Congress is currently considering legislation called the BUILD America 250 Act (PDF), which would reauthorize federal funding for the nation’s transportation systems for the next five years. The bill’s bipartisan sponsors argue that it would be “the most important surface transportation bill in decades.”
Yet if passed, BUILD America 250 would dramatically reduce federal support for new transit and intercity rail lines compared with the previous five-year federal transportation law, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
Adjusted for inflation, the bill would reduce potential overall transit funding by 15 percent compared with IIJA, including by making a 45 percent cut to programs designed to fund new transit and rail projects. Instead, the bill would direct a much greater share of funding to highways while eliminating all guaranteed funding for new rail or transit projects.
Already, the House of Representative’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved the legislative proposal, which doubles down on automobile infrastructure at a time when households are paying high gas prices. The bill still needs approval from the full House and Senate, as well as the president’s signature. It will also likely require funding through the appropriations process to cover its costs, which could take months or years. For now, the legislative proposal would entail a fundamental shift in federal infrastructure funding—rolling back progress toward improving mobility and potentially deepening historic harms. What’s more, these changes would continue until at least fiscal year 2031.
If Congress hopes instead to improve access to and the affordability of transportation in the US, then it should focus on strengthening and guaranteeing funding for rail and transit, rather than reinforcing American residents’ car dependence , which results in families having fewer travel options, spending more money on transportation, and increasing pollution.
The US lacks quality transit options and needs investment to make up the difference
Public transportation provides a means of mobility for families who can’t afford, don’t have the physical capacity, or don’t want to drive. Without quality transit options, families may struggle to access jobs, grocery stores, and other opportunities or necessities.
New transit lines like subways, light rail routes, and rapid bus corridors allow for speedier travel within a community, and railways enable people to travel long distances without the inconvenience or cost of flights. Additionally, transit corridors and railway lines produce far fewer greenhouse gases and less particulate pollution than cars or airplanes.
Yet many cities in the US have failed to expand their urban transit systems to keep up with population growth. Even as high-speed rail services have become common worldwide, the US has invested substantially less in intercity rail than peer countries and has opened no dedicated high-speed lines.
The result: Americans travel far more by car and far less by transit than residents of almost every other country. They endure longer commutes, spend more money on transportation, and pollute more. And transit systems have little recourse, as many are suffering from a funding crisis. Some agencies have even cut service at a time when Americans most need alternatives to driving.
BUILD America 250 would undermine the progress made under IIJA
When adjusted for inflation, BUILD America 250 would reduce overall surface transportation spending authorizations over a five-year period, meaning the maximum Congress allows itself to spend on transportation would be lower than it was under IIJA. And that reduction does not affect all modes of transportation equally.
While authorized spending by the Federal Highway Administration would decline by less than 4 percent, authorized spending by the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration would decline by more than 15 percent and almost 44 percent, respectively. Previously, the Federal Railroad Administration had received record funding through IIJA. With these changes, the share of authorized federal surface transportation spending devoted to highways would increase from 63 percent under IIJA to 70 percent under BUILD America 250.
Ongoing transit and rail projects are imperiled by the proposed legislation
IIJA boosted federal support for new transit and railway lines by guaranteeing funding for related grant programs through advance appropriations, rather than subjecting those grants to annual congressional negotiations. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which funds new and renovated rail and rapid bus corridors, was one key federal program that received guaranteed funding for these types of projects. In recent years, for example, it’s funded a new light rail line in Minneapolis and a bus rapid transit route in Spokane, Washington. Additionally, intercity railway grants have supported projects like a new tunnel in Baltimore designed to reduce delays on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.
The House’s proposed transportation legislation, however, would dramatically cut investment to these programs, making it far more difficult to fund new transit or railway lines. The proposal has two major changes compared with IIJA:
- Forty-five percent less funding for new transit and rail projects. Both IIJA and the 2026 legislation authorize Congress to make appropriations for rail and transit projects over five years. When adjusted for inflation, IIJA authorized $142 billion in such investments while BUILD America 250 would authorize only $77 billion.
- No guaranteed funding for any new transit and rail projects. IIJA guaranteed that the federal government would provide at least $8 billion for CIG ($9 billion in 2026 dollars) and $66 billion for intercity rail, including Amtrak ($74 billion in 2026 dollars). In contrast, BUILD America 250 would provide $0 in guaranteed funding for these programs, instead subjecting them to annual appropriations. Under IIJA, of the $15 billion nonguaranteed funding authorized for CIG, only about $11 billion was actually appropriated, suggesting BUILD America 250 likely won’t deliver as much transit funding as initially promised.
Eliminating guaranteed funding for the CIG program would make federal funding more difficult to acquire for the dozens of transit projects across 20 states that are already in advanced planning. Bus rapid transit routes in cities like Columbus, Ohio, and Spokane, Washington; light rail lines in places like Austin, Texas, and Los Angeles, California; and commuter rail corridors in communities like Miami, Florida, and Salt Lake City, Utah, are all in line for federal support from CIG. But Congress’s proposal could limit how many actually receive funding and are eventually built.
Providing mobility options that increase affordability requires a shift in federal transportation policy
BUILD America 250 would likely reinforce the United States’ car dependence, depriving Americans of travel options and further degrading the environment. And it would do so when gas prices are already making daily life less affordable for many households.
If Congress hopes to address these issues, members should instead:
- Expand funding for rail and transit. New transit and railway lines give people affordable, convenient, and environmentally friendly alternatives to daily driving or interstate flights.
- Guarantee long-term investment in rail and transit. IIJA’s multiyear funding guarantees helped the federal government, as well as states and localities, develop long-term plans for new lines and ready the nation for better transit access.
Let’s help communities build more secure, hopeful futures.
Today’s complex challenges demand smarter solutions. Urban brings decades of expertise to understanding the forces shaping people’s lives and the systems that support them. With rigorous analysis and hands-on guidance, we help leaders across the country design, test, and scale solutions that build pathways for greater opportunity.
Your support makes this possible.
