Though transportation has often bridged party divides, just two weeks into President Trump’s second term there are numerous signs that this trend may shift. As General Counsel for USDOT during Trump’s first term and a current Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Steven Bradbury has made clear his dislike of public transportation, clean energy reform, and pedestrian safety efforts. His key role in authoring Project 2025’s Chapter 19 on transportation helps clarify his views on American transportation.
President Trump’s choice for Deputy DOT Secretary authored the transportation section of Project 2025, which calls for ending federal support for transit projects, Vision Zero, and fuel economy standards. Photo courtesy of Transport Topics.
Hostile towards transit
While DOT’s mission is to connect communities, increase accessibility, safety, and promote mobility choice, Bradbury has called for the opposite. In Project 2025, he proposed completely abolishing all federal funds for new transit and major improvements or expansions. Abolishing transit Capital Investment Grants (CIG) would cut billions from major transit agencies across the U.S. and hobble efforts to build new transit, expand transit, or make substantial core improvements to existing transit. It is interesting, however, that he has not called for the end of federal transit formula funding. Still, the demand for expansions and improvements is likely to grow, as transit usage is finally growing post-pandemic.
Transit is already severely underfunded, particularly compared to highways, yet Bradbury wants to “move away from using the Highway Trust Fund to prop up mass transit.” Never mind that the Highway Trust Fund has been subsidized by all taxpayers with general fund dollars to the tune of more than $275 billion since 2008. While motorists benefit every day from subsidized roads, he seems to think transit riders should not receive the same treatment.
Electric vehicles are in his crosshairs, too
Bradbury has attacked all things emissions-regulating, launching an attack against electric vehicles. He criticized the Biden-Harris administration’s “radical EV goals,” claiming Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which aim to lower emissions harmful to health and the environment for new cars, will only force lower-income families to drive older, unsafe cars.
The claim that older cars are dangerous is an old argument that was more true before safety regulations put into place 15 years ago requiring backup cameras and high crashworthy standards. It also seems to ignore the danger caused by brand new SUVs and trucks with huge front blind zones and hood heights so tall that crashes hit pedestrians in the head and chest making them 45 percent more likely to kill.
He seems to think speed is more important than safety
Despite the number of people killed while walking increasing 75 percent since 2010, he wants to abolish Vision Zero as a federal policy, calling it an approach “actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds.” T4America’s top priority is Safety over Speed, whereas Bradbury wants to “refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system.” Apparently, “improving” does not include safety improvements. (We wonder what his position would be on creating a requirement for states to spend formula dollars on repairing their roads and bridges before making costly expansions?)
USDOT has already shut down the National Safety Council’s Road to Zero program on the grounds that it violates one of President Trump’s executive orders, though it is unclear which one. This administration has been focused on ending vehicle efficiency, diversity, climate and environmental justice programs, but this is the first piece of evidence that USDOT may view saving lives as a partisan cause. 1
While Bradbury won’t be running USDOT, his appointment to this top post is a decent signal that we should expect to see USDOT either slow down or completely halt all grants for new transit projects (ramping up what we saw in the first Trump administration), an assault on electrification overall, and every effort made to roll back any modest improvements on prioritizing safety.
January will bring in a new presidential administration and a new Congress for the run-up to the reauthorization of the country’s transportation law in 2026. Though uncertainty prevails as power and leadership shifts in Washington, there are a few things we’re expecting to see in 2025. Here are five:
1. Trade groups will assemble their (typical) wish lists for the 2026 reauthorization
If you can believe it, we’re already nearing the end of the “infrastructure law” passed by Congress in November 2021. The five-year Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will expire on September 30, 2026, so the incoming Congress will hold hearings and develop a proposal for the bill to replace it. That means that the big-monied machine of trade groups and interest groups, which count on perpetually increasing federal infrastructure dollars, are already spinning up their efforts.
You can already see some of their letters calling for more funding for the same programs and same results. In the new year, the transportation policy/funding “wish lists” will start to emerge from groups spanning the spectrum from old-guard trade groups like the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents the interests of state DOTs, to groups like the American Highway Users Alliance (founded by GM!), which are primarily interested in building more highways in all places. (Your grandkids can worry about the maintenance.)
AASHTO is already halfway through their timeline for the next reauthorization though one can already predict what they’ll be asking for in the next five year authorization, as it’s changed very little:
More money distributed to state DOTs through guaranteed formula programs
More flexibility to states in how those funds are spent
No requirement to produce any particular outcome — no reward for performing well and certainly no punishment for doing poorly
To be fair, our platform is pretty simple too, but instead of focusing on money, ours is focused on common-sense outcomes that have broad and significant support from the people who depend on our transportation network: Stop expanding at the expense of repair, make safety the actual top priority, and prioritize investing in the transportation we’ve neglected for over 50 years.
Unlike a platform of “give state agencies more taxpayer money without any accountability,” our priorities have broad support with the taxpayers who cover the full cost of this program…which brings us to #2.
2. Without further giveaways from taxpayers, the transportation trust fund will inch closer to insolvency
The most important thing to understand about funding for transportation is that the bedrock idea of “the user pays” for the transportation system through fuel or gasoline taxes has been dead for a long, long time. The federal program currently spends ~$20 billion more per year than the gas tax brings in. Because the gas tax has not changed for more than three decades as the fuel efficiency of vehicles has improved and inflation has reduced purchasing power, the highway “trust fund” has stayed solvent only because we have taken more than $280 billion in extra tax dollars from all Americans since 2008—whether they drive or buy gas or not.
This is why the Congressional Budget Office currently projects that in 2028 the federal government will only bring in enough funding for the Highway Trust Fund to cover a fraction of the transportation program authorized in the IIJA. And it’s why the first thing you’ll hear Congress (and most transportation industry groups) talking about in 2025 won’t be policy, or outcomes, or accomplishing anything specific with this $500B program. Instead, the reverberating refrain will be the need to “find more money.” (We’ll have more on the trust fund in a future post but this short explainer by the Peterson Foundation is a great place to understand the history and where things currently stand. But notice that the cities they list as the most congested are some of the best places.)
The two bookend options for addressing this structural imbalance are:
Scale the program down to the size of what the gas tax brings. This second option has been suggested before, including a 2014 proposal by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and 28 Senate Republicans to defund the nation’s transportation system—except for a small interstate maintenance fund—and leave it to states to make up for the lost funding.
3. Transit could face significant cuts (only partially because of the looming insolvency)
About 20 percent of the federal highway trust fund goes to transit each year. This 80/20 split was conceived during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s as part of a compromise to raise the gas tax. To get support, a deal was made to devote a portion of the increase to transit and provide stable support. (Imagine a day when members of Congress and advocates would demand bold change in policy and approach before they supported more funding for the existing program.) This funding split has become the historical practice, supported in a bipartisan fashion over the years. But not always.
When the Republicans controlled the House during the Obama administration in 2012, they proposed addressing a funding shortfall for highways by kicking transit out of the trust fund for what eventually became the MAP-21 two-year authorization law in 2012. T4America organized opposition from an enormous spectrum of more than 600 groups, from chambers of commerce to labor, and the proposal was abandoned in the face of bipartisan opposition when it was clear it would fail on the House floor. (However, MAP-21 was only two years long instead of the usual five because there wasn’t enough support for the additional deficit spending needed to cover a longer bill.)
There certainly could be a similar proposal in the next year, though it’s worth noting that this idea did not resurface during the last Trump administration.
Another possible development is a repeat from the first Trump administration: using their authority to call for needless and repetitive studies or analysis to slow down the process of awarding transit funds, costing local communities millions in delays (all while calling for relaxation of federal community protection regulations to speed highway projects). A different Congress could also certainly decide to cut the funding for expanding or building new transit, which is almost entirely discretionary rather than protected like formula programs.
(This was our progress report on awarded transit funding a year and a half into Trump’s first term—less than a third sent to projects in the pipeline.)
4. Changes to competitive grant programs
Every administration puts their own stamp on discretionary programs by choosing who/where to award them within the criteria created by Congress. For example, during the last Trump admin, the RAISE program shifted toward projects that states could fund but had deprioritized (largely rural road projects and fewer multimodal projects) rather than encouraging more innovative and multimodal projects. This will almost certainly be the case once again.
There has also been some chatter about de-funding some competitive programs in the next Congress, many notable ones are likely to survive as T4America Director Beth Osborne notes in this Q&A with David Zipper from November:
Switching toward highways, Project 2025 proposes terminating competitive grant programs like RAISE that allocate billions of dollars to state and local governments for high-priority projects. How realistic is that?
