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and then they should not even consider coming to the negotiating table on a long-term bill until past grants that are rescinded are restored, frozen transit capital projects are restarted, and ironclad protections are put in place to ensure that USDOT faithfully implements whatever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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post USDOT letter shows it will likely undermine any bipartisan reauthorization deal appeared first on Transportation For America.

At the 2026 FIFA World Cup, sold-out stadiums full of incredible crowds obscured just how expensive, slow, and inefficient it was for them to reach many of those games. In many of the U.S. host cities, the tens of thousands of people attending each game reached their destinations despite our regressive transit options, not because of them. 

While this was the highest-attended World Cup in history, it certainly wasn’t the easiest to access for domestic and international travelers alike. One reporter walked for 6 hours in 90-degree weather to get from Penn Station in Manhattan to Met Life Stadium all the way out in the lowlands of New Jersey. 28,000 steps in the sweltering New York and New Jersey heat sounds daunting, but the alternative was purchasing train tickets with 700% markups, totaling $98.  Scotland fans saved over $85,000 by paying for 20 school buses to avoid using New Jersey Transit. 

To serve existing residents well, which has the by-product of becoming a desirable host country for international events, U.S. policymakers must create world-class transit through sustainable financing mechanisms and land-use reform. Bringing predictable, convenient, and affordable transit services on par with those of other host countries will help future international fans embrace our hospitality and return the United States to the cultural spotlight. 

How we got here

Since the U.S. hosted the 1994 World Cup, over 30 years of surface transportation policy have yielded worse transportation outcomes. This year’s transit debacle was as predictable as it was avoidable. Federal policymakers embraced press releases but ignored the hard work of funding, planning, and enhancing transit operations at the state and local levels. While the Trump administration gave $100 million to aid World Cup planning, capital, and operations in 11 host cities in March 2026, that paltry last-second investment could hardly address the overwhelming fan demand or the years of improvements that were needed but neglected. 

Since winning hosting rights to this World Cup all the way back in 2018, host-city transit agencies have not received adequate federal support. Outside of emergency funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, the last eight years of federal transit funding have been lackluster. According to our own research in World-Class American Transit, to achieve world-class transit fleets in our 11 host cities by 2045, we would need about $36.22 billion for buses and $27.96 billion for rail. 

A better way to travel

Transit, in many instances, is the first impression of a city, and it is a rare opportunity to showcase technological innovation and shape our guests’ perception. We have seen a glimpse of what could be. Fans in Atlanta took 4.66 million trips on MARTA’s rail system during the World Cup, and Philadelphia saw a 20 percent increase in ridership on the Airport Regional Line before and after a match. Regrettably, challenges in New Jersey, Boston, and other cities overshadow those successes and others, leaving a poor impression on international sports fans.  

The Los Angeles (LA) Metro’s story was different, but it started years ago. LA Voters passed 4 sales tax propositions (Prop A in 1980, Prop C in 1990, Measure R in 2008, and Measure M in 2018). Together, these successful measures added 2 cents per dollar to the local sales tax, enabling the financial capital to start building regional transportation projects. In addition, Metro added an independent taxpayer oversight committee and tax receipts for each proposition, enabling community buy-in from key stakeholders. By pairing robust local revenue with federal investments, Los Angeles has laid the foundation for continued improvements long after the Olympics.

The city is finally seeing the return on its investment. While Inglewood isn’t as transit-accessible as Atlanta’s downtown stadium site adjacent to a heavy rail stop, LA created affordable direct transit services to SoFi Stadium, boosting ridership and connecting people to the downtown core. At $3.50, LA Metro provided 212,865 rides directly to and from SoFi Stadium without major disruptions. Fans treated LA Metro as an extension of the stadium experience, releasing collective energy into the air and injecting our nation with vibrancy. However, all of the economic activity and spirited energy wouldn’t have been possible without the transportation connectivity provided by the last few decades of intentional investment and the sound planning for special services for this summer. 

A blueprint for the future

The recipe for success is clear: articulating reasonable goals and committing to a world-class experience through multi-year strategic plans and sustained funding. After LA won the 2028 Olympics back in 2017 and the long-term financing mechanisms were in place, city officials had a financially backed master plan to support their international events. Sustainable transit funding at the state and local level is a start, but federal policy and investments must supplement it. Host cities cannot do this alone. 

With the 2028 Olympics on the horizon, LA Metro is fast-tracking multimodal expansion projects—though they face the obstacle of capital investment grants that have been completely frozen by the Trump administration, with several of their projects stuck in the pipeline.

