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

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

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

Safety over speed

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

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

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

Fix it first 

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

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

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

Invest in the rest

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

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

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

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

Looking ahead

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

The post Here’s how we will grade the next surface reauthorization bill appeared first on Transportation For America.

The ideal candidate will be: intimately familiar with T4America’s three priorities and a credible public voice for them, experienced on Capitol Hill and with transportation reauthorization, a strategic thinker who can create and execute a policy strategy, well connected to transportation policy and practice, able to build productive relationships (with Hill offices of any party, allies, and other stakeholders), confident in leading and developing a team of policy staff, full of creative ideas for research and other content to advance our mission.

Please send a cover letter and resume to jobs@smartgrowthamerica.org with “T4America Policy Lead” in the subject line. In your cover letter, please indicate how you’ve learned of this opportunity.

Responsibilities and requirements

Advocate for T4America’s priorities: 

• Understand, support, and craft a strategy to advance the organization’s three priorities: repairing existing infrastructure, prioritizing safety over speed, and investing in the rest of our transportation system.
• Develop proposals for legislative, regulatory, and other executive actions at all levels of government to implement these priorities.
• Track legislation and craft the strategy and tactics for effective advocacy.

Lead on reauthorization

• Build on existing legislative strategy for surface reauthorization and develop and execute on new potential strategies.
• Build relationships with policymakers and partners at all levels of government to create champions for our priorities.
• Convene our members, allies, and informal partners to build a base of support for our policy agenda.

Communicate externally

• Follow, analyze, and communicate about transportation trends and how they impact T4America’s priorities.
• Write and produce engaging content for all channels in collaboration with the T4America communications team.
• Identify research opportunities to further our mission and advance our three priorities and broader set of policy strategies. 
• Oversee the development and drafting of reports and contribute to them at times.
• Speak on behalf of T4America and its coalition, including workshops, conferences, and other events (some travel included).

Manage people, projects, and provide technical assistance

• Direct and supervise the policy work of the organization, including the management and development of our policy team;
• Help T4America produce and develop unique content;
• Manage a range of complicated projects with competing deadlines; and
• Support occasional technical assistance, serving as an instructor on policy-related issues and best practices in the field.
• Apply Smart Growth America’s approach to development across projects and collaborate with team members to advance organizational priorities.

Knowledge and skills

Required:

• A commitment to the organization’s priorities and the ability to describe a vision for achieving them.
• Minimum of five years experience working in the transportation arena or a closely related policy field.
• Ability to analyze and spot emerging trends in transportation.
• Strong familiarity with Capitol Hill offices, including relevant committees for reauthorization. 
• Knowledge of the legislative process at multiple levels of government and the ability to think strategically and work across party lines.
• Project management skills and experience.
• The ability to strategically prioritize workload and complete multiple tasks and high volume of work, and the ability to work with minimal supervision.
• Excellent written/verbal skills, with a high degree of accuracy and attention to detail.
• Comfort working in a collaborative team environment, good interpersonal skills, a willingness to manage and develop our policy team, and experience working with a diverse range of people.

Preferred:

• An advanced degree in public policy, political science, planning, or other related field.
• Experience in a Capitol Hill office or committee. 
• Experience working within a state or local transportation agency at the local, MPO, or state level.
• Experience in the development or implementation of a previous federal reauthorization.
• Experience advancing the broader vision of smart growth: integrated transportation, land use, and housing policy solutions.
• Staff management skills and experience.
• Experience in fundraising and in managing grants.

Compensation

Salary is commensurate with experience, ranging from $95,000-$120,000. A candidate for the top of this range would need to have more than five years of experience, specific legislative or transportation agency experience, and more of the preferred knowledge and skills listed above. Benefits include fully paid medical insurance, optional dental and vision coverage, 401k contributions, life and disability insurance, three weeks of vacation in the first year, and 12 paid holidays. 

Office Schedule

This position reports to the AVP of Transportation and is based in Washington, DC. SGA staff work in the office at 1350 Eye St. NW, Tuesdays-Thursdays. No relocation assistance is offered at this time.

How to apply

Please send a cover letter and resume to jobs@smartgrowthamerica.org with “T4America Policy Lead” in the subject line. In your cover letter, please indicate how you’ve learned of this opportunity. Please include at least two writing samples of any length that demonstrate your transportation policy experience, communicate complex ideas clearly to a broad audience, and/or make a persuasive argument.

Commitment to building a diverse team

Smart Growth America and Transportation for America are committed to building a diverse staff and strongly encourage applications from all backgrounds, including candidates of color. Employment and promotional opportunities are based upon individual capabilities and qualifications without regard to race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation/preference, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic as established under law.

About Smart Growth America

Smart Growth America envisions a country where no matter where you live, or who you are, you can enjoy living in a place that is healthy, prosperous, and resilient.  We empower communities through technical assistance, advocacy, and thought leadership to realize this vision of livable places, healthy people, and shared prosperity.