I don’t think Congress will let the Trump administration get rid of competitive programs, because legislators get so much credit for that spending. Federal formula programs just go to the states, and the states do what they want. But for the competitive grant programs, Congress gets a notification about new awards, and they have three days to do whatever event around them that they wish. Basically, Project 2025 was suggesting that Congress never get credit for federal spending in infrastructure again. Maybe that sounded good to the Heritage Foundation, but there’s a lot of Project 2025 that is divorced from the reality of how anything happens in the real world.
Some are also concerned that grants announced but not locked in by a grant agreement or obligated (meaning legally committed) could be revoked. The Trump Administration might try to do that for grants to projects they don’t support. But to do that, they would have to let the Congressional delegation know that a project they likely announced is now being taken away.
Congress could also look to unobligated funds to pay for the next transportation bill or a tax bill, and this has happened in the past with unspent earmarks. But generally this has occurred only after communities have had many, many years to spend their funding and it has become clear that they are unlikely to get their projects into the ground. One risk is that a Republican Congress decides to defund a program, like the passenger rail program, by saying the funding isn’t moving and needs to be put to a different priority that can use that money now.
5. Administrative actions will stop and change
USDOT has a lot of latitude to create and enforce rules and regulations to improve the effectiveness and safety of the transportation system, so it’s reasonable to expect that many good existing or pending rules will be shelved or reversed.
First, NHTSA’s proposal to create new requirements to finally consider the safety impacts of larger vehicles on people outside of the vehicles is almost certainly not going to be finalized. It will either be pulled completely or weakened. Second, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards which require more efficient vehicles will likely be frozen or even rolled back. (There are already a number of loopholes which allow automakers to trend toward larger, fuel-inefficient trucks and SUVs.)
And third, while companies are currently testing autonomous vehicles with almost no oversight in several states, we could see a resuscitation of the AV Start Act (read our archives here), the industry-led move to codify that practice into law nationwide. That would usher in widespread testing of autonomous vehicles across the country with almost no guardrails to ensure their safety, no requirement to collect and report data on their performance, no notifications to the public about when and where those tests are happening, and no oversight other than the voluntary oversight of the manufacturers and testers.
There will certainly be some negative developments over the next two to four years that we will need to organize and fight. And some hoped for actions that will not come to pass. But anyone who thinks that Republicans seizing control of the presidency and Congress means only a destructive reauthorization in 2026 fails to understand that past few reauthorizations—including the IIJA—that caused plenty of damage were fully supported by the majority of Democrats and how programmatic changes were put in place by the Biden administration over the last 4 years (check out Fueling the Crisis; additional analysis that will be out in the next few weeks). As we said during negotiations over the IIJA, Democrats and Republicans regularly join forces “to undermine their own goals for the sake of ‘bipartisanship,’ consistently passing bills that make U.S. transportation inefficient, expensive, unsafe, unsustainable and in poor condition. They both favor flexibility and deference over accountability for good outcomes and guaranteeing the taxpayer a good return for their investment.”
There will almost certainly be some negative developments ahead but on the whole, expect the same status quo to prevail. Which is not good news either.
Throughout the United States, various measures for funding transportation improvements were approved, advancing efforts to invest in the rest at the local level.
Columbus, Ohio voters supported funding for improved bus service in the recent election. (Central Ohio Transit Authority)
In addition to the presidential, Senate, and House races that occurred during this tumultuous election cycle, American voters recently decided on a variety of transportation and housing measures for their communities. (See our recent post on success for transit in Nashville here.) No matter the outcome of the federal elections, these measures represent a desire to invest in the rest of our transportation system and secure more travel options. Here are four major highlights from the many measures that were voted for around the country.
Columbus, Ohio
Issue 47 raises the sales tax for the Central Ohio Transportation Authority (COTA) from 0.5% to 1% in order to fund LinkUs. The plan calls for 45% more bus service, the creation of five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines to create faster and more efficient bus service. This includes dedicated lanes, priority at signals, and 14 new bus routes. The plan would also provide eight new COTA//Plus zones, which provide subsidized rideshare in neighborhoods of Columbus without bus service.
Money from the new sales tax will also be used for pedestrian infrastructure to support walkable neighborhoods near the new transit lines. LinkUs will create opportunity and access for Columbus, which is expected to grow to over three million residents by 2050.
Durham, North Carolina
The Durham Streets and Sidewalk Measure authorizes the city to issue $115 million in bonds for street and sidewalk projects. This money will be used in a variety of projects, such as adding 12.4 miles of sidewalk, repaving an estimated 100 miles of streetscape, and continuing an ongoing project to pave the remaining 10.5 miles of unpaved streets in Durham. The success of this measure shows that voters in cities like Durham understand that fixing it first is vital to support a well-functioning transportation network.
WMATA Yellow Line at L’Enfant Plaza Station. (Photo by author: Maxwell Reinisch, Transportation for America)
Fairfax County and Arlington County, Virginia
Both the Fairfax County and Arlington County transportation bond measures provide millions of dollars of bonds for public transit. Fairfax County provided $180 million in bonds for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to assist with capital costs of acquiring land for transportation facilities, new train cars, and more. Arlington County also provided $72 million in bonds, including $44.3 million in funds for WMATA capital improvements, $22 million for improving local streets, and $1.5 million for sidewalk and curb maintenance, and $1.3 million for street lighting and miscellaneous transportation projects.
WMATA has made great strides in recovering ridership since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and these funds will allow WMATA to keep providing frequent, reliable service throughout DC and its surrounding counties.
Denver, Colorado and surrounding counties
Measure 7A allows the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) to collect and reinvest revenue from sales tax above the originally approved levels in 1999. Removing the limits from decades prior allows the RTD to continue to improve service for the Denver Metropolitan Area for the three million residents in Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, and Jefferson Counties as well as portions of Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, and Weld Counties, which rely on RTD’s bus, light rail, and regional rail lines.
Why it matters
Municipalities around the country voted to invest in the rest in this last election, including funding for a more balanced transportation system that designs streets for safety over the speed of private automobiles.
While not every transit or transportation investment measure was passed, the majority were approved by voters. And where transportation measures failed, like in Charleston County’s Special Sales and Use Tax ballot measure, voters rejected funding for projects that would have gone to a highway expansion and negatively impacted the local environment.
It is important to acknowledge the progress that forward thinking communities in the country have made towards making our transportation system more equitable and sustainable for everyone. When determining how to support our nation’s transportation system, we hope that the incoming administration takes note of these trends.
After well over a decade of effort, fast-growing Nashville finally passed a transit funding referendum, proving that patience, perseverance and learning from mistakes leads to success.
A public bus in Nashville, TN (WeGo Transit)
The November 2024 elections will leave a lot to unpack in the coming weeks and months. So it’s understandable that you might have missed that Nashville’s $3.1 billion “Choose How You Move” transit referendum passed resoundingly on Tuesday with 66 percent support. This half-cent sales tax increase for consolidated Nashville-Davidson County will fund bus rapid transit expansion, transit service and the construction of 86 miles of sidewalk, as well as safety improvements and Nashville’s first opportunity to meaningfully invest in smart traffic signals.
Nashville’s success comes after many years of work and a previous loss at the ballot box.
Back in 2015, Transportation for America (alongside TransitCenter) led a Transportation Innovation Academy with leaders from Indianapolis, Raleigh and Nashville to share knowledge, visit cities with inspiring success stories, and help develop the local leadership to advance their transportation and transit plans. Key business leaders from each region participated, along with mayors and city/county council members, real estate pros, housing industry experts and local advocates.
Both Indianapolis and Raleigh went on to pass transit funding measures in 2016. But Nashville’s first attempt—the “Let’s Move Nashville” referendum—failed hard in May of 2018, with 64 percent opposition. TransitCenter’s in-depth analysis of the ballot measure’s failure identified several key factors: The measure was developed in an insular fashion within the mayor’s office without broad community input, rushed forward without solid plans or robust public engagement, took African American support for granted, and failed to prioritize improving the city’s limited bus service.
This time was different!
Strong leadership and a good plan
Mayor Freddie O’Connell took ownership and took the lead, developing a plan that distributes benefits across the county. This included an emphasis on bus service that could deliver more transit to more neighborhoods, and synergistic improvements such as sidewalk infill, traffic signal upgrades and safety improvements that directly benefit non-transit riders.
The Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, a Transportation for America member, was a leading supporter just as they were in 2018. “This significant vote represents decades of work and is a triumph for Nashville’s future,” said Ralph Schulz, President and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. “Mayor Freddie O’Connell deserves a great deal of credit for building a broad coalition of partners and developing a plan that people could get behind. With this investment, the Nashville region is now prepared to better capitalize on the opportunities it can provide its residents.”