While it will take a long time to see visible multimodal improvements, we cannot afford to accept government inaction. In the upcoming reauthorization, Congress can radically shift transportation policy so that both international guests and—most importantly—Americans of all stripes can utilize public transit effectively. 

Los Angeles has shown us a successful blueprint: financing long-term infrastructure with voter support, committing to a strategic regional plan, and having federal appropriations rapidly accelerate the process. After the World Cup gets all the headlines, most of the host cities go back to subpar transit service that fails to serve everyone else for the years in between international events. American “football” enthusiasts fell in love with World Cup soccer, and with enough care and investment, Americans will fall in love with public transit, too. If the United States wants to host world-class events, let’s plan to serve our residents’ transit needs each day, and we can have a system that is ready to shine when the world comes to town.

The post The World Cup put America’s transit systems to the test appeared first on Transportation For America.

Repair Priorities 2026 found that even though states now spend an average of 39 percent of their funding on road repair and 25 percent on expansion, according to data from 2018 to 2024, there’s only been a three percentage point decrease in the share of federal-aid-eligible roads rated in poor condition across the country. These spending priority changes aren’t seen in every state, and even those that finally made the shift continue to face a growing maintenance backlog that spending can’t solve on its own.

West Virginia: Investing in expansion to the point of insolvency 

The consequences of years prioritizing expansion over maintenance aren’t just crumbling infrastructure, but can even include fiscal ruin. That’s at least the case in West Virginia, where former Gov. and current Sen. Jim Justice’s Roads to Prosperity initiative was meant to boost the economy through new infrastructure. Not only did prioritizing expansion over maintenance allow more of the state’s roads to fall into disrepair, but it also left little funding to address future upkeep or changing road conditions, leaving its Department of Transportation in a state of insolvency.

Roads to Prosperity, funded through tax revenue and general obligation bonds, spent the majority of its funding—a whopping 97 percent—in the first seven years, even though its bonds will take 30 years for the state to repay.  That means the state now owes about $120 million each year in interest payments on those bonds, eating up funds that should go toward maintaining the roads that will fall into disrepair, in one of the largest state-owned highway systems in the country. 

(The state’s misspending was so severe that current Gov. Patrick Morrisey said that the federal government stepped in, warning that federal funds would be cut if the state didn’t change how it managed its highway system.)

Last year, Gov. Morrisey completely overhauled spending and culture within the state’s Department of Transportation, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing immediate needs and maintaining existing infrastructure over new investments. But West Virginia is still set to face significant challenges in the coming years. The state already ranks among the 10 worst for road conditions. Along with the 26 percent of its roads already in poor condition, Repair Priorities 2026 found that nearly 47 percent of its roads are in fair condition, meaning they’re at risk of falling into the former. 

Our report also found that West Virginia has one of the highest rates of bridges in poor condition across the country, but still spent more on bridge expansion than maintenance in 2024.

Michigan: Spending that can’t overcome its maintenance backlog

Even states that shifted their spending priorities earlier on are struggling to see better outcomes. Repair Priorities 2026 highlighted Michigan as an example of a state with “good spending” but “poor outcomes.” Even though it was the state with the seventh highest spending on road maintenance in 2024—putting 56 percent of its average annual spending toward road maintenance—the state’s road conditions still rank as some of the worst across the country, improving by only 7 percent since 2018. 

Just spending more money isn’t enough to deliver better outcomes. Spending must be thoughtfully directed toward preventative maintenance, which stops more roads from falling into poor conditions, requiring more expensive repairs, and adding to maintenance backlogs. Instead of this approach, Michigan has spent its funds on reconstructing its roads—a more intensive, expensive, and delayed repair strategy—leaving little funding left over to prevent more roads from falling into states of disrepair and later requiring similar treatment.

Michigan, which shifted its spending priorities a few years ahead of West Virginia, demonstrates that states that didn’t change their spending priorities fast enough now find themselves stuck with maintenance backlogs that are nearly impossible to spend their way out of. And the state’s approach to transportation spending doesn’t seem set to change anytime soon, since the current structure of state law still fails to consider how the state should spend its transportation funding.

Simply put, decades of poor prioritization continue to outweigh progress. It would’ve cost less to stabilize the system earlier, and now that construction and labor costs have increased and road conditions have worsened, the price of inaction is even higher. Michigan is one of 13 states confronting the challenges of repairing its roads once they have fallen into poor condition, even while increasing their spending on maintenance. 

States can’t just start spending on repairs—we need more states to allocate bigger, more concentrated funding to preventative maintenance as soon as possible. Congress can make states do just that by requiring them to dedicate funding to repairing and maintaining existing systems before building anything new, and to demonstrate they can afford to operate and maintain new infrastructure alongside what they already have.