About Transportation for America

Transportation for America is a national nonprofit made up of local, regional, and state leaders who seek a transportation system that safely, affordably, and conveniently connects people of all means and ability to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel.

The post We’re hiring: T4America Policy Lead (Senior Policy Manager or Policy Director) appeared first on Transportation For America.

Since 2008, the federal highway trust fund has received infusions from the general fund totaling over $280 billion. The federal gas tax has not been increased above its current level of 18 cents per gallon since 1993. With every reauthorization of the program, there is always a looming date (currently 2028) when the Highway Trust Fund will go broke. Yet, every time we come around to discussions on the next surface transportation reauthorization, delusional thinking about how to fund the federal transportation program emerges.

For nearly two decades, rather than increasing the gas tax, Congress has resorted to infusions from the general fund to pass a multi-year transportation bill. Congress has come up with all sorts of convoluted machinations to delude themselves into thinking they aren’t increasing the deficit. 

For the 2012 MAP-21 transportation reauthorization and its short-term extension in 2014, Congress used many questionable budget maneuvers to make it look like they were paying for the infusions with cuts elsewhere. The most memorable of these was“pension-smoothing,” a bizarre accounting trick that delayed pension contributions—and the tax relief that comes with them—to more than 10 years in the future, beyond the horizon the Congressional Budget Office considers when calculating the impact on the deficit. This means we lose more tax revenue today to pay for the 2012 MAP-21 transportation bill than we would have back then.

Congress has also made a few attempts to adopt a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) user fee. In fact, a federal pilot program supported the adoption of voluntary VMT fees in several states starting in 2015, but none of them ever incorporated it into their mandatory fee structure. However, a few states allow drivers of fuel-efficient and electric vehicles (EVs) to choose VMT fees as a more affordable alternative to higher registration fees. For example, Oregon will make its OReGO VMT fee an alternative to higher registration fees for fuel-efficient and electric vehicles (EVs) starting in 2028. Virginia, Utah, Hawai’i, and Vermont are actively pursuing similar strategies. A federal VMT fee is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future because of privacy concerns, states’ limited capacity, and Congress’s lack of political will.

The latest insult-to-our-intelligence proposals to address federal highway trust fund insolvency are punitive federal EV fees. Most states have already adopted punitive EV registration fees that are far higher than what gasoline-powered car drivers pay in gas taxes. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves proposed highly punitive annual federal EV registration fees: $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrids (who also pay the gas tax). These proposed EV fees are more than double what gas-powered car owners pay on average in federal gas taxes. In 2019, the average fuel economy was 22.3 miles per gallon for an average of 11,484 miles driven. This means the average car driver’s 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gas tax added up to $94.76 annually.

EV drivers need to pay their share, especially as EVs become a larger share of cars on the road. However, there’s a problem with trying to solve a fiscal issue on the backs of a tiny minority of drivers. Highly punitive fees would slow EV adoption without changing the projected date that the Highway Trust Fund goes broke.

Transportation for America wants to see changes in this broken program before we put more money into it, and all these ridiculous funding proposals and machinations have drawn our attention away from a central question: The gas tax is simple, efficient, directly linked to the use of our nation’s roads and highways, and is already in place. Why has Congress not had the political will to raise the gas tax for more than a generation?

To answer that, you need to ask what the federal transportation program is accomplishing with the hundreds of billions it has spent over the last few decades. And the answer isn’t pretty. The highway trust fund was created in 1956 to build the interstate highway system, which has been completed for over three decades. Since then, the program has staggered forward on autopilot with diminishing and even deleterious returns. Congestion is up in every major metro area; road deaths are up, especially for people walking; state of repair has not markedly improved; and transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and is the only sector with increasing emissions. The program’s approach of doling out vast sums of formula funding to state DOTs with little accountability, and the state DOTs’ penchant for widening highways instead of investing in basic repair, is obviously not going to fix these failures.

Until we can reorient the program to address today’s needs and require greater accountability for achieving outcomes in safety, access, environmental impact, and state of repair, Americans have no good reason to support increased taxes to pay for the program. Show us something better we can get for our money. Then we’ll see public support for raising revenue to pay for it.

The post Congress only proposes delusional ideas to fix the highway trust fund appeared first on Transportation For America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s time to focus on opportunities and outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

The post “Why do we do this bill?” Preparing congressional staff for surface transportation reauthorization appeared first on Transportation For America.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has cancelled or delayed billions in funding for safety, transit, and electrification projects across a list of targeted states. After an examination of thousands of awarded discretionary grants and federal obligation data, T4America has identified billions in projects that were announced as awarded but have not seemingly received “approval” or a grant agreement from USDOT and are likely the next projects at risk of cancellation. USDOT has already moved to cut over a dozen from this list. Is your community’s project next?

