, in exchange for billions in largely flexible formula grants they control, states are required to set safety performance targets each year. But the reality is almost laughable: states can literally set targets for more people to die without penalty, and there is almost no penalty for failing to meet even the most unambitious targets. Failing to meet targets just requires those states to spend their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) dollars on highway safety improvement projects. And if vulnerable road users (VRUs) make up more than fifteen percent of all fatalities in a state, that state has to spend fifteen percent of their HSIP funds the next year on safety projects for VRUs. (However, most states aren’t even obligating all the safety funds they need to.)

In contrast, if local governments want to access funds specifically earmarked for safety, they usually have to spend time and money applying for competitive discretionary grants, like the Safe Streets and Roads for All program. Although this is better than nothing, and there’s additional marginal progress being made, the IIJA has the same double standard for safety that it does for climate: projects that improve safety are the exception, whereas projects that don’t are the rule.

And so long as making streets safer comes with tangible costs but traffic deaths do not, people will pay with their lives. The day before Filadelfo was struck, Matthew Jaeger was killed while riding a bike a few miles down that very same road. 

To get to the other side

Changes need to come from the top down and the bottom up. Congress needs to stop creating small new programs for improving safety. After giving them billions to spend, Congress should hold states accountable for reducing fatalities. For states that fail to do so, this could mean requiring them to transfer money out of block grant programs (like the the National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grants) and move it to HSIP for every year that they don’t meet their targets. 

USDOT can finish updating the MUTCD and improving the Green Book. In the meantime, if states can prove these documents interfere with achieving safety targets due to their erroneous assumption that speed is safety, USDOT should waive these design standards. The agency can also ensure regulations like the New Car Assessment Program look at how the weight, size, visibility, and marketing of vehicles keeps all road users safe. 

States control the most dangerous streets, and they stay dangerous because states continue to prioritize speed and vehicle throughput over safety—as with the corridor that killed Matthew and Filadelfo. States actually addressing this danger would see immediate results in pedestrian safety.

And while cities press their states for action on the deadly state-owned arterial roads within their borders, they are free to make the streets they do control safer. They can pass Complete Streets policies, discarding their state’s speed-first design guidelines, and adopt modern street design guidance that prioritizes moving people and creating safe streets for everyone. (The IIJA made a vital change to allow cities to adopt NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, even if their state prohibits it.)

Anything less than these changes isn’t prioritizing safety. It’s just a catch-22.

Find more recommendations to make our roadways safer in Dangerous by Design.

Beyond the pump: Evaluating fresh approaches to transportation funding

An empty gas station with rows of abandoned power blue pumps glowing with neon lights in the middle of the night

Current state gasoline taxes aren’t enough to cover our transportation funding needs. Evaluating alternatives needs to involve taking five key principles into account. Read our policy evaluation framework, created by T4A Policy Associate Stephen Coleman Kenny with support from T4A Policy Director Benito Pérez, NRDC Senior Transportation Advocate Zak Accuardi, and T4A Policy Intern Julia Camacho.

An empty gas station with rows of abandoned power blue pumps glowing with neon lights in the middle of the night

Our transportation systems are largely funded by motor fuel taxes that finance the federal Highway Trust Fund. Since the 1980s, these funds have been allocated using a roughly 80/20 split between highway and transit spending under the assumption that drivers were paying a larger share and deserved to receive more investments in return. However, after a crisis in 2008 when the national fund ran out of money—requiring billions of dollars in bailouts ever since—this system has proven to be outdated and unstable.

Why the gas tax status quo needs to change

In 2008, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission wrote that the United States has an “ever-expanding backlog of investment needs” that then-current transportation funding policies would only cover one third of. As of 2016, public transit systems have faced a backlog of over $105 billion for maintenance and replacement costs.

Today, this problem is only worsening. America’s reliance on gasoline taxes in order to fund roads and transit systems is proving to be unsustainable. As vehicles become increasingly efficient and electric vehicles (EVs) become more commonplace, overall levels of fuel consumption are decreasing—thus lowering gas tax revenues and further widening the infrastructure funding gap. Without a change in our revenue-raising systems, our roads and transit infrastructure will crumble. It’s critical we act now. 

