In 1990, 4 of the world’s 14 longest metro networks—or those that include monorail, subway, elevated, and automated light metro—were located in the United States. Today, not a single US network sits on that list.
Over the past few decades, the US has not expanded its urban railway systems to keep up with population growth. Compared with other wealthy nations, where transit is much more available, a smaller share of our population has easy access to a subway or elevated station.
Without transit alternatives, most Americans have little choice but to drive expensive, polluting cars. And those without access to a car might not have a safe, reliable way to get around. The lack of investment in urban rail contributes to the high carbon dioxide emissions from the US transport sector. It’s also left people in the US spending a large share of their income on transportation, as many Americans struggle with high costs of living.
Making matters more challenging, the second Trump administration has not yet signed any new contracts to fund the construction of new transit lines under the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Capital Investment Grant program, the major source of federal matching funds for new rail and bus rapid transit projects. At the same time, it has threatened to revoke funding from three projects that have already received funding.
Urban rail transit offers low-cost, environmentally sustainable, and rapid options to get to work, school, or recreation. Public investment is key to creating such rail routes, which require years of planning. Rail investments also offer opportunities for transit-oriented development, helping encourage walkable, vibrant neighborhoods.
To connect more Americans to economic opportunities, provide affordable travel options, and reduce carbon emissions, funding for better rail investments is needed. As Congress renegotiates federal transportation funding this year, it should renew its efforts to improve the nation’s transit options, including through the construction of new urban and other rail services throughout the country.
The US has fallen behind other G7 nations in improving its transit networks
Adjusted for population, the US has 7 percent fewer kilometers of operating metro lines than it did in 1990. The nation now has fewer metro kilometers per capita in operation than any other G7 nation.
This is largely because the US has steadily reduced its investments in subways and elevated lines.
Source: The author, based on data from Transit Explorer.
Note: Metro includes monorail, subway, elevated, and automated light metro; light rail includes tramway, streetcar, and tram-train.
By comparison, the US has invested more in light rail—including tramways and streetcars—in recent decades. Light rail is cheaper to build but typically slower and carries fewer people than metro lines.
Still, the last time the US had more light rail services per capita than France was in 1993. Today, France has almost three times as many kilometers in operation.
Local, state, and federal governments have substantially reduced spending on rail in recent years
Overall US public-sector spending on nonhighway projects has remained flat since 2021, while investment in roads and highways has expanded.
This is despite that in 2021, Congress enacted the five-year Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which the FTA describes as the “largest federal investment in public transportation in the nation’s history.”
Since 2021, state, local, and transit agency spending on urban rail projects, like light rail, streetcar, and subway lines, has fallen dramatically. State and local support for such investments reached a high of about $16 billion annual spending in 2021 (including federal funds granted to lower-level governments), but declined to only $7 billion in 2025—the lowest level in at least 15 years.
Source: The author, based on US Census Bureau data on construction spending, using historical value put in place. Inflation adjustment using data from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, via FRED, Producer Price Index by Commodity: Final Demand: Construction for Government.
Note: State and local spending includes that of transit agencies and incorporates federal assistance distributed to those entities.
Some of this decline can be attributed to states and localities distributing fewer funds to transit projects in the postpandemic period, during which revenue growth has slowed.
But the federal government also plays an essential role here because it funds almost half of national transit capital expenditures (PDF).
The FTA’s Capital Investment Grants program is particularly important. The program funds the following:
- large transit projects, like a subway in Los Angeles or a light rail route in Minneapolis, called “new starts”
- smaller-scale projects, like bus rapid transit lines, called “small starts”
- improvements to existing lines, called “core capacity”
The FTA signs full funding grant agreements or small starts construction grant agreements—essentially contracts—with transit agencies as a guarantee to provide federal support to help finance a large share of the construction of new lines.
The FTA has signed new transit grant agreements under the Capital Investment Grants program during the first year of every new presidential term since at least 1993. However, since President Trump took office in January 2025, the FTA has not signed a single agreement for a new rail or bus project anywhere in the nation.
Source: The author, based on Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations, and Federal Transit Administration press releases. Data accurate as of March 4, 2026.
Notes: The first Clinton administration may have approved additional grants in its first year that are unaccounted for in this graph. Graph includes “new starts,” “small starts,” and “core capacity” grants. Only partial data are available for the second year of the second Trump administration.
By comparison, during the first Trump administration’s first year, the FTA agreed to more than $2 billion in contracts, though the administration later delayed some of these projects.
Now, in Trump’s second term, the FTA has sought to revoke funding for several projects that had been awarded full funding grant agreements by the Biden administration.
During the October 2025 government shutdown, the administration froze funding for Chicago’s Red Line Extension and New York City’s Second Avenue Subway Extension to open administrative reviews of whether those projects were engaging in race- or sex-based contracting practices that discriminate against white people or men. As of this writing, funding for the Second Avenue Subway project remains frozen.
In September 2025, the Trump administration halted funding for the Gateway Program’s tunnel under the Hudson River, initially on the grounds it needed to review that project’s contracting practices. The White House has since suggested the funding freeze is tied to Democrats’ immigration policies and that it could free the funds if New York’s Penn Station and Washington Dulles International Airport were renamed after President Trump. In February 2026, a federal judge ordered the federal government to restore the funds to the Gateway Project, and litigation continues.
In February, Congress designated 21 projects to be allocated funding through the Capital Investment Grants program, including the projects in New York and Chicago mentioned above. But transit agencies cannot receive these funds until after they sign a contract with the FTA, which releases grants.
Even if the FTA reverses these funding pauses and signs new contracts soon, delays in federal investment in new projects could cause cascading negative consequences. Notably, transportation projects that spend more time in the planning phase are ultimately more expensive to complete and leave residents without transit access for longer.
How policymakers can advance investment in rail projects
Though rail lines might not be the best transportation solution for every town or city, many cities throughout the US could benefit from improved and expanded rail transit. Public transit offers residents access to affordable, environmentally friendly, and fast travel options and can connect them with economic opportunities.
To reverse the current decline in rail transit investment, policymakers could consider the following approaches:
- Congress could emphasize investment in new rail transit when it negotiates the reauthorization of federal transportation funding this year.
- Congress could ensure projects that have signed full funding grant agreements with the FTA have their funding restored quickly to help projects open for service as soon as possible.
- The FTA could work with Capital Investment Grant applicants, and those Congress has designated to receive funding, to move them quickly toward signing full funding grant agreements by providing additional technical support. Further delays will mean increased project construction costs over the long term.
State and local governments could establish new funding sources to cover the costs of new rail projects, such as California’s long-term revenue commitment to high-speed rail through the cap-and-trade program, potentially without involving federal funding.
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.