While this list may not be fully exhaustive or may have captured some grants that are obligated, we have identified what we believe to be over $3 billion for over 200 grants that may be at risk of cancellation for conflicting with Trump administration priorities– and that’s not even counting the billions in transit grants stuck in federal limbo:

View the list directly

Note: While in the process of creating this list, T&I Ranking Member Rick Larsen announced that USDOT unfroze over 120 transportation grants. These updates are accounted for in this list as best we can, but this only underscores the uncertainty and lack of transparency regarding the handling of competitive grants. USDOT and the Office of Management and Budget should release their list of “unapproved” grants and clear up the confusion.

Know of a local project held up by USDOT? Let us know here.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration’s National Park Service moved to remove a protected bike lane on federal land in Washington, DC that carries 4,000 people per day, has reduced all traffic crashes by 46 percent, and has made biking dramatically safer—all while decreasing overall travel times on the corridor.  Trump officials have cited the potential increased traffic during cherry blossom season and upcoming America 250 celebrations—all despite the fact that a bike lane moves more people than a congested road. While the federal government has limited power over the District’s local streets and can only remove infrastructure on federal land, it is splitting a key connector between the city’s north and south. 

The administration is also having a major impact on local infrastructure in other communities across the country as it continues to hold up billions of dollars in funding for safety, transit, and transportation electrification projects. 

Grant reviews

Amidst a multimillion-dollar wave of cancellations for bicycle, pedestrian, and safety infrastructure projects in September 2025, USDOT Deputy Secretary Steven Bradbury outlined the status of many awarded federal competitive grants that the Trump administration inherited from the Biden administration. According to Bradbury, the Trump administration inherited a list of 3,269 grants that were awarded but had not yet been finalized and needed to pass through a new “approval” stage to move forward. This new federal approval stage comes with no official definition or certainty that projects will proceed as originally intended. 

Despite this, the administration has repeatedly patted itself on the back for quickly following through with the new, unnecessary process it invented. In September, USDOT circulated a list of 2,998 “approved” projects out of the 3,269 awarded grant backlog. Nominally, approval suggests that projects are approved to proceed; in reality, grantees on this approval list have often had to change the scope of projects to ensure they still receive federal funds, whether that means switching from battery electric buses to hybrids that the administration prefers or eliminating safety improvements on streets that would better serve the needs of all users. 

Even if a project is approved, there’s no guarantee it will move forward—already, an approved rail safety grant worth $66.4 million and a $10.7 million grant to a transit hub were cancelled late last year, likely in retaliation for the state’s disagreement with the administration on a presidential pardon, a wholly unrelated issue. 

Nevertheless, with 3,269 grants at the outset and 2,998 of those “approved,” that leaves over 200 projects with funds stuck in limbo. This administration has been opaque about how it is handling these grants, but odds are they are in Russell Vought’s Office of Management and Budget, awaiting a final decision on whether or not to cancel them. 

A review of reviews

USDOT has followed an internal policy for the review of competitive grants. In March 2025, an anonymous tipster shared a photo of an email of a new policy memo at USDOT, calling for a review of all competitive grants to identify any elements of “equity, climate change, environmental justice, green infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure.” Combined with a grant-focused Executive Order issued in August 2025, federal agencies have asserted more latitude in their power to cancel grants or compel grantees to make changes.

What happens after you trigger USDOT?

Once identified under the review memo, projects seem to have three options:

1. Allowed to slide and continue as planned
2. Modified to have offending elements removed
3. Cancelled outright

Scenario one: Carry on as awarded

It’s not exactly clear what precisely allows a community to slide by DOT’s review system after being flagged for cancellation or changes, but a pattern is emerging. We’ve seen it happen multiple times: when a grantee is having trouble with USDOT, instead of raising a fuss, they contact their members of Congress, who then might be able to negotiate with the Secretary of Transportation directly. As one might guess, different members of Congress have varying levels of credibility with the administration. As one local city manager recognized while under USDOT review of their bike and trail project, having support from the party in the White House doesn’t hurt.

Scenario two: Modifications and safety second

Unexpected federally mandated modifications lead to delays,  increase costs, and can fundamentally undermine a project’s ability to address the problems the community identified in the first place. Many communities are funding projects that prioritize safety by de-prioritizing speed, especially in places where vehicles and people are likely to share space. But local leaders (like these in the city of Detroit) are having those options taken away from them by bureaucrats far away in Washington, DC, even when the measures being removed are actively recognized by the federal government as proven safety countermeasures. 

There is limited reporting on this issue, as grantees are understandably hesitant to stick their necks out against the federal government and potentially face retaliation.

Scenario three: Cancellation

As for examples of outright cancellations, there were plenty. In September,  USDOT sent letters cancelling projects in places from San Diego to Alabama, for being “hostile to motor vehicles.” In December, a batch of cancellations targeting Colorado affected transit, road, electrification, and rail safety programs, rescinding over $100 million in funding. In February, officials from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and USDOT let reporters know about plans to specifically target hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation grants for cancellation on an explicitly partisan basis. 