As policymakers explore potential alternatives to the gas tax, a variety of options have emerged, including the following: 

  • Road pricing, or taxing by vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
  • Adding new tolls
  • Congestion pricing
  • Flat vehicle registration fees
  • Indexing the gas tax to inflation
  • Taxes on external costs of driving like emissions and accidents
  • General revenue subsidies
  • Duties on fuel sales

Many of these proposals are not new—for instance, T4A wrote about raising the gas tax or indexing it to construction fees back in 2014. But save for some VMT-based road pricing pilot programs in Oregon, Virginia, and most recently Utah, little progress has been made.

Choosing the right option

There are a variety of possibilities, but no one option fits every regional context. Rather, the process of evaluation has to be sensitive to the goals and priorities of state and federal transportation programs. With that in mind, there are five main needs that new proposals will need to address, which we compiled into a policy evaluation framework:

  • Outcomes: How the funding scheme changes road user behavior by incentivizing one of the following outcomes: electrification (EV adoption), mode shift away from personal vehicles, or maintaining the status quo.
  • Fairness: Ensuring that the funding scheme is fair to all users by having road users (including drivers of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and EVs alike) pay user fees in accordance with the wear and tear they impose on the road system.
  • Stability: Estimating the revenue projections of the proposed system and whether or not it raises enough money to maintain the transportation system in both the short and long term.
  • Equity: Examining how the structure of the funding scheme impacts different socioeconomic groups, and how the benefits and burdens are distributed. 
  • Feasibility: Considering the administrative costs, jurisdictional issues, technology for implementation, political popularity, and public support for the proposal. 

There are tradeoffs between these goals, but looking at the possible alternatives to the gas tax through these five lenses provides a starting point for choosing a new policy. Find examples of our policy evaluation framework in action here.

Taking a closer look at a VMT tax and its implementation in Oregon

Among the options mentioned above, road pricing, or a tax on VMT, has emerged as a popular frontrunner among policymakers and thought leaders. A VMT tax would impact ICE cars and EVs equally, would include usage of all roads—not just interstates or toll roads—and would result in a precise user charge, especially if adjusted for vehicle weight, that drivers pay based on their wear and tear on the road system.  However, the shortcomings of a VMT tax lie in the other four aspects—equity, outcomes, feasibility, and revenue stability. 

A VMT tax would be regressive, penalizing people who need to drive the furthest—in other words, rural households and those who live farther from city centers—and already have to pay high transportation costs as a result. Additionally, a VMT tax only incentivizes mode shift for that same group of people, who are the most likely to not be able to shift away from driving due to a lack of transportation alternatives.

Furthermore, a simple VMT tax doesn’t incentivize EV adoption over ICE cars or even just more efficient vehicles over heavier ones that use more fuel, since all vehicles are treated the same. With regards to feasibility, VMT taxes have faced technology challenges, high administrative costs, and public opposition. And in terms of revenue stability, a VMT tax is sufficient only if we maintain high levels of driving in the long term.

Oregon, a state that has historically been especially reliant on the gas tax for transportation funding, has tested out a VMT tax. In 2001, Oregon created a Road User Fee Task Force (RUFTF) in order to evaluate possible alternatives as hybrid vehicles and EVs began to rise in popularity. RUFTF decided to try implementing a road usage charge and launched a VMT pilot program in 2012 that succeeded in four areas: policy and public acceptance, technology, operations, and cost. This led to the creation of the voluntary OReGO program in 2015 that now enables drivers of EVs and efficient vehicles to pay a per-mile charge in exchange for reduced vehicle registration fees or gas tax rebates.

It’s notable that one of the aspects that wasn’t considered was outcomes—how the funding scheme changes (or doesn’t change) the behavior of road users, incentivizing electrification or mode shift or neither. Oregon’s eventual vision is to have a dual tax system—VMT for EVs and efficient vehicles, and a gas tax for all other vehicles.