In the campaign to win the ballot measure, the only substantive opposition was from a small anti-tax group “Committee to Stop an UnFair Tax.” This was in contrast to the 2018 measure, which had significant opposition from local and national conservative groups, as well as the Black faith community, who weren’t engaged on the substance of the plan nor brought into the process early enough. The campaign’s catchy but simple core message of “sidewalks, signals, service and safety” helped convey the broad benefits of the measure.
“For the first time in our city’s history, we will have dedicated revenue for transportation improvements, and that’s going to allow us to finally chip away at our traffic and cost of living issues,” said Mayor Freddie O’Connell. “We all deserve more time with our friends and family and less time just trying to get to them. Throughout this process, Nashvillians have been clear. They want to be able to get around the city we all love more easily and more conveniently.”
More good news
The money that will result from this successful ballot measure is paired with some encouraging policy developments in the city. Mayor O’Connell issued an executive order on Complete Streets and the city has adopted a Vision Zero Action Plan that will guide investments. T4America’s sister program at Smart Growth America, the National Complete Streets Coalition, has been working with Nashville’s department of transportation to train their staff and others on Complete Streets and Vision Zero implementation. Earlier this year, Nashville and the Tennessee Department of Transportation participated in Smart Growth America’s Complete Streets Leadership Academy, during which they developed quick-build demonstration projects to improve street safety while strengthening their approach to community partnerships.
Nashville is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, but with infrequent and unreliable transit service and scores of city streets lacking sidewalks entirely, their approach to transportation has been stuck in the past. Voters were ready to do something. And on Tuesday, patience, perseverance and learning from past mistakes paid off.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, the U.S. is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Under federal transportation policy, funding for highways greatly outpaces transit. Worse, it is hard to overstate how little of total funding has been allocated to building sidewalks and bike routes. For Americans who are unable to drive or lack regular access to a car, the lack of alternative options has very real consequences. In addition, when we fail to invest in opportunities to walk, bike, and take public transit, communities lose out on the wide-scale benefits these options provide. Multimodal transportation investments that make transit and walking more practical options for people promote ecologically and fiscally sustainable options for economic development.
Our system today costs us much more than we think, with poor outcomes for all users, including public health and climate outcomes, which have a disproportionate impact on Black and low-income communities historically marginalized from transportation decision-making. We continue to invest in road capacity expansions as our go-to strategy to alleviate congestion or drive economic growth, despite proof that this strategy does not work. As a result, cities remain locked in a Sisyphean strategy that continues to leave us stuck in traffic, even after COVID-19, with more remote work options than ever.
Across recent major bills, federal investment in highway programs has vastly outpaced investments in transit.
Instead of continuing oversized investments in the bloated federal highway program that fail to deliver results, the next transportation reauthorization bill needs to invest in the rest to build a world-class, multimodal transportation system. Here are some steps Congress and USDOT can take to get started.
1. Fix the data
We need quality data to make quality decisions. Transportation generates plenty of opportunities to collect data, from vehicular speed and throughput to how many miles of bike lane are being built. However, ensuring data quality matters much more than raw quantity of measures alone. While we have plenty of data-oriented solutions and measures to advance and plan specific transportation projects, the data underlying our system is full of holes.
Right now, it’s difficult for policymakers and advocates to determine how we are spending our money and to identify the actual effects of spending trends. Critical performance measure data tracked by the Federal Highway Administration can take years to update or be presented incomplete, missing data entirely. But even quality data is insufficient when we interpret it through the same old flawed processes that take us to the same old conclusions that lead us to the same bad outcomes.
We need better information to make better decisions at the federal, state, and local levels. Practitioners should have access to tools that effectively model and account for induced demand, land use changes, greenhouse gasses, and access to jobs and services in ways that can inform investment decisions away from strategies that have not worked in the past. Current and planned transportation investments should be reported on a more standardized basis in order for state advocates to understand where their funds are actually going.
2. Better utilize federal programs
The transformative investment levels required to provide a world class transportation system won’t be met with small, individual discretionary grant programs alone. The real workhorses of the federal transportation program—the Surface Transportation Block Grant and National Highway Performance Program—often provide a significant portion of federal funds for states to invest how they see fit, which almost always means building more roads. Spending on new road capacity is delivering diminishing returns and should be rededicated to opportunities to take public transit or walk, bike, and roll.
Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), there are many programs available to create more transportation options. However, finding and applying for these funds can be a strain on communities. Congress should consider consolidating the number of programs and expanding the size of smaller programs that provide funding access for local communities to address local safety, access, and resilience priorities. In implementing these federal programs, USDOT should streamline grant applications for smaller localities and jurisdictions while continuing to provide specialized assistance and relevant application information for lower resourced communities.
3. Fund transit operations, and use funding to boost frequency
When properly supported, transit provides immense value to communities and users from all walks of life. Unfortunately, transit has received significantly less support over the years compared to highway projects.
In order to unlock the transformative economic, climate, and equity benefits that transit can bring to a region, transit service needs to be frequent and provide access to jobs and services. We can do this by helping to fund transit operations and structuring federal grant programs to provide a pathway for transit agencies to reliably increase service and frequency to get people where they need to go.
Pairing the above with walkable, denser development around transit and a method to raise revenues that captures the value transit brings to a region could help advance investments in building out our transit systems, making them even more valuable resources.
4. Build out the passenger rail network
The IIJA is proving to be a launchpad for a passenger rail revival in the United States. There’s no doubt we’ve come a long way. However, as projects develop, there’s still much more work to be done and it takes a long time to bring a train up to top speed. If we want to build off our successes, reauthorization should ensure that we don’t stop building our rail network commitments now. Continuing our investments in national connectivity, and service is the best path forward to a strong national rail system. Learn more about how federal leaders can help advance passenger rail here.
The stakes
Congress and USDOT can play a major role in supporting a multimodal, world-class transportation system. Providing a floor for consistent investment in transit and active transportation infrastructure will be vital in ensuring that every American can reach their destinations safely, conveniently, and efficiently.
It’s Invest in the Rest Week
Click below to access more content related to our third principle for infrastructure investment, Invest in the Rest. Find all three of our principles here.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, our system is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, federal highway funding and funding for all other types of transportation (public transit, opportunities to walk and bike) have been severely unbalanced. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian deaths, and traffic, the Department of Transportation must invest in more transportation alternatives.
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, our policies and investments have prioritized creating transportation infrastructure that is primarily oriented around the movement of people in cars. This focus has come at the expense of all other ways to travel, and everyday people pay the price.
This is why many advocates and organizations, including Transportation for America, chose to participate in the national Week Without Driving, which challenges people to spend a full week getting around to work, the grocery store, and all other activities, without using a car.
For individuals in transit-friendly and walkable neighborhoods, the Week Without Driving challenge was hardly a challenge at all. Many went about their daily routines or had fun exploring the other travel options in their area. But for the majority of Americans, who live in neighborhoods designed for cars at the expense of the safety and mobility options of everyone else, it’s not as easy as putting down the car keys and choosing another way to get around. Not being able to drive has consequences for travel time, as well as the comfort and safety of a trip. And this is not an accident—it’s a product of years of funding and policy decisions that focused on vehicle speed, rather than the far more important measure of how well our system is getting people where they need to go.
For a third of Americans, traveling without a car isn’t a choice, it’s an everyday reality. Yet many people who regularly drive are unaware of the need for more options. For some, it is an insurmountable challenge to get from Point A to Point B without a vehicle. Hostile walking and biking infrastructure, and unreliable transit frequency and coverage are only a few of the barriers cited by participants in going car free. Poorly maintained conditions of sidewalks and incomplete networks of paths also prevent pedestrians from safely crossing busy roadways and major arterial roads.
The impact isn’t felt equally
Every traveler has had the experience of not being able to drive at some point, for a variety of reasons (including when your car has to be taken in for repairs). However, the burden is felt most by people who are unable to drive regularly, if at all, including young adults, elderly folks aging in place, people with disabilities, and those who cannot afford the exorbitant costs of having a car. Barriers to access for a car are also particularly exacerbated in rural areas and low-income communities.
Everyday travel would look vastly different if the amount of funding we dedicate to expanding roadways and highways was instead used to build out the other transportation options that have been neglected for far too long. Not only would this increase the mobility options available for communities, it would also generate environmental, health, and public safety benefits writ large. We hope this year’s Week Without Driving helped decision-makers envision the transportation network Americans need.
At T4A, we believe it’s time to invest in a complete and comprehensive transportation network that empowers people to get wherever they need to go conveniently and efficiently, regardless of the mode of transportation they choose. That’s why one of our three guiding principles for the next federal investment in transportation infrastructure is Invest in the Rest. Learn more about this principle and why it matters here.