A secret fourth scenario: limbo

But the seemingly worst fate for grantees is the dreaded review limbo. Cities, towns, and communities trying to pursue important projects are effectively being ghosted by the federal government. Whether these delays are intentional or the result of the massive reduction in staff that took place in the first year of the Trump administration, even in T&I Chair Sam Graves’ district, grantees have seemingly been waiting for federal approval and reimbursement for over a year.

The state of Colorado has reportedly not yet received an official notice from the federal government for the February round of grant cancellations. For certain programs, it may not need to receive one at all. That’s because USDOT and the OMB can simply wait out grantees and let their funding expire. For certain types of federal funds, there is a limit to how long they are available to be obligated. While under an administration acting in good faith, this guards against waste for projects that don’t make progress; in this context, it places grantees in a bind where they can do all the work, receive no communication from USDOT, and then have their funds effectively evaporate. Beyond the simple cost of delay from inflation and permitting, this strategy leaves grantees in limbo about whether or not they can pursue their own priorities at all. Even more to the administration’s benefit, the confusion could be used to discourage litigation to “uncancel” grants. 

The administration is particularly focused on delaying EV infrastructure deployment. There has seemingly been no movement on Charging and Fueling Infrastructure awards made in more recent fiscal years of the program, with grantees seemingly stuck in limbo since the administration explicitly targeted the program in its Unleashing American Energy Executive Order. Evaluating federal obligations made for the program, we identified 60 projects that were awarded $880 million, for which funding agreements or obligations cannot be tracked down. Even for projects with funding agreements, unobligated funds still remain stuck in limbo. 

At risk: Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants

We cannot state with certainty which of these projects is at risk or whether they’ll move forward. USDOT has not released an official public list indicating which of the apparently more than 3,000 awarded but unobligated grants it inherited from the previous administration are under review. 

The post The Trump administration tried to rip out a bike lane in DC. More than bike lanes are at risk nationwide. appeared first on Transportation For America.

If the tone and policy goals uplifted by the current committee chairs authoring the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s sequel have been any indication, the next surface transportation reauthorization bill is likely to be a boon for state DOTs. In the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves has stated that the bill will get “back to basics,” ensuring the federal program steps back from bike lanes and pedestrian paths and focuses more on laying asphalt for roads. Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito, Graves’s functional equivalent in the Senate’s committee in charge of drafting authorizing language for highway programs, is of about the same opinion on the direction of the program, with her focus on streamlining the many programs created by the IIJA and increasing states’ flexibility. 

Their priorities overlap well with the wishlist that state DOTs have for this upcoming reauthorization. Other than asking for a huge increase in funding, their primary goals are to reduce accountability wherever possible and increase their already significant flexibility to spend as they see fit. One way they may do the latter is by having the IIJA’s competitive discretionary grants, which were made available to local entities like towns, cities, and counties, absorbed into highway formula programs that they directly control. This (likely) scenario for federal policy would result in a net loss of available funding for localities while also increasing the bottom line for state DOTs.

What the BASICS Act does

It seems that localities see this writing on the wall for competitive grants. Earlier this month, the Bridges and Safety Infrastructure for Community Success (BASICS) Act was introduced in the House on a bipartisan basis by Representatives Bresnahan (R-PA-08) and McDonald-Rivet (D-MI-08). 

The bill is supported by the Local Officials in Transportation (LOT) Coalition (made up of cities, counties, and regional planning organizations), and as such, the BASICS Act seeks to ensure that a greater portion of the massive federal transportation program’s funding and programming authority ends up in their control, rather than just with state DOTs. Contrast this with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state DOTs and  is advocating for an increase in both the total funding that goes to state DOTs and the overall share of funding going to them as well.

How the bill shifts control and adds accountability

In short, the BASICS Act would shift how federal highway formula dollars are suballocated and programmed to make funding more accessible to localities. 

It would do this by moving money and increasing the portion that flows down to localities in existing FHWA programs, increasing the federal share for planning dollars for regional planning organizations, and clarifying local entities’ influence over project selection.

However, what is most interesting about the bill is how it addresses safety issues and accountability. Under current federal transportation policy, states can transfer up to 50% of any federal highway formula program’s funding to other highway programs, including out of safety programs like the Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

The BASICS bill would require that any state DOT intending to transfer safety dollars out to another program must first ensure that localities have a chance to compete for those funds themselves, eliminating a loophole that DOTs have used to siphon literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Highway Safety Improvement Program into more flexible programs.

State DOTs want more money and fewer guardrails

AASHTO opposes the BASICS Act. Citing internal analysis, they find the bill would change how funding from the Highway Trust Fund is distributed, shifting the ratio from 85 percent for state DOTs and 15 percent to localities, to a new 75/25 percent state and local split. For reference, AASHTO wants to increase the portion of the HTF that goes to state DOTs to 95 percent. Considering that the discretionary grants from the IIJA that many local entities used may be disappearing, AASHTO’s proposal would likely make federal funding inaccessible to localities.