When asked whether a VMT tax for fuel-efficient vehicles punishes drivers trying to do the right thing environmentally, Jim Whitty, who led the implementation of these programs at Oregon’s DOT, said that “making the great choice to buy a less polluting vehicle doesn’t make it a great choice to let the road system crumble.” And when asked why people who will pay more under a VMT system would volunteer to participate in the program, Whitty didn’t have a clear answer.

Notably, as of 2020, only 701 drivers were actively participating—well under the 5,000 that the program had initially envisioned. Oregon is now considering making OReGO into a mandatory policy, but other states should still try out other options before rushing to commit to a VMT tax.

Reevaluating America’s transportation funding systems

It’s of course critical that we act now to resolve this growing funding gap in order to address pressing maintenance needs and invest in the future of America’s transportation systems. When choosing an alternative policy (or combination of policies) to replace the current gas tax, it will be important to consider these five aspects—outcomes, fairness, stability, equity, and feasibility.

However, federal and state leadership will be as critical as funding. Both levels of government have a crucial role in transportation funding. Much innovation is fostered in localities, but without an overarching vision and approach, this can result in a patchwork of approaches that can spur inequitable outcomes.

It’s also important that we consider the ultimate impacts of this transportation funding system: namely, how the money is actually used. In a foundational 2006 report on possible alternatives to the fuel tax, for example, the Transportation Research Board acknowledged that their analysis prioritized problems related to highway financing over public transit. 

We can’t afford to pour money into expanding highways and worsening America’s transportation woes. Even if we achieve an optimal policy that maximizes revenue raised for transportation funding, we need to ensure that the money raised by any of these proposals is actually used for projects that prioritize maintenance and repair and make advancements towards reliable, affordable, and frequent transit systems that connect people to the places they need to go.

Learn more about how to evaluate alternatives. Read our policy evaluation framework here.

Greener Fleets: How federal dollars can supply the demand for clean transit

Electric buses line up in a brightly lit warehouse with an American flag in the background
Electric buses line up in a brightly lit warehouse with an American flag in the background
Image source: Proterra

The Low and No Emission Vehicles (Low No) program saw a big increase in funding in America’s historic infrastructure law, but an outdated and arbitrary requirement is pushing transit agencies toward buses that still pollute. Here’s how Congress and the Federal Transit Administration can avoid locking in emissions for years to come.

While scientists have rung the alarms on climate change for decades, the 2021 infrastructure law is American policymakers’ first significant response. While unfortunately allowing for much climate-damaging investment in highway expansion, the IIJA also invests significantly in public transit systems including $5.5 billion over its five-year appropriation period for the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Low No) program—six times more than the program’s previous five years of funding. As the title suggests, the Low No program helps transit agencies transition their fleets to low- and zero-emission buses. Additionally, the IIJA provided nearly $2 billion in funding over five years for the closely-related Bus and Bus Facilities Program. While these programs are record-breaking for their level of investments in clean buses and supporting infrastructure, this legislation has flaws that are holding the nation back from cleaning up the bus fleet.

In October of 2022, Transportation for America filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a synthesis of all applications submitted to the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). We wanted to better understand how the programs are serving U.S. transit agencies’ needs and supporting America’s climate goals and emission reduction efforts. What we found was worrying.

As we wrote in Greener Fleets, a white paper we’ve submitted to Congressional leaders, we found that the program encourages transit agencies to buy diesel hybrid and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses instead of zero-emission buses running on electricity or hydrogen. The root cause: 25 percent of the Low No program’s funding is reserved for low-emission (as opposed to zero-emission) projects. This is artificially constraining the supply of zero-emission funds, locking in unnecessary transit emissions for decades.

Low No is coming up short

Applications for grants in FY22 for zero-emission projects of the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs were in extremely high demand, composing 86 percent of the combined two programs’ grant requests. 

The Bus and Bus Facilities program does not place constraints on fuel types when considering awards, focusing on the applicant’s project rating (Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended). Still, as shown in the graph below, zero-emission projects had a one in six chance of being awarded while consuming 83 percent of the program’s available funding.