The post States are shifting spending toward road repairs too slowly appeared first on Transportation For America.

The Senate Letter is a step in the right direction

The letter, led by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), was released on June 3, 2026, and calls for the next surface transportation reauthorization bill to prioritize affordability, reduce political interference, improve roadway safety, and address the nation’s maintenance backlog. The letter provides a strong starting point for how the Senate should approach negotiations over the next surface program bill while calling out ongoing issues with the current administration’s implementation of the program. 

The letter’s first priority area spotlights political interference in transportation and infrastructure grants. Since January 2025, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has not signed a single Federal Transit Administration-issued Capital Investment Grant (CIG) that provides full funding for a new metro, light rail, or bus rapid transit line. This isn’t a new strategy; in the first Trump Administration, there were also attempts to slow or stop transit capital expansion projects. 

The letter is clear: “Congress cannot have confidence in a final bill — even one that is bipartisan and negotiated in good faith — if the Administration is actively failing to implement the laws already in place.” This raises a vital question to the rest of the Senate: If we see that CIG cannot be implemented faithfully, why do we assume a future bill would be implemented differently, and why is there such a rush to pass a bad bill with only minimal “wins”?

The letter’s next priority calls for the next surface transportation reauthorization program to focus on safer transportation for all roadway users. The letter argues that a bill “must also ensure that states are reducing fatalities on their roads or else face requirements to invest federal dollars in highway safety projects.”

Why is this important? The United States has a traffic safety crisis, where the rate of roadway fatalities is much higher than that of our global peers. The letter also highlights that the burden of the roadway safety crisis falls especially hard on pedestrians, who experienced a 72 percent increase in fatalities from 2009 to 2015. 

The letter also acknowledges transportation’s role in the affordability crisis and is the second-highest expense for households, averaging $13,318 per household in 2024. The letter says, “Families deserve affordable options for daily travel, including transit, passenger rail, walking, and biking. By developing other ways to get around, families can save money on fuel, reduce vehicle maintenance costs, reduce insurance costs, and even avoid purchasing additional vehicles altogether.”

Finally, the letter recognizes the condition of our federal-aid roadways and how poor road conditions increase vehicle maintenance costs and lead to greater wear and tear on cars, arguing that “Focusing on road maintenance over road expansion is critical to reducing travel costs for American families.”

Priorities can turn into policy with real outcomes 

This letter shows that Senate Democrats are ready to create a federal transportation program focused on real outcomes—from addressing affordability to building in safeguards to ensure faithful implementation.

First and foremost, after a year and a half of stalled, canceled, and rescinded discretionary grants, the next transportation reauthorization bill must include airtight language to ensure that no administration can interfere with awarded grants based on their own politics or priorities. This can’t just be language stating “The Secretary may not terminate grant agreements”; it must include clear wording that, if grant agreements are not honored, there will be consequences, such as lawsuits and language to restore grants that have been interfered with. The Senate should not be eager to provide funds for an administration that has proven it will not always fully implement a reauthorization as intended. Without good-faith implementation, communities applying for grants will be undermined, and their trust in the transportation program will be eroded. 

Moreover, the Senate must ensure that the next reauthorization bill centers on proven roadway safety strategies that accommodate all road users, including drivers, pedestrians, bikers, and transit riders. The Senate has an opportunity to write policy requiring states and MPOs to set safety targets based on proven safe roadway design elements and to publish reports on traffic fatalities to increase transparency and direct investments to the most dangerous corridors. 

To help make transportation more affordable, Congress should invest in more rail, transit, and active transportation options so that households across the country can have cheaper alternatives to get to school, work, and access services. The Senate can invest in transit reliability by providing federal transit operating funds to improve service frequency and by providing robust, guaranteed funding for passenger rail projects. If more reliable and frequent transit options are invested in, households could save $750 annually in gas and vehicle maintenance and $1,300 in vehicle depreciation. 

Despite $1.5 trillion in federal transportation spending, the abysmal condition of our roadways has barely improved. Strong language in the Senate version of the transportation reauthorization bill must ensure that poor roadway conditions are improved and maintained. Reauthorization text must also include language that ensures any federal funding provided to states for expansion is contingent on demonstrating the capacity to operate and maintain those roadways over the long term. Finally, there must be both progressive targets set for federal-aid roadway repair and a cap on funds if these goals are not met. 