AASHTO’s article argues against the LOT Coalition’s proposal, highlighting three consequences from the change:

1. Program delivery would be fragmented.
2. Obligation rates would slow down. 
3. State-owned roads and bridges would receive less federal funding

All of these results should be viewed as worthwhile trade-offs for increased accountability or outright benefits. When state DOTs have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars, on net, out of the Highway Safety Improvement Program after record-breaking traffic fatality levels, a small shift in responsibility could be the kind of disruption needed to actually improve outcomes. 

It’s also worth interrogating what type of program state DOTs are actually delivering today, especially when AASHTO is calling for the reauthorization bill to “eliminate or reduce all federal regulatory burdens that are not explicitly required in law, including performance measures.” With the vast majority of funding flowing directly to them, State DOTs are, in effect, in charge of the federal highway program. If they are to claim credit for successes, they need to be held accountable for their failures. While local-led planning and project delivery could get things wrong just as much as state DOTs do today, they may also end up being more accountable to the priorities and nuances of communities, based purely on their proximity. When your city or county misspends money or fails to take care of obvious needs, it’s a lot easier to hold them accountable than a faceless, faraway, typically unelected state transportation agency. 

As an indication of just how far away they are from thinking about outcomes, one of AASHTO’s top talking points revolves around how good they are at spending other people’s money quickly.  Obligation rates, meaning simply the speed at which federal dollars are spent by a recipient, do not imply any measurement of success based on outcomes. If anything, the use of obligation rates as a metric should be scrutinized. What are you getting for that spending? Are results improving at unprecedented rates? Or are DOTs just prioritizing funding any investment as fast as possible? 

Further, with the ability to wield multi-billion-dollar, state-supported budgets in addition to federal sources, state DOTs have significantly greater financial resources at their disposal compared to other types of project sponsors. However, despite those resources, it’s not uncommon for state DOTs to spend so much on wasteful projects that they effectively bankrupt themselves and leave billions of dollars of federally supported assets at risk of disrepair. Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that most local budgets have to be balanced. 

Locals may indeed have slower obligation rates for federal funds, but that could just as much be a result of USDOT’s yo-yo approach between administrations in their handling of discretionary grants and the sparse federal dollars they had access to over the past few years. In some cases, it may be that their state DOT itself is the barrier to local-led projects’ obligations.

With challenges swinging between managing an overwhelming number of requirements and funding opportunities under the Biden administration, to dealing with vast uncertainty, a lack of communication, and distrust in federal partners over the past year under the current paradigm, it is easy to attribute external factors to the expediency of locally-led projects’ obligation rates.

Congress shouldn’t put all its eggs in one basket

Finally, it’s hard to overstate how much money state DOTs would likely still receive under this proposal, especially if existing competitive grant programs are cut to provide more money for highway formula programs. 

It’s also hard to see why state DOTs should receive more funding in the first place, especially when they have failed to significantly improve on the real basics over the years, like road maintenance and safety. Besides, even judging this from the user-pays lens currently favored by Congress, recent analyses from the Brookings Institution show that the existing funding flows aren’t all that equitable in the first place, with localities receiving less federal funds than what they necessarily pay into the Highway Trust Fund, considering how much time people spend driving on local roads. 

If Congress is looking to consolidate the number of federal transportation programs, it should not put all its eggs in one basket by entrusting state DOTs with responsibility over nearly all of the federal transportation program’s funding. Giving other local-led entities continued participation in the federal program is a good hedge against state DOTs’ records of perpetually needing increased funding to achieve the same poor results for spending. Congress should ensure that all its recipients of federal funding are held accountable for results. 

The post State DOTs should spend their safety money on safety or hand it over to locals appeared first on Transportation For America.

A misconception about suburbia

While the United States does not have a formal definition of the “suburbs,”  many Americans live in communities that could fit this description. Broadly speaking, suburbs are areas on the outskirts of a bigger city or town center. They are primarily made up of single-family homes and often separate housing from other land uses such as shopping and jobs. Suburbs typically have a reputation for being cheaper than cities, offering more space and a higher quality of life, and overall are seen as more desirable than cities. However, these residential communities are not always a white-picket-fence utopias they are assumed to be. 

There’s a stereotype that poverty persists more heavily in cities, but there are more people in poverty in the suburbs than in their urban counterparts. In 2015, there were 16 million poor households in the suburbs, outnumbering the number of poor households in cities by 3 million. Many broad factors contribute (land-use development, economic growth, population trends, etc.), as well as the prevalence of low-wage service jobs in suburban areas, a lack of public transit investments, and the cost of owning and maintaining a car. This does not mean that the increase in poverty in the suburbs over the years is exclusively due to the price tag on driving a car and low-wage jobs. However, it is a factor that needs consideration when discussing affordability. The suburbs are facing their own unique poverty challenges, and driving down transportation costs must be a factor in providing economic relief. 