Bar chart showing FOIA findings. Notable: over $2,780,000,000 was requested for no emission funding, but only $456,694,932 was awarded. Compare this to about $295,000,000 requested for low emission and $17,721,272 awarded.

The strong demand for zero-emission buses and facilities shows that transit agencies have gotten comfortable with relatively new electric and hydrogen bus products and are more ready than ever to invest in the zero-emission transition.

Bar chart depicting probability of winning a grant across all programs. Notably, low emission projects had a 100% chance of winning Low No funding, while zero emission projects had a 33% chance. On the Bus & Bus Facilities side, no emissions projects had an 18% chance, compared to a 27% chance for all other fuel types (low emission and traditional). More information in the paragraph below and in our white paper linked at the bottom of this post.

The Low No program is statutorily required to reserve 25 percent of available funds for projects using low-emission fuels, such as CNG, diesel-electric hybrid, and propane. In other words, even though 88 percent of applications were for no-emission buses and facilities, FTA was required to award 25 percent of the funding to more polluting low-emission projects. Due to this requirement, as shown in the graph above, nearly 100 percent of the low-emission projects received an award, while more than two-thirds of clean zero-emission applications were rejected. There weren’t even enough low-emission projects in the application pool to meet the 25 percent requirement.

We were concerned that this funding acceptance rate would encourage American transit agencies to give up competing for zero-emission funds (in extremely high demand), and instead apply for the less competitive low-emission funding. Based on early trends in FY23 applications, our concerns were justified. More transit agencies are competing for low-emission project funding than in FY22, putting them on track to deploy buses that will continue polluting for a decade or more, and slowing the development of an EV transit bus supply chain.

How did the 25 percent requirement come to be?

In 2015, the law that outlined the details of the Low or No Emission Vehicle program was passed by the U.S. Congress and Senate. Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania argued for a mandate to require funds be reserved for low-emission vehicles in the legislation. He successfully included a statutory requirement that 25 percent of the Low No program funding go to projects using low-emission fuels, such as CNG, a key product of Pennsylvania, whose natural gas production is second only to Texas. This statutory requirement to subsidize fossil fuels in an age of energy transition leads the IIJA to invest 1.4 billion over this 5 year authorization period in buses that still pollute.

Change the status quo

The Low No and the Bus and Bus Facilities programs are essential to ensuring American transit agencies can replace their aging bus fleets with low and zero-emission vehicles, and transit agencies are clearly eager to rise to the challenge. Congress can do more to ensure that these programs are working to accomplish emission reduction goals. They could start by eliminating the outdated and arbitrary requirement that 25 percent of Low No funding goes to low-emission vehicles. But they should go further: increasing funding for both programs to meet the overall demand for buses and facilities; creating incentives for both programs to leverage other funding sources; and increasing transparency of the program by making basic application and award information available on FTA’s website and looking for ways to simplify the application process. 

Ultimately, Congress and FTA should work together to form a vision for how the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs can support American transit agencies in providing excellent transit service in our communities and converting their operations to zero-emissions rapidly enough to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals and improve air quality in the communities they serve.

Greener Fleets: Meeting the demand for cleaner transit

For more information on this problem and how to solve it, read Greener Fleets: Meeting the demand for cleaner transit.

A proposed bridge is haunting the Bay Area

A sunny hill filled with cheerful homes framed by a palm tree and blue sky

The Southern Crossing over the San Francisco Bay, proposed repeatedly over the past 77 years, has been rejected over and over again. Even as Reconnecting Communities funds will help Oakland study repairing the damage resulting from the interstate spur rammed through the heart of Oakland to serve as the eastern approach for this never-built bridge, the Southern Crossing shows how past choices continue to haunt the present—and future.

A sunny hill filled with cheerful homes framed by a palm tree and blue sky
The beautiful hillsides of the Bayview residential neighborhood in San Francisco. Image Source: Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates

History of the Southern Crossing

The Southern Crossing is an additional Bay bridge highway crossing that has been proposed over a dozen times since the plan was developed (in 1946) by various departments of California’s state government. The proposed bridge would be the fourth bridge to cross the San Francisco Bay, partner to the built “northern crossing” pictured above in yellow. As shown above, the “southern crossing” would originate from the east side near Bay Farm Island (fed by a new interstate, I-980), cross to the west side, and land on the San Francisco peninsula in the Bayview neighborhood, at Hunters Point. The vision was to provide East Bay motorists on I-580 and Highway 24 with a direct connection to I-280.

