We’re at a crossroads for transportation policy. Will the next surface transportation reauthorization (STR) in Congress keep us stuck in a car-dependent, unaffordable, and unsustainable transportation system? Or will legislators step up, shed tired ideas, and support a future of people-oriented and science-based affordable transportation options?
As Congress starts to reveal the results of closed-door discussions and start public bill markup, it’s an important moment to take stock of all the voices in the room influencing the debate. In July 2025, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) put out a call for public comments on advancing a surface transportation proposal focused on the nation’s most fundamental infrastructure needs. While we can’t expect a response from the administration, reviewing the comments ourselves provides a sampling of the ideas people are bringing in and what we’re up against.
The coalition behind a people-oriented and science-based transportation system
Past UCS research has shown that having more transportation choices, like walking, biking, and public transit, are a key part of a clean, prosperous, and just future. The reduced need to drive can lead to a potential $201 billion in energy infrastructure savings and a reduction of $128 billion in public health costs, along with saving US households nearly $6 trillion dollars in vehicle ownership costs through 2050. That’s all in addition to the long list of other benefits of more transportation options, such as supporting economic development and combating social isolation.
Because of this, we have science-based recommendations for better policies that Congress should consider. This ranges from investment in a federal program to run more transit, to maintaining our nation’s roadways before investing in more expansion, to supportive programs for vehicle electrification, to proportional representation in transportation planning agencies. You can see UCS’s full priorities here.
And we’re not alone. We are working alongside hundreds of partner organizations that are advocating similarly to support more transportation options. Some of these allies include:
- Community-based transportation advocates and coalitions like Move LA, Transit Forward Philadelphia, Our Streets (Minnesota), Missourians for Responsible Transportation, and MOVE Ohio, who organize thousands of individuals for more transportation options in their communities. Particularly active in this comment are bicycle advocacy organizations like Boise Bicycle Project, Central Indiana Cycling, and the League of American Bicyclists (national) highlighting the importance of safety and investment for biking and pedestrian infrastructure.
- National and local environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, GreenLatinos, Sunrise Movement KC, MountainTrue (North Carolina), and the CHARGE coalition recognize how more transportation options are not only essential for stewarding the climate and natural resources, but also are essential for affordable household costs and supporting vibrant neighborhoods.
- Business organizations like Greater Washington Partnership, the Real Estate Board of NY, and A Better City (Massachusetts) recognize that “high-quality, frequent transit strengthens our regional economy by efficiently connecting people to jobs, education, and healthcare.”
- Labor unions like the Transport Workers Union and Amalgamated Transit Union have firsthand experience on how to create high-quality jobs and support transit across the country.
- Disability rights groups like the American Federation for the Blind, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disability Rights South Dakota, and organizations advocating for older adults like the Maine Council on Aging, emphasize the role of transit in allowing people, especially nondrivers, to get to work, medical appointments, and be a part of society.
- Transportation experts like the American Planning Association and the American Society for Landscape Architects, who recognize that “investments should prioritize integrated mobility networks, transit, biking, walking, not solely vehicle throughput.”
- Many more community organizations like Genesis Interfaith Organizing (Bay Area), Sunflower Community Action (Kansas), and community health groups like Together for Brothers (New Mexico), who know how crucial the freedom to move is to their communities.
These organizations represent communities across the country—rural and urban—and people of all walks of life. But our voices are not the only ones in the mix…
Public agencies are crucial and need to go further
Because transportation policy can get obscured in detailed, technical language, oftentimes legislators turn to their constituent public agencies—state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies—for guidance. This should be a shining example of evidence-based policymaking, but the history of transportation policy portends otherwise.
As my colleague Steven Higashide writes, “simply put, many interstate segments were built where they were because planners, engineers, and politicians did not value the neighborhoods they passed through or the people who lived there.” As a result, more than 475,000 households and a million people were displaced, according to USDOT estimates, and many more have been harmed by neighborhoods torn apart and the car dependent system we have today. Sometimes, these were decisions made on explicitly racist grounds, as was the case of I-65 being rerouted through a historic Black neighborhood in West Montgomery, Alabama.
It’s crucial to learn the lessons of the past for prioritizing community needs for more transportation options, but many have not. State departments of transportation (DOTs) such as those in Florida and Texas, do not hide their disdain for social equity and anything besides highway funding and their desire to be able to build more with less accountability. Other DOTs, including the group represented by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), make sure to include transit and other modes in their calls for more funding and more authority, but obscure how the high share of funding going towards highway programs causes an unsustainable and unjust status quo.