Until we can focus on outcomes, Congress must focus on a clean extension for surface transportation reauthorization

A clean, one-year extension (or a straight extension of the previous surface transportation law with no changes) looks increasingly likely as Congress approaches the August recess. Instead of attempting to force a status quo bill through a floor vote, Congress should focus on extending the current law for one year, which would also continue the funding provided by IIJA’s advanced appropriations, giving them more time to negotiate a bill that aligns with their stated priorities. Members should use the letter as a guide for what a pragmatic bill should look like to be accountable to the American taxpayer, be fiscally responsible, and aim for measurable outcomes. T4America applauds the leaders in the Senate for the letter, but the next step is to put those priorities into action. 

The post Senate leaders are calling for an improved surface transportation reauthorization bill. What happens next matters. appeared first on Transportation For America.

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

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

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

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

How the INVEST Act prioritized repair like never before

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

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

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

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

The Senate scrapped it all

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

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

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

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

2026’s BUILD Act misses the same opportunity

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

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

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

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

The post “Fix it first” was common sense in 2020. Now Congress calls it radical. appeared first on Transportation For America.

The ideal candidate will be: A compelling writer with something to say on transportation who is excited to have the outlet; familiar with the federal surface transportation reauthorization process, a relational person who already has or is eager to make connections with Hill offices and staffers, coalition partners, and advocates; well-versed in federal transportation policy and practice; a self-starter who doesn’t wait to be told what to do; and a team player who wants to be part of a team of passionate transportation nerds working to advance T4America’s principles and advancing our mission.

As part of the T4America policy team working on our full policy portfolio, this position will also serve as the lead for our passenger rail work, including direct support for local partners such as the Southern Rail Commission, management and oversight of federal rail grants, the development of new passenger service on various corridors, and working with longstanding champions in Congress to shape the rail provisions and funding in the next reauthorization. This associate may also serve as the lead on roadway safety policy, working with the National Complete Streets Coalition to build their policy knowledge in this area and focusing on building streets that are safe for all users.

Responsibilities:

• Support and communicate about T4America’s platform
  • Understand and explain T4America’s three priorities and the underlying policies required to turn them into reality.
  • Conceive and write regular blog posts, contribute to reports, conduct research, and collaborate with the T4America communications team to produce engaging content on our priorities. 
  • Effectively communicate T4America’s priorities and policies in person, online, and in various mediums.
• Understand, analyze, synthesize, and develop policy
  • Read and stay plugged in to the world of transportation policy at all levels. 
  • Analyze policy developments closely and produce insights to share with others through memos, briefings, presentations, blog posts, and other external content. 
  • Develop new policy ideas or legislative language in support of T4America’s platform
• Serve as the passenger rail lead 
  • Manage relationships with passenger rail stakeholders, make presentations, maintain and develop relationships with key Capitol Hill champions and stakeholders, support the senior policy advisor, administer rail grants, write and communicate about rail policy developments, and vision.
• Be a successful advocate
  • Strategically identify local, state, and federal policymakers to educate and persuade.
  • Build relationships on Capitol Hill with individual offices, notable caucuses, committee staff, and members of Congress by making frequent in-person (and online) outreach and regular connections.
  • Equip advocates (T4A members, supporters, coalition members, like-minded organizations) with the information and tools they need to engage in the process of policy reform.
  • Communicate to T4America members and partners about opportunities to impact transportation actions in Congress as well as best practices in local and state policy.
• Communicate effectively 
  • Draft portions of and edit reports (new and future editions) like Dangerous by Design, The Congestion Con, Divided by Design, and Driving Down Emissions
  • Write memos and other content for T4America members, clients, and advocacy purposes; 
  • Effectively communicate on organization priorities, especially equity, climate and public health; and
  • Participate in panels, conferences and other collaborations to present T4America’s priorities and reports.
  • Help develop and deliver education and training content for technical assistance offerings focused on equity in transportation.
• Contribute to Smart Growth America’s overall vision
  • Support SGA’s broader policy work across housing, transportation, land use, zoning, economic development, placemaking, and environmental protection.
  • Support the National Complete Streets Coalition’s policy work.
  • Contribute to technical assistance engagements with states, counties, and cities across the country.
    

Required skills:

• A college degree and at least 3-4 years of work experience.
• The ability to think strategically and work across partisan lines.
• Excellent written, verbal, and research skills—you should be a sharp writer.
• Ability to execute advocacy strategies and projects, including policy research and partner outreach and engagement.
• Excellent time management and the ability to complete multiple tasks with a high volume of work and minimal supervision.
• Comfortable working in a collaborative team environment and have strong interpersonal skills.

Compensation and location

The salary range for this position is $59,000-$65,000. A candidate for the top of this range would have an advanced degree in public policy, transportation, planning or other related field; experience working on Capitol Hill, in a state legislative body or city council or previous experience in local, state, or federal transportation agencies; tangible experience with passenger rail policy development or implementation; and/or experience managing federal grant processes and demonstrated administrative excellence and experience.