Historical map of proposed Bay bridges. Description in first paragraph under "History of the Southern Crossing"
Map of proposed Southern Crossing Highway Bridge: Source: Wikimedia Commons

In 1961, the Southern Crossing bridge came close to construction, but white environmental activists concerned about the environmental degradation of the Bay prevented the project from moving forward. Even though the bridge was dead (for now), construction of I-980 moved ahead in the heart of Oakland, starting over two decades of work that would ultimately divide Black residents in West Oakland from downtown and demolish over 500 homes and nearly two dozen businesses and churches. 

Simple map with I-980 in red slicing between West Oakland and downtown Oakland
I-980 separates West Oakland residents from downtown. Image by OpenStreetMap.

In 1971, a bill for the construction of the Southern Crossing was passed in the California State Assembly by both houses but vetoed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, who believed that the citizens of the Bay Area should weigh in on the decision to construct such an expensive and controversial infrastructure project. Voters rejected a bond measure in 1972 that would have paid for the construction of the bridge via a toll increase on existing bridge infrastructure by a three-to-one margin. Without the bridge, the finally completed, roughly two-mile stretch of I-980 ended abruptly at 18th Street, and in the decades that followed, the underused strip became little more than a redundant eyesore.

Every iteration of the Southern Crossing proposed across nearly eight decades has failed due to costs, environmental concerns, or interference with air flight operations from the nearby but now-decommissioned Naval Air Stations of Treasure Island and Alameda. But notably, never because of the desires of the low-income, historically Black and brown communities on either side of the Bay, as they have always been excluded from the project’s discussion and decision-making process.

State departments of transportation in the U.S. have a documented history of systematically targeting low-income communities of color, wiping them out with highway infrastructure construction. These development patterns have been repeated since the 1950s under the guise of urban renewal.  I-280 and U.S. Route 101 already surround the historically Black neighborhoods of Hunters Point and Bayview on the San Francisco side of the Bay, subjecting them to air pollution and water runoff and cutting them off from the rest of San Francisco. 

Hunters Point and Bayview collectively have 110,200 residents within approximately nine square miles—a population density of 12,762 people per square mile. The median home was built in 1966 and is valued at $690K. The construction of the Southern Crossing bridge could destroy hundreds of those homes and local businesses, a disproportionate number of which belong to low-income residents of color.

A path forward

Picture taken through a bus front window of a street lined with vehicles leading to the hills of Bayview and Hunters Point
Highway 101 and Interstate 280 separate Hunters Point and Bayview from much of San Francisco. T4A photo by Benito Pérez.

The San Francisco Bay has five highway bridges and an underwater tube carrying BART trains in each direction in separate tunnels. Billions of dollars have been spent to build this infrastructure, along with miles and miles of other interstates, highway connections, and arterial roadways. Even so, a 2017 Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) study found that Bay Area traffic congestion has only increased, going up by 80 percent from 2010-2017. Leaders continue to turn to new vehicle lanes to solve the congestion problem. Though the Southern Crossing proposal has never garnered the political support needed to proceed, since its inception in 1946, it’s been raised again and again to “solve” San Francisco’s traffic.

In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) revived the Southern Crossing proposal. The resulting 2019 joint study between the MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments considered seven different scenarios to relieve traffic congestion based on growth projections by 2050. Only three of the options involved new bridges for vehicle travel, while six of the seven options were scenarios that involved transit solutions. The study found that the most cost-effective options were transit-only solutions, recommending these over the Southern Crossing highway bridge. 

Still, nearly eight decades later, no full, final decision has been made on the Southern Crossing bridge, which keeps the specter of a massive, destructive project hanging over both the region and specific neighborhoods.