It’s Invest in the Rest Week
Click below to access more content related to our third principle for infrastructure investment, Invest in the Rest. Find all three of our principles here.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, our system is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, federal highway funding and funding for all other types of transportation (public transit, opportunities to walk and bike) have been severely unbalanced. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian deaths, and traffic, the Department of Transportation must invest in more transportation alternatives.
Advancing equitable transit-oriented development requires all hands at the community level, but leadership at the state and federal level can also help propel change.
Public transportation and housing work in tandem. People want to live in walkable areas that are close to frequent transit stations to move around quickly. Equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) helps meet this desire by maximizing the amount of residential, business and leisure spaces within walking distance of public transportation.
Locating public transit near everyday destinations promotes ridership and makes it easier for people to travel without needing a private vehicle. It’s a vital component to establishing well-connected communities and promoting economic growth. However, it’s difficult to build any form of transit within one mile of residential spaces.
On June 26th, 2024 the Future of Transportation Caucus hosted a congressional briefing focused on equitable transit-oriented development. Here are a few of the barriers to ETOD that came up during the briefing.
Local legislation can restrict development
Principal Research Associate from the Urban Institute, Yonah Freemark explained during the briefing that many localities have land use policies that restrict dense and mixed use buildings near transit.
Additionally, zoning laws in many cities have been stagnant in updating their codes. Planning Manager for the City of Columbus, Alex Saursmith, highlighted this point with his own city, where the zoning code has not been updated in 70 years. Currently, only 6,000 housing units can be constructed every 10 years, despite Columbus being one of the fastest growing cities in the country.
ETOD is also more financially effective than supporting continued road-building by prioritizing development density. It better maintains and maximizes the benefits of existing infrastructure. As LOCUS Chair Alecia Hill explained, state legislators should have an economic financial incentive to promote equitable transit-oriented development. When a lack of housing supply coupled with a lack of transportation options drives up household costs, residents are the ones who pay the price.
Transportation costs are the second largest expense category, behind housing, for most households. When households are already severely economically constrained, the costs of housing and transportation can be particularly difficult to meet. Renters that are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened can spend greater than 30 or 50 percent, respectively, of their gross income on housing costs, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics found that households with income lower than $25,000 who own at least one vehicle spent 38 percent of their after-tax income on transportation in 2022.
Community voices are key
Community input is a foundational factor to rally support for more housing and transit. It’s important for citizens to have an opportunity to provide input early and see how their concerns will be addressed.
Sometimes, residents oppose new housing development for a variety of reasons, ranging from a fear of losing a community’s identity to a fear of increased traffic or reduced property values. Practitioners and legislators should listen and respond to these concerns. For example, they could point to research like this study from Livable Cities Lab which showed that some property values increased when more housing was introduced. In addition, legislators working to adopt new zoning regulations would be wise to find their local allies and enlist their help in developing community support. Explaining how new housing development relates to the community’s values and goals can further strengthen the case for change.
As Saursmith explained during the briefing, areas that have seen high population growth are a major driving force to zoning reform, especially when those areas are economically disadvantaged. These places are in desperate need of more housing, especially mixed-use residentials within walking distance to transit. He notes that with noticeable population growth, innate political pressure grows to update local amendments that have become obsolete. Generally, political pressure on leaders is the start to policy-making change.
Labor perspectives are also vital to promoting ETOD, especially within the realm of unions. Executive Director of Good Jobs First, Greg LeRoy, explained that some unions have begun to embrace urban density, arguing that promoting density is not only beneficial for the environment, public health, and economic growth, but also innately pro-union and pro-jobs.
More equitable, better connected communities
Updating zoning laws requires having local city council members and state leaders actively and loudly call for reform. Calling local representatives and campaigning for leadership that will advocate for updated zoning laws is part of the solution to allow for more housing. The other side of the issue to address focuses on the grassroots level. Tackling discourse in online spaces, attending city council meetings in promotion of more housing near transit, or canvassing on referendums are all opportunities to promote ETOD.
Even federal leaders like members in the Future of Transportation Caucus make waves to address housing and transit, helping to propel the conversation forward. In 2020, Representative Jesús Chuy García introduced a bill to promote housing near transit and establish an office under DOT specifically for ETOD. These avenues all provide a chance to showcase the numerous economic, public health, and environmental benefits of constructing housing near transit.
On May 9, the chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Representative Sam Graves, and the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Representative Rick Crawford highlighted recent increases in crime reports according to FTA-tracked data. The period of time evaluated (2020-2022) represents some of the worst times for transit as agencies struggled to deliver service, ridership fell, and travel behavior changed across the country.
Transit safety is foundational to encouraging communities to utilize this public resource and enjoy its numerous benefits, including economic, environmental, and public health benefits. It is essential that federal investments protect taxpayers as they travel. Unfortunately, Representatives Graves and Crawford failed to take note of the need for safety enhancements for all modes of transportation, including modes that are far more dangerous than taking the bus.
From 2020-2022, during that same period highlighted by Graves and Crawford, fatalities on our roadways exploded. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, projected roadway fatalities increased from 39,007 to 42,795. According to Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design report, the number of people hit and killed while walking grew to 7,522 in 2022, marking a 40-year high.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, passenger car occupants are the primary victims in highway fatalities, totaling more than 10,000 deaths each year since 2010. By contrast, non-rail public transit occupants (like bus riders) accounted for less than 100 highway fatalities each year. Other types of public transit, like subways, accounted for less than 300 transportation-related fatalities each year. (To fully understand these numbers, it’s important to note that highway fatalities, including non-rail public transit, counted only direct fatalities like deaths that occur due to a collision. Other types of public transit included incident-related fatalities, and so these deaths are likely overstated in comparison.)
Whether we’re driving, biking, walking, or taking public transit, we should be able to travel safely. But when representatives like Crawford derail the conversation to “shine a light” on transit security alone, it unnecessarily discourages and scares individuals from riding public transportation, despite it being statistically safer than operating a private vehicle.
Increased operations funding can help support transit agencies’ efforts to improve safety. Hiring transit ambassadors and having security officers on board are just two interventions that would support crime mitigation efforts. Collaborating with local services to support housing and mental health could help address criminal activity from multiple angles.
We’re glad federal representatives are having conversations about transportation safety, and we hope to see these conversations translate into increased funding for transit operations and security. But to truly address dangerous travel conditions, we need to consider the full picture. We hope to see additional efforts to address the top contributor to transportation-related fatalities in the US: private vehicles on high-speed roads.
The Moving Transit Forward Act, introduced by Senators Chris Van Hollen (MD) and John Fetterman (PA), seeks to bolster public transit nationwide. While differing from Representative Hank Johnson’s (GA-4) transit operating bill in the House, both aim to address the urgent need for sustainable transit funding.
Millions of people across the country depend on reliable and consistent public transit to get where they need to go. To provide this service, public transit agencies rely heavily on federal, state, and local funding to maintain their system and improve service provisions. However, while federal funding covers capital expenditures for the construction and acquisition of infrastructure and equipment, the costs of operating the transit system are primarily procured from state and (even more often) local funding sources.
Transit agencies struggle to maintain service levels under this traditional model for operating costs. National lockdowns imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic caused ridership to plummet, exposing the extent of transit operating challenges for agencies. Revenue from fare collection drastically decreased, leaving little funding for transit agencies to cover their operating costs. Combined with rising inflation and stagnating local funding sources, transit agencies are faced with a self-reinforcing downward spiral of decreasing ridership and service cuts. Covid relief funds from the federal government offered temporary relief that prevented massive service cuts but with funding now being exhausted, transit agencies are facing a fiscal cliff due to this unstabling funding. This model creates a system that lacks the necessary resources and support to provide the reliable transportation services that communities need, and deserve.
On May 14, 2024, Senators Chris Van Hollen (MD) and John Fetterman (PA) introduced the Moving Transit Forward Act, with the legislation aiming to bolster public transportation services across the country. The bill aims to supplement the existing operating budgets of transit agencies to provide them with resources to expand routes, increase service frequency, and improve the experience of transit riders.
The Moving Transit Forward Act would create a federal formula funding program under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to provide additional funding resources for service improvements and safety and security enhancements. This legislation finally represents a Senate bill addressing operating costs, similar to the Stronger Communities through Better Transit Act reintroduced by Representative Hank Johnson (GA-4) in the House in January.
Both the House and Senate bills authorize new federal formula funds for transit operations. However, they have some key differences.
An immediate variation between the two bills is in terms of funding authorization. The House bill specifies authorizing $20 billion per year through fiscal year 2027 whereas the Senate bill does not specify a dollar amount for transit operating. Furthermore, all transit agencies, both rural and urban, are eligible for funding under the House bill, but the Senate bill targets transit agencies within urban areas that have a population of more than 50,000. This discrepancy is likely due to the fact that, unlike urban areas, rural areas are already eligible to use federal funds to cover transit operating costs. However, denying rural areas additional resources to cover operating costs limits their ability to provide frequent and reliable transit service—which is sorely needed, considering that more than 1 million rural Americans do not have access to a car.