The suburbs are also losing their reputation as a cheaper alternative to cities. On a price-per-square-foot basis, suburban homes are more expensive in just over half (53 percent) of the 100 largest metros. The trend is not limited to large, coastal metro areas. Even smaller metropolitan areas in the Midwest are seeing higher prices in their suburbs. For example, in Toledo, Ohio, homes in the urban core average about $114,144, while homes in the suburbs average $299,569, more than double the price of homes in the city.

Even if households can find cheaper housing in the suburbs, those savings can quickly disappear once the cost of owning a car is factored in. Communities across the country are feeling the effects of the affordability crisis, and transportation is the second-largest household expense after rent or mortgage payments. Owning a car costs roughly $13,000 annually—about 17 percent of the typical household budget—once insurance, gasoline, oil changes, maintenance, and repairs are included. In contrast, the 2024 average annual cost of transit is about $1,131 a year or roughly $94 a month.

Transit is needed everywhere, including the suburbs

People in all types of places want transit—not just big cities. In 2024, 46 of 53 ballot measures to raise funds and taxes for transit projects passed, an 86.7 percent success rate, showing strong voter support for transit investment across the board. These wins include suburban communities like Flagstaff, AZ, where voters extended their existing sales tax rate with an additional  0.205 percent to fund fleet electrification, expanded service hours, and improved frequency. In Owosso, MI, residents also approved a measure to secure funding for operational expenses around public transit. 

On top of these wins, access to public transportation remains one of the top considerations for potential homebuyers and renters, because transit offers both cheaper transportation costs and reduces environmental impacts. When suburban areas invest in transit, those communities benefit from stronger connections to jobs, services, and important destinations. 

Voters in the City of Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle, WA, supported regional transit funding ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2016 that included the East Link Extension, a 14-mile light rail track that added ten stations and provided service every eight minutes during peak hours.  The project connects Bellevue to the broader Seattle region and reflects the enthusiasm suburban residents have for better connectivity. As a result, Bellevue has expanded economic opportunities and boosted its appeal as a destination for talent and investment. 

Getting suburban transit right means households can choose to go without a second or third vehicle and save thousands in monthly car payments. It also means safer options for teenage travelers and an alternative to growing traffic congestion. But successful suburban transit depends on reliable, frequent service that people can actually use. An example of successful suburban transit can also be found outside the United States. Brampton, Ontario, Canada, a low-density suburb outside Toronto, increased bus ridership to over 200,000 average weekday riders by focusing on frequency and reliability. Brampton Transit originally considered building an expensive light rail line, but instead upgraded existing bus service to a high-frequency network. With reliable all-day service across the city, residents could depend on transit even during busy periods. The result was a 288 percent ridership growth from 2004 to 2018.

Looking ahead

With traffic congestion worsening, the ongoing road safety crisis, and increasingly expensive vehicles, suburban residents need more options for getting around and reaching key destinations. Urban, suburban, and rural communities all benefit greatly from frequent and reliable transit service, which lowers transportation costs and leads to better connectivity to services and jobs. The upcoming surface reauthorization presents an opportunity to expand these options for communities of all sizes. T4America is calling for reforms to invest in more transportation options for communities of all types to help address the affordability crisis, improve connectivity, reduce congestion, and drive down emissions. 

The post Yes, even the suburbs want more transit appeared first on Transportation For America.

*No, the trust fund can’t actually go bankrupt—“insolvent” is the technical term. But for everyday people who cannot spend more money than they have, understanding it as “bankruptcy” is more helpful.

As we noted a few months ago, the nation’s transportation trust fund is in existential trouble. And it has been since 2008, when Congress started bailing it out with your general tax dollars. They’ve now poured in somewhere around $275 billion to cover the huge gap between how much Congress keeps spending on transportation and the far lower amount the gas tax brings in each year. And here we are again, back at square one, with the trust fund needing a massive bailout to cover a gap that will soon reach $40 billion annually.

There are three main options for tackling this problem: 1) (Continue to) deficit spend and bail it out, with every single taxpayer picking up the tab on top of whatever they pay at the pump. 2) Increase the gas tax (or create another tax) to raise revenues. 3) Live within our means by cutting spending down to the amount of revenue brought in each year. 

Spend what we have, nothing more

#3 is the path that Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has attempted to forge with a simple new bill. 

His Balance the Highway Trust Fund Act would prohibit USDOT’s annual obligations (i.e, spending) for federal-aid highway programs from ever exceeding gas tax receipts to the highway account in any given year. To put that in real terms, CBO figures show that 2025’s highway spending was about $58.5 billion, which exceeds the $38.9 billion in gas tax receipts that were brought into the highway account by about $19.7 billion. So this bill would reduce highway spending by $19.7 billion.