Induced demand is the phenomenon where an increase in supply results in a decline in price and an increase in consumption. To frame this within the context of highway construction, adding more lanes to a roadway creates more space for vehicle travel, attracting more cars, and ultimately exacerbating traffic congestion. Learn more in our report The Congestion Con, and use the SHIFT calculator to find out how much more driving new lanes can produce.

In Oakland, residents like the advocates at ConnectOakland have pushed for years for a project to reconnect low-income communities of color divided by I-980,  which was intended primarily as a connection for the Southern Crossing. The Reconnecting Communities Program recently granted the city and Caltrans (California’s department of transportation) $680,000 to study possible projects to tackle the divisive and underused highway, including the possibility of removal, though that’s not necessarily the stated purpose of the project at this point. Clearly, once built, highways are difficult and expensive to remove—even when built to connect to a bridge that has ultimately never been built. But this study, funded by the first-ever federal program of its kind, is an important step towards repairing the damage wrought by I-980 and closing the longstanding divide.

Aerial view of I-980 with arrows showing possible connections across the entire route. Get a full description of the plan at the link in the caption below.
Proposed plan to reconnect West Oakland, from ConnectOakland.

Even as I-980 gets a chance at a new fate, as long as the Southern Crossing bridge refuses to die, it could threaten the best efforts to reconnect Oakland. Even as all facts point to the contrary, some are likely to say that this underutilized highway is still needed to feed an unbuilt bridge. To get the most out of the Reconnecting Communities dollars they’ve received, decision makers will need to stand firm in what has already been proven time and again—it’s time to put the Southern Crossing to bed.

Lessons for Community Connectors

Even when it’s over…it’s not always over. It can feel like a victory when a divisive infrastructure project is halted, but proposed projects like the Southern Crossing won’t always go away after being stopped once. Once these lines get drawn on official maps and planning documents, these projects are never truly dead—they’re just waiting for a different leader (or the availability of new funding, as with the infrastructure law) to bring them back to life. It’s hard to stop a proposed infrastructure project, but it’s even harder to stop one permanently.

Black man in hoodie walks down a long crosswalk in a wide open street, hemmed by the elevated I-980
Pedestrians navigate intersections surrounding I-980, elevated to the left, and the nearby arterial Martin Luther King Jr Way. Image from Google Maps street view.

The mere suggestion of divisive infrastructure can lead to harm. I-980 would likely have never been built without the proposal for the additional Bay bridge, Southern Crossing. This is one example of how divisive infrastructure can harm a community even before it’s built, or if it’s never built at all (here’s another example from Shreveport). Notably, the Hunters Point and Bayview neighborhoods on the San Francisco side of the Bay have survived decades of Southern Crossing proposals and still managed to attract investment such as the T-Third light rail line and the Indian Basin Waterfront Park, but original residents haven’t been properly protected and many were ultimately displaced by rising property values as demand for the area grew.

Include the voices of the community being impacted. As decision-makers weigh the options to reconnect communities divided by I-980 in Oakland, they should learn from their recent and past mistakes. Whether West Oakland or the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods were destroyed or allowed to flourish, the residents of color that called these communities home were never included in the decision-making process. Any reconnection projects should include the voices and perspectives of Black and brown residents and ensure that these residents are able to benefit from the changes that are made.

Community Connectors: tools for advocates

You may be fighting against a freeway expansion. You may be trying to advance a Reconnecting Communities project to remove an old highway. You might be just trying to make wide, dangerous arterial roads a little safer for people to cross. This Community Connectors portal explains common terms, decodes the processes, clarifies the important actors, and inspires with helpful real-world stories.

Once-in-a-generation opportunities in passenger rail—but the time to act is now

T4America works with partners all over the country to develop passenger rail service, and we’re telling them all the same thing: now is the time to act. We’ve never seen this amount of support for passenger rail from Congress and the Federal Railroad Administration, and federal funding is there. But there’s a procedure—with deadlines—to follow. Here’s how to take advantage in the year ahead.