Benefits include fully paid medical insurance, optional dental and vision coverage, 401 (k) contributions, life and disability insurance, three weeks of vacation in the first year, and 12 paid annual holidays. This position reports to the Senior Policy Manager 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 Senior Policy Associate” in the subject line. In your cover letter, please indicate how you’ve learned of this opportunity.

Commitment to diversity and inclusion

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 Senior Policy Associate appeared first on Transportation For America.

The ideal candidate will be: an entrepreneurial and creative self-starter who is eager to produce research and report ideas; experienced with analytical tools like GIS, data visualization, AI; knowledgeable about available federal, state, and local transportation data; a compelling writer who can produce research-backed content like in-depth reports, but also brief analyses, blog posts, and visuals; well connected to the world of transportation policy and practice; and is ready to both collaborate with others and produce their own creative ideas for research and other content to advance our mission.

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

Responsibilities and requirements

Produce strategic research:

• Produce creative research and analytical ideas to advance T4America’s priorities and support our work on reauthorization
• Research and examine the impacts of possible legislative, regulatory, and other executive actions at all levels of government with regard to T4America’s priorities.
• Produce creative research and analytical ideas to advance SGA’s broader transportation work, including the National Complete Streets Coalition.
• Provide research support for SGA’s technical assistance engagements, which could include tasks like running benefit-cost analyses, analyzing projects or plans, providing research-based policy recommendations, or creating bespoke products to assist SGA/T4A’s expansive technical assistance work.
• Help conceive of creative new reports like Fueling the Crisis, World-Class American Transit, Dangerous by Design, The Congestion Con, Divided by Design, and Driving Down Emissions, or produce updated versions of these existing reports.
• Build relationships with our allies and other stakeholders (especially other researchers) to inform and support collaborative research opportunities. 

Produce research-based content and communicate about it

• Collaborate with staff and the SGA communications team to produce engaging research-based content for all channels, including blog posts, social media posts, quick hit research, and others to further our mission and advance our policy strategies.
• Be a part of the team closely following, analyzing, and communicating about broader transportation trends and the impact on T4America’s priorities;
• Identify research opportunities, oversee and draft reports that explain challenges in transportation in the areas related to our key principles, as well as other important priorities like reducing emissions and improving access to destinations.
• Potentially speak about research and content on behalf of the organization, including at workshops, conferences, and other events (some travel included).

Knowledge and skills

Required:

• Commitment to the organization’s priorities and a vision of how to achieve them;
• Minimum of five years’ experience in the transportation arena or a closely related policy field;
• The ability to use data to tell a clear story that can support advocacy goals;
• An entrepreneurial ability to analyze the transportation sector and spot emerging trends;
• Deep familiarity with available federal, state, and local transportation data
• Experience with GIS or other data visualization software, as well as programming with R or other data analysis tools;
• Project management skills and experience;
• Excellent time management and organization, and the ability to work independently with minimal supervision;
• Ability to strategically prioritize workload and complete multiple tasks and a high volume of work;
• Excellent written/verbal skills, with a high degree of accuracy and attention to detail.

Preferred:

• An advanced degree in public policy, political science, urban planning, or other related field;
• Knowledge of the legislative process at multiple levels of government
• Experience working within a state or local transportation agency at the local, MPO, or state level;
• Knowledge of the broader SGA set of issues, including land use, housing, and zoning, and ideas to produce or conceive of other research work for SGA’s other teams and work across the organization

Compensation and location

The salary range for this position is $68,000-$74,000. A candidate for the top of this range would have been involved in producing similar research on the outcomes of the federal transportation program, have 5-plus years of experience, and possess one or more of the knowledge and skills listed as preferred above. Benefits include fully paid medical insurance, optional dental and vision coverage, 401 (k) contributions, life and disability insurance, three weeks of vacation in the first year, and 12 paid annual holidays. This position reports to the Senior Policy Manager 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 Research Manager” in the subject line. In your cover letter, please indicate how you’ve learned of this opportunity.

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 Research Manager appeared first on Transportation For America.

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

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

The post Tell your representative to vote “NO” on the BUILD America 250 Act appeared first on Transportation For America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently not.

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

Fix it first

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

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

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

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

3) The slightest of head nods toward repair accountability

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

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

4) Reconnecting Communities is functionally dead

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

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

Safety over speed

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

5) Safe Streets for All local grant program survives

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

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

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

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

Invest in the rest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) Passenger rail loses out big time

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

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

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

The post Ten things to know about the BUILD Act’s failure to produce better outcomes appeared first on Transportation For America.