The bill would do the same thing for transit, limiting annual obligations from the Mass Transit Account to the net gas tax receipts for each fiscal year. CBO estimates that amount would average about $5.75 billion annually during the next five-year reauthorization.

It’s debatable whether or not Sen. Lee is serious about advancing this proposal, given that he introduced it with no co-sponsors and no apparent media push (he’s proposed similar bills before). But this is, in fact, the only formal proposal in Congress right now aiming to deal with the looming bankruptcy of the highway trust fund. 

But that’s not the only way to categorize this proposal.

This is also technically the most ambitious climate bill in this Congress

As we’ve pointed out repeatedly over the last few years, the IIJA supercharged highway spending and massively increased overall transportation emissions, empowering state DOTs to commit to long-shelved or dormant expansion projects. Our Fueling the Crisis analysis showed that the IIJA could cumulatively increase emissions by nearly 190 million metric tonnes over baseline levels by 2040, largely due to all the added driving from the IIJA’s massive increase in unaccountable highway spending. That’s akin to nearly 50 coal-fired power plants running for a year. All this despite the hefty praise it received from the environmental world.

That analysis has likely only gotten worse, as many of the “good” programs for reducing emissions in the IIJA have been slashed or eliminated outright by the Trump administration, like electric vehicle charging infrastructure and grants for local projects focused on reducing driving or improving access. 

Here’s where the implications of Sen. Lee’s proposal get interesting.  

Assuming we scale down the size of the highway and transit programs to what the gas tax actually brings in, it would potentially reduce net emissions from the Highway Trust Fund’s programs by nearly 24 million tons. That’s a 22 percent reduction compared to simply extending the bill and getting the same outcomes.  

To emphasize: right-sizing the federal program would deliver more progress on emissions from transportation than any other climate bill that’s been proposed in this Congress. 

Sen. Mike Lee, accidental climate advocate? 

Compare those reductions to the potentially enormous growth in emissions likely to result if groups like AASHTO get their way and see the next reauthorization start at the same level of funding as in the IIJA (plus inflation).  Remember: their starting point is $400 billion over five years for the highway-only programs, which is somewhere around over $210 billion more than the gas tax will bring in over those five years! If Congress did roll over and decide to hand state DOTs another $210 billion of your money on top of what you pay at the gas pump, emissions would rise dramatically. 

The elephant in the room: transit funding

Unlike other proposals to kick transit out of the trust fund to try and save money, it’s notable that Sen. Lee is proposing to scale down the highway and transit programs in the same way: lowering spending on each one to the level of what the gas tax brings in. Nearly 3 cents of the 18 cents per gallon gas tax goes directly into the Mass Transit Account, and this bill would not change that—he’s not arguing to end federal support for transit funding.

As with highways, it would mean a significant cut in federal transit spending (a 66 percent reduction in federal funds, causing pain and fiscal ruin for transit systems across the country—especially smaller ones. 

But consider the position a proposal like this puts most transit advocates in: most will be loudly opposed to this proposal, even when it would massively reduce emissions from highway-related spending and finally end the runaway growth of the unaccountable highway program. We transit advocates get backed into a corner on proposals like Senator Lee’s because transit funding is inextricably tied to highway funding.

And so transit advocates will continue to have no choice but to be boosters for an enormous highway program, just to keep transit funding at the same paltry level that’s far less than what we need to truly invest in the rest and build a world-class system for all of our cities, big and small. The structure of this program requires transit advocates to essentially back AASHTO’s fever dream of deficit spending on historic funding for highways, more flexibility, and even less oversight. 

That’s the high price of keeping transit funding at the same levels.

People who believe that we need more and better transit in this country should not have to hold their nose and swallow insane amounts of unaccountable highway funds that undermine our transit investments. They should not have to support bank-breaking reauthorizations paid for by their grandchildren just to prop up a system that delivers such terrible results on safety, maintenance, and access to other options for getting around.

Especially when there is growing evidence that the Trump administration is killing grants for transit-related projects or failing to advance transit capital projects with money set aside by Congress. (Some breaking news we hope to expand on in the coming weeks: Trump’s USDOT has advanced zero new transit capital investment grants in the last 13 months, a new record for slowness.) 

All of this points to an uncomfortable reality that has been looming for years, and which transit advocates (including ourselves) need to eventually grapple with: The federal Highway Trust Fund is not a long-term, stable solution for funding transit in this country, and the time has come to have a conversation about other mechanisms for funding transit in the future. The future of transit needs to stop being tied to the fate of a supercharged highway program that is producing terrible results for taxpayers.

Sen. Lee’s proposal reduces the size of a program that produces bad outcomes. What we need instead is a smarter, virtuous funding mechanism that, for each dollar invested, supports good investments across all modes. 

Because the damage being done by this federal transportation program—funded by immense deficit spending for 18 years now—is too great to ignore. 