Amtrak Cascades at Mt. Vernon station. Photo via Flickr/Joe A. Kunzler Photo

Legislative and administrative stars aligning

For decades, the development of a national passenger rail system has been low on the priority list for Congress. Who could blame them? So many of their districts are poorly served, and Amtrak focused almost exclusively on the Northeast Corridor and left the rest of the country out to dry. (Read more about the history of Amtrak and Congress here.)  

In 2021, despite Amtrak’s lack of focus on the national system, Congress made leaps and bounds in their support for passenger rail by passing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which funded the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak at historic levels. The IIJA also re-oriented the mission of the national passenger rail system toward serving more communities, both urban and rural, across the country. In the past, Amtrak has been required to make a profit—unlike other modes of transportation—above all other goals, often to the detriment of its riders. 

If Amtrak, states, interstate compacts, regional passenger rail authorities, and localities play their cards right, these historic funding levels coming from the FRA and the renewed national mandate for Amtrak can result in a much improved and expanded national network of passenger rail. The IIJA charted out a process for this expansion, which focuses infrastructure improvements to passenger rail corridors within interstate compacts. We have narrowed this process down to three steps, which we outline below.

Step 1: Corridors

The first and most immediate step in advancing passenger rail service across the country is the identification and development of passenger rail corridors. The IIJA created the Corridor Identification and Development Program (CIDP), which is designed to focus federal funding on key passenger rail corridors across the country. The term “corridor” refers to a stretch of rail right of way where applicants can build or improve station stops—as well as the rail infrastructure between them—to give more people access to the route. 

Where will these corridors be built? The short answer is: we’ll have to wait and see. States, localities, interstate compacts, or other applicants will determine where they want to establish corridors based on many economic and social factors. But the possibilities are immense. FRA has challenged state and local leaders to, in their words, “dream big” with the CIDP. Governments from around the country have already expressed their interest in developing corridors, which Amtrak presented during a public board meeting in December (rendering of Amtrak’s map pictured below, with potential corridors in light blue).

Recreation of map presented at Amtrak’s public board meeting (Source: Ryan C on Twitter)

As an incentive to create official corridors, the FRA is offering successful applicants $500,000 in no-match federal funds to start planning their corridors. New corridors will also get preferential treatment during future federal grant applications. These incentives are what make applying to the CIDP a critical next step for the development of passenger rail service. 

The CIDP is currently open, with applications due March 20.

Step 2: Infrastructure improvements

Officially recognized passenger rail compacts and corridors will be at the front of the line at FRA for funding opportunities. The IIJA greatly expanded the two main federal passenger rail infrastructure programs: the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Partnership Program) and the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program. This should encourage regional, state, and local governments to apply, given that the possibility of receiving an award is higher than it ever has been. 

The Partnership Program is live right now, with applications due on March 7.

These funding opportunities can be used to plan for, design, and construct grade crossing eliminations, stations and multimodal station areas, track improvements, and create capacity improvements (addressing bottlenecks). These improvements are all critical for the safety and viability of passenger rail service on new and expanded corridors. In addition to these infrastructure improvements, compacts and corridors will have priority in applying for operational support through programs like the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) Program to begin to operate new or restored passenger rail service.

Step 3: Compacts

In order to solidify the gains made from forming corridors and funding infrastructure improvements, interested states should form interstate rail compacts. The IIJA created the Interstate Rail Compact Program (IRC) to help states work together to further the development of regional passenger rail networks across the country. 

The IRC Program is seeking to build off the success of interstate rail compacts like the Southern Rail Commission (SRC), the oldest rail compact in the country. The SRC consists of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and works to coordinate stakeholders in those three states to restore passenger rail service throughout the deep south. Watch this video to see the SRC’s work in action.

Through the IRC, the FRA is seeking to create 10 such compacts (SRC included) to serve 10 different regions across the country. During the formation process, the FRA will support these compacts in building coalitions of support, identifying opportunities for new or restored passenger rail service, and pursuing federal funding. 

The IRC is likely to open later this year.

Support is fleeting

Congress is changing hands. Sam Graves, who has little to no track record on passenger rail, is the new chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We expect Ted Cruz—an opponent of passenger rail—to run the Senate Commerce Committee if Republicans take the Senate next cycle. 