Despite these discrepancies, both of the bills demonstrate the necessity of addressing operating costs for transit agencies to ensure that public transit is available, accessible, and affordable for communities, particularly for those that are underserved. As these bills move through their respective chambers, it is crucial that a transit model that supports the vision of reliable transit for all is realized.
On April 27, 2024, Sound Transit opened up the East Link light rail line for riders to connect from Redmond to Bellevue, and ultimately to Seattle. The new rail line was met with noticeable excitement and underscores the need (and eagerness) for improved and additional public transportation.
The opening of the East Link light rail line in Bellevue, Washington (Wikimedia Commons)
Why light rail?
Light rail is rail-based transportation that can operate in mixed traffic (similar to streetcars, which you might find in cities like New Orleans or San Francisco). These systems are designed to carry more passengers than even a very frequent and packed bus line (like the M15 in NYC which carries at least 30,000 passengers daily) but less passengers than a heavy rail transit line (like New York’s 6 train, carrying nearly 400,000 riders a day). Heavy rail is typically utilized when spacing between stations needs to be farther apart, usually for bigger cities like New York City, which is three times larger than Seattle.
Light rail’s charm can come from many perspectives. Riders might choose to take light rail because it can be more reliable and frequent than a bus, particularly buses that have to share lanes with private vehicles. Light rail is a cheaper alternative than driving a car when accounting for time, gas prices, maintenance, and car payments, and taking this form of transit can help riders avoid the frustration of rush hour traffic. The term “light rail” is also associated with “clean” energy use and quiet, quick transport. Meanwhile, municipalities might find that light rail is a more cost-effective option than constructing a subway system.
Building on the success of previous lines, Seattle has invested in the East Link light rail line (also called the 2 Line), which opened to fanfare on April 27, 2024. Once fully completed, the East Link will connect Seattle and the 1 Line (formerly Central Link from Northgate to Angle Lake) in the west to Bellevue and Redmond in the east.
East Link route as of April 27, 2024East Link Extension (Sound Transit)
Bellevue’s transportation champions
The Seattle area’s investment in public transit didn’t start with light rail. In the 1960s, the federal government offered to cover 80 percent of the costs for a potential 49-mile rapid transit system in the state. The funding and proposal were turned down due to fear of growth and financial costs. The lost opportunity spurred movement in Seattle to begin the long process of establishing an improved public transit system. There is a clear priority and demand for improved and additional transit in Washington state—and luckily, there are representatives that understand how to work the levers to obtain it.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has been recognized as a champion for public transit by the American Public Transportation Association and placed a large emphasis on the importance of public transit in decreasing congestion and emissions, as well as promoting economic growth. She has had a long history with the light rail project and ensuring that Sound Transit has a future. In 2009, Senator Murray secured $1 billion in federal funding for light rail and other transit related projects.
Former mayor of Seattle and Sound Transit Chairman Greg Nickels grappled with the project from the beginning despite the uncertainty of the progressive plan. Even during his run for mayor in 2001, he campaigned aggressively on Sound Transit’s lack of funding and reiterated the importance of light rail. In 2006, when Seattle’s South Lake Union Streetcar opened and received criticism for sharing lanes with private vehicles, Nickels defended the project on the grounds that it would be built more quickly and would be less costly than alternative public transit options, all while adding more jobs.
Mike McGinn, mayor of Seattle from 2010-2013, also campaigned on the commitment to expand the city’s light rail system to connect to West Seattle. One of the roadblocks faced for the transportation project (as is the obstacle for many) is funding. Stakeholders disagreed on whether the transit line should be funded solely by the city or if it should be part of a larger regional project. McGinn called for a Seattle-only ballot measure to raise funds for the expansion of light rail to prevent money from being held up at the state and county level, as suburban politicians were more likely to be reluctant to fund anything that would not directly benefit private vehicle use. It is not uncommon to present policy proposals that will be politically unpopular and having visionaries that understand the long term benefits is one of the many levers that push products like the 2 Line forward.
Local leaders have worked especially hard to move this project forward, such as King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci, an outspoken transit and affordable housing champion. She is a former mayor of Bellevue and continued her advocacy on the 2 Line when she was elected to the city council in 2015. Current Bellevue Mayor Lynne Robinson, Deputy Mayor Mo Malakoutian, and the entire city council have also been supportive of the light rail expansion and were all present for the grand opening.
Groundbreaking ceremony for the East Link in Bellevue (Wikimedia Commons)
Part of supporting progress for transit is understanding where there is hesitancy from constituents and what can be done to address concerns. For example, so that the Eastside community could understand the investment and construction expectations of the project, the city demonstrated how they would strategically incorporate the light rail system into city planning. This led to the creation of the BelRed subarea plan, which aims to deliver transit-oriented development including implementing a broad range of housing and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that connect to the regional transit network. Safety was another voiced concern, which the city addressed by having first responders train months ahead to respond effectively in tunnels and elevated tracks and activating the Bellevue Police Unit dedicated to security on transit.
Opportunities ahead for the Seattle area and beyond
Seattle has a promising transportation future ahead with the new light rail line and should be used as a guiding light for political leaders and community advocates. This was a long overdue effort for Seattle to connect the east to the west, and despite setbacks along the way, visionaries in recent history helped make it happen by standing tall against the opposition to implement the long needed project. Finally, advocating for change at the leadership level required addressing community needs in a balanced manner, standing by principles, and maintaining the vision that long-term success is complex and requires layered discourse. The story of the East Link shows that creating substantial change comes from all different levels and actors working together to make a difference.
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.
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.
New legislation introduced by Senator Markey, the GREEN Streets Act, seeks to establish goals for emissions reduction and resilience in our transportation system, marking a pivotal step in alleviating the climate crisis on our roadways.Tell your senator to cosponsor this legislation.
Yet, federal transportation policy and funding historically, at all levels, have encouraged projects that expand highway networks at the expense of public and active transportation. Our recent analysis demonstrated that even with landmark legislation like the IIJA, touted for its climate programs, states are continuing to designate billions of dollars towards expanding road capacity. Such a car-oriented design forces people to drive for longer and more frequent trips, creating more congestion—and generating more emissions.
On January 25, 2024, Senator Ed Markey introduced the Generating Resilient, Environmentally Exceptional National (GREEN) Streets Act, co-sponsored by Senator Merkley, with companion legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Huffman. This bill aims to reduce GHG emissions on all public roads and create resilient transportation systems that can adapt to the adverse effects of climate change.
To achieve these goals, the GREEN Streets Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to create minimum standards for states to reduce GHG emissions, per capita VMT, and air pollutants on public roads. Furthermore, the bill requires states and metropolitan organizations (MPOs) to publish an analysis of the effects of projects that increase traffic capacity on environmental justice communities that are at higher risk of experiencing adverse health and climate impacts. These measures build on the GHG emissions measure released by USDOT, encouraging more transparency and accountability within our transportation system.
Investing in our transportation system means investing in social, economic, and environmental outcomes. It is crucial that federal investments help Americans safely, reliably, and affordably get to where they need to go. Federal legislation like the GREEN Streets Act will play a fundamental role in avoiding the worst effects of climate change and enhancing the resiliency and connectivity of our communities.
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.
By mandating emissions tracking and target setting, the GHG Emissions Measure addresses an urgent need for climate action. And while this popular rule is an important first step, its success hinges on immediate and effective action at the state and local levels, which would signify a shift towards a cleaner, and greener, transportation landscape.
The United States Capitol building. (John Xavier via Flickr)
On November 22, 2023, the Department of Transportation released the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure rule, requiring state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure and report their transportation-associated emissions, as well as set targets to lower these emissions. This rule is long overdue, with a period of public comment on the rule having closed over a year ago in October 2022. More than 60,000 comments were received by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with comments in favor outweighing those opposed by more than 3,000 to 1, demonstrating overwhelming support from government agencies, and transit and advocacy groups, for progress on emissions reduction.
What does this mean for state DOTs and MPOs?
With the passage of the rule, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, are mandated to measure GHG emissions associated with on-road mobile sources on the National Highway System (NHS) within their geographic or planning area boundaries. Additionally, state DOTs will need to establish 2 and 4-year emissions reduction targets, and MPOs will need to establish 4-year targets. State DOTs are expected to submit their first targets on February 1, 2024, signifying the administration’s endorsement of an aggressive and rapid policy rollout in the right direction. Both state DOTs and MPOs will need to consistently provide updates to report their progress in meeting their targets.