Local and regional transportation organizations offer a case for hope. The Local Officials in Transportation coalition comprises thousands of local governments and regional planning organizations that want to have more direct control of federal funds. This reflects a frequent tension with state DOTs, who often have greater control over project selection, over projects that are out of touch with local contexts. While these proposals are promising, in either scenario, outcomes hinge on processes ensuring community priorities within local, regional, and state agencies that lack transparency, are susceptible to political forces, and/or have boards that do not proportionally represent their constituents.
Transit agencies have perspectives that are even closer to community needs. From large agencies like the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority to smaller ones like those represented by the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), these agencies recognize the importance of investing in transit, especially in the context of fiscal cliffs that many are facing. One particularly strong voice is the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), calling for a number of improvements and increased investment in recognition of transit’s 5-to-1 economic returns on investment. Though, to the extent that these agencies accept the “80-20 split”, where 80% of federal transportation funds go to highways and 20% for public transit, transit agencies are getting a raw deal, where each dollar in transit investment comes with more than four times as much into a car-dependent status quo.
To be sure, public agencies do the crucial work of keeping our communities mobile and connected. But they often are unable to advocate for a more visionary future and are saddled with the inertia of “the way things have always been done.”
Industry lobbying holds us back
All the while, the set of industries that receive over 75% of all transportation spending, namely the auto, oil, roadbuilding, and trucking industries, have been lobbying to keep the money flowing to a fossil-fueled and car-dependent status quo. Ranging from the American Road and Transport Builders Association (ARTBA) to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), these organizations have continued for decades to lobby Congress, raise money for political campaigns via PACs, and promote outdated science via affiliated research foundations.
These organizations are out in full force now advocating for their self-interest. Some clearly only advocate for more highway funding, like ATA or the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), while also advocating to remove the federal excise tax on new heavy-duty trucks, which constitutes nearly 40% of trucks’ financial contributions to our transportation system. In other words, while contributing more than 90% of the damage to our roadways, these industries want taxpayers to keep paying for their responsibility.
Many more industry groups are part of an “infrastructure consensus,” which coalesces around more money for the status quo (including a pittance for transit) and cutting regulations that make it harder to build. The premise is appealing—that infrastructure is a public good and an underrecognized long-term investment that we need a lot more of.
The truth is that not all infrastructure is created equal. Some, like the nation’s highways, came with a history of both progress and immense pain. The highway system decimated thousands of businesses yearly, worsened segregation and inequality, and resulted in transportation’s large health and climate impacts. Meanwhile, economists have increasingly realized that the highway system is mature, and that the rate of return for consumers per dollar in highway expansion is ten times less than it was at the start of interstate construction.
Meanwhile, what these parties get right is that transit has seen chronic disinvestment. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) goes as far as to say “additional federal funding support for transit operations is necessary to preserve safe, reliable, and efficient transit service.” This is a significant step for any industry organization with an interest in road-building, but they clearly show their priorities when they recommend $1 trillion in road and bridge funding, with only $152 billion for transit.
The facts of the matter are that the US transportation system isn’t working. It’s the second-highest household expense, and on its own, contributes more heat-trapping emissions than some of the largest countries in the world. The auto, oil, roadbuilding, and trucking industries represent particularly loud voices in the room who are advocating for more of the same, spending millions on lobbying and political campaigns to do so.
The public overwhelmingly favors more transportation choices
The majority of the public comments to USDOT, adding up to more than a thousand individuals, want a transportation system with more options. This makes sense. Across political parties, more than 80% of car users report having no choice but to drive, and nearly four times as many voters support increasing public transportation funding as support reducing it.
These comments span a wide range. There are harrowing stories of loved ones who were killed on our transportation system and how lives were changed forever. There are calls for bringing about the mental and physical health benefits from more active transportation modes like biking, There are self-identified Democrats and Republicans highlighting the fiscal benefits of multimodal transportation, and much more. Some highlights from these comments:
- “If our goal is to create the least fair and most inefficient and most expensive means of transportation in the world then [continuing] to put personal vehicles as the highest priority is the best way to accomplish it.”
- “Commuting by bike has had a noticeable impact on my mental health (as stated by my wife), not to mention my physical health! Oh and the money we save! I could go on and on!”
- “I need to drive a car for work and I am tired of congested streets. We don’t need more freeways or expansions.… Expansions also don’t work long term. What works long term is more public transit and better bicycle networks.”
- “I am a traffic engineer and urge USDOT to continue to support multi-modal projects. This is the most fiscally conservative pathway towards building financially solvent communities.”
It’s time to shed tired ideas
It’s clear that the science and the people are on the same side, and together we can push for federal transportation policies that better support our communities. Whether you’re a staffer in the halls of Congress or just someone who knows there’s a problem with our transportation system, we hope that you’ll work with us as we push for a cleaner, more prosperous, and just transportation future.