This constant shuffle in Congress means that, at any moment, the programs generously funded by the IIJA could once again be defunded. So while the IRC and CIDP will be available in coming years, this year is the only guaranteed opportunity for full program funding and support from the FRA. 

Local advocates have opportunities to get involved as well. Round up your state or regional passenger rail authority. If you’re looking to get long-distance service, find ways to participate in the FRA’s Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study. If you want to see your community served by new or improved passenger rail corridors, now is the time to go out and get things moving.

A new program to help communities thrive

For the Biden administration to achieve its goals, all communities will need to be able to take advantage of federal funds. But some cities, towns, and territories with limited resources face a steeper hurdle to accessing these dollars. The Thriving Communities Program is a small step in the right direction to ensure every community is set up for success.

All communities deserve an equal opportunity to obtain federal funds. Flickr photo by Ken Lund.

The 2021 infrastructure law, called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or IIJA, provides a wide range of funding opportunities for communities to access and leverage at their discretion. Given this structure, the IIJA has the potential to increase direct funding to local, tribal, and regional government entities. Direct access to funds could empower communities to pursue dedicated funding for projects most important to them at the local level, such as advancing equity, sustainability, safety, and connected communities. 

There are various requirements to be eligible to access the IIJA’s funds. These requirements are intended to ensure federal funds are used responsibly and with accountability. However, they also cause grant applications to be costly and time-consuming tasks.

This rigorous application process can exclude the very communities that need federal funding the most. That poses a challenge for the Biden administration, particularly in their ability to reach their goal laid out under the Justice40 initiative, which states that 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal investments will go to communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.

Even if a disadvantaged community is able to overcome the barriers of federal grant applications, having the resources to execute the funded project is a second hurdle to overcome. When a disadvantaged community lacks the resources to effectively administer their awarded grant, they risk being disqualified for future funding opportunities due to poor grant management. 

In order to make good on its goals for the transportation system, how is the administration closing these funding gaps?

Enter the Thriving Communities Program

To address the inequities in the grant applications process, the Biden administration created the Thriving Communities Program. Funded with $25 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s new Thriving Communities Program (TCP) aims to ensure that disadvantaged communities adversely or disproportionately affected by environmental, climate, economic, and human health policy outcomes have the technical tools and organizational capacity to compete for federal aid and deliver quality infrastructure projects that enable their communities and neighborhoods to thrive.

In addition to assisting with writing IIJA grant applications, the TCP will provide technical assistance, planning, and capacity building support to teams of communities who have historically experienced underinvestment and are awarded a grant. This will provide underinvested communities with the staffing or technical expertise required to scope, fund, and develop infrastructure projects that advance the community’s needs. The TCP will provide two years of deep-dive assistance to communities awarded IIJA funds. 

In total, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) anticipates that its Thriving Communities Program will be able to fund and assist a minimum of 30 disadvantaged communities. The White House Council on Environmental Quality indicates that 30 percent of America’s population resides in what is defined as disadvantaged communities, based on socioeconomic, environmental, health, climate, energy, and infrastructure indicators.

The professional services offered by the TCP to selected communities would help community partners to plan and develop a pipeline of comprehensive transportation, housing, and community revitalization activities. There is no cost to receive these professional services and project planning support. However,  interested applicants must identify community partners and submit a Letter of Interest (LOI) by December 6, 2022 to be considered for selection.

The bottom line

The minimum 30 communities the USDOT anticipates funding through the TCP would only be a drop in the bucket, but it’s a small step in a positive direction for our nation’s communities. To build on these small beginnings, future federal appropriations should be allocated to expand upon this progress.

Without programs such as the TCP, the federal government would be unable to count on communities to help achieve fundamental goals, like Justice40. But in four years, the IIJA will expire, and the TCP could expire with it. To sustain local capacity building, the TCP should be permanently absorbed into the federal transportation program as part of the next infrastructure law. This will help ensure that federal funding is distributed equitably—not skewed to the communities with the most resources.

Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.