The GHG rule expands on important work in setting declining GHG emissions targets that already exist and has been implemented in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Crucially, the new rule provides a national framework and recommended method that standardizes how emissions should be calculated. A uniform calculation methodology allows for consistency across the board in emissions data that is currently produced and will be produced, and the ability to uniformly compare progress through timely updates.
State DOTs and MPOs are awarded a high degree of flexibility in setting their own declining GHG targets and pathways for achieving them, allowing alignment with their respective policy priorities. This also means that there is no incentive to set competitive targets, and there are no penalties imposed for failures to meet these set targets either. While the rule brings sunlight to progress on emissions targets, the absence of an enforcement mechanism implies that it may not drive substantial action in shifting the status quo.
Moreover, it is important to note that the emissions mandated for tracking and reporting by this rule pertain only to travel on the National Highway System (NHS), not all roads. As of 2020, the NHS represented only 5.3% of total mainline miles of roadway in the US. By solely focusing on NHS-related travel, more than 46% of the total vehicle miles traveled in the US are overlooked.
From awareness to action
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is channeling historic amounts of federal funding into states for transportation projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Among its programs is the Carbon Reduction program which provides funding for state projects focusing on carbon emissions reduction. These dollars hold unprecedented potential for investment in transportation projects that create climate-resilient and reliable transit networks. However, there is also the possibility that this money may continue to be invested in highway widening projects, leading to the opposite outcome of actually increasing emissions. Constituents deserve to know that their taxpayer money is going where it needs to go.
The new law arms the public with an important advocacy and transparency tool to assess whether the administration is fulfilling its promise of delivering on sustainable and equitable transportation options. This accountability encourages states and local leaders to align their work with their constituents’ goals and prioritize projects accordingly.
Confronting the climate crisis demands urgency. Changing climate conditions across the country are increasingly threatening the connectivity, efficiency, and safety of our transportation systems, impacting communities’ abilities to access daily necessities and get where they need to go. With adverse weather events impacting reliable service and recently witnessed air quality crises, the administration could not afford to delay decisive action any longer.
The science on this has also never been clearer. The Sixth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes the unequivocal need to implement transformative change in the transportation sector. The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States, and aligning climate goals with transportation agency goals is pivotal to moving closer to achieving the nation’s ambitious net-zero goals. Ultimately, the GHG performance measure should pave the way for more aggressive and ambitious climate mitigation and adaptation policies.
The GHG rule is not a silver bullet
T4A’s director, Beth Osborne, wrote in our statement on the rule that “these decisions have benefits beyond reducing emissions, like providing people with more opportunities to travel outside of a car, which enhances safety and mobility.” It is important to remember that achieving climate targets and creating equitable communities hinges on breaking free from car dependency. Electrification and vehicle efficiency, on their own, will not lead us out of the climate crisis. Our report, Driving Down Emissions, underscores the importance of accounting for factors like induced demand and shifting away from car-oriented land use in efforts to reduce emissions.
The GHG rule is a valuable, first step on a long path towards ensuring climate accountability and transparency in our transportation system, but we must continue to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that our transportation agencies move in the right direction. While we applaud the release of the new rule, it is evident that we need immediate and effective implementation and investment in greener forms of transportation, if the law will have the much-needed impact it intends.
There is no denying that there are persistent issues that impact reliable freight service and the efficient delivery of goods nationwide. Yet, despite the discussion of the myriad service issues that affect the supply chain, Amtrak and passenger rail have not been identified as a cause of disruption, and have, in fact, been conspicuously absent from the conversation in general.Despite this lack of impact, critics argue that if the Freights First Act is enacted, it could jeopardize the growth of passenger rail and roll back vital infrastructure investment goals.
Amtrak’s eastbound Texas Eagle departs Dallas. (Matt Shell via Flickr)
The Freights First Act, introduced by Rep. Eric Burlison (MO), seeks to “eliminate Amtrak’s right of preference” over freight transportation in what is being portrayed as an attempt to prevent freight rail bottlenecks and expedite freight movement. Co-sponsored by U.S. Representatives Troy E. Nehls (TX), Scott Perry (PA), Andrew Ogles (TN), and Harriet M. Hageman (WY), there has been no evidence implicating passenger rail as an obstacle to freight service productivity.
In April 2022, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) held a public hearing to urgently assess freight rail service performance and how unreliability and inconsistency impact the supply chain. Stakeholders, including rail labor organizations and shipping companies, gave extensive testimonies regarding service concerns and their vision for a path toward service recovery. The STB found that decades-long practices such as reducing operating ratios and diminishing the existing workforce to cut costs are harmful to operations and stymies service.
Following the investigation, the STB issued a ruling that requires Class 1 freight railroads, namely BNSF, CSX, UP, and NS, to be put on an aggressive schedule to provide updates on their rail service, performance, and employment. This evaluation of progress is a significant step forward in monitoring improvements from freight railroads that urgently need to reform their precision scheduled railroading model as well as increase transparency and accountability.
Notably, passenger rail was not identified as a concern throughout this process—even by the freight provider’s own admission. This means that if enacted, this legislation will likely notimprove delays and establish efficient freight service. What this legislation will achieve, is effectively dismantling a robust network of national and state-supported passenger rail service, and undermining the vision for growth and expansion of nationwide passenger rail service outlined in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The Freights First Act also contradicts the goals of the citizens whom proponents of this bill are supposed to represent while obscuring and ignoring the real obstacles that are hindering the improvement of freight service. Mayors of Houston, Austin, and San Antonio have looked into popular options to expanding passenger rail in the Texas Triangle in order to prioritize local economies and connect people to services. The current infrastructure funding presents an opportunity for these states to advance projects that can improve mobility in their region, including the extension of the Amtrak Heartland Flyer as well as the I-35 rail expansion. Similarly, Memphis, Nashville, and Chattanooga have declared interest in passenger rail opportunities throughout Tennessee to meet growth and mobility needs. The agenda being advocated for by the representatives sponsoring the Freights First Act is entirely misaligned with the tireless support for passenger rail exhibited by these states and communities.
The IIJA presents a momentous opportunity to act decisively and improve community connectivity through a strong network of passenger rail service, and our responsibility is to support this movement, not roll it back. The Freights First Act is presented as an aspiration for improving the nation’s supply chain performance but it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destroy intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation.
California and New York State Legislatures voted to save transit from the fiscal cliff in 2023. While a win for transit can be a win for the climate, changing conditions across the country demonstrate the need for transit to find ways to be both fiscally and physically resilient.
Between uncertain revenue sources, a sluggish ridership recovery after the pandemic, and increasing inflation-derived capital costs, transit agencies have their work cut out for them over the next few years. However, these crises are not new. Over the course of the 20th century, urban mass transit has had to weather many of the same crises we face today, including dealing with sprawling development, congested commutes, and inevitable budget crises stemming from unsustainable revenue streams. Transit advocates still need to find permanent ways down the fiscal cliff, and the solutions will likely involve brave policy decisions, coordinated advocacy, and innovation from transit authorities.
But the fiscal cliff is not the only problem on the horizon. As climate change unfolds, transit will need the support to serve as communities’ resilient backbone through subtle, day-to-day challenges and demanding disasters.
Changing landscapes
Coastal erosion, an issue only exacerbated by climate change, threatens one of the country’s most highly utilized rail transportation corridors. The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Corridor in Southern California serves millions of riders annually and currently vies for the title of second-busiest intercity passenger rail corridor with Miami and Orlando’s new Brightline rail service. The alignment hosts Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner as well as two commuter rail services, Metrolink in Los Angeles and Coaster in San Diego, connecting people to jobs along the coast and helping travelers bypass the extreme traffic congestion Southern Californians have always struggled with.
Despite the high ridership and significance to the region, the current alignment is literally falling into the sea as the rails on sandstone bluffs erode with rising sea levels and shifting weather patterns. After two decades of service interruptions from landslides and over $100 million spent on temporary measures to stave off literal collapse, the San Diego Association of Governments has begun preliminary engineering & environmental review work to study a new alignment (with plans to open in 2035), after years of consideration and following months of service interruptions.
Sudden disasters
As adverse weather events like the recent Hurricane Otis and Tropical Storm Hilary become increasingly frequent and intense, the federal government, states, MPOs, and transit authorities will need to find ways to cooperate both proactively and reactively to meet the moment. Failure to prepare for and rebuild in the wake of a disaster can set regions back for years and only increase future chaos. When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast’s rail infrastructure, it eliminated a key resource for the region’s resilience. While freight rail infrastructure was quickly repaired, passenger trains have been out of service for nearly two decades and only recently—after much effort—are due to return.
Without passenger rail or mass transit, residents are dependent on highway infrastructure for evacuation, which is vulnerable to car crashes and choking congestion during emergencies (check out the congestion on I-45 during an evacuation of Houston in 2005). Transit and passenger rail can provide citizens, especially those who do not have a car, a resilient avenue for evacuation that won’t just clog with a traffic jam.