The post A transportation two-fer: Save the highway trust fund and reduce emissions 22% appeared first on Transportation For America.

Each year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects anticipated tax information for important federal programs, detailing their fiscal status, trust fund balances, and tax revenues. One of those balances the CBO makes projections for is the Highway Trust Fund. 

Early last year, the CBO made projections for the balance of the Highway Trust Fund that took into account assumptions about policies that were put into place during the Biden administration. They assumed that, with strong adoption of more fuel-efficient vehicles in line with that administration’s policy to support EV adoption, gas tax revenues would decline over time as people purchase less gas, peaking in 2026 with $44.2 billion in tax revenue before dipping down to just under $38 billion in 2035. In terms of solvency, they found that the Highway Trust Fund would reach a balance of zero dollars at some point in 2028 (though the Mass Transit Account would hit zero first in 2027). 

However, a lot has changed since that last round of projections. Since day one, the Trump administration has made the rollback of what it considers to be “woke” transportation policy a core part of its agenda. With cancelled grants, delayed programs and projects, and significant rollbacks of market-shaping regulations pushed in both legislation and rulemaking, there isn’t a path the administration hasn’t pursued to enact its agenda. Many of those decisions, such as the recent repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding, were made with the justification that the targeted programs and regulations ultimately constituted expensive bloat that imposed costs on both the government and consumer. 

At USDOT, rollbacks were powerful, effectively eliminating CAFE fuel economy standards. EV programs like NEVI and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program have been frozen, left in limbo, or outright cancelled. Beyond EVs, recurring grant terminations for everything from the nation’s largest public transportation project to projects that build multi-use paths deemed “hostile to motor vehicles” have led to cancellations, uncertainty, and delays nationwide.  Congress has followed the administration’s lead, greenlighting the agenda with its own transportation rescissions made in the annual appropriations process and the budget reconciliation bill. 

These decisions can make a major difference in people’s choices over time, but they’ve already started to have an impact. People are paying more in federal taxes. And the CBO believes that trend will continue.

Comparing newly released data from February 2026 to January 2025 projections, Americans paid over $55 million more in taxes to the Highway Trust Fund than the CBO previously projected for 2025, likely in part due to the aforementioned policies introduced by the Trump administration aimed at decreasing the efficiency of future vehicles, slowing the expansion of other transportation options, and making people drive more.

Now, the CBO projects that those same policies will result in Americans paying more in taxes—over $80 billion more over the next ten years. Instead of revenues declining with the adoption of new, more efficient vehicles, the CBO now projects that revenues for the Highway Trust Fund will actually increase. Highway tax revenues are projected to rise from $44.2 billion in 2025 to nearly $52 billion in 2035, signaling the CBO’s belief that Americans will be driving more and purchasing more gasoline, thus paying more in federal gas taxes. 

In terms of the Highway Trust Fund’s insolvency, little would change. With most of the revenue increases coming in the 2030s, the additional revenue would only delay insolvency by a few weeks before the balance hits zero in 2028, barely making a dent in the looming insolvency problem.

Some think tanks and other interest groups are praising the increase in anticipated taxes as a good thing, with the Highway Trust Fund inching marginally closer to solvency without having to address the cost increases for highway projects with diminishing returns. While $80 billion is a lot of money, it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the rampant spending on highway programs out of the trust fund. Even with the new revenue, the Highway Trust Fund would still require hundreds of billions more, likely from general fund dollars, to pay for spending. More importantly, how does that money matter when the Highway Trust Fund itself is directed toward a program that produces such bad outcomes for safety, maintenance, and emissions?

It’s worth considering what the actual result of these new policies from the administration will look like for the average person. Arguably, the result won’t be noticeable, for all the wrong reasons. 

Life will be no different. When you need to get somewhere, people will likely drive, get stuck in traffic, and, in doing so, lose a concerning portion of their time to gridlock and paycheck to gas and insurance bills. The (incredibly expensive) cars most people buy will be less fuel-efficient, causing their transportation costs to increase. 

Thanks to our misplaced transportation safety priorities, thousands will continue to die in crashes annually, and even more will be seriously injured. The existing trends will cruise along, as there has been no structural change to how we approach transportation. Nearly 60% of the Highway Trust Fund’s tax revenue comes from the gasoline taxes that people effectively pay for every time they are at the pump. And gas isn’t getting any cheaper in 2026. When Americans are getting increasingly annoyed with just how expensive daily life is, we are now moving our transportation policy to be even more extractive of Americans, expecting them to pay for literally hundreds of billions more gallons of gas just to get around. But hey, at least you paid for a few extra weeks of solvency for the Highway Trust Fund.

The post Analysis: New CBO projection accounting for Trump administration policies shows Americans will pay billions more in fuel taxes  appeared first on Transportation For America.

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

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

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

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

The post Transportation for America statement on reports of Amtrak restructuring appeared first on Transportation For America.