The need for emergency funding
The stunningly fast 12-day turnaround to patch connections after the Interstate 95 collapse in Philadelphia this year shows just how swiftly critical infrastructure can be restored when properly prioritized. Mere days after the collapse, the Federal Highway Administration released $3 million to Pennsylvania DOT, offsetting the costs of the state’s repairs that started immediately after the incident. The FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, funded at $100 million annually (in addition to supplemental appropriations), covers 100 percent of the immediate costs to mitigate emergency damage and up to 90 percent of federal highway repairs. This fast-acting program enables critical, day-one work to restore service, as states can work with certainty that they will be quickly reimbursed.
Transit and passenger rail need emergency funding that is just as responsive (if not more so) than programs for highway infrastructure. Just as repairs are needed for highways to continue functioning after a disaster, they’re needed to keep transit and passenger rail running on time so that people can get where they need to go. And since transit can be a valuable tool for mobility in the wake of disaster, transit systems should be restored as quickly as possible to ensure travel flow can continue.
Unlike the FHWA’s emergency program, the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program receives $0 in annual appropriations. Instead, transit has to rely on Congress to pass legislation (a task that generally requires a Speaker of the House) to respond to disasters. This means that FTA cannot provide funding immediately after emergencies. Worse still, when disaster hits rail infrastructure, FTA’s disaster reserves have been transferred out to the Federal Railroad Administration, which does not have a much-needed emergency relief program of its own. Funds for disasters that occurred as far back as 2017 were only awarded this year as a result of an act that appropriated just $214 million to transit for four calendar years of disasters. Meanwhile, the same bill appropriated an additional $803 million to FHWA’s emergency program, on top of annual appropriations.
This issue is being recognized by federal legislators in new marker bills leading up to the next transportation reauthorization bill. Earlier this year, Senator Fetterman introduced a bill to inject an additional $50 million annually for the FTA’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program to expedite the delivery of funds to match I-95’s 12-day recovery. In response to sudden rain and flooding in New York, Senator Gillibrand put forth legislation that would add funding to help transit agencies conduct proactive resiliency projects to FTA’s State of Good Repair Grants. Long-term resiliency for transit matters more every year, as its riders, many of whom are low-income, will be the most intensely hit by climate change, which they will face in the form of record-breaking heatwaves, rainstorms, and wildfire-induced air pollution.
The bottom line
With the IIJA lapsing in 2026 and natural disasters on the rise with climate change, Congress needs to devise new policies to improve how the country restores public transit in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and even the less dramatic, predictable emergencies. New programs must find ways to prioritize transit speed, equitable service, and long-term resiliency, not just infrastructure built the same and built to fail.
Our Transit Report Card analyzes how states compare on transit access and support. To understand how our figures match up in the context of other countries, we took a look at one of our peers: Australia.
In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we compared U.S. states’ support for transit based on funding and access. Those figures are hard to understand without context, so we found ourselves asking: how do U.S. states compare to similar jurisdictions in other countries when it comes to transit policy?
But “similar jurisdictions” don’t exist in many other countries. Most other industrialized countries either control all transit policy at the national level (think the United Kingdom, France, and Japan) or cede only limited power to sub-national governments (think Germany, Mexico, and India).
We were, however, able to find one country with sub-national governments that have primary control over transit policy. That country is Australia, which funds its transportation infrastructure much like the U.S. does. Their national government distributes transportation funding directly to states and territories in the form of block grants. States and territories, in turn, direct that funding to specific projects, including public transit. Though the Australian system is different from ours in meaningful ways (like their more streamlined federal investment approach), their structure is similar to our own, where state governments dictate the vast majority of transportation spending and policy.
So we partnered with Movement & Place Consulting, a Melbourne-based transport consulting firm, to rate Australia’s nine internal states and territories on some of the same metrics that we used to rate U.S. states.
To better understand this phenomenon, we measured how much Americans and Australians drive, measured in annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita in each U.S. and Australian state.
As we explained in part 2 of this series, most American states see over 10,000 miles per capita, with just a few exceptions. Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, DC, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island all had less than 8,500 VMT per capita in 2019, the year before the pandemic changed driving patterns around the country. But how does that compare to other countries?
Map is not drawn to scale. Based on 2019 VMT data.
Australia, despite being far more sparsely populated than the U.S., does not even come close to our VMT per capita. The highest VMT Australian state, Western Australia, drives about the same amount (6,430 miles per person per year) as the lowest VMT U.S. state, New York (6,373 miles per person per year). And every Australian state fits within the lowest category of our U.S. map. So the Australian map looks stark in comparison:
Australians are able to have a significantly reduced VMT per capita as residency is highly concentrated within a single point in each state. While in most U.S. states, 20 percent of the population lives in their largest city, approximately 67 percent of Australia’s population lives in each state’s capital city.
VMT per capita provides the most straightforward comparison between the U.S. and Australia, but what about access? For our U.S. analysis, we took a look at federal data to get a sense of how well transit was connecting people to their essential destinations. This gave us a transit access index, which we converted into state rankings.
Australia does not have a database equivalent to what we used in our U.S. access analysis. But we can learn a lot about Australians’ access to transit by examining its land use strategies. Land use is in fact so central to transit quality that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made it a core priority.
Let’s compare two metro areas of roughly the same population: Greater Phoenix (pop. 5.01 million) and Greater Melbourne (pop. 5.03 million). Melbourne’s transit system, Public Transport Victoria, carries around 600 million riders per year. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (which reduced transit ridership across the country), the Phoenix region’s transit system, Valley Metro, carried only about 66 million people per year.
Why do Melburnians ride public transit so much more than Phoenicians? Funding is certainly part of the equation, but perhaps more importantly, Melbourne’s land use is much denser and overall more conducive to transit access. Greater Melbourne has 1,305 people per square mile, compared to Phoenix’s 332 people per square mile. Melbourne’s denser population is much easier to connect by transit. In addition, Public Transport Victoria has constructed an interconnected system of heavy rail, trams, and buses in a way that connects even the most remote suburbs.
By comparison, Valley Metro operates only one light rail line, and while the city operates a bus network as well, frequent service is few and far between. Even the most frequent lines operate 15 minute headways during peak hours and 30 minute headways off-peak, not even close to the frequency or reliability of Melbourne’s transit network.
So the question of why Melburnians ride more public transit than Phoenicians becomes obvious: there’s more of it. Melbourne runs faster transit, of more variety, and with more frequency. And while Phoenix might be just one example, its story is all too familiar in cities across the United States.
Funding
Our funding analysis of U.S. states is much harder to compare to Australia’s, but that’s kind of the point. Australian states spend much more on transit overall, but it’s not because they have more money to work with.
The U.S. earns most of their funding for transportation through gas tax revenue. However, the vast majority of U.S. states restrict the amount of funding that their legislatures can allocate to transit systems. This creates a counterintuitive cycle. Without efficient and convenient public transit service, Americans are forced to drive more, leading to more money spent on gas taxes that then cannot be invested in alternative forms of transportation.
Map is not drawn to scale.
In comparison, Australia’s constitution does not explicitly discuss transportation funding—states are able to fund public transport as they deem appropriate. Furthermore, funding for Australian transport infrastructure is supported mainly by general taxation revenue and council rates rather than depending largely on gas tax.
The result: Australian states devote much more of their resources to public transit than U.S. states. Even Australia’s most remote and sparsely populated territory, the Northern Territory, spends more on public transit per capita per year ($183.48) than every U.S. state except for New York ($255.90), Massachusetts ($238.76), Hawaii ($220.98), and Maryland ($198.72).
Lessons learned
Even the best U.S. states have a long way to go in comparison to their international peers. This point became clear in our conversations with Australian experts while doing this research.
It’s easy to dismiss international transit comparisons as “apples to oranges.” But that excuse crumbles when the comparison is being made to a true peer like Australia. Both countries are large, developed, constitutional republics with low national population densities and strong sub-national governments.
While Australia’s transit system is far from perfect, the United States can learn a lot from our friends across the Pacific. We can have suburbs while still increasing density to support transit. We can have a robust highway system while still giving people other high-quality options. And we can do it by integrating transit systems to create a convenient user experience.
We can, and we must.
Learn more about our state-by-state analysis of transit support and availability, and see a full table of results. Click here >>
Spurred on by COVID-19 disruptions, leaders of the Puget Sound Regional Council found a new way to allocate federal transit formula dollars. Their equity-focused distribution could help the most vulnerable communities while also adapting to new travel trends.
The COVID-19 pandemic was, and remains, one of the most influential shocks to transit systems across the country. Transit agencies struggled with lost revenue and ridership paired with escalating operating costs. The federal government intervened during the height of the pandemic by investing billions in stimulus and relief through Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funding. But when those funds arrived in Puget Sound, it became apparent to some leaders in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) that this funding was not flowing to disadvantaged communities that needed it most.
Rather than continuing on as is, members of the PSRC’s Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and local transit agency leadership came together to rethink how the region uses federal formula dollars to prioritize equity and build up service for disadvantaged communities.
Traditional distributions
The FTA apportions formula funds to regions around the country based on the services and operational data provided by transit agencies in the National Transit Database. Using that data, the FTA then applies the titular “formulas” of formula funds, distributing dollars to urbanized areas (UZAs) across the country.
PSRC serves three UZAs: the Bremerton, Marysville, and Seattle-Tacoma-Everett UZAs. As the Bremerton and Marysville UZAs are each served by a single transportation agency, the local UZA apportionment is simply distributed to those agencies. In the case of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett UZA, the FTA distributes a lump sum of funds for the PSRC to allocate to eleven transit agencies.
In PSRC’s old distribution strategy, 86 to 88 percent of funds are distributed to each local transit agency in line with the FTA’s standard earned share formulas. The remaining percentage of formula funds was then doled out through regional competitions and preservation set-asides. In practice and in line with historical transportation priorities, this method tended to award agencies and services focused on moving commuters from suburbs to downtowns.
Equity first
For people who cannot afford the high cost of car ownership, access to high-quality transit remains a valuable method to access jobs and services.
Proposing a new, revised distribution policy, several members of the TPB, including Pierce County Councilman Ryan Mello and Tacoma Deputy Mayor Kristina Walker, pushed for a policy that would prioritize funding to equity focus areas, places where disadvantaged groups are concentrated and would benefit from better transit service. This change would allow PSRC to align their funding allocations with the region’s priorities, using a demographic lens to identify communities most in need of transit access.
Under the new methodology, PSRC would use federal census data to identify where people in equity focus populations are located, with an emphasis on serving people with disabilities, youth, the elderly, people with low incomes, people of color, and people with limited English proficiency.
After calculating the number of people in equity focus areas within half a mile from bus stops and a mile from rail stops, and with an adjustment to reflect the nuanced service provided by state and county ferries, the PSRC would proportionally distribute funds to the transit agencies that serve the underserved.
Funding for the new distribution formula comes out of what had previously been used for regional competitions and preservation set-asides. It represents about 14 percent of total funding, seriously boosting agencies serving equity focus areas. For Pierce Transit, the formula change resulted in a funding increase of approximately $9.8 million annually.
Preservation Set Aside Funding (in millions)
Percentage of Regional Total*
Equity Formula Distribution (in millions)**
Percentage of Regional Total
Community Transit
$2.20
2.90%
$11.70
15.00%
Everett Transit
$0.20
0.30%
$2.80
3.60%
King County Metro
$15.90
21.00%
$33.60
43.10%
Pierce County Ferries
$0.20
0.30%
$0.20
0.30%
Pierce Transit
$1.20
1.60%
$11.00
14.10%
City of Seattle
$0.10
0.10%
$2.50
3.20%
Sound Transit
$11.20
14.80%
$12.90
16.60%
Washington State Ferries
$3.10
4.10%
$3.20
4.10%
TOTAL
$34.10
$77.90
* Not including regional competition funding** Includes preservation set asides and former regional competition funding
Seattle-Tacoma-Everett UZA funding distributions changed significantly under the Equity Formula Distribution. Table developed using data provided by Puget Sound Regional Council.
Because these funding changes came out of a limited budget, the council had to make compromises. Since the new formula distributions came out of what had been money for regional competitions, some agencies and projects received less funding than before.
“Working through the exercise was of great value for folks to actually see, numerically and through mapping, where the equity focus areas are and where they are or are not being served by transit,” reflected Councilmember Ryan Mello, who helped lead the change.
In the post-pandemic “new normal,” local-level transit that connects people to everyday services maintains vital access for disadvantaged communities.
“We had the ability to have a conversation with the region. We say racial equity is a value—well, here’s an opportunity to put money into it. I had to rustle feathers to make the effort, but it pushed people hard to put the money where your values are, even at the expense of other things.”
By reorienting funding to prioritize transit equity, while also remaining adaptive to new travel trends, the PSRC’s Equity Funding Distribution can serve as an example for governments and agencies that claim to hold equity at the core of their mission.
Thanks to Grant DuVall for contributing to this post.
California’s transit agencies are bracing for a fiscal cliff, a real threat facing communities nationwide. If left unresolved, it could lead to drastically reduced service, cutting people off from jobs and services. But California’s legislature is preparing to vote on a budget that will do nothing to stop it.
Update 6/14: Governor Gavin Newsom has released a new budget, whichwill keep CA transit agencies solvent in the short term.
Transit riders wait to board a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train. Wait times and crowding will likely skyrocket if Governor Gavin Newsom’s budget passes unchanged. (Wikimedia Commons)
What is a “fiscal cliff”?
We wrote about the transit fiscal cliff issue back in January, but here’s the gist. When the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020, many people stopped riding transit, so transit agencies saw a massive drop in their fare revenues. Transit operations depend on fare revenue to operate essential services, so Congress approved two rounds of emergency funding to keep agencies operating through the pandemic. The plan worked—agency operating funds remained solvent.
But over the past couple years, as that emergency funding dried up, fare revenue has not recovered enough to replace it. Ridership has increased, but not at a fast enough pace to cover all the costs involved with transit operations. For many agencies, it’s only a matter of time before they run out of money and need to cut their services.
The fight to save transit in California
According to a survey done by the California Transit Association (CTA), 72 percent of CA agencies face fiscal cliffs. Earlier this year, hundreds of transit agencies and allied organizations asked for $6 billion over the next five years to prevent major service cuts and regrow their ridership base by improving service. They also suggested several ways that the state could fund such an investment.
The governor’s budget disregarded all of their recommendations, instead shifting only $2 billion away from transit capital projects to cover operating costs. Lawmakers have pointed out that this move is the worst of both worlds—it will force service cuts by short-changing operating support and it will defund major construction projects, forfeiting federal support.
The consequences of this proposal would be catastrophic. San Francisco’s Muni system would need to cut at least 20 bus lines. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) would see “trains only once an hour, no trains on weekends, no trains after 9 p.m. on weeknights, reduced service to San Francisco International and Oakland International airports, some stations closed, and entire lines potentially shuttered.”
72 percent of transit agencies statewide would face similar cuts. Unless the state acts soon to rescue its transit agencies, millions of Californians will be left stranded, disconnected from education, medical care, food, and jobs—especially low-income people and marginalized communities.
Highway-transit double standard
Let’s take a step back from this debate to examine its premise. California spends around $21 billion a year on roads while providing a paltry $2.6 billion to the state’s transit agencies—a more highway-slanted ratio even than what the federal government allocates. There is a transit fiscal cliff, but no “highway fiscal cliff.”
So while California hems and haws over $6 billion in transit funding over 5 years, it is more than happy to spend tens of billions per year expanding highways, contradicting its own policy that acknowledges the futility of highway expansions and aims to reduce driving. Governor Newsom’s current plan would not only short-change transit operations, but also leave up to $6 billion in federal transit capital dollars on the table. Highways are rarely forced to make such choices.
California could temporarily transfer some of these highway dollars from highway expansion projects to patch this temporary gap in transit funding. The federal government makes it really easy to transfer highway dollars to transit projects, so why isn’t California doing this? Why are they making transit agencies choose between capital and operations when highways get both, carte blanche?
Promises broken
California Governor Gavin Newsom has sworn up and down that he is a champion of climate action and equity, but words are cheap. His decision to gut transit service betrays those values.
Gutting transit is especially contradictory to commitments on equity. Americans who are lower-income, Black or Hispanic, immigrants, or under 50 are especially likely to use public transportation on a regular basis, Pew Research Center data shows. Gutting transit hurts California’s most vulnerable communities. And at a time of historically high cost of living in California, this is particularly harmful and puzzling.
Transportation for America is intent on holding leaders accountable for the promises they make about transportation decisions. Minnesota is keeping their promises. California is not. Governor Newsom cannot credibly call himself a climate champion or claim to be addressing equity or cost of living challenges while continuing to defund transit. It is up to all of us to call him out for it.
T4A Director Beth Osborne joined Nick Josefowitz of SPUR to discuss California’s transit crisis on Volts. Listen to the podcast.
#/media/File:First_2_Line_trains_at_Bellevue_Downtown_station_-_April_27,_2024.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:East_Link_Extension_groundbreaking,_April_22,_2016_-_01.jpg){kind